GAC Plenary:  IDN ccTLD
Fast Track and PDP
Sunday, 25 October 2009
ICANN Meeting
Seoul, Korea

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning, ladies --

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Please take a seat.  We will
start our meeting shortly.

So good morning, ladies and gentlemen, friends.

My name is Janis Karklins.  I am Latvian representative to the GAC,
at the same time chairman.

Let me start by warmly welcoming you to another GAC meeting.  And I
am very glad to see increasing number of representatives around this
table.

In the runup to this meeting, we have done some preparations.  But
before going to our agenda, I would like to say that we have lost one
of our big supports we had throughout a couple of years, Donna
Austin, who has left her position as a liaison to the GAC and now is
working as the chief of staff of the new CEO and president of ICANN.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that we got instead two people.  One of them is
Massimiliano Minisci, who is on my right.  And another is Tom Dale,
who is somewhere in the table -- you see Tom is there.

So Massimiliano will be helping us or is helping already since
October 1, with more operational things.  And Tom is doing some
writing.  And he is coauthor or main coauthor of many of the briefing
materials you received in the runup to this meeting.

As usually, I think the best thing would be to start by a brief tour
de table.  And I would invite now, maybe starting traditionally from
far right corner, please introduce yourself, if you could also tell
your affiliation, for which governmental department you are coming
from and maybe how long you have been with the GAC or -- whether
which year or which meeting.  So I think that we have a number of
people around the table who are brand-new.

Please.  Finland.

>>FINLAND:   Thank you.  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Juuso
Moisander representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland,
and I have been around since the Cairo meeting.

>>BRAZIL:   My name is Hartmut Glaser.  I work with domain names in
Brazil, but I am advisor to the Brazilian government.

>>BRAZIL:   Vitor Hansem, Brazilian representative to the GAC.  I
think my first GAC meeting was in São Paulo in 2006, and I have
sometimes been the Brazilian representative, and now alternating with
other colleagues.  Thank you.

>>COLOMBIA:  Good morning.  My name is Eduardo Botero, a Colombian
government representative.  We are -- This is our first official
meeting of GAC.

>>MOROCCO:  Good morning.  Rachida Fakhri.  I am from Morocco,
Ministry of Industry, Trade and New Technologies.  I am in the GAC
since 2005.

>>BURKINA FASO:  Morning.  My name is Lamoussa Oualbeogo.  I am the
Secretary General of Ministry of Post in ICT of Burkina Faso, and
it's my first time to attend to this meeting.

Thank you.

>>JAPAN:  Good morning.  My name is Junichi Nakazawa.  I am from
Japan Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.  This is the
first time to participate in a GAC meeting.

Thank you.

>>GABON:  (Speaking in French.)

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   I will do maybe a little translation.  The
gentleman is a representative from Gabon, and he works for the
regulatory authority of Gabon.

>>TAIWAN:  Good morning.  My name is Tien-Lai Teng from Ministry of
Transportation and Communication, Taiwan.

I joined the GAC meeting from Puerto Rico.  Thank you.

>>BELGIUM:  Good morning.  My name is Jan Vannieuwenhuyse.  I am
from Belgium.  I work for the Belgium Institute for Postal Sevices
and Telecommunications, which is the national regulatory authority in
the area of electronic communications and postal services.  And I am
in the GAC since -- if I remember well, the middle of 2006.

>>SINGAPORE:  Good morning.  I am Eugene from the Infocomm
Development Authority of Singapore.  This is my first meeting at GAC.

Thank you.

>>HOLY SEE:  Good morning.  I am Carlo Maria Polvani.  I am the GAC
representative of the Holy See.  I participated the first time in
Mexico.

>>ITALY:   Stefano Trumpy from Italy, and I started in the GAC in
Berlin in '99, so in the last millennium.

[ Laughter ]

>>TURKEY:  Good morning.  My name is Ihsan Durdu.  I am from Turkey,
Ministry of Transportation and Communications.  And I attended first
time at Marrakech, but Mexico and Sydney and here now.

Thank you.

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  Hi, my name is Fiona Alexander.  I am
from the United States, and the first GAC meeting I was at was in
Bucharest, actually.

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   Good morning.  Suzanne Sene, also from
the United States, and my first meeting was Carthage, Tunisia. 

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Good morning.  Elizabeth Markot, European
Commission, and the first GAC meeting I attended was in Luxembourg.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Good morning.  William Dee from the
European Commission also, and my first meeting I think was in Rio. 
Nice place to start.  Thank you.

>>SRI LANKA:  My name is Jayantha Fernando.  I am director for
policy and regulatory affairs of the apex policy agency in my
country, Sri Lanka.  I have been the GAC representative for the board
from 2006, end of 2006 onwards.

>>COMOROS:  Good morning.  My name is Ali Said.  I am the permanent
secretary of the Ministry of ICT in Comoros.  That my first meeting
in GAC.  Thank you.

>>SENEGAL:  Good morning.  My name is Mr. Cheikh Sidy Ndiaye.  I am
a counsellor in the Senegal Embassy in Seoul.

>>SENEGAL:   Good morning.  My name is Ndeye Maimouna Diop Diagne. 
I am the director of ICT in the Ministry of Transport,
Telecommunication and ICT in Senegal.  And my first meeting was 2004
in Carthage.

>>PHILIPPINES:  Morning, everyone.  I am Patricia Abejo representing
the Philippine government, Commission on Information and
Communications Technology.  This is my first meeting at the GAC
meeting.

>>INDIA:  Good morning, I am Govind.  I am representative of Mr.
Ravi Shanker.  I am here as two hats.  One is the advisor to the GAC,
and I have attended the GAC meetings since 2005, and this maybe total
13 meetings.  And we have a role in Secretariat since June 2006. 
This is the fourth year of this GAC Secretariat.

Thank you.

>>PORTUGAL:  Good morning.  My name is Luis Magalhães from Portugal.
I preside to the Knowledge Society Agency of the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Higher Education.  This is my third GAC meeting.

>>PORTUGAL:  Good morning.  I am Ana Neves.  I am from Portugal as
well.  I belong to the Knowledge Society Agency, the community
information society in Portugal, and this is my third GAC meeting.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Mark Carvell.
I am the GAC representative from the United Kingdom.  I am assistant
director for international ICT policy in the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills, which is the UK ministry with responsibility
for ICT policy, including Internet governance.

My first meeting I think was New Delhi last year.

Thank you.

>>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  Good morning.  I am Alexey Soldatov, Deputy,
Ministry of Communication, Russian Federation.  Thanks.  Second
meeting.

>>NETHERLANDS:  Good morning.  Thomas de Haan from the Netherlands,
Ministry of Economic Affairs.  I can't remember my first meeting. 
Sorry.

[ Laughter ]

>>SWEDEN:  Hello, everybody.  I am Maria Hall.  I am working for the
Swedish government offices at the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and
Communications.  And this is my first GAC meeting.

Thank you.

>>SWEDEN:  Good morning.  My name is Bo Martinsson from the
regulatory authority of Sweden, and my first meeting was the Los
Angeles meeting in 2007.

>>SWEDEN:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Anders Rafting from Sweden,
the Swedish Post and Telecom Agency.

Thank you.

>>NEW ZEALAND:   Good morning.  Frank March from New Zealand, the
Ministry of Economic Development.  My first GAC meeting, I didn't
quite beat -- My first meeting was an out-of-cycle meeting in Sydney
in the year 2000.

>>CANADA:   Good morning, my name is Heather Dryden.  I am with the
Canadian government, and my first meeting was in March 2007.

>>FRANCE:   Good morning, everybody.  My name is Bertrand De La
Chapelle.  I am the French representative in the GAC, as special
envoy for the information society in the French Foreign Affairs
Ministry.  And my first participation in the GAC was in São Paulo at
the end of 2006.

>>TANZANIA:  Good morning.  My name is Adam Mambi from Tanzania.  I
am I.T. lawyer working with the Law Reform Commission of Tanzania as
the director.  I am also a member of Tanzania Communication
Regulatory Authority.  This is my first meeting.  Thank you very much.

>>MALAYSIA:  Good morning, everyone.  I am 

Devi Annamalai.  I am from Malaysia, Communications and Multimedia
Commission.  This is my second GAC meeting since Egypt.

>>CHINA:  Good morning, everyone.  I am from China.  I am Cui
Shutian.  And I joined the GAC meeting in June this year, and this is
my second time.

>>POLAND:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Marek Rusin Marie. 
I am the representative of Poland.  I started in Stockholm in 2001.

>>INDONESIA:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is
Moedjiono from the Ministry of Communication and Information
Technology, Republic of Indonesia.  I am the GAC representative from -
- since 2005.  Thanks.

>>AUSTRALIA:   Good morning.  My name is Brenton Thomas.  I am the
assistant secretary, Spectrum and Wireless Branch in the Australian
Communications Department.  I have been a GAC member for several
years, but I think this is probably about my fourth meeting.  Thanks.

