[bc-gnso] Transcript from GAC meeting with New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC)

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's the transcript from GAC – NGPC interaction on Sunday in Durban.

Headline: A congenial exchange and commitment to work together on Safeguards 
and IGO protections

The Board sent a letter to GAC last week summarizing progress on GAC Advice 
(link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-03jul13-en.pdf>)

At today's session the NGPC distributed a list of questions and clarifications 
requested.  It's not online yet but I will watch for it

>>Chris Disspain: THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THEY HAVE AROUND 
>>IMPLEMENTATION. AND SO THEY ARE HERE TODAY TO WALK US THROUGH THOSE THINGS 
>>AND TO INVITE SOME INITIAL COMMENTS FROM GAC COLLEAGUES. AND HOPEFULLY, THIS 
>>WAY WE CAN COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE OR AT LEAST, 
>>IF NECESSARY, WHERE THERE'S DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE. AND 
>>THEN THIS CAN LEAD US, HOPEFULLY, TO SOME SORT OF SOLUTION.
SO WITHOUT HESITATING FURTHER, I'LL TURN OVER TO MY CO-CHAIR, CHERINE CHALABY, 
WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE gTLD COMMITTEE TO SAY A FEW THINGS, AND THEN WE CAN 
BEGIN TO MOVE THROUGH OUR AGENDA.
SO, PLEASE, CHERINE.
>>CHERINE CHALABY: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. AND THANK YOU, HEATHER, FOR THIS 
>>INTRODUCTION.
INDEED, THE TWO TOPICS ARE THE CATEGORY 1 SAFEGUARDS AND THE IGO PROTECTION.
JUST TO MAKE A COUPLE OF REMARKS BEFORE WE START; THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY HERE 
TODAY -- THIS IS THE NEW gTLD COMMITTEE -- WITH AN OBJECTIVE TO MAKE DECISIONS. 
WE'RE HERE TO START A DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC TO REALLY UNDERSTAND SOME ELEMENTS 
AND GET CLARIFICATION ON SOME ELEMENTS OF YOUR ADVICE.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO DRAG THE GAC INTO IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND GET DOWN INTO THE 
WEEDS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO PLEASE REST ASSURED THAT IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE. 
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF A DIALOGUE WITH YOU.
WE HAVE BEGAN THE DIALOGUE ON IGOs, SO TODAY IS A CONTINUATION OF THIS 
DIALOGUE. BUT WITH REGARDS TO THE CATEGORY 1, THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST MEETING 
WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, HOPEFULLY, A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.
WE DID SEND YOU A DOCUMENT ON CATEGORY 1, WHICH YOU HAVE ALL RECEIVED A FEW 
DAYS AGO. I KNOW WE ALL PREFER TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS WITH PLENTY OF NOTICE AND 
TIME SO THAT WE STUDY IT, BUT LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT THIS IS A CONTINUUM OF 
WORK, AND THAT WE, THE NEW gTLD COMMITTEE, HAS RECEIVED IT AT THE SAME TIME AS 
THE GAC HAS RECEIVED IT.
SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE AN APOLOGY FOR THAT BUT WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD BUT 
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE DOCUMENT THAT THIS IS THE DECISION WE WANT TO MAKE. THIS 
IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF A DIALOGUE.
IN TERMS OF THE TONE OF THE MEETING, I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO A VERY 
CONSTRUCTIVE TONE. WE WILL THINK STRAIGHT AND TALK STRAIGHT BECAUSE WE OWE YOU 
THAT, BUT IT WILL BE IN A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER. AND I HOPE YOU WOULD 
APPRECIATE OUR STRAIGHT TALKING.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, CHRIS WILL SHEPHERD THE DISCUSSION, BUT I'M SURE THAT, 
ALSO, MY OTHER COLLEAGUES WILL CHIME IN WHEN NECESSARY.
WITH THAT, I HAND BACK TO YOU, HEATHER, TO START THE CONVERSATION ON CATEGORY 1.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHERINE.
SO CHRIS DISSPAIN FROM THE COMMITTEE, LOOKING AT THE NEW gTLD ISSUES, IS THE 
LEAD ON LOOKING AT THE SAFEGUARDS. AND SO I WILL HAND OVER TO CHRIS TO WALK US 
THROUGH THAT ISSUE, OR THE IGO PROTECTION ISSUE, AS YOU CHOOSE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANKS, HEATHER. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE CATEGORY 1 SAFEGUARD ADVICE. WE'VE JUST GOT A 
COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE USEFUL AS A SORT OF LEVEL SET. SO IF 
I CAN HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE UP, PLEASE. THANK YOU.SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, 
BEFORE THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WAS APPROVED, THE GAC ADVISED THE BOARD TO 
EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY-BASED STRINGS TO INCLUDE THOSE REFERRING TO 
REGULATED SECTORS OR TARGETED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND SO ON, AND WE ACTUALLY 
REJECTED THAT ADVICE. AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION AROUND THE SCORECARD, YOU'LL 
REMEMBER, IN BRUSSELS. AND THEN WE COLLABORATED WITH YOU TO DEVELOP THE EARLY 
WARNING AND ADVICE MECHANISMS TO HELP ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE TRYING 
TO ADDRESS IN THE ADVICE THAT WE REJECTED.
SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HERE BEFORE, TO SOME EXTENT, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.
THE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CURRENT ADVICE THAT WE SEE -- AND THESE ARE -- THESE 
ARE BULLET POINTS EXTRACTED FROM THE PAPER THAT YOU ALL GOT A COUPLE OF DAYS 
AGO.
THE DIFFICULTIES WE SEE AT THE MOMENT ARE THAT THE CATEGORIES OF STRINGS ARE 
BROAD AND UNDEFINED. THERE'S NO PRINCIPLED BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING CERTAIN 
CATEGORIES AND STRINGS. GENERIC TERMS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS HIGHLY REGULATED 
INDUSTRIES. SOME STRINGS HAVE SEGMENTS THAT ARE BOTH LICENSED AND UNLICENSED. 
IT'S DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE RELEVANT REGULATORY AGENCIES AND SELF-REGULATORY 
ORGANIZATIONS. SOME STRIPPINGS BE REFER TO INDUSTRIES THAT MAY BE SENSITIVE OR 
REGULATED IN A SINGLE OR A FEW JURISDICTIONS ONLY. THE SAFEGUARD ADVICE ITEMS 
THREE TO EIGHT CREATE OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE VAGUE AND UNIMPLEMENTABLE. AND THESE 
ARE THE OUTCOMES THAT WE SOUGHT TO AVOID WHEN WE REJECTED THE ADVICE IN THE 
FIRST PLACE AND ASKED THAT -- AND WE AGREED TO PUT IN PLACE THE EARLY WARNING 
SYSTEM SO THAT GOVERNMENTS COULD DEAL DIRECTLY WITH APPLICANTS IF THEY HAD 
ISSUES WITH THE -- IF THEY HAD ISSUES WITH THE STRING.
NOW, HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, THERE IS MUCH MORE DETAIL ON THAT IN OUR PAPER. 
BUT HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT , WE'RE NOT REJECTING THE ADVICE AT THIS STAGE AND 
CHERINE HAS SAID THIS. THIS IS US COMING TO YOU AND SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE A 
DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS. WE ARE NOT REJECTING THE ADVICE. WE WANT TO BEGIN A 
DIALOGUE. AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DID IS, BY WHATEVER PROCESS WE CAN AGREE, 
AND IT'S CLEARLY NOT GOING TO BE THIS MORNING AND IT'S CLEARLY NOT GOING TO BE 
SIMPLY A CASE OF EVERY TIME WE GET TOGETHER AT AN ICANN MEETING OVER THE NEXT 
FIVE YEARS WE'LL CHIP AWAY AT THIS AND SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT, BUT WE'D 
LIKE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH YOU ON WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN TAKE YOUR CURRENT 
ADVICE AND DEFINE THE SCOPE AND DEPTH OF IT SO IT CAN BECOME ADVICE THAT IS 
IMPLEMENTABLE BY US BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T THINK IT IS INTEMENTABLE.
SO I KNOW WE ARE IN UNCHARTED WATERS HERE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GENERALLY 
HAPPENS IN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE BOARD. NORMALLY WE DISCUSS A 
BIT, ADVICE COMES AND SO ON. BUT THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES. WE HAVE NEW 
gTLDs ARRIVING. AND WE THINK THAT WE NEED TO BREAK SOME NEW GROUND HERE AND SEE 
IF WE CAN'T FIND A WAY, OF THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, OF HAVING THE GAC AND THE NGPC 
AND THE COMMUNITY, IN FACT, DISCUSS WAYS OF TAKING YOUR EXISTING -- WHAT WE'VE 
CALLED CATEGORY 1 ADVICE AND MAKING IT WORK.
HEATHER, I'LL STOP THERE AND WE'LL TAKE -- IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, TAKE 
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, AND I'LL TRY TO ANSWER AS MANY AS I CAN. AND THEN WE'LL 
DEAL WITH THE IGOs AS A SEPARATE ISSUE.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS.
SO DO GAC COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS FOR THE BOARD AT THIS 
POINT REGARDING THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED WITH CATEGORY 1?
OKAY.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY SHORT MEETING.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: OKAY. IT COULD BE A VERY SHORT MEETING. YOU'RE RIGHT.
OKAY. SO IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE, CHRIS.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: OKAY. MAYBE I CAN JUST PUT -- MAYBE I CAN JUST PUSH SLIGHTLY 
>>HARDER IN THE AREA OF MOVING FORWARD, THEN.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN; RIGHT? YOU 
COULD COME BACK TO US AT THE END OF THIS MEETING AND SIMPLY MAKE A STATEMENT 
THAT SAYS: OUR ADVICE IS OUR ADVICE. AND THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CHOOSE 
TO DO.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU -- AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU INTERSESSIONALLY -- 
SORRY, AT THIS MEETING BUT NOT IN THIS ROOM, IF YOU WANT TO COME AND TALK ABOUT 
IDEAS OF MOVING THIS FORWARD. BUT IT WOULD BE REALLY FANTASTIC IF YOU COULD, BY 
WHATEVER MEANS YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, FIND A WAY WITH US OF HOW WE WOULD 
MOVE THIS FORWARD.
SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU, AS I SAID, TO DO IT NOW, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO 
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN.
THANK YOU, HEATHER.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, CHRIS.
AUSTRALIA, PLEASE.
>>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANKS TO THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE.
FIRST, JUST TO ECHO HEATHER'S COMMENTS THAT WE DO APPRECIATE THE SPEED AND THE 
AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN GOING INTO THIS, AND IT'S VERY USEFUL, THE UPDATES 
THAT HAVE BEEN COMING OUR WAY AND RESPONSES. AND THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS 
BEEN WORKING VERY HARD ON THIS. IT REALLY IS APPRECIATED.
IN TERMS OF TAKING THIS FORWARD, I TAKE THE POINT THAT PERHAPS WE ARE IN 
UNCHARTED TERRITORY, SO IT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. BUT I THINK FROM MY 
POINT OF VIEW, WE RECEIVED THESE QUESTIONS QUITE RECENTLY, SO WE TRIED TO HAVE 
A LOOK AT THEM AND TRIED TO SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHERE THE gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE 
IS COMING FROM AND CERTAINLY IN SOME AREAS I CAN SEE THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT 
POTENTIALLY COULD BE BETTER EXPLAINED, AND SO ON.
