GNSO Working Session Thursday, 14 February 2008 ICANN Meeting New Delhi, India >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Hello, going to try and start quickly simply because we have a fair amount to do. We have people with early leaving schedules. So we've got to start. First, I want to get sort of a quick, I guess, check of who's here. So I'd just like to quickly go around the table and give names so -- we have -- also, if there's a recording on the phone, could that -- >>CHUCK GOMES: There's not. >>AVRI DORIA: There's not. Okay. Never mind. Okay. So please, just starting, Norbert, just give name and then also have a record of everyone that's here. >>NORBERT KLEIN: My name is Norbert Klein, noncommercial constituency, GNSO Council member. >>ROBIN GROSS: Robin Gross, also with NCUC, council member. >> CARLOS AFONSO: Carlos Afonso, NCUC. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Olga Cavalli, council member and NomCom appointee. >> Gustavo Gindre from Brazil Internet Steering Committee. >> (saying name) RIPE NCC. >>MARCUS FAURE: Marcus Faure, CORE, observer. >>CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes, registry constituency. >>AVRI DORIA: Avri Doria, NomCom appointee. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Mike Rodenbaugh, GNSO Council, business constituency. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Philip Sheppard, business constituency. >>JON BING: Jon Bing, NomCom appointee. >>TONY HARRIS: Tony Harris, with the ISCPC, council member. >>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade, with the business constituency. Observer. >>LIZ GASSTER: Liz Gasster with ICANN policy staff. >>OLOF NORDLING: Olof Nordling, ICANN staff. >>AYESHA HASSAN: Ayesha Hassan, ICC business constituency member. Observer. >> Is that on? >> Kate Dwyer, observer. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Who do we have online? Do we still have Jordi online? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Hello. Jordi Iparraguirre, registry constituency. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thanks. Welcome, Jordi. Is anyone else online? Let's get started. We won't be doing any voting or anything in this meeting. So worrying about quorum doesn't matter. What we're really going to be talking about mostly is probably a little bit of policy, but mostly about how we get going on some of these things. And perhaps we can try and resolve one or two issues at the policy level, but mostly getting some processes in place to be able to finish some of the work that we've got going. I have an agenda up here. I sent it out to the council. I've done a little bit of shifting around. The first thing I put was because of Edmon, who will hopefully be here soon and has to leave, and it's one of his top interests. The discussion on the IDN response open issues, basically executive summary items 5 and 9 seem to be resolved. I want to make sure -- and we'll continue checking online. But I want to make sure. Executive summary item 10 still needs some discussion. Then basically look at how we continue the DTN deliberations. And we basically have -- if there is a motion that's on the table at least a week before the next meeting, we could actually go in to voting for it. The other possibilities are, we do an update of impact statements based upon the motion. Welcome, Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: Hi. >>AVRI DORIA: Just going through the agenda. I'm glad you were able to do it. >>EDMON CHUNG: Just finishing the IDN. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. That's where we figured you were. So then the process for IDN. And then the third possibility is that we do a working group charter and do a working group either with a narrow focus, which is on impact and implementation of motion, slash, motions, or a wider focus, which is motion and other alternatives. Then we go into -- and this one should be a brief one, but process for dealing with new gTLD issue work. What came out in this morning's open forum is that the board was asking the implementation staff to basically come, discuss some of the issues with us. So I just wanted us to sort of get ourselves organized a little and process and terms, how do we want to work that. Is this something we want to get a working group set up for. Also, the process, start looking at the process for GNSO improvement work. Again, we've talked about, you know, some of the stuff we could almost start on now, even though it has -- hasn't been approved yet. Certainly getting ourselves set up for it, start looking at, you know, is it time to start thinking about working group charters in terms of working groups to put together those things. I'd like to start thinking about initial guidelines for the working group process that we'll have. And then we need to start looking -- We've got the budget in front of us. We need to start contributing to that budget. How do we want to go about that? Again, is this something that we want to look into starting a working group on? Obviously, there's a trend in the questions I'm asking, since working groups seem very firmly in our future and since, you know, one of the things I did pick up from the public comment discussions is that people are ready for us to start doing this working group stuff now, so perhaps we want to. Then a little bit of housecleaning stuff in terms of our meeting schedules, and especially the timing. I'm worried about the fact that we have one or two people that constantly seem to be stuck in the middle of the night on the meetings, and how do we deal with that and how do we all take turns at being stuck in the middle of the night for the meetings, even if there's six of us in a particular time zone? So wanted to have a little bit on that. I don't know if anybody else has anything else that we should be covering. We have a two-hour meeting. We don't have a lot of time. But anything else? Or should we start? Yes. >>OLOF NORDLING: A very quick reminder on the interregister transfer PDP and the need for two more constituency statements. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So that's done now? >>OLOF NORDLING: Right. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. Thank you. So, basically, going into the IDN response open issues, and I'd like to spend maybe 20 minutes on this, if we need that long, to see how we finish this up. It would be good if we could get this submitted by next Friday. Next Friday is the deadline for collecting information for the ccNSO's PDP. We had discussed wanting to have this delivered to them by then so they could take this into account in coming up with their issues report. As far as I can tell, other than perhaps Liz, you know, ending up with some final editing in terms of constituencies and cleanliness and whatever, we're pretty much done except for item 10. Now, item 10, I don't know, Robin, if you'd like to start speaking about it since item 10 is the one that you put on the table. >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah, I think it -- as I've said before, I think that the confusingly similar terminology should be limited, and I'm willing to say limited to visual similarity. However, if it turns out, as it appears to be, that this is a minority view, that it should only be limited to visual similarity, I'm happy to just submit a minority report on that issue. >>AVRI DORIA: So are there other comments? I mean, is there -- I mean, one of the things in trying to do one of these rough consensus or consensus with minority reports is to sort of make sure that the item has been discussed fully and everyone has sort of accepted the point that we've covered everything we need to cover. So, please, Jon. >>JON BING: Thank you. I'm sure this point has been covered, but let me just mention it, that confusingly similar is, to me, a two-edged sword. One is the edge that is sharpened by the trademark-holders to protect the trademarks. But the other one is the one we usually find in consumer protection legislation, which says that consumers have a right to require that the services are represented on the market in such a way that they are easy to distinguish and are not confusingly similar. And that is, in my mind, a justification for this point as well. That was not meant to open the discussion, just to, perhaps, clarify my position. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. As I say, at this point, I think it's good to have at least a little bit of discussion to make sure that, you know, we have, indeed, covered what needs to be said before we decide that this does -- you know, that we look around the room and make sure that there's no one that's about to sort of change their position and say, yep, it's right, we shouldn't have that, which -- you know, but I just want to make sure that it's been fully discussed. Yes, Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: I'm curious with the final report on the new gTLDs says in this regard. And we should be -- well, I guess, first of all, I think we should be consistent on it. And if we aren't, in this particular context, if we are at this point are not agreeing to it, maybe we should just take it out. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I don't know if there's anyone here from the implementation team that can give us feedback on it. I do know that it has definitely been one of the things that some members of the board have identified as needing further discussion. But I don't know where it's at at the moment. >>CHUCK GOMES: The -- I think everyone knows that in the new gTLD recommendations, recommendation 2 says they can't be confusingly similar. And the definition that's in that report is a broader definition than "visual similarity." Now, we've had, by the way, I thought, good dialogue on the list from a variety of angles on this one. So I won't take a lot of time expressing my viewpoint. But I also think that consistency's important. Now, I thought Avri made a good point, it may be a little bit different context in the ccTLDs. But, bottom line, in this particular case, we're not actually defining what confusing similarity is. So we're not narrowing it or widening it. We're not as specific as we are in the new gTLD report, especially in the detail of that report. But I -- you know, for us to tell ourselves, you know, confusing similarity is a broader definition and to tell them it needs to be only visually similar, that's inconsistent on my part to give them different expectations than ours. At the same time, understanding that they're the ones that are going to be able to actually decide this so they can deal with it. They may actually come back and want to say "visually similar" only, although I would doubt that. But, anyway, I'm done. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Norbert, please. >>NORBERT KLEIN: One problem is when you talk with people who have not participated in this, the confusingly similar gets a lot of confusion, say, can you say it clearer. And I think we should also be concerned about just internal communication, that what we present should be understandable to board members and so on. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, in the new gTLD process, that term was selected because, in some circles, it does have a meaning. So.... >>AVRI DORIA: What they call a term of art or something, that it has a fixed meaning. Someone could tell me that knows these things. I think once we start defining it, then we do get into the issues of, is it visual? Is it oral? What does it mean? And I don't even know that we're qualified. One of the other questions that I'd bring up is we say "must be" -- I mean, "must be considered." So we've got something here that we have a certain amount of insecurity about, not totally, and yet we're -- you know, we're putting on our strongest "must" word. And I don't know if we even have "must" in 2. I don't remember the exact wording of 2. But I'm not even sure we went as strong as "must" there, although I'd need to check. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'll check. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Whatever it is, I think it was "must." "Must not be confusingly similar to an existing TLD." I'm pretty sure. And I just echo the thoughts that we should stay consistent. We do have many pages, as I recall, about what that means. So that is guidance to the ccTLD as to what we intended. >>CHUCK GOMES: Except we're not including those pages in our response to the ccNSO. That's what I meant by -- In our response to them, we're answering a question. And we're not defining it like we do in our own. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. Well, how about if we add a reference back to that section of the document? >>CHUCK GOMES: That may be going further than I think we need to do in terms of their response. They're going to -- ultimately -- they can always come back to us and ask for detail. And we've referenced our new TLD report in there, so.... >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, we have a general reference to it. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'll have the language here in a second. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Jon. >>JON BING: I hesitate to put in a note here, but if -- you don't really have to define something to explain it. If the need is to explain what this is to mean, it is sufficient to characterize it, to give some major examples which are not exhaustive and therefore it's not a definition, but which will guide the understanding of the person reading it. And that often is easier to do than to try to do -- make a definition which has to be exhaustive and accurate. >>AVRI DORIA: Jon, if I could, I'd like to ask you a question on the response you gave to me. So I had been arguing that consistency wasn't necessarily an issue here, because since confusing similarity included more than just visual, it included the sound, it included, you know, perhaps meaning, although I don't necessarily go that far, but it included a lot more than just the visual, that I was concerned that when we started talking about the name of a country or a significant identification for a country, that in many cases, while, in different scripts in different languages, it might look totally different, it could very well sound exactly the same. It would certainly mean exactly the same. And I think the response you gave me is, that's similar but not confusing. Now, I thought about that, and I was thinking, well, when somebody tells me, "Go to, you know -- go to something something dot Foo, do I have to say, something something dot Foo in Cyrillic characters? Am I -- once I -- So I don't know. I -- basically, that was the kind of issue that I started to wonder where we were at on it. Yes. >>OLOF NORDLING: Just to make it completely unsolvable, what if it sounds like Foo in Finnish and Foo in Chinese. And they're totally different and they were actually written in Hindi? >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Jon, I don't know if you could amplify a bit more on the it's not confusingly similar, it's just similar. >>JON BING: Yeah. Obviously, there isn't that confusingly. It's combined with similar is that there may be cases where something is similar, but they don't confuse you. And there may be two cases of that. One case is when objects cannot be mistaken for each other, you know. The typical thing is that the trademark is registered for two completely different purposes. But the other thing is that when they are slightly different, but they actually, in effect, refers to the same object. And then you are not confused that in English they say Norway, and in German, they say "Norway again." Because in both cases they are the same thing. They're similar, just not confusingly similar. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I think where he's getting here is, confusing similarity necessarily is determinative -- or is determined by the context in which it's presented. So in your example, you'd be speaking in one language and say the country name, and the second level, in another language. So, while, yes, you're right, it would mean the same, and it may in a TLD sound the same, the context makes them completely different because of the language you're speaking. >>AVRI DORIA: I have Edmon and then Chuck -- >>EDMON CHUNG: Sort of the same thing. The example you've given is really not justified, because you're using English as a base language. >>AVRI DORIA: I thought of trying it in Hebrew, but that would not have helped us. >>EDMON CHUNG: I understand. But I guess it's not a fair example, because the whole context would have been in a particular language. So you don't have to ask or you don't have to specifically say which language it is. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, just -- I'll throw the question, then go back to Chuck and the others -- is, does that mean that we would only talk about an IDN in the language of the IDN? If we have -- and this is one of the issues that has come up before. If you have a speaker who knows both languages or knows multiple languages, is that still -- is that still the case? >>EDMON CHUNG: No. I think what happens is that, if I'm speaking in Chinese and I'm saying an English domain that might sound to a Chinese name, I would say, "That was an English name." So the vice versa is true. So what I'm saying is, that happens regardless. So it's not like if it's not English, then you have to specifically say it. It's because you use English as a base language, so when you're speaking about some other language that might sound like English, then you would specify that language. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I think we have to be careful. This isn't my main comment because I want to come back to what Jon said, but let's keep in mind that we threw this task over to the staff to try and work it out, so it's fun having the discussion, but if we try and solve it here, we'll be way beyond 20 minutes. Go ahead? You want to -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. But we were talking about the IDN; we weren't talking about the new gTLD. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, right. >>AVRI DORIA: We were talking about the IDN recommendation. >>CHUCK GOMES: I understand. Jon, I was really interested in what you said there with regard to the object. And the object, in some cases, is a product that's totally separate from the domain name. In this case, the object is the domain name, and I think that's a critical factor. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, please. >>MARCUS FAURE: If I may offer some procedural advice here, what you're trying to do here is press common sense into a set of rules, and I think you're bound to fail. If you look at trademarks, where you have a similar situation, you always have a judge that decides, "Is that confusingly similar?" And I believe here you need the same. You need a panel of experts who decides it. >>EDMON CHUNG: Can I -- I guess I wanted to suggest an edit and see if Robin would be fine with it, and it's, I guess, consistent with what Avri just said, just changing the word "must" to "should." >>CHUCK GOMES: That's what I was going to say, yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Robin? >>ROBIN GROSS: I would prefer to be more specific and say "visual," so "visual similarity should be avoided." >>CHUCK GOMES: Could I suggest as a way forward -- by the way, I think I'm comfortable with the "should" instead of "must." I think it's one thing to include "must," and our "should" may actually be more appropriate for them, and if they want to turn it into a "must," they can. Or totally ignore it. But Avri, it seems like it would be helpful if we got a general sense of the group so we determine whether that's a minority position or a kind of balanced position. And then of course on all three of these things, we could then send it out to the list and give about five days or something. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Certainly. I actually believe that this was mostly a chance to talk about it face-to-face. We've already got the list discussion. I don't think there's enough council members here to actually, you know, make -- certainly even come close to making a decision. >>CHUCK GOMES: Not saying making a final decision. >>AVRI DORIA: My impression -- yeah. My impression is -- huh? >>ROBIN GROSS: Not making a decision, but I would also be curious to know at least how the other people in the room perhaps feel. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So let me see. I certainly don't -- I guess I'd like to ask other council members to -- that haven't mentioned, you know, how they feel about it to talk about whether they agree with either changing it to "visual" or dropping the reference altogether. So could we, you know, perhaps just go around the room and get an idea. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Dropping the records altogether? >>AVRI DORIA: Well, there was two suggestions, and at one point in the discussion, someone also said -- I think it was Edmon that sort of said perhaps we would just drop that -- >>EDMON CHUNG: Because dropping it means dropping it from the ccTLD. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. It leaves it in our gTLD. It just doesn't put it in our IDN recommendation. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I definitely would like to stay in the IDN recommendation. I could live with "should." I think Chuck gave good reasons why we could live with that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: But we need that recommendation in there. >>AVRI DORIA: So -- yes, Robin. >>ROBIN GROSS: So my first preference would obviously be to drop that recommendation altogether. That would be what I would really prefer. As a -- as a compromise, I would be willing to go with "visual," if folks would be willing to buy into that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Yes. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Does it work -- >>AVRI DORIA: Olga. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Just one clarification. Robin, how could -- how is the final -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Olga. >>OLGA CAVALLI: How is the final wording that you're suggesting? So it -- how it could -- "confusingly similar strings should be avoided"? >>ROBIN GROSS: Well, my first preference would be to take it out altogether. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yeah. But if it's with "visual," I would like to know the wording, exact wording. >>ROBIN GROSS: I would just put "visually" at the beginning. I mean, I don't have the exact language in front of me, but just instead of saying "confusion" -- >>OLGA CAVALLI: "Confusingly similar strings should be visually similar" -- "visually similar strings should be avoided"? That could work? >>ROBIN GROSS: "Visually confusing." So just putting "visually." >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. I -- >>ROBIN GROSS: Go ahead. >>OLGA CAVALLI: What happens if it's confusingly similar, not visual but when you hear it? That's my question. So I would like to keep it with the "should." That's my opinion. >>AVRI DORIA: Would anybody -- okay. Yes, Jon. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess we'll pass the mic. >>AVRI DORIA: Why don't we pass the mic around the table and get everyone in the -- >>EDMON CHUNG: My preference is to keep it as is. I don't mind keeping it as "should." That would be my second priority. The second would be to take it away, the whole thing, if we have to make one decision. And the third -- which I would be very, very uncomfortable with -- is to just simply add "visual." >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Well, for myself -- yeah. I share pretty much Robin's opinions on that on the removal of this option or sticking along with the "visually confusingly similar" at the end, so... >>AVRI DORIA: Norbert, I guess you -- I don't know if you had more you wanted to say, Robin, but... >>NORBERT KLEIN: In spite of having tried to read the documents on this, I still have difficulties to see where anything else than "visual" comes up in practice. We don't control our computers yet by talking to them. It may come then in -- confusing acoustic similarity may come in. Now, I see basically in practice only the "visual confusing" as a problem. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Could I ask Norbert a question? What about "semantic"? What about "semantic confusion"? >>NORBERT KLEIN: Can you give an example? >>CHUCK GOMES: Same meaning. >>NORBERT KLEIN: Huh? >>CHUCK GOMES: Same meaning, not necessarily the visually the same. >>ROBIN GROSS: Like biz and com? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, I actually would not say -- because "biz" is an abbreviation for "business." I actually would say that "business" and "commercial" are not the same. So I don't think that's a good example. >>ALAN GREENBERG: We are talking about IDNs, aren't we? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, we are talking about a recommendation -- [Multiple conversations] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I mean Jon, what we're doing is going around the table and getting viewpoints and now you've got a mic. [Multiple conversations] >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. Clearly I think that it should stay in there just as it is. I could live with "should." I'll leave it at that. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I agree I can live with the "should" in the spirit of compromise, but I think as I said at the council meeting, what we've got in there at the moment is a principle and we're sort of wordsmithing an implementation, so I associate myself with the account we had over there a little while ago saying that we're going down a fool's errand at the moment. I think it's just not quite a robust enough conversation to make much sense. >>ALAN GREENBERG: All right. I support the summary that Robin gave. I think semantically and orally, sound -- whatever the right word is -- for cc's -- for country names, by definition they're semantically going to be the same if you have five strings that are in the name of the country, and I would suspect that there are examples of countries where they have multiple scripts, multiple languages, but the name is pronounced the same in all. So I think from both sound and semantics, by definition there are going to be overlaps, and it makes no sense to say they're forbidden. >>AVRI DORIA: Jon? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Or they may be confusing, but that's life. That's the name of the country. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. Jon? >>JON BING: I think "should" is an improvement, actually. The problem with pronunciation, as you must have observed or considered, hearing me speak, is that, for instance, English may be pronounced in rather different ways. So you have the problem of reference. But -- so I think "should" is all right. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Please pass the mic on. >>TONY HARRIS: Yes. I have no comment right now. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thanks. I guess that's it for council members. Sure. Could you pass the mic back this way? >>CHUCK GOMES: I'll be real brief. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, Jordi, can you hear us or are you lost in the buzzing microphones? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: I can hear you, sometimes I'm losing the sound. >>AVRI DORIA: Do you have a viewpoint? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: I would say that it's quite complex to really define that "confusingly similar." I mean, normally we are [inaudible] people from different countries speaking different languages and using different alphabets getting to define what is different or what is confusingly similar is really, from my viewpoint, quite complex, and I would be for leaving the thing as much open as possible, if you want, but also -- and I know that's very difficult -- trying to find a compromise. So I don't have a clear -- a crystal clear definition on how to proceed. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. I should give my -- oh, did I cut you off? >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: I'm still here. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure -- all of a sudden, I was afraid that I had cut off your answer. In terms of my view, I definitely think it will be improvement and I'm glad a lot of people said -- of going with "should" instead of "must," and I think that's more of a -- sort of a politeness thing than any sort of significant change. I'm still in favor of the "visually" as opposed to "confusingly similar." In terms of now -- and I know, Chuck, you wanted to make a comment more and then I want to move off the topic. My view, and I'll put this out on the list so we can discuss it some more, and that is that we've -- approaching a consensus on changing "must" to "should" is okay with most people, and put it on the list for -- and I think anything we do, because of the number of people that aren't here, goes on the list for more discussion. That we basically substitute "should" for "must." I still believe that there's a majority -- I wouldn't know how strong that majority is, but I still believe that there's a majority for leaving the statement in and for leaving the statement in as "confusingly similar," and I believe -- and I'll put this idea on the list, too, but I believe it would be following normal practice that in -- especially in a case like this where there's a significant number of people that have a different view, that attaching a minority statement explaining the issue would be a good thing to do. As I say, I'll put that on the list. We could talk about it some more over the next couple days, to make sure that the people that aren't here agree with it and to make sure that the people that are here agree with it. And Chuck, I -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure. >>AVRI DORIA: And where's the microphone? Or I can just -- oh, there's that one. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Just wanted to respond to Alan. I was trying to see where we might -- let's take, like you said -- I agree with you, there probably are different ways that -- different words that semantically mean the same thing in some scripts, okay? And so what we're saying then is as guidance, that they shouldn't be confusingly similar. One of the things we're saying, I believe, to the ccNSO, is when you decide what script you're going to use, try and avoid confusing similarity. In other words, it comes back to the variant issue. So you avoid variants, and I think that's helpful guidance. That's all we're saying. And if I can just add the comment: With regard to deleting it, which I don't think we're even considering it, the problem with that is then we -- I guess all we do is we put "no response" on that question. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I think that's what we would have done, but I did see -- certainly I didn't see strong enough support here to delete it. I mean, certainly within the minority statement, the people that write the minority statement can say that they would have suggested leaving it out completely and explain why, but that's a different issue. So I'd like to move off of this one now, except to say we're going to continue talking about it on the list for like the next couple days. Liz, I guess as far as I can tell, the first two are ready to go. The -- well, one of them was no change, right? The issue with no. 9 basically ended up no change, if I understood correctly. That you don't -- you don't have a microphone. >>LIZ GASSTER: [Speaker is off microphone]. >>AVRI DORIA: I believe so. It was no change. And Item 5 was the replacement of GNSO concurrence with community concurrence, and those two, I think, are done. There may be more comments on the -- >>CHUCK GOMES: And fixing the territories to country or territory. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And on this one, there seems to be a change to -- from "must" to "should" that will clear some more on the list, but I believe that's the direction we're heading, and then I guess Robin, you'd be taking responsibility as the one that brought up the issue in the first place to organize those who want to join the minority group in terms of writing one -- >>ROBIN GROSS: Uh-huh. >>AVRI DORIA: And if we're going to have this document ready by -- we're talking about -- we want to turn it in by the 22nd. In other words, we want to have submitted it in time for the deadline for the ccNSO PDP. Sorry, we're taking the microphone away and whatever, I distracted myself. So we want to have that by next Friday, which is the deadline for the ccNSO PDP. I want to do at least a 48-hour sort of last call with -- on the e-mail list to give everybody a chance to read the final one and make sure it's okay, so that would mean we'd need that by Wednesday, correct? Which means when would you need the text from the minority view? Wednesday. Tuesday? >>LIZ GASSTER: But to Rob and Olof because I'll be out. >>AVRI DORIA: To Rob and Olof. So you'd need it on Wednesday in order to get an uploaded copy on Wednesday? Yes, Olof. Actually, Olof should answer since Olof has to receive it. >>OLOF NORDLING: I need to have the -- >>AVRI DORIA: It worked. >>OLOF NORDLING: So we have the deadline for submission on Wednesday. >>AVRI DORIA: The deadline for last call, right, within the working -- within the council. >>OLOF NORDLING: For last call. And what's next from -- for Tuesday? The subsequent Tuesday when we have to have this mission or what? >>AVRI DORIA: Friday is the deadline on the ccPDP. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: And I wanted to make sure that it was available for that. Now, what we still need to do is send it off to the board, because that's who the answer formally goes to, because it was the board that requested this report. But I wanted us to have something that was final per the council in time to -- if we could, in time for the ccNSO's PDP. To contribute to the ccNSO's PDP. And that's Friday. >>OLOF NORDLING: Right. So -- >>AVRI DORIA: Should we should be close to final by then. >>OLOF NORDLING: Right. >>LIZ GASSTER: So what's the answer? >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. What's -- >>AVRI DORIA: The question is: When does Robin need to get the minority statement to attach the report to you by, for you to be able to, on Wednesday, put up the final for the council to -- >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay. Wednesday. Preferably before it's too late on Wednesday European time. Doable? >>ROBIN GROSS: I'm -- that's going to be really tough for me. I've got to spend, you know, two days on a plane getting back to San Francisco, and I've got a week's worth of work to catch up on. That's going to be really tough. Any leeway with that in any way? >>CHUCK GOMES: I certainly don't think -- >>OLOF NORDLING: What's your proposal. >>CHUCK GOMES: If you want the minority statement in, we can't turn this in on time if you're -- >>AVRI DORIA: I guess there's one question I really want to move off of this quickly. One question: Does the minority statement need to be in there when everyone else is reviewing the final -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Also, Robin, you've already drafted a lot of the minority statement on the e-mail list in the last few days, right? >>ROBIN GROSS: No. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Come O you cited all those cases to us. >>AVRI DORIA: I think it needs to be Tuesday. >>ROBIN GROSS: He said Wednesday. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Well, Tuesday -- [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Excuse me. Tuesday night San Francisco is Wednesday Europe. So -- can. So it needs to be Wednesday early European time. Wednesday before noon European time, is that what you're saying. >>ROBIN GROSS: Do you want to stop? [Laughter] >>EDMON CHUNG: No comment. >>OLOF NORDLING: I actually was really more generous than that, so... >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So let's move on to the next one. You have a good enough idea. Okay. So the process on -- oh, I did that again. Domain name tasting. Deliberations. We have a motion that's been suggested. Do we vote on that at the next meeting? Do we go to the constituencies and ask them to update impact statements based on what's in the motion? Or do we start talking about doing a working group to either, as I said, narrow focus where we just talk about the impact and the implementation of the motion, or a wider focus on the motion plus other alternatives? I think part of the feedback we got at the meeting yesterday is that perhaps a little bit more public participation in coming to a closure on this was warranted, which would mean a working group. And I open it to discussion. I guess we have to do the microphone thing. Did you want to talk first, since the microphone is close? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. I think that there are many of us -- and I'm pretty confident it is in double digits -- that will vote for this motion in our next meeting. As a compromise position, an idea has been put out that would make that motion -- and we'll just call it the restocking fee. We passed that as implementable in the event that all gTLD registries that have an add-grace period do not come up with their own proposed solution in the next 100 days. So basically, it gives the few registries, gTLD registries with an ADP that haven't done so already, we know who they are. It's com net, it's Asia. I think it's name. I don't think there's any others but they'd get 100 days to come up with a proposal, allow the NeuStar, Afilias or PIR proposals that have already been made. If they don't do it, then the motion that we have drafted and we feel like we have support to pass, would take effect. >>CHUCK GOMES: So is this a new motion? >>AVRI DORIA: It would be an amended motion. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: It would be an amended motion along those lines. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Edmon? No, somebody's -- you have to wait till the microphone comes to you. >>EDMON CHUNG: As much as it seems like a good proposal, anyway, it doesn't seem to address some of the process concerns that were put out during the council discussion -- deliberations earlier, so, you know, I think even -- I don't know, but I think probably Chuck can add to that a little more in terms of the whole process, whether we're good with that. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. I floated it actually, Edmon -- >>EDMON CHUNG: As I said, as much as I think it is a good, you know, proposal. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. I included it as a potential compromise but since it doesn't sound like it has nearly the potential compromise ability as I thought it might, I'll just revoke it and we'll go back to square one. Forget I even mentioned the idea. >>AVRI DORIA: Alan? Okay. Yeah. I had Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: If that's off the table, I don't have to make a comment on it. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. I just wanted to get a clarification from Mike. But you had suggested that we take a vote next time. Are you still suggesting that we're taking a vote next time? That's what I wanted to clarify. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm quite confident that, yes, we will take a vote next time. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We -- yes. I guess if we have a motion, we can take a vote on it. Now, when I read about deliberations, it really says that we're supposed to see if we can work towards a consensus position. I don't know, but I get the impression at this point that we would have one of our split councils with NomCom in the balance decisions on it at this point. I don't know if I'm correct, but I have the feeling that that's where we'd be, and so that's why I ask: Do we want to do some more work to see if we can't find our way towards a consensus decision. That's where, perhaps, a working group comes in, to see if we can't do some more work, bring in some more of the community, and see if we can't figure out -- you know, I read in your motion you mentioned that -- you know, that this is one solution. You certainly also mentioned that you had looked at the possibility of doing away with it completely. Perhaps if we had a working group and the working group was broad enough, we may find that there's some solution in that space that can achieve a greater consensus. I don't know. But are we ready to say that we're going to send the board a bare majority position that leaves it up to them to decide again? And I think that's where we're at, if we vote on it in -- you know, in two weeks as it currently exists. Okay. Who wants to -- okay. I think I'll just walk around with the microphone and that means I can talk while I'm walking. Does that one work? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Yes, I think so. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I would suggest, first of all, that we will certainly -- assuming the former working group, or whatever it was called, still exists, then we will certainly have a rework of the motion that we feel -- no? >>AVRI DORIA: If we go to a working group, what I certainly would propose is that we open it up and go to a wider working group. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Well, I was going to say that there's no -- I would see no problem with adding additional people on it, if we can do that quick enough. And certainly of the people, based on what Chuck was saying, who didn't participate because they didn't know this is what we were going to be doing, that should be able to be resolved very quickly. I still don't feel comfortable in saying we will have something that's ready to vote on in two weeks. I think we should have something well in advance of those two weeks to be discussed at the next council meeting. Whether it comes to a vote there or there's more input which causes it to be somewhat reworked and then done two weeks later is not clear to me. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: You mean a month later. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>ALAN GREENBERG: The 13th of March -- no, there's one at the end of February and then the 13th of March. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. We basically already have -- I mean, the board has done its budget issue and that is in track for the next, what, four months with the whole budget process. So I think if we either vote at the next meeting or have a new motion and vote at the meeting after that, we have one particular schedule, I think that would be the same schedule if we had an update impact based on motion and then voted like, you know, a meeting two meetings hence. I think if we do a working group charter, then we're talking about a several-month -- it probably could be limited to a two-month process, but especially if we went with the narrow focus. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Looking at history... >>AVRI DORIA: But, I mean, basically we -- you know, I guess my argument is, we need to learn to do these working group charters. It is the way we need to learn to work, and we have left open that until such time as we've changed over to the new system, we can use the working group, the open working group, as part of our deliberative process. So that becomes an option to try and work ourselves to something that we can reach a greater degree of consensus on. And that's what I'm looking for as opposed to another one of our quick majority, you know, one- or two-person majorities. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: If any of us on, you know, this side of the issue thought that more work would lead to a compromise position, we probably would be in favor of more work. I think we're fed up with it. There's been a lot of work on this, a lot of process, and we're ready to move forward. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: The drafting group, working group, whatever, has been meeting on teleconferences on Mondays or Tuesdays or something like that recently. We're clearly not going to do it this coming beginning of the week. If we put out a call right now for additional people for the week following, I'm not sure how that is different from creating a brand new working group and starting from scratch. It may be different on a -- on a technical ground, if we were working to new rules, but this is a rather ad hoc set of procedures we're following, so... >>AVRI DORIA: I guess the one difference is that a working group has a charter and a plan of things it's specifically supposed to do, and a term of reference. The drafting team's purpose was to come up with a recommendation for the way forward. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Even drafting the charter, terms of reference for working group, then getting that to a vote, that's going to be at least two weeks, probably a month. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. That's true. >>CHUCK GOMES: Looks like it's on, okay. Certainly waiting, taking a vote, and then seeing how that comes out, and then starting a working group, we will have lost more time. There's no -- you know, we have control over what we set as the terms of reference. We actually have some that are recommended from the outcomes report. And I've heard people say that a lot of that work's done. If that's the case, that won't be that hard to respond to. In the case of the registries, we certainly already have one volunteer. Well, I can give that today. What I'm saying is, I think we can expedite it. Mike, I agree with you, it takes longer to do a bottom-up process. That's a fact. But it makes the process much more legitimate. >>AVRI DORIA: I guess I have a question in terms of sort of Mike's statement, Mike's comment, that if he truly believes that there was a chance of compromise, he would be willing, is there a chance of compromise? I mean, is there movement possible on this issue? Okay. You have a mike coming right there. Here, you have a mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: This certainly has already been a bottom-up process. We have gone all the way through the PDP process in accord with the charter, bylaws. The group that I chaired had many, many representatives from all constituencies and outside of the constituencies that participated and came to conclusions, essentially, or suggestions of ways forward that were then put forward by the council after a vote for public comment and for constituency impact statements, which we have. And that's where we sit today. I don't see how getting more public comment and more constituency impact statements does us any good. >>CHUCK GOMES: We do not have any constituency impact statements on the motion that is before us, none at all. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: When have we ever taken constituency impact statements on a specific motion? >>CHUCK GOMES: On the new gTLD recommendations. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I -- I'm not sure I remember that. But -- I mean, that was huge, so maybe. But if we have to do that every time we want to have a motion, then we have to put it out for a comment period and a constituency impact statements, that's nuts. >>CHUCK GOMES: It has to be in the final report to the board. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: Well, Chuck made my point. It is needed for the board report as a separate item in addition to the final report. So, yes, at that point, we need -- we do need the impact statements. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So, in other words, after we pass a motion, then when the staff is preparing the final report for the board, then we take constituency impact statements on the effect of the motion. >>OLOF NORDLING: That's when it's absolutely needed by the bylaws. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Fine. That sounds great. >>AVRI DORIA: However, there's no saying that it's not useful to do so beforehand. >>OLOF NORDLING: Exactly. >>AVRI DORIA: And so that, basically, people have a chance to go back to their constituencies, do their impact appraisal, and then come to the vote. By and large, it's not covered in the previous impact statements, because this particular solution wasn't on the table when people were doing their previous impact statements. >>CHUCK GOMES: With regard to your pessimism, Mike, I want to remind you of something that I said, and I think Jeff Neuman said it in his comments yesterday. My statements yesterday I preface by saying it wasn't the content of the motion; it was the process. I don't know that it's really not possible to get a compromise position from the registries. The majority of our -- in fact, I don't think we discussed the content of the motion at all. People were bothered by the process. If we fix the process -- now, I can't speak for registrars and other peek, okay? And, Edmon, you can -- oh, he had to leave. I was going to ask him -- Jordi, if he's still on -- oh, he wasn't in our call, so I guess I'm striking out there. But I don't know that it's that hard. I do believe, you know, we need to get our ducks in order, and we need to make sure that we show the legitimacy of the process, doing several things. But I don't think it may be as pessimistic as you think. Now, I can't speak for others. I don't know about the registrars, and, obviously, they're a big player in this. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I would at this point like to suggest -- obviously, we're not going to solve this at this moment. I would like to suggest that Alan's recommendation is sort of that, obviously, not this Monday, but the following Monday, that this drafting team, as it were, meet again, that we do some outreach beforehand to registries, registrars, others to basically look again at the path for the way forward. If it comes out of this group saying, yes, we want to follow through with this motion, then we do. If it comes out saying we want to do any of the other alternatives, then that's the path we go. If what comes out of that meeting is, this motion is what we want to do, then we vote on it at the next meeting. But that since certain -- since there's -- at the very least, there was a mis- -- a -- not a misunderstanding, an absence of understanding that one of the outcomes of the drafting team could have been a motion. It -- to me, it seems perfectly reasonable that that's what happened. It seems to me that that was always one of the possibilities. I admit personally, I hadn't expected that outcome. But I had no problem accepting that it was a proper outcome. For other people, it seems like it was totally unexpected and that if they had expected it, they would have participated more or differently. So if we go back to the drafting team, make sure that everyone who cares knows and is there, and then see what comes out of that and take that at the next meeting, does that seem at all like a first step on a path to resolving this? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: It certainly could be a next step, far from a first step. I just question whether we need -- you know, that's another ten days before we even talk about it again, essentially. Could another path be, if people are so hot to go back and get constituency impact statements, let's start the clock tomorrow, 25 days. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Do we have to vote on that or can we just kind of have it done? >>AVRI DORIA: Um -- >>CHUCK GOMES: The only condition there would be, we need to make sure what we're asking for impact on. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So then we would -- essentially, we would need a motion voted on to request -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I wasn't talking about -- I'm not so concerned about that. It's we need to make sure what we're asking about impact. >>AVRI DORIA: Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Mike and I had had a conversation after the last council meeting that our next step, assuming this was going ahead in one form or another at all, was to redraft what we have put out as a motion, with due respect to Kristina, who did some of the drafting, and Mike and I who commented on Tim, we were doing it 12 hours off of our own time zone, or at 3:00 in the morning when we had been up for the last 20 hours. And I think it needs a little bit of work after a full night's sleep. And I volunteered to Mike that I would do that by, you know, Monday or Tuesday. So if the expanded group convenes the following Monday or Tuesday, we would have seen a document which some of us would feel at least a little bit prouder of than what we discussed in council. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. And then at that point, I think waiting until that Monday meeting, with a new motion in the middle of the week sent to the council so that we've had a chance to start looking at it. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And to the working group. >>AVRI DORIA: And then possibly -- to the drafting team. A working group has a charter. I'm -- I'm defining that drafting team is -- basically, what a drafting team does is they make a proposal that goes on the table, and we discuss it, almost as if an individual had made a proposal, except that it's multiple. A working group is something deliberate that we do, and we set a charter for it. And, normally, a drafting team will have recommended that charter. So, basically, we start talking about that next week. We have the Monday meeting. We make sure that we do outreach for that. And perhaps the decision that will come out of that is, get update impacts based on this motion, and then vote on it two weeks -- in a month, which is still sooner than other solutions would come out. And if that satisfies the bottom-up process -- and I'm not -- you're right, I believe that by following the bylaws, we did follow the defined bottom-up process. We have the problem of understanding now, there's starting to be a new notion, with the improvements, that a bottom-up notion looks different. So there's this funny -- there are two views of what a bottom-up process looks like. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: All right. Well, until the rules change, we need to play with the rules we've got. >>AVRI DORIA: And we are. We're in the deliberation process. We have a lot of leeway. There's no requirement that we do a working group. It is one of the paths we can choose to follow. Any more on this issue before we sort of go forward to the next ones? >>ROBIN GROSS: Would you summarize how we're moving forward on this? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. We're moving forward with it with, A, Alan has volunteered to take the motion and do some wordsmithing and to get that out by the middle of the week to the -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: Expanded drafting team. >>AVRI DORIA: And council. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Whoever wishes to volunteer to participate at our next -- >>AVRI DORIA: In the meantime, I will put out a message about the drafting team -- the message should already be out. But I will put out a message that anyone who wasn't on it that wishes to be on it because they now understand that we're also talking about possible motions or whatever, we'll make sure they're there. There will be a meeting, week Monday, that will look at the motions and the way forward, make a recommendation to council that we will then discuss at the next meeting. If what comes out of this is a motion to vote on it at the next meeting, then perhaps we'll do that. But I don't know. >>CHUCK GOMES: What do you mean by "week Monday"? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yeah, Glen, can you please confirm when our next -- >>AVRI DORIA: The next Monday coming. (Multiple people speaking simultaneously.) >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Were they on Mondays or Tuesdays? I don't remember what time they are. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Tuesdays. >>AVRI DORIA: I thought you said Monday. I'm sorry. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Tuesday. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So it would be Tuesday the 26th that we would talk. Of course, we have a council meeting Thursday the 28th, which means we can't do anything on this issue then. So earliest we could be anything would be March 13th. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, we could certainly inform on the 28th of -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: The alternative is, if we went out for constituency impact statements on the motion that's been suggested now, we would have those within 25 days and be able to vote on the 13th. I prefer that. It's faster. And you still get what you need with process. You get your constituency impact statements on the motion that's put forward. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think the cleaned-up statement is likely to receive somewhat more positive reviews than the uncleaned-up one. That's my opinion. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a reminder, concerned expressed yesterday were more than just impact statement. >>AVRI DORIA: I believe we have to go back to the discussion to the drafting team basis. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: The 26th -- when? 1:00 p.m. Pacific on February 26th. Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Whoever wants to be on that list who's not on that list, I guess, needs to ask Liz. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And I will -- Glen. Right. And I will send out a message. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. Process for dealing with new gTLD issue work. And I ask, do we need to put together a working group or how do we want to be ready for it. And this is just sort of an advance. We heard today in the open forum that the board is asking the staff to come -- to start working on some of the problematic issues, which I? Are the 3, 6, 20 issues and maybe others, you know, those recommendations, and to start working with us on those recommendations and getting, I don't know, clarifications for the work, for the thought, what have you. So what I really wanted to do is just make sure that I brought that up, that people started to think about that in their constituencies, about how we should handle that. My recommendation is that we basically form a working group that is, you know, in some sense a continuation of -- you know, we had a committee of the whole before that was doing it, that we sort of go broader this time, we do put together a working group, we do come up with a charter on it to basically work with the staff on the clarifications. But what do other people think? >>ROBIN GROSS: Is there any idea when we can expect this feedback from the board? >>AVRI DORIA: I expect that it will be soon. I expect that -- >>ROBIN GROSS: What does that mean? >>AVRI DORIA: Within a week, two. The feedback from the board that they mentioned during the forum meeting this morning, that what they were asking the implementation team to do on some of the problematic issues, and we don't know exactly what's in that problematic except from various conversations we've had that, you know, makes it sound like it's -- it's morality and public order, it's number 20, and, you know -- >>CHUCK GOMES: 12, which is the dispute resolution. >>AVRI DORIA: Dispute resolutions. And it may even include, you know, our favorite, confusingly similar. >>CHUCK GOMES: No. >>AVRI DORIA: It doesn't? I don't know. We don't know. We're guessing. >>CHUCK GOMES: I saw a document that isn't public. And some of them were green and some of them were yellow. They didn't have confusingly similar. They had it as green. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: But they did have a comment over to the side that it still depends on implementation, implementability, if I can use that. >>ROBIN GROSS: Where did you see this document? >>CHUCK GOMES: It -- >>AVRI DORIA: We will see it when they give it to us. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: So, anyhow, basically, I wanted to bring up advance notice that that's coming our way, that we will need a process for handling it, that my personal suggestion is that we should do this in an open working group environment, given the large amount of interest there is in new gTLDs, in the process, and in the implementation. I believe that anything else we do other than an open working group will be problematic. That's a personal view. And that's why I wanted to put that on the table. I think the constituencies need to go away and talk about that before we actually have the question. I'm not asking to, yes, let's form a working group today. But I basically wanted to put that on the table, perhaps have a little bit of discussion on it now, and -- yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: First of all, I think that we're -- to really look at this thing realistically, we're looking at multiple working groups. One working group working on all of that would be impossible. But, secondly, in the recommendations, if you read them, you'll see that there's going to be an oversight group -- now, this may not happen for a while, and we can actually get some work starting sooner. The Board Governance Committee, working group, is going to actually have some of their members cooperate with some people from the GNSO to be an oversight group, not to do the working group stuff, but to be an oversight group in the overall process. That's a totally separate issue. Last point, as was made in the session today. >> That's on the new gTLD stuff or the GNSO improvement work? >>CHUCK GOMES: GNSO improvements. >>AVRI DORIA: We're still on the gTLD stuff. >> Confusingly similar -- >>AVRI DORIA: Right. All of a sudden, I was saying oversight on the new gTLD issue work and the board governance -- Yes, I appreciate that. And perhaps we are ready to move, if no one had any comments on, you know, the process for dealing with new gTLD issues. And, actually, I think that might be one working group, but I'm not sure. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I just think we need to be very, very clear in what our ambition is in terms of involvement. I mean, we had asked staff, we spent a lot of time, we developed a report, we set a whole load of principles, some of which were quite well detailed. And we asked staff to go ahead and implement. And we also said, when you've got questions, come back to us, in essence, you know. And that, I guess, is where we are at. Now, I think what they're saying when they come back to us in terms of implementation proposals is, "Here's our way of doing that. How does that match with what you wrote in your adopted report to council?" We are in immense danger if you go down to a broadly chartered working group in discussing that of having immense duplication of what the process is going to be. I think we need to be extremely focused on helping in those questions there. I'm just sounding a note of caution in terms of how we approach that. 'Cause we're not redoing work. We're just basically saying, yeah, you're on track. That methodology seems to fit, you know, that particular ambition we had. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And maybe that's why I was excused, 'cause, you know, I think it's premature to even talk about working groups for the new gTLD issue until we get the feedback back. And it may end up having to be, because the council approved the whole thing, a little broader involvement. >>AVRI DORIA: Does anyone else have a viewpoint on this now? I'm sure we'll be back to it. I really just wanted to put it on the table and open up the discussion and have people start thinking about it so that when, you know, staff, the implementation staff, comes to us and says, "Okay, here's the list," it's not like, oh, my word, shock, you know, that this is happening and how do we deal with it. So I'd like to talk about it within the constituencies, among ourselves, and whatever, to sort of -- I think we've seen, you know, the -- there are the two poles. One is, let's keep it tight within the council, even though it's not quite the same council as it was, it's close, answer questions to explain. And two is, are the questions requiring further thought and consideration based upon implications of some of the implementation work that's been done so far? So we'll need to look at that. And I think we've defined -- yes. >>ROBIN GROSS: But other members of our constituency other than a council member can participate in this group? >>AVRI DORIA: I think that's always the case these days. I think that -- you know, I think that we're definitely never limiting ourselves in almost anything to just council members. It's how much beyond the constituencies do we go, how many people, how open is it really becomes an issue. Any other comments on that one before we move on to improvement, where I'll give Chuck the first word? >>CHUCK GOMES: No, actually, I did have a follow-up on that, now that I'm on the right track. The -- you know, in probing a little bit further on where the board's at on the new gTLDs, my first impression was that they were going to come back with some clarification questions. As far as I can tell, they're not at that point yet. They -- But, hopefully, in Kurt's report that he's been giving to the board, we'll see the information, Robin, that you asked for, that we can see where the serious questions are. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other comment on that one before we move on to the next one? The next one is -- and this is something that, Chuck, you wanted to start talking about, I think, earlier. And I don't mean just with the start there. I mean many days ago, weeks ago -- the process for GNSO improvement work. It hasn't been approved. We, though, you know, in Philip's report have certainly said, "Yeah, we accept a certain amount of it." And we may want to start thinking about how we prepare ourselves, how we structure ourselves. It's going to be an immense amount of work for the council. A lot of it is going to be process and management work that we will have to do over a relatively narrow point in time. While I kind of suggest on other things that we start thinking about working groups, I think that we must almost -- personal view again, I guess -- but that we must do working groups in terms of figuring out how to implement the improvements within the GNSO. I think we'll have to talk about the number of working groups. I think we'll need to come up with -- we'll need to come up with design team -- you know, drafting team for various charters working with the staff, I think we'll need to have very specific charters, this one's working on this problem, this one's working on that problem. With us talking more about working processes, I was wondering whether an initial step was to start writing down, what is a working group? How might a working group work? How does the council interact with the working group chair, interact with the working group? Now, we have a little bit of experience from several that we've done, from the IDN, to the WHOIS, to various other groups. I personally come out of a background of 20 years of various working group methodologies. What I was going to suggest -- and please shoot me down immediately if it's a bad suggestion -- is that I could draft up an initial idea of how it could work, purely as something to tear apart, you know, and to put on the table with the expectation that people.... The other possibility is that we put together a drafting team that I would be part of and would work on an initial guideline that, within the council, we would start talking about, "Does this make sense? Does this not make sense? Does this fit with the ideas in the board's -- I mean, in the working group's report? Is this the right way to go?" I don't believe we'll get anything that is "the guideline." But we need to start putting something together. So I wanted to put that on the table and have people start thinking about how we should approach this. And, basically, I'm volunteering to either work with a drafting team, or if there's no drafting team, to put one on the table myself that is then fodder for slice and dice. >>CHUCK GOMES: You're going the same direction I was going, at least in part. Whether we start with a working group right away, I think that there are two areas that I think we can start work without any hesitation. One of them is the -- how -- the guidelines, the procedures for a working group. The second one is the improvement of the PDP process. Hopefully, we'll have different people on each one so it doesn't conflict. But those are two areas that are, you know -- I don't think there's any question we're going that direction. Now, I actually think your two ideas can be combined. In a drafting team, it's really helpful for a drafting team to have somebody or a couple of people in the group put something on the table and then start working with it. So I think that's a very good approach. And we can -- if we form a drafting team on both of those of interested parties -- and I think, ideally, a drafting team -- you don't want it too big, but I still think there should be some openness there. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I think that's a good idea in both of those cases. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Notice I've started two drafting teams and I've put me in one and new the other. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Avri, I think it's a great idea that you could draft the guidelines for the working group. I would like to be -- I'm not sure about the PDPs, because -- >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Okay. So I think that -- I think that, basically, people don't need to raise their hands right at the moment to get them in. We'll put together lists for them and do them. Yes, Liz, do you have a microphone? >>LIZ GASSTER: I don't. >>AVRI DORIA: One will be coming. >>LIZ GASSTER: Thanks. I'll just throw my own two cents in with regard to -- >>AVRI DORIA: Please. >>LIZ GASSTER: -- these two. It was my own reaction to the improvements report that the development of a new working group process and the development of a PDP process were actually the two that were most closely linked. And it was my own sense that it would make sense to have one group look at both, not that that isn't a significant challenge. But those are the two things that, to me, seemed very closely connected. >>AVRI DORIA: Basically those two -- >>LIZ GASSTER: The development of the working group model, the details of how working groups would work, and revising the PDP to be consistent with that. >>AVRI DORIA: Can I -- What, perhaps, might happen here is that each of these could start out with an initial draft of the way one would go. And then we might bring those into a common working group. Yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: I'm just going to offer a comment as someone who actually worked on the original development of the PDP. And I confess that I lost, in my efforts to improve it on all of our behalves. And we're now trying to fix the things that I objected to then. And I say that because, Liz, I have a question for you and one for Avri. The working group, as I understand it, will be the primary model by which the -- what I would think of as somebody who used to do policy analysis and development, you will do the policy analysis, the policy -- identification, the whole cycle, identification, analysis, research, et cetera, getting to, also, developing the proposed policy outcome. Am I right about that? That's how I -- >>AVRI DORIA: That's sort of my assumption. >>MARILYN CADE: Now, as I understand this process, as envisioned in the GNSO review, that is your -- a primary working method of the council, but it is not the only working task of the council. So you have that as a way to do policy work, and then you also have the role that the council will need to play, where I think there may be some differences of opinion at this point between the -- as I understood it, between the council and the -- the council and the constituencies. And the report may have some differences of opinion on the role of the council. So I'm not suggesting -- And I think the PDP process actually has to go all the way up and down. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>MARILYN CADE: So that doesn't -- so I'm not disagreeing with Liz. I'm just pointing that out as a critical element. Secondly, there is another suggestion -- I think it's becoming a requirement, actually, embedded in the GNSO review document, and that is, you know, we've always had an obligation which we at any time always fulfill very well, but we've always had an obligation to take consultation with other supporting organizations appropriately along the way. I think that is actually more heavily embedded in the working processes expectation. And that, I think, would be in the PDP, but not necessarily a -- you know, it wouldn't be limited to the working group. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>MARILYN CADE: So that's just a couple of -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. When I look at the working group process, my initial view on it was that it's kind of a building block, and in a sense it's something that could be used fairly neutrally in almost any situation, and that the PDP process will include that at some point and may -- and that inclusion may actually cause modification. But that's beside the point. That really what I was hoping to get -- because what we're going to need is the next step is we'll need a bunch of working groups to figure out a lot of these PDP processes and this process and that process, and if we don't know how we intend to start doing a working group, then we're doing that very ad hoc and -- and so that was my reason for getting that first building block. Microphone? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Avri, I think this is the right approach. I think us doing some useful work in terms of specific tracks like this makes eminent sense because we've got the expertise in terms of, you know, what was good, what was bad and, therefore, what we'd like in the future and that's going to be useful work. The other item of clarification that might be useful is if just you, as chair, could have an informal word with -- I don't know if it's going to be Peter on the board or the chair of the Board Governance Committee just to say -- because, you know, they had a proposal in terms of maybe the Board Governance Committee or its working groups somehow overseeing the implementation -- >>AVRI DORIA: Uh-huh. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: And to get a feeling for what exactly that means. >>AVRI DORIA: What does mean. That's a good one, yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Because it seemed a little bit strange and the people who were pretty remote, perhaps, from some of the detail would sort of being overseeing that. Just to get a feeling for what that entailed. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I mean if it was going to be board oversight, my personal preference would be for it to be a little bit border spread than the governance committee. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And it may be a due diligence type of just -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Exactly. In which case, that's fine but just to get a feel for what it is. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. That sounds fine. Marilyn, do you have a microphone? >>MARILYN CADE: No. >>AVRI DORIA: It will come. >>MARILYN CADE: I want to share a conversation I had about that very topic, where I was seeking clarification and follow-up in the public forum. My concern was expressed as the Board Governance Committee charters a review process, and they choose an independent party to do the review. They oversee and -- they develop the terms of reference, they oversee and direct the work of that process, but the process has always been envisioned as their work has been done, they go on to their next review, and the body that they're reviewing is responsible, consistent with the bottom-up consensus process, for fulfilling the goals. Roberto did say in the meeting -- in the meeting that you guys had with him on Saturday that I was at that what he was trying to accomplish and the other -- a couple of the other board members said this as well -- they were trying to accomplish having resources available to color in the material that might not be in detail in the report. I offer that to you only to say, my own view is that it's the SO who is going to have to live with not just the council but the SO broadly, and it seems to me other than having the resources to go to ask questions of, I'm not sure why -- this is going to be a three-year implementation. Just you have to look at it that way. There are things that are going to take a long time. Are we going to, as a community, pay for a group of people who have participated in a review three years ago in terms of oversight, continue to shepherd an implementation? It doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that it has to be sunset, closed, and then we implement -- we implement the improvements and tell the board we're done and then the board assesses whether we're done or not. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And that would be Board Governance Committee itself is our oversight in any case. >>MARILYN CADE: And it would be the Board Governance Committee of that day. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Yes. That they would be the ones that have a continuing role in oversight, as the case may be. Any other -- yeah. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Now, I'm not sure I understood all that, but I don't have any problem with members of the Board Governance Committee working group or the Board Governance Committee itself being involved in an oversight committee jointly with us, as this goes on. I actually think that could be healthy. But what I really wanted to come back to, and I think we've reached conclusion on this. I just want to make sure. I really -- unlike Marilyn, I wanted to disagree with Liz. [Laughter] >>CHUCK GOMES: Because I really think -- I think you said it really well, Avri. The working group rules, whatever they are, is needed to fit into the policy development process, but they're really not interdependent, so you can't work on them separately, and that by spreading out the workload in two different groups, I think we'll get more done more quickly. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other comments on this one? I think we'll have a lot of conversations over this over the coming time, but with time running out, I want to get to the next one. We've got, what, several months on this budget cycle? We definitely, as a council and as part of an SO, have stuff we want to say about this budget, and have a role in it. I don't see us doing it as a council of the whole in any sense. I think we have to find a method where the SO -- you know, all the constituencies within the SO are having their input gathered and channeled into the budget process and again, it looks to me like another opportunity for, you know, a working group of some sort, perhaps more constituency aligned, perhaps something similar more to the old task forces, I don't know, but we need some sort of how do we work together as an SO and council to make sure that we get coherent input into the budget and that everyone's concerns are sort of done. Yes, microphone. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I just have a question about perhaps competence. I mean we are a policy development body. I would have thought that that might potentially mean any comment on the budget process would be: How does this new budget affect our ability, in terms of policy development? And that might be more significant if it was dropping down by 50 million rather than going up. I think they're putting in more things that might help, rather than less. So I'm not quite sure what value-add we make as a council, whereas at the constituency level we might have all sorts of things to say, but they're going to be so diverse that I -- I doubt the value of working together on it. It's just -- and looking at the past and the history I think we've attempted it before. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Certainly I -- never mind. Well, though it does -- I guess the one comment I'd make is that it does at least occur to me that there may be some things as a council that we want to contribute into this discussion in terms of council capabilities to do policy work. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm thinking the same way Philip is. By the way, I'm not opposed to any common statements we can come up with. I'm just fearful that -- how much time it might take to reach those common statements and how valuable it will really be, when in actuality if each constituency that wants to submits their comments, and individuals as well. Probably we've given the feedback that the -- that they're looking for without going through all the exercise of finding out what we have in common. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other comments? Thank you. Any other comments? So I guess for now, we're basically saying that we'll proceed as individuals and individual constituencies in terms of our commenting and not try to do something as a GNSO Council to deal with that. And that's fine with me. Okay. The last thing I have on this agenda, if there's no other comments on that one, is our meeting schedule and time. In terms of the meeting schedule -- and this is sort of going back to a comment that Philip made about two weeks being way too often, and I believe that as well, but I believed it was necessary between the last two meetings that we meet more often just because there was a lot to get done. I have had the feeling for a while, though, that sometimes a month has been too sparse in terms of getting anything done, so I've been suggesting that between now and Paris we try for an every-three-week schedule. So -- and to tell you on every two weeks, before I even turned around, it was time to have published the agenda, and it did feel like really too fast. But -- so I'm suggesting that between now and Paris, we try an every-three-week schedule. I think that we will be spinning off many different drafting teams and working groups that are going off, so, first of all, I wanted to get people's opinions on a three-week schedule. And then we needed to talk about time. We basically seem to be in a position at the moment where it's either Norbert at 4:00 a.m. or Adrian at something similar to 4:00 a.m. And -- huh? And seem to be alternating between the two of them being the ones that take the heat, and one of the things that we've said is, well, you know, there's six of us in Europe or there's five of us in the U.S., and so why should six of us be up at 2:00 in the morning instead of one person be up. We're not quite that blunt about it, but it's almost the way we've done it, and I worry about that. >>CHUCK GOMES: We shouldn't forget Edmon, but in -- I think he sincerely doesn't care. >>AVRI DORIA: He doesn't care. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: The reason -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I just want to acknowledge him that he's -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. No, I didn't forget about Edmon. Edmon is one that's really declared, you know -- and it's the same kind of statement I make. I don't care when I have to do it, you know. Who cares about the clock. But other people live normal lives. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Norbert. >>NORBERT KLEIN: Maybe my -- >>AVRI DORIA: I didn't mean Edmon. I mean me. Microphone to Norbert, please. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I think -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, it's on. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I think you understand that it's a problem, but if you are nice to me when we are here, it's okay. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: So you're really saying you're willing to live with 4:00 a.m.? >>NORBERT KLEIN: If it is sometimes 2:00 and sometimes 4:00, it's better, but always 4:00 is not. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Glen, can you talk to us a little bit about schedule? You've got a microphone there. So first of all, did anyone think that every three weeks was something we shouldn't do? And a general willingness to deal with a three-week -- a triweekly schedule? Okay. Good. So we'll work -- okay. Philip? You prefer every five. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Well, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Right? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: But... >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Let's try three weeks and see if it's less painful than two. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Okay. We've managed in the past with four. That's what I'm saying. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: And a workload -- we've managed in the past with four. I don't see the output being greater than it has been in the past. That's all I'm saying. >>AVRI DORIA: I actually -- I mean, I think we're trying to finish things much more quickly, and while we're worrying about extending something two or three weeks here and a month there, I think we are on a quicker schedule than 18 months, two years on things at the moment, so -- now, whether the output is worth having or not is... you know. >>CHUCK GOMES: It's interesting, if I did it correctly. The three-week schedule makes our meeting week the week of the Paris meetings. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, that's perfect! [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, Glen can you talk a little bit about time? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: At the moment, we have the times at 6:00 -- at 15 hours UTC, and at 21 hours UTC? And it's the 21 hours UTC which I think is a very bad time for Norbert. Am I right? >>NORBERT KLEIN: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: That's the 4:00? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: That's the 4:00 in the morning? >>NORBERT KLEIN: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Keep in mind daylight saving time. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes. Now, previously we used to have 19 hours UTC during the European winter months, which does unfortunately, since we have now three people from Asia-Pacific does make it 3:00 in the morning for Edmon and for Cyril, but they have actually both told me they don't mind. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Edmon says he just disability like 5:00 in the morning. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, that's a good time to go to sleep. Okay. And what does it do to -- what do these do to Adrian when he's in Australia. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: For Adrian it's 6:00 in the morning. >>AVRI DORIA: And he doesn't mind 6:00 in the morning. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: He could do 6:00 in the morning. He does prefer 8:00. >>AVRI DORIA: He prefers 8:00. >>CHUCK GOMES: [Speaker is off microphone] >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: That was 19. >>AVRI DORIA: And what does 15 UTC give Adrian. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: And 15 UTC gives Adrian -- I'll tell you in a minute. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'll tell you in a meeting. It's 1:00 a.m. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes, 15 UTC doesn't work for Adrian. It gives Adrian 2:00 in the morning and that's the one he really objects to. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Okay. And then we also have an issue with the middle -- with -- do we have an issue with Bilal? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: We have an issue with Bilal, but if we go to -- because Bilal can't do it after 10:00 at night, so if we go to this 19 UTC, we cut out the issue with Bilal. >>AVRI DORIA: But with 19, we're -- >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: We have got -- >>AVRI DORIA: So Norbert is at 2:00 a.m. at that point? No. Yes. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. For Philip and Norbert. And it's okay for Cyril. >>AVRI DORIA: It's okay for Cyril and it's okay for Edmon and it's okay for Adrian, too? >>CHUCK GOMES: It's 5:00 a.m. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: It's 6:00 a.m. for Adrian. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm looking just to look down the road. Instead of looking like now, I look at May, when we have some changes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Then in May, it will change. >>CHUCK GOMES: Then in May, it goes to 5:00 a.m. for him. >>AVRI DORIA: So then we have to move it an hour later. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: But in that northern hemisphere summer, we would have to change again. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So we're talking about going to 19 UTC in a moment, and that seems -- >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: What does that do -- for the 28th of February and the 13th of March, because the 17th of April, if we stick to those dates -- >>AVRI DORIA: Uh-huh. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: The 17th of April will have changed. So we'd have to find new dates for that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Hold off. Yeah. Thank you. So what I did is I plugged in the 2000 UTC. An hour later, that's 6:00 a.m. for Melbourne. That makes it for Norbert 3:00 a.m. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Is that -- you plugged in 20 UTC? Is that for the time now or -- >>CHUCK GOMES: That's in May. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Oh, in May. >>CHUCK GOMES: [Speaker is off microphone] >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes, uh-huh. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah, but I thought for summertime normally, it worked out better for everybody if we reverted to much earlier UTC, like UTC 15, wasn't it? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: It was 12 -- it was 13 UTC. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: 12 UTC. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: 12 UTC, right. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: 12 UTC. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Then it works. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: In the month of May. >>AVRI DORIA: So that's rather early on Pacific, isn't it? The L.A. folks get a really early -- >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: That's 5:00 a.m. >>AVRI DORIA: 5:00 a.m. for the Pacific. >>CHUCK GOMES: I could do that. >>LIZ GASSTER: Chuck can do it. >>AVRI DORIA: If Chuck can do it, the staff can do it. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not excited about it, but I can do it. >>AVRI DORIA: Is Mike in the Pacific? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, he is too. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: That would be 9:00 a.m. in the morning. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: But he's an entrepreneur now, so, hey, he gets up that time anyway. >>AVRI DORIA: I thought he was just going to bed at that time. Okay. So we've got a tentative 19 UTC until we move to, what, 13 UTC. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Until we move to 12 UTC because of the change of time, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: So it would be 19 and 12. >>AVRI DORIA: We should probably that out on the list and see what kind of screams we get from other people. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So we're going with three weeks. We're going with 19 and 12 -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Appear that would be three weeks from this week, right, so I think it -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, right? When's our next meeting. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes, so it would change. Yes. So the next council meeting would be what date, Chuck. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, we already have it set for the 28th and we needed to have it the 28th because of reiterate's interview because that was -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. It won't end up at the Paris meeting, but that's okay. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: We could change that one. >>CHUCK GOMES: We could check with Rita and see if she could do it on the 3rd I think. >>AVRI DORIA: No. We start voting on the 29th. So no, we can't change that way. We need to stay the 28th so that we can start the vote on the 29th. And we're going to invite Rita during the first -- at the beginning of the meeting, correct. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Are we going to invite her at the beginning of the meeting and we're going to keep the time at 19 UTC. >>AVRI DORIA: I believe so. Is that -- >>CHUCK GOMES: [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: She's in New York. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: That's fine. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: That's fine, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: It's 13 -- I mean, then that's 14, so that's 2:00 in the afternoon. So I mean, assuming all things being equal, it's either 2:00 or 3:00. We'll check with her. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: What she wanted to know was as soon as possible what time the meeting would be. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So, yes. So if we tell her at 19 UTC on the 28th -- >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: we'll have is that is that discussion with her. >>LIZ GASSTER: So Robin we want to check with about 5:00 a.m. and then also maybe Denise, because she's on Pacific too. >>ROBIN GROSS: What's the 5:00 a.m. >>AVRI DORIA: Basically, come summertime -- come summertime -- Chuck already said it was okay. >>ROBIN GROSS: It's fine. >>CHUCK GOMES: Sorry, Robin. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: We were trying to think. And we knew there was Mike and we were told that he's an entrepreneur so it was fine with him. And -- >>ROBIN GROSS: Fine. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Great. And it's only for a couple weeks and then we'll meet again in Paris and we'll talk about times again. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: In Paris, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: And I really do believe that we need to share pain but unfortunately those of us on the east coast and in Europe just aren't in as painful an area. >>CHUCK GOMES: And the reason I said it was okay is I think we do need to share the pain and I think of Norbert and Edmon and Adrian and Cyril, et cetera, so I'm certainly willing to take my share. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Do we have anything else that we wish to talk about in the last nine minutes of this scheduled two hours? >>JON BING: The U.S. Presidential election. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, the Republican is going to win, whoever it is. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: In which case, we've spent a lot of time together this week and it's really been a pleasure and, you know, safe travels to everyone and thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you Avri. >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Jordi, were you still there? You were very quiet. >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: That's okay. I'm okay. I was listening. Everything's fine. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So hopefully you're fine with everything. I'm sure you would have said something if not. We'll be putting everything out on the list. Thank you for joining us. >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Thank you very much. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We're done. Thank you.