>>NORWAY:  Good morning.  My name is Elise Lindeberg.  I am the
representative of the Norwegian Telecommunication Authority, and my
first meeting was in Cairo, 2008.

>>DENMARK:  Good morning.  My name is Julia Kahan.  I am from
Denmark, and I am from the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology,
and Innovation.  And my first meeting was in Paris last year.

>>SWITZERLAND:  Good morning.  My name is Francois Maurer.  I work
for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, telecommunication
regulator.  And I represent the Swiss under the GAC during many years
also.

>>MALTA:  Good morning.  My name is Joseph Tabone, and I am
representing the government of Malta.  And I think I have been
involved in this since 2005.

Thank you.

>>NIGERIA:  Morning, everyone.  My name is Mary Uduma.  I am from
Nigeria.  I work for the Nigerian Communications Commission, the
telecom regulatory authority in Nigeria.  And I have been in ICANN
for some time, but in the GAC since Egypt.

Thank you.

>>REPUBLIC OF KOREA:  Good morning, everyone, and welcome all of
you.  I am Korean delegate at GAC meeting.  My name is Billy from
Korea Internet and Security Agency, which is a government subsidiary.
And my very first GAC meeting was Mexico, last year, and this is my
third time.  Thank you.

>>BULGARIA:  Good morning.  My name is Nelly Stoyanova.  I am the
GAC representative from Bulgaria.

My first GAC meeting was in New Delhi last year.  At present, I'm
head of department Policy and Development of Information Society in
the Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and
Communications in Bulgaria.

Thank you.

>>AUSTRIA:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Christian Singer. 
I am from Austria.  I am director of the telecommunications
department in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

I have been a GAC member from the very beginning, so I suppose
Stefano and I are the oldest here.  So my first meeting was in
Berlin, '99, but then due to some lack of resources, I couldn't
attend a lot of GAC meetings, and I restarted attending meetings in
New Delhi, I think.

>>GERMANY:  Yes, good morning.  My name is Hubert Schoettner.  I
work with the German Ministry of Economics, and participate in GAC
meetings since last year since Paris.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you.

We have many people in the room, and I want to ask whether there are
representatives of governments which have not been named yet.

In the room.

[ Introductions. ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  You should seek the place at the
table.  And maybe after this session, you can swap, because there are
a couple of delegates from the same countries, I think, at the table.
So we need all representatives around the table.

Are there anybody else in the room?

I see a hand.  Please.

[ Introductions. ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So the same, I would invite you, find a place at
the table maybe for the next session.

So to my count, we have 54 representatives of governments and
governmental agencies around the table, many for the first time.  And
I warmly welcome all those who are first time here.  And I encourage
those who have been around for a while, especially from the last
century, --

[ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   -- to share your experience with the newcomers,
that we have good discussions and the newcomers understand right away
what we are doing.

So that brings me to the first agenda item of our meeting, which is
adoption of agenda.

You have in front of you the concise version of the agenda, with all
planned sessions, as well as, on the other side, on the second page,
agenda for the GAC plenary.

And the annotated agenda was prepared by secretariat and circulated
to the GAC mailing list and is displayed on the screen.

So may I take that we are in a position to adopt this agenda and
follow our meeting as we planned beforehand?

I see no objections.  Agenda is adopted.

The next issue on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes of
Sydney meeting, which have been circulated on the GAC mailing list
and did not receive any comments or corrections.

So I take it that executive minutes are acceptable to all of us and
we're in the position to adopt them.

So it is so decided.

Today, we will have two sessions.  In the morning session, we will
start with IDNs.  This morning session will be -- will have two
parts.  In the first part, we will be talking about IDN ccTLD fast
track.  And in the second part, we will be talking about the
responses of the GAC to the list of issues which the GAC and ccNSO
defined for the IDN CC PDP, otherwise known as IDN ccTLD principles,
which have been around for about 18 months.  And the intention is to
adopt them today.

In the afternoon, we will have a session on new gTLDs.  There will
be a couple of briefings, one briefing by staff, then a briefing by
IRT and law enforcement agencies, if they are around, the
representatives, if they are around.  And then we will have a
discussion on the issues related to new gTLDs.  And at 5:00, we will
have our traditional joint meeting with GNSO, generic name supporting
organization.  And during that meeting, we will have two issues on
the agenda:  New gTLDs and affirmation of commitments.

So --  And at 6:00, the board kindly invites us to the informal
cocktail.  We'll have an opportunity in an informal setting to talk
to -- to meet and talk to the board of directors of ICANN.

So that's for today.  And without further delay, there will be slides?

>>BART BOSWINKEL:   Yes, unfortunately.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   We will --

>>BART BOSWINKEL:   I can do it so you don't see the slides, but --

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   No, no.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So maybe while Bart is setting up the computer,
I will tell -- will explain for first -- newcomers that about two
years ago, ICANN, ccNSO, and the GAC, we started together what we
call IDN ccTLD fast-track process.  It is to say to -- to set up
rules for introduction of limited number of IDN ccTLDs for those
countries who have a pressing need and who are ready to do that.

We have gone through three versions of implementation plan.  And at
the beginning of October, ICANN published the final version of
implementation plan of IDN ccTLD fast track.  And it is expected that
board on Friday will take decision on this proposal, on this
implementation plan.  And, hopefully, this decision will be positive.

There are about 40 countries who have expressed -- 40 countries and
territories who have expressed interest about IDN ccTLD fast track,
to participate in that fast track.  How many of them will apply
immediately after the launch, it is hard to say.  But it is also
agreed that the fast track will be in place until overall IDN ccTLD
policy will be developed and adopted.  And this policy process is
undergoing now within ccNSO.  And GAC certainly will be contributing
to this process all along the way.

Yeah, and I also should mention that this GAC meeting, as two
previous meetings, is audio-casted on the Internet.

And at least two GAC members informed me that they will try to
follow remotely our discussions.  And that was our Czech
representative and the representative from Egypt.

So, Bart, please, the microphone is all yours.

>>BART BOSWINKEL:   Good morning.  I'm sorry I took some time. 
We'll get quickly started.

Janis already mentioned the current status of the implementation plan.

With response --  It is very clear that some of you are demanding
IDN ccTLDs.  And we have put in many work, I think the whole
community, to make this happen and to put forward to the board a
proposal for adoption.

In the past, there has been -- or there was a clear disagreement
between the different stakeholder on some of the major topics.  One
of them is agreement of fees.  And there's some unclarity about
variants.  In these presentations, we want to take you through the
final recommendations in the implementation plan regarding the
agreements and fees and the variants.

Again, the overall timing and general status.

I think what is important as well to understand is, between the last
meeting and this meeting, the ICANN staff has been able to sign an
agreement with the DNS stability panel.  So that is in place right now.

Also, the linguistic support, which was heavily discussed during the
Paris meeting, we found a solution for that.  Currently, we use the
UNGEGN to provide support.  And we still are in negotiations with
UNESCO to move forward.  So that's moving forward as well.  So we
have this in place as well.  And this is reflected in the current
implementation plan.

And a proposed final implementation plan, thanks to the GAC, was
published on the 30th of September.

There are still some, I would say -- or underlying are some issues
within the community.  First of all, the community from the generic
side, so the gTLD side, the timing of the fast track versus the new
gTLDs.  Those of you who have been around for quite some time know
this has been an issue.

The fast track was initiated in order to meet the near-term demand
of some territories.  And the gTLDs thought they would be in the same
time frame.  But, yeah, the fast track really proved to be a fast
track in comparison to the new gTLD process.  So there is an issue.

Again, from the generic side, there is this issue regarding the
financial contribution of IDN ccTLD, who is bearing the cost of the
development of the fast track.  So that's the cost neutrality. 
That's pushed forward by the generic community.

From the CC sides and the governments, there is -- there was and
there is probably still a debate whether or not the arrangements
proposed encroach upon the sovereignty freedom of ccTLDs, IDN ccTLDs.
And it is considered by many to be an overly complicated process. 
But I think if you compare it to the new gTLD, it is fairly
straightforward and simple.

Implementation plan issues.

Over the past months, almost a year, there has been a constant
debate on agreements and the contribution and fees.  I will not go
into details here.  But most of you will recollect what's been debated.

And the recommended options, I think, in the implementation plan as
it is now are the most interesting.  After the debate we had in the
last couple of months, there is now a proposal to start off with what
is called a terms and condition form, which is -- should be submitted
when entering into the -- when submitting a request for an IDN ccTLD.
This contains, in fact, four elements.  I will go into more detail. 
And optionally and additionally, the IDN ccTLD or the requester can
enter or ask for a documentation of responsibilities.  So that's a
document that has been circulating now since a couple of, say, all
the versions of the implementation plan or as of version 2.  A letter
of exchange, which is based on the documentation of responsibilities.
And as some of the potential IDN ccTLD operators already indicated,
they wanted to enter into a full agreement.  But that is at their
request, and they can tick the box for that option.