I'M WONDERING, IN TERMS OF A NEXT STEP, WHETHER THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE HAS 
CONSIDERED COMING BACK TO THE GAC WITH SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF -- 
OBVIOUSLY A FAIR BIT OF THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO HOW THINGS CAN OR CANNOT BE 
IMPLEMENTED, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY AN AREA WHERE THERE IS GREATER EXPERTISE ON THE 
ICANN SAID, POTENTIALLY, THAN THE GAC SIDE. WHETHER YOU'VE GIVEN CONSIDERATION 
OF COMING BACK TO THE GAC SAYING, "HERE IS WHAT WE THINK YOU'RE AFTER AND HERE 
IS HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT IT," AND THEN ASKING A SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO THE GAC.
I'M VERY MINDFUL THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF COMING 
BACK SAYING, "IS THIS WHAT YOU MEANT?" AND WE SAY NO, AND THEN YOU COME BACK 
AGAIN AND WE SAY CLOSER, BUT NOT QUITE THERE.
SO SOME MECHANISM WHICH MOVES THIS PROCESS ALONG. SO WHETHER IT'S A FIRST TRY 
BY FROM THE ICANN SIDE WITH A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, VERY SORT OF TARGETED 
QUESTIONS OR REASONS WHY YOU'VE GONE DOWN A CERTAIN PATH AND EXPLAIN TO US, OR 
IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I THINK FROM THE GAC SIDE IT MIGHT BE KIND OF TRICKY 
TO, UNLESS WE FIND OUT A DIFFERENT STRUCTURED PATH I GUESS. BUT THAT'S MY FIRST 
SUGGESTION.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, AUSTRALIA.
DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND OR SHALL I GO --
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: JUST BRIEFLY.
THANK YOU, PETER. I -- SO OUR PAPER IS A STARTING POINT ON THAT.
I GUESS WE -- I GUESS OUR APPROACH TODAY IS TO TRY AND GET FROM YOU, NOT 
NECESSARILY TODAY BUT AT THIS MEETING, SORT OF A CONFIRMATION THAT IF WE DO 
START WORKING ON THE ADVICE AND, YOU KNOW, PARSING IT DOWN INTO SECTIONS AND 
SAYING WE CAN DO THIS BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT, "A," WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO DO 
THAT WITH YOU RATHER THAN WITHOUT YOU, AND "B" WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE 
PRINCIPLE OF THAT IS FINE AND THEN NOT HAVE YOU SAY BUT OUR ADVICE IS OUR 
ADVICE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE AN OPENING FROM YOU, IF YOU LIKE, THAT SAYS, OKAY, LET'S DO 
THIS. WHETHER WE END UP DOING IT TOGETHER IN A ROOM OR WE END UP DOING IT 
ITERATIVELY SEPARATELY, I DON'T MIND MUCH NOW. BUT I DO WANT TO GET CLEAR THAT 
IF YOUR POSITION WERE TO BE "OUR ADVICE IS OUR ADVICE," THAT'S FINE BUT WE NEED 
TO KNOW WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT BEFORE WE MOVE DOWN THE NEXT STEP.
SO IF IT'S NOT THE CASE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO AGREE THAT WE CAN -- I MEAN, 
NEGOTIATE -- I UNDERSTAND THE WORD NEGOTIATE IS LOADED, SO LET'S NOT USE THAT. 
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IF WE CAN AGREE THAT, THEN WE CAN START WORKING ON 
ALL SORTS OF POSSIBLE WAYS OF ACTUALLY -- OF ACTUALLY ACHIEVING IT.
JUST ONE MORE THING, JUST TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. WITHOUT GIVING YOU A SPECIFIC 
EXAMPLE, BUT I KNOW YOU KNOW WHAT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES ARE, THERE ARE STRINGS 
THAT, IN YOUR CATEGORIES, THAT IS IT IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY SHOULD 
BE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN SET OF REGISTRANTS. AND FOR MOST OF THOSE, LEAVING 
ASIDE HOW YOU CREATE THE PROTECTIONS, THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THEM IS NOT A 
PROBLEM. BUT EQUALLY, THERE ARE STRINGS WHERE WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE NO CLUE WHY 
THIS WOULD BE HERE AND IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
THAT'S THE LEVEL OF DISCUSSION WE NEED TO BE HAVING, I THINK. AND HOW WE DO 
THAT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE NEED TO DO IT.
THANKS.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU.
I HAVE IRAN NEXT, PLEASE.
>>IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING TO YOU AND GOOD MORNING TO THE 
>>NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE.
LET ME START TAKING THE LAST PART OF THE INTERVENTIONS THAT CHRIS MADE AND 
REPEAT IT AT LEAST THREE TIMES, SAYING THAT IF YOU COME TO US, THAT MEANS WE, 
GAC, SAYING ADVICE IS ADVICE, I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOOD APPROACH. IT IS NOT A 
LOGICAL APPROACH THAT WE NEED TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE AND RESPOND TO THE 
QUESTIONS OR TO THE OBSERVATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE.
SO NOW I COME TO THE BEGINNING OF WHAT. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR 
THE THOROUGH AND DEEP ANALYSIS THAT YOU HAVE MADE EVEN WITH THE SHORT TIME 
AVAILABLE TO YOU. IT'S MUCH APPRECIATED.
THE DIFFICULTY THAT PERHAPS WE MAY HAVE NOW IS THE LITTLE TIME AVAILABLE TO US, 
AND PERHAPS THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE RAISED YOUR QUESTIONS.
AFTER THIS DIALOGUE THAT YOU HAVE WITH US, PERHAPS YOU MAY NEED TO POSSIBLY, 
ONE, NARROW DOWN THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM NECESSARY. 
AND, SECOND, PERHAPS AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, YOU REFORMULATE YOUR QUESTIONS.
YOU GAVE A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE THINGS. IT IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED, 
WHICH WAS NOT IN THE MAIN QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED, BUT WE NEED TO REALLY 
ENGAGE IN THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE REALLY EXPECT FROM THE BOARD, AND THAT IS GOOD. 
YOU GO TO THE NARROW AND YOU GO DEEP AND IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS AND SO ON AND SO 
FORTH. AND IT DOES NOT TAKE THE ADVICE AS IT IS. IT TAKES THE ADVICE AS IT 
SHOULD BE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE WILL BE LISTENING TO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR FURTHER 
CLARIFICATION THAT YOU SEEK FROM US, AND PERHAPS WE COME BACK AT ANOTHER STEPS 
TO FURTHER DISCUSS WITH YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN.
OKAY. I SEE GERMANY AND ITALY.
>>GERMANY: YES. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN 
>>DONE AND FOR THE RESPONSE WE RECEIVED. I THINK IT WAS QUITE HARD, AND WE 
>>UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION.
IN RESPECT OF CHRIS'S REMARK WHERE HE SAID THAT WE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT, LET'S 
SAY, DEPTH OF REGULATION IN CERTAIN -- FOR CERTAIN STRINGS, THIS IS TRUE, BUT 
ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK WE NEED ALWAYS TO BE AWARE THAT WE ARE ACTING IN A 
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT. THAT MEANS WE MAY HAVE SOME FORMS OF REGULATIONS IN SOME 
COUNTRIES, WHERE IN OTHER COUNTRIES THERE IS NO REGULATION. AND SO FAR, IT IS 
DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE WHETHER ONE STRING IS A STRING THAT NEEDS REALLY, LET'S 
SAY, A HIGH-LEVEL REGULATION OR A HIGH-LEVEL DETAILED SAFEGUARDS OR ANOTHER 
DOES NOT.
AND SO FAR, I THINK IT IS REALLY -- SHOULD BE LEFT TO ICANN AND THE APPLICANT 
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY TRIED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, LET'S SAY, THE 
SENSE OF OUR ADVICE, AND THEN THEY NEED TO INTRODUCE SOME STEPS. AND THAT WOULD 
BE, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE ADEQUATE ANSWER FOR -- FOR A STEP FORWARD.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GERMANY.
NEXT I HAVE ITALY. PLEASE.
>>ITALY: OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
WE RECOGNIZE THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE. IF I COUNTED 
RIGHTLY, YOU HAD SEVEN MEETINGS, AND MEETINGS WITH THE BOARD CONCERNING THE 
ADVICE THAT WAS GIVEN IN BEIJING. AND THE ONLY CRITICISM THAT WE MADE IN SOME 
MEETINGS, AND ALSO I CONVEYED IT TO FADI IN BRUSSELS ON JUNE 25 WHEN WE HAD THE 
MEETING THERE, IS THAT YOU LEFT THE MORE CRITICAL POINTS, THE MORE DIFFICULT, 
LET'S SAY, AT THE VERY END. AND THEN YOU HAD THIS FINAL MEETING ON JUNE 2nd -- 
ON JULY 2nd.
SO BUT LET ME MAKE THIS CONSIDERATION. GOING TO THE END OF THE PROCESS, YOU 
HAVE TO SIGN CONTRACTS WITH THE APPLICANTS. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE SAFEGUARDS, 
IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE WHAT WILL BE THE, FOR SPECIFIC STRINGS, THE CLOSEST 
AND THE ADDITION TO THE STANDARD CONTRACT, LET'S SAY, WITH THE APPLICANT, 
BECAUSE FROM THIS IS ALSO DEPENDING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SAFEGUARD THAT WE 
ARE LOOKING FOR.
SO THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM YOUR SIDE YOU CAN HAVE 
PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING THIS ADVICE, AND TO DECIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE 
CATEGORIES WHICH ARE THE MORE CRITICAL APPLICATIONS REFERRING TO THIS CATEGORY.
AND SO IF YOU WILL END UP WITH A SPECIFIC CLOSEST FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATION IN 
THE SAME CATEGORY.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY. BUT AS ALSO PETER FROM 
AUSTRALIA SAID, IN THE END, YOU SHOULD COME WITH US, TRYING TO IMPLEMENT. 
BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT YOU WELL UNDERSTOOD THE MEANING OF THIS ANNEX 1. BUT YOU 
SHOULD COME WITH US BY SAYING, "WE HAVE AN IDEA TO TRY AND TO IMPLEMENT WHAT 
YOU ASK FOR IN SUCH A WAY," BECAUSE OF COURSE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO AVOID IS 
THAT YOU DO AN IMPLEMENTATION AND THEN YOU ARE CRITICIZED BY THE GAC OR THE GAC 
IS MAKING PROBLEMS.
BUT IN ANY CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE PROACTIVE HYPOTHESES FOR 
IMPLEMENTATION.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, ITALY.
NEXT I HAVE SWITZERLAND.
>>SWITZERLAND: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE NEW gTLD 
>>PROGRAM COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK AND FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN A 
>>DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAS ALREADY SAID, I 
>>THINK JUST TO SAY ADVICE IS ADVICE AND TO LEAVE IT AT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION 
>>BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF OUR CONSUMERS AND CITIZENS, 
>>AND THEY WANT US TO HELP YOU IMPLEMENT THIS ADVICE, BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR 
>>PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN THE END THAT THIS WORKS.
