GNSO Working Session Sunday 10 February 2008 Delhi, India >>AVRI DORIA: Good morning. >>CHUCK GOMES: Liz, have you got the document up? >>AVRI DORIA: Good morning. While everybody is getting settled in their seats, my first note of the day is, I was given instructions, first of all, the microphones and the sound have been reworked since yesterday, so, hopefully, they're working better. We have the phones actually working -- you can hear! -- I've been given instructions about how to talk boo the microphone. One of them is, you have to talk into the microphone. You can't talk like that (indicating). The other thing is that we're supposed to be sort of a forearm away from the microphone. I'm sure I'll do it wrong, but I was asked to pass these messages on. The first thing I wanted to do was sort of the customary go around the room and have everybody sort of give their names and their reason for being here, affiliation, what have you. And this morning I'd like to start from -- George, please make sure that you talk into the microphones. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Okay. George Sadowsky, member of the Nominating Committee and general interest in GNSO activities. >>NORBERT KLEIN: Norbert Klein, member of the council for the noncommercial constituency. >>JON BING: Jon Bing, NomCom appointee to the council. >>KAREN LENTZ: Karen Lentz, ICANN staff. >>LIZ GASSTER: Liz Gasster, ICANN staff. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg, ALAC liaison to the GNSO. >>EDMON CHUNG: Edmon Chung, gTLD registry constituency. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Thomas Narten, the ITF liaison to the ICANN board. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Olga Cavalli, a GNSO Council member. I'm a NomCom appointee. >>MARILYN CADE: I'm Marilyn Cade. I'm a member of the business constituency. >>AVRI DORIA: Avri Doria, NomCom appointee. >>CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes, registry constituency. >>DAN HALLORAN: Dan Halloran, ICANN staff. >>OLOF NORDLING: Olof Nordling, ICANN staff. >> HORR SAHIHI: Horr Sahihi, Karmania Technology, interested in ICANN discussion. >> SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Shahram Soboutipour from Iran, interested in IDNs. >>TONY HARRIS: Tony Harris, with the ISPCP constituency. >>TONY HOLMES: Tony Holmes, ISPCP constituency. >>JIM BASKIN: Jim Baskin, business constituency. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Eric Brunner-Williams, CORE and observer. >>WERNER STAUB: Werner Staub from CORE, observer. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Rob Hoggarth, ICANN staff. >>CRAIG SCHWARTZ: Craig Schwartz, ICANN staff. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis, ICANN staff. No. Russian Secret Service. No. Registrar constituency. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Do we have a microphone for the people around the edges? Or just come up to a microphone and -- >>TINA DAM: Tina Dam, ICANN staff. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Mike Palage, business constituency. >> KATJA RATAMÄKI: Katja Ratamäki, Nokia. >> DINA SIREN: Dina Siren, Nokia. >> Richard Tindal, from the registry constituency. >> ALI BOUALLOU: Good morning, everyone. Ali Bouallou, from the Moroccan delegation. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I think we've done that. The next thing I wanted to do was go over the agenda for today. The morning is dedicated to going through the IDN ccTLD responses. This is in response to a board request that the GNSO, among others, respond to a set of questions that had been put together by the ccNSO and GAC together. This is basically our second pass at this draft. What I'm hoping to do with it today is get through it to the point where we can actually take a vote on it being our response at our Wednesday meeting. That means that we need to go through it in a certain amount of detail, need to go through editing where necessary. It has been posted for a while. Liz will be working to help us edit it as we go through with it. And that's pretty much the whole morning. I guess is -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I'll take care of that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Sorry. And Chuck, who was chair of that, I guess, drafting team in terms of coming up with this response, will do a lot of the leading through this session. Then just to know for after lunch, we'll have a session that sort of continues from this in a way, but is different, in a preparation for the meeting we'll be having tomorrow with the ccNSO to sort of talk about our various viewpoints on some of the open issues to do with fast track and IDN TLDs. And then we'll also have a meeting later to do any final prep we need to for our open council meeting, to understand where we are in terms of things we need to vote on and go through any issues we've got in preparation for that meeting. Also point out to the council members that at 8:00 tonight, we do have the ICANN board, council, and policy staff dinner. I guess that's it for the announcements. Chuck, would you like to lead us into the discussion. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Welcome to everybody. Let me start off by thanking our scribes, and remind you that when you, to identify yourself so that they can make sure they capture your name correctly in the transcription. Okay. Okay. The -- And also, for those of you that aren't at the table, but there are still a couple of seats around, so if you want to squeeze in, you can, but if you do participate, you do need to speak into a mike, okay, so that it can be heard. Now, do we have anybody online, Glen? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Not yet. >>CHUCK GOMES: Not yet. So you'll let us know if we get anybody online. Or we'll probably hear it. I'll theory, okay. Next question, very important question -- >>PHONE: Hello. >>CHUCK GOMES: Hello? >> This is Tim. I'm on the phone. >>AVRI DORIA: Someone on the phone. >>CHUCK GOMES: Tim, is that you? >>TIM RUIZ: Yes, this is Tim. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Tim. Is there any way of getting his volume up. We're going to try and get the volume up, Tim. We can hear you, but it's kind of low. So talk into your phone as much as you can, or your speaker, whatever you have, we'd appreciate that. Now -- what's that? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: (inaudible). >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay, Tim, I've been told that if you use the handset instead of speakerphone, it will come through much clearer. >>TIM RUIZ: Is that better? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, that is better. Thanks. >>TIM RUIZ: Okay. Great. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, Tim, I'll address you first of all. You should have received a couple of weeks ago -- but I just re-sent it -- a second version of the draft document that we're going to be going through that has some red-lining in it that gives references in the executive summary to the main body of the document, so it's easy to see where more detail is discussed. And so if you don't have that, Tim, go ahead and pull that up, if you're online there or you have it handy. Now, for everybody else, we had a big stack of the red-lined version here yesterday. So if you have that, you don't need it. But if you don't have it, we made a few more copies that Glen will hand out. So if you'll raise your hand. If you need a copy of this, Glen will get you one. Everybody in the room is welcome to have one. While Olof and Glen are handing those out, keep in mind, this is an open meeting, so whether you're a council member or not, your participation is welcome. >>EDMON CHUNG: Chuck, Jordi just mentioned that's also online. >>CHUCK GOMES: Who is that? >>EDMON CHUNG: Jordi. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, Jordi's online. Very good, Jordi, can you say something, Jordi? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Hello. Can you hear me? >>CHUCK GOMES: I can hear you fine. Thank you very much, Jordi. Welcome. >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Okay. Good morning, everyone. >>CHUCK GOMES: You didn't get one? I gave you another job. All right. Glen, how many do we have left after distributing those? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: I've got -- >>CHUCK GOMES: We might want to get a few more copies for any stragglers that come in. All right. For -- how many here do not know the background of what we're doing today? And please be honest. I don't have any trouble talking about it. Okay, thank you. All I needed was one. George, you're the one (laughing). All right. In July of 2007, the ccNSO and the GAC finished an issues paper on IDN ccTLDs, and then, you know, posted it. The ICANN board then, in their July meeting -- and correct me if I get some of the dates wrong, I'm doing this from memory -- passed a motion -- two motions, actually. One of them requesting that the GNSO, as well as other supporting organizations and advisory committees, provide input and feedback to that issues paper. Another one was that we all work together to move forward on the possible fast track of IDN ccTLDs. We started, then, and I think in August we formed a drafting committee. And some here were on that drafting committee. We had quite a few people that weren't even on the council that were on it as well. And we produced a draft response that the council, and, in an open meeting like this, other members of the community as well, in the L.A. meeting, we went through that. We added an executive summary, we did several things. We made some edits and so forth. But at the end of that session, we discovered that there were some new issues that had been pointed out that we should spend more time on. So we formed another drafting group to go back and rework the response to deal with some of the additional concerns that were raised. Several of the people, in fact, a good percentage of the people that were on that drafting group are here today. I'll just start over here on the right. Tina helped us on that, and Liz Gasster worked on that, Edmon did, and Olof did, and who am I missing? I'm missing somebody. The -- Oh, Olga. I went right by you. Thank you, appreciate that. And Stephanie Lai participated as well. Who am I missing? Oh, yeah, I can't even see him, so I wasn't going to name him, Adrian was also on that group. So, you know, it was a great group to work with. So I was really privileged. And it wasn't because we agreed on everything. We actually had some serious points of disagreement, but worked very constructively to work through those. And everything that you see, we all ended up supporting in terms of final responses. I, actually, was at a point -- I was sharing this over breakfast -- that I thought there were some cases where we might have to put alternative views for the council to consider. But we actually did come to agreement on what you're seeing today, everybody on that design team. So it was a good success in that regard. Now, that doesn't mean that the council has to agree with us. And that's why we're here today. So thanks to everybody on that team. Now, let me share my plan of attack and see if anybody would like us to do this differently. This document has been out to the council for a couple weeks, and we had asked everybody to go through it in advance of this meeting. So -- it's 18 pages long, so if we were to go through it in detail, there's no way we could get it done in our morning session and have time to make some edits or discuss things and so forth. So here's what I'd like to propose as the plan of attack: Go through the executive summary in detail, and the red-line version that you have, for each item in the executive summary -- and if I recall, there's 16 of them -- the -- there -- I added a reference, or in some cases, more than one reference, where the particular topic that's mentioned in the executive summary is covered in more detail in most cases. I think there's one or two where there's not more detail in the body of the document. But most of them have more detail in the body of the document. And if it's useful on a particular item, we can refer back to that and look at that detail together. Then, of course, it's -- anything in the document is open for discussion. But what I'd like to propose is that anything that we don't cover in the executive summary that you want to bring up, that you do that separately, and we'll cover that, rather than going through page by page and say, "Does anybody have anything to add?" Now, does anybody have a concern about that approach? Is that okay? Now, Kristina, who's unable to join us here or on the phone today, was very considerate and sent in to the council list some -- three comments. And, Liz, if you can help me make sure when we get to those points where they are, I do have it up on my machine, but that would be very beneficial if we cover those points before we get through this. Any questions before we jump right in? Okay. Now, there's a brief introduction section. I'm not going to go through that unless anybody has any comments on the introduction. And, Jordi, were you on when I was telling Tim the document that we're using? And you should have it. Do you have it? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Yes, I think so. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. After we go through the executive summary and any parts of the main documents that this leads us to, I will bring up anything in the main document that you would like to talk about. Again, let me reiterate what Avri said. Our goal this morning is to get to a point where we have -- we're pretty comfortable with this so that we can act on it in the council meeting on Wednesday. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't make a change on Wednesday. But they will probably have to be relatively minimal. There is going to be a public comment period on that in that meeting. It could be from that that we might elect to make a change. We're not closing off edits today. We would just like to get the majority of them done today. Otherwise, we won't have enough time on Wednesday. All right. I think the introduction to the executive summary is fairly simple. Now, let me point out that the items in the executive summary aren't necessarily in the same order that they're discussed in the document. And the reason for that is that we tried to group these, ought though we didn't do a real rigorous process, tried to group them kind of in order of priority in terms of wanting to communicate certain points. Okay? And so if -- after we go through the executive summary, if we think it would be good to reorder any of those, that would probably be a fairly easy change to do. So keep that in mind as we go through. Okay. Starting off with executive summary item number 1, IDN-labeled TLDs, whether considered gTLDs or TLDs, associated with countries or territories, should be introduced as soon as practicable after technical requirements and tests are successfully completed. Any comments on that statement? And I'll let you refer to the detail in section A there if you want to. If we don't need to, that's fine. This, we believe, is a pretty safe statement and one that we thought all of us would support. Okay. Yes, Dan. >>DAN HALLORAN: I wonder if I could just backtrack half a page -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure. >>DAN HALLORAN: -- to what I think is a pretty big footnote, is footnote 1 on page 1. Just -- I don't know if you guys were -- just to kind of kick off discussion here, to me, this is a pretty big statement and it's kind of buried as a footnote. 'Cause you guys define IDN ccTLD, which I haven't -- that's kind of a big step. And here it's just a little footnote here. So I wondered if that -- Was that discussed heavily in the committee or -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, let me tell you the background of that. In the first round of dealing with this document, it was pointed out to us that IDN ccTLD really isn't an accurate term to the letter of the way we've existed. ccTLDs are defined in the 3366-1 two-character list. And that doesn't include any IDNs. So we realized that if we wanted to be really precise, even though the GAC and the ccNSO use that term, that it was not really accurate to say that, because that really hasn't been defined yet. What we decided, though, later on, is, is to try and -- and, in fact, we had a version of this where we used different terminology on every one of those, where -- except we didn't change the GAC and ccNSO usage of it. But our usage, instead of saying IDN ccTLDs, we said something like you see in this parenthetical here, TLDs associated with countries or territories. Okay? We decided that that was kind of awkward, and our approach to that was, we'll make the comment at the beginning as a footnote and then just use the same term that they used. Does that make sense? >>DAN HALLORAN: It makes sense. Just to me, that's a pretty central feature. I don't know if you want to hide it. I don't know what percentage of people read the footnotes. To me, that's a pretty big step. What you've done is separated out -- take dot Italian IA and dot España, and you're saying dot España is an IDN ccTLD and dot Italia is we don't know what, because that's an ASCII -- it's a TLD representing a territory in the ISO 3166 list, but it's not an IDN. But I'm not sure I see a rationale for treating dot España and dot Italia differently. >>AVRI DORIA: I actually don't know that dot Italia would be in LDH ASCII, just from talking about it. It could be an extended ASCII set that you don't use any of the extended characters. So I think we didn't get into that issue at all. Basically, we got into saying that there is a 3166-1 ISO list that defines the two-letter codes, and anything else you map to that is in the other category, without us having prejudiced what, indeed, is in that category or not. >>DAN HALLORAN: Anything else, not just IDNs. So dot United States would be -- >>AVRI DORIA: What is -- >>DAN HALLORAN: -- mapping the characters U-N-I-T-E-D states to -- just trying to get. >>AVRI DORIA: Right, there's a fuzzy space in there that we don't bother to discuss. But in extended ASCII, one could create an IDN that was "USA." It's not been talked about. It's not -- yes, what we do specifically elsewise say, in terms of LDH ASCII, is -- anything else is excluded. It's what's done in an IDN. >>DAN HALLORAN: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: So -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Is that okay? And do you think that it would be better to put that as a last paragraph in the introduction. >>DAN HALLORAN: I'm not sure, just to me, those are the fundamental -- that's a fundamental question, what is an IDN ccTLD. And you've answered it in a -- part of the question -- >>CHUCK GOMES: You are going to see we are going to get to that, too. We do get to that. That's, in fact, the one issue that has caused the controversy between the two SOs, or at least one. Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess adding to that, there was quite a bit of discussion with this particular arrangement. One of the reasons was also not to take away from the focus of the sort of executive summary, which is in point one, two, and three, those points. And not come across as trying to create the controversy right off the bat. That's one of the reasons. And we do, as Chuck mentioned, in the latter part -- later part of the document, we have very specific discussion about the issues that you mentioned. And I really don't think that that is the intent. And also, in terms of the IDN versus ASCII TLDs, I don't think it makes a bit of difference when you call it IDN ccTLDs versus what we are sort of defining it. Your situation applies the same whether we define it or not. >>CHUCK GOMES: Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. Without having actually been involved in your most recent discussion of that nuance between ASCII characters in the ISO 3166 label space, when we wrote RFC 2929, we actually considered this subject. And some of that language may be useful to you in this instance, as one of us did try very hard to restrict that definition to U.S. ASCII, and another one of the co-authors, myself, tried to make it more general so that we didn't actually make that mistake then. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Eric. And Dan, I would encourage you, as we get through the document, to think about what you are asking there. And if you think that maybe more visible attention instead of a footnote would be better after you see the rest of the document, feel free to bring that up again. Anybody else? >>TIM RUIZ: Chuck, this is Tim. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay, Tim, go ahead. >>TIM RUIZ: Just a question to clarify my own mind. As far -- ccTLD is country code TLD; correct? Or Country Code Top Level Domain. Is there any non-ASCII country codes assigned through 3166? >>CHUCK GOMES: No. >>TIM RUIZ: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. Actually, when you asked for questions about the very first time, and so now I actually have a question about the very first one. After technical requirements and tests are successfully completed. Just after technical requirements and tests. These are referred to elsewhere in the document, but it's two levels of indirection, and it would be helpful if there was a one paragraph summary of what those tests are so that we would know what this bullet actually means. >>CHUCK GOMES: Did you go down and look at the reference? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Yes, I did. >>CHUCK GOMES: I did. And you didn't think that was sufficient? Then let's go down there. Okay. So if you will go to page 3, lines 23 to 29, -- and hopefully -- by the way, there's possibility, because different -- obviously there's different page format and you are printing, the page numbers and line numbers can be a little bit different. That's why I also gave section and something else there, because the references I inserted there were done on an 8 and a half by 11 page size of Microsoft Word. So there may be some variances there. But going down, you will see item 1 there. And, Eric, how would you -- what would you specifically suggest there? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Chuck, I am looking at lines 23 through 29 of page 3, in the common format Olof has just handed out. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just one second. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Please. >>CHUCK GOMES: That one -- so it should be item number 1; right? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. >>OLOF NORDLING: Actually, the reference is more in the handout. >>CHUCK GOMES: Be careful on the line numbers and page numbers. >>OLOF NORDLING: Line 33 and onwards. >>CHUCK GOMES: That may be the problem, Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Actually, when I look at lines 33 through 39, I see pointers to other documents, which may be wonderful things to read, and I hope they are. I just don't have them at hand. So I was looking for a characterization of what those tests and requirements are that are to be satisfied. We are saying we are going to do something after something has happened and we haven't said what that something is. So a paragraph describing what the predicate condition that has to be satisfied would be helpful here, rather than two levels of indirection. >>CHUCK GOMES: So in other words, in item 1, provide more description of what those documents are. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Yes. I would be happy to provide the text if I actually go and dug up the documents, but I presume whoever wrote it in the first place already knows the answer. >>CHUCK GOMES: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I guess I would be cautious on doing that because, at the moment, all of it is included by reference. If we start to have to extract it and, in some ways, one could then argue that the only way we could adequately represent everything that's in those documents is to almost end up quoting large chunks, that I would be worried that any abstraction we did would misinterpret or misrepresent the scope of them. And that's one of the reasons why I tend to favor a refer-to-it-by-reference. It's unfortunate that it's a second redirection, but the executive summary is supposed to be short. And so I would be nervous about trying to extract it accurately and completely if we didn't do it by reference. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Avri. I take your point. But as this is apparently important and as this is apparently the most important predicate condition that has to be resolved before this important action occurs, we ought to be able to describe it. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And, by the way, just to let you know the history of the document, that paragraph there number one first didn't have the links and it was something we added later. So we proceeded a little bit further but not as far as you are suggesting. Tina, could I ask you a question here? How hard, in your opinion, do you think it would be to add maybe a sentence for each of those or add to what we have there that provides a little bit more description of what those are? >>TINA DAM: Well, there is a set of new documents that just came out in the latest RFCs, and you could certainly go ahead and give a description of each one of them. It would take up like maybe a paragraph like this. >>CHUCK GOMES: It would take a paragraph each? >>TINA DAM: Oh, not necessarily each. I could do a quick draft of that if you wanted to. Now, I don't know, those are proposals that are on the table that aren't done yet. >>CHUCK GOMES: Right. >>TINA DAM: But we could do that. >>CHUCK GOMES: And Eric, you are not asking for the results of those, but, rather, just a descriptive sentence of them. Is that right? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think we have been talking about how to test IDNs since the Beijing meetings of 1992 -- or, excuse me, 2002. So at some point, we ought to be able to say we know what we are doing when we are testing something. Not that we know what the outcome of the test is, but that we know what the test is. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. All right. So it's just a description of what the test is. Okay. And I think we -- I don't think -- My own opinion is that we shouldn't get -- we need to keep it fairly brief because I think we start going off in -- we'll lose some of the people. In reality, probably a lot of people won't get past our executive summary, but this isn't the place, I don't think, to get too verbose. But let me query the group, including Tim and Jordi online, and what are the wishes? Tina has, I think, volunteered to maybe draft up something. >>TINA DAM: Well, I can do that but I just want to clarify. Eric, are you talking about the tests on the Wiki, on applications and stuff? Or are you talking about the RFCs? Because now I got a little confused. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well -- Go ahead. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I am looking for an explanation of the text that's contained here. So here we have the reference to, after technical requirements and tests, I don't care if they are successfully completed. I don't care if they are even attempted yet. I just want to know if we can describe them. >>TINA DAM: Okay. So maybe that's a little more difficult than I first thought the question was. I thought the question was describing those proposed RFCs, the ideas that are on the table today and I don't think that's what you are looking for. In terms of when is everything completely tested and done with and is this considered safe and all of that, I think ultimately, that's going to be a board decision, and I think it's going to be really hard for me to say when is the board comfortable that we have -- we, the community, have done enough to demonstrate that things are safe and, yeah, tested through. And I personally don't think I would be able to draft that up. >>CHUCK GOMES: And what we are trying -- The main point here is we think that IDN TLDs, both kinds, should be introduced as soon as possible after the technical prerequisites are met. So that's the main point. I think that point is clear. What I think you're suggesting, Eric, is that we give more detail in terms of what those technical requirements and tests are in this paragraph. So what I would like to do is open it up to a discussion by others, what's the inclination here? Is there support for Eric's suggestion? Do you want to comment, Eric, again? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Yes, if I may, Chuck. Just to correct what was just offered. My interest is not about when things complete. I don't know how long it will take to do anything. My interest is only in describing what is going to be attempted, which may not yet be started. So the testing -- What it is we are going to test, not the outcome of the tests. Thank you. >>TIM RUIZ: This is Tim, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead, Tina. >>TINA DAM: I was going to say, I can do a test such as, and then describe some of them. We also have the SSAC who wants to study this. We can put a couple of sentences in around what is currently going on. I just don't want to be the one saying, "And this is all it is," because I don't know that's correct. >>AVRI DORIA: I think that's part of my concern, too, is sort of it would be nice to define what the end state is of technical readiness. I'm not sure that our document or -- I'm not even sure we're able to do that as an organization, let alone the GNSO is able to do that, define what that end state is. I think it would be great so that we would know that when you would achieve the following things, we had that safe state, and we could proceed. But since we're really just making a policy statement, and other people will be the ones that determine, yep, things are safe, things are technically ready, go. Other than a sentence that says pretty much what I just said, is, you know, we're making policy recommendations. We cannot determine when technical readiness is, as that's in other people's hands. So other than to say something like that, I'm not quite sure what we can say that defines the end state or how it would be reached. >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't think I'm hearing you say define the end state. Am I wrong on that? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: There's two possibilities here. One is we are talking about process that we can't define as closed, which is sort of what Avri just said. We can't say when we're even going to know what the end looks like, let alone when we get there. The other thing is can we even describe what it is we're testing? So, I mean, at present what we have here is a sentence that lacks specific. And if we took the specific language that Avri just offered, it would basically be saying we can't say when this process will converge. It's important, but we can't say when it's going to converge that we can know when we can tell people to start testing and in finite time they will complete their testing, because we don't even know when we will get to the point when we have the definition of what is to be tested. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me make a suggestion here. Eric, my guess is -- >>TIM RUIZ: This is Tim, too. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay, just a second, Tim. Sorry about that, I didn't hear it. My guess is that you probably know what these tests are as well as anybody in here, maybe better. Okay? My suggestion is that you draft up something that you think would address what you are talking about that this group could consider this morning. Is that doable? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: You are a mean man, Chuck. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I have been told that (laughing). Now, before you answer, let's let Tim jump in, and I apologize for jumping in there, Tim. I didn't realize you were in queue. >>TIM RUIZ: That's all right. My comment is just in regards to original issue about the redirection. If you look at that item 1 under A, it refers to two documents. The first one is to a PDF that contains the evaluation plan, and, you know, if a couple sentences can be constructed describing that, you know, I think that's fine. And that should take care of the redirection concern. The second one, that sentence begins "Other details about," and I don't think that reference needs to have any further explanation around it. It's just a reference. If you wanted the details, you know where to go find it. So the only one that really needs any explanation is the first reference, which is the devaluation plan, and just a few sentences, perhaps, describing that. I don't think we need to get off into any further detail than that in regard to that item. >>CHUCK GOMES: Tim, did you see Eric nodding positively to that? >>TIM RUIZ: I could feel it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Werner. >>WERNER STAUB: I might offer a single word that could help us out. In the lead sentence, I find it very (inaudible) to have tests are successfully completed. If you just said "adequate tests are successfully completed," we express the fact we don't want the tests to go too far, just to be a pretext in themselves. We just want adequate tests, that's it. What they are and the detail, let the powers that be define what that's supposed to be. But we just express they should be in here. We are not specifying the process. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think we have to get careful about going beyond our mandate here. Maybe I didn't understand all that you were saying. Could you say that again, Werner? >>WERNER STAUB: I suggest adding the word "adequate" before "test" which qualifies them. It's not the tests that we have to specify. It's just adequate tests. That's all that we want. We don't have to define which ones they are. We just want adequate tests. Not more than adequate tests; just adequate. We don't define what that is. It is just tests. Well, you know, what kind of tests? Should all the tests be done? Only the ones that are needed should be done. >>AVRI DORIA: I don't know that adding "adequate" really adds that much other than another word we haven't defined. And again, it's not us that is defining these tests. It's not us that's placing criteria on what these tests should or shouldn't be. That's being done by the -- you know, the technical communities within ICANN and the IETF, not us. For us to say adequate is almost to presume that they will either not do what's adequate or will do more than what's adequate. And I just don't know what we add other than sort of butting our nose into someone else's, you know, work there on doing the tests that they decide were the ones that needed to be done. Again, it's not a policy issue. I saw Jon. >>CHUCK GOMES: Jon, yeah. Is there somebody else? >>AVRI DORIA: Possibly Tina, I wasn't sure. >>JON BING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I read this letter phrase, "technical" is associated both with the requirements and tests. So there are two types of technical elements going in there, requirements and tests. If this reading is right, then perhaps the insertion of "adequate" would confuse that issue and would usually widen up what types of tests were in the question. This may be, of course, my own lack of background in reading this type of text. But I think it is best left as it is if we are going to keep it as narrow as possible. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Jon. Other comments? Tina. >>TINA DAM: Well, since Avri asked, you know, I agree with you, Avri. I don't think the GNSO should try to define tests that are necessary in a technical room. So if people are interested in it, then they can always go and participate in those -- you know, that part of the community, like the IETF and the SSAC and so forth. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. And I want to keep this moving, so let me ask this question. Eric, I think, volunteered to possibly come up with a modification of that one sentence that refers to the evaluation plan. And I think, Tim, that you were supportive of that. Is anybody opposed to that? We're not going to make any final decision until we see some language. Is anybody opposed to that? And we'll move on, and Eric, if you can get that language that you come up with to Liz Gasster across from you there, then -- and your e-mail address is what? You want to tell him? In case he doesn't have it. Will. >>LIZ GASSTER: Liz.gasster@icann.org. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we will come back to that at an appropriate point later. Anybody opposed to that? Okay. Let's move on to item number 2. Okay. Item number 2 says, the apportionment of the name space between gTLDs and ccTLDs should be determined prior to allocation of any IDN TLDs and this can be done jointly by the GNSO and ccNSO with the involvement of other impacted parties -- other impacted stakeholders. If it is not possible to develop a complete approach for such apportionment by the time the technical and operational capabilities are set, then an interim approach should be developed that provides sufficient guidance to allow new IDN gTLDs and fast track IDN ccTLDs to be introduced in a timely manner. Now, again, let me set the stage here. This is the issue that set off the fireworks. Our letter to the board, and admitted we probably would have been wiser if we did some talking with the ccNSO first, but we didn't, so that's history; okay? But this is essentially, except for the second sentence, the second steps, I will tell you where that came from in a minute, this is essentially what we said in the letter to the board that set off the fireworks, and people thought we were trying to postpone the fast track and that we were opposed to that and lots of things; okay? But this principle that you see in the first sentence, and let's focus on that first, is those of us in the drafting group believe is a fair and reasonable principle. So let's talk about that first. First of all, is there anybody in here that doesn't understand what we mean when we say apportionment of the name space? Okay. Thank you. Several. What -- Let me phrase it this way. What names -- in fact, let's do this. Let's go down, rather than me trying to paraphrase, let's go down to section A, the first paragraph, item 4; okay? So if you will go down there in your document, and it says the apportionment of the name space between gTLDs and ccTLDs should be determined prior to allocation. You will see that sentence is pretty much what we just read. This should not impede the effort to create a fast track mechanism, but could impede the deployment of that mechanism. What we're saying there is, the fast track -- the IDNC that's going on on a fast track doesn't need to be stopped or slowed down, but if we don't answer this question before it's ready for implementation, implementation could be delayed if it is not possible to develop a complete approach, and you will see that second sentence coming in there again from the executive summary. Now, what we're talking about there is -- and later in the document we actually talk about some questions there that need to be answered -- is what goes to the ccNSO policy space, what names go there, and what names go into the gTLD policy space, into the GNSO. As far as we can determine, that is not -- the answer to that question is not documented anywhere. We have up to this point in time, we have always assumed that the ISO 3166 two-character list, that goes to the ccNSO. Pretty simple and straightforward. Everything else in the GNSO, with a few exceptions, depending on whether you include ARPA and INT and so on, gov, and those that aren't really part of the GNSO, although they probably would be classified gTLDs. Now, we now confront a new situation with IDNs, IDN TLDs. It hasn't been addressed before. Now, the ccNSO, and I will describe a little bit what their point of view is, they just think it's natural what the answer to that is. We're saying that, you know, shouldn't we really define that so that we know going forward? For example, and there's flaws in just about every example we can come up with, but what about dot Berlin? Does that go in the ccNSO space or the GNSO space? I'm sure all of us here, or most of us, at least, would probably say we think that should go in the GNSO space. But there's no guidelines, there's no policy decision in ICANN has ever been made, nor should a decision like that be made unilaterally by one of the Supporting Organizations. And that's what we are saying here. Now, I have been doing too much talking. Questions, please, and comments. Adrian. >>TIM RUIZ: Tim would like to get in the queue. >>CHUCK GOMES: Adrian is up, then Tim next. Sorry, Adrian, Werner and then Tim. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks, Chuck. I guess when I read this, I am trying to get a sense -- and this will help for today's later discussion and the discussion tomorrow afternoon, what do we want as a GNSO? Ultimately, that's what we have to work towards, defining whether it's a protection mechanism or better definitions. What do we want? And this speaks a lot to that point. I think from the -- we need to be careful when we are talking about defining the space. We obviously want clarity on that, "we" being the GNSO. But I think where the ccNSO is coming from and the CCs are saying that if you start defining, at the moment it's kind of loose. And maybe we need to consider that loose is good for us because it may work in our favor. Just bear with me. Because if they start defining, maybe their land grab for what they want will be wider than what we are hoping for, or the battle over that would ensue -- will turn into a dog fight over a large period of time. Because if we have to start defining black and white as to who is what, there's going to be a fair fight between -- and dot Berlin -- maybe not dot Berlin, but dot Brazil written ten different ways comes into play. Now, I think, ultimately, if I can paraphrase, we want one by one by one, effectively; right? And for those who don't know, I think what we are heading for as far as the ccNSO, when they are describing what IDNs they want is one IDN per script per territory. Yep? >>CHUCK GOMES: That's -- for the rest of you we'll get to that later on in the report. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Anything outside of that we would be comfortable as a gTLD that's the ultimate goal here. I guess my comment is not so much a question but we need to be careful that if we are going to get into aiming for that as our goal that if we open that door it may be a battle that we'll then ensue for a long, long time. Maybe we have to go down as far the road as we can but sit back and wait and see what the ccNSO pushed back on. >>CHUCK GOMES: Again some background, thank you, Adrian. Part of what you're saying something we'll cover later. So I don't want to get into that right now like, for example, what would be acceptable to GNSO we'll have to decide that, today, okay? We have a portion of this in the executive summary that we'll cover. I haven't forgotten you Werner and Tim but it's important to follow up here. More background information with the ccNSO, their position, if you read their letter to the board and response to ours, was that there needs to be a PDP to answer the questions we're raising and that it's going to take at least two years in their process to do it and so forth. And hence, we're not going to go there yet but that's why that second sentence in the executive summary and the last sentence in the paragraph we looked at were thrown in there. We'll come back to that, let's not talk about that. Werner, it's your turn. >>WERNER STAUB: Thank you. By the way, I would like to echo what Adrian said about defining things not necessarily good thing. If you define something and do it wrong or maybe too simply, it can easily be gained. It happened in other cases. It wouldn't be good to make it open to gaming because we already define it. The word "apportionment" is really worrisome. I beg you to remove it and replace it with something other. Apportionment of the name space means that for each name they could exist we predefine into which name space it belongs. We say, for instance, whatever, a word for Germany is supposed to be gTLD because we are backing 1820, and Germany is only geographic term there's no such a country as Germany. That was the case, you know, it can change. So, things change of course for a given word we don't know it could have many, many meanings it could be abbreviation for one thing it could be a country code for another it could be a common familiar term for country somewhere else, we just don't know. The only thing we can define are principles so what we might put instead of apportionment say, the key principles guiding the relationship between the name spaces rather than the apportionment. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me comment on what you just said because you are jumping ahead to some other issues that we're going to cover that get into more detail about what that might -- how apportionment might be decided. But it doesn't sound like a substitute for the word "apportionment." But remember I'm a hard task master and if you can't come up with an alternative word that the group is willing to accept. But what you're talking about is how they will be apportioned and some principles that might guide that, not a substitute for the word "apportionment" unless I misunderstood. >>WERNER STAUB: No. I'm saying that the word "apportionment" includes by itself in its own definition, or dictionary definition, a meaning that we don't want. It says, to the individual word associated to a name space, any string is associated by its nature to the name space based on the letters that are in there. That's not possible. >>CHUCK GOMES: I guess I'm not following what you're getting out of the word "apportionment." Somebody else want to comment on that? Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I can wait until after -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Tim, is it okay if Avri comments on that? >>TIM RUIZ: Absolutely. >>AVRI DORIA: I don't think that the apportionment needs to be done on a name-by-name basis. I think this apportionment can be done on a class of name basis, it can be done based on a list. It can be done on many ways but I think apportionment is indeed a correct word in this case because what we're trying to say is, what portion of the name space, an apportionment means dividing into portions, what portion of the name space is within the remit of the GNSO and what portion of the name space is within the remit of the ccNSO and I think part of the argument that we've been making that that is not a decision that cannot be made unilaterally by either of the SOs but needs to be a decision that is made by the community. Now when you define the portion you don't have to define the portion by -- for every name we will check, you are in this category, you are in that category. It can be defined. It perhaps is a list. The apportionment in an LDH is done by a list. There's a list of -- actually it's done by a reference to a list to the ISO 3166 list. I think that apportionment of dividing it into portions is not quite as dangerous a term and I think going through later and talking about means by which an apportionment would be determined is there. Mike, I put you after Tim. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we're not going to drop this, Werner, so hang on a second. I've had Tim on hold so long that I want to let him jump in now. >>TIM RUIZ: Thank you, Chuck. Two comments. One just kind of explain a little bit about why I think this question is important which is what some there may not wonder why do we care then suggestion to a minor improvement in the language there. I think it's an important question because gTLDs and ccTLDs operate under very different rules. gTLDs have a very comprehensive agreement with ICANN, with very extensive set of policies, ccTLDs operate under a framework agreement under much different conditions. So as we start talking about additional TLDs into the ccTLD name space, I for one begin to get concerned about an unlevel playing field and the loopholes that are created as that name space expands. As far as the language for item two, the first part makes it very clear that one of the things we're looking for is a joint effort that this isn't just a question the ccNSO should answer, it's a question the GNSO and its stakeholders should be involved in as well. The last sentence I'm not sure carries that through but I think the intent is that it should be just a suggestion that after the first comma, where it says, "then an interim approach should be developed," that that somehow be worded to indicate that we still mean to imply -- we need that it should be a joint effort to create an interim approach. Or maybe then an interim joint approach should be developed or something of that nature to make it clear that we still want that to be a joint effort. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody opposed to that particular suggestion? That seems like a very natural addition to it. So I think, Liz, maybe you can do it, but if we just said then -- "then the full community" or "should develop an interim approach" or something like that. To carry through the thought that both -- maybe just want to be specific just like we did in the other one the GNSO and ccNSO with the involvement of other impacted stakeholders should -- we can clean up the language. Is anybody opposed to that edit to the second sentence? We haven't really focused on the -- what we're trying to do in the second sentence yet, I will get there, but I just want to finish on the first sentence. Anybody opposed to that? Okay, that looks good. We'll look at the language and you can see that Liz is doing it, I'm sorry, Tim, Jordi, that you won't be able to see the red line that's on the screen here but let me read to you what she has said. She said "then the full community should develop an interim approach that provides --" and so on. Does that satisfy your suggestion, Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: Yes, it does, thanks. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody else have a comment on that suggestion before we go back to Werner's issue and use of word "apportionment?" Yes, Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: If we're trying to be precise, isn't that perhaps wider than ccNSO and GNSO which we're saying earlier just to repeat what we said earlier? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, we might want to be more precise. Notice that we didn't say ccNSO and GNSO. We said, "and other impacted stakeholders." You may be right. And I'm not -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I would suggest it's repeating the precise phrase as then there is clarity. >>CHUCK GOMES: Philip is suggesting, and I kind of suggested earlier, that one alternative would be to use the same phrase we did in the previous sentence, that GNSO and ccNSO with the involvement of other impacted stakeholders should develop an interim policy. Any opposition to that? Mike, are you talking about the specific issue? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: With regard to apportionment? >>CHUCK GOMES: Hold on apportionment. This seemed like a pretty straight forward edit, that we could deal with. I'll wait until Liz gets that change and I'll read it back to you. >>MARILYN CADE: I have a question for clarification, Chuck, it's Marilyn Cade. I think I'll make two comments. One is, I'd like to suggest that we all stop using the phrase "land grab" since it's kind of a loaded word and maybe look for a friendlier word that recognizes different perspectives. But that's not the purpose of my question here. >>CHUCK GOMES: Do you think we should do a globe change and move out land grab everywhere we put it? >>MARILYN CADE: I do. >>CHUCK GOMES: We don't have it in there. [ Laughter ] >>MARILYN CADE: Actually, you know, you do. Because this is realtime transcribed, lots of people participate by reading your transcript. They don't read your documents, they read your transcript. So, let me just share with you clearly that is what I hear about when I talk to people around the world. This is what they understand from what you're saying. >>CHUCK GOMES: Before you go to your other point, let me follow up on that. One of the things in our little group that we've talked about is we really don't want to, and I think that this is the attitude of the whole council, we haven't tested it. We really don't want to make this a contentious issue between the ccNSO and the GNSO. It shouldn't be an us versus them but something that we work together as a community to resolve. And that's consistent with what Marilyn is saying right here and I think very good advice, so thank you for that, Marilyn. Now go ahead. >>MARILYN CADE: I, you know, my question here is actually related to the intent of the edit here. When we say "with participation of other stakeholders," are we recognizing in the other stakeholders that governments may also have an interest in this. And are you including them in that comment? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, not here in the executive summary but you'll see that throughout in the rest of the document. Adrian, go ahead. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Marilyn said succinctly what I was trying to say before. Excuse me, I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning. I think that once you -- my issue is that once you start with the define and you get the GAC involved, for example, this circle becomes a whole lot wider and a whole lot more voices start getting thrown around the room. So I think that Werner is right, once you try to define it, it can get ugly. I would just be very, very -- we haven't written GAC up there, but that's ultimately the biggest stakeholder that you bring to the table when you open the door. And if we're prepared to do that well and go well and good but it may be a long and protracted discussion. >>CHUCK GOMES: I hope most of you have read through the whole document, you know, that we do make references to the GAC later on in the full document and so forth. And it's important for you to recognize that. It's not here. Okay, Mike? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you, Chuck. I just want to add a data point with regard to the discussion regarding the apportionment of the name space. While I appreciate the sensitivity of our discussions regarding the role of the GNSO in IDNs, perhaps we might want to just take a look at some gTLDs that are in this space that are not within the scope of the GNSO. That would be dot mil, dot gov and dot edu. And there the administrator on those are the United States government. So I think that's one of the concerns that I have when we talk about apportioning the name space, the GNSO does not view itself as being able to tell the U.S. government what to do in dot mil or dot gov. They are specifically enumerated as gTLDs on the ICANN Web site. So, again, I'm just putting this out as a data point. When we begin to use the term "apportionment," you may want to look at that in the bigger picture. >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you suggesting that the word "apportionment" doesn't fit because of that? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: I'm not taking a position. I'm just trying to just put that out there. >>CHUCK GOMES: Again, remember, I'm a hard task master, so give me an alternative if you don't like the word "apportionment." I agree, I think that the decision's already been made on the apportionment of the examples you gave, they're not part of the GNSO. But I understand your point. Again, give me a specific alternative so that we can deal with this sentence. Yes, Werner? >>WERNER STAUB: What we are assigning to one name space or another or not assigning it to any are not strings, they are TLDs. When you say you apportion something first you mean you are going to be exhaustive, it's just between the parties, it's a lot of implied meanings which we don't want, they're very dangerous. And they have already produced quite a bit of damage before the word appeared here. We have had proposals like, creating a list of all possibly imaginable IDN ccTLDs which is a crazy idea if you analyze it. It looks good in the beginning, but more you analyze it the crazier it looks. But until people who then start looking to understand it, it takes some time and that is a huge potential for delays. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes, Tina? >>TINA DAM: I think Chuck wanted a different word, how about classification. >>CHUCK GOMES: I didn't necessarily -- I personally didn't want -- necessarily want a word, but if somebody has an alternative this we can consider I'm open to that. Tina, thank you very much for that. The classification of the name space between gTLDs and ccTLDs, would you be more comfortable with that Werner? >>WERNER STAUB: I would say classification of TLDs between the two name spaces. We don't classify links. >>CHUCK GOMES: What do you think about that. Any opposition to that? >>AVRI DORIA: Just a clarification. You're talking about basically a global change on the document of the word "apportionment" to "classification." >>CHUCK GOMES: Classification of TLDs. >>AVRI DORIA: Classification of TLDs. >>CHUCK GOMES: You can delete "apportionment." You're not red lining -- you don't have red lining on the deletes? Liz? >>LIZ GASSTER: Over in the margin. >>CHUCK GOMES: I couldn't see it, that's fine. >>TIM RUIZ: Chuck, this is Tim. I guess I'm not opposing that change necessarily, I just want to point out that when we talk about name space in the way we're going to use it with the change. I mean, the name space for country code TLDs, if I understand the answer earlier to my question, is basically ASCII two-letter country codes. That's the name space. What we're talking about redefining the country code name space into something else. Through the allocation of IDNs -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me stop you a second there. Because here we're talking about the total name space of TLDs. There's no -- it's not just CC or G space, we're saying the total TLD space should be classified to determine which policy organization they go in. Does that make sense? >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. I think as long as we don't refer to each name space. I'm not sure if it's even possible, but probably a part of this is more along the way we're going to have to think of something other than ccTLD because it really doesn't fit any more once we get done with. But that's another issue altogether. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let's not go there. Okay? So here's what the sentence reads now. "The classification of TLDs should be determined prior to allocation of any IDN TLDs." And this should be done jointly by the GNSO and the CNSO, with the involvement of other impacted stakeholders. Olga. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. This is Olga Cavalli. I've been searching for the word "apportionment" in the document, and I don't think it's the same, the same -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Same usage? >>OLGA CAVALLI: -- usage as "classification." If you go through the document, you can see that it's a different meaning. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Okay. Let's finish this sentence and then it probably is a good idea to do a search on "apportionment," Liz, and we'll check that out right now, so that maybe a global doesn't work good point, Olga, very good point. Yes, Dan. >>DAN HALLORAN: I maybe don't have an different word, but structure, classification. I think where you're caught and what Werner was reacting to at first was apportionment meaning divvying up, like what do we get, what do they get. It might be better to focus on your responsibilities, what are the responsibilities of the ccNSO, the GNSO, what is your work and not what is which are yours, but what are you guys responsible for. Just a different way of looking at it. >>CHUCK GOMES: You're suggesting using "responsibility" instead of -- >>DAN HALLORAN: It would be kind of a fun little change to the paragraph. >>THOMAS NARTEN: I guess as I'm hearing this discussion, what occurs to me is, it would be nice at one level to be able to cleanly split up the name space and say this is the gTLD space, this is the ccTLD space, we'll to our stuff, you do your stuff. But that doesn't work in this world. And I don't think it's possible to do that in advance, at least not syntactically or any easy way. What you're really looking for is a way for a particular string that's being proposed to decide whether the ccTLD community has an interest or whether they say, no, not our problem at all, and vice versa. If you focus on it that way, you deal kind of on a case-by-case basis and, hopefully, it's easy to separate out the ones where there clearly is an overlap and where there is. If you try to cleanly set up what the rules are in advance, I think it's not possible. >>CHUCK GOMES: First of all, I don't think what you're suggesting is our intent at all. >>THOMAS NARTEN: That's what my -- >>CHUCK GOMES: We certainly didn't want a case-by-case basis. We wanted it to be defined. I'm curious as to why you think it's not possible. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Well, you could clearly split up a name space, but it would be based almost certainly on arbitrary kinds of things that it's not clear to me would -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me give you an example. What if we were to define IDN ccTLDs -- keep in mind, we're going to use that term, "ccTLDs," for simplicity and consistency with their document. What if we define them as names that map to the territories listed in the 3166-1 two-character country code list, okay, that are a meaningful representation of that territory, including an abbreviation, if an abbreviation works -- and I forget what the third -- >>AVRI DORIA: Alias. >>CHUCK GOMES: Or it can be an alias, okay. And is not used in a generic sense. Now, we haven't finalized that particular thing. But why does that not define the space? >>THOMAS NARTEN: I guess it's not clear to me that those are clear rules where it's very easy to just take a name and, you know, do the algorithm say it falls in this bucket or that bucket. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, it gets complicated with IDNs. There's no doubt about it. But that's a pretty clear delineation of what would be a ccNSO. Now, the ccNSO claims -- and I believe them -- that they really want that to be limited, that they're not looking to just get this great expansion of space. And I believe that, okay? That's just one approach where you could -- if you used those guidelines -- we have no idea, we'll probably put this in front of them tomorrow, okay, in our meeting with them as one idea, and then agree to work together to see if we can develop it further, not that we're trying to impose our thing. But, to me, that doesn't seem that hard to do. I think making a list would be really hard. I'm looking for you to -- >>THOMAS NARTEN: I guess I don't have a response. I feel like I'm maybe talking too much without really knowing what I'm talking about here. >>CHUCK GOMES: I do that all the time. >>THOMAS NARTEN: I'm not sure it's as easy as it sounds. >>CHUCK GOMES: Think about that, and let me know maybe later in this. Yes. Jon, and then Alan. Jon, and then Jim, and then Alan. >>JON BING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jon Bing. I was originally going to comment -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Get a little closer to the mike. That's probably good. >>JON BING: (inaudible) cooperate. -- comment upon the difference between name space and TDLs. It seems to me that name space is just does not require the names to be specified, but why we use the word TLD in my limited experience refers to an existing name. So you need to have a division between the hypothetical and the actual in any case. And I thought that was brought out by the choice of terms in the text. But then I was, I think, stimulated by your attempt to make a definition. And it seems to me that that definition is extremely difficult. For instance, to what level or granularity you are going to bring in the association between names and geographical space. And in my country, we have a tradition for each stone to have a name. And this means that if you go down to the very fine granularity, you really have exhausted the vocabulary of the language more or less. And then we also find that the English tend to use names for their cities, for instance, which we tend to use for general verbs, for actions and so on. And there will be a discussion of whether to interpret a certain term in one language or the other if it is a common action used as a household name for butter or bread in one country, but is the name of the capital Butter or the river Bread in another country. I think that is much, much too wide to reserve for geographical or ccTLDs. >>CHUCK GOMES: By the way, the -- part of my definition was mapping to the territory name in the ISO 3166-1 list. >>JON BING: Yeah, perhaps my understanding of what you mean by "mapping," that extent is not -- is insufficient. So that may be true. I thought you, by "mapping," only meant that it was a name which was used in some official way of that territory. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, let me clarify. I don't want to spend too much time on coming up with a definition. >>JON BING: I'm sorry. >>CHUCK GOMES: I only shared that because of the fact of the question that you raised to get thinking going. That is something that if our suggestion that it does need to be decided before we go too far down the road, then, obviously, we've got to be able to come up with something. If we can't, then our suggestion is way off base. And then we're going to figure out other ways to deal with that. But -- so let's not talk too much about the definition, because that's not part of this paper, okay? It is something we're going to talk about probably this afternoon and tomorrow and then probably form a joint working group, although they didn't like that term, with the ccNSO to work on that. Okay, now, who's next? Jim. >>JIM BASKIN: It's Jim Baskin. Earlier, we -- there was a passing reference to certain CC -- existing ccTLDs which have become -- been put into use for other purposes not related necessarily to the country or the territory that those letters represent. >>CHUCK GOMES: We'll get to that, by the way, in the document. >>JIM BASKIN: Okay. But I just reference that because it seems to me that part of the distinction or the decision about where a particular string would go would have to do with the usage rather than just the mapping of, you know, an automated mapping of these -- this string means the same thing as that country name. So -- but if we're going to cover that kind of -- >>CHUCK GOMES: We'll hit on the issue of what is called -- a de facto gTLD sort of thing, that kind of issue, at least potentially. By the way, another comment, and this goes back to, Jon, what you were saying as well, we have to be careful not to spend too much time trying to do policy work for the ccNSO. We're answering their questions, which are to help them in that. But some of the things that have been said just recently in this meeting really gets down to decisions the ccNSO's going to have to make as to which territory names, which scripts, and so forth. Let's not go there in too much detail. We're going to try to be responsive to all of their questions, as you'll see in the document. But, ultimately, once the classification issue is settled, that then -- those names, whatever they're defined to be, that will be a policy -- the policy work of the ccNSO. And they may decide to involve us in that, too. But that's not what -- we don't need to go there today. Okay? Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'm going to follow up on what you gave as a potential definition how to apportion them, because it falls right into what you just said. If you say a name that is a meaningful representation of a country name, maps directly to the ccTLD, is a rational IDN ccTLD, we have a real problem that there may be many names for a country which are meaningful representations of that country. It's not clear that country wants all of them. And if we're not careful, the definition you gave would end up reserving the other ones and therefore not available as gTLDs. It's a name that the country doesn't have any real interest, but it is potentially a meaningful representation of the name, and therefore it ends up being not implemented, but reserved. And we want to make sure they don't encroach on the gTLD space by doing that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, part of what you just said really relates to what I just said, that's some work the ccNSO's going to have to do. But when you get to the reservation part, you're absolutely right. And that's something we would have to work, yeah. >>ALAN GREENBERG: From their point of view, it would be very easy to make a superset of the list, which would impact the potential for valid gTLDs. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Okay. All right. Werner, and then I'm going to ask a question of the total group in terms of how we want to handle breaks and still get this thing done. So, Werner, go ahead. >>WERNER STAUB: I have another issue with that sentence. And it's even more, I think, worrying than the apportionment one. That is the use of the word "any." Suppose we see a position from the ccNSO that says, the same sentence, "Before any new gTLD is going to be approved." There are cases -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me stop you there, Werner. We actually intend this sentence to cover both. >>WERNER STAUB: Well, it is as recipe for infinite delays. There's always going to be something that has to be -- that is going to be unclear. So God knows where. There could be a difficult thing in the definition that we're going to talk about that we did not expect. Now, we have to finish that, whereas there are 50 IDN ccTLDs and the same number of gTLDs where it is absolutely clear where they belong and nobody even questions it. So they will have to wait until we resolve that little question about something that is fairly unimportant. Liz, applied to the IDN ccTLD or the IDN gTLD actually introduced, in those cases, it should be clear where they belong. You know, when they're not introduced, fine. We don't have to resolve all the problems just because we have potentially a problem somewhere else if we have something in front of us that can be done immediately and everybody agrees. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Now, just one point of guidance. We really do have to get this document done today. So I'd appreciate it -- The comment -- the discussion's been very good. But forgive the word, but we have to be careful about nitpicking too much. The ccNSO is looking for some guidance. They're going to take this and they're going to work on it. If we try to be as precise as we're trying to be right now, we're going to get them this document next year. Okay? So as you're thinking about things as we go through this, I'm suggesting that we weigh it a little bit. It may not be perfect, but unless it's really significant, think about it a little bit. Okay? Otherwise, there's no way we're getting through this, not today, not this week. So just a little guidance. We're way behind in getting this to the ccNSO. And it's at a time point where they need our responses, even if they're not totally perfect. Okay? Now, because it's -- we're on item number 2 and not finished with item number 2 and we have just the morning scheduled for this, is anybody opposed to just when you need a little break, slipping out and taking a break? Is anybody opposed to that? Is that okay? Because if we take a break, we know that by the time people come back, we'll have lost a half hour. Is that okay? All right. And it's okay with me. And it's harder for me to slip out. >>TIM RUIZ: Chuck, this is Tim. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, you can take a break if you want, Tim. Go ahead, I'm sorry. >>TIM RUIZ: I just wanted to apologize in advance, because I'll probably have to drop off in an hour. So if I do that unannounced, I apologize. But I certainly appreciate all the work that you've put into this. And for the most part, I don't really see (inaudible). >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much, Tim. Okay. Now, the first sentence of number 2, so what we have now is, "The classification of TLDs should be determined prior to allocation" -- I mean -- you want to remove, Werner, the word "any" and just say "of IDN TLDs," and this should be done jointly? I'm not sure it's really terribly significant, but I don't think it's really significant to remove it. It's not a big problem to remove it, either. >>WERNER STAUB: If you look at the sentence, if you say "any," you -- the difference is possibly two years of delays. If you say "any," it may mean we have the first worry for two years until we have a complete definition that covers everything and only then can we start. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me ask my question again. Would you like to remove the word "any"? >>WERNER STAUB: Yes, but the sentence would have to be grammatically adapted a little bit to make sure we're talking about that specific -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not sure it changes any grammar. >>WERNER STAUB: We'd say of an IDN TLD? >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me read it. The classification of TLDs would be determined prior to allocation of IDN TLDs, and this should be done jointly by the GNSO and ccNSO," et cetera. >>WERNER STAUB: That doesn't change, because the "any" would be implicit. It's IDN TLDs -- it would mean nothing would introduce one before -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm going to -- somebody challenge me on this if you think I'm wrong, but I think we need to move on. Any disagreement with that? Okay. >>TIM RUIZ: I agree. If you take out the word "any" or try to change that implication, then it changes the whole context of the whole document. >>CHUCK GOMES: So we'll leave it there. Now, let me talk about the second sentence, because we realize that the ccNSO firmly believes that it's not possible to do this, just like Thomas was suggesting, okay. And it -- maybe it's not, or maybe it's not in their world. And I don't mean any disrespect when I say that. Okay? So the second sentence was put in there to show some flexibility on our part that, okay, if it's really not possible to do what we're saying in the first sentence, then we think we at least ought to come to terms with some interim approach so that there's no delay on either side for the introduction of IDN TLDs. And that's what we're trying to accomplish there, to -- it's a -- it's throwing a bone to them and saying, hey, if you really believe -- huh? >>AVRI DORIA: Also to us. >>CHUCK GOMES: And to us, it's in our best interest, too. We're really not trying to do, Werner, what you think the "any" there implies. And the second sentence probably, hopefully, makes that a little clearer. Any questions or comments on the second sentence? yes, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: Just a note that I think "apportionment," then needs to be Changed to "classification." >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, in that sentence, yeah, go ahead. Now, should we do a quick word search on "apportionment," and see, like whether Olga pointed out, once you get that -- can you do that, Liz, do a find on -- >>LIZ GASSTER: I can. But it gives me each one individually. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's okay. We've got to see the context of each one. >>LIZ GASSTER: There's nine. >>CHUCK GOMES: There are nine of them? Well, let me ask this: Are people comfortable with Liz checking the context of those without our input? Keep in mind, for the council meeting on Wednesday, where we will be having additional public comments and acting on this, we will have a red line of all of these. Would that be an okay approach? Anybody opposed to that. Are you okay with that, Liz? >>LIZ GASSTER: Actually, I'm not sure of the difference in the context that Olga was referring to, I mean, just my own background, I don't know that I would discern -- I can try. And I'm happy -- >>CHUCK GOMES: If you will try. And if you don't think there's really any difference in context, just go ahead and make the change. >>LIZ GASSTER: You bet. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. And then it'll be highlighted, so we'll be able to see those very quickly. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Going to number 3, the introduction of IDN-labeled gTLDs and ccTLDs should not be delayed because of a lack of readiness of one category. But if they are not introduced at the same time, steps have been taken to ensure neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged due to actions by either supporting organization. In other words, 1, the introduction of IDN gTLDs should not be delayed because of delays in finalizing ccNSO policy or vice versa. And, 2, the ability to fast track IDNs by either SO should be available. Any discussion on that? I did read an "and" that's not there. I think it's optional, you think it should be there? >>DAN HALLORAN: I think that's nitpicky. Sorry. >>CHUCK GOMES: He confessed, it was nitpicking. I did throw in an "and," that was not there. Yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade. I think I understand the intent, but where do you address the -- even with the best of intentions and with good procedures, then, you may find a -- an incident where there is a consequence -- let me use the word "consequence" as opposed to "disadvantage," because I think, again, we're using a word that's somewhat loaded. So an "unintended consequence," I just want to use that term as a more neutral term for just a minute. What's the answer to, our intent is not to create an unintended negative consequence, but we are doing so. What's our answer for how we're going to address that after we get our process in place? 'Cause we're saying our intent is not to -- not to disadvantage CC -- the legitimate CC interest in moving forward on these fast-track names. >>CHUCK GOMES: No, I think what we're saying is, is that -- we're not saying our intent is that they should. We're saying neither one should be disadvantaged because of delays in policy work on the other side. Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: Just a quick comment. Would be sort of a change of the word "ensure," change some of the -- I guess we're sort of talking about the same thing. What Marilyn is saying is just that some unintentional, accidental situation where it results into a disadvantage, what do we do in those points? It's already passed, we can't change sort of what we did. But here it says "ensure." So I just -- I guess some lighter word than "ensure," like "avoid" or something. >>CHUCK GOMES: Gotcha. To -- Change more words. It's probably hard to do it with just changing one word, unless somebody can do it maybe to minimize the chances of -- >>MARILYN CADE: Good. >>CHUCK GOMES: Werner, you have a suggestion there? >>WERNER STAUB: Actually, I would say the opposite. I would leave the sentence as it is, it is intended to give comfort. If we want to prevent that sentence, so to speak, from being meaningless, we would have to work on the other items, because this one is just here to give us comfort, as the previous one, the second portion of number 2 was there to give us comfort. But if you want to avoid the situation where the damage just happens, we have to look at the ones that cause the damage, not the ones that give us comfort. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody else want to comment on that? Yeah, George. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Replace "ensure" with two words, "so that." >>CHUCK GOMES: Say that. I didn't catch that. >>AVRI DORIA: "So that." >>CHUCK GOMES: Ensure so that -- oh, so that. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: I see, replace "ensure" with "so that." Any objections to that? What do you think, Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: (Nod of the head.) >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. And Liz will have to go down and -- I don't know how you want to capture things in other parts of the document. Is it possible to fix those later? And just give yourself a little note or something or -- yeah, there you go. Thanks. There you go. Or you can use a little asterisk each time do you that so that you don't have to type that much. It can always mean the same thing. Whatever is simple. Thank you. And I sincerely appreciate Liz doing this. She did this -- she was our editor in our many teleconference calls to, when she had power. So, okay, anything else on number 3; right? Number 4 is something that really came out of the IDN working group, as I recall. If IDN-labeled TLDs associated with one SO are ready for introduction before IDN-labeled TLDs for the other SO, procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts. For example, let's look at it from their point of view, and we introduce IDN gTLDs first, and we don't require any reservation of country names. We have a dispute process, but we don't require that. So then while they're still working on their policy, they would have to use our dispute process in any of those cases. We discussed this quite a lot. And in the beginning, we were kind of leaning toward using the dispute process, or at least some people were. But we felt like it does make sense in cases like this, where we don't introduce them at the same time, that we work together with one another to deal with any possible conflict situations that would make life difficult or maybe even eliminate choices on the other side. Questions or comments on that? Next one, we're going to the next one quickly. Oh, we have a comment. Who was it? Yes. Your name again so that we -- >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Shahram Soboutipour. I want to know that these processes of yours, when they will be established, they must before development of TLDs? Is that right? >>CHUCK GOMES: I didn't understand the question. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: You know that we need some procedures to resolve the conflicts. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, not necessarily to resolve the conflicts, but to avoid the conflicts. Keep in mind that the ccNSO is estimating that it will take two years at least for them to do their full policy for IDN ccTLDs, okay? Until they really know what they're doing on all of those, there may be situations where we go ahead and introduce a bunch of gTLDs, we may be doing things that would impact them so it's a process -- what we would try to do is say, okay, what do we need to do in the interim. Like, for example, we could decide to reserve -- and let's put aside the difficulties of the definition -- but reserve territory names from the ISO 3166 in scripts, in any script, okay -- 'cause they don't know yet what scripts they're going to use; they haven't finished their policy -- until such time as they finish their policy, and then we would revert back to our introduction of new TLDs procedure, where there aren't any reserved geographic identifiers except for what they specifically identify in their policy space. Does that make sense? So it's to avoid things like that. Because if we allow things to be registered that they may end -- may end up using, they can't get it back once it's used. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: But as he said that, there are some other names, separate names, several names for each territory, for example, in Iran, Persia and many other names we have for this. So what happens for them? They are not introduced in the ISO. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Let's not try and answer that here. But that's got to be answered. It does. So in the -- in an interim approach or even a final approach, we're going to have to deal with that, like, you know, should "Germany" be reserved for dot DE and Deutschland? You know. So, yeah, those things have to be worked out. And probably they're things that we're going to have to work together. This particular recommendation here, you know, assumes that we would work together to try and minimize any possible conflicts. Okay? Make sense? Okay. Good question. Very good question. All right. Number 5: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs will be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without the GNSO's concurrence. Now, this one I think we do want to go down to other text but before we do that let's talk about the general statement here. Any comments? Questions? Okay. Then let's go down to section A, paragraph 2, and probably the line numbers don't work on your thing, but section A, paragraph 2, which is -- paragraph 1 is the one that has the six items. So paragraph 2, let's just read that whole paragraph. Let's make sure I have got the right one. Okay. The GNSO council supports efforts to determine the feasibility of a fast track process to enable the assignment of a few noncontroversial IDN ccTLDs in the interim. By the way, that's kind of taking from some of their language. These should be limited to one IDN ccTLD per ISO 3166-1 territory, except in those cases where governmental policy makes selecting a single script impossible. The GNSO is committed to working with the ccNSO however possible to expedite the introduction of IDN TLDs for both ccTLDs and gTLDs. However, before any policy regarding new IDN ccTLDs can be finalized, criteria must be developed to determine how TLDs will be classified into the ccNSO and GNSO for policy development purposes. With the introduction of IDN TLDs, it is envisioned that both the ccNSO and GNSO develop policies and procedures for introducing new TLDs to the DNS. It therefore seems critical to develop community supported criteria for answering questions like the following. Now, these are taken right from the letter we sent to the board. The letter that caused the controversy; okay? They are just like that. I won't read through them here, but I just want to call that to your attention. I thought because of some of the things we say here, in more detail here, I thought it's good to call that to your attention and see if there's any discussion on that. >>MARILYN CADE: I have a question. >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: And this may be implicit someplace in your previous discussions. The first two bullet points are questions that assume that there's a very bipolar parallel world. Is there not an assumption -- Is there not a possibility that there may be criteria that are going to have to be shared in the future? >>CHUCK GOMES: Whoa. I'm not sure I want to go there. >>MARILYN CADE: Well, you are not sure you want to go there because you have a defined view of a space from your own world, but let me just say as someone who is an Internet user and lives in both of these worlds, I think we have to be careful, particularly in an IDN space, to assume that we actually know for sure we are going to be able to maintain very parallel universes as opposed to merging our universes. >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't think either of these questions preclude the situation that you are talking about. >>MARILYN CADE: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Does that make sense? I don't think they do. And your point is good. I don't think that they really do preclude that. >>MARILYN CADE: I just think that for purposes of thinking -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Come up with some -- if you want some tweak -- if you want to tweak it, come up with some suggestions. >>MARILYN CADE: Maybe. Look, I think we are going to go into what I assume will be a nondefensive, open, interactive, positive, pragmatic, and productive dialogue. >>CHUCK GOMES: Could you add another adjective? >>MARILYN CADE: I am thinking. [ Laughter ] >>MARILYN CADE: And no one will have any coffee or sugar before the dialogue. So I just -- I was looking at this and just looking for the next one which might have said, you know, this doesn't rule out the possibility that some criteria may have to be mutually developed, or something of that nature. >>CHUCK GOMES: Right. I see. Yeah, and it's a good question. And these questions aren't -- I'm sure they are not perfect, but we are trying to lay the groundwork. Okay, Jim. >>JIM BASKIN: Jim Baskin. Just for clarification, I'm not exactly sure whether Marilyn was talking about specifically criteria for determining which of two places this would go or criteria that are more along the lines with the guidelines that apply to these new TLDs. I could certainly see that the new TLDs, whichever name space they fall into, might need to have some shared policy rather than necessarily a shared criteria that -- they could still be put in one or the other but I think that it's development of some shared policies that are common because these new TLDs will be somewhat indistinguishable by the typical end user. >>AVRI DORIA: I think that that is actually in various of the other things that have been discussed. There have been times when those kinds of, for example, policies about contractual conditions, technical constraints, et cetera, that those are policies that are in common -- or we are suggesting would be in common to anyone. I saw a hand but -- okay, Edmon and then Eric. >>EDMON CHUNG: It was me but Chuck already said what I want to say. >>AVRI DORIA: And earthquake Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Avri. I just noticed in the supporting text here on page 4 there's reference to necessity for scripts, for a single script -- I will read the text. "Except in those cases where governmental policy makes selecting a single script." Do we have the word "governmental policy" anywhere in this document? We don't know that ccTLDs have government policy associated with them. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, that one came up specifically because there had been, in various discussions that we had had with GAC members, there had been some who had claimed that, you know, we have a governmental policy against just using this script versus that one, and that we need to support both. So I think that this is the one case. I think normally we stayed away from governmental policy and talked about territory and territorial authorities. It was in this one case where, in a fast track situation, various governments may have political or legal criteria that make it impossible for them to pick one, and that's why we specifically used those words. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Marilyn -- I'm sorry. Thank you, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. I appreciate that. Any other comments on this? Yes. Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I just want to point out I made two edits to -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I saw that. >>LIZ GASSTER: -- replacing a portion of it. >>CHUCK GOMES: You have only seven to go. >>LIZ GASSTER: If anyone has any comments or concerns about that, because we are making sure that this is consistent with the same use of the term previously in the document. So feel free to let me know. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Thank you, Liz. All right. Then I think we're back up to the executive summary. And item 6; is that right? Mapping of IDN ccTLDs to the ISO 3166-1 list must be maintained. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I just wanted to check one thing, that there had been some earlier confusion with the word "mapping." I'm quite comfortable that I know what we meant, that there needs to be a clear association always with the entries in that list. But I'm wondering if that word, because it came up before as confusing to people, is that word acceptable? As I say, to me it's fine. I just want to make sure that everyone else understands what it means to map to that list. Yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think the confusion, if I understood what Jon was saying, is mapping is -- there can be a number of different types of mapping. If you look at the U.S. states, Pennsylvania, Washington and Louisiana all map to dot US, but not reverse. And you are looking for mappings which essentially go in the both directions. I'm not sure what the right word is for it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Who can help us there? >>AVRI DORIA: Would "aligning" be an option? >>JIM BASKIN: Associating? >>ALAN GREENBERG: There is a mathematical term for a mapping which goes in both directions. You know, that it's not mapping -- >>CHUCK GOMES: A one-to-one correspondence. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: A one-to-one correspondence. Jim. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Please let's not use the words one-to-one here. That's later on in the list and that's something I wanted to discuss. It's tempting to use a mathematical word here. I would suggest not to do so and I think I am the only mathematician present. >>CHUCK GOMES: I am not a mathematician but I did get a bachelor's in math. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Tina, but -- >>TINA DAM: No, I didn't have a suggestion, but I have a master's in math, so -- but I agree with Eric. >>CHUCK GOMES: So you are a mathematician. Thank you. Yes, Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: By this phrase, we intend both the two-letter country codes and the short English name of the country? >>CHUCK GOMES: No. Because obviously what we are really talking about, script versions of the -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Oh, yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: -- territory names. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Of the territory names, as in the list. >>CHUCK GOMES: As in the list. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Which is a short English name and also the French short name. >>CHUCK GOMES: Mm-hmm. And we also say in the body of the document that an abbreviation is okay, too. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Although the abbreviation -- >>CHUCK GOMES: As long as it maps back to the list. >>AVRI DORIA: What I think we wanted to say, to answer the question, is that you only count if you are on that list. I don't think we were talking about what the entry said on that list, but you have to be on that list to be a -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: So this is defining those territories, not the language of the list. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Okay. Good. >>AVRI DORIA: It's defining membership. >>CHUCK GOMES: We are quite explicit. I don't know if we do this in the executive summary somewhere. We may. But it is in the detail, where we say per territory, per script. And we had quite a bit of discussion on that particular issue, whether or not it should be just restricted to one script per territory. We decided that, no, it shouldn't be, necessarily. They may want to do that, and that's okay. But we thought that if there are valid multiple scripts that that's not unreasonable. Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think what we are really trying to say, to get away from quasi-mathematical terms, is if a territory is going to be given an IDN TLD, that territory must exist on the ISO list. Must be present in the ISO list. >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you suggesting that as a word change? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'm not sure that quite parses the sentence but as the concept. In other words, Australia could use oz as their new term because Australia is on the list, and oz is an incarnation of their country name. >>AVRI DORIA: This says nothing about what they can use. It's just that they are on the list and, therefore, -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: If you are not on the list you don't have an option of trying to pick a name. You are not eligible for an IDN ccTLD, as it were. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Your next task is to do the wording. Okay, George. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I suggest the following. That -- let me see here. All or just IDNs ccTLDs should be associated specifically with a country or territory on the ISO 3166 list. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any concerns about that? Is that okay? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can I have that repeated, please. >>CHUCK GOMES: What was that? >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: The operative phrase is IDN ccTLDs must be associated with a specific entity on the ISO 3166 list. >>ALAN GREENBERG: "Associated with" allows them to be a subset -- an entity within the ISO organization. I think what we are really looking for is only entities that are on the ISO list are eligible for IDN ccTLDs. >>CHUCK GOMES: Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: I don't even think we're talking about the entities. We're just talking about the names. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's right. >>EDMON CHUNG: So it has to have a direct relationship with, you know, one of the names in the list. >>CHUCK GOMES: Did you just make a suggestion there? IDN -- excuse me. I better get on the right one. IDN ccTLDs must have a direct relationship to the ISO 3166-1? I'm just throwing it out. >>EDMON CHUNG: I don't think that's sort of my suggestion. I'm just saying, I guess I'm pointing out it's not about the entity who is running the -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I agree with that. >>EDMON CHUNG: It's really just the name has to be representing that particular territory. >>CHUCK GOMES: Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: Maybe it's very good to keep the sentence as it is as long as we agree on the conceptual level what we mean by it. And then if -- well, we could very well explain to the ccNSO exactly what we mean. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And they can come back to us and we can talk and I'm sure they will. Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Edmon, I think you are right on that we are not talking about entities. We are talking about points -- code points that have been allocated in the ISO 3166-1 code table by the 3166 maintenance agency. These are not countries, these are not states. They are just entries in a table, entered -- created by the manager of that table. And I know this is a can of worms, but we casually say in 3166, 3166 has several different regimes of reservedness or availableness for each one of the code points in that 26-by-26 table. And I don't know that there's any use for us to suddenly change our language to include the at least five different kinds of policies that are present there, but we should know when we're talking about it that it isn't one simple policy on one simple space. >>CHUCK GOMES: And later in the document there are some references to the two-character country code list. It's a little more specific, including in the ccNSO GAC document. But I think that what we say here is clear in the context of what they are talking about in their issues report. Now, is anybody just strongly opposed to leaving "mapping" there? >>DAN HALLORAN: Chuck, if it helps, coming into this cold and I'm sorry I haven't read it much, but I understand now what Philip and Alan are saying but I had no idea that's what this sentence meant. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh. >>DAN HALLORAN: Mapping of IDN ccTLDs to ISO 3166 list must be maintained. I didn't know what it means. The word "maintained" -- >>CHUCK GOMES: But you know what we mean; right? >>DAN HALLORAN: Now I think I know what you mean because -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Now tell us. >>DAN HALLORAN: I think Alan had it. What you don't want is things that are aren't territories already on the 3166 list to walk in the door and say, "I want my IDN ccTLD." >>CHUCK GOMES: Right. We wanted -- not unlike the new TLD process where we tried to tie our recommendations to something that exists, we were trying, and it would be great if there was a list of IDN ccTLDs. There's not and may never be. We don't know. But Edmon, go ahead. >>EDMON CHUNG: I'm going to make a suggestion. >>CHUCK GOMES: Go for it. >>EDMON CHUNG: Perhaps using the sentence that we developed on other occasions, what about a sentence that reads like this: An IDN ccTLD string must represent a territory designated in the ISO 3166-1 list. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, Marilyn just said "country or territory." One of the things we did throughout our document was we defaulted to territory as -- rather than always saying territory or government, or whatever. >>MARILYN CADE: Gee, I should have been paying closer attention. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's right. >>MARILYN CADE: Is that really something that you guys think sits well with sovereign states? >>CHUCK GOMES: Let's come back to that. Let's come back. Let's take a look -- we will deal with that -- and we will come back to it shortly. >>MARILYN CADE: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Because it's another issue. I want to just get comments on -- yes, Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: The word "territory," and I appreciate removing "country," but let's assume just as a hypothetical that dot SU had not yet been reserved or withdrawn from 3166. That's neither a country nor is it a territory. It's a memory, perhaps, but it's neither one of those two things. We don't know for sure what all the things in 3166 are other than code points. We don't know that they are countries, we don't know that they are territories, we don't know that they have geographical extent. We don't know these things. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. But like I told Marilyn, I want to come back to that issue and we will fix it. But while we are dealing with this sentence, understanding that we have got territory in brackets, Marilyn and Eric, give us a brief alternative; okay? Edmon, can you read that sentence again, please. >>EDMON CHUNG: I will read that sentence again as sort of a suggestion and also try to address those issues. What about: An IDN ccTLD string must represent a name designated in the ISO 3166-1 list? Or entry, or -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Entry? Entry may be better than name. >>EDMON CHUNG: Probably, yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Comments on that? Again -- yes. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I'm sorry, I disagree with this. >>CHUCK GOMES: A little closer to the mike, please. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I disagree with this -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: Look at the mike when you are talking. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: The ISO 3166 is not complete. I think there must be some names that they are not determined in this document. >>CHUCK GOMES: Understand. But if one was added to it, it would be included; right? >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Maybe. >>CHUCK GOMES: I mean, right now that's what's used. That was the standard that was used. I don't know if "standard" is the right word, but for this. That's how ccTLDs are defined. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: In this case it might be -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, that list can change but the statement is still accurate in referring to the list. It will be an expanded list. Am I missing your point? >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Pardon? >>CHUCK GOMES: Am I missing your point? It sounds like I am. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: No, no. I'm not sure. Do you mean that the ISO can be changed? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: And this change can be determined by us, by -- >>CHUCK GOMES: By us? No, I wouldn't say by us. We may be able to have some input into it, but it can be changed and it has within been changed. It doesn't happen real frequently, I don't think. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I think it's a complex process. >>CHUCK GOMES: Complex? I'm sure that's true. . >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: This sentence can limit everything in this case. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's the case right now. ccTLDs are limited to that list. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I know this, yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: You are suggesting moving away from that list? >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Pardon? >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you suggesting moving away from that list? >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Not moving -- moving but -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Not using the list anymore to identify ccTLDs? >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Using the list is a good idea, but I think there must not be a limitation only to the list. I don't know the governmental situations. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. I'm going to not necessarily go in order here because Norbert hasn't said anything and I want him to jump in here. >>NORBERT KLEIN: This discussion has been going -- my name is Norbert Klein. I live in Cambodia. This discussion about entries in the ISO list we had also in Cambodia, but it is a decision of the government in power to inform ISO which abbreviation is to be used, and in the Cambodian case it has been changed over history. But I think it is very important to see that this ISO list is not an arbitrary one. It is decided by the governments for their own territories. >>AVRI DORIA: Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'm getting a little frustrated, Chuck. In the interest of moving along, can we just agree that the ISO list is doing okay at the moment. We need to make this relative to something. We have done that. Let's kick it along. It gets 95% of the way there. Let's accept that we are never going to get a hundred, and roll with it from there. >>CHUCK GOMES: Werner. >>WERNER STAUB: Just to reassure everybody, whatever is not on the ISO list can be done as a gTLD. That's what gTLDs are for. For instance, if one wanted something for the Tamil community, it is not a country by itself. Tamil is a community in two countries. There is a gTLD solution. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I pass. >>CHUCK GOMES: You pass. Okay. . >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I think the list is only speaking about the name of the countries in English. It's not speaking in other scripts. Is that right? >>CHUCK GOMES: That's correct. And what we are saying is that scripts that can be tied back to that English representation, whatever it is -- I am not just necessarily saying a transliteration or anything -- and that's going to be a policy issue. That's not something we are going to get into here as to which ones and so forth. That's going to be a ccNSO issue with regards to which ones and you will see that in their questions. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Yes, but is it possible that every language, every community, every language community can discuss what his own language separately? >>CHUCK GOMES: You will see some of the questions in the issues report from the ccNSO/GAC actually deal with that issue, and they are asking for feedback on that because those are some of the policy issues that the ccNSO is going to have to decide. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I want you to know that every language has its own nature. They are different. For example, in my language, abbreviations are not common. We cannot use abbreviations. >>CHUCK GOMES: I understand. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: So every language has its own philosophy, has its own nature. >>CHUCK GOMES: I understand. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I want to say that. And there are differences. We cannot make one policy for all of the language. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm really thankful that that's a ccNSO problem and not ours. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Yes, maybe [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: No, it is challenging. It really is. And that's probably one of the reasons why they are saying it will take at least two years. So, okay. Sorry we went longer than you wanted, Adrian, but where are we at on number 6? Edmon, did we have -- or what was the last language we had for number 6? I'm lost. >>EDMON CHUNG: I will read it again. I guess my suggestion, incorporating other suggestions, is: An IDN ccTLD string must represent an entry designated in the ISO 3166-1 list. >>AVRI DORIA: Liz. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I just modified it slightly to say "contained in" instead of -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Is that all right? >>EDMON CHUNG: That's fine. >>CHUCK GOMES: Fine? Any objections to that. Read it again for Jordi and Tim. I don't know if Tim is still on. An IDN ccTLD string must represent an entry contained in the ISO 3166-1 list, period. Okay. Going on, number 7: Any added IDN label for a territory designated in the ISO 3166-1 list should be for the sole purpose of benefiting the language community or communities and territory designated by the new label. And I realize we have to come back to the word "territory," and I will do that. Okay? Comments or discussion on number 7. Marilyn or Eric, do either of you have a suggestion for how we deal with -- We used territory almost exclusively throughout. Philip, you can go ahead. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I don't think we need to be any more Catholic than the Pope, and if you look at the ISO Web site they use the word "country names" liberally. >>CHUCK GOMES: And that includes territories. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Including territories and everything else. They use that in the general descriptions, they use that on the list name. I would use that name and if there's any come-back, refer them to the ISO Web site. >>CHUCK GOMES: And Eric, does that work for you? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: No. They are wrong. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: That's exactly why we refer to the ISO Web site because we don't have to have the discussion. It can happen in ISO. And that's why we don't need to waste time here discussing it. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I appreciate that there's impatience over the number of issues here. It doesn't become a country simply because somebody who is writing the Web page over at the ISO site put the word "country" in the text around the table. It's just an entry of countries. We don't know what the entries mean. We are creating some meaning for them in a very specific sense, but they are not countries just because some Web master decided to use that word. >>CHUCK GOMES: Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Isn't the issue here that we are talking about what we generically call country codes even though Puerto Rico, which is not a country, has one? Country code is the technical term we are using which does not necessarily map to the English definition of the word country. >>CHUCK GOMES: Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: I want to just support Mr. Sheppard's sage, pragmatic suggestion which might bring this particular wordsmithing study of a particular word to a pause so that we can move on and try to focus on larger issues. And therefore, I associate myself with the esteemed gentleman from Australia who made a similar suggestion. I think we are getting bogged down in a few instances here with things that we cannot resolve. We cannot resolve or relitigate history on the creation of certain things. Let's use the reference that Philip pointed out, put a footnote in there and say for the purposes of -- we are relying on this for purposes of moving forward and not redebating it or something. Because we are just -- we are wordsmithing something that we are not going to resolve here. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I really like the idea of a footnote the first time we do this, Liz. You don't have to do it right on the spot here. But so that we explain the broader meaning that we have for that term. Is anybody opposed to Philip's suggestion? Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Just one comment. There are some like country code and the ISO list which are not countries like Falkland islands which is not an island. >>CHUCK GOMES: Cocos and Keeling Islands. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: Which phrase are we using. Are we using the term "territories" I'm completely comfortable with it. If we're using the term "countries" I'm very uncomfortable with it. If we're using the term "territories and countries" then I'm comfortable with it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Philip, what was your suggestion again? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: My suggestion is all this debate takes place at the ISO and not here and therefore we use the phrase the ISO currently use as gloriously inaccurate and as it may be. And the phrase they use is "country names." The whole rationale of having 3166 in the first place was to avoid these sort of international debates and we're just trying to be cleverer than the guys who first came up with it and it is a nonsensical waste of time. Your suggestion, use the ICO give a footnote qualifying the fact that it's imperfect but we're going to use it is all we need. Country names. >>CHUCK GOMES: Tina? >>TINA DAM: How about just calling it country code like we do with ccTLD, country code? Does it have to be country name? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: They don't reside on the code they reside in the territories. >>TINA DAM: I think what Eric was trying to aim at it's not a country, if you say country name that may have an indication that it's a country. Whereas country code is what we normally use in this community. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is it really problematic, and I'm coming back to Marilyn in particular that raised this, to say a country or a territory. We can even do in that the footnote like we suggested. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think we should simply say we're using the term country names or country and territory or whatever the words are in the ISO document in the same context as 3166 does. Period. >>CHUCK GOMES: I got that point but there are a couple people that really aren't comfortable in that and I was trying to come up with a compromise that didn't seem too unreasonable calling them country or territories. Each case there. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think the closer we map to the words that 3166 uses the less we're in the business of trying to -- >>CHUCK GOMES: But how many people that are using this document are going to even know that. I mean, I was comfortable with that. I'm trying to accommodate some concerns expressed by others and the country or territory term doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Once again in the interest of moving along, is it -- can we look more at the readability of the document. Are people going to care about this point? We care because -- they are going to care? Are they going to care -- they know what the 3166 is they can look at it, it's tangible. We're referencing that. What we call around that is somewhat inconsequential to this senseless argument we're having. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm sure you're correct. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Let them read the document. I really don't think the intricacy and detail that we're trying to get everything right in, we're going to be held up for scrutiny for. >>CHUCK GOMES: Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess I generally agree except that if we use the word "country" That will not be the case because people who are reading this document will be sensitive to that particular word. >>AVRI DORIA: I guess I want to follow through with what Edmon and Olga said, that I think we do need to list both country and territory. And, yes, perhaps that is being more Catholic than the Pope, but I think that's okay sometimes. And I think in this case I think we need to include that degree of specificity so that isn't just countries that are referred there, that someone doesn't look at that and say, well, you know, this only refers to countries or that one is therefore a country or such and being listed and I think -- see no problem with the specificity. I mean I was more comfortable with just territories and if they want to call themselves a country that's their problem. But I think "country or territories" is indeed a full and complete description. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody violently opposed to this? Number eight. >>LIZ GASSTER: Chuck? No opposition. But just a clarification. That's not in -- "countries and territories" is not the ISO list we are going to stick with countries and territories throughout not make any -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I think it's country or territories. >>LIZ GASSTER: No footnote. >>CHUCK GOMES: Country or. Yes, thanks, Liz. You're always welcome to get clarification because we want you to get it right. Whatever right is. Number eight. IDN ccTLDs strings should be meaningful to the local community and should represent in scripts of the corresponding territories' choice. Again, keep in mind we're going to do a global on the territory thing, okay? Meaningful representation of a territory's name or abbreviation of the territory's name in the selected script. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I think that's perfects, move on. >>CHUCK GOMES: Number nine. Applause is okay. "There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script." Tony? >>TONY HOLMES: Just a very short questions. Who decides if they're meaningful? >>CHUCK GOMES: That's probably going to be, you know, a decision by -- in the ccNSO working with the GAC and with the countries I would suspect. I don't think it's a GNSO decision. What we're trying to do here, as well as other places, is narrow the scope of what these things are. And that was the intent here. Now, if anybody has any ideas how we may better do that -- okay, thank you -- that that is good. Eric? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Chuck, are we on number nine now? >>CHUCK GOMES: We're on number nine. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Remind that you I'm an observer here and I suggest to you that only one per entry is too stringent a -- it's overspecification, if you would like to say something on the order of one equivalence class of names then that might actually go to our interest as registry operators and as registrar operators and other people's here interests I know less well, perhaps their interests would be addressed as well. But the one string per string rule seems like it is overspecification. And it strikes also at the -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Give me an example, please. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: There are 16 scripts used in India, there are several scripts used in the United States. This covers that. India could have 16. I'm glad to know this I misunderstood this. >>CHUCK GOMES: Good, thanks. We did talk about that. We were concerned about being reasonable there. Do you want to jump in to before we've got couple other people? Is it important? >>DAN HALLORAN: No. >>CHUCK GOMES: Werner? >>WERNER STAUB: I actually agree with this, with the tense. But there is one fact this it does not recognized which may cause problems, there are some countries that need actually two or even three variants. You might put an exception for variants in there. >>CHUCK GOMES: Actually, the way we did with variants in this document, it's not in the executive summary, because we didn't think it needed to be in executive summary is, is the same way that the IDN working group dealt with variants and the IDN guidelines deal with variants. >>WERNER STAUB: Would it good to acknowledge, as many people may misunderstood this, unless we say somehow? >>CHUCK GOMES: Keep in mind that variants are not allowed separately. Tina, you might want help me. Edmon, go ahead. >>EDMON CHUNG: It's on that particular issue. We do have it in the executive summary, it's on point number 11. And so on point number 11, actually, I would like to add I agree with what Werner is saying and it is a little bit of oversight when we finally reviewed it. I probably -- number 11 should -- number 11 and number 10 may be switching places or number 11 incorporated into number nine would be more appropriate there are those issues. Chinese is probably the best example right now, that there may be more than one string. But the definition of one IDN TLD string would be slightly different in terms of how you define it, whether technically or socially in this case when you talk about variant. Because if you talk about variant it may be still one IDN TLD. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's what I was trying to say. You're suggesting this we combine nine and 11? >>EDMON CHUNG: It would be good idea. >>CHUCK GOMES: So you're suggesting that we combine 9 and 11? >>EDMON CHUNG: I think it would be -- it would be a good idea. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any objections to that? Okay. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess, does that address Werner's issue if we combine 9 and 11? >>WERNER STAUB: I think it can be done in the combination that people would understand that Iran would get the two variants that they need, China will get the two variants that they need. >>EDMON CHUNG: Two or more. >>WERNER STAUB: Yes, two or more, I believe. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Dan. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: Excuse me. I want to -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a second. Dan. >>DAN HALLORAN: So I think -- I don't know if this -- I think this is on 9. I want to be sure -- I guess I always defer to Tina on making sure whether we're talking about scripts or languages here. So if there's -- there could be multiple names for a country in different languages but using the same script. Are you saying they only get one or -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't think we -- I'm not sure we ever use the word "language" in our document. You guys, the rest of you can help me out on this. >>AVRI DORIA: Language community. >>CHUCK GOMES: But I think we're pretty careful about using the term "script," which, from a technical view I think is pretty accurate. >>DAN HALLORAN: You're saying you can only have one IDN ccTLD per script. But in a script, there might be multiple names for that country. So are you saying they can only get one and the other ones wouldn't be allocatable? >>CHUCK GOMES: That's what we are says. >>DAN HALLORAN: Even though they might have three names for their country, like Republic of Greece and Hellenic Republic, they would have to choose and -- >>CHUCK GOMES: That's what we're saying. We're deciding here whether -- you know, if people think we shouldn't say that, we can talk about that. But that's what we're saying. Keep in mind, they're under no obligation to do what we say. But this is our input into their process. Let's see. Okay. Sorry. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I agree with the confusion of these two items, 9 and 11. But I want to -- I want you to know that what is the meaning of the variant, if we can have two meanings, two different meanings for variants. One type of variant, for example, in my language or Arabic scripts, is the types of the writing of the encoded characters that they look similar. There's no difference. We have, for example, two types of -- one letter which looks similar, but they have two encodings. >>CHUCK GOMES: Mm-hmm. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: And this might be a variant, yes, is this right? >>CHUCK GOMES: Right. And, in fact -- and, Tina, maybe you can help here. The IDN guidelines address variants; is that correct? >>TINA DAM: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: And do you want to talk about that a little bit for those who may not understand that? >>TINA DAM: Well, you know, I don't know, not necessarily, unless you have a specific question about it. But -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Could you generally share what the IDN guidelines say? I think there's a lot of people here who don't have a clue about what the variant issue is with regard to IDNs. >>TINA DAM: In relation to scripts? Because -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>TINA DAM: -- that's what it has to be. The thing is that the DNS does not understand the languages, so it's going to have to be scripts. You know, I was pretty clear -- >>CHUCK GOMES: What do the IDN guidelines require with regard to variants? Pat, can you help us out here? Nobody? >>TINA DAM: I actually think in terms of the guidelines, I think I'm going to have to look it up. I'm sorry. >>CHUCK GOMES: You're going to have to look it up, okay. >>TINA DAM: We haven't looked at those in a long time. >>CHUCK GOMES: You'll see later on that we definitely say that it's our belief that IDN ccTLDs must follow the IDN guidelines, just like gTLDs have to. Okay? And those guidelines do deal with the variant issue. Go ahead. >>SHAHRAM SOBOUTIPOUR: I want -- I know this answer. But what I wanted to say, that if we say this is variant, so what is the name of the -- another meaning for the name of a country, for example, another -- for example, an old name of a country. Is it a variant or not? And if it is not a variant, so is it covered by the ccNSO or not? >>CHUCK GOMES: I think that this -- >>AVRI DORIA: That's pretty much the same question that Dan asked. In other words, can the United States be listed as United States, United States of America, USA, home of the free and the brave, et cetera. Or are those all listable? And we're saying, "Pick one." In other words, you have multiple names for a country, it could be old name, it could be new names. But we're saying, pick one in a script, and use that. >>CHUCK GOMES: And Werner's suggestion -- you're -- get right back to you -- too, keep in mind, there's always the option of a gTLD. It's important to understand -- and Tim, I think, brought it up early in our conversation today -- that, frankly, the CCs don't have any contractual requirements, in reality. The Gs have fairly heavy contractual requirements. And that's a concern, because Gs compete with Cs. And so we're trying to narrow this thing. We think that it's a legitimate need to have ccTLD IDNs. But it needs to be limited. Okay, Olof. I think Dan was in, too. >>AVRI DORIA: Yours has passed, it's been so long? Dan, you had wanted. And then I have Marilyn. >>DAN HALLORAN: I'm just trying to understand. Are you saying that for this fast track, they just get one. >>CHUCK GOMES: No. >>DAN HALLORAN: Or for all time? >>AVRI DORIA: One per script. >>DAN HALLORAN: Just keeping in mind if you're apportioning it, you say dot United States would go to CC, and so -- and dot United States of America could never be allocated, then, or it could be a gTLD or.... 'Cause I'm looking at a table of almost every country has a short name and a long name. And you're telling them to pick one. >>CHUCK GOMES: Mm-hmm. >>DAN HALLORAN: And some countries in the CC could pick the short and some could pick the long, and the other would be unallocatable or it would be a gTLD? Just trying to understand the concept. >>CHUCK GOMES: We're not saying they have to, of course, apply for a gTLD, but that remains an option. >>AVRI DORIA: It remains open in the name space. And, of course, if it came through in a gTLD, one would expect that they would raise the objection flag to it immediately. So, yes, effectively, it would end up nonallocated unless they wanted to allow the allocation and didn't raise the objection flag. >>CHUCK GOMES: Keep in mind, we can't establish consensus policy for the ccNSO. We're providing input into their process. Eric. >>AVRI DORIA: We had Marilyn first. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm sorry. I keep forgetting to look. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Chuck, I just want to comment on something that you said and maybe offer a slightly broader perspective on this, which I think is important to keep in mind. CCs are not all in a heap in the middle of the floor, all having exactly the same relationship to their governments, as we all know. And some countries actually have laws that provide oversight or specific restrictions. Other governments don't. And allow significant flexibility in the operation of a CC. Some actually go so far as to require that you need to present a business license if you register under the second level that designates you as a commercial entity, et cetera. So I think I want to be careful about suggesting that CCs have no obligations. And, you know, you said -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I was, of course, talking about obligations with ICANN. But your point's well taken. >>MARILYN CADE: Right. I understand. So, again, looking at it from a registrant perspective, I'm just going to say something, you know -- I want to be careful here, as we are a community talking about the perspective of the GNSO, that from the registrant perspective, user choice -- which might be viewed by some people as competition -- is actually a good thing. So having the CCs as a choice for registrants is something that we're all trying to support as opposed to conveying that competition is a bad thing. Right? >>CHUCK GOMES: But we do believe that competition should be fair. But that comes up elsewhere. Okay? Eric, briefly, please. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. Chuck, you said that the Gs are regulated and the Cs are not. And I understand -- >>CHUCK GOMES: With ICANN. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Right. Understand what you're saying. >>CHUCK GOMES: There's some variation there, too. There are different types of agreements. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I know. Because we're trying to work towards an nonadversarial relationship with the ccNSO about a policy issue that's shared across the entire name space, the only nuance I want to add to what you've said is that there are CCs who believe that, in fact, under contractual -- implicit contractual obligations to ICANN and that their ability to change their name servers in the root is constrained by ICANN. So while we may think of them as being unpolicied and having no contractual obligations, that's not how all of them see themselves in relation to ICANN and not to the national governments, which was Marilyn's point. >>CHUCK GOMES: I understand that. It's still quite different. Tina. >>TINA DAM: Yeah. I'm just going to offer. I looked up the guidelines, so -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks. >>TINA DAM: Which, of course, I should have kept fresh in my mind. But -- >>CHUCK GOMES: No, I didn't necessarily expect that. But I thought you might have them fresh. >>TINA DAM: I didn't make the connection to the conversation. >>CHUCK GOMES: Sorry to put you on the spot. >>TINA DAM: I looked it up if you would like to go back to that conversation. >>CHUCK GOMES: Would anybody like a little bit of information on the variants. We'll do it if people would like that. Contact Tina if you'd like some more information. >>TINA DAM: We can do it offline, too. >>CHUCK GOMES: You can look it up on the site, so forth. Okay. So any opposition to combining 9 and 11? Okay. You got that, Liz? I guess just move 11 up with 9. Okay. You got it. 10, confusingly similar strings must avoided. That's pretty much right out of the new gTLD recommendations. Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: Do we need to add anything to that after the discussion we had with Kurt yesterday? I'm not really suggesting it. But just thinking -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you for not suggesting it. >>EDMON CHUNG: Okay. Fine. >>CHUCK GOMES: You know, if it's something that they want to delve into further, we can do that, yeah. Okay? Thanks for your flexibility there. I appreciate that. Okay. Number 12, then, is consideration must be given to the risks of spoofing using IDN homoglyphs. Who, that's much more technical than I am, or at least has greater linguistic skills, can explain what a homoglyph is for those who might not know. Any volunteers? Eric, go ahead. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. The letter "A" exists in the Roman script and a character that looks like a letter "A" also exists in the Cherokee script. Those are homoglyphs. They look alike. There was a proposal as late as 2003 by the contemporaneous then participating in the IETF that "Cherokee" should be banned from the Internet because it looked like English. As a Cherokee, I hope we don't do that. But that's what a homoglyph is. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much. Okay. And you get into situations, I think, what is it, the Cyrillic script gets some characters that look a lot like -- of course, there were some well-known cases of problems in that regard. What was it, PayPal? Anything else on number 12? Number 13, we're on a roll, guys, we support the notion that variable string length is the appropriate approach for IDN labels representing territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list but do not support extending ccTLDs to include variable-length ASCII ccTLD labels. Now, with the exception of the addition there of the ASCII part, this is pretty much from the Reserved Names Working Group that was incorporated into the new TLD recommendations in the work we did on IDNs. Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Just for clarification, is the string being referred to, is it denominated in characters or is it being denominated in octets? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, yeah, we're trying to not get too technical here. And, obviously, characters, by the way, if you go down, there's a lot more, look at the detailed language, because the term "character" doesn't work for all scripts. So to -- I think what we need to do here is communicate what we're saying so that they will reasonably understand it without getting too technical. So if you have a suggestion for an improvement, that's okay. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Can you give an example of what isn't allowed by this rule. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, first of all, let me tell you where part of this is coming from. It's not that this -- this actually opens the door for many more. But in ASCII, we don't allow variable-length ccTLD labels. They're all two-character. And that's the source of the question from the ccNSO, I believe. But it doesn't make sense. And, see, we considered this in the Reserved Names Working Group, should we reserve single-character names or should we reserve two-character names. That question doesn't even make sense across all scripts. And if you try to put that limitation on, you eliminate some very reasonable names in some scripts. Some of the IDN experts can jump in. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'm trying to understand the "but not" part of the sentence. What are you saying you cannot allow? >>CHUCK GOMES: You need to go -- and I know you went through the document. But if you go down and look at their questions, they raise the question as well whether variable-length LDH labels for ccTLDs should be considered. And we're saying no. >>AVRI DORIA: Basically -- and I've got Jim on -- it was, basically, well, if we're not restricted to two characters in IDN space, well, why should we be restricted to two characters within LDH space. And here we're responding that, no, within LDH space, it is the 3166-1 list. And IDN space is something -- >>CHUCK GOMES: It's a good question. It's hard with -- there's so much in this document, that I can understand why this one wouldn't jump out. It was -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: I was less trying to ask for clarification for me than saying the document should be clearer in what it is it's saying. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I think you'll find it is clear when you get down to the detailed executive summary. Now, if you can suggest a change to this to make it clear in the executive summary, that would be good. >>AVRI DORIA: I also think, to those who ask the question which this is in answer to, I think that to say that it does not include variable-length ASCII ccTLDs will be quite a clear answer. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: You had Jim, and you have Dan. >>CHUCK GOMES: Jim. >>JIM BASKIN: Just so I -- to go to the example issue, does that mean USA is not allowable? >>AVRI DORIA: "USA" as an LDH, the answer would be no. >>CHUCK GOMES: Not as a ccTLD. >>AVRI DORIA: Not as a ccTLD, not as an LDH ccTLD. The area we always stay away from is, well, could you make that an IDN TLD? But that's beside the point. >>JIM BASKIN: That's my question. Could it -- it's -- >>AVRI DORIA: As an IDN, if there is a script, like extended ASCII, that is an acceptable script for an IDN and therefore you could get an XN dash dash gobbledygook that translated into "USA," that statement doesn't prohibit it. In other words, that statement does not say, no, they couldn't do that. What that statement says is they couldn't have an entry that was "USA" as three LDH characters. >>JIM BASKIN: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anything else on that one? Going on to 14, "where script mixing" -- and now we're starting to get into some even more technical issues with regard to IDNs. "Where script mixing occurs or is necessary within levels, registries must implement clear procedures to prevent spoofing and visual confusion for users." This, again, comes from the IDN working group that was a part of the GNSO and that fed into the new gTLD process. And, of course, we make reference in this section to the work of that group. So if you want to -- and, of course, that is a referenced document at the top of this document here. So you can get more information there. Any questions or comments on that? Okay, Werner and then Robin. >>WERNER STAUB: Just -- I agree with the thing. Just between level is unclear. Could we just say -- within levels. Could we just say "within domains"? It doesn't matter where it -- in the entire domain, some (inaudible) mixing within the label, between the labels. Who cares? >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody see a problem with that, to say -- he's saying within domains rather than "within levels." Where script mixing occurs or is necessary within domains, registries must implement clear procedures to prevent spoofing and visual confusion for users. Is that okay? Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: If we use domains, can I suggest domain labels? >>WERNER STAUB: Yes, but it could be between one label and the next. So one label is in Chinese and the next label is in ASCII, and even that could -- you know, one label is in Cyrillic and the next label is in ASCII or that kind of thing. And it will cause the same problem. So it would be the Indian tied domain irrespective of where it occurs. >>CHUCK GOMES: Eric, did you have a comment? >>AVRI DORIA: Is that on the same thing or.... >>CHUCK GOMES: Anyone else? Robin. Let's go to robin and then we will come back to you, Eric. >>ROBIN GROSS: I am trying to understand what LDH stands for. >>CHUCK GOMES: Letter digit hyphen. We never use acronyms in ICANN. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you. I just wanted to raise a question I think that Mike Rodenbaugh had sent by e-mail on this same thing. It wasn't actually on the wording, it wasn't actually the summary, but on the underlying wording there. I think he is just questioning -- >>AVRI DORIA: It's on page 10. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes, on page 10. The essence seems to be questioning whether or not we are being overly liberal in script mixing and perhaps we should be slightly clearer in terms of what we intend to allow for that. And I think the concern, the underlying concern he has there is this verbal confusion thing. >>AVRI DORIA: The stuff, if I could comment on that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, you can. >>AVRI DORIA: Basically what he is referring to is what was quoted from the IDN working group's recommendations. So it had gone through the IDN working group and had gotten quoted here. I wanted to point out this wasn't new work done for this. It was sort of existing text that was imported into this document. So I just wanted to point that out. >>CHUCK GOMES: We can't really change the wording there because it is a direct quote right out of that report. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay? And Edmon, go ahead. >>EDMON CHUNG: In that case, can I just suggest removing within levels, just where script mixing occurs or is necessary, comma, registry must implement clear procedures. >>CHUCK GOMES: Werner. >>WERNER STAUB: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any objection? Okay. Liz, you get that? >>LIZ GASSTER: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Good job. Yes, Alan. Alan Greenberg Al I'm not objecting to what we have at all, but I do note that it's something we have never been worried about on the ASCII TLDs. But second level domains, you could have a Russian IDN second-level domain which looks exactly like an ASCII one. And I don't think we have ever been concerned about that in the past. I'm just noting that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: On the contrary. That's the whole thing with the Paypal and the Cyrillic A. So that's really the reason why the IDN guidelines are clear about that and so on. So -- well, script mixing has been a concern on the second level. Across levels, well, it's been a necessity so far to have script mixing because we haven't had any IDN top-level labels. So any IDNs on the second level would have to have lived with the LDH top level domain name. So we have been forced to have script mixing. But, of course, well, still, the statement is valid. And there are concerns within labels and also across labels. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Yes, Dan. >>DAN HALLORAN: So is this part of the IDN guidelines? Isn't it repetitive? Because you are already saying they should follow the IDN guidelines. >>CHUCK GOMES: We did, but keep in mind what we did, in the main part of the document we are responding to whole lists of questions. And what we did in creating the executive summary is to pull some of those that we thought were particularly good to call to people's attention at a high level. And that one we thought was one of those. Now, this group could of course decide that it shouldn't be in the executive summary, but yeah. Feel free to check me on that. Anything else on that? Number 15: Operators of top-level domain registries for IDN TLDs representing territories designated by the ISO 3166-1 list should be required to follow the ICANN IDN guidelines in the same way as gTLD registries that offer IDNs. Now, I think probably we should go down to section B on this. We're going to have to find the line, since the lines are different depending on which version of the document. That's about page 10. If somebody can give a more direct reference there, that would be great. I think it will be page 10 on my document, anyway. Whoops, went too far. What did I say? It was 15 through.... Four one nine -- >>AVRI DORIA: Which put it in the same section as we were talking about as being the accepted text -- I mean the agreed text for -- from what Mike had referred to. >>CHUCK GOMES: Hold on a second. >>AVRI DORIA: There's other references to page 18 -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I wanted to call your attention to -- and maybe I can just talk to it. There's a place -- the part that I was -- oh, no. I guess actually 16. It's actually the next item in the executive summary that I was thinking of. So let's -- Back to 15. Any discussion on that? Tina. >>TINA DAM: Maybe I can just mention that the working group talked, I think, a lot of times about the IDN guidelines and made references to the IDN guidelines. And I think it was clear that the intention was all of the guidelines should be followed. And then specific items was just like brought out in special circumstances. Because this group did go down into a lot of details. So it was just -- it spread out a little bit, but -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>TINA DAM: -- it's also mentioned that all the guidelines should be followed in this piece. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Yeah. Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I'm sorry to be tedious, but it seems like this repeats in part the material that's covered in item 4, which relates to the timing of the introduction of IDNs between the two policy spaces, the CC and the G, and to 5 which relates to exceptions. I'm just surprised that this is sitting here by itself. What am I missing that makes it necessary to have 15 at all? >>CHUCK GOMES: It really is a separate point from those others. There's connections in a lot of these things. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: And it's a fairly -- From the point of view of the drafting group on this, this was a fairly important point that we thought needs to stand out there in the executive summary. Now, as Tina suggested there, at least partially, that may not be too hard a thing to ask. The next one is a little bit tougher in the ccTLD community. Number 16: ICANN should have a contract or some other form of agreement with the IDN ccTLD operator that includes appropriate technical, operational and financial requirements. Without referring to the main part of the document, and you are welcome to go there yourself, we actually make the "should" statement, and then right after that say they must follow the IDN guidelines. So we use "should" in this case thinking that that might be more readily accepted, considering the environment. And we use "must" with regard to the IDN guidelines. In fact, Kristina -- >>AVRI DORIA: This brings up Kristina's note. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I think -- Kristina raised the question in her comment if you saw it. >>AVRI DORIA: I can read it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead and read it. >>AVRI DORIA: So the general comment, the use of should, must, may appears in some places to correspond to RFC 2119 and to correspond to the specific questions in others. If the intention is to use RFC 2119 convention, it may be worthwhile to run quickly through the paper to have them conform. Specific comments. Page 4, lines 10 through 18 -- oh, that was different. That was a different comment. >>CHUCK GOMES: She didn't itemize them, I don't think. I believe -- and her suggestion that maybe we should check that is a good idea. From the discussions as I recall them, we tried to be very explicit in the word. In fact, we made changes in that regard. >>AVRI DORIA: One other a caveat to it, while we tried to use those definitions, we are not adopting RFC 2119 terminology in that we didn't use all caps "must," all caps "may" or all caps "should", which is the actual wording in 2119. We are using the words "must," "may," "should" generally with those meanings but not trying to put requirements-type meanings on them. And therefore, not using the all-caps variety of those words. So we are not doing 2119. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any discussion on 16? Okay. Avri, then, would you read the other comments from Kristina? >>AVRI DORIA: Yep. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I haven't looked at my e-mail in a long time so if anybody sees any other contributions. >>AVRI DORIA: Other than Mike's, which Philip brought up, I haven't seen any others. >>CHUCK GOMES: And just one second. Jordi, are you still online? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Yes, I am. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Thank you for being so patient, Jordi. Is anybody else online? Okay. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Page 4, lines -- and this is page 4 of the original, not of the reworked. Lines 10 through 18. I find this answer confusing. I read the first two sentences to suggest a desire to avoid a post-award change, paren, comparable to the type we have discussed in connection with new gTLD recommendation 20, close paren. And the latter to shift the focus to contractual conditions. If this answer is referring, for example, to ccTLDs like dot TV and dot CM, then it seems inconsistent with the position we have taken to date with regard to new gTLDs in which the applicant claims to target a community, is awarded a gTLD on that basis and then no longer targets that community. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let's try and find that language. Okay. It was page -- about page 4; is that right? >>AVRI DORIA: Right, page 4 and lines 10 through 18. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me look at the hard copy because my -- >>AVRI DORIA: I don't understand. >>CHUCK GOMES: 10 through -- >>AVRI DORIA: I don't understand, to tell you the truth. >>CHUCK GOMES: We must be looking at the wrong -- If anybody can help us find that, what she may be referring to. Let me look at her message again and see. >>AVRI DORIA: Because that's the mutual advantage/disadvantage issue. >>CHUCK GOMES: It sounds like she is talking about the answer to a question. >>AVRI DORIA: I think it refers more to 6 which starts at 20. The situation of IDN ccTLDs become a de facto IDN gTLDs as this happened with some ASCII ccTLDs historically, should be avoided. In those exceptional cases where this is not possible, any such IDN ccTLDs must be covered by a contract which contains similar conditions to those contained in gTLD contracts. That is the selection deployment criteria. For example, technical, financial, operational, et cetera, for IDN gTLD policies, close paren, for an IDN ccTLD should be similar to those for an IDN gTLD to ensure that there is no unfair advantage. It should be noted that in the absence of a contractual requirement, there is no way to enforce the criteria. And I guess what she seems to be saying is that in the first -- that basically when we were talking in gTLDs, we didn't come up with an enforcement of -- we talked about that yesterday in some context. >>MARILYN CADE: The commitments. >>AVRI DORIA: The commitments to serve the community was we weren't enforcing that in new gTLDs, and that perhaps it was inconsistent with the position we have taken there, if I understand what she is saying. So I think it refers to item number 6 under A, which falls on page 4. >>CHUCK GOMES: And that's probably a good paragraph to take a look at and see if there is any discussion on that, that paragraph 6 on page 4. Any discussion on that? The post-award change that Kristina refers to there doesn't exactly -- well, that applies to gTLDs. It's a little bit different for ccTLDs, although depending on what process they come up, we don't know how that's going to happen. So maybe -- my suggestion there, certainly if there's discussion on 6, we should consider it now, but hopefully Kristina will be on our call on Wednesday and maybe we can get some clarity on that. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Yeah, I -- I have a question. Yesterday in the discussion I was one of the parties who thought that, in fact, if you make a proposal that you are going to serve a particular community and that's in your application and in your contract and you change it, there needs to be a process by which you can reach -- that you can renegotiate it. But on this particular point, I have a different question. We all understand, of course, that the value of the single authoritative root is that all TLDs are, in fact, globally reachable. So when we suggest -- we also understand that ccTLDs primarily operate with an adherence to RFC 1591. That's, of course, a voluntary adherence, but it is something that is strongly embraced by the ccTLD managers and was before the days of the ICANN ccNSO. Is that the spirit we wish to convey, that we believe and we made a reference earlier to the local community, serving the local community. Is it the spirit we're trying to convey? Or are we trying to convey a legislative prescription that I'm not sure we can convey; right? The spirit we probably can convey. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And of course keep in mind, again, we're responding to questions that the ccNSO and GAC raised. Somebody on the team want to respond to that thought? Or even somebody not on the team, the drafting team? This particular issue we had quite a bit of discussion on it including what about existing. And one of the conclusions we came to was, you know, how those ccTLD operates, assuming they have a relationship with their government, is really up to that government and it's not for us, probably even for the ccNSO of that government, assuming they can be delegated. But anybody respond better than me on what Marilyn is asking? >>AVRI DORIA: I don't know if I can respond better, but part of the discussions we had is certainly the original ccTLDs have this grandfathered aspect. And I think also within the spirit of, you know, wanting to do the cooperative and the spirited thing, there's a certain amount of cautions in what we say. There's also, though, a certain apprehension of, you know, every time there's sort of an issue that's a little bit difficult, we're reminded that we want to keep a unified root. And there's sort of an implication, or at least an assumption that I make that, well, if we don't behave correctly, we may lose that unified route -- root, and, therefore, we need to do certain things. We need to allow certain things. We need to allow a continuity of the noncontracted way of doing things that existed historically in order not to encourage or force people to go to a non-unified root. And so I think there are two contrary things there. There is the importance of the competition and the sort of fair competition between the gTLDs that exist and will be defined and the conditions upon which people would create new ccTLDs. And so I think that's the balance that we're trying to get there. I have got Adrian and I have got Alan. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Excuse me. I agree and I think that in protecting registrars, for example, about being able to compete on a level playing field with ccTLDs -- sorry ICANN or particular ccTLDs. It's my experience that whilst that is nice I'm not sure it's able to be done. I think that we need to remember that countries like Saudi Arabia or not permitted to sign contracts with, I know this because I've spoken to them directly about this, with any -- according to them any U.S. government entity and they see ICANN as a U.S. government entity. I don't know how you walk that tight rope. On one hand looking for some sort of protection through potential contracts or agreements or whatever then on the other hand turn around saying that you get an idea and you're able to go and do whatever you like with it because we can't get you to sign a contract because you're not allowed. But we want you to come and play. I'm not necessarily providing any answers it is a fine balance we have to -- >>CHUCK GOMES: We try to be sensitive to those issues. And some of our choice of words like "should" versus "must" and things like that were particularly designed that way. >>AVRI DORIA: Edmon wanted to respond. >>EDMON CHUNG: To Adrian's issue, the ICANN issue with contracts with entities in countries I guess that couldn't be having contracts with the U.S. entity, I think that's really a separate discussion, that happens with registrars as well as you understand and that really should be a completely separate discussion. But again it's the principle that requiring some form of an agreement or some form of documented thing, executed thing, I think should be a good suggestion and I think that's -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Absolutely. If I came across differently I apologize, more that the result of that, I guess you've got in the back of your mind is that we may have some players not playing. >>EDMON CHUNG: I did bring it up a few times to some of the ICANN staff and they did reassure me that they are looking into that scenario. In fact today we have one of the people who wanted to be a registrar in Iraq and -- in Iran, sorry, and we have to work through those kind of issues. >>CHUCK GOMES: Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Contracts or memorandum of agreement notwithstanding, Kristina's original comment says we're being somewhat inconsistent in how we're allowing domains to be repurposed. If I put on my cynic hat, I'm saying that we're suggesting that for country domains they follow far more stringent guidelines than we're willing to impose for gTLDs. We're saying you shouldn't be able to repurpose them it has to be serving the community. But for gTLDs, ah, people want to repurpose them. >>CHUCK GOMES: But have we said this for gTLDs? >>ALAN GREENBERG: We reiterated yesterday that we're probably not willing to say that repurposing is wrong. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's right. >>ALAN GREENBERG: We're saying for ccTLDs, for IDN ccTLDs it must continue to serve the purpose, the community for which it is being created. We're asking them to follow more stringent rules than we're willing to follow ourselves. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: How much this is the sins of the past that we have to repeat again because we're too scared to tighten things up. I'm hearing a lot about, for example, even in delivery of the ccTLDs this was done in an ad hoc manner, we certainly discussed this in depth when we were putting together this paper. Whereas if you were in the right place at the right time you got delegated a ccTLD. We seen, especially the example of Australia was given to one individual, thankfully he cooperated with the government in which case the government worked through and we built a regulatory body, blah, blah, blah, blah. And just having gone through this process in the Middle East with the UAE and trying to deal with the incumbent, so on and so forth, we had these ad hoc manner of delivery so because of that because of the -- let's take another example, lack of rules around for the ability to TV to do whatever they want so because they had in the past why do we have to continue to perpetrate those mistakes? We all know the errors potentially and we could have done them differently. Why do we have to repeat them? Why is this notion of, while it was done before therefore we're bound by it again. So why do we have to delegate -- why can't the government be given control of these names and let them delegate them how they want. That's not how it was done the first time. Why do we have to be so sensitive to the previous issues? >>CHUCK GOMES: Give me an example of where we're being overly sensitive, Adrian, to the past issues? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Give me a minute. I'll come up with a good one. Go ahead. Then let's go on to Kristina's last -- >>AVRI DORIA: Then come back to that one. Okay. Kristina said page 12, lines 32-33 and 45-46. Now I actually believe on the printed one I would assume she meant lines 38, 42 and 43, 46. No? You got a better -- >>OLOF NORDLING: I checked it out. I think it's that she's finding a consistency between our response to A question and to C question. >>AVRI DORIA: Not to B but to C? >>OLOF NORDLING: There's a slight risk of perceived inconsistency although I don't think they are. >>AVRI DORIA: I think it isn't. Just for anyone -- in first one it's asked, "is such a list necessary" and so our first answer is saying, "necessary, no." So we're not saying that such a list is necessary if it did exist, it might be useful. And then I think the rest of the -- then on C we're saying that if such a list can be found then, yeah, it should be -- or created then it should be mandated. Now we're still not saying it's necessary, it could be done without it. And so still it's not necessary, you could do all this. But if such a list does exist or can be created, well, then I think we're saying, sure, it should be used. It should be mandated. So I think there's -- you know, it's slightly bigger than a nuance difference to sort of say it's not necessarily but it would certainly be sufficient to have such a list and if it's sufficient it should be mandated. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any questions on that? Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: My examples. You ready for them? I hope they work. Let's take the conversation of dot com being meaningful, when we talk about ccTLD we said that it had to be meaningful then someone said, well, dot com had a meaning at the start then it changed to whatever it wanted to be. How are we going to backtrack. How are we going to explain to people that that is the way it was now we're expecting them just to luck out. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think it's apples and oranges. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I agree with you. I'm not saying that that is -- you can't, I don't think you can argue that -- take a change. A change in a TLD. So we're saying that we've let changes occur in the past and we don't want a ccTLD to change its purpose half way through. Well, yeah, we don't want that to happen, yes, we've allowed that to happen with past TLDs whether G or ccTLDs. But that's -- we acknowledge that that's the way it has been. We don't want to set ourselves up for that again in the future. Is that making any sense? >>CHUCK GOMES: It is. But let's go back to how the changes happen in com, net and org. At that time John Postel was the IANA there was a meeting held in Herndon, Virginia, I can give you the address if you want it. It was on the third floor. And we were in -- it was a situation where the exponential growth in registrations was making it literally impossible without, you know, ridiculous manual procedures and very slow procedures to implement the original intent of, in particular, dot org and dot net, com had been pretty much widely used for a lot of purposes already. And John Postel made a suggestion, he said he recognized that, and he said, you know, just going to have to assume that people will make the choices that they want to make. And so there was a specific reason and something there, it's quite -- that's why I say apples and oranges in terms of the thing. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'm agreeing that that's legitimate. And I appreciate the history but my point is, so we allowed that to happen, so what? Big deal now. We don't want that to happen again, we don't want to be able to have, for example, let's say new TLDs we don't want to have new TLDs as we sorted of started to skirt around discussions with Kurt yesterday. Around letting them change after the application process or whatever. So potentially we want to lockdown that contract. So why do we have to show regard for what happened in the past, why can't we make decisions in the way that we're going to manage the name spaces in the future, just because a precedent has been set doesn't mean we can't change it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Agree. It's a valid point, Jim. >>JIM BASKIN: I think that this current discussion came from a comment a little while ago that we seem to be requiring something more of the ccTLD than we are of the gTLDs. And I think the answer is we ought to go back make sure that what we require the gTLDs is just as strict as what we want from the others. >>AVRI DORIA: I think that, at yesterday's conversation although I need to go back through the transcription to be sure, I think one of the things that we left staff with on was, looking at, you know, whether it was in their contracts or in the application statement they made, whether there was something that could be hooked in to and hinged on to. So I don't believe that we made any decision yesterday or statement that said it's irrelevant, I actually thought that we had sort of left the notion that there's an issue to be worked on there. We don't know the answer, we don't quite know how they would be able to do it contractually or otherwise. But there was an issue that was worth looking at, I don't think it's contrary I think we're in a position where we said one in one place, the other we really don't know. >>CHUCK GOMES: I see Eric and Philip and Edmon. I need some clarity because I got lost somewhere along the way. Which response to the ccNSO are we talking about where we're being more strict. >>AVRI DORIA: We went back to the A-6. Let me -- I believe that's what we were talking about. >>CHUCK GOMES: The one that says the situation of IDN ccTLDs becoming de facto IDN gTLDs. I don't think here we're talking about -- we use the word "becoming" maybe that's the problem. >>AVRI DORIA: I think there's an implicit that they were there for their language community and now they have become gTLDs and that's the same as changing from we're there for, you know, the such and such community of banks. And now we're doing anything at all. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That's right. The comment was made, why are we making it more strict for them than we have been in the past on gTLDs. And I'm saying, well, to the gentleman's point of view whose name I don't know, I apologize, to say that well let's make sure this we tighten up in the future. If that's -- we're not saying we were not going to go back to gTLDs and revisit that. But that's okay to make some suggestions about how they should be governing the ccNSO space so we have that protection mechanism so they don't become a dot TV. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with the general point that Adrian is making, but the example that you pointed out, Chuck, of when dot com became -- com net and org became depurposed or repurposed, there was -- the way Adrian referred to that is the point of my remarks, he said, we made that policy. We didn't. That was a prior policy making body, that was a prior regime, that was before the new entity came into existence. So it's not we who are carrying forward our prior decision making, it was a previous policy making body that made that particular choice. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think there's a difference between failure to learn from the past and consistency. I hope we would tend to favor learning from the past. I think we are actually being consistent because we look at discussion yesterday on gTLDs we had a discussion, didn't we, where in the case that a new gTLD applicant is specifying a community in a certain way then we were saying, we want to have some assurance that will continue. What we're saying here is, we're making some favorable rules contingent on the fact that these TLDs are favoring a certain community, in this case a country or area. Therefore we want some assurance. I think we're being thoroughly consistent with where we are on gTLDs and we have learned from the past to improve where we are. I'm very happy with where we are now. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess I wanted to echo what Philip just said as well. I do think we are consistent and before I say what I'm going to say, I'm going to say I don't particularly advocate what I'm going to say, but at least in terms of the ccTLDs we've repeated many times that the requirements and no matter the contractual requirements and all those kind of things is very different from gTLD. And having them in a separate type is not inconsistent at all. And if they want to operate a particular TLD in a manner of a gTLD they can always apply as a gTLD that's -- I don't think anybody is stopping an entity to do that. Any other comments on that. >>DAN HALLORAN: I think it's a lot more complicated, there's no such thing as de facto gTLD. You have gTLDs that are restricted that are vigorously enforced and make sure that only certain entities register. You have ccTLDs, I don't think you're lumping into the de facto gTLDs that don't any longer enforce any restrictions on registration. I'm not that tuned in to like dot FR or dot NL, there are countries that are still ccTLDs and everyone agrees they're ccTLDs but they don't check to make sure that you really are Dutch or living in the Netherlands or speak Dutch or whatever it is you're thinking. So I don't know if you're lumping those in because they don't vet each applications. Whereas gTLDs some of them do check to make sure you are that kind of entity. Werner? >>WERNER STAUB: Just remind everybody that the idea about competition between ccTLDs and gTLDs is possibly worth consideration but it is uncomparable to the damage of delays. Just uncomparable. The more time we lose with -- okay, could possibly there be some competition issue compared to what everybody loses with delays is something we should think about. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Philip, you sent a follow up to the list I think that Avri caught. >>AVRI DORIA: I could read it like I've been reading everybody's on e-mail, but since you're here I figured you might want to do it yourself. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Since you bring it up I was reluctant to -- you bring up the argument. This is on the definition of country or country and territory. I was just researching a bit more on the ISO site, I notice that the ISO in fact under the FAQs on particular countries refer back to a U.N. list. And I sent the URL around for that U.N. list. The U.N. uses a phrasing "country or area," and has an extensive footnote explaining why they're using that terminology. And my reading between the lines of that footnote is that "territory" causes some issues somewhere. So maybe "country or area," following U.N. precedence, may be an alternative for us to consider. >>AVRI DORIA: As one of those that was arguing for "country or territory," I'd certainly be comfortable with that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody opposed to changing "country or territory," to "country or area"? Jim. >>JIM BASKIN: In my experience with the ITU, which is U.N.-oriented, it's "country or geographic area." I don't know if you need to add in the word "geographic," but that's typically, in the ITU, how they phrase it. >>CHUCK GOMES: You had mon? >>EDMON CHUNG: I don't necessarily object to using the word area. But in the context that we're in, maybe you look at different documents, for example, the GAC ccTLDs principles. I believe they -- loading up here. Okay. They use the term "countries and geopolitical territories." So, you know, I'm not completely opposed to using the word "area," but in the context we are, I think "territories" make more sense, but, you know, that's -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Werner. >>WERNER STAUB: Just add that territories usually don't overlap, whereas areas do. So it changes the meaning. >>CHUCK GOMES: Eric. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: I haven't been exercising Google today, but the last time I researched this, the last several times, dot PS, Palestine came into existence after it was designated as a statistical entity by a statistics body within the United Nations. And that it was neither a country nor a territory; rather, it's a statistical abstraction. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Countries and statistical abstractions. >>CHUCK GOMES: So, anybody violently opposed to changing it to "country or area"? We have one. >>MARILYN CADE: Well, I just want to -- I agree that "area" can be overlapping, while "territory" is not. >>CHUCK GOMES: I was just looking for one violent opposition, and you gave me one. If I didn't get any, we were going to go with this. The -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Chuck, shall I just read out the footnote that the U.N. has got is quite good. The first bit of it, it's quite long. The designations employed and the presentation of country or area names in this list do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. There's a second sentence that follows, but you get the gist. My suggestion would be to use the U.N. phrase and copy into our footnote that same -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Their footnote? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Does that work for you? >>MARILYN CADE: No. >>CHUCK GOMES: No, does not. Okay. >>MARILYN CADE: I'm going to jump up again. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is there anybody violently opposed to leaving "country or territory" as we changed previously? Okay. We'll leave it as is. No change this, Liz. Now, does anyone have any other areas of the document -- and I guess we should come back to 6 a little bit, because Dan raised a point that maybe we didn't fully address. After we look at -- after I ask my question about 6, does anybody -- I'll be asking if anybody has any other place in the document where you have a concern. Okay. Let's go back to 6, though, first. Is any -- should we drop 6? Should we leave 6 alone? What's the opinion of the group? >> Leave it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Leave it? Leave it? Anybody violently opposed to leaving it? All right. So we'll put 6 to bed. Now, let's open it up to anything in the document. And I saw Werner. Anybody else want to point out anything else in the document. We'll make a queue right now, and then, hopefully, we can wrap it up. Werner. >>AVRI DORIA: Mike, do you have your hand up? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Just scratching. Apologize. >>WERNER STAUB: My prime concern is delays. We have seen enough of them. One of the things that strikes me as a recipe for possibly enormous delays is the idea of a list of countries. You know, I don't understand why we say that if a list existed, it should be mandated. I just -- it really escapes me how we can come to this conclusion. We should say that, no, it shouldn't be mandated. First of all, mandate is highly unclear what that will mean. But, secondly, what will we do with such a list? If somebody produces a list and claims that this is the list, some people, they claim also this list, others don't, and so on. And then we have all kinds of things, list, and by the authority of that list, the following 10,000 strings cannot be gTLDs. It is Pandora's box to even talk about such a list, not to speak of the effect of that list on the ccTLD people themselves. If somebody says they want to develop such a list, you don't know what's going to happen next and how many years of delays they're going to get with that. >>CHUCK GOMES: You know, we evolved a little bit on this particular issue. I was one of those that wasn't convinced of a list early on. And the more we grappled with this as a drafting team, the more it looked attractive to have a list, because it becomes difficult. I don't think many of us think that a list is very realistic. But -- So there was an evolving process. I'm not saying that we came to the right conclusion there. And we can talk about that right now. You raise a good point. You know, maybe -- should we make it -- should we say -- should we mandate it? It's a good question. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah -- >>WERNER STAUB: Could I just add something? If somebody proposed, you know, if a recipe for world peace could be found, should be mandated? >>CHUCK GOMES: For what? >>WERNER STAUB: For world peace. You know, if a recipe could be found, you know, who knows if it is -- >>CHUCK GOMES: We got your question. That's good. What I'm trying to get now is some discussion on that. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: And I actually think that in various discussions we've had, there have been indications that a list could actually shorten things, not make them longer. So I don't think that there's a guarantee. It's a matter of opinion, I think, on whether a list, the either creation of a list or the defining of a list or the finding of a list would actually make things longer or shorter. I think there's just as much possibility that if, for example, UNESCO or some other organization was sitting on a list, that that would make things go much quicker than trying to define things in some intrinsic definition of what was or possibly wasn't. I think we are not trying to say it's not necessary. But I think we are also acknowledging that if the GAC, for example, had decided that, no, they felt a list was necessary, that we are not saying that that was something we were against. And to go one step further, that once a list exists and once a list can be agreed on, that that list should be mandated, that you shouldn't have a list and then not use it. And I think it's really speculative as to say this would make it take longer, this would make it shorter. I really think there's no way -- we can back and forth on, nope, I think it's quicker, nope, I think it's longer. I think a list, for example, if a 3166-1-type list did exist, and we talk about if you look in the text, we talk about that list having to come from someone that's got the same bona fide that ISO has. It's not just the list that I can find in Wikipedia; it's a list from someone that's got an equivalent gravitas in the world of making international lists. If such a list could be found, then it makes sense to consider it. >>WERNER STAUB: There's one thing to consider. The other thing is to use the word "mandate" in the (inaudible) sense. Is anything other than that on the list going to be allowed as a ccTLD or not? Or does it mean if the list has two million entries, does it mean that those 2 million entries, because God knows how many compounds you would calculate, and abbreviations they would derive from whatever, that those would also be always prohibited from being gTLDs? >>AVRI DORIA: But we've got the same discussion now. Except that now when we try to define it, we try to define it by some set of rules or some set of principles. And, basically, those same millions of entities are either on or not on our implicit list. I mean, you essentially have a list, whether you've got a list that you've defined by some set of principles or you've got a list that's been extrinsically defined by words on paper, you're forming some sort of list. It may be implicit in that it's by definition, but it's still a list. >>WERNER STAUB: Maybe the problem is less in the word "list" than in the word "mandated." It's just so unclear what that's going to mean. I've seen the idea that was back presented in Lisbon about creating an ISO or other standards where, in all the scripts and languages, all the countries were supposed to be named, which is, first of all, impossible, if we just look at it, it's impossible. It is possible to have a list that will give you indications about things you might want to consider as a human and asking people, does that mean this and does that mean that? Taking the entry and then asking people. But taking the list itself and elevating it to the determining factor, that's something totally different. >>AVRI DORIA: I had conversations with some on the GAC that felt such a list was possible. >>WERNER STAUB: I know the man. And he's not -- he doesn't speak any of the languages that are inside. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Let's see if we can wrap this up. The question, then, is, in this response, we say, yes, it should be mandated if it can be found or created. Werner obviously thinks -- you would say -- you would just -- your answer would be no. >>WERNER STAUB: Not just "no." It would do damage to even consider mandating list. It would do a lot of damage to everybody, not just to us. To the ccNSO even more. >>CHUCK GOMES: Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: Can I try to, I guess, convince you, Werner. The list is, as I understand it, and -- is one of the things that would -- Avri just mentioned -- is quite critical, I think. The ICANN community has to agree to it; right? Before we mandate it. If the ICANN community agreed to a particular list, why shouldn't we then mandate it? And the other part which is, I think, important to consider is also that the list is not, you know -- it is cast in stone. But then it could be added -- you know, things could be added to the list. That's not explicitly, you know, prohibited. Right? Even for ISO 3166-1 list, we know that when countries are created, it's added to the list. But if there is a list and a mechanism for maintaining that list that is found and then agreed upon by the ICANN community, I don't see why we shouldn't mandate it for the IDN ccTLD. >>CHUCK GOMES: Olga. >>OLGA CAVALLI: I totally agree with Edmon. I see that, in practice, everything comes to a certain universal list, a name, an amount of frequencies, numbers, whatever. That's the way things are ordered in the whole world, and especially in technical matters. I totally agree with the idea of Edmon that the list can be dynamic, can grow, can be enhanced. But it's -- I don't see that it's a problem. I think that it's good to define something. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Jon. >>JON BING: I think the operative word is "if." If a list can be found, it then shall be considered to be mandated. I'm very convinced that such a list will not be found. >> I think you're right. >>JON BING: But it is necessary to combine as clear a criteria as possible from one list or the other, and with a procedure which is as easy and straightforward as possible. But there will be borderline cases. And I ask you also to consider another thing, which is -- has happened in similar cases. We are now referring to a list. This list is maintained by an authority or some entity outside this group. And if this list then becomes very important for this group and the decisions this group is taking, then pressure is being brought upon that other group which decides that -- the list. And suddenly the list has -- is originally initiated or created for one purpose, but because of our auxiliary purpose, it may become more important, and there will be cross pressure. That has happened before and led to the breakdown of the systems. So there's a lot of problems here. But as I said, I'm trusting into the "if," and that -- let the case speak for itself if there is a candidate to meet that test. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: So, Jon, at the beginning you said -- I heard you say that, you know, it's probably highly unrealistic that they are going to create one. I agree with that. But you said you were okay with saying yes to mandated. >>JON BING: Yes, indeed, because of -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. I justed wanted to clarify because I missed it right at the beginning. As long as it remained conditional, which it is. >>WERNER STAUB: Could we define "mandated"? What does that mean? >>AVRI DORIA: It's in the next paragraph. If yes, by whom. They are saying if it is mandated, then if yes, by whom. >>WERNER STAUB: That's not the question. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, but it is. Mandated means -- >>CHUCK GOMES: You are going to have to ask the ccNSO and GAC that because they are the ones who used it. >>WERNER STAUB: No, no, no. You cannot say something should be mandated when you don't know what mandated means. >>CHUCK GOMES: Required. >>WERNER STAUB: No, that's not the question. Mandated could mean that nothing that is not on that list cannot be an IDN ccTLD. It can mean that anything that is on that list can be one. It may just be claimed. There's many meanings to that word. >>AVRI DORIA: I think the meanings are the same as the meanings for the ISO 3166 -- >>WERNER STAUB: That would be catastrophic. >>AVRI DORIA: It's that it's mandated. >>CHUCK GOMES: Chairman's decision. We are going to leave it as is. Obviously the council has to vote on it on Wednesday. There will be public comment then. Does anyone else have any other issues in the document? All right. Liz, are you comfortable with where we're at and what needs to be done next? >>LIZ GASSTER: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: So you will distribute a red-lined version. >>AVRI DORIA: And a clean one, too. >>CHUCK GOMES: Red lined and clean for those who want the clean. >>AVRI DORIA: The reason would be when we come to voting on Wednesday, we would be voting on a clean version. >>CHUCK GOMES: And of course there may be additional edits to the clean version. >>AVRI DORIA: There may be. >>CHUCK GOMES: But I am supporting what you are saying. >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, if there are edits, I would think they would be sort of as listed amendments that we will change the clean version to say this, change the clean -- that we wouldn't wordsmith it in the meeting. That we would have agreements to the specific wording changes listed kind of serially as amendments that would be made as opposed to trying to get into an editing session during the meeting. If we have to amend the text at that point, we decide on an amendment and list it, would be my preference. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And it would be also helpful if it's posted; okay? With the lines, so that for our meeting -- I don't know how we can -- Remove the -- better remove the references that I had in the executive summary because they are not going to work anymore. They already don't. They get us close in some cases. The -- So it will be posted, and that's what will be considered on Wednesday in our meeting. I want to thank everyone for a grueling, but I think effective, session. Thanks for the excellent breadth of cooperation. That was very much appreciated. Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I think I can do this later today but I just need your language, too. Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Liz -- yeah, if possible, because especially the change -- well, of course all the changes have pretty much been to the executive summary. Because we're using the executive summary as cheat sheets for tonight's dinner. So it would be good to have them. And, Glen, if we could get new copies. Sorry. And before we finish, when we come back at 2:00, so it's a shortened lunch and I thank everyone for having dedicated 48 minutes of their lunch to this. I want to thank the transcribers and everyone else and the tech folks who stayed past their lunch break to get this finished and thank you to all of you. >>TONY HARRIS: Avri, can you confirm time for our joint dinner tonight? >>AVRI DORIA: The time is 20; correct? 8:00. >>TONY HARRIS: And where? >>AVRI DORIA: This room. We don't get out of this room. We have to get out soon enough this evening so they can clean it up, but it's here. Okay. Just so people know, this afternoon we have two topics. One of them is our preparation for the discussions with the ccNSO tomorrow that covers the content of our letters, of our mutual letters, but also may run to some of the stuff that's here. And then I don't know whether to brief but just to sort of go over what we will be doing in the public meeting. And, you know, I'm not sure how much time we will need to spend on that. But just to go through that agenda, to talk about the fact that we have two things that we have possible votes on. Discuss whether we'll actually be ready for votes. You know, one may be yes, one may be not. What other processes we have going, just to be sure that anybody who has to get up to speak knows they have to get up to speak and agrees to speak, and so on. So those are two things this afternoon. They are both basically meeting preps. >>TONY HARRIS: Getting to that, to the afternoon activities, I thought I read somewhere we would be reviewing the status of the GNSO -- the new gTLDs? >>AVRI DORIA: Those were yesterday. >>TONY HARRIS: That was yesterday afternoon's. We had the GNSO improvements report from Roberto who came in and spoke to us, and then Kurt Pritz gave -- and I think both of them are available online, the presentations and transcripts. But then Kurt Pritz took us through the new gTLD process, and those were on Saturday's agenda. >>TONY HARRIS: Thank you. Sorry I was late. >>CHUCK GOMES: It had a new timeline. Estimated timeline. >>TONY HARRIS: Should I be happy? >>AVRI DORIA: One should always be happy. >>CHUCK GOMES: Pushes it out a little bit further. >>AVRI DORIA: One should always be happy. Thank you. Get some lunch. I will see people back at 2:00. Thank you, Chuck. (Lunch break.) >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Are we just about ready to start? If everybody would find a seat, we're going to -- we're going to start and we're going to start by going around the table again, introducing ourselves and talking about our connection. Then I'm going to briefly give some background on what this meeting is and how we're going to run this particular session. So Adrian, would you lead off with who you are? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I think I'm Adrian Kinderis from the registrar constituency. I think. >>AVRI DORIA: I'll confirm it. Thank you. Patrick? >>PATRICK JONES: Patrick Jones. ICANN staff. Sorry. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Dirk Krischenowski, dot Berlin. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Eric Brunner-Williams, CORE, and I'm an observer here. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Jeff Neuman. I'm with NeuStar, a registry constituency, just I guess an observer here. >>JIM BASKIN: Jim Baskin, business constituency. >>OLOF NORDLING: Olof Nordling, ICANN staff. Or at least I was this morning. >>AVRI DORIA: It's been a tough day and a half so far. You can tell from the comments. >>CARLOS DeSOUZA: For sure. Hi. It's Carlos DeSouza from NCUC. >>MARCELO FERNANDEZ: Marcelo Fernandez. >>CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes, registry constituency. >>AVRI DORIA: Avri Doria, NomCom appointee. >>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade, member of the business constituency. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Olga Cavalli, NomCom appointee. >>ANOOP GUPTA: Anoop from dot in registry. >>SHAILY GAUR: Shaily Gaur from dot in registry. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg, ALAC liaison. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Philip Sheppard with the business constituency. >>BILAL BEIRAM: Bilal Beiram, BC. >>EDMON CHUNG: Edmon Chung, registry constituency. >>GREG RUTH: Greg Ruth, ISPCP. >>LIZ GASSTER: Liz Gasster, ICANN staff. >>JON BING: Jon Bing, NomCom appointee. I never get that right. >>ROBIN GROSS: Robin Gross with NCUC. >>NORBERT KLEIN: Norbert Klein, noncommercial user constituency. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: George Sadowsky, nominating committee, still an observer. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Do we have anybody on-line at this point? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: No, no one on-line, but the line is connected. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. No one on-line. The line is connected. And Adrian, could you pass your microphone over to the row behind you just a sec. >>ALI BOUALLOU: Ali Bouallou, from Moroccan delegation, observer. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. So I'm just going to say a few words. So this meeting is to prepare for -- oh, we got a few more people coming in. Good. This meeting is to prepare for tomorrow's meeting. There's a meeting between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO council. This will be an open meeting, but a -- unlike at these meetings, observers will only be invited to observe but not to actually participate. But the meeting will be open for observation. The purpose of the meeting -- that's me, that's scary. The meeting will be moderated. Patrick Sharry will be moderating this meeting. This meeting is a result of a reaction that the GNSO had to some of the aspects of the fast path process, and we wrote a letter to the board asking for some considerations, and suggesting -- making a couple suggestions, and the ccNSO wrote a responding letter which basically disagreed with our suggestions and invited us to have a discussion with them where we would be able to discuss our issues, our differences, and find a way to work on resolving them together for the good of ICANN. So basically, this meeting today is to start essentially figuring out what we want to get out of that meeting. Now, the structure of the meeting is: Patrick will start by introducing the issues, the two letters, the fact; then I will give a very brief introduction to the GNSO's point that was expressed in our letter and, of course, anything that comes out of this meeting and I'll basically be trying to express where the GNSO is coming into the meeting. Then Chris will do the same with respect to the ccNSO and their position and their letter. Then basically we go into a facilitated conversation by Patrick to try and bring out the issues, help in the understanding, and find the way forward. Okay. So that's what we're here to do is to prepare for that. At lunch, Adrian came up to me and said, "You know, maybe we could try a different structure on this preparation meeting," and offered a suggestion, which was, instead of our just sit around the table and sort of wait passively for someone to want to comment, that he was basically offering to -- well, actually he wasn't quite offering, but I sort of volunteered him to be offering to basically try and facilitate that discussion, to perhaps make the statements that elicit the comments, to ask questions and try and see that. So talked about it with Chuck, and we decided that, you know, no reason not to. I want to make sure, does anyone from the council or anyone else object to trying to do it this way or find this to be problematic? Okay. Now, in terms of doing that, we still have to pay attention to the fact that we are being scribed, that one should still, when they talk, use the microphone, use it from the proper distance from the microphone, state your name when you start speaking, et cetera. So the same rules of being a transcribed meeting apply, but Adrian will sort of lead the -- facilitate the discussion, and as if this was, I guess, a board meeting, you'll introduce your concept more, but Olof will be scribing the suggestions, the points, the whatever. I turn it over to Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks, Avri. It's always dangerous to have a microphone in my hand. Normally it's 2:00 in the morning and I'm in a karaoke bar, but... Look, I thought that what I would do if I was going into a meeting with my board or whatever, I would generally try to sit down before, try and get some goals up of what we're hoping to achieve for that meeting, and then, you know, work around the room and try to see -- make sure that every action we did was about reaching those or trying to get to those goals. So I think we're in a pretty similar spot today, and -- well, we will be in a pretty similar spot tomorrow, and I can also see that the -- you know, given the discussions of the last 1 1/2 days, that potentially this has the -- or this has the potential to go a little bit ugly on us if we don't watch it. So, you know, I just think we need to be clear in how we're going. So I thought that maybe this is a better way to do it. So Olof has kindly agreed to be my whiteboard, as normally I would -- I've spent that much time in Jabaar, I tend to write in hieroglyphics anyway, so it's probably a good thing that he's typing rather than me writing. So I guess firstly what I'd like to put out to everybody -- and please, I know all of your names. I do not know all of your faces because we swap e-mails, so if I don't get your name right, please make sure you correct me and I will learn them by the end. So to tee off, I figured: What are the goals of -- you know, quite simply and they could just be quick bullet points, a couple of words -- of let's start with the immediate goals of the GNSO. Because why -- and why are we having this meeting with the cc's? So anyone want to throw something out and say what are the immediate goals of the GNSO and why is this meeting important? Okay. Well, thinking about why this meeting is important. I'll throw one out to start off. Let's get new TLDs as quickly as possible. Is that an immediate goal of the GNSO? Anyone? Go ahead. Go on. Oh, no, you can't. You're an observer. I'm sorry. Thanks. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, it wasn't true that observers couldn't comment at this one, but I think that that is -- yes, that is a goal for the GNSO. I'm not positive that that is a goal this meeting with the ccNSO. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: I think that certainly, you know, yes, it is a goal of the GNSO that there should be new gTLDs as soon as possible. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: That there should be new IDN TLDs as soon as possible. But I think our goal in this meeting is to very much get across the points we were trying to express in that letter, that there are certain issues that need to be resolved as a community before the work can proceed on IDN TLDs. That basically certain presumptions that people make based on the LDH ASCII world don't necessarily immediately translate cleanly into the IDN world and that we really need to have a community-wide decision and a community-wide discussion -- I mean, a board decision based on a community-wide discussion on how we classify new TLD -- new IDN TLDs within the namespace. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. That's great. I'll just hold you there. The reason being, so what if -- if my goal that I've got here of let's get new TLDs ASAP, what if this meeting tomorrow went pear-shaped and had the -- and could impact that goal? That's why I guess I'm sort of raising to the higher level. If we -- what would be the worst-case scenario of tomorrow? It could be that we butt heads with the ccNSO and they go -- what term did we use at lunch? >>AVRI DORIA: I think we used "the nuclear option". >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right, "the nuclear option". >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And basically that there can be no -- and this has been stated by some -- that basically if we opened this issue, then until this issue is resolved, there can be no new TLDs at all because the classification of gTLDs into gTLDs and ccTLDs is not agreed upon either, and needs to be reexamined within the same discussion. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So let's stop and just absorb that for a minute. This is a -- you know, it's a reality. It might be a -- and we did discuss it could be something that's a little way off, but it's a reality. So all these people in -- all the people in the room here that have talked about let's hurry up and get this thing done. The dot Berlin guys have been, you know, holding onto this bugger for ages. Let's, you know, see that as a very real outcome of this meeting should we, you know, not be able to put forward our message. Philip? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: If I was the cc's, tomorrow I think I would probably be putting it in terms of solving the cc IDN issue has to be a critical path in gTLD expansion. Yeah. That would be the way I'd present it. And I'd suspect that's also -- there's quite a broad sense of feeling there and, indeed, there's a certain underlying logic there as we've discovered in our own deliberations. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. So we're getting more to the next level down, which we'll call the out -- the objectives of the meeting, okay? So I just wanted to just say up here just for one more minute: Does anybody else think there's any other goals of the GNSO, more immediate goals that are relative to this. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: This might not be as much a goal, but through the discussion that we just had, my feeling, though, is we're not so much on completely different pages. We're -- but I think that it's very important to -- in tomorrow's meeting to clarify some of the misunderstandings that have been sort of conveyed. I think the -- there is a core -- you know, an important misunderstanding that seems to be saying that one or the other is trying to stop the -- stop the other from doing IDN TLDs in their realm, and that is really not the case. I think we are both -- both likely going to agree on a set of things, and we just -- those things are not explicitly written right now or explicitly agreed to. Like what is a gTLD and what is a ccTLD. It's not explicitly agreed to. I think we are generally on the same page, but all we're asking for is that thing to be more explicitly, you know, expressed. So... >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So on that point of same page, I think it's -- for me one of the goals would also be that we're not an adversary to the ccNSO, right? That's what we want to do here also. So one of our goals is of, you know -- of the GNSO is to see that we are a collaborative body, that we will work with others. >>AVRI DORIA: Can I have an interruption. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: You can have an interruption. >>AVRI DORIA: One question is, I think some people may have misunderstood at the beginning when I said observers didn't speak. Those are the rules for tomorrow's meeting. Those weren't meant to be the rules for this meeting. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Ah. Great. >>AVRI DORIA: I just wanted them -- I gathered from something, that that was misunderstood. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Marilyn is happy that her gag order has been reprieved. [Laughter] >>CHUCK GOMES: Did that include Marilyn? [Laughter] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. Olga? Sorry. Olga first. Sorry. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. Olga Cavalli. As a member of the GNSO Council, one objective of the meeting would be for me to know clearly which is our role as a council in this subject. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Great. >>OLGA CAVALLI: It's not a confrontation with the ccNSO. And if we -- if we look at all this issue from a community perspective, if we are not clear, we, the ccNSO and the GNSO, imagine what the whole -- the rest of the society could understand from this subject. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. So we're getting down into the -- into the objectives of the meeting. So that's right. That's important that we're very clear in our role and we're also prepared to be collaborative in our approach with the ccNSO. So there are two very distinct points and very important points going forward. Thanks. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'll put a slightly different twist on it. Although we're a part of ICANN and want to see the best possible outcome, as the GNSO I think we have a strong interest in making sure that process is not put in place which will create policy which will not allow the re- -- which will unreasonably constrain the deployment of gTLDs, of new gTLDs. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So you're saying that if I can paraphrase, that you wouldn't like to see power given to the ccNSO that they can obstruct the process. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Without regard to the deployment of gTLDs, yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I mean if their only focus is on ccTLDs, then it's possible to end up with results which will satisfy their needs completely -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah. >>ALAN GREENBERG: -- but not satisfy the requirements of reasonable deployment of gTLDs. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And I think we have a vested interest in making sure that's protected. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So protecting the -- I'm just trying to work out how we can give that a bullet point, but is it protecting the interest of the process, potentially? From outside influence unnecessarily? Am I capturing that right? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I wouldn't call it "outside influence." I just want to make sure that -- I think we want to make sure that the process that we have started rolling on deployment of gTLDs does not get short-circuited because the ccNSO ends up creating policy which subverts that in some way. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. That's great. So -- and Avri, I just want to pick up on something that you said over lunch, is that you also don't want to see the GNSO get pushed around, right? Is that -- that's fair to say? >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, that was one way of putting it. Basically I've just noticed that occasionally there are certain, you know, consequences that people put out in saying, you know, "If you do this, then we will do that. If, you know, you make this decision, then the root will split. If you make this decision, well then, we will stop this from happening." And basically, I'm sort of saying I want the GNSO to certainly consider all of the issues, but not be sort of frightened and sort of say, "Oh, no, that might happen. We need to desist from dealing with the GNSO's interests in these things." So, yeah, you could say it as I don't want to see them pushed around. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That's a fair point. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, thank you for lifting my misunderstanding -- facing my misunderstanding and correcting it. I'm going to actually just ask a clarifying question, and then make a point. So my clarifying question is: Are we at the stage of whiteboarding or brainstorming and then we're going to refine and reach agreement on what we're putting up there? Is that the stage we're at? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That is what we're doing. >>MARILYN CADE: Okay. Here's my point: I actually thought that it would be helpful if we started out by thinking about the shared perspective of supporting organizations and their role in ICANN. And so to that point, I think a shared role on the part of the supporting organizations is to contribute to the security and stability of the DNS and to ICANN's success, with the other partners that make up the rest of ICANN's organization. But I just want to be sure that that is actually our shared view, because if it's not our shared view, then we probably need to step back and think about what our shared view is. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. So that, I guess, speaks to a little bit about what we touched on earlier about it being a collaborative process, whereby the -- no? >>MARILYN CADE: Back up. You know, there's a higher goal to the role of supporting organizations than managing their particular responsibility. The high -- you are part of a larger whole. So we can collaborate on this particular responsibility, but we have a higher responsibility as members of supporting organizations. I think that's shared. I think the ccNSO also has that higher responsibility. And that's -- that, I think, helps us not to get to -- you know, if we keep that in mind, we don't get into this, "But I can take my marbles and go play in a different corner," in fact, we can't play in a different corner because of our higher commitment and responsibility, right? We all have to play the same -- we have to at least play in the same room. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. And if I understand you correctly, where I was talking about collaboration was collaboration at that higher level. It's to understand the responsibility, that shared responsibility, as you call it, and to collaborate to deliver on that responsibility, okay? And then you can take that collaboration down, as we are saying, in a meeting sense of how do we get to the goals that serve that responsibility. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I mean, what I -- I listen to that and then I think about what we wrote, and basically saying that many of these decisions were not decisions that could be made by any of us individually, but were community decisions that involved GNSO as much as ccNSO, that involved ALAC as much as they involved GAC, that I think that that fits into that, that some of these decisions that are being made now are decisions for the -- the larger perspective, the larger role of us working together. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. Thanks. Yes. >>JON BING: Thank you. I think this reflection is extremely interesting, from my own interest in ICANN as a bottom-up organization. In a conventional organization, which is from -- up and down, there are sort of these general loyalty aspects that are taken care of, at the top of the hierarchy sort of handing down and controlling the bottom of the hierarchy and binding the different parts together. But when we are doing it bottom-up, it really requires some loyalty to the tier above our own, as just has been explained and that is, I think, an unusual experience which I think we haven't often reflected upon in conventionally top-down organizations. Thank you. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks very much. Does anybody else have anything by way of -- as I'm calling it high-level goals but, you know, we've sort of been circling around -- for the GNSO as a whole before we start getting into the specifics of the meeting? Okay. Great. So I think we've got some good points there to get an understanding about how we're positioning ourselves as the GNSO. So now we need to make sure that the -- when we talk about the objectives of the meeting, that we're upholding all of these key points, that every objective of our meeting helps deliver on what these are, okay? So now we walk into the meeting tomorrow. What do we hope to get out of the meeting? Not talking -- I'm talking the results here. Not talking about this collaborative stuff, not to come out looking like we're -- you know, what are the direct results? What do we want from the ccNSO and what do we want to tell them? What do we want from the people that are, you know, going to be reviewing this and -- you know, from our documentation and things that are going to stem out of this? What do we hope to get? Anyone. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Understanding of their issues. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Beautiful. So we hope to get an understanding of their issues. Anything else? Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I guess the other side of that is to make sure that they understand not only our issues, but to dispel some of the mythology that there's been about, you know, the only reason we bring these things up is because we don't want there to be IDN ccTLDs, that we want to stop the fast path, and to make sure that, you know, coming out of that meeting they understand that we have concerns with the way some things proceed and some things are decided, but that we do support the goal of a fast path and that we do support a goal of, you know, IDN ccTLDs even though we may have issues and not see it exactly the way they do. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. So it's to clarify our position with respect to IDN ccTLDs. Is that fair -- a fair summation? Yeah? Olof? >>AVRI DORIA: It's clarification, but that clarification really needs to dispel some mythology. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: And so it's more than clarification. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right, right. >>AVRI DORIA: Some of it is demystification. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. And hammering home, right? Getting them to understand. Is one of the goals of the meeting to solve the -- what the -- the apportionment issue? Avri, not you yet. Edmon? >>AVRI DORIA: Classification, you mean. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sorry. The classification issue. Thank you. The who gets what issue. How about that? >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess that's unavoidably going to be part of the discussion, but I wouldn't go so far as to try to solve it. But I would like to go so far as to go down the road of solving it. And maybe one of the things -- objectives of that that is achievable may be to come to terms to -- I guess to agree to work together on a working group or some sort of mechanism to start the discussion of how we resolve this issue. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. That's -- I think -- more that you've said that we would be happy to not necessarily solve it, but to go down the road towards solving it, right? >>EDMON CHUNG: And have them agree that it requires solving, because their letter back to us, I guess, is really that there's nothing to be solved -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. >>EDMON CHUNG: -- is their current position as far as -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Really saying the same thing in a little different way, and I think a good objective for tomorrow would be to develop a plan or at least key next steps for working together on the issues that are identified. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. And what if they said, as Edmon said, "We don't need to work together. We've got this"? How do we react to that? Are we in a position to say, "That's okay"? Are we -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Can we put that in writing to the board. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. Good. >>CHUCK GOMES: I was being a little bit facetious. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: But, I mean, that's a justifiable -- I mean a potential response, and -- Marilyn, go for it. >>MARILYN CADE: I just said something to Olga that I'm now going to say to you guys so it will be on the transcript. Just looking at this as a former consultant in organizational development and design, I have a piece of feedback about communication styles. When you send a letter to "the board" as opposed to an exchange of communication with each other -- and I'm just worried right now that, you know, we're saying, "What if they say no?" And our answer is, "Well, we'll tell the board." How about a different approach -- >>AVRI DORIA: I'd like to, before that, there were extensive discussions -- >>MARILYN CADE: I know, I know. >>AVRI DORIA: -- with the ccNSO before the letter to the board and they were unsuccessful. >>MARILYN CADE: I know, I know. But I just think we need to pause for a minute and see if we can think about other options before we go to the "We're just going to report to the board we can't work together." I know there's been lots of efforts to work together before, but I understood the purpose of tomorrow was to maybe think about,you know, if they -- if they say no, let's think about what the alternatives are that we offer, in terms of how to work together. >>CHUCK GOMES: I apologize for my facetious remark. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Apology accepted, Chuck. But I think it's a good point. We do need to think about -- especially Avri and Chuck who, you know, will be largely the voice of us at this meeting, about -- >>AVRI DORIA: Correction. I will only be the initial voice. I am very much hoping that the council members are their own voice; that it is not just Chuck and I speaking, but that, you know, a lot of the council members speak. And also, I'll point out while we're doing this, this is also what tonight's dinner with the board is about, too. It's this same discussion, where you're all going to be at different tables with different board members and it's -- so, no, it's not Chuck and Avri being the speakers for us all. I start it off, but if it's not council members contributing in many different voices, then we're not conveying it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay, that's exactly what I wanted you to say. Let's be very clear on it. You are encouraging all council members to participate. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, thank you, Teacher. Thank you. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: You're welcome and move to the head of the class. Bring your books. >>CHUCK GOMES: Adrian, I think it is helpful. Unless people that haven't been too close to this thing get the wrong impression, several of us listened to the ccNSO call where they decided to prepare their letter, and I'm just going to share my opinion. I didn't find it antagonistic. There were different points of view. There were good questions asked. I guess what I'm saying is let's not go in there expecting a war. I think they are very willing to work together, and we should expect that and not expect the different position. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thank you. I just want to revisit where we were heading. So is it -- I am just going to throw something back at you. Maybe potentially you two could be the voice. Reason being is maybe it's our job to input into you and in order to keep our conversations concise and clear and to not get caught up in -- and bogged down in issues that may aren't as pertinent or relevant or whatever -- hang on, Chuck -- what do other people think about maybe this is our chance now to input to you what we're thinking and let you be a single succinct voice or two voices in order to carry the council? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Adrian, if I may, that may be a good question to ask towards the end of the session rather than the beginning. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: At which point, we will know if we have a clarified objective and strategy, huh? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Great, yeah. I guess I am putting it more out there to think about rather than to try to get a definitive answer for now, for sure. Thank you, Philip. >>AVRI DORIA: Can I add an answer? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes, you may. >>AVRI DORIA: I don't believe that Chuck and I, even if we're saying all the right words, can express it in the way that Olga would, that Edmon would, that Philip would. In other words, even if we are expressing the same idea -- I'm hoping at-large we will be expressing a similar set of ideas -- we have different ways of expressing it. We have different places we're coming from and you know when I say something, it can be always colored as the -- you know, the NGO activist-type saying these things. But one of the things that's rich about the GNSO is that there are so many different perspectives, so many -- saying the same thing from many different perspectives has actually more strength than just the mouth pieces saying it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So long as you are saying the same thing. The issue I am trying to circle around here -- and I think Philip is exactly right -- is that if we are all clear on these objectives and we go in, then that will certainly work. Just going to remember it is going to be a moderated discussion, and we got to hope that when someone puts up their hand that they're reflecting -- you're saying the same thing. Therefore, I would assume that means the views of the council. Is that right? So when someone speaks tomorrow, they must be representing the views of the council? >>CHUCK GOMES: Can I jump in there? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes, you may. >>CHUCK GOMES: Two things. Number one, the exercise we went through this morning is really good context for what we're going to do tomorrow. So that hopefully -- and we anticipated that, okay? So let's -- Keep that in mind. I think that gives the freedom then for more people to participate in the conversation. Now, what I originally wanted to say on this line of thought, Adrian, is one of the problems with just Avri and I doing most of the talking is that in both organizations there are divergent points of view. In our case, especially with the exercise we went through this morning, we've converged on quite a few issues with regard to this. The ccNSO is not there. And, again, having listened to their call, I heard lots of different opinions. At the same time, just like with us, in the early stages a few vocal people will drive something that happens like their letter. So I think it is really valuable that there be broader participation to show that it is not just a view and you get different viewpoints. Now, I agree it would be good if we don't have different messages -- main messages going out but some different slants in terms of what we're doing and so forth can be healthy in it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay, great. Let's come back around to this at the end. I think Philip is right, depending how clear we are with our objectives and whether we get into any arguments further down the track will be whether that is appropriate. Obviously, we are leaning toward the fact that that is the way to go forward. So going back to the meeting again, what more do we want to get out? What else are we hoping for with respect to the meeting? What do we want to put forward with the ccNSO? Does anyone got anything else that's a burn issuing stemming from our document or stemming from IDNs? Robin, yes? No? Maybe? >>ROBIN GROSS: I don't think I have anything new to add. For me, the important issue is clarifying our respective roles in this process and the issue of classification -- clarification of the classification -- clarification of classification. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. I think that, yes, that's classification -- I keep trying to say "apportionment," and I keep trying to stop myself. Apportionment -- I just did it. [ Laughter ] Classification is, indeed, going to be one of the key issues, one I want to delve into in a moment. Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: First, I still think "apportionment" is better than "classification." >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Don't say that to me. I just got "classification" going. >>OLGA CAVALLI: It means something different. But that's apart -- but I accept the word. I think that we all want to avoid delays, ccNSO, GNSO, the whole community, the whole ICANN community and the whole world, we don't want delays. So if we know which is our role and which is our responsibility in this process, this will help to have less delays. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. I think we all agree -- you are exactly right. The most contentious issue will be who gets what, right? And we're going to go in there -- when I try to put myself in their shoes, what they're going to argue, they're scared that we're after a real estate grab and we're scared that they are after a real estate grab, right? That's what it is. Edmon, you are shaking your head. Am I wrong? >>EDMON CHUNG: I thought Marilyn said try not to use those type of words earlier. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Which word did I use? "Real estate grab"? It's us here. >>CHUCK GOMES: We want to allow Adrian to speak tomorrow. >>EDMON CHUNG: We are being scribed. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: You're right, we are being scribed but we all understand in the context in which we are talking with our real estate grab. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I think it is not only the classification issue -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Apportionment. >>AVRI DORIA: Right, apportionment, classification issue. I'm good at changing words because I forget them almost immediately -- is -- the other issue that has been sort of bubbling around the edge and that's the conditions, the contractuals, those things that we have some issues and questions and concerns with that aren't, I believe, on their radar at the moment, so that it's more than just the classification. It's is there something that needs to be discussed at a community level, not relating to existing 3166-1 names but relating to new names in terms of agreements with ICANN, memorandum of understanding -- you know, it doesn't have to be "contract." "Contract" is a word that raises a flag. It may be an MOU. It may be an agreement. It may be what -- call it what you may. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: "Agreement" in inverted commas or something. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Basically, that question of the GNSOs is a question for the community of whether something like that needs to be considered. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay, great. Chuck, you had your hand up? >>CHUCK GOMES: I question whether we ought to delve into issues like that unless we make such good progress on the primary issue. Let me break down the primary issue a little bit. It's not -- obviously, you know, I am not expecting resolution on the apportionment/classification issue tomorrow, but it's going to be really important that we find out why they think that it's so impossible to come to terms in that in a reasonable amount of time. And then once we understand that, whether we agree with it or not, to find out whether there's some room for an interim solution like we recommend in our paper that they haven't seen yet like that, I think that's a really important thing to get some feedback on tomorrow. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So what if we put ourselves in their shoes, what are they going to -- what do they -- you just said we want to try to get understanding of what they're thinking? What do you think they're thinking? Let me have a go at this, and let me put something out there. I think they're worried that we're going to force them to define what an IDN ccTLD is and what an IDN gTLD is. And if you do that, they're going to be forced to open up -- this is my opinion at this point in time of what they're thinking. They are going to be forced to have to deal with issues that maybe they don't have to deal with. So if the ccNSO just continued on, maybe they have a good grapple on just trying to get through the one by one by one suggestion or routine. But if we turned around and say "We need you to clearly define what you are going to go for," maybe that means they have to get the GAC involved. If they get the GAC involved, that will slow down the process. So from my opinion, I think -- and this is based on conversations I've had -- that they're worried about having to start to widen the scope of who they're talking to and, therefore, slow things down. And we're forcing their hand on that. Does that make sense, Chuck? So that's what we got to be careful about here. When we understand what they're thinking -- what are we forcing them to do by our actions? It's like we're getting them to poke the stick -- poke the wasp nest with the stick and the wasp nest may be the GAC, for example. For me, you get the government involved, and the government starts saying you want me to make some decisions about how many dot Brazils I have to get and what different variations. Avri, you are shaking your head at me. >>AVRI DORIA: GAC is already involved, perhaps stirred up. They're already involved. You look at the fast-track. It is ccNSO-GAC fast-track working group. So GAC is already totally involved in the process so I tend to see the fear more that people outside ccNSO, GAC, are, basically, interfering with things they are entitled to. That they have an entitlement to these things. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Avri, what are we worried about? >>AVRI DORIA: You were asking what we were thinking. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Based on that, now what are we worried about? Are we worried that the ccNSO is going to come out with a list of reserved names? They are going to say not only one but we now want to get dot Qatar for Qatar and dot Arabic for Qatar and we think they should be in the gTLD realm? >>AVRI DORIA: This is where I worry, where there is a sense of entitlement that doesn't have any a priori limitations on it by on an outside entity that gives that entitlement. When it is a self-chosen entitlement, it tends to be indefinitely large. And so I totally assume that they have the best of intentions to limit things at this point. However, once it is established as something they are entitled to make decisions on themselves, what decisions they make five, six years down the road in terms of 15 variants, 25 variants, and space collisions, let's talk about, as opposed to real estate terms, become more problematic. Unless the community can, basically, say "This is what you're entitled to" to both SO's, as long as it is a self-chosen entitlement on their part, it is not bounded. And if it doesn't get bounded, it grows. Just sort of a normal entitlement scroll that aren't bounded. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Organically, right? >>AVRI DORIA: Organically. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Question of clarification for Avri. Is this possibility endangering the security and stability and reliability of the Internet? >>AVRI DORIA: I think it endangers some of the other goals that have to do with the competitive nature of the Internet. Those are in the -- you know, it is stability, security and then we do say whenever possible to reinforce and protect the competitiveness. And I do believe these things do have a bearing on competitiveness on the Internet, yes. >>MARILYN CADE: I am going to make a comment about competitiveness here. It makes me very nervous when parties who have an interest and may benefit from decisions that -- policy decisions or other decisions that they're making, talk about competitiveness without really respecting the potential bleeding over the edge, I would like always to have council from ICANN in the room when parties that may have an interest in outcome, even policy decisions, are talking about these things. That's one point I would make. >>AVRI DORIA: I would point out that I have absolutely nothing to be gained from competitiveness. >>MARILYN CADE: Actually, I think everybody in the GNSO probably has something to gain from a stable competitive environment, but I do think we have to be careful about talking about competitiveness as though it is -- again, to go back to this morning, choice benefits users. And choice can be delivered by different kinds of TLDs, right? And that's one of the things we are trying to do which is to lead to a process that can introduce IDNs which would be another kind of choice. So I'm a little worried -- I just don't understand exactly what you're -- the point you were -- about it could threaten the competitiveness because it could enhance the choice. It might define who the different parties are that offer the choice differently, but it may still advance the choice for registrants. >>AVRI DORIA: It may, but that's -- actually, I don't know that choice was in the bylaws, but yeah. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: What if I could speak to that very first road up that said getting new gTLDs was a big deal to us. What if I said to you is it so bad -- exactly what Avri just said. If we let the ccNSOs have everything they want ungoverned, they go and do whatever they want, is that so bad for us? If that meant we had new gTLDs in six months' time, what's the impact to us? Where do people see the major issues of letting them have -- what do we stand to lose? Phil? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think that's a very good question because I think -- going along a little bit from what Marilyn was saying, to some extent, if desirable or undesirable names are going to be out there, an allocation mechanism is potentially relevant to the choice offering and, therefore, the competitive offering to the user. Now, if one system or the other produces that from the user's perspective, one may be quite neutral to that. There may be individuals that see certain names as being highly desirable as a commercial opportunity. I would regret if that appeared on the reserved list that was allocated to the cc space. On the other hand, choice of new names is only limited by the potential registry's imagination. It may be a real estate small subset of what's out there potentially. >>MARILYN CADE: Adrian, can I talk? By the way, I think we may lose something, and that is we may lose the -- I want to call it a framework of consistency about policies that may be important and may be important and may affect the security and stability of the Internet. So we might lose that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess, the -- I actually forgot what I wanted to say. Okay. I wanted to respond to Marilyn's point about "choice." I think, perhaps, in the short run, that may be the case. But if you kill the competitiveness in the new gTLD side of things, the ultimate longer term choice might not be as favorable in the long-term. So there is a balance there, not necessarily that giving everything that ccTLDs want is -- it may be immediately increasing choice but ultimately not as much. So that comes back to the question about should we get them everything we want. One area that I think -- at least myself or a lot of people are concerned about would be the scenario whereby certain countries actually have already stated that they're interested in any -- including generic names, that is relevant to their language that they're using. And that becomes a -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can you give me an example there just for clarity? >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess, the best way to put it is probably a particular country believing what we would view as a generic TLD, they would see under the policy making remit of their country because it is using a script that is in the language that they, quote-unquote, own. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Are you saying dot Hindi? >>EDMON CHUNG: Not necessarily dot Hindi. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: But I am just saying. >>EDMON CHUNG: Dot biz in Hindi. I'm completely hypothesizing here. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right, right, right. >>EDMON CHUNG: Let's say there is a country that believes that they have the policy development responsibility to determine all the TLDs that is in the particular language. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. >>EDMON CHUNG: Then it comes to a situation where we cannot -- we at least have to have some boundary and some scope instead of just saying take whatever you want and then we'll work with it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Do you think the ccNSO -- I will get you in Chuck. I got you in the queue. Do you think the ccNSO -- don't forget the ccNSO is governing themselves, and they're just going to throw open the doors here. >>EDMON CHUNG: I don't necessarily think so. I am just responding to your question about why wouldn't we do that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: It is a possible. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Based on what I've heard, I want to come back to a suggestion I made earlier and I'll phrase it differently. I think we need to keep our focus tomorrow quite narrow. Notice the different things, competition, wanting new TLDs, choice. As soon as we start introducing so many different concepts that certainly are related -- I understand that, in a large group -- notice, you know, we are not going to have every councillor there, but we're going to have 15, 16 people there. They're going to have maybe more. We will get nothing accomplished if we don't narrow the focus. There is one prime statement we made that caused the consternation and that's the classification issue. If we tomorrow can come out of this meeting giving them good opportunity to communicate and us ask questions about their concerns and issues regarding that, and if we can do the same to them so that there is good understanding there and end up with a plan going forward, even if it's a light plan to start with, we will have accomplished a lot in that group. As soon as we start going on all the side issues, it is going to take us off on tangents that are related but we won't accomplish anything that's really going to help us move forward. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks, Chuck. Go ahead. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I support what Chuck has said. I'll go further. In the last few minutes, we've heard statements that sort of implied that the ccNSO, given their freedom, will take over the world. And I think going into it expressing that sort of attitude is not going to win us a lot of friends. The other thing is things like competition. I could put a ccNSO hat on and say "competition means every country should have three domains, BC1, 2 and 3, dot CA1, dot CA2, dot CA3" so we could have competition there. And the word may mean different things to different people. I'm not sure we want to go into that path. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: I completely agree with Chuck. But how do we try to do that and also -- I guess, we should work with the moderator as well. I don't know. When we go in and set the stage, I think it is very important that we really focus on it, not only our side but also try to get the ccNSO people who are participating to be focused on the area that could really bring results for the meeting. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: If I may, Chuck -- thanks, Edmon. That's great. Exactly where I was heading before is the unfortunate consequence is we're not running the conversation tomorrow. There will be a moderator who we don't know will necessarily stick to this one question that we want to cover. So it's going to be difficult -- what are we trying to do, not respond in that case and try to draw them back and say, "look, we're happy to talk about this but we feel this issue is more important to cover now"? When you got so many voices, that's -- from our point of view, we are going to respond to issues they bring up directly. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: In conversations I've had with the moderator, the intent is to try and find ways where the fast-path can proceed with the sort of agreement and where a way can be found for the longer path to continue dealing with our concerns. So, no, I think it is very much going to center on the classification issues and how one proceeds to get IDNs out as quickly as possible without any serious barriers. So I'm fairly sure that the moderator is going to try -- it is only a two-hour meeting after all, and is going to focus on how we continue this process to -- you know, obviously what we need to do in this meeting is start a process, how we can manage to continue it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yep, great. So I am just conscious of time and, Chuck, we have to sort of wind it up. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is everybody aware that there is a very light agenda that has already been put on the table. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I was just going to ask if you could put it up. >>CHUCK GOMES: That will set the stage. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can you put it up? >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not there. You don't need to see it. I will tell it to you. There is a welcome, expectations, real brief then Avri and Patrick will have -- mainly Avri, is going to share -- >>AVRI DORIA: I can read it if you want. Okay. It starts out with welcome, expectations, brief context by Patrick. Then brief explanation of the GNSO letter. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Slow down, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Sorry. Brief explanation of the GNSO letter and its intents, questions and brief discussion to clarify matters; brief explanation of the ccNSO letter and its intents, questions and brief discussion to clarify matters. And that will be Chris and Patrick. Facilitated general discussion, focusing on key issues, discussion of how to continue to work together to resolve issues, agreement on next steps. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay, great. So I think that very much sets the scene. What I want to do to, sort of wind up and get some focus here, Chuck. Olof, if we can go back to the top of the whiteboard. I just want to run through some of these points and make sure we're on top. We need to remember that as Marilyn says there is a very collaborative approach for the top level. And I think the ccNSOs are just as keen to get IDNs and new gTLDs up and running as we are. So we've got that goal in front of us. So make sure when we're having these discussions tomorrow we're conscious that we don't want to upset anybody here, we want to keep the wheels moving. It is all nice and happy families. Okay? Yeah, I couldn't think of anything better. Okay. So skipping through, so the worst-case scenario, no new TLDs any time soon so that's in the back of our minds. The decisions we make, the way we conduct ourselves, we really don't want them storming out of the room. It is very unlikely, as Chuck said. It is not going to be adversarial as such. We are going to sit down and discuss the issues as amicable as possible because there is a bad result for us here. Collaborative as we said. Avoid the process. Don't stop -- avoid that process doesn't stop new gTLD, right. We talked about it. Again, for that dialogue, we are all playing in the same room. Shared perspective which is what Marilyn was talking about and the greater ICANN context. So more specifically about the meeting. This is important. So that they understand our issues and our goals that we clarify our position and we dispel some of the mythology and clarify the respective roles, ultimately to solve the classification issue, okay? These are key. And I think maybe if we were to take anything out of this discussion, that's what we're focusing on here and certainly the agenda speaks to that. Edmon, did you have something? >>EDMON CHUNG: I think there is implicit in there an we want to tell them that we support the fast-track but I think we should be explicit, fairly clearly, because that is one fairly important point for them. I know it is implicit there but it is just not there. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Let's say it. I agree. I think Avri did say early on in the piece, that the mythology around we're trying to deliberately obstruct the fast-track which is ridiculous. >>AVRI DORIA: Basically, there is an equation of having issues with the way fast-track was started, equates to being against fast-track. And what I hope to try to clarify is while there may be questions and issues about it, we support it. We support it with questions. And I hope I can say it clearly. I said it many times. But I do believe that any time you say "We support fast-track but we have issues," they hear "We do not support fast-track." And I think it is one of those things that is almost diplomatic language, that there are only successes and great successes and a success is a failure. And we're saying "we support, but..." and "support but..." means don't support. That's where I have trouble. Hue does one say we support fast-track? We think the goal of fast-track is great but we do have some issues? >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me make a suggestion there. There are two of the 16 statements in the executive summary that we went through this morning that I think are very good ones and are worded quite well. We may not need the whole thing in the case of the second one. One of them is that we support getting IDN TLDs in as soon as possible for both. The second one is that we -- I don't have it in front of me, but we support the fast-track, that particular one. I think it is worded quite well. We are not going to get totally away from "we support it but what if." >>AVRI DORIA: I can even read those as part of my introduction. >>CHUCK GOMES: You could read them and say this is something that's near completion and we will finalize it on Wednesday and be submitting it to them. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I think that's a great idea and it speaks to exactly what Edmon brought up. It's about, you know, actually coming out and saying that we support it. Werner, did you -- >>WERNER STAUB: Yes. I just really meant to say that rather than saying "support," say "we urge the ccNSO to speedily proceed with this fast-track," as opposed to just "support." We share an interest in that being a success, not just because -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I think I agree with you to say that we share an interest. Avri doesn't agree with you with the speedy part, I think. >>AVRI DORIA: No, I actually have no problem with the speedy part. I have trouble with the -- again, and I think that this is the issue we keep coming back to. You said "speedily" ask the ccNSO to do it, and I think one of the things we've been saying is that there are some issues in this that require us, as a community of GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, SSAC, et cetera, to work together. And so I have no problem with the speedily do it. It's the speedily do it as a community -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Gotcha. >>AVRI DORIA: -- not as a ccNSO and that is the crux of the issue. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Perfect. So I'm not sure where we got to on the -- on the list now, but -- where am I? Sorry? >>OLOF NORDLING: [inaudible] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: All right. To solve the clarification issue, to agree -- >>OLOF NORDLING: [inaudible] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And, you know, actually what Avri just said sort of ties that all together very nicely: To agree in a meeting to work together down the road of solving it. The key word there being "together." To develop and plan key next steps for collaboration. That's important, and we want to come out of there with some sort of plan to go forward with, that we can see that there's light at the end of the tunnel, and how we can contribute our part in that process. I think really they're probably the big key ones, other than the actual etiquette of the meeting, which, you know, once again we've sort of -- we've talked about a little bit. I think try to stay focused on the issues where we can. If we tend to get off, maybe it's -- that's where Chuck and Avri can sort of try to bring us, as a council, back onto the issue. If we get caught up in arguing on the side and the moderator is not doing their job, if our objective is to get a couple of these issues answered, maybe it's best that Avri and Chuck sort of try to steer from our point of view. Does that work with you, Avri and Chuck, in that regard? So everybody's got a voice, but if we're starting to get bogged down in semantics or, you know, a side issue, that potentially you guys could bring us back, if the moderator doesn't do that? >>CHUCK GOMES: Can we just give you a nod and you'll bounce whoever we need bounced? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I -- with -- I'll have to see the size of each individual, but I'm prepared to do that, yes. So look, that's ultimately -- from me, I'm done. I wasn't quite as prepared as what I would have liked to have been, given that I just thought of this. >>CHUCK GOMES: Hold on one second, though. I think there's just a little bit further. I don't really anticipate we'll get this far, but it would be good if we had a little bit of discussion a little bit further. Now, I brought this up this morning, okay? And this idea of an interim solution. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. Sorry. Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: You know, one of the things we can say is that, you know, as soon as they're ready to work together, we -- we'd be glad to put something on the table, just to start discussion. I mean, if we proceeded that far tomorrow, we could actually put something on the table tomorrow. But that's what I think we should talk about right now. I don't necessarily think we're going to get there, but if we do, let's be ready. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Let's be ready. Great. Good point. Thanks, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: And that's what I shared this morning in talking with Thomas, you'll recall, about, you know, could you really define some sort of a definition for what a ccTLD is and I didn't do them from memory very well, but there's -- there's two questions I have on that. Anybody really opposed to that as a starting point? Understanding that we're going to have to work collaboratively on that. And I'll read it in a minute. And secondly, if we were to do something like that, would we also be willing to throw in an offer -- assuming they were going to cooperate on that, throw in the offer that we would consider an interim, temporary reserved names category until they finished their policy development process? Keep in mind we don't have a reserved name category for country names right now. And so that's a gesture that we would do. Now, let me read you the three -- here, IDN -- and this isn't -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Read slowly, please, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. IDN ccTLDs will be TLDs meeting all of the following conditions. And there are three. Mapping of IDN ccTLDs to the ISO-3166-1 list must be maintained. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Hold that for a second because Olof is going to get this up on the screen for us here. Just while Olof is typing that, it's my intention to maybe take these notes myself, sort of put them into a bullet point form, and maybe just give them a bit of context, and then if everybody's agreeable, Chuck, and you think it's a good idea, at least some of the context ones that we've had, e-mail that out to everybody so it's in front of you for tomorrow and just -- it's reinforced about what our goals, what the meeting is about and everything else. Is that a good idea? >>CHUCK GOMES: Sounds fine. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: The second one: Any added IDN label for a country or territory -- I fixed it -- [Laughter] >>CHUCK GOMES: -- designated in the ISO-3166-1 list should be for the sole purpose of benefiting the language community or communities designated by the new label. You can see these are right out of our response to the issues paper. And then the third one is: IDN ccTLD strings should be meaningful to the local community and should represent, in scripts of the corresponding country or territory's choice, a meaningful representation of the territory's name or abbreviation of the territory's name -- country or territory name in the selected script. You can see this I did this using old language. So that's just -- I mean, again, this is just a -- puts something in the ground to start talking about. Don't know we'll get that far tomorrow, but it would be nice to at least have a sense -- and I think we already have the sense from this morning that those three conditions are okay, in and of themselves. The question is: Would they -- would that possibly be a way of giving enough clarity, at least until they finish their policy process, to define the names. Comments? Questions? Yeah. Go ahead. >>NORBERT KLEIN: Can you please help -- Norbert Klein from noncommercial. Can you please help me to understand a little bit better the second one: "For the sole purpose of the designated language/territory community." What is this restriction or so? I'm not so clear. Thank you. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I'm trying to get my mind in gear, in terms of that one. Yeah. It really is the non-gTLD type approach. You know, it's designed to benefit their language community, which is a very appropriate role for a ccNSO-type name, in contrast to a name that is really not designed to benefit their community but, rather, to be used as what Dan pointed out isn't necessarily an easily defined term as a de facto gTLD. Go ahead. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah. >>NORBERT KLEIN: Just as an example, is this the famous china question, where china is something where you eat your soup from and it's not the country? >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm sorry. Dot china -- oh, the dish? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah. Like porcelain china type of thing. Yeah, it's -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, that -- yeah, that would not -- that would not fit -- meet these criteria. Yeah. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Didn't -- isn't there another statement, Chuck, at the bottom of what you've got there? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. That's the -- that's the reserved -- that's a sub- -- a follow-up question to whether we're comfortable with this kind of as a stake to put in the ground. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Because -- but doesn't that reserve then cover the China thing? You know, we don't want to deal with that now so we can reserve it for later. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, that -- the reserved thing is kind of a bargaining chip, really. I mean, they would, I'm sure, like that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Because are you saying that we want them to rely upon the objection process before we throw the reserved list in? >>CHUCK GOMES: No. Right now, if we go with our new TLD process, all they would have, assuming the board approved it, would be the objection process, which I don't -- I'm quite confident they will not like, and governments especially would not like, and we think that might work. Once they get their policy done, obviously there are probably going to be -- have to be some reserved names in terms of what they select, because we can't have the conflict there, but until they finish their policy, I'm saying we could make a gesture -- and this is what I want to know whether people are really supportive of this approach -- of saying that in the interim, until they finish their policy work and are ready to do the full-blown IDN ccTLD implementation, we would be willing to consider -- we would be willing to consider establishing that category, if this was the definition, of reserved names so that, in other words, new TLDs could not be introduced at this time, meeting those conditions. Is that something that we're supportive of? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'll respond. I say yes. I'm supportive of that on my first read. Philip? Edmon, I got you in the queue. Norbert, I got you in the queue. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: And I would support that, too, because ultimately what applicants are going to be looking for, although they may be seeking wide opportunity, by the time you get down to projects, typically what multinational businesses tell me is the most important thing is certainty and clarity. And if by creating such a list you are helping that certainty, that strikes me as -- as a most useful thing going forward. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And the confidence, as well, I think in that list. Yeah. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah. I want to make sure that the concept about reserving the names is by -- by criteria, rather than by a particular list, because, I mean, that would definitely create a whole sort of issue and that needs to be conveyed very clearly, if we're going to talk about it, because when we talk about reserved names, it usually comes in a -- in a particular list form. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. >>EDMON CHUNG: This, I mean, is a very important point. The other minor item, we want to just -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sorry. Before you step ahead with that, can I just ask a question on that? >>EDMON CHUNG: Sure, sure. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So you're talking about rather than having a exhaustive list, you're talking about we don't want to head in that direction at all. >>EDMON CHUNG: We don't even want to. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No. Of course not. So we want to stick with the categories in which we'll define that list? >>EDMON CHUNG: No. No list at all, but if a name comes in and fits these criteria, they're -- you know, they're gone. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. >>EDMON CHUNG: They're not new gTLDs. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: For now. >>EDMON CHUNG: For now, right. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Right. And you can move on to your next point. And Avri, you're in the queue. >>EDMON CHUNG: The next one is just a minor point, which for the few points, if we really get that far, Chuck, just to make it consistent with this morning's discussion, because it seems to be taken directly from the -- from the document. But, I mean, if we're going to get that far, just make -- use the one that we ended with. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I need to copy over from the latest document which Liz is going to be sending around. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Norbert? >>NORBERT KLEIN: I have now a very clear understanding of purpose of the designated language community, but as we have a very concise statement of categories, I still think the "sole" is not very clear, what kind of role it plays here, whether this is really helpful to keep it or just have it out. Thanks. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Go ahead. >>CHUCK GOMES: What I'd -- what I'd -- let's not try -- keep in mind all we're trying to do there is put a stake in the ground to be developed and worked further. We're not -- it needs a lot more work, okay? And you can -- you can imagine how much more work it will need from their perspective, too. But we're trying to facilitate moving forward. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I thought, Chuck, that what you suggested was, as an interim measure, actually come up with a list. Edmon said -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No, I don't think there's any talk of a list. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Sorry. I thought I heard as an interim measure -- >>CHUCK GOMES: It would be nice if we could come up with a list, but -- just like we talked -- I mean, we talked about that this morning. I don't know if you were out when we talked about it this morning. A list is highly, highly unlikely. It's just -- it's -- this is a pretty big category. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Edmon can share some dot Asia experiences with getting a definitive list together, right? >>ALAN GREENBERG: What I thought you heard you say was as an interim measure until you come up with your policy, if we could put together a list, we could start -- we'll use those as reserved names when we start deploying gTLDs. >>CHUCK GOMES: If I said that, I spoke incorrectly. Thanks for clarifying. You know, this would probably be a reserved -- Avri and I were talking on the side on this. This would probably be a reserved category that we define by whatever criteria we put there, and then that had -- you know, you have to evaluate it that way. Kind of like the -- the xn-- reservations, you know, like that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Go. Avri next and then Philip and then was there another. >>AVRI DORIA: Just a brief comment. I'm not necessarily against the idea. I just think that once we have a definition of what that temporary reserved name category is, that the rule of, "There's nothing quite so permanent as something that is temporary" comes into play. That once we create this temporary reserved name category, eliminating it it's -- I can't fathom how we would do that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Philip? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. I think Avri may be right but I don't -- I'm not sure how we can avoid that. I'm just trying to think through the process of what it means of creating this -- this criteria base. And I suspect what it means is that we're agreeing that there are a set of criteria, and we then expect, over time, countries or whatever to -- to say, "Yeah, I want a name. It meets our criteria," and, therefore, a list is created. But it almost becomes an application-based list over time. I mean, that's how it would work, isn't it? Once we -- we establish criteria like that? >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly, but I don't think so. First of all, I think a list -- a description like this, a definition like this, would serve two primary purposes. Number one, it would define a temporary reserved name category. And number two, any fast-track IDN TLDs that they introduce would need to fit that criteria, too. Does that make sense? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes. That's what I'm saying. And would it also work in the negative, that that becomes a criteria to eject an application in the g space? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. That's why they would called reserved names -- temporary reserved names, yes, absolutely. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: All right. It has to, yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I think that's something they're going to want and I think that's -- actually, I would expect them to want that. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Great. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Chuck, I think we're about out of time, according to Avri, so is there -- are you happy with the level of discussion on that? >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody strongly opposed to that? If we get to that point sometime? I'm just kind of getting a sense of people's feeling. Doesn't seem like it. I'm fine. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. Great. So as I was going to say, thank you, Chuck, for pointing that last issue out. Hopefully this broke it up a little bit. As I said, I would like to have been a little bit more prepared. It was just actually lunch I thought maybe we could tackle this in a different way but maybe this is some way we could do sessions like this in the future and different people could do it and we could run with it. But hopefully, you know, once we talk this up, people have a little bit more of feeling more comfortable with what we are thinking as a group and we can represent that in our meeting tomorrow and it all bodes well. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Adrian. And, yeah, anytime you want to volunteer to lead one of these sessions, I think it went quite well. Okay. Just before we go on break -- and as I understand it, we have to trek outside, which is actually a wonderful thing to have to do -- to find more coffee. It's not in the room; it's out in the coffee place. And we come back in half an hour to talk about the schedule -- I mean the Wednesday meeting -- and make sure that we're coordinated on that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just one -- >>AVRI DORIA: Pretty much everything we did today -- and then I'll give it to you. Pretty much everything we did just now is probably useful for tonight's dinner. It's similar points, different audience, and we will be passing out a revised copy of the executive summary at -- for each of the tables, so that people will have that to refer to. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I was just going to actually suggest that maybe we take 10 minutes at the beginning of our next session to just make sure everybody's comfortable with the discussion we're hoping to generate -- >>AVRI DORIA: No problem. >>CHUCK GOMES: -- on that, yeah. Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Have good coffee. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Also on that, during that 10 minutes, if we can work out what Sinatra tunes I'm doing over dinner tonight, that would be great. Just -- if we could just narrow that down. I've got "My Way" and -- I don't know. >>AVRI DORIA: I prefer to have you do some Dean. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Oh, some Dean. Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. Please. I don't like Frank. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Will you be my Sammy? Sammy to my Dean? >>AVRI DORIA: I don't think so. [Laughter] [Break] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We're going to start. We're going to start working on starting so we can finish. Okay. We might as well start now. So this session is actually two things. We're going to spend, at Chuck's suggestion, about ten minutes sort of talking about tonight's dinner with the board and this is the council with the board and the policy staff. We've sort of done the same thing as we've done before, semirandom tables -- actually in the past we've done sort of randomized tables. This time we are a little less random because we've made sure that we had at least one person who participated in the drafting team for this document at each table so that we were sure. So we'll be passing out copies of the revised executive summary which is kind of like the talking points. I'm going to, basically, give a little bit of an introduction of where we are in the process on what's going on and such. Say some of the similar things to what I'll say at tomorrow's meeting about welcoming fast-paths and being in favor of IDN ccTLDs and such and that we, basically, want to sort of clarify our positions and have a discussion with the board about how it is we're seeing things. A lot of people asking if we would be restricted to that conversation for the meal, and what I'm recommending is that through the appetizers and main course, as it were, that we stick to the IDN TLD subject. Once people move on to dessert, then we should feel free to shift to any of the other topics, whether it's -- and I'll say a lot of this tonight also -- whether it is the GNSO restructuring that as I understand it, the governance committee did pass that on to the board so it was -- it went from the working group to the committee and now it's gone onto the board. I have no idea what steps the board is going to take next, but I understand that it is at that level now. So that's one other topic. That had actually been an alternate topic that people had suggested, instead of doing the IDN TLD topic that we would have done the GNSO restructuring, but we already did that on one dinner already and because of what was going on with the ccNSO, I felt that this one was slightly higher need topically. So, now, Chuck, you wanted to sort of do something specific during this time. So why don't you go ahead. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Better turn on my mike. Again, for those who may not be aware of this -- and I think most of you except some of the observers that wouldn't have been participating in some of the meetings or online discussion -- we were actually talking about several different topics, Avri and I, for the board dinner. After looking at the preliminary minutes -- or the preliminary notes from the board meeting of the 23rd of January and looking at this particular topic on the IDNC and fast-track and so forth and the letters -- they actually focused on the letters that they had received from us and then later from the ccNSO, it became very clear that the board didn't understand our position at all, because some of the statements in there made by people, you could tell they were missing it, okay? So at that point, we thought, you know, this is a good opportunity to let them ask questions, to put some things on the table, and so anything each of us can do -- now, the fact that we have plants at each table, that's just because some people will be a little more versed in the topic than others, but please don't think that that's who we want to do the talking from the GNSO. That's not true at all. In fact, hopefully everybody that's participated in what we've done today should feel pretty comfortable talking about most of these issues. Now, in the executive summary -- certainly anything in the executive summary, if a board member or a staff member has a question or wants to comment, that's good. The first nine or ten -- maybe ten, and the last two, are probably the most important with the number one priority in my opinion for discussion being Number 2 and that's the classification one. And anything you can do to probe to make sure there is understanding would be very helpful because this is not something that people are picking up on. And some minor ones that I think are very important to emphasize are, for example, the two points that Avri is going to make in the ccNSO meeting tomorrow, one being that we want them to happen as soon as possible, IDN TLDs, and, you know, we support the fast-track approach, as we say, in Number 5. It is important if you detect anything that somebody is thinking otherwise, try to set the record straight. Like Avri said, there are some myths out there that we want to correct. I think that's all I have to say. Maybe some people have some questions they would like to ask or comments you would like to make. This really is a -- hopefully, a really good opportunity for us to make sure there's understanding on the board's part. I was interested to hear Avri say it -- I guess, it is not surprising -- that there has been some lobbying on the other side. Don't look at this as a lobbying opportunity but certainly a good communication opportunity. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Chuck -- I forgot my question. >>CHUCK GOMES: You got it? Okay. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No, I don't. >>CHUCK GOMES: Did you want to jump in? >>AVRI DORIA: No. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anybody have anything? Okay. Again, it's usually an enjoyable time interacting -- okay, Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Quickly while I've got it, so has the executive summary been printed out with today's edits in mind? >>CHUCK GOMES: They will be. >>AVRI DORIA: They will be. It's been sent on the council list. It has been sent so everybody can read it and we will have printouts by the time we get to dinner. I don't know where we're at in the actual process of printing them out yet. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And dinner is here? >>AVRI DORIA: They have been printed out, and dinner is in this room. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: They are in the printer. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, dinner is in this room. I assume they will reconfigure it because I think we have six tables? >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Six tables of about ten each and there will be names on them. >>AVRI DORIA: We did the put-names-of-everybody thing again, yep. Perhaps, what I think we can cover quickly, perhaps not, I think we can, I just wanted to go through the Wednesday meeting agenda and just make sure that we're all straight on who's doing what and what some of the issues or outcomes or discussion. Obviously, we're starting normal with our roll-call and statements of interest update. Then asking Denise again to do an update on, you know, board activities. So, hopefully, she will be able to report about where things are with the -- with GNSO restructuring and other things, sort of what the board has done so far in the meeting since our last meeting. Then I'm asking Edmon, again, to give a liaison update on the IDNC and that's largely things that will happen tomorrow. I guess, there is 8:30 meeting and there is a workshop. It doesn't include the ccNSO/GNSO interaction. I don't know if we need to talk about it, but there may be stuff that's new in the IDNC to report. >>EDMON CHUNG: Actually, I wonder whether it's appropriate to raise it then, and that is whether we want to have a response to the initial report that was, you know, published. I mean as GNSO to make a formal response to that paper. I think we should, but... >>AVRI DORIA: I think that's a good recommendation for you to make. And then I think, you know, we would just -- assuming that the rest of the council was willing, we do one of those drafting teams again to work with -- I think the five people that are our -- well, we got two of you that are representatives, and I don't know if Charles has -- I haven't seen him be active yet, but you and Charles need to be part of it. Then we have Olga and Cary who are sort of the second and myself and anyone else, I think, that's in the GNSO that wants to help draft that should. And I think you should freely draw on the five participants and observers, but find out, you know, if there is anyone else in the GNSO that wants to help draft it. And I would almost instinctively think that since you have taken very much the lead in this, that this is a drafting team that, perhaps, you would want to take responsibility for. But that would be up to, you know, the group and talk about it, but that would be my instinct on it since you've very much taken leadership on this one, which I think is great. So, yeah, we can bring that up and perhaps we can discuss it a little bit more then and then go on. Then the next topic is the response to the IDN questions, which -- and I hope that we can get to a vote on it. We start out with a brief report. Chuck, can you give that brief report? Does that make sense to you in terms of reporting where we are and what we're at? I can do it. You can do it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Which one are we talking about -- >>AVRI DORIA: We are now at Item 6. The way the agenda is set up, we have two topics that we're doing what I have been calling the cyclical approach to. We give a brief report. We open it up to public discussion which includes both people in the house and those of us in the council and then at the end we then determine if we could take a council action. We've got a proposed motion that no one's actually made yet, but we do have a proposed motion on accepting this IDN response. We'll need to discuss. We'll need to see if we're there and ready to take a vote on that. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm more than willing to do that. It might be good if we just take a couple minutes here to make sure we're all together on what should be done there. Do you think that maybe -- we're obviously going to have people that aren't well-versed in it. Should I go through the executive summary? >>AVRI DORIA: If so, it would be very quickly. We don't want to take a lot of time. The agenda has been up there for a while with the -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Maybe go through the -- trying to think. You can eliminate a few of the things that we probably don't want to get into too much, the confusingly similar -- or the variants and stuff like that we probably don't want to read true. But some of the ones -- >>AVRI DORIA: In some ways, we want to make the main points we are making tomorrow. >>CHUCK GOMES: Rather than reading it in, unless they're really short, just give the gist of it and refer them to the document. Now, are documents going to be available in the audience? This might be pretty significant? >>AVRI DORIA: I think they can pull them down. I don't know. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: I'm just a little bit concerned of how we handle this because the way we're formatting -- the format that we're using for our meeting is going to be relatively open and people would be lining up for comments. If we start going through it point by point -- going through the executive summary in any capacity, I worry the line would just suddenly become a very long line. >>CHUCK GOMES: What would you recommend? What are you recommending in terms of -- >>EDMON CHUNG: I don't know. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, okay. It seems like we've got to give a little bit of information because we're going to have a lot of people there that will be clueless. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, but -- I guess, I have a hope that, yeah, the people that will mostly comment are the ones that have been concerned enough to at least read a version of it. I would really recommend giving a brief report on, you know, we had a design team. Then we had a full and open meeting -- a drafting team. Then we had a full and open discussion on Monday where we did some wordsmithing and then give perhaps a selected view of some of the top points that we wish to make about fast-tracks and IDNs and community classifications and then go on from there. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. >>EDMON CHUNG: You mean the least controversial ones. >>AVRI DORIA: Right, bring up the things that people will want to say when they get in the line. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess -- well, I just want to clarify my suggestions really. More -- I guess what Avri is also saying is more of the motherhood statements about we support the IDN -- the fast-track and the overall stuff and try not to get any level into the details and just refer them to the document. It seems like you want to -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you suggesting that I shouldn't mention the classification one? It seems to me it is really -- we really should mention that one. That's the biggy. >>AVRI DORIA: Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I think I am with Edmon on this one. Is it possible to do just another sort of iteration of your summary that you are going to be doing tonight and then tomorrow of -- which is essentially the crux of the document? >>CHUCK GOMES: I was going to ask what you wanted done tonight at the board before we actually start discussion. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Well, normally I get up in front of these things and I blather on for a bit about what we're talking about, and I certainly plan to mention some of the top-level statements, though I wasn't planning to avoid mentioning classification and community discussion and -- community bottom-up discussion to arrive at some of that notion. I certainly didn't get -- intend to get into any details of and some of the hard questions. But I didn't intend to avoid the fact that there is a concern over classification, that it's an issue. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So if Chuck can emulate that and maybe not get into the specifics of the executive summary, for example, and putting that up and going through that but, moreover, just mention, as you would do, Avri, in your summary, is that -- Edmon, is that approaching -- I mean, is that a good compromise? Rather than speak to the specifics of the executive summary, talk about that there is an executive summary and some of the issues and just sort of gloss over them, moreover? >>EDMON CHUNG: I think that would work, not so much crossover but... >>AVRI DORIA: Describe at a very high abstract level. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thank you very much, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. And the other thing is to mention, I think, it is also important to mention that the structure of the document has an executive summary but that it also has detailed answers to every question that was asked. And one has to look at both of those to know what the document says. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And if you want a copy, "They are in Arabic in the back of the room, please go read one." Just do that, that will stop them from asking questions. >>AVRI DORIA: They are online. I don't think they will be in the back of the room. They will be online in English. Yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think one of the things that's important to emphasize that was done here also is these are answers to questions, not the definitive superset of all thoughts we have about IDN and ccNSO. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Okay. So, basically, it will be a brief report and I think should be, you know, in the range of five minutes, when I think of brief reports, five, ten minutes, certainly not longer than that. We've got, basically, giving 45 minutes or so, an hour to these things. >>CHUCK GOMES: Do you want any council discussion before the public discussion? >>AVRI DORIA: I think public discussion, council discussion can be mixed. I think one of the things that came up that on these discussions we didn't have to -- us talk, them talk, us talk. >>CHUCK GOMES: Good. >>AVRI DORIA: And then we get to a point when it is at the end when we take action that it becomes a council discussion about, you know, the action. But yeah. Okay. So we've got that one. Then we take a break because we should have worn ourselves out by then. Then we come to the second of the sort of cyclical sessions on domain tasting where, again, we have a brief report. Now, I'm not sure who should give that brief report on where we're at on the domain tasting. We've had a drafting team. Of course, it is unfair to volunteer Mike when he is not in the room, but then again that's what you get for not being in the room. Or Olof, I could volunteer you or you are volunteering yourself. To, basically, give a brief report of what's gone down and where we've gotten to. Now, the fact is we do have a motion on the table, but it hasn't been made by anyone, and as far as I know, there haven't been any discussions on the list yet about clarifying any of the of the bracketed wording, so we still have some bracketed wording. So I would say we have a motion that is in discussion at the moment. I don't know if people want to comment. Yeah? >>OLOF NORDLING: Olof here. Just to make a brief update, would a couple of slides on where we are, what has happened since -- well, the latest steps and the launch of the final report and then hand it back to you to introduce your motion or whatever. >>AVRI DORIA: And then I can, basically, bring up -- that's a good idea -- that we have a motion on the table that still has some bracketed text and that that is available. I can put it up on the screen if we get to that point. And then, perhaps, I can go through the possibilities we talked about yesterday that we can, basically, decide -- and I would like to get to the council obviously not to decide on the motion at Wednesday's meeting, but if we can to decide how we are going to proceed. One of the options for proceeding is that we finish the wording of this motion and vote on it at our next meeting and that, basically, we do that work over the mailing list and, basically, come to final wording and take a vote. That's one option. The second option is that. The second option is that we go back and try and get an updated impact statement from the various constituencies on the recommendation in the motion, and then vote on the motion. So there would be a step where there's the work of collecting either updated impact statements or new specific impact statements to that. And then there's a third possibility that's sort of bifurcated, which is putting together a working group, either one as recommended by Bruce recommended -- which is sort of an implementation working group of looking at this and looking at some of the issues like 5%, 10%, N percent, how do we decide what's a reasonable number, doing the analysis that gets us to that reasonable number -- and then there's a full-fledged working group that takes these issues and goes further. In either case of doing a working group, it's an open working group that, you know, does outreach and that we need to make a decision -- and I'd like to make it Wednesday, if we can, and so this is something that people could talk about in their constituency and we could also take the feedback of people in the house -- is, you know, which of those tracts do we want to follow? And from talking to people, I've gotten the impression that there's, you know, supporters of almost all those tracts among us, so we really need to make a decision. And I would like to come out of that meeting, if we can, knowing that we need to do, and then we can follow through on that. Comments? What do people think? And then we open it for discussion. Yes, Alan. Oh, did you want to -- >>CHUCK GOMES: That's all right. He can go first. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I know Mike was planning to come up with some sort of revised document and perhaps motion, and I assume we'll see that later today or tomorrow. I find it hard to believe that we're going to come to closure and vote on a motion on Wednesday. I know -- I know Mike would love to see that happen, but that's stretching reality, I think, a little bit too much. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. It's not only stretching reality -- and I don't know that there's a strict requirement on it, but my issue with actually doing a vote -- and I know that, you know, Mike and the group and others did get the motion up there in time to talk about it. Unfortunately, we're really pressing on the final report, having just been released, that -- just giving it one more meeting. So I think that giving it one more meeting is getting the vote on it as soon as possible. But if the council is ready to vote on it on Wednesday, then I think we should. But that would -- that would sort of -- if there was any constituency, or more than one constituency, that felt that they weren't ready on it, by and large, the practice we have followed is anytime there was at least one, if not more, constituencies that said, "Whoa, we're not ready yet," we delayed it a meeting to give people time to get ready. So I'd be surprised if we were ready. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Well, and I'm speaking as one of the working group members that I don't think we have something that's rock-solid enough that we really want to go forward with it. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Not everyone agrees. On the other hand, sometime we need to have the discussion -- and it would nice to have it before Wednesday, but Wednesday if necessary -- on which of the other two options do we pick. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And I think that's something for the constituencies to have opinions on first, and so I think people need to talk about those things -- I guess it's Tuesday -- so I don't know how much time between the end of constituencies talking about them -- but then again, that's one of the things that often happens in the evening. We sit around tables after constituency day at the event and see if people can't come to conclusions. And if we do, we do, but any other comments on how we should follow? Yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I know Mike isn't here. It is just possible he'd happy to lead the discussion on that, so I suggest perhaps we give him the option, and I and Olof can coordinate on that, and if the answer is yes, he does it. If the answer is no, then we ask Olof indeed to do so, yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: In other words, have Olof do a first history, then have Mike do a -- a specifics on the motion? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Perhaps, yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. Sure. No, that's -- I'm totally flexible. So we could certainly, if Mike wants to work it out, Olof could do his introduction, I could sort of set the stage and then Mike could specifically go into the motion. Sure. If that's the way it works out. Anything else that we should cover on that? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Just a request, Avri. Especially -- and maybe only -- with regard to the options that constituencies should discuss on Tuesday, I think it would be very helpful if you sent an e-mail to the council asking the constituency reps to do everything within their power to make sure that -- >>AVRI DORIA: Sure. Yeah, yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Because what you described there -- then I think we're owl on the same paining and hopefully all of us getting the same kind of discussion going. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I will do so tonight, hopefully before dinner, unless this meeting goes too long. But I'll do it tonight before I sleep. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not for a long dinner -- a long -- I'm not for that either. >>AVRI DORIA: Not for a long dinner. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Then after that, basically the next topic is: Status update on -- yes. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Avri, sorry. I apologize for interrupting you. >>AVRI DORIA: That's quite all right. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I just thought it was perhaps the time. One of the things that I notice is missing from the entire agenda and my apologies for not seeing it earlier, of course, is GNSO reform, and I suspect there's going to be a number of people in the audience who are champing at the bit to comment there as well -- as, indeed, they will be during the public forum subsequently. I just wonder if perhaps, particularly as this is an interactive open session of council, that maybe we could consider deferring some of the reporting items either earlier in the agenda or, indeed, the ones you're about to get onto in favor of a session on that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me ask a question. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: In follow-up to what he said, could we eliminate Item 8? >>AVRI DORIA: Could we eliminate what? >>CHUCK GOMES: Item 8. >>AVRI DORIA: The status update? Well, this is actually a very brief item and I was thinking that there was basically, you know, 5 to 15 minutes throughout the whole thing. It's basically just to let people know where we were on these other processes. That these were not an open discussion item; they were only a give an update. Now we could avoid that. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Well, an alternative is reordering the agenda slightly, deferring items 3, 4, 5 and 8 until the end, and inserting before that GNSO forum discussion. If we have time for the lot, we got time for the lot. If we don't, we don't and we just carry this over to our next meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: So putting -- and is putting GNSO restructuring right after -- right at the beginning of the agenda? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No. I'm saying take -- well, potentially, but perhaps -- I mean perhaps at the beginning of the agenda we should have the discussion where you want a council action point. I think it's IDNs. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. We definitely want IDNs. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I mean we could happily take 3, 4, 5 and 8 right at the end, so we basically jump almost instantly into IDNs. And we then have tasting, we then have reform, and we then have everything else if there's time. And if there's not time, we haven't lost anything, because they can easily be deferred to the next meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Part of 4 leads us into where the board is on -- in other words, that's where we get the status on where they are on GNSO reform. And is not necessarily the details but it's certainly what gets us to, you know -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: But other folks than IDNs, why don't we ask them to at least serially report on that and defer anything else that's not relevant to the rest of the agenda? I mean, reporting items,you know, are the least interesting in an open session. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Yes, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Two things. One, do we want to talk about the budget at all? The ICANN budget? And maybe the GNSO travel budget? >>AVRI DORIA: I was thinking that we would talk about that on our Thursday afternoon meeting. In other words, that we didn't need -- we haven't talked about that much at all and I was thinking that that's something that, you know, would be good -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: The travel budget we have. >>AVRI DORIA: We have -- do we need to do that in an open meeting at this point? And especially since there's going to be a whole workshop on travel funding and everything else. I would think if we reserve that to our Thursday meeting after we've seen what's gone down and decide what we want to do -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: There's no reason you can't do it twice but I just think my registrars certainly want to hear the conversation from the council to get some visibility on what you're thinking with regard to travel budget, but that's fine, I can take that. The other one is, do we need a half-hour break? If we're looking at squeezing things down, is 15 minutes -- >>AVRI DORIA: No, we don't. We certainly don't need to take a break as long as all the council members -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'd much prefer to discuss issues and make progress than stand by and have coffee. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. As long as all the council members are willing to keep on, you know, and get up when they need to and get their copy when they need to and Chuck takes over for me once, yeah. Then that gives us a half hour right there by just -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And of course we can judge it, too. Some things -- it's possible that we could reduce some time on some of the things. We did some good work today on the response to the issues paper, so it may be that that will go relatively quickly. We won't know for sure. But we can kind of read it. >>AVRI DORIA: So if we did that, would we then -- I almost think that the Item 8 would be the GNSO restructuring. And put it before the status updates and before the -- now, the GNSO restructuring, you want to do that as one of those -- as what have been called the cyclicals, where we have a brief report, have a public discussion, and do it in that manner? Is that what you're suggesting. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think it would be worth -- what we could do -- I mean, the GNSO as a council has policy on that. I think what we said in our last communication is probably unchanged. I think with the -- based on the new paper out from the board of governance committee, I didn't see any significant changes there as council. So we could report that. And then -- and then have discussion and statements from whoever wants in on that would be one way of doing it. >>MARILYN CADE: I have a question on that. >>CHUCK GOMES: If you wanted a -- I'm not necessarily advocating this, but obviously they have a couple of minority opinions -- one of the new things in the report is the minority opinions that could be focused on for discussion, too, which actually probably gets into the topics that people want to discuss. That would be an approach. >>MARILYN CADE: I have a question. You'll have to refresh my memory on what the council -- on what positions the council took, but I think there are -- there were some new things, the minority opinions being among them. Did the council have a position on prioritization of topics to be addressed? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Perhaps I should clarify. What I'm saying is that what we did in the council position was only noted down those things where council was basically unanimous on, and we were silent on all the structuring issues. So I wasn't saying there was not a change in what we had back from the BGC, but I'm saying that in terms of the council position, it's probably the same as it ever was and as a council we will be silent on -- on the structuring proposals. As constituencies, we'll be noisy on the restructuring proposals. >>AVRI DORIA: So I'm wondering, just in terms of thinking how we would structure this restructuring conversation, if perhaps we had a brief under- -- a brief review -- you know, 5 minutes -- on the council position, and then I would actually ask you if you were to give that, Philip, since you wrote it. You probably know it better than most of us. And then perhaps we could even open it up to brief statements by constituencies, if they want to, on their position, on the things we were silent on, so we could have -- and if we could restrict it to like a 5-minute statement from each constituency, 5 minutes takes us to 30 so we've used up our 30 if we do that. And that might be -- >>MARILYN CADE: Which means you need to be sure that constituencies -- that this goes back into the constituencies to work on -- can you just repeat that? >>AVRI DORIA: So basically inviting each of the constituencies -- you know, it could be the council member or it could be someone else from the constituency. >>MARILYN CADE: [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: Right. But the council member can defer -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Would 3 minutes per constituency work? >>AVRI DORIA: Would 3 minutes work? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, some of this stuff, we don't need to go tell them, "Hey, yeah, we think the PDP needs to be improved." >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Well, the council position, you'll give that one quickly and -- >>CHUCK GOMES: And, you know, "Improve the Web site," those kind of things. There's going to be some key elements of the constituency positions. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Phrasing of the type "I agree with everything but" would be a good start for every constituency statement, yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Sure. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So go through constituency statements. They don't all have to make one, but all the constituencies can make one. Then do we go into a public discussion on this one, or do we let this public discussion be part of the general open public discussion? Because then we could go -- in other words, then we could go -- that's sort of similar to a status update and then we could just go into the open microphone on that and they could cover this as well as any of the issues, or should we have a specific public discussion on this? I would -- I would tend to make it part of the open discussion. >>MARILYN CADE: Speaking as a member of a constituency who has a strongly-held view about the fact that it's -- there are supporting organization issues not just council issues, I think that's probably a wise idea because that then lets -- so you've covered the facts but you then let people come back in -- >>AVRI DORIA: In the open microphone. >>MARILYN CADE: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Does anybody -- so I take out the open discussion part here. Where did I lose my mouse? I lost my mouse somewhere. >>CHUCK GOMES: While you're fixing that, Avri, in your note to the council list on terms of action items, include the constituency statement. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have that one too, the 3-minute constituency statements. Okay. Yes, Robin. >>ROBIN GROSS: I've got a question about the constituency statements that we would be giving. Are you talking about the statement that we did like in December on this issue. >>AVRI DORIA: No, no, no, no. I'm saying a constituency -- inviting each constituency to come up and spend 3 minutes giving their viewpoint on whatever is important to them about the latest version that we've gotten. In other words, the -- the working group and I believe the committee have approved now a report to the board. Now, there's going to be an open comment period on this before the board makes a decision, but here's a chance for each of the constituencies to come and make a 3-minute initial statement of what they think. Either what they think is really good or what they think is really bad or, you know, whatever. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, there's going to be a public comment period, too, so there's no action by the board at this meeting on this topic. So everybody understands that. By the way, Robin, I think probably -- and I think it works in our case, having read your statement too -- I suspect most of us can use a lot of what we said, if not most of what we said, from our December constituency statements, with maybe some tweaks based on the changes that have been made. >>AVRI DORIA: But it's really a chance to prime the conversation. Okay. Then I basically was looking for short status updates, just so on the other work we're doing, you know, some people care where are we on the WHOIS studies, where are they briefly on the IRT. I was going to ask Olof: Can you give an update on sort of where we are on both the PDP and the transfer policy recommendation? Short? Yeah. >>OLOF NORDLING: Short and verbal or with a slide or two? >>AVRI DORIA: However you're comfortable. Yeah. I mean a slide or two -- >>OLOF NORDLING: Whatever you prefer. >>AVRI DORIA: Slide or two is always nice. >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: But, you know, whatever you're comfortable with. You don't need to do a slide but the slides always help. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a suggestion, if we do slides in the meeting, let's have all slide presentations integrated into one spot, so that we don't go through the exercise of having to set it up each time. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And on the -- where we are on WHOIS, Liz, can I ask you to give the -- and if there's a slide or two, that's okay, but just -- just a where we are in that process and what's going on in it. Just a quick update so we know. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a comment there. We're going to have -- we have some councillors missing. Would it make sense to have Liz and Olof up at the platform with us? >>AVRI DORIA: I -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Then they're at a mic and don't have to move around. >>AVRI DORIA: I have -- yeah. I mean, if they want to be, but, you know, they're welcome to, if there's enough seats. I don't see why not. But they don't have to be. There's a certain freedom of only coming up there when you got to, so I wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to put them in a position of making them think they had to be up there. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: But... >>CHUCK GOMES: It's easier to point fingers at them if they're up there. >>AVRI DORIA: That's right. And I don't know that I'd want -- Now, I don't know. We have an "any other business" there because one always puts an "any other business" in an agenda. I don't expect we have any, but if we do, we can cover it under that point. Does anybody else think there is any other business? Obviously we added one big one, which was the discussion of the GNSO restructuring report. If any other business comes up at that point, we can cover it. We don't have any welcoming or thanking or goodbye-ing to do, so -- and then we have the open microphone where, you know, any topic. So do we feel comfortable with this? So I'm taking out -- there really isn't session 1. There is just one session. I will go through this quickly at the beginning of the meeting, just to tell people, since this is a published schedule, I'll announce that there is 10 to 15 -- no break. >>CHUCK GOMES: Because of the agenda -- no, I suppose this revised agenda could be published, so if that happens, then you probably don't need to do this. If it doesn't, you might want to especially call attention to the changes. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I'll just go through it quickly. I don't have to spend a lot of time on it. I'll ask Glen if it's reasonable to publish an update. >>CHUCK GOMES: Also, we probably ought to see if they can change the master schedule of the meetings because it shows -- doesn't it show two with a break on the -- I'll look. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>TONY HOLMES: I just -- >>AVRI DORIA: Tony and then Olof. >>TONY HOLMES: I just wondering, Avri, having done this and left the discussion to the end at the mic, I wonder if it would be helpful if we put some time on these items as well, on to make sure we have -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I did have time on them and I should go back and put back in the time, because when I did the original one, I put in times, but I'd have to go back and find those at the moment, but yeah. Yeah. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Does someone have a copy of the GNSO restructure draft. >>AVRI DORIA: It's on-line. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'm trying to find it. I can't. >>AVRI DORIA: It's -- >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: I'll see that you get it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thank you. It's where? Sorry? >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So, yeah, I will attach times to things. I'll send it out to the group with times attached. I'll go through -- I did it originally, but I'll make sure. But each of the cyclical ones, I think I had at 45 minutes. You know, the beginning craft I had for 15 minutes for all of it. So, yeah, I'll go through and add the times. >>CHUCK GOMES: It's under "Current Topics." >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: I'll put a link to the main page, if that helps. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other comments about the meeting on Wednesday? Are we sort of comfortable with this agenda now? And does everyone that has a role feel comfortable with their role? Notice I'm trying to minimize the times that I speak. So a brief role on the -- okay. So Chuck is doing this report. Oh, I should capitalize your name. Okay. And the domain tasting, it's basically just for reference. Olof starts, I say something, and then maybe Mike with a question mark. These -- by the way, this is my -- this is how I take notes on the meeting. I take the agenda and I mark it up. So this is really my copy of the marked-up agenda. So... And the GNSO restructuring, okay, Philip. There was one "l" too few, isn't there? But anyway, the constituencies and I think those constituency statements would be without slides, or if there are slides, they need to contribute them to the common machine as opposed to doing a replugging thing. But I doubt that people would need slides for those constituency statements. Is that true? No one is paying any attention. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think so. I think it's true. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. And then Olof is doing 8.1. Liz is doing 8.2. There's probably no other business. And then there's open microphone. Anything else that we need to cover after this 2-day marathon? In which case, thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: And see the council members at dinner and see the rest of you around. [Laughter] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Dinner is at 8:00 is it. >>AVRI DORIA: Dinner is at 8:00 back in this room. Aren't you happy it's in this room? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I love this room. >>AVRI DORIA: And thank you, guys. Thank you. Okay. Done.