Transcription

Kurt Pritz: Who's chairing this, by the way?

Sebastien Bachollet: For the moment, I will be doing that today. If Vanda is joining us, maybe she will take over. But it's Sebastien Bachollet from (unintelligible) who will be chairing this meeting as our chair is unavailable for the today meeting.

Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Thanks.

Sebastien Bachollet: You're welcome.

Unidentified Participant: So, who's on the call already?

Sebastien Bachollet: We have Dev, Evan--.

Dev Anand: Teelucksingh.

Sebastien Bachollet: I guess Jim is with us.

Unidentified Participant: Yeah.

Sebastien Bachollet: Marie, Manuel, Michele, Olivier, Patrick--.

Operator: Jim Prendergast, joined.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. And Sebastien. The other maybe not on the Adobe chat room, then I have not the list, but if they can tell who you are.

Unidentified Participant: Evan is here, too.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, I say Evan.

Unidentified Participant: Oh, sorry.

Kurt Pritz: Yeah, Kurt's here.

Unidentified Participant: Hello, Kurt.

Kurt Pritz: Hey.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. And Kurt obviously is with us.

Nick Ashton-Hart: Kurt, are you going to join Adobe Connect, or do you want me page through the slides for you?

Kurt Pritz: Well, I-I'm trying to-let's see if I can get in. I've been having trouble getting online.

Patrick Vande Walle: Nick, it's Patrick here. Would it be possible to attach the slides, to upload the slides to the wiki, so that those who are without Adobe Connect can follow the presentation?

Operator: Alan, joined.

Sebastien Bachollet: Hello, Alan.

Nick Ashton-Hart: If that's okay with Kurt. No peaking ahead, though.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. As the main participants who are supposed to be here are already here, I will leave two more minutes to arrange the share of the PowerPoint or the presentation, and then I will ask Kurt to start his presentation and we will start the meeting.

Operator: Hong Xue, joined.

Evan Leibovitch: Hey there, Hong. What time is it for you?

Hong Xue: Hi, Evan. Oh, well, it is 9:00 p.m. in Beijing.

Patrick Vande Walle: Oh, hello, Hong. It's Patrick. I'm glad you are there.

Hong Xue: Hi, Patrick. How are you?

Sebastien Bachollet: Yes, that is great that you are with us. I was – I thought that you were not able to join us today. That's very good. Hello, Hong. It's Sebastien.

Hong Xue: That's what I think. Oh, hi. Hello. It's nice. They're all here. Well, actually, I'm not very good today. Well, is the ICANN staff here?

Nick Ashton-Hart: We are indeed.

Hong Xue: Nick, I don't mean you.

Nick Ashton-Hart: (Inaudible.)

Hong Xue: (Inaudible.)

Nick Ashton-Hart: I'm just teasing. Kurt is here. He was – we were just waiting for the last few people to join, including yourself.

Hong Xue: Oh, I'm sorry for that, for being late.

Nick Ashton-Hart: And if you refresh the agenda page, for those of you who are not on Adobe Connect, you will find a link to a pdf of the presentation.

Patrick Vande Walle: Yes, I found it. Thank you, Nick.

Nick Ashton-Hart: Sure.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. Maybe to wait until the last ones to join, maybe we can ask each one to say their name, their affiliation and maybe one sentence why they are here or what's their interest in this area and then I will give the floor to Kurt for his presentation. And I will start with myself. I am Sebastien Bachollet. I'm from--I am vice-chair of the ALAC and I think it's one of the important topics we have in front of us and I am interested to participate with this meeting.

Okay. I will go – first I will take the name on the Adobe chat room. Alan?

Alan Greenberg: Alan Greenberg, ALAC member, GNSO liaison. One of the important issues.

Sebastien Bachollet: Dev?

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Dev Anand Teelucksingh, LACRALO Secretariat. Also involved in the Working Group 3 on the new gTLDs. And indeed, this is also a very important issue.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. Evan?

Evan Leibovitch: Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the North American Region of At Large. I was involved in the Working Group at the At Large Summit related to new gTLDs. I was also involved in Sydney in the analysis and statement on the IRT that was presented there.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. I will come back to the staff after. Jim?

Jim Prendergast: Yes. Jim Prendergast with the Galway Strategy Group. Sat and observed the gTLD working session over a couple days in Mexico City and have been following the policy development process on this since probably early October.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you.

Kurt Pritz: Are you--.

Sebastien Bachollet: Maria (ph)--.

Kurt Pritz: Sorry. Jim, are you identified with any ICANN constituency at this time?