SO I THINK THERE IS CLEAR. THE QUESTION IS IN WHAT ROLES, AND STEFANO HAS 
ALREADY ALLUDED TO THAT, HOW DO WE CONCRETELY COOPERATE IN THIS.
MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF EXPLANATION ABOUT THE LIST, BECAUSE THESE CONCRETE LISTS 
HAVE RAISED SOME ATTENTION AND CRITICISM, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE. AND 
INITIALLY, WE DID NOT THINK THAT IT'S THE TASK OF THE GAC TO PUT TOGETHER A 
FINITE LIST OF THESE -- OF SENSITIVE STRINGS, BUT WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT IT 
WOULD BE HELPFUL TO COME UP WITH CONCRETE NAMES. SO DON'T TAKE THIS LIST AS A 
LIST THAT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT OVER MONTHS AND YEARS AND EVERY TLD HAS BEEN 
TESTED. AND THIS IS REALLY -- THESE ARE EXAMPLES, AS WE IDENTIFIED IT IN A 
RATHER SHORT TIME. AND THERE MIGHT BE A FEW NAMES THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST THAT 
YOU COULD EASILY ALSO ADD OR THERE ARE SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN THAT SENSE. BUT 
THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A FINITE, ABSOLUTE LIST. THIS IS MEANT AS AN INDICATIVE 
LIST TO UNDERSTAND, TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES, TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WOULD SEE A 
NEED TO APPLY SAFEGUARDS.
AND YOU'RE ALSO RIGHT BY SAYING THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REGULATION 
AMONG CERTAIN STRINGS IN A SAME CATEGORY. OF COURSE, SOMETHING LIKE DOT BANK IS 
SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY NEEDS HIGHER REGULATION THAN OTHER GENERIC TERMS, LIKE 
MONEY OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS LESS CLEARLY LINKED TO AN INDUSTRY.
BUT IN THE TIME AVAILABLE THAT WE HAD AND ALSO IN THE -- WE DIDN'T WANT TO 
PRODUCE A 50-PAGE DOCUMENT. THIS IS BASICALLY JUST AN ALLUSION TO A WHOLE RANGE 
OF ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH.
SO THIS IS MY FIRST REMARK.
AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE REGULATION 
IN SOME COUNTRIES THAT DIFFER FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, AND THAT WILL NOT BE EASY 
TO IMPLEMENT OR RESPECT ALL THESE DIFFERENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS. BUT SINCE 
WE'RE DEALING WITH THE INTERNET, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. IF YOU'RE A COMPANY LIKE 
FACEBOOK OR GOOGLE AND YOU'RE OPERATING IN 200 COUNTRIES, YOU ALSO DO HAVE TO 
RESPECT, OR TRY TO RESPECT, 200 DIFFERENT LEGISLATIONS. AND THIS IS THE SAME 
HERE IN THE TLD ENVIRONMENT, SO THAT BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO -- 
THOSE WHO ARE NOT YET USED WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO WORKING WITH DIFFERENT 
JURISDICTIONS WITH DIFFERENT REGULATIONS. BUT ALSO, OF COURSE, THE NATIONAL 
REGULATORS AND BODIES WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO WORK WITH BUSINESSES AND TRY TO 
MAKE THEIR LIVES AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
AND I CAN JUST ALLUDE IN THAT PROCESS TO JURISDICTION PROJECT THAT YOUR FELLOW 
BOARD MEMBER, BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, WHO FOR SOME TIME NOW IS LOOKING INTO 
THESE ISSUES AND TRYING TO FIND SOLUTION IN DEALING WITH CROSS-BORDER, 
CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. AND I THINK IT'S WORTH ALSO TAKING THIS INTO 
ACCOUNT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOLUTIONS TO BE FOUND, AND WE NEED NEW IDEAS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, SWITZERLAND.
CHRIS.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, 
>>ALL OF YOU, FOR BEING PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WE APPRECIATE IT.
TO GO TO REQUESTS FOR PERHAPS A MORE PROACTIVE HYPOTHESIS FOR US ON 
IMPLEMENTATION, WE DON'T, AT THIS STAGE, REALLY HAVE ONE BECAUSE WE'RE UNCLEAR 
ABOUT HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT AT ALL SOME OF THE PIECES OF THE ADVICE.
AND IN RESPECT TO OTHER PIECES OF ADVICE, THAT TIES BACK TO THE COMMENT JUST 
MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE OF THERE BEING OTHER NAMES THAT COULD BE ADDED 
TO THE LIST.
THE ISSUE FOR US IS NOT SO MUCH THAT THERE COULD BE OTHER NAMES THAT COULD BE 
ADDED TO THE LIST, BUT, RATHER, NAMES THAT APPEAR ON THE LIST THAT WE DON'T 
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND SO OUR SUGGESTED WAY FORWARD FOR THAT IS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. SO TO 
ACTUALLY FIND A WAY OF SAYING -- WHETHER IT'S YOU AS A GROUP OR A SERIES OF 
INDIVIDUALS -- IS TO FIND A WAY OF SAYING CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY THIS NAME 
APPEARS IN THIS CATEGORY BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
NOW, WE CAN DO THAT FORMALLY, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE, AND WRITE TO YOU 
AND SAY -- AND TAKE EACH NAME AND ANALYZE EACH NAME AND COME BACK TO YOU AND 
TELL YOU WHY WE THINK IT'S UNWORKABLE OR IS WORKABLE. AND IF THAT'S A WAY 
FORWARD THAT WE AGREE, THEN SO BE IT. I'M OPEN TO ALL SORTS OF SUGGESTIONS. BUT 
WHAT I WANT TO AVOID HERE IS US DOING, YOU KNOW, WEEKS AND WEEKS OF WORK, "A," 
WITHOUT TELLING YOU THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND "B," WITHOUT 
YOU ACCEPTING THAT'S THE WAY YOU WILL RECEIVE IT . SO THE BEST WAY IS TO FIND A 
METHODOLOGY OR WAY OF MOVING FORWARDS THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FROM OUTSIDE OF 
THE FENCE THERE ARE REALLY SERIOUS ISSUES WITH IMPLEMENTING SOME OF THE THINGS 
YOU HAVE SUGGESTED.
SO IT'S NOT JUST A CASE OF YOU SAYING, "COME BACK AND TELL US HOW YOU THINK YOU 
CAN IMPLEMENT." IF WE DO THAT, WE'LL COME BACK AND TELL YOU WE CAN'T IN RESPECT 
TO SOME OF THEM. AND SO WE'RE MORE INTERESTED IN TAKING THE BIGGER PICTURE OF 
THE WHOLE THING AND SAY HOW CAN WE ADJUST THE WHOLE THING SO THAT YOU GET AS 
MUCH AS YOU THINK -- AS YOU CAN OUT OF IT THAT MAKES YOU COMFORTABLE. I'LL 
LEAVE IT AT THAT, HEATHER.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU. I HAVE PORTUGAL, EU COMMISSION AND AUSTRALIA. SO 
>>PORTUGAL, P PLEASE..
>> PORTUGAL: I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN PORTUGUESE IF YOU WANT TO USE YOUR -- [ 
>> (SPEAKING IN NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE.)
ALL RIGHT. THE MAIN MESSAGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONVEY TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE 
PORTUGAL GOVERNMENT IS THAT THIS IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX ISSUE. WHEN WE REFER 
TO THE GAC WE DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT A GROUP. WE ARE A GROUP OF GOVERNMENTS THAT 
ARE QUITE DIFFERENT SO THIS MEANS THAT THIS ISSUE IS EVEN MORE COMPLEX. ALL 
COLLEAGUES IN THE GAC THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME MADE COMMENTS THAT I FULLY SHARE 
BECAUSE NO POSITION WAS TAKEN. WHAT THEY SAID IS THAT WE SUBMITTED OR WE RAISED 
THE MAIN PROBLEMS, THE MAIN ISSUES. THOSE ISSUES THAT WE BELIEVE THAT ARE MORE 
COMPLICATED, THOSE ISSUES THAT GOVERNMENTS ARE GOING TO FOLLOW-UP ON. IF NO 
DECISION IS MADE, WE WILL FOLLOW UP ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND WE ARE HAVING 
THIS DIALOGUE WITH THE BOARD AND I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS WORKING IN 
GOOD FAITH, VERY INTENSELY, TO OVERCOME ALL THESE PROBLEMS. THE DOCUMENT THAT 
WE WERE GIVEN RAISING CONCERNS, SOME PROBLEMS WAS SUBMITTED TO US TEN DAYS AGO. 
I READ IT. I READ IT AGAIN. AND I CAN STILL MAKE A POSITION, TAKE A POSITION 
BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN POINTS THAT ARE NOT FULLY CLEAR TO ME. I DON'T 
UNDERSTAND ALL THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE GAC SUBMITTED A 
PIECE OF ADVICE THAT PERHAPS FOR THE BOARD WAS NOT SO CLEAR. SO I DON'T KNOW 
WHAT ANSWER TO GIVE TO THIS. I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE WORKING 
TOGETHER IN ORDER TO DETERMINE HOW WE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE 
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. AND WHEN CONCEPTS ARE DIFFERENT, IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT TO 
REACH A CONCLUSION.