So going back to some of the comments the GAC made at the Sydney
meeting, I think we've provided for a flexible arrangement and
options for the IDN operator to enter into.  And we've ensured the
overarching requirement of ensuring the security and stability of the
Internet through, say, the terms and conditions.

With regard to the contributions and fees, in the previous version,
it was -- the terminology was prearranged and recommended, and it was
felt it was unclear.  So what is it, is it mandatory or is it
voluntary?  No, it is expected but not mandatory.  That is the
language in the implementation plan now.  So it is very clear it is
not mandatory.  But it is expected.

Again, we have -- in the implementation plan, there is still
reference to two types of financial contributions.  One is the
application processing fee.  And the second one is the annual
contribution.  So there's nothing new there.

The --  I think that's the most important one.

Regarding the processing fee, it is still -- after reestimating,
going over the calculations again, it is, say, the original proposal
in, say, the previous version was 26,000 U.S. dollars.  And that is
still -- it remains that.  So that was a good calculation.

There is a kind of waiver built into it.  And what is important
probably as well for the whole discussion, the request will be
processed regardless of payment.  And this is, again, probably in
line with the language used, it's expected but not mandatory.  So
there is no -- yeah.

Annual contribution fee.  Again, that remains on a revenue-based
percentage depending on the number of registrations.  Depending on
the number of registrations, it's either 1, 2, or 3% on an annual
basis.  It will be based on the ccTLD manager's calculations.  So it
is not based on any audit from ICANN's side.  It is based on the data
provided by the IDN ccTLD operator to ICANN and on the revenue or on
the fees they are charging.  So that's a good thing.  I want to
reiterate, there are some ccTLDs who do not charge.  Given this
formula, they will not be -- they don't have to pay an annual fee.

Variant characters and TLDs.  That's, I would say, the third major
topic from the discussions over the years.

Again, there is a proposed solution for the board here.  Probably --
and this is just for -- I will not go into the details here.  When
you see these slides, you can see what the variants are, what the
meaning of variants are, unless you want to say anything?

I just -- I think we want to move forward.  It's -- we have these --
the background of the variants at the previous meeting.  I think we
want to go and look at the solutions and the proposals.

The objective, say, in reaching the final proposals, the working
team was formed.  Working team charter.  Yeah, it's....

I think if you look at the implementation plan, what is -- what
needed to be addressed, I think that is important to keep in mind. 
With variants, it is a question -- it is the question, is there a
possibility of delegation of variants or not?  And that is -- going
back to the GAC communiqué, it is if there have been variants, there
are countries who are in need of variants and who want to have a
variant of their requested IDN ccTLD, and why is delegation of
variants an issue?

First of all, it's why do countries want a variant.  It is to allow
broader participation.

If you -- and I think if you use to one script or another, if the
variants are not registered, it might allow for user confusion at the
back as well.

So that is, if you don't allow for delegation of variants, it may
degrade the user experience.

If you look at the implementation plan, what is suggested is, in
fact, a short-term solution, in fact, for the fast track.  If you
look at -- I know you are going to discuss it later today.  One of
the questions in the IDN PDP is how to deal with variants, given
where we are.  But that is for the overall policy.  But, again, bear
in mind, this is for the implementation plan, and therefore, for the
fast track, and, therefore, a short-term solution.

If a requester requests the (inaudible) variants, they will be
reserved for the IDN ccTLD manager.  And they will only be allocated
when a stable solution is found.

So, on the one hand side, you see you can request -- the IDN or the
requester can request variants.  But they will not be allocated.  So -
-  And there is no -- they have to pick one IDN ccTLD string to be
used during the fast track.

What will happen at the same time is that nonrequested or not
requested variants, so undesired variants from a IDN ccTLD manager's
perspective or from a territory's perspective, they will be blocked. 
And this will be based on -- by a tool.  And if somebody would apply
for a variant that is blocked, it will not be accepted.

I think the long-term solution is probably -- and this is more at a
technical level -- enable the delegation of variants, and, first of
all, to avoid user -- but the criteria or the requirements are, we
need to avoid user confusion and ensure a good user experience.  And
currently, several solutions are being discussed.  And they will be
probably addressed as well during the PDP.

That's it.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you, Bart.

I think another issue which you didn't mention, but which has
happened since our last meeting, was that IETF agreed on the version -
- the last version of the IDNA protocol.

>>BART BOSWINKEL:   As far as I understand, the last call for the
IDN was ended, and it's now at the RFC editor.  So the expectation
is, there will be no more major changes made.  And, therefore, it's a
stable protocol standard.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you, Bart.

We have also Kurt in the room.

>>KURT PRITZ:   I'm back here.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So I'm now turning to the GAC members.

Do you have any questions to ask to Kurt or to Bart?

European Commission.  Bill.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  And thank you, Bart, for a very
clear presentation.

And thank you also, Kurt, actually, for the conference call that we
had on this issue, I think at the end of September.  And I'd very
much like to thank -- thank ICANN staff for their confirmation that
the fees -- that the delegation process for IDN ccTLDs will not be
held up in any way pending agreement on fees.  I think that's a major
step forward in terms of what the GAC had been demanding for.

Just a couple questions.  I notice this isn't a PDP.  It mentions in
the beginning that this is an experimental approach, which I think is
the right expression for it.

So I presume that these are, in a sense, guidelines rather than firm
rules as such, which would require PDP.

Just in terms of the status and the kind of internal constitution of
ICANN, is that a fair comment?

And the other question I had was, I'm still not entirely clear --
and I apologize if I mentioned this -- but is there still a two-
character requirement for IDN ccTLDs?

I think there was some discussion at our last meeting about the fact
there were meaningful representations of country names in one
character, for example.

Thank you.

>>KURT PRITZ:   Thank you, Bill.

Good morning, everybody.

I think there's universal agreement about the use of the word
"experimental" as it was applied when we first introduced the concept
of the IDN ccTLD fast track in that the experimental portion did not
apply to the technical aspects of introducing IDNs, because we want
that done in a very stable way and we're very confident that it can
be done that way.  But, rather, that the GAC and the ccNSO
participated in the IDNC Working Group to develop a short-term
solution for introducing these top-level domains where countries or
territories demonstrate a clear need for an IDN.

And so the processes we put in place, as -- in response to the work
of the IDNC are, essentially, temporary, pending the outcome of the --
you know, the ccNSO policy development process on IDNs.

So I think that.  And also, with regard to two-character
requirements for -- and, Bart, maybe you want to verify this.  So the
-- an IDN ccTLD can have, you know, many characters, not just two,
obviously.  It just has to be a meaningful representation of the
country or territory.

The group that was recently convened to study the three-character
issue for gTLDs and also the variant management issue, is
recommending in their support that the release of single character
names is really a policy issue and not a technical issue, and so
wants to pend out the decision of whether to release two-character
names.

Also, the technical criteria of the -- Bart points out to me the
technical criteria for an IDN is that the string be a minimum of two
characters long.

But as I say, I think that's a -- a policy-based as well as a
technical decision.

So can't unring the bell; right?  So we -- everybody who's opined on
it so far thought there should be additional policy work done before
single character names are released.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yes.  I'm sorry, actually, just a clarity. 
This is why I asked the question.  The text does seem to stipulate
explicitly a requirement for minimum of two characters.

So you're saying at this meeting, the board intend to adopt this
plan, and then this will become for the interim, until there is a
change, this would be the policy?

>>KURT PRITZ:   That's correct.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Before going to further questions, I forgot to
mention at the beginning of the meeting that this time, I would like
to try to use a different method for drafting of communiqué.  Not
that the chair tries to do it in one hour on Wednesday during
lunchtime, but the communiqué is drafted by GAC members throughout
the meeting.

And I would like now to see whether there would be a volunteer who --
one, two, or three -- I rather think three -- who would be willing to
follow discussion and then propose text for communiqué.

And if there won't be volunteers, I will call on people to do that.

It's not a threat.  It's just information.

[ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So Bill.

Who else?

So may I suggest Nelly from Bulgaria and Jayantha from Sri Lanka to
help Bill in writing up text for communiqué on IDN fast track.  And
on IDN ccTLDs in general.

So we can move on to the next questions.

Do we have more questions for clarification?

Stefano.

>>ITALY:   Yeah, just -- question is concerning the launch date that
is scheduled by November 16th, I'm reading.

What do you expect?  Do you have a guess on how many will be
interested?  I suppose yes.

And then this will come before the launch, in any case, of the first
call of the gTLDs.  That includes also IDNs.

And how do you see the, quote, competition between country code IDNs
and gTLDs IDNs?  I mean, not competition in the sense of the market,
but in the sense of being first or having special treatment or things
like that?

Thank you.

>>KURT PRITZ:   So the meaning of the November 16th date is that
ICANN will be able to receive requests for IDN ccTLDs as of that date.

We expect that the request would take several weeks to two months to
process.  And then the application or the request is a better word,
would go into the IANA process, which is the separate IANA delegation
into their root, which is a separate process from, you know, this
request validation process.