Jim Prendergast: No, I'm not.

Kurt Pritz: Okay.

Sebastien Bachollet: Marie-Emmanuelle?

Marie-Emmanuelle Haas: I'm a French attorney working at Casalonga office in Paris. Have been very much involved in domain name and trademark matters since the last five years. I've published many articles on these subjects and this new issue is very important. And I've already published two articles on this new project.

Sebastien Bachollet: And by the way, she's number one of our (unintelligible). She's a member of ISOC France.

Marie-Emmanuelle Haas: Thank you.

Sebastien Bachollet: Michele?

Michele Neylon: I'm your token Irishman, I think, and general troublemaker. I've been involved with the ALAC stuff for the last couple of years. I sit on the sidelines. I'm not actually aligned with any of the official ALACs or Alphas or whatever the hell they're called. I'm now a member of the Registrar Constituency, though I wasn't originally. And why I'm involved with all this is because I think it's important that it's done fairly to all parties and concerned that it shouldn't be done just to favor trademark holders.

Sebastien Bachollet: Olivier?

Olivier Iteanu: Olivier Iteanu. I'm a lawyer. I'm with the NARALO Board. Also I'm with ISOC England. I have been involved with the IRT discussions after Sydney, and I was also at the London IRT meeting. Working hand-in-hand also with the NCUC Constituency, sort of helping out the connection between ALAC and the NCUC. The issue is extremely important, so that's why I'm here.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Olivier. Patrick?

Patrick Vande Walle: Well, Patrick Vande Walle. I'm a member of the ALAC and I was the reporter of the ALAC statement on the IRT Report. Just to state the obvious for a lot of people. I've already stated, I think it's an important issue to take into consideration the opinion of all parties, including those who are not trademark holders and this is why I am here.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. All the participants who are not on the Adobe Connection are Hong.

Hong Xue: (Unintelligible.)

Sebastien Bachollet: Who else? I missed from the Adobe Connection?

Hong Xue: Oh, well, there's Hong.

Sebastien Bachollet: Hong. Yes.

Hong Xue: Oh, okay. I'm a professor of intellectual property law working in Beijing and Chair of Council of Chinese Domain Name Users Alliance. A member of Asia-Pacific Region of At-Large and Vice-Chair of new gTLD Working Group in Mexico. And I've made a lot of comments on IRT Reports on (unintelligible). So, back to you (unintelligible).

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. Somebody we missed? If not, we'll – sorry? Okay. Then Kurt, it's your turn and we give you our presentation and how you want to work. You want to make all your presentation and we ask questions at the end? You want to be interrupted? How you would like to see this now?

Kurt Pritz: Okay. Thank you. Yes, so I'm Kurt Pritz. I'm here because I kind of have to be, but I also want to be because, even though I'm not the expert on this issue, I find that, often, exchanges of this with all the constituency groups, you know, increase awareness, encourage people to do more research and reading and provide clarity. And so, once that clarity is issued, then we have the right sort of debate.

So that's the purpose of this, is to encourage as much clarity as I can so we can have the right sort of debate, either here or, you know, amongst us all or, you know, after that. So, I'm gonna provide, you know, a brief history of the trademark issue as it pertains to new gTLDs and then follow that with a status of where we are in the process.

I'm gonna apologize in advance. I'm in an area without the greatest cell phone or mobile phone receptivity and I'm kind of limited to this. So, if I ever lose you, I'm really, really sorry and I will call back. You know, I will be vigorously calling back, like, ASAP. So, somebody hung up.

So, let's just go to the first slide, or the second slide. Who's running this? Is it – is Ella?

Sebastien Bachollet: I guess it's – Nick will do that. Thank you.

Nick Ashton-Hart: Okay.

Kurt Pritz: Who's running the show?

Nick Ashton-Hart: Sebastien is chairing, Nick is doing the slides.

Kurt Pritz: Nick? Okay, great.

So, if you take a step back, there was a way that trademark issues are being approached and the new gTLD process is very much a standard way in which ICANN goes about implementing policies and policy recommendations so that, when a policy is developed and then approved by both the council and the board for ICANN staff to do the implementation of it.

And often, a first step in that is to solicit expert opinion. And then take that created implementation model based on the expert opinion and also public comment that we get regarding the implementation and the public comment we get regarding the expert opinion. And we put that together in some sort of model, implementation model, that's again up for public comment. And the creation of the model kind of sharpens the debate and it links up what the different arguments are for the different parties.

And so then – you know, most of you are very familiar with this