IN SUMMARY, YOU MAY HAVE A CERTAIN OPINION AND THAT IS JUST AN OPINION. SO 
PERHAPS WE CAN NEVER PUT FORWARD A FINITE LIST. WE PUT TOGETHER THIS LIST FOR 
THOSE STRINGS THAT WE IDENTIFY AS MORE COMPLEX. AND NOW WE HAVE PRODUCED THIS 
DOCUMENT AND WE HAVE THIS DOCUMENT GIVEN TO US BY THE BOARD'S COMMITTEE. I'M 
GOING TO ANALYZE THIS DOCUMENT IN LISBON AND AFTER SOME TIME ALWAYS IN AN 
AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION WE ARE GOING TO PUT FORWARD A POSITION. THANK YOU 
FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. I THINK THAT THE GAC IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE 
GET QUICK RESPONSES BUT THIS IS QUITE A COMPLEX ISSUE AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE 
USING DIFFERENT CONCEPTS AND WE NEED TO REACH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: PORTUGAL. SO NEXT I HAVE EU COMMISSION, PLEASE.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: THANK YOU, CHAIR. ADDING TO WHAT YOU GAC MEMBERS HAVE 
>>SAID ALREADY, I WOULD LIKE TO DELIVER THE -- THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WOULD 
>>LIKE TO DELIVER A SHORT STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE EU GAC MEMBERS SITTING 
>>WITH US. WE ARE PLEASED WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF SOME KEY ELEMENTS OF THIS 
>>ADVICE GIVEN BY BEIJING AND WE RECOGNIZE THE WORD SO FAR. THE EU IS ALSO GLAD 
>>TO HAVE FURTHER DIALOGUE WITH YOU TODAY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN 
>>RAISED AND IT SHOULD REMAIN AS A BASIS FOR THE GAC ADVICE. WE ARE GLAD TO SEE 
>>A NUMBER OF POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY TOWARDS THE ADVICE GIVEN IN 
>>BEIJING AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT ICANN AFTER THIS CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE WITH 
>>THE GAC MEMBERS WILL FIND A SUITABLE WAY TO I AM ELEMENT IT. THE COMPLICATION 
>>OF NATIONAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS AND REGULATORY SYSTEMS ALREADY EXIST AND 
>>TOGETHER WE NEED TO STRIVE TOWARDS A DOUBLE DNS SYSTEM. WE WOULD LIKE TO 
>>HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS STAGE WE STILL NEED A REASONABLE TIME TO THINK THROUGH 
>>THE DOCUMENT CIRCULATED YESTERDAY CONTAIN AGO SERIES OF VERY PRECISE 
>>QUESTIONS YOU HAVE JUST REFERRED TO IN THE SLIDE. AND WE NOTE WE ARE STILL 
>>CONSULTING OUR CAPITALS AND HEADQUARTERS. ALSO BEARING IN MIND THAT OUR 
>>POSITION IS STILL AT THE VERY EMBRYONIC STAGE. EUROPEAN GAC MEMBERS CONSIDER 
>>THE ROLE OF THE GAC IN THIS DISCUSSION IS TO PROVIDE HIGH LEVEL 
>>CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE BEIJING GAC ADVICE RATHER THAN PRECISE 
>>IMPLEMENTATION MEANS. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE LEAST OF SENSITIVE 
>>STRINGS PROVIDED IN THE BEIJING COMMUNIQUE IS A NON-EXHAUSTIVE ONE AND MOST 
>>STRINGS HAVE A CASE-BY-CASE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GOING BELOW THE THRESHOLD IN 
>>THOSE CATEGORIES MEANING THE LIST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AT-MINIMUM LIST. WE 
>>WOULD LIKE IN ADDITION TO THANK THE NGPC FOR TAKING INTO ADVICE THE ADVICE 
>>REGARDING APPLICATIONS, SUPPORTED BY COMMUNITIES BUT WHICH WERE NOT SUBMITTED 
>>AS (INDISCERNIBLE) APPLICATION AND WHICH ARE IN CONTENTION WITH COMMERCIAL 
>>APPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, THE RESPONSE TO THE ADVICE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 
>>THE KEY CONCERNS THAT THE COMMUNITY INTEREST SHOULD BE FULLY RECOGNIZED IN 
>>SITUATIONS. WE WOULD ALSO BE GRATEFUL IF YOU COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 
>>INFORMATION TODAY ON THE RATIONALE BECAUSE SINGULAR AND PLURAL DECISIONS AS 
>>WE CONSIDER THEY'RE STILL CONFUSABILITY CONCERNS FOR THE EU. AND LAST NOT 
>>LEAST WE REMAIN AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO CONTINUE GIVING HIGH-LEVEL ADVICE TO 
>>SUPPORT ICANN IN MOOING FORWARD TOWARDS A SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
>>gTLD PROGRAM, IN A FRAMEWORK OF RESPECT AND LEGITIMACY ESPECIALLY SINCE THE 
>>(INDISCERNIBLE) IN ALL OF THE FORA.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, EU COMMISSION. SO NEXT I HAVE GERMANY, THAN 
>>AUSTRALIA, U.K. AND SPAIN. GERMANY.
>>GERMANY: YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO OUR 
>>COLLEAGUE FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WHICH -- AS GERMANY FULLY ENDORSES THE 
>>POSITION. I WOULD GO BACK, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO CHRIS' REQUESTS AND 
>>QUESTION AND THIS WAS A RATHER CONCRETE QUESTION THAT HE WAS MENTIONING THAT 
>>SOME OF THE STRINGS FROM ICANN POINT OF VIEW AND BOARD POINT OF VIEW SEEM TO 
>>BE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND MY QUESTION -- AND YOU ARE ASKING ME -- ASK THE GAC 
>>WHETHER WE COULD REDUCE, AS I UNDERSTOOD, THE LIST AND DELETE ONE OR OTHER 
>>STRING. MY REACTION ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FIRST, WHICH ARE THE STRINGS 
>>THAT SEEM TO BE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND WHERE ARE THE PROBLEMS? IT IS FOR US TO 
>>UNDERSTAND BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND WHICH ARE THE STRINGS YOU COULD 
>>APPLY, THIS WOULD BE A WAY FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS YOU ARE 
>>FACING. AND I HOPE THIS IS A POSITIVE APPROACH. THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GERMANY. CHRIS, PLEASE.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: YES. HUBERT, THANK YOU. YES, PRECISELY WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID 
>>IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. AND WHAT WE'RE 
>>-- WHAT WE'RE STRIVE TO GO DO IS TO FIND THE RIGHT FORMAT IN WHICH TO HAVE 
>>THIS DISCUSSION. IF THE RIGHT FORMAT IS SIMPLY THAT WE WRITE TO YOU, YOU 
>>WRITE BACK TO US, WE -- THEN SO BE IT. BUT WE WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE NEED 
>>TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH YOU AND TO BE CLEAR WITH YOU WHAT THAT DIALOGUE IS 
>>ABOUT. SO ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU SAID ABOUT 
>>YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AND WHY, COMPLETELY AGREE. AND WE NEED 
>>TO LAUNCH THAT PROCESS, IF YOU WILL, IN SOME FORMAT.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS. SO WE HAVE IDENTIFIED WHAT IS 
>>THE KEY DRIVING QUESTION AND THAT IS TO IDENTIFY WHICH ARE THE STRINGS THAT 
>>ARE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND WHY AND THAT WOULD BE THE FOCUS OF THE JOINT 
>>EFFORTS THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE NEW gTLD COMMITTEE. 
>>OKAY. I HAVE AUSTRALIA, U.K. AND THEN SPAIN. AUSTRALIA, PLEASE.
>>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M RETHINKING MY INTERVENTION AS IT'S BEEN 
>>PARTLY OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS, BUT IT SEEMS WE HAVE A GOOD SENSE AROUND THE 
>>TABLE THAT EVERYONE SEEMS VERY HAPPY AND WILLING AND TO UNDERSTAND THE 
>>NECESSITY OF CONTINUED DIALOGUE HERE. SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH A GIVEN 
>>FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM COLLEAGUES AROUND THE TABLE. AND AS CHRIS HAS SAID, 
>>PERHAPS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE MECHANISM. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE 
>>ABLE TO WORK THROUGH ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE HERE AT THE MICROPHONE TODAY. 
>>THAT'S REASONABLY CLEAR. BUT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMITTEE AS 
>>WELL, THERE IS PERHAPS A LIMITED SET OF QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY EXPLICIT 
>>IN THE DOCUMENT, BUT CHRIS HAS SAID THAT IT'S -- IT'S CLEAR THAT SOME STRINGS 
>>ARE PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, NOT AS DIFFICULT AS OTHERS AND FROM THE DOCUMENT WE 
>>HAVE IN FRONT OF US, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO LISTS, THE HIGHLY REGULATED, BANK, 
>>LAWYER, PHARMACY WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE BOARD. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING 
>>PERHAPS THEY'RE NOT THAT DIFFICULT AND THAT CONTROVERSIAL AND PERHAPS SOME 
>>OTHERS ARE. IT MAY BE RELATIVELY SIMPLE FOR US TO AGREE THAT SOME ISSUES CAN 
>>BE AGREED AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO SOME TRICKY QUESTIONS. PERHAPS WE WORK 
>>THROUGH SOME PRINCIPLE. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. BUT I'M -- HAVING THOUGHT ON MY 
>>FEET, PERHAPS THE QUESTION IS, I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF A FEW MECHANISMS OFF 
>>THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT MY CHAIR NOW, WONDERING 
>>WHETHER THE GAC NEEDS TO DISCUSS THIS AFTERWARDS AND GET BACK TO YOU. I KNOW 
>>WE HAVE TIME WITH THE BOARD LATER IN THIS -- IN THIS WEEK. AND GIVEN WHERE 
>>WE'VE SORT OF ARRIVED AT, I WONDER IF POTENTIALLY IT'S USEFUL FOR US TO TAKE 
>>IT AS THE GAC AND FIGURE OUT HOW, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE WOULD BE MOST 
>>COMFORTABLE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU. WITH A MIND TO EFFICIENCY AND 
>>TIMELINESS.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INTERVENTION, AUSTRALIA, AND 
>>I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF YOUR LAST POINT, IS COME AWAY 
>>AGAIN AS A GAC AND THEN THINK WHAT APPROACH WOULD WORK FOR US AND THEN WE CAN 
>>WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS AFTERWARDS. BUT I -- I SHARE THE VIEW THAT WE -- WE DO 
>>HAVE A GENERAL AGREEMENT HERE THAT WE SHOULD AND CAN FIND A WAY TO CONTINUE 
>>THE DIALOGUE WITH THE gTLD COMMITTEE.
OKAY, SO NEXT I HAVE THE U.K., PLEASE.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE COMMITTEE 
>>COMING HERE TODAY. IT'S VERY HELPFUL. I SENT A BRIEFING NOTE TO THE 
>>SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES AND REGULATORS IN THE U.K. LAST WEEK AHEAD OF THIS 
>>MEETING SO UPDATE THEM ON PROGRESS AND ACTUALLY I WAS QUITE UPBEAT IN MY 
>>NOTE, YOU KNOW, RECOUNTING THE SUBMISSION OF ADVICE ON SAFEGUARDS AND THE 
>>FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS HARD AT WORK AND WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK 
>>OF THE COMMITTEE, AS OTHERS HAVE SAID BEFORE ME. IT IS A VERY COMPLEX AREA, 
>>VERY CHALLENGING. AND WE KNOW WE'RE ALL WORKING WITH THE SAME OBJECTIVE. SO I 
>>WAS QUITE UPBEAT AND I SAID WE ANTICIPATED ISSUES FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR 
>>DISCUSSION HERE AT THIS MEETING, AND THAT I'D GO BACK TO THEM ON CONCRETE 
>>PROPOSALS, JUST TO GET -- KEEP THEM UP TO SPEED, PROPOSALS COMING FROM ICANN, 
>>FROM THE COMMUNITY. SO YOUR FIRST SLIDE WAS A BIT -- VERY DISCOURAGING 
>>ACTUALLY. BUT I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE GENERAL REQUEST OF MOVING FORWARD AND 
>>IDENTIFYING THE MECHANISMS FOR DOING THAT.
WITH REGARD TO THE LISTS, MY EXPECTATION WAS THAT WE WOULD TRY TO HELP ICANN, 
THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IN THIS PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING THOSE gTLD APPLICATIONS 
THAT GAVE RISE TO VERY MAJOR CONCERNS WITH REGULATORS AND AUTHORITIES AND OTHER 
STAKEHOLDERS, WE WOULD HELP THAT PROCESS WITH PROVIDING A PRETTY GOOD 
EXEMPTLIFICATION AND I'M CONFIDENT WE'VE DONE THAT AND I THINK THE NEXT STEP 
FORWARD IS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO TRY AND PREPARE A FIRST DRAFT LIST FOR 
CONSULTATION WITH THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. AND WE, THE GOVERNMENTS, WE COULD 
OBVIOUSLY SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT CONSULTATION. SO THAT 
THESE GRAY AREAS THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL STRINGS WHICH 
YOU FEEL DON'T MERIT INCLUSION, THE WHOLE COMMUNITY CAN RESOLVE THAT ISSUE AND 
ALSO IDENTIFY THOSE THAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED IN OUR LISTS AS SWITZERLAND SAID 
EARLIER. WE'VE DONE OUR BEST IN TERMS OF PROVIDING GUIDANCE BUT WE'RE NOT 
RESOURCED REALLY TO EXAMINE AND TEST US AS SWITZERLAND PUT IT, OUR CONCLUSIONS 
THAT THESE PARTICULAR STRINGS FALL INTO THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OR 
THE HEALTH SECTOR. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO STEER YOU IN THAT -- IN ACHIEVING 
THAT GOAL, AND I JUST THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS TO -- FOR THE COMMITTEE AND ITS 
ADVISERS AND LEGAL ADVISERS AND SO ON TO PREPARE A MORE AUTHORITATIVE LIST. OUR 
LIST WAS NOT AUTHORITATIVE. IT WAS INDICATIVE AS WE'VE SAID. SO THAT'S MY 
SUGGESTION FOR THE -- WITH REGARDS TO THE LIST.