And that process, as those of you who have gone through redelegation
know, takes two to three months probably.

I think --  So I think that the delegation of IDN ccTLDs will occur
before gTLDs.  The timing of the gTLD process is uncertain.  But
certainly won't be launched before next year sometime.

We see from our expression of interest publication that we made that
over two years' time, it's expected that 50 applications or requests
be received from 20 to 20-some-odd countries or territories.

So based on that research, that would be the forecast.  I don't know
if that will change or not.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So are there any further questions?

Australia, Brenton.

>>AUSTRALIA:   Thanks, Janis.

Mine isn't really so much a question as a comment.  And it's really
just a restatement of the comment that I made in Sydney.  And that
was that there may be some value in ICANN starting to think about
broad pricing principles across the organization.  An approach that
would actually see some sort of consistency in those pricing
principles in all cases of fee-settings.

And the worry that I have with this, which I have seen in other U.N.-
based organizations, is that while there are very, very strong
arguments for support of IDNs and those sorts of issues -- and that
includes financial support, by the way -- if we go down a path that
actually sets in place a cross-subsidy between something like the
ccTLDs and the gTLDs, there is the very strong potential that in a
very entrepreneurial domain market system such as we have, that
there's going to be players that are going to forum-shop, they're
going to arbitrage prices, and they're going to game the system and
that we're going to finish up with -- with outcomes that we don't
really want.

So mine's a longer-term type comment, not specific to this.  I
understand the pricing arrangements to go into this.  But I really do
think that if we don't start thinking about some broader pricing
principles, things that are perhaps based on cost-based charging
prices, that in five years or so, we're going to have all sorts of
inequities in the market.

Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Following this comment, I have a question on fees.

I --  You said that the processing fee is 26,000 U.S. dollars.  And
the annual fee is 1, 2, 3%.

There certainly are territories where currency is not convertible or
convertible -- the convertibility is limited, which may become an
obstacle for application.

Would you confirm that these fees could be paid also in local
currencies the equivalent of fees you just mentioned, $26,000, and 1,
2, 3%.  And if currency is paid -- I mean, if fee is paid in local
currency and currency is not convertible, what is the thinking on the
use of that money?

>>BART BOSWINKEL:   To give a short answer to your first question,
the answer is yes.  So it can be paid in local currency.

I think --  But maybe, Kurt, you could better answer the second
question, what is going to happen with the money in local currency. 
Probably we haven't focused on that answer yet.

>>KURT PRITZ:   Yeah, I can't answer that question, either.

>>BART BOSWINKEL:   No.  It's --  I think we have been too focused
on getting this done before we start in the position what to do with
the money.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you.

Further questions?  China.

>>CHINA:   Thank you, Janis.

What I am concerned about is the variants.  I know, even I know the
variants is a very complicated issue.

But for me, I have said in the conference call, the Chinese have two
different kind of appearance.  One is traditional Chinese, and
traditional Chinese character; and the other is simplified Chinese
character.

So I wish -- I hope it will be -- both of them will be delegated to
the ccTLD.  And I think -- that's what I want to say.

Thank you.

>>KURT PRITZ:   I understand that issue and also share with you an
appreciation of the complexity of the variant issue.  And given my
understanding of it, and that specifically, there are different
treatments for simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese either as
variants or different languages.  So there's alternate ways to treat
them and thereby develop some methodology for delegating them both.

>>CHINA:   Is that in the fast track, they will be delegated at the
same time?

>>KURT PRITZ:   That's what I think.  But I think we're going to --
you know, we're going to go into some detail on this issue to find a
resolution for that problem.

So I don't think in this room I can say that we can delegate both. 
But I think we can work to find a way to do that.

>>CHINA:   Okay.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So please take it as a promise.

>>KURT PRITZ:   Yeah.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So Sweden.

>>SWEDEN:   Thank you, Chairman.

Just one question regarding this revenue-based annual fee. 
Clarification.  I understand this fee is based on the IDN revenue,
but also that there are perhaps many that would handle both ASCII and
TLD issues, then they need to have a separate sort of accounts for
these.

Okay.  Thank you.

>>KURT PRITZ:   All right.  So ICANN's done a couple finance and
cost reports trying to provide some more transparency into how it
spends its money.  And one of those reports was an allocation.  So --
describing how all of its expenditures are dedicated to support of
the GAC, support of the GNSO, support of the board, other groups.

And given that model, then, one can develop an allocation method for
ICANN expenses and a fee structure.  And so the 1 to 3% number is as
if all ccTLD were paying a percentage, then -- not just IDNs.  So the
-- then the sum of those contributions would total the allocation
that ICANN makes to supporting ccNSO and ccTLDs.

So the fee is not put on the back of the IDNs, if that's part of
your question, but, rather, you know, just the -- the fraction of the
IDN portion of all ccTLDs.

Did that make sense?  It's kind of --

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   I think that ccNSO has launched the process of
reflection on overall issue of fees of ccTLDs, in general.  So IDN
was -- triggered this debate.  Until now, there was a voluntary --
voluntary contributions.  There are ccTLD operators who are paying. 
There are ccTLD operators who are not paying.  And ccNSO has launched
the process of reflection, and it should come up with a proposal
which would then be applicable to both ccTLDs and IDN ccTLDs.

Bertrand.

>>FRANCE:   Thank you.  And like Bill, I want to commend the work
that has been done by the ICANN staff on moving this forward.  And
it's something that can be kept in mind when we will discuss the new
gTLD process for reasons that we'll come back to later.

One thing I wanted to do is to just piggyback on what Brenton was
saying regarding the general budget model of ICANN.  Because the
expression that was used, which is the cost neutrality pushed by the
gTLD side, is a reminder of a discussion that exists also in the new
gTLD process on defining what the application fee is.  And in that
respect, without delving into details, I just wanted to reiterate
very strongly the fact, and not the belief, the fact -- that the
financing of ICANN at the moment comes from registrants and not from
registries and registrars.

So inasmuch as the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs is actually
serving a broad community that is not using Latin characters, those
registrants and those users are already coming from those regions. 
The geographic distribution of users of the Internet now is also in
regions who do not use Latin characters.  And so there's no cross-
subsidizing from the gTLD side to the IDN ccTLD side.

The question is, how do we allocate the resources of ICANN to the
different programs.  So it's just a general question that we will
have to address in terms of preparing the budgetary evolution of
ICANN and its financing.  But I just wanted, for the record, to
stress this very important factor.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Bertrand.

So I'm looking -- I'm looking at the room, seeing, are there any
other questions?  Or we can thank Kurt and Bart.

>>KURT PRITZ:   So, you know, both Bart and I are understated
characters.  But something remarkable is going to happen here; right?
ICANN, pending the approval of the board later on in this meeting,
ICANN is going to work to delegate IDNs in the root zone, which is
something that everybody in this room has really worked for for many,
many years.  And it's the culmination of the effort of the people in
this room, the people in the ccNSO, and other ccTLDs.  And so
sometime in this week, you should celebrate that fact, 'cause I think
it's a great thing.  And, you know, ICANN gets good things done every
once in a while, and this is one of them, through the participation
of all its supporting organizations and committees.

So I just wish to thank you all for all the work that's gone into
this.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Kurt.  It was slightly early, because
now I'm going to ask question -- ask the GAC members, what do they
think about the final version and whether they think that we can, in
our communiqué, say that this is something we were working for and we
want.

So I'm now opening the floor for comments.

And first and foremost, I will be looking to those GAC delegates
coming from countries which will be using fast-track procedure and
will be following it.

But, of course, all others also are welcome to provide comments.

So European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  And first let me thank ICANN
staff and share your view that we have something to celebrate.

You're correct, actually, this is a very significant moment in the
development of the DNS, actually.  So if things go according to plan,
we should be very pleased.  And I think we can congratulate everyone
involved.

In terms of the specific document, actually, I think we can
certainly welcome the progress being made towards the resolution of
some of the GAC's concerns.  I'd hesitate actually endorsing the
document specifically, Janis, because in the GAC, we haven't
discussed it yet.  It's quite a detailed document, actually.  And I
wouldn't like to -- I wouldn't like to give an explicit endorsement
to all of its provisions.  That could be very misleading, I think,
regarding the board.

But I think we can certainly welcome the progress made, actually,
and the briefing provided by the staff, the fact that we think
several of our considerations have been taken account of.  That's
something we can certainly do, in sending a very positive message.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.

Jayantha, Sri Lanka.

>>SRI LANKA:   Thank you, Janis.  

Like Bill, I would like to once again thank the ICANN staff and all
the colleagues, especially my colleague Manal, who spent an enormous
amount of time negotiating this document, along with the staff and
the working group, for the efforts that they put in.  And thank Janis
also for helping us reach the compromises.  

In terms of the terminology, we believe many of our countries in the
developing world have expressed some concern about this term
"expected."  But we understand from the discussions here and we are
(inaudible) waiting many countries to go on this process on the basis
that it means that it is voluntary.  So that is to be perhaps noted
in our communiqué.