NOW AS REGARDS SAFEGUARDS AND THE DOCUMENT WHERE -- WHERE YOU SET OUT QUESTIONS 
AND CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE SAFEGUARD ADVICE, I FIND SOME OF THIS RATHER 
PERPLEXING BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, SAFEGUARD NUMBER 3, REGISTRY 
OPERATORS WILL REQUIRE THAT REGISTRANTS WHO COLLECT AND MAINTAIN SENSITIVE 
HEALTH AND FINANCIAL DATA IMPLEMENT REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE SECURITY 
MEASURES COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFERING OF THOSE SERVICES AS DEFINED BY 
APPLICABLE LAW AND RECOGNIZED INDUSTRY STANDARDS, THAT WAS A CAREFULLY DRAFTED 
PIECE OF DEFINITION OF A SAFEGUARD. BUT THE RESPONSE IN THE -- THE DOCUMENT 
SAYS THIS SAFEGUARD IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH AND THUS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO 
IMPLEMENT IT. WELL, THAT'S A RATHER NEGATIVE REACTION, IN MY VIEW. IF THERE ARE 
QUESTIONS AND YOU GO ON TO LIST SOME PARTICULAR QUESTIONS AS TO WHO IS THE 
APPROPRIATE ENTITY AND SO ON, WELL YES, WE CAN -- WE CAN TAKE THE ADVICE OF OUR 
FINANCIAL AND HEALTH REGULATORS AND SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES TO HELP YOU ANSWER 
THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT OF COURSE WE ALSO EXPECT YOU TO UNDERTAKE LEGAL AND OTHER 
AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES OF ADVICE YOURSELVES. BUT I FIND IT RATHER NEGATIVE TO 
SAY IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH SO WE CAN'T IMPLEMENT IT. I'M KIND OF SURPRISED AT 
THAT LANGUAGE, PUT IT THAT WAY. AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT IS 
IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT. THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION PERHAPS THAT -- 
NOT PERHAPS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND WE CAN HELP YOU AND YOUR 
ADVISERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS RESOLVE THOSE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION TO HELP 
YOU MOVE FORWARD TO A POINT OF PROPOSAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
SO I -- I'M STILL FEELING POSITIVE. I GOT A VERY NEGATIVE FEEL AT THE START OF 
THIS SESSION, BUT I STILL FEEL POSITIVE THAT THE ADVICE WE'VE GIVEN IS 
SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH FOR YOU TO FIND A WAY FORWARD FOR IMPLEMENTATION THAT WILL 
HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS. SO THAT'S MY BASIC APPROACH. I WILL NEED 
TO CONSULT THE PEOPLE I'VE BEEN CONSULTING WITH, THE POLICY EXPERTS, ON THIS 
DOCUMENT. I NEED TIME FOR DOING THAT. WE'VE ALL MADE CLEAR, I THINK, THAT THAT 
IS THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO OUR WORKING METHODS. WE HAVE TO CONSULT WITH 
OUR CAPITALS AND THAT DOES TAKE A BIT OF TIME. SO WE NEED AN ADEQUATE PERT OF 
TIME TO EFFECT ON THESE QUESTIONS. BUT I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU AS WE'VE SAID -- 
COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID BEFORE ME, TO LOOK AT THIS WITH A MORE ACTIVE APPROACH SO 
SAY YES, WE WILL IMPLEMENT THIS. WE JUST NEED TO RESOLVE THAT. WE'RE HAPPY WITH 
THAT ADVICE. AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR SECOND SLIDE, YOU'RE NOT REJECTING 
THIS ADVICE SO YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT IT AND JUST COME BACK TO US WITH POINTS 
WHERE WE FEEL WE CAN HELP YOU WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION. BUT THERE IS -- THERE IS 
A -- A LIMIT TO HOW WE CAN ENGAGE IN IMPLEMENTATION. IT'S A VERY HIGH. WE'RE 
SETTING THE -- WE'VE SET OUT THE ADVICE AND THE ISSUES OF PRINCIPLE, THE 
OVERRIDING CONCERNS WITH A NUMBER OF STRING APPLICATIONS OVER TO YOU ICANN AND 
THE COMMUNITY TO SET ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION AND WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO HELP YOU 
WITH THAT PROCESS. BUT AS TO DEFINING ACTUAL MODALITIES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 
THESE SAFEGUARDS, I'M AFRAID, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY. 
IT SHOULDN'T BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY. WE'VE SET THE PRINCIPLES OF -- OF 
STANDARDS, IF YOU LIKE, FOR THESE PARTICULAR STRINGS OVER TO YOU, ICANN. SO 
THAT'S MY BASIC APPROACH TO THIS. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. JUST ONE POINT THAT I WOULD CLARIFY. I HAD A 
>>DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ADVICE. WHAT OUR 
>>COLLEAGUES FROM THE gTLD COMMITTEE HAVE TOLD US IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT 
>>REJECTED THAT ADVICE. BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THEY WILL NOT. THAT'S 
>>STILL AN OPTION. AND I THINK IN COMING TO US TODAY AND IDENTIFYING AREAS TO 
>>CLARIFY, TO WORK WITH US, TO FIND A WAY TO IMPLEMENT, THEN THAT IS THEIR 
>>PREFERENCE, TO WORK THAT WAY. AND WHAT I AM HEARING FROM COLLEAGUES HERE IS 
>>THAT THEY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO DO THIS. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
>>BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR POINT.
SO I UNDERSTAND ERIKA MANN WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE gTLD COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO 
SPEAK.
>>ERIKA MANN: THANK YOU SO MUCH, HEATHER. I MUST SAY I'M -- I'M -- FIND THE 
>>DISCUSSION INSOFAR AS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT IN MANY WAYS, BECAUSE 
>>OF THE PIONEERING CHARACTER OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING HERE AND WE DON'T HAVE A 
>>GUIDEBOOK, THERE'S NO BLUEPRINT, THERE'S NO ISO STANDARDS OR WHATEVER NORM 
>>WHICH WE CAN JUST LOOK AT AND THEN WE CAN IMPLEMENT IT, WE DANCE A LITTLE BIT 
>>AROUND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO DO WHAT, TO CLARIFY EITHER THE LISTS, IS IT 
>>LOGICAL, DOES IT APPLY INTERNATIONAL LAW, IS IT REALLY LOOKING INTO ALL 
>>NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS, CAN JURISDICTION BE SCALED ON THE GLOBAL LEVEL. SO 
>>THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE -- IS IT THE GAC, IS IT ICANN? I THINK IT'S -- TO 
>>BE FRANK I THINK IT IS ALL OF US TOGETHER BECAUSE -- BECAUSE OF THE -- THE 
>>CHARACTER, THE PIONEERING CHARACTER OF OUR INDUSTRY AND BECAUSE OF THE 
>>PIONEERING CHARACTER OF THE NEXT STEP WE ARE UNDERTAKING IN THE gTLD 
>>ENVIRONMENT AND THE SENSITIVITIES INVOLVED.
NOW, I MUST SAY I'M VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE COMMENTS FROM THE GAC. I FIND THIS 
EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR US, CHERINE AND CHRIS AND FOR THE gTLD BOARD MEMBERS, 
EXTREMELY ENCOURAGING TO WORK WITH US. WE UNDERSTAND THE LIST, WE SHALL SEE IT 
REGARDED AS AN INDICATIVE LIST. WE SHALL ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND AND SEE IT AS A 
GUIDANCE WHICH WAS GIVEN. WE DO UNDERSTAND ON THE SAFEGUARDS, THE SAFEGUARDS 
ARE SAFEGUARDS, NOT IN A SENSE TO BE TAKEN THAT THEY SHALL BE TAKEN WORD BY 
WORD BUT THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AS REALLY GUIDANCE TO US TO COME BACK WITH A CLEAR 
INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF LAWS AND IMPLEMENTATION AND METHODS HOW THIS CAN 
BE DONE.
SO I DO THINK WE HAVE -- ACTUALLY BETWEEN US A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING WHAT 
SHALL BE DONE. LET ME MAYBE MAKE ONE SUGGESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORKABLE 
IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, BUT FROM MY INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH SIMILAR 
ISSUES IN DIFFERENT -- I MUST ADMIT IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENTS, 
BUT WE -- WHY NOT BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU ALL MADE AND 
LOOKING TO THE McCABE AS THE LAST SPEAKER BECAUSE WE ARE HERE PRETTY MUCH FOR A 
WEEK WHY NOT BUILD A SMALL GROUP FROM THE GTLD COMMUNITY, SOME OF OUR 
COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE HERE, I MEAN, WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS WHICH ARE 
PRESENT. WE DO HAVE THE REGISTRY PRESENT. WHY NOT JUST BUILDING A SMALL GROUP 
AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE METHOD, WHAT WOULD BE THE LOGICAL 
BECAUSE YOU NEED SOME LOGICAL METHODS TO DEFINE THINGS WHICH YOU DON'T 
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YET, WHY NOT DOING IT, THEN HAVING JUST A CLEARER 
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US. I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD ROAD ALREADY BUT EVEN 
MORE CLEARER UNDERSTANDING AND THEN WE CAN TAKE IT TO THE COMMUNITY SO THAT 
IT'S NOT -- EVERYTHING IS LEFT FOR, YOU KNOW, WITH UNKNOWN -- IN CERTAIN AREAS 
GRAY AS YOU RIGHTLY SAID, THIS GRAY AREAS. SO I -- I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE THIS 
RECOMMENDATION. NOT SURE IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ONE -- FULLY IN OUR 
ENVIRONMENT BUT CHERINE, HEATHER, CHRIS, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO AS 
A NEXT STEP. BECAUSE MY FEELING IS WE ARE PRETTY CLOSE ACTUALLY. WE JUST FIGHT 
ABOUT THE METHOD. WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT, WHAT WE DON'T WANT, WE JUST FIGHT 
PRACTICALLY ABOUT THE METHOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU ERIKA, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT SUGGESTION. WE'RE NOT 
>>GOING TO BE ABLE TO AGREE TO THE MODALITIES HERE IN THIS DISCUSSION AND WE 
>>ARE RUNNING SHORT OF TIME. SO IN MY SPEAKING ORDER I HAVE SPAIN, THE UNITED 
>>STATES, AND A REQUEST FROM IRAN. IF I CAN ASK THESE THREE TO KEEP THEIR 
>>COMMENTS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE AND LIMIT INTERVENTIONS TO MAKING NEW COMMENTS 
>>TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE ABLE BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE OTHER TOPIC 
>>WHILE WE ARE CONVENED STILL HERE TODAY. SO SPAIN, YOU ARE NEXT, PLEASE.
>> SPAIN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TRYING TO BE BRIEF. I LIKE TO DEFEND THE NEED 
>> TO CORRECT THE GAC LIST OF GAC NON-ACCEPT -- SUBSTANTIVE LIST IN CATEGORY 1 
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE THE WORD "(INDISCERNIBLE) IN THE CHILDREN CATEGORY AND ALSO 
>> IN (INDISCERNIBLE) CATEGORY. BUT (INDISCERNIBLE) MEANS (INDISCERNIBLE) ALSO 
>> IN SPANISH. THERE WAS A LITTLE MISTAKE WHEN DRAFTING THIS LIST AND IT'S VERY 
>> IMPORTANT FOR US TO INCLUDE THAT WORD "(INDISCERNIBLE) IN THE 
>> (INDISCERNIBLE) CATEGORY. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE REGULATION THE LAW 
>> ENFORCEMENT OF SPAIN HAS THAT NAME, THE COMPETENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY 
>> REGARDING WITH THAT -- HAS THE NAME, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO WHAT THIS WORD TO 
>> THE CATEGORY OF (INDISCERNIBLE).
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SPAIN. I THINK THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE 
>>SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TO ADDRESS THESE KINDS OF ISSUES IF WE FIND THEM. 
>>SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. UNITED STATES, YOU'RE NEXT, PLEASE.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND THANKS TO MEMBERS OF 
>>THE BOARD WHO ARE HERE. I'M JUST GOING TO CONCUR VERY BRIEFLY WITH COLLEAGUES 
>>WHO HAVE EXPRESSED I THINK THE SAME SENTIMENTS THAT WE HOLD AND WE'RE VERY 
>>GRATIFIED THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO COME AND MEET WITH US FACE-TO-FACE. 
>>WE HAVE FOUND YOUR DOCUMENT ACTUALLY EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN SORT OF 
>>HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE COME ACROSS IN YOUR WORK. DO 
>>WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE DIRECTED TO THIS WORK. THIS IS 
>>NOT AN EASY TASK. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY 
>>CONCUR WHEN THE SUGGESTION FROM AUSTRALIA WHICH IS CLEARLY THAT THE GAC 
>>ITSELF I THINK NEEDS TO REVISIT THIS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN BEST 
>>HELP YOU AS A -- IN THIS PARTNERSHIP AND TO CON CUR WITH ERIKA'S SUGGESTION. 
>>I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. WE DO NEED PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT OF 
>>BRAINSTORMING TO SORT OF GO BACK AND FORTH AND PERHAPS WINNOW DOWN SOME OF 
>>THE SUGGESTIONS WHERE THERE IS CONFUSION, THEN IT'S -- I BELIEVE IT'S 
>>INCUMBENT UPON US TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT CONFUSION. SO I JUST WANTED 
>>TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION THAT THESE ISSUES ARE 
>>BEING -- THAT IS BEING DEVOTED TO THESE ISSUES AND THAT WE ARE QUITE 
>>COMMITTED TO WORKING TOGETHER IN PARTNERSHIP TO CLEAR THE AIR AND TO MOVE 
>>FORWARD. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. IRAN, PLEASE.
>>IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. I THINK MY IMPRESSIONS OF THE TERM "THEY ARE 
>>NOT IMPLEMENTABLE," PERHAPS IT MEANT THAT AT THE FORM THAT THEY ARE OR IN THE 
>>CURRENT FORM OR AT THIS STAGE OR SO ON AND SO FORTH BUT WAS NOT DEFINITIVELY 
>>UNIMPLEMENTABLE. THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED, YES. BUT THE SITUATION IS THAT LET'S 
>>TAKE THE SAFEGUARD. SAFEGUARD IS A RESULT OF THE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT 
>>DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD IN BEIJING, BACK AND FORTH. PEOPLE PLAY-NOT PLAY, 
>>PROPOSE WORDS, IT WAS EXCHANGED, IT WAS COME BACK OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO, SO 
>>ON AND SO FORTH. BUT THAT IS THE WAY THAT ALL THIS TYPE OF THE NEXT ARE PUT 
>>TOGETHER, ARE THE RESULT OF CONSENSUS, AS THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATION AND SO ON 
>>AND SO FORTH.
WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION, YES, IT IS NOT UP TO THE GAC TO PROVIDE THE 
MODALITY OF IMPLEMENTATION, HOWEVER, PERHAPS THERE MIGHT BE AREAS THAT 
CLARIFICATION ARE REQUIRED WHAT WAS MEANT BECAUSE EVERY TEXT IT HAS TWO THINGS. 
ONE IS THE LETTER AND THE OTHER IS PRINT. LETTER IS THERE BUT THE SPIRIT OR THE 
AREA OF IMPLEMENTATION -- OR ATMOSPHERE OR ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THESE TEXTS 
WERE PUT TOGETHER, THAT PERHAPS SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE NOT OF -- AVAILABLE AT 
THAT TIME OR THEY WERE NOT LISTENING TO THAT TIME OR IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO SEE 
UNDER WHAT ENVIRONMENT THIS TEXT WERE PUT TOGETHER AND CRAFTED
SO I THINK THAT THE END RESULT WOULD BE THAT THEY NEED CLARIFICATION, AND 
CLARIFICATION NEED TO BE PROVIDED. HOWEVER, ONE LAST POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO 
MAKE. THE SAFEGUARD, AND THE ADVICE YOU HAVE GIVEN WERE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE 
OF GIVING ADVICE. AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS 
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CRITICIZED. THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE WORK.
IF THE FORMULATION IS NOT CORRECT, IF THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT CORRECT, THAT IS 
ANOTHER THING. BUT CURRENTLY, WE BASE OURSELVES ON THE PRINCIPLES, HOW TO 
PROVIDE ADVICE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN.
OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE NEXT TOPIC ON OUR AGENDA, 
AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF IGO ACRONYMS AND HOW TO TREAT THEM AT THE 
SECOND LEVEL IN THE CURRENT ROUND.
SO I BELIEVE I CAN HAND OVER TO CHRIS AGAIN ON THIS TOPIC.
SO, PLEASE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, HEATHER.
WE HAVE, AGAIN, A SMALL NUMBER OF SLIDES IN RESPECT TO THIS.
SO BEFORE I PUT UP THE FIRST SLIDE, CAN I SAY THAT IT'S, AGAIN, AN ATTEMPT TO 
LEVEL SET. AND I HOPE THAT IT'S NOT DISAPPOINTING TO YOU THAT WE ARE -- IT MAY 
SEEM TO BE SLIGHTLY NEGATIVE, BUT WE'LL GET THROUGH IT AND SEE HOW WE GO.
JAMIE, OR IF I COULD HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE UP, PLEASE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
SO I JUST WANT TO DO A VERY BRIEF HISTORY AND LEVEL SET ON THIS.
ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2012, IN YOUR ADVICE TO US YOU ASKED US TO PROTECT THE 
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND THE RED CROSS NAMES AT THE TOP AND SECOND LEVEL AS THEY 
ENJOY TWO-TIER PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND NATIONAL LAW IN MANY 
JURISDICTIONS. YOU TOLD US THOSE WERE THE ONLY ENTITIES THAT NEED THE 
TWO-TIERED PROTECTION AND THAT'S WHY THEY NEEDED TO GET ENHANCED PROTECTION AND 
YOU ADVISED US THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR IGOs IN THE 
FIRST ROUND.
THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT IT FOR THE SECOND 
ROUND.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
YOUR CURRENT ADVICE IS THAT IGO NAMES AND ACRONYMS WARRANT SPECIAL PROTECTION 
IN AN EXPANDED DNS.
SO WHAT WE THINK YOUR ADVICE MEANS IS THAT IGOs GET A GREATER LEVEL OF 
PROTECTION THAN THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND THE RED CROSS, FOR WHOM 
THE PROTECTION EXTENDS TO NAMES ONLY AND NOT ACRONYMS.
THE IGOs GET A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN THE SOVEREIGN NATIONS ISO 
THREE-LETTER COUNTRY CODES WHICH ARE PROTECTED AT THE TOP LEVEL BUT ARE NOT 
PROTECTED AT THE SECOND LEVEL.
AND IF THAT IS YOUR INTENTION, THEN WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS 
WHAT YOU ARE ADVISING US.
IF IT'S NOT YOUR INTENTION, THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE OTHER 
SOLUTIONS. AND THOSE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE DEVELOPING A REASONABLE 
MEANS OF DIVIDING THE LIST OF ACRONYMS, IDENTIFYING SOME AS APPROPRIATE FOR 
BROAD PROTECTIONS, OTHERS AS NOT. REQUIRING ASKING EACH IGO TO IDENTIFY A 
SUBSET OF THE CURRENTLY APPLIED FOR gTLD STRINGS FOR WHICH ITS DESIGNATED 
ACRONYM SHOULD BE PROHE TECTD DUE TO THE REPROTECTED NATURE OF THE IGO'S WORK 
OF THE APPLIED FOR STRING OR IMPLEMENTING A NOTICE OF REGISTRATION PROCESS 
SIMILAR TO THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE OR SOMETHING ELSE.
SO AGAIN, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS 
ON, WE NEED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE. BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ON THE CALL THAT 
WE HELD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO INTERSESSIONALLY WHERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF 
IGOs AND A NUMBER OF GAC MEMBERS, THE ISSUE FOR THE BOARD IS THAT WE DON'T 
THINK THAT THE IGOs -- WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY TELLING US THAT 
THE IGOs SHOULD HAVE A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN THE RED CROSS AND THE 
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN 
SOVEREIGN STATES. IF YOU ARE TELLING US THAT, THEN, FINE, TELL US THAT AND 
WE'LL MOVE FROM THERE AND WORK OUT WHAT TO DO. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN THE 
RESULT OF WHAT YOUR ADVICE CURRENTLY SAYS IS THAT, AND, THEREFORE, WE NEED TO 
FIND A WAY OF FINDING A WAY FORWARDS THAT DOES NOT, IN FACT, CREATE THAT 
SITUATION.
SO WE HAD ON THE CALL A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THE ISSUE OF -- THE PARTICULAR ISSUE 
OF ONE COUNTRY'S THREE-LETTER CODE WAS RAISED AS BEING A PROBLEM FOR THEM. BUT 
I WANT TO STRESS, BEFORE WE OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION, I WANT TO STRESS THAT 
WE ARE HERE IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION. THAT WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO 
CLEARLY PUT ON THE TABLE THE WAY THIS LOOKS TO US RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DO WANT TO 
FIND A WAY FORWARDS IF WE CAN. THOSE THINGS UP ON THE BOARD, ON THE SCREEN ARE 
MERELY SUGGESTIONS OF POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NUMBER 1, FOR EXAMPLE, I SHOULD IMAGINE, WOULD BE IMMENSELY 
CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED TO BE SPLITTING A LIST AND SO ON AND SO 
FORTH. BUT IN AN EFFORT TO JUST GIVE SOME THOUGHTS TO WAYS FORWARD, WE THOUGHT 
WE'D PUT THEM UP.