And I concur with Bill that this document per se be not necessarily
endorsing, but maybe making comments as Guy along, and would preserve
some time for future comments.  But overall, there is room for
celebration.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Jayantha.

Russia.

>>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:   I just want to say thanks for the working
group and so on for this document.  And I hope that we will start
this work just immediately after adopting it.  Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, minister.

So any other comments?

Are we --  Portugal.

>>PORTUGAL:   Well, following the information that we received,
especially, I have two issues.  One, the question of requiring two
characters for IDNs; and the other one, the possibility of variants,
even in the fast track.

I think in our communiqué, we should reflect a positive suggestion
of thinking these two possibilities.  Because as they stand in the
draft, that situation is not clarified.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you for suggestion, Luis.

So any other comments from countries who will be applying in the
fast track?

India.

>>INDIA:   Thanks, Chair.  We will welcome -- India welcomes the
fast track processes of IDN ccTLDs and we expect that by November
these processes will be starting.  And we hope that by the beginning
of the next year, some ccTLDs will start operating.  And regarding
the fee structure, that it is a voluntary process which has emerged
here.  And I hope the 1, 2, 3% share will also be voluntary, it will
be part of that also, that's that share.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Dr. Govind.  

I think the 1, 2, 3% share is established based on number of
registrations.  For smaller registries, it's 1%.  For medium-sized,
2.  For big registries, 3.  Because the running costs are the same,
more or less, for registries, because cost is the same for big and
small registry.

I see Japan.

>>JAPAN:   Thank you, Chair.  Japan will use the fast track to
introduce IDN ccTLD.  So I appreciate again staff efforts, and I am
looking forward to the good use through this Seoul meeting.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Japan.

China.

>>CHINA:   China also supports the IDN ccTLD fast track.  We will
apply for the IDN ccTLD at the first round.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Cui, for this announcement and
endorsement.

So anybody else?

So then may I take that the general assessment of the document is
very positive.  We see that a lot of our suggestions and comments
have been taken into account.  And we will be welcoming the final
version of implementation plan.  We will be noting some details of
that in our communiqué.  But seems to me, I have a feeling that on
Friday we will have a reason to celebrate.

Thank you.

So thank you, Bart.  Thank you, Kurt.  

And we can now move to the next part of our meeting.  It is a
discussion of IDN ccTLD principles.

I would like to ask secretariat to distribute the paper version of
the document.  And maybe we can make a ten-minute break for those who
want to go to have a little smoke, but for others, to read the
document, that we can swiftly do the last reading before adoption.

So secretariat is now distributing the hard copy.  And please take
these ten minutes to read the document.  And we will proceed by --
paragraph by paragraph reading before, hopefully, endorsement.

[ Break ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So may I ask GAC members to take seats, as well
as our guests.

So let me start with a brief reminder of the history of the question
we will be addressing during this hour and a half.

About a year and a half ago, when we started to think about IDN
ccTLD implementation, the ccNSO and the GAC jointly developed a list
of questions, which we thought would require answers before
introduction of IDN ccTLDs.

These questions were of a general nature.  They were about a
methodology of introduction, about what strings should look like,
what should be the process of delegation, what should be operations
of IDN ccTLD operators.

And during these 18 months, very slowly, GAC worked on the issue,
and the result of this work is in front of you on three pages.

And today, it is my intention to do the final reading of the
document with the hope that at the end of this reading, we could
endorse them and send them to the board and to ccNSO as our input to
the CC PDP.

And if you would accept that I would read that paragraph by
paragraph, and we could discuss if there would be some questions or
clarifications thought.

But otherwise, I think after 18 months and no comments, we shouldn't
spend too much time on this document.

So let me start by point number one, general principles.  The main
provisions of the GAC ccTLD principles and guidelines for delegation
and administration of Country Code Top Level Domain apply also for
IDN ccTLDs.  The current principles are intended to supplement the
aforementioned principles insofar as non-ASCII ccTLD are concerned.

Bill.

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  And my apologies, actually, for
bringing us back a little.  My hand was up for a while, but you were
busy.

Just quickly to note regarding the previous discussion on the
implementation plan and the possibility of the GAC endorsing the plan.

I think I'm right in saying that we need to have the views of the
ccNSO on this document.  We haven't had that yet.  I think that would
be very important before we take a decision on the plan.

So just for the record and for our discussions later in the week.  I
think I'm right in saying that they haven't yet endorsed this document.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bill.  I see Chris Disspain, chair of
ccNSO Council, in the room.

Could you, Chris, answer the question of Bill.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you, Janis.  Good morning, everybody.

I'm not entirely certain that the ccNSO will formally endorse the
implementation plan by some sort of resolution.  It's more likely
that we will spend a bit of time discussing it on Tuesday or
Wednesday and simply accept it as it is or ask for some minor
changes.  But the idea that we might or even need to pass some formal
resolution endorsing the plan is not something I think we have really
considered.

For what it's worth, as a general observation, would I say that
there's -- it's okay.  It's got some things in it that some people
might not necessarily like all that much but they can live with.  And
I haven't had a massive amount of push-back from anybody about
anything specific in the document.  But that's about as far as I can
go at this stage.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  Thank you, Chris.  That clarifies
the question of Bill; right?

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yes.  I think I take from that that you
will not be formally endorsing the implementation plan.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So we're back now on "General Principles," the
first paragraph.

I see no -- no requests for the floor.  I take it that this
paragraph is acceptable.

Paragraph number 2:  The introduction and operation of IDN ccTLDs
should not undermine the security and stability of the DNS.  To this
end, all actors, including TLD operators, ICANN, and the relevant
government should work together to ensure that the highest standards
of TLD operation are achieved, taking account of best practices and
internationally accepted technical standards where they exist.

I see no requests for the floor.  No comments.  We can proceed to
the third one.

All countries and distinct economies, including those in the ISO
3166-1 list have equal rights to creating IDN ccTLDs that reflect
their languages and scripts.

I think that there is one imprecision, that should -- this paragraph
should read, "All countries and distinct economies included in the
ISO 3166-1 list have equal rights."  We are speaking about IDN
ccTLDs, and automatically we are referring those included in 3166-1
list.

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you, Janis.

Actually, ways rather reassured by the fact that it said
"including," rather than" included."  Included is a rather exclusive
term?  It means no other countries or distinct economies, actually,
would be entitled to an IDN ccTLD unless they are on the list.  So I
thought this was more flexible wording, which I would prefer.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Canada?

>>CANADA:   Thank you, Chair.  I wonder if we can find a way, maybe,
to word a bit better around this.

We actually prefer to have the reference to the ISO list as defining
what constitutes a country code.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.

I have a specific problem regarding the European Union as well,
actually, which has been recognized in the final implementation plan
for fast track, actually, where it's recognized that there has to be
special arrangement for the -- for additional eligibility of the
European Union.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   If we would specifically mention European Union
in the text, included in ISO 3166-1 list and European Union, would
that be a way forward?

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Certainly that would be very helpful,
actually.  I wonder, though, what the problem would be with having
the reference to the fact that this should include the 3166 list, and
then it allows for the possibility, actually, that somebody may apply
for a country name that isn't yet on that list.  For example,
creation of a new country, which has happened quite frequently
recently.

So it's an event that isn't purely theoretical.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   I think that ccTLD is clearly referenced, and
this is a custom that only those countries and territories and
distinct economies on the -- which are mentioned on the list are
eligible for IDN ccTLD -- sorry, for ccTLD.

So by referring including those in the list, we're widening the
scope of those who can get ccTLD.

And certainly that is not our intention.

So I would then suggest if we would, after comma, we would write,
"Included in ISO 3166-1 list, and European Union," adding European
Union specifically.  And then the following, the text.

Would that be acceptable?  Brazil?

>>BRAZIL:   Janis, I would propose that we keep the text the way it
is, because there are other distinct economies that might be
interested in having a ccTLD, and I don't see any reason why the
European Union should have preference over other existing and
possibly interested distinct economies.  I would mention Mercosur,
for example, to which Brazil is a part.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So other views?

U.K.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Thank you, Chair.  Obviously this is proving to
be a bit problematic.

I wonder if there is another approach by simply referring to the
fact that all countries and distinct economies with country code top-
level domains have equal rights.  Maybe, is that a way of getting
around the problem without having to refer back to the ISO standard?

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Mark, for proposal.

Any reaction?

Portugal.

>>PORTUGAL:   Well, it seems to me that we shouldn't go to a
situation where you mention particular economies as extending this
idea.  So we should stay at level of the concept.

So if there is a doubt about the way, how it is stated right now, I
think the best would be including those in the ISO 3166-1 list, but
not restricted to those.

So the fact that it is all countries and listed economies, that is
the important part of the statement.  But then the sentence should
say that all that are in ISO 3166 are included, but of course there
are others.  And that's -- that will be enough.  Maybe someone will
come out with a better way of saying this.

>>chair karklins:  Thank you, Luis.

Other comments?