SO AT THAT POINT, HEATHER, I'LL HAND BACK TO YOU AND CHERINE AND SEE IF THERE 
ARE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, CHRIS, FOR INTRODUCING US TO THIS TOPIC AND 
>>OUTLINING YOUR CURRENT THINKING ON ADVICE THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED ON THIS 
>>MATTER.
WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSION IN THE GAC ABOUT THIS, BUT IT'S -- AT THESE 
MEETINGS HERE IN DURBAN BUT IT'S BEEN FAIRLY LIMITED. BUT WE HAVE HAD, AS I 
SAY, SOME INITIAL EXCHANGES.
WOULD ANYONE IN THE GAC LIKE TO COMMENT OR PROVIDE ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS FOR 
CLARIFICATION AND SO ON? NO?
CANADA, PLEASE.
>>CANADA: THANK YOU, HEATHER.
I JUST WANTED TO REAFFIRM THAT CANADA DOES HAVE A PARTICULAR CONCERN WITH 
RESPECT TO THE ACRONYM CAN, AND WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT THAT IGOs GET 
A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ISO ALPHA 3 LIST.
WE RECOMMEND THAT PROTECTIONS AWARDED TO IGOs FOR THEIR ACRONYMS INCLUDE 
EXCEPTIONS FOR ISO ALPHA 3 CODES.
THANK YOU.>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, CANADA.
U.K., AND PERU.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST A COMMENT WITH REGARD TO NUMBER 2. AND IT'S A REITERATION, I THINK, OF 
WHAT I SAID ON THE CALL, WHICH IS THAT THERE ARE SOME IGOs WHICH ARE 
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY, AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE QUITE DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY A 
SUBSET FOR THEM. I'M THINKING OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND OECD AND OTHER ENTITIES 
LIKE THAT.
SO JUST A COMMENT ON THAT.
AND MY STRONGEST FEELING OF A WAY FORWARD WOULD BE UNDER 3. SOMETHING LIKE A 
CLEARINGHOUSE APPROACH. BUT THIS IS, AS HEATHER SAID, I THINK IT'S FAIRLY 
PRELIMINARY WITH REGARD TO GAC DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, U.K.
SO NEXT I HAVE PERU, THEN SWITZERLAND, AND UNITED STATES.
>>PERU: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AT THIS MOMENT, I WILL SWITCH TO SPANISH TO EXPRESS 
>>MYSELF CLEARLY AND COMPLETELY. SO IF YOU MIND, PUT ON THE HEADPHONES FOR 
>>THOSE THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND SPANISH.
WHAT WE ARE BEING PRESENTED HERE REGARDING THESE TWO ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION 
THIS MORNING, THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL FROM PERU'S PERSPECTIVE. WE BELIEVE WE NEED 
TO WORK ON A PROCEDURE TO PROVIDE CLEAR CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD AS REGARDS TO 
HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE ADVICE GIVEN BY THE GAC.
WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE TOLD THAT THERE ARE 
CRITERIA THAT ARE NOT CLEAR, AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS A RISK FOR NOT 
IMPLEMENTING SUCH CRITERIA BECAUSE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE GAC LIES PRECISELY 
IN THE FACT THAT EVERY ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE GAC WILL ULTIMATELY BE 
IMPLEMENTED.
THAT IS WHY WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO COME TO US AND SPEAK SO 
FRANKLY AND TELL US THAT THERE IS A CRITICAL PROBLEM THAT YOU REQUIRE 
CLARIFICATION, THAT WHAT WE HAVE TOLD THEM MIGHT NOT BE USEFUL. SO FROM THAT 
PERSPECTIVE, IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR US TO REACT ON ISSUES THAT WE DIDN'T 
HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO CONSULT ON.
GOVERNMENTS WORK DIFFERENTLY FROM CIVIL SOCIETY. WE NEED TIME TO DIGEST THE 
ISSUES, TO UNDERSTAND THEM, AND TO BE ABLE TO PUT FORWARD A NATIONAL POSITION 
THAT LATER ON CAN BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE GAC AND, LATER, AT THE DIFFERENT 
ICANN BODIES. AND, IN PARTICULAR, WITHIN THE BOARD FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
SO WITH THIS, WE MEAN THAT WE WILL NEED TIME TO PROVIDE A REACTION. THIS IS THE 
STARTING POINT FOR A DIALOGUE, BUT THIS IS A DIALOGUE THAT WILL HAVE TO 
CONTINUE IN THE FOLLOWING SESSIONS SO THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO GIVE YOU A 
SUFFICIENT CLARIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTATION.
REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF IGO NAMES, AND I'M EXCLUSIVELY REFERRING TO THE 
UNDERSTANDING OF MY COUNTRY, WE BELIEVE THAT IGOs SHOULD NOT HAVE EXPANDED 
PROTECTION, GREATER PROTECTION, THAN SOVEREIGN STATES. IF THERE IS THE 
IMPRESSION THAT SOVEREIGN STATES PROTECTIONS IS LESS THAN THE IGOs, THEN WE 
HAVE TO REINFORCE THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY NAMES AND GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES 
FOR THESE COUNTRIES. THAT IS MY FIRST APPROACH.
AND MY SECOND COMMENT HAS TO DO WITH COEXISTENCE, IN THE PARTICULAR CASE OF THE 
ANDEAN COMMUNITY, AND THE ACRONYMS FOR -- THAT IDENTIFY THE COUNTRY AS CANADA.
WE HAVE COEXISTED FOR MANY YEARS. PERU IS A MEMBER OF THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY. 
THIS COMMUNITY HAS EXISTED SINCE THE 1960S AND WE HAVE HAD A PEACEFUL 
COEXISTENCE WITHOUT CONFUSION BECAUSE OF THE COURSE.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK CHRIS AND HIS TEAM FOR THIS DIALOGUE. 
AND I ALSO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DIALOGUE.
WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER WE WANT HIGHER PROTECTION FOR COUNTRY NAMES 
OR FOR IGO NAMES, TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK THAT IS A RELEVANT QUESTION TO 
ASK BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION DO WE WANT HIGHER 
PROTECTION FOR TRADEMARKS THAN FOR CITY NAMES OR FOR COUNTRY NAMES AND SO ON.
I THINK WE HAVE TO GO AND I THINK THE PATH IS ALREADY OUTLINED. WE HAVE TO GO 
FOR A CONCRETE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. AND AFTER HEARING THE INTERVENTION OF 
THE COLLEAGUES FROM CANADA AND PERU, I THINK WITH REGARD TO THIS COLLISION OF 
-- POSSIBLE COLLISION OF IGO ACRONYMS AND COUNTRY ISO LIST ABBREVIATIONS, I 
DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM IN PRACTICE. AND IF YOU FOLLOW, I CAN 
EASILY SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL FROM CANADA.
AND I THINK IF WE ALSO LISTEN TO WHAT THE IGO COMMUNITY SAYS, THEY DON'T WANT 
TO HAVE VETO RIGHTS OR LIKE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THE LAST RESORT IN SAYING YES 
OR NO TO THE USE OF THEIR ACRONYM. THEY WANT A NOTIFICATION PROCESS, AND THEY 
WANT TO BE ABLE TO FLAG PROBLEMS IF THEY FEEL THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH A 
NAME, AND THEN SOMEBODY COMPETENT SHOULD TAKE A DECISION AFTER HEARING BOTH 
PARTIES, THE APPLICANT OR SOMEBODY TRYING TO REGISTER A NAME ON A SECOND LEVEL 
AND THE CONCERNS BY THE CONCERNED IGO. I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE IDEA. THE 
QUESTION IS HOW DO WE WORK THIS OUT CONCRETELY. AND I ALREADY HAVE MADE THE 
ALLUSION TO TAKING THE INSPIRATION FROM THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE AND 
DEVELOPING A SIMILAR PROCESS ALSO WITH DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS FOR THE 
IGOs.
AND I CAN JUST REPEAT WHAT I SAID, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST MEETING. IF WE ARE 
ABLE TO DEAL WITH TRADEMARKS WHERE YOU HAVE ALSO OVERLAP WITH OTHER TYPES OF 
NAMES, YOU HAVE OVERLAPS BETWEEN TRADEMARKS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, IF WE ARE 
ABLE TO DO THAT WITH MILLIONS OF TRADEMARKS, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND 
A MECHANISM FOR A FEW HUNDRED ACRONYMS OF IGOs. AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST 
START AND TRY TO IMPLEMENT THIS CONCRETELY.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, SWITZERLAND.
NEXT I HAVE UNITED STATES, PLEASE.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND MY CHANGS TO CHEGS WHO 
>>HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE, PARTICULARLY SWITZERLAND, SO IT'S VERY USEFUL FOR ME TO 
>>FOLLOW ON BECAUSE ACTUALLY I, TOO, WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THE 
>>WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS ON YOUR PART. IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED SET OF 
>>ISSUES, AND I THINK YOU HAVE RAISED THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING 
>>TO DEAL WITH WITH US IN A VERY DIRECT AND VERY CONCRETE MANNER.
SO I DON'T THINK OUR APPROACH INTENTIONALLY, CERTAINLY NOT UP FRONT DID WE 
INTEND TO ELEVATE PROTECTION FOR IGOs OVER COUNTRIES OR EVEN THE IOC/RED CROSS. 
THAT WAS CERTAINLY NOT AN INTENTION. SO THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THE 
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND JUST CUTTING TO THE CHASE, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED A WAY FORWARD. YOU HAVE 
REACHED OUT TO US TO ASK FOR OUR ASSISTANCE, TO WORK TOGETHER IN FINDING ONE.
I THINK THE CONCEPT OF A NOTIFICATION PROCESS OR HOWEVER YOU'RE PRESENTING IT 
HERE, POINT NUMBER 3, I THINK THAT SOUNTDZ VERY PROMISING. AND I THINK WE NEED 
TO WORK WITH YOU TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK IN THE CASE OF THE IGOs.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SIGNAL THAT I'M VERY, VERY WILLING TO DO THAT WITH 
COLLEAGUES. AND I THINK THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL WAY FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, UNITED STATES.
NEXT I HAVE SPAIN, PLEASE.
>>SPAIN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THE COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE TALKED BEFORE ME HAVE EXPRESSED WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. I 
JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT THE MAIN POINT HERE IS WHETHER THE BOARD ACCEPTS OR 
DOESN'T ACCEPT THE GAC ADVICE REGARDING IGOs; THAT IS, THE NEED TO OFFER 
SAFEGUARD MECHANISM FOR PREVENTING THE ABUSE OF THOSE NAMES. WE HAVEN'T SAID 
THAT THE NAMES OF THE IGOs SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE NAMES OF COUNTRIES OR 
TRADEMARKS. WE JUST WANT TO AVOID HAVING CYBER SQUATTING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF 
ABUSE OF NAMES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
AND IF WE AGREE ON THAT PRINCIPLE, THEN WE CAN WORK ON THE MECHANISMS, THE 
SYSTEMS TO TRY TO SORT OUT THE PROBLEM.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SPAIN.
PORTUGAL, YOU ARE NEXT, PLEASE.