Heather, Canada.

>>CANADA:   Thank you.  I thought the proposal made by the U.K.
might be a good path forward, if there is additional support for that.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So, Mark, could you repeat, please, your
suggestion.  All countries and distinct economies with existing
ccTLDs have equal rights in creating?

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Yes.  I don't think I actually used the word
"existing," but I think that word is appropriate.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So, then, text, "All countries and distinct
economies with existing country code top-level domains have equal
rights to create IDN ccTLDs that reflect their languages and scripts."

I see no objections.

I repeat for those who want to write again.

All countries and distinct economies with existing Country Code Top
Level Domains have equal rights to creating IDN ccTLDs that reflect
their languages and scripts.

You.

So that is, then, adopted, and we can move to the fourth paragraph.

Ultimate public policy authority over the IDN ccTLDs of a country or
distinct economy rests with the government or relevant public
authority.  How this authority is exercised, is determined by
applicable law.

And this is drawn from Section 4.1.1 of GAC ccTLD principles.

I see no objections.

Paragraph number 5.  On receipt of an IDN ccTLD application, ICANN
should ensure that either the proposal has the support of the
government or relevant public authority or that the government or
relevant public authority raises no objections to the application. 
In the event of such confirmation is not obtainable, ICANN should
desist from the introduction of the proposed IDN ccTLD until such
confirmation is obtained.

Any comments?

I see none.

Paragraph number 6:  The number of IDN strings per territory should
reflect the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the community
concerned.  A limit on the number of IDN strings per territory may
only be considered if there are reasons to believe that some form of
limitation on the overall size of the root zone file is necessary to
preserve the stability of the DNS.  If a limit is to be introduced,
this should be done in agreement with the government or relevant
public authority of the territory concerned, and adequate
justification for such a limit should be made clear beforehand in
order for territories to establish their priorities properly.

Any comment?

I see none.

Paragraph number 7:  It is anticipated in most cases that the
government or relevant public authority will decide that one IDN
ccTLD per script will be sufficient, but it is also mindful that
within some countries and distinct economies, different scripts are
in use and, in some cases, the same script is used in a number of
widely used languages.  In these cases, the government or relevant
public authority may determine that more than one IDN ccTLD is
necessary.

Any comments?

I see none.

Mark, please.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Sorry, Janis.  It's not on substance, actually. 
It's just the language at the second sentence -- second line, rather,
sorry.  "But it is also mindful."  I think it doesn't quite work like
that in English.  I would prefer language like, "But it should also
be borne in mind."

"but it should also be borne in mind."  And then continue that"
within some countries," et cetera.  It's just the language is not
quite right in English.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Yes, the scribe was not Native English speaker.

So thank you for this.  I think we can move, then, to the next
paragraph in the section "IDN ccTLD Strings," paragraph number 8:  It
is anticipated that an IDN ccTLD string should normally:  Be shortest
meaningful representation of the name of the territory, not be
restricted to a fixed length, it's maximum length being set by the
prevailing technical standards with stability, security, integrity
and usability in mind.

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  Yeah, I just wonder if reading
this again, if there's an apparent contradiction, actually, in these
two phrases, actually.  One says that it will normally be the
shortest meaningful representation.  The second one says it's not
restricted.

Maybe that's just my reading, but I wonder if other colleagues see a
little bit of a contradiction there.  Perhaps not.

In the first line as well, where it says, "It is anticipated that an
IDN ccTLD string should normally."  I would prefer it to say "will
normally," given that this is a reflection of our expectations rather
than any indication that we're making rules.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Bill, for these remarks.

I remember that at the beginning, we had the discussion whether IDN
ccTLDs should be limited to two characters.  And I think this
reflects the answer to that question, that the name should be the
shortest, but it should not be two characters, in other words.

So it may be five, six, seven, but there should be some limit, which
is technical limit.

Please.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yes, thank you for that explanation, Janis.

I think just also I'd make the comment that here we appear to be
endorsing the one-character approach, if that's the shortest
meaningful representation of a country name.

So we are moving away, actually, from provisions in the draft
implementation plan, which I don't think is a problem, per se,
actually, but I think we should be aware that we are taking a
different position.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   U.K.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Thank you, Chair.  Just on that I thought we had
an explanation that there would be further work as to the possibility
of a single character.  So this wording would not cut across that. 
That was my understanding, if that helps.

Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Any other comments?

So then with Bill's suggestion to change "shall" to "will" in first
line, it is anticipated that an IDN ccTLD string will normally, and
then be shortest meaningful representation of the name of the
territory and not be restricted to a fixed length, its maximum length
being set by the prevailing technical standards with stability,
security, integrity and usability in mind.

May I take that we can accept that?

I see nodding.

So paragraph number 9:  Given the different forms that IDN ccTLDs
will take and the absence of an equivalent of the ISO 3166-1 list
used for ASCII ccTLDs, the experience of relevant international
organizations should be taken into account.

And with a footnote naming potential international organization --
relevant international organizations:  U.N. conference on the
standardization of geographic names, UNESCO, and ITU.

United States.

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   Thank you, Janis.  I just wanted to
add a note here, and I don't know whether it requires an additional
footnote or not, but to share with colleagues that I have been made
aware that it is within the realm of possibility that the country
names that are going to be proposed in the fast-track applications
could potentially be migrated as they are proposed to a new column in
3166 that would be an informational column.

So that, for example, I know that Manal is not here, but Egypt is a
good, easy example to use.  Whatever Egypt does propose in the fast
track as dot Egypt representing their country in the Arabic script
could then be shared with the maintenance agency of ISO 3166 and put
in a new column.

What might be helpful for us to explore intersessionally and perhaps
have a session in Nairobi is an actual briefing as to how this can
happen.  But I have been made aware that it can happen, and so I
think it is something we want to explore and then perhaps include in
a reference in the GAC text.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Suzanne, for the suggestion.

I recall that we had a session with the standardization people in
Lisbon, it was about to years ago, where there was a rather heated
debate between competing agencies.  And we were told that the time to
develop standard was about five years from when you start to the
adoption of standard.

What you are suggesting, of course, is not a standard.  It's an
informational line.  But I fully agree that that would be very
useful, maybe to reach out ISOC Secretariat and invite them whether
to come and make briefing in the GAC or ask them to write or inform
us how they see this possibility.

And we could try to do it for Nairobi.

Any other comments on this?

So if none, then number 10.  Only the government or the relevant
public authority of the country or distinct economy concerned,
representing all relevant stakeholders within its jurisdiction, can
provide authoritative advice to ICANN on the legitimacy of any
application for the IDN ccTLD.

Any comments?

So paragraph number 11.  An IDN ccTLD string that refers to a
specific country or distinct economy, even if unapplied for, should
be reserved for it.

No comments?  We can move on.

"IDN ccTLDs Scripts."  Paragraph number 12.  Nobody has property
rights over a script.  Some scripts are commonly used to write more
than one language and should be available to be used for IDN ccTLD
purpose in each of those languages.

No comments?  Adopted.

It is recommended that each language community develop one language
table for its script.  Language tables, after elaboration, should be
deposited with IANA and posted for public use by any registry with no
restriction in any sense.

No comment?

Paragraph number 14:  The adopted version of Unicode should be
complete, including all scripts, and constantly upgraded with the
newer versions to help include maximum character sets of any language
and ensure a strong and dynamic variant table to handle security
issues.

Any comments?

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Sorry, just a question, actually.  I don't
know if the colleague who drafted this is present, but I am wondering
when we say "the adopted version of Unicode," who would be adopting
it?  Do we mean the version adopted by ICANN, or -- It's not clear to
me who would actually be the organization adopting Unicode there. 
Maybe that's a stupid question, but -- Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So there are no stupid questions.  This is
simply a natural curiosity of yours.  I see Cary Karp is in the room.
Maybe, Cary, you can enlighten us on this specific issue.

>>CARY KARP:   The Unicode standard constantly evolves.  New
versions appear probably once a year.  The most recent appeared a
couple of weeks ago.  And it's assumed that all applications that use
Unicode follow that path.

So it's the Unicode Technical Committee, UTC, that flags what we
need to observe.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Cary.

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  That's very useful, actually. 
So it isn't, actually, formally adopted.  It's used.  It's just my
reading of it suggested there be some formal adoption procedure.

I'm glad to hear the explanation.  But in terms of other people
reading this document, maybe, in the future, it might be helpful then
to say, "The version of Unicode to be used should be complete," et
cetera.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So after explanation, and Bill made proposal to
modify, slightly, text, and he suggests that it should read, "The
version of Unicode to be used should be complete," and then the rest
as it stands.

"The version of Unicode to be used should be complete."

With this modification -- U.K.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Thank you, Chair.  I just wondered if we would
simply refer to the version adopted by the committee.  I'm sorry, I
didn't quite catch the correct title of the community from the
explanation, but perhaps if could you repeat that.  Then I think we
have absolute clarity on what we're intending here, if that makes
sense.

Thanks.

>>CARY KARP:   The standard form of reference is simply the latest
version of Unicode.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Then I would go with that, yes.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Cary.  I should make you an honorary
member of the GAC.

[ Laughter ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So the latest version of Unicode should be
complete.

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   I'm very sorry, actually, for being
pedantic.  But it comes with being British.  But I -- I'm just
considering, having had the experience myself, actually, of finding
old GAC papers and reading them, and then going off on a wild goose
chase, actually, looking for documents that don't exist, I just -- I
think I prefer that the version we first discussed, which is the
version of Unicode to be used.  Because if we talk about the "latest
version" on a document which has a specific date, it may suggest to
people in the future that we're talking about a version which was
adopted just before we adopted this.

And, you know, it can lead to confusion.  So I think if we leave it
more generic and talk about the version being used should be
complete, I find -- I feel that that's less risky for the future.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So if we say "the latest version of Unicode in
use should be complete"?

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yeah.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Yes, I would -- that's, then, not time-specific,
clearly.  So I was going to suggest "the latest available."  But
"latest in use" is fine.

"Latest available," is that better for you, Bill?

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So this exercise usually takes place on
Wednesdays, not on Sundays.

So the --  India, Dr. Govind.

>>INDIA:   Janis, shall we mention the version, like version 5 or
version 6?  That will make more clear the latest version, somebody
using 4 or 5 or 6 kind of thing, if we just mention the version 5,
which is more specific here.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Seems that we are lost in the forest.

Cary.

>>CARY KARP:   The reason why the IDN protocol was revised was that
the initial version, the one that entered into effect in 2003, made
specific reference to Version 3.2 of Unicode.

Unicode is now up to version 5.2.  And the IETF revised the
underlying protocol to free it from version dependence so that
applications of the type that you are discussing here would never
need to reference specific versions of Unicode.

I don't know what to say next.  But the IETF went through an awful
lot to be able to spare you the need for the discussion that you're
currently conducting.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  Thank you, Cary, for explanation.

So we now have a text "the latest available version of Unicode in
use should be complete, including all scripts and constantly upgraded
with the current version to constantly to include maximum character
sets of any language and ensure a strong and dynamic variant table to
handle security issues."

I repeat the first sentence on the first line:  

"The latest available version of Unicode in use should be complete,"
and then the remaining text as it is.

So no objections?

We can proceed to the next paragraph in chapter, "stakeholders,"
paragraph number 15.

Relevant actors for international coordination include:  Concerned
governments, relevant international organizations within their
respective mandates, standardization bodies, language experts,
language communities and local users, ICANN SOs and ACs, ISOC
chapters, IETF, and Unicode Consortium."

So I see no requests for the floor.

Moving on, paragraph 16, "All relevant actors should participate in
a public and inclusive consultation process at the international
level and work towards evolving a consensus for IDN ccTLDs
formulations from the point of view of technical and operational
stability, security, as well as addressing public-policy issues."

So no comments?

Introduction of -- and delegation of IDN ccTLDs, paragraph number
17:  "Procedure for delegation of IDN ccTLDs should be similar to the
ASCII ccTLD delegation and should equally follow GAC ccTLD
principles, principles and guidelines for the delegation and
administration of the country code top-level domains."

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: I had I'd like to suggest the procedure for
delegation should follow the GAC ccTLD principles.  The reason for
saying that is, I think there's a potential for some misunderstanding
here, given that the -- in the past, the legacy situation is that
many of the ASCII ccTLD delegations were not made in accordance with
the GAC principles, because they predate it.  It's not to criticize
that procedure.

But the GAC principles provide for a specific role for governments,
for example, and local Internet communities in the delegation.  That
wasn't always the case in the dim and distant past.

So I think it would just simplify the text here if we say that the
procedure should follow the GAC ccTLD principles.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So the -- you are suggesting to leave the text
"procedure for delegation of an IDN ccTLD should follow GAC ccTLD
principles."

Would this proposal meet acceptance?

So I repeat, we are striking the words "be similar to the ASCII
ccTLD delegation and should equally."  And now the sentence stands:

"Procedure for delegation of an IDN ccTLD should follow GAC ccTLD
principles."

And then the title of principles.

So I see nodding.  We can move on.  Paragraph 18:

"A mandated list/reference table of strings representing the IDN
ccTLDs of countries or distinct economies, as listed in ISO 3166-1
would facilitate management and would ensure predictability of the
IDN ccTLD system."

U.K., Mark.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Thank you, Chair.  Just following our earlier
discussion about referencing the ISO standard, maybe, for
consistency, we delete that part of this provision "as listed in the
ISO 3166-1."

Thank you.

Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yes.  I think I'd agree with that, because
we've now covered it elsewhere, actually.  That would simplify it.

Just one point of language.  I think -- I don't think we insure the
predictability.  We might ensure it or facilitate it.  But I think
maybe an "E" instead of an "I" would be helpful.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So proposal is to delete reference to ISO 3166-
1, and now the paragraph would read:

"Mandated list/reference table of strings representing the IDN
ccTLDs of countries and distinct economies would facilitate
management and would ensure predictability of IDN ccTLD system."

So I see no objections.

Paragraph number 19:

"The introduction of IDN ccTLDs should not await completion of the
ongoing policy development process.  Elements of a subsequent PDP
should be applied in agreement with the operator and the relevant
government or public authority."

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yes.  I think there's something awkward
about that second sentence, actually.  We're dealing here with the
possibility of applying a future policy development process to -- I
presume we're talking about IDN ccTLDs introduced in the fast track. 
But it's not -- it's not entirely clear to me here what we're trying
to say here.

I wonder if whoever proposed the text might be able to explain.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So the --  There are two processes:  Fast track
and PDP.  And from one side, the fast track implementation plan or
methodology does not preempt the outcome of CC PDP.

And what we are trying to say here, that we are putting IDN ccTLDs
in the root according to fast-track methodology.  But once PDP is
completed, then the provisions of PDP, if they differ from fast-track
methodology, they would apply to the -- those who were put in the
root under the fast track.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   That, I think, can be problematic,
actually, retrospective application of PDP.

In the case of IDN ccTLD such as ones introduced for dot EU, for
example, the decision about the applicable policies for that top-
level domain will be made by the relevant authorities in the European
Union.  And a registry operator will be appointed, and they'll open
for business, basically.

To seek to try retrospectively to implement subsequent policies made
by other bodies could be problematic in law.

So I'm a bit nervous about that.

I think as an alternative, I would prefer the phrase that you used
earlier, which is that the -- that the fast-track process should not
preempt the policy development process.  And then this doesn't cause
me any problems.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So any other comments on this?  I can, for
instance, imagine situation when CC PDP comes up with the obligation
for IDN operator to introduce DNSSEC from the very beginning.  And
this is not a request for IDN operator under fast track.  And then we
create two-track or two type of IDN ccTLDs, one with -- created under
a PDP; another created under fast track.  And at one point, they
should be the same.

The fast track is experimental.  And the policy should apply -- the
final policy should apply to the fast track as well.  Otherwise, in
my view, it doesn't make sense.

So any other views on this?

Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  And I think you make a
reasonable point, actually.  Although that would also need to include
existing ASCII ccTLDs in that scenario.  So we'd have to broaden our
net.

But my concern more, actually, is a practical one, actually, that if
a public administration is required to enter into formal legislative
process to identify a string and to appoint an operator for that and
to have a contract with the operator, then it would be inappropriate
for them at the same time, actually, to give an indication to an
organization like ICANN that they can be subject to additional
requirements in the future which are nonspecified.  I'm a bit
uncomfortable about that.  I don't feel I have a mandate to kind of
give that kind of approval here to that kind of approach.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Does anybody else want to join in in this debate?

U.K.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Thank you, Chair.

I must admit, I have some sympathy with the view presented by the
European Commission.  And it's a bit surprising, actually, that this
point has come up, seemingly hidden in the text here, of how we can
expect something to be implemented retroactively and -- well, there
are business interests and legal issues that come into play in that
kind of situation, as the Commission has pointed out.

I wonder if it is safer to park this issue and delete the second
sentence in this provision.  And it may, indeed, be an issue that
applicants in the fast-track process would have to give serious
consideration to.  We haven't had a comment from them in this
discussion.  But -- which may indicate that this is something that
does need to be bottomed out a bit more carefully.

So in the interests of safety and caution, I would suggest that we
do take this out.

Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Shouldn't we then think about deletion of whole
paragraph, taking into account discussion we had in the morning
before -- before the session, and we're rather certain that board
will take a positive decision and will launch the fast track, then
this provision or paragraph 19 may not be needed at all?  Would you
accept deletion of paragraph 19?

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you, yes.  I think that's a good
point, we shouldn't make statements historically inaccurate when
issued.  Perhaps we should put brackets around this.  It depends when
we submit it to the board.  If we submit it before they make that
decision, then it would be appropriate for us to keep this statement
about the need to not wait for the completion of the PDP.  But if the
launch has already been made by the time they receive these
principles, then certainly we should delete it.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   I expect to -- that this document would become
an annex to our communiqué and would be delivered on Thursday
morning.  The decision on the fast track will be made on Friday.