>>PORTUGAL: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN PORTUGUESE.WELL, AFTER THE 
>>DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE HELD AND ALL THE ITEMS DISPOSED, I HAVE THREE ITEMS TO 
>>RAISE, I WANT TO RAISE TO THE BOARD. WHY DO YOU ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP 
>>BETWEEN THE ACRONYMS OF IGOs AND THE COUNTRY LETTERS? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
>>SEMANTICS. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS RELATIONSHIP.
MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE YOU GIVING MORE PROTECTION TO IGOs?
THE RED CROSS, THE IOC, WHY ARE YOU GIVING MORE PROTECTION TO THAT? WHY ARE YOU 
SAYING THAT?
AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING. I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, IN THE 
CASE OF ICANN, DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE INTERNET CORPORATION, THAT'S THE NAME 
YOU'RE TO. NOT ICANN.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, PORTUGAL. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION 
>>ABOUT IDENTIFYING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN THE COUNTRY NAMES AND THE IGOs, I 
>>BELIEVE THE GAC ASKED THE gTLD COMMITTEE TO DO THAT, TO PROVIDE US WITH THAT 
>>CLARIFICATION.
OKAY.
SO NEXT I HAVE PERU. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. PLEASE.
>>PERU: THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A BRIEF CLARIFICATION ON MY PRIOR INTERVENTION, WHICH IS 
THE FOLLOWING. THOUGH WE ARE SAYING THAT THE NAMES AND ACRONYMS OF 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DO DESERVE A SPECIAL PROTECTION LEVEL WHICH SHOULD 
NOT BE NECESSARILY HIGHER THAN THAT OF COUNTRIES, BUT PROBABLY SIMILAR TO THAT 
OF THE COUNTRIES, BY NO MEANS WE WANTED THAT TO EQUATE THAT TO THE CASE OF 
TRADEMARKS. TRADEMARKS REPRESENT A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. PURSUANT TO 
INTERNATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC 
AND INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER WHILE TRADEMARKS REPRESENT PRIVATE RIGHTS OF A 
TERRITORIAL CHARACTER.
THEREFORE, THEIR SCOPE AND THEIR SETS OF OBLIGATIONS OR RIGHTS ARE QUITE 
DIFFERENT. WE DO NOT WANT BY ANY MEANS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT WE ARE EQUATING 
THEM ON THE SAME STATUS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, PERU. I SEE GONZALO NAVARRO, 
>>WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE gTLD COMMITTEE, AND THEN I WILL ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE 
>>FROM WIPO TO INTERVENE.
GONZALO.
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: THANK YOU, HEATHER.
WELL, I WILL TAKE THE ADVANTAGE TO SPEAK IN SPANISH, ESPECIALLY TO RESPOND TO 
MY COLLEAGUE FROM PERU.
THANK YOU, PERU. I WANTED TO SAY THAT WHAT YOU HAVE CLARIFIED HAS BEEN 
PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD. THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR. THERE IS A VERY CLEAR 
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TRADEMARKS AND THE PROTECTIONS SOUGHT FOR IGOs.
SO FOR YOUR PEACE OF MIND, YOU HAVE BEEN FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE BOARD.
AS A WAY TO CLOSE THIS CLARIFICATION, IN THIS MEETING WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WORK 
TO IDENTIFY THE MECHANISMS DEFINING THE AREAS THAT DESERVE ADDITIONAL 
PROTECTION AND FINDING THEM TOGETHER WITH YOU.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
OKAY. SO I WOULD NOW LIKE TO HAND OVER TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM WIPO, PLEASE.
>>WIPO: THANK YOU, HEATHER, AND GAC MEMBERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR THIS 
>>VERY USEFUL AND PERTINENT DISCUSSION.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE IGO COALITION, WE ARE MOST 
CERTAINLY NOT CLAIMING ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN COUNTRIES, MOST CERTAINLY NOT OF 
THE STATES HERE. IT'S JUST RATHER AS STATED IN THE GAC COMMUNIQUE, IT IS 
RECOGNIZED THAT IGOs ARE IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY AND THEIR NAMES AND ACRONYMS 
WARRANT SPECIAL PROTECTION IN ANY EXPANDED DNS.
WE MOST CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT IF THERE IS ISSUES WITH COUNTRIES AND ISO 
CODES, THEN CERTAINLY DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT AND PRIORITY CAN BE GIVEN TO 
THOSE COUNTRIES; HOWEVER, IT IS JUST THAT OUR NAMES AND PARTICULARLY OUR 
ACRONYMS BEING WHAT WE ARE KNOWN BEST BY DO REQUIRE SOME PROTECTION IN THE NEW 
gTLD SYSTEM. PRA OF HOWEVER, WE DO RECOGNIZE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT 
UP BY THE BOARD. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PARTICULAR THAT OF COEXISTENCE. AND WE HAVE 
CONTRIBUTED IN GOOD FAITH IN DISCUSSIONS AS TO HOW THAT CAN BE BEST MANAGED AND 
PARTICULARLY PUT FORWARD PAPERS, I BELIEVE THE LATEST BEING IN JUNE, AS TO HOW 
THAT COULD PARTICULARLY WORK.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE STATED THAT WHERE A POTENTIAL REGISTRANT WISHES TO 
REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME MATCHING AN IGO NAME OR ACRONYM, THAT IGOs WILL NOT 
STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT REGISTRATION IF IT IS BONA FIDE AND NOT LIKELY TO 
MISLEAD OR HARM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE IS SOME CONNECTION WITH THE IGO.
WE HAVE PROVIDED WAYS THAT POTENTIAL REGISTRANTS CAN COMMUNICATE WITH US, 
PERHAPS A NOTIFICATION SIMILAR TO THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE CAN BE USED. AND 
THE FACT THAT THIS MAY BE OPEN TO REVIEW BY THIRD PARTY IS CERTAINLY ALSO THE 
POTENTIAL FOR DISCUSSION, THE POTENTIAL TO BE DISCUSSED.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD SAY THAT IGOs, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY, SHOULD BE 
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS IN SOME WAY. AND IF THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE, 
THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO BE MANAGED. AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEN THAT 
WOULD BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE POINT FOR A THIRD PARTY TO BE 
INVOLVED TO MANAGE THAT.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING WITH THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GAC AND THE 
BOARD TO FIND A REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY FORWARD TO IMPLEMENT THESE 
PROTECTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, WIPO.
CHRIS, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, HEATHER. AND THANK YOU TO WIPO FOR BEING HERE AND 
>>BEING PREPARED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION.
I JUST THINK, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, I NEED TO UNDERLINE THE MAIN ISSUE. 
IT'S BEEN COLLOQUIALLY DESCRIBED IN DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS AS THE 
JUDGE-AND-JURY APPROACH.
ONE OF OUR MAIN CONCERNS IS THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE IGOs BEING EFFECTIVELY 
GRANTING PERMISSION OR HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO A 
BODY, ANOTHER BODY THAT IS OF AT LEAST EQUIVALENT STANDING.
WE'VE GIVEN A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES, AND THAT SITS AT THE HEART OF PART OF THESE 
ISSUES.
IT'S WHY THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ALL DEAL WITH NOTIFICATION RATHER THAN 
PERMISSION, OR NEGOTIATING AREAS IN WHICH THE PROTECTION EXISTS, AS IN NUMBER 
2. AND I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MARK'S POINT THAT, IN FACT, NUMBER 2 IS 
MASSIVELY COMPLICATED IN SOME RESPECTS AND VERY SIMPLE IN OTHERS. BUT THEY 
COMPLICATED.
SO I REALLY DO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WILLINGNESS ON EVERYBODY'S PART TO TALK, BUT I 
WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE, AT LEAST IN PART, HAS TO DO WITH THE 
CONCEPT OF PREEMPTION AND THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.
IF WE CAN OVERCOME THAT AND FIND WAYS OF PROVIDING A LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAT 
DOESN'T INVOLVE THAT, THEN WE FOUND A WAY FORWARD.
I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
THANKS, HEATHER.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS.
I SEE IRAN.
>>IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. THE DISCUSSION OF TODAY, IN PARTICULAR WITH 
>>RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, STRIKES ME THAT 
>>PERHAPS WE IN THE GAC SHOULD BE MORE ATTENTIVE IN SELECTING THE LANGUAGE AND 
>>THE WORD THAT WE PUT IN OUR ADVICE. TO THE EXTENT WE CAN FORESEE AND TO THE 
>>EXTENT PRACTICABLE AVOID ANY EXTENSION OF UNDERSTANDING TO THAT. SO WE SHOULD 
>>BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT THE SELECTION OF THE WORDS AND THE LANGUAGE WE USE IN 
>>THE ADVICE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN.
OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?
NO. OKAY.
PAKISTAN.
>>PAKISTAN: THE PRODUCTION OF IGOs AND ACRONYM IS IMPORTANT FOR ICANN, THE 
>>GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRIES AND GLOBAL COMMUNITY. I HOPE TODAY THE DIALOGUE 
>>BETWEEN GAC AND ICANN COMMUNITY IS USEFUL SO THERE ARE A DIRE NIECE THAT GAC 
>>AND THE ICANN NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE MAY CLOSELY LIAISON WITH EACH OTHER 
>>AND PROPOSE A SUITABLE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A 
>>(INDISCERNIBLE) RISK IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU

>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, PAKISTAN.
SO I THINK AT THIS POINT WE HAVE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARE THE KEY 
ISSUES OF CONCERN AND HOW WE MAY BEGIN TO LOOK AT MOVING FORWARD AS A GAC, 
WORKING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT TO SUM UP AND WRAP UP OUR DISCUSSIONS.
SO I THINK WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A POSITIVE PLACE AND NOW WE CAN, CERTAINLY FROM A 
GAC POINT OF VIEW, COME AWAY AND DO A BIT OF THINKING ABOUT BOTH OF THE MAIN 
ISSUES WE DISCUSSED TODAY, AND REGARDING THE FIRST SAFEGUARDS CATEGORY 1 
ADVICE, HOW WE CAN BEST ORGANIZE OURSELVES TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. AND, AS 
WELL, TO LOOK AT THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US IN TERMS OF ACRONYMS FOR THE IGOs. 
AND I THINK WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY IDENTIFIED WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS, WHAT 
ARE THE KEY ISSUES. AND SO I'VE TAKEN CAREFUL NOTE OF THOSE, AND WE CAN USE 
THAT AS GOOD GUIDANCE.
SO THANK YOU FROM THE GAC. AND I WOULD ASK WHETHER, CHERINE, YOU OR CHRIS HAVE 
ANY CONCLUDING COMMENTS.

>>CHERINE CHALABY: HEATHER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE CAME THIS MORNING, AND IF 
>>YOU REMEMBER MY OPENING REMARKS, WE SAID WE'RE NOT COMING HERE FOR A DECISION 
>>TODAY, NOR, INDEED, WE WISH TO DRAG THE GAC INTO IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.
WE CAME HERE TODAY TO START A DIALOGUE BECAUSE SOME OF THE ADVICE FROM OUR 
PERSPECTIVE NEED CLARIFICATION.
I HAVE TO SAY WE ARE REALLY VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE TONE OF THE CONVERSATION, BY 
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP, AND BY YOUR WILLINGNESS TO FIND A 
REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY FORWARD. SO TO ME, THAT WAS A VERY, VERY POSITIVE 
MEETING, AND WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CONTRIBUTION AND ATTITUDE TO THIS.
THANK YOU.