So then if you are concerned, we could move the first sentence of
paragraph 19 potentially to our communiqué.  But we delete it from
this text.

I see nodding.

So 19 is deleted, and the remainder, which is encompassed in the
first sentence, will be part of the communiqué.

So 20:

"Competing or confusingly similar requests should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis and resolved in consultation with all concerned
stakeholders."

Any comments?

I see none.

Adopted.

21:

"Policies for dealing with multiple applications, objections to
applications, or disputes that are currently applied for U.S. ASCII
ccTLDs should be equally applied to IDN ccTLDs, as per the GAC ccTLD
principles mentioned in paragraph 1 above."

I think that the U.S. is not needed.  ASCII ccTLDs.  Please delete
"U.S." dash.

So I see no objections.

Paragraph 22:

"The decision regarding" whatever -- sorry, excuse me.  "the
decision regarding whether an existing ASCII ccTLD manager should
also be the operator of a corresponding IDN ccTLD is a national
matter to be decided by local Internet community, including the
government or public -- or relevant public authority.  In case of
dispute, ICANN should seek authoritative advice from the government
or relevant public authority."

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  Yes, sorry to be difficult
again.  But we may be a bit of an exception here in the sense that
IDN ccTLDs for dot EU would not be a national matter as such.  So
that would be inappropriate language for us.

I think we have alternative language, that this matter should be
decided by the appropriate government or public authority, given that
ultimately, the operator will need the approval or a lack of
objections being indicated by the local -- the national government or
public authority.  That's kind of implicit, actually, that they'll
actually get to decide if the existing operator gets it or whether a
new operator is appropriate.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   New Zealand.  >>NEW ZEALAND:  Thank you, Chair.  

I have no objection to what Bill is proposing.  I just note there's
a confusion here between governmental or public authority and
government or relevant local authority.  We just need consistent
language there.  I would suggest relevant public authority."  Thank
you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Frank, for this.  There should be
consistency.

So if I understand correctly, we are -- you're suggesting to delete
"national," and we are leaving sentence:

"The decision regarding whether an existing ASCII ccTLD manager
should also be the operator of a corresponding IDN ccTLD is a matter
to be decided by local Internet community, including the government
or relevant public authority.  In case of dispute, ICANN should seek
authoritative advice from the government or relevant public authority."

European Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Yes.  Again, I have a specific problem
related to our situation where that decision will be made by the
relevant public authority.  Given that we are a democratic
institution, we will, of course, be reflecting the interests of the
local Internet community.  But I wouldn't like to give the impression
that it's either/or.

In our case, it would be very specifically decided by the relevant
public authority.  So it may just be a question of drafting.  But I
don't have alternative text at the moment.  Perhaps I can come back
to you on that to take account of our specific situation, which may
apply in other countries as well.  But it's just a desire to avoid
ambiguous or potentially misleading text.

But I'll come back to you with some proposal on that.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Bill.

I think that this part of the text is certainly drawn from IANA,
IANA procedure, where consultations with public -- sorry --
consultations with local Internet community is part of the process in
the case of delegation and redelegation.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you, Janis.  And while I'm full of
admiration for the IANA principles, that's not -- or the IANA
procedures, that's not a series of procedures which we were involved
in drafting, actually.  And you'll see from the GAC principles,
actually, that we're trying to cover the existing ccTLD principles,
actually, that we're trying to establish public-policy principles
rather than defer entirely to other documents.

I understand there's also something called ICP1, which is a document
adopted by (inaudible) in the past which has some relevance here.  So
it's not an attempt to confuse the issue or to conflict with the IANA
procedures, which seem to work very well.  It's just really taking
note of the fact that, in our case, it's already very clear that it
will be the relevant public authority that makes these decisions. 
And I think as currently worded, actually, it seems to suggest that
the GAC don't really mind whether it's the local Internet community
with the -- including the government or public authority.  It creates
confusion on my part, actually, because we have clarity as far as dot
EU is concerned that the relevant public authority makes that
decision.  And I would like that reflected in the text.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So what if we -- if we take out "including" and
substitute "including" with "or" and at the end, we put "where
relevant."  And that would mean the IDN ccTLD is a matter to be
decided by the local Internet community or the government or relevant
public authority, where appropriate.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  Yes, that works.  Thank you
very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Okay.  I'm giving time for reflection of my
proposal.

So please, the sentence would read that:

"The decision regarding whether an existing ASCII ccTLD manager
should be also the operator of a corresponding IDN ccTLD is a matter
to be decided by the local Internet community or the government or
relevant public authority, where appropriate."

United States.

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   Thank you, Janis.  And my apologies to
my colleagues.  I have to ask you to bear with me.  If we could put
this in brackets, because, quite honestly, I have to digest whether
we are now all of a sudden creating some distinction that is
inadvertent such that there is either a local Internet community
whose interests are very distinct, or a government or relevant public
authority, suggesting that they might not have the interests -- the
same or similar interests.  And I'm just -- I'm hesitant.  So if you
can all bear with me, I think we need brackets on this so we can
think it through.  I think we're inadvertently creating a problem
that we probably don't want to create.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So we're putting brackets around the text.  The
text with the track change will be printed out and distributed to the
GAC for further reflection.  And we will revisit this particular
paragraph on Wednesday during -- Wednesday afternoon during our
discussion of outstanding issues.

So paragraph 23:

"There should be some form of transparent communication, as
appropriate, between ICANN and any IDN ccTLD registry to define their
respective roles and responsibilities."

That's paragraph drawn from section 10.2 of GAC ccTLD principles.

So no objections?

I take that this paragraph is adopted.

So apart from current paragraph 22, which will become paragraph 21
in the -- in the final version of this text, I take that this
document is adopted and will be submitted to the board and the ccNSO
as part of our communiqué for guidance in the process of development
of CC PDP.

I think that this is a good conclusion of 18 months of slow but
still considerable effort which was led by our Egyptian colleague,
Manal.  And I think that though she's absent, but hopefully she's
following this discussion online, and I believe that she deserves a
round of applause.

[ Applause ]

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So that brings us to the end of our agenda for
this meeting.  And we have been very productive today.

My question is, do we have either Chris or Bart are in the room.  Or
they are gone already?

So then I will try to remember what's the state of play with IDN CC
PDP, just to keep you updated on the process.

As you recall during Sydney meeting, the working group on IDN CC PDP
was created.  And in this working group GAC is represented by the
chair and GAC representative from Egypt, Manal.  And until now, we
have had three conference calls.  During these calls, we were working
on the list of issues which would constitute the beginning of the
policy development process.

This list of issues has been published for public comments right
before this meeting, and I believe that there will be a session on
Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday, one of those days, where this list of
issues will be discussed also during this meeting.

So once this list will be finally adopted, I believe that then the
next phase will begin.  And during that phase, the policy will be
developed.

And again, we will be following very closely to this effort, and
will be contributing to the extent that we will be able to do so.

So any questions?

Any comments at this point?

So if none, then I would like to thank all of you for participation
in this session.  We will restart at 2:00.  Bertrand will take over
the chairmanship of the beginning of the new gTLD session because I
will be following meeting of the board, and I will come back around
2:30 or around 3:00, and Bertrand will be chairing beginning of the
session on new gTLDs.

As I said at the beginning, staff will do a presentation.  There
will be possibility to ask questions of clarification, but maybe not
make any comments at this point.  Comments will be -- will make at
the second part of the meeting.

Then we will have briefing of IRT, and I think that our observer
from World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, said that she
would like to provide a perspective of WIPO on intellectual property
issues.  And we'll find out whether there will be, also, a briefing
of law enforcement agencies during that session.  If they are
present, we will give them the floor for some remarks and will give
possibility to answer questions.

And then just a reminder for tomorrow.  Tomorrow we will have a
first joint GAC/board working group meeting.  And this meeting is
scheduled from 12:00 to 1:30 in this very room.  So please, since
tomorrow we are following ICANN meeting opening -- and here I am
talking to first time here participants in the GAC meeting.  Tomorrow
we are following the ICANN organized workshops in the main room, or
in adjacent rooms, depending on your interests.  But I would like to
invite all of you to be here at 12:00 for the joint meeting with the
GAC board working group.

There is a document, terms of reference, and maybe I will ask
Secretariat to distribute the hard copy of terms of reference that
you can revise it later today or tomorrow.  And the objective of the
meeting tomorrow is to adopt these terms of reference and then start
discussions on substantive issues.  But then, of course, it depends
on the intention of chairs.  But certainly, we need to adopt terms of
reference that we can proceed with the substantive work.

So thank you very much, indeed.  Bon appetit, and we are reconvening
here at 2:00.

2:00.

Please be here.

And this is important because we have also audio streaming that
those people who potentially follow us, they will start listening at
2:00, our time.

So thank you very much, indeed.  Bon appetit.

[ Break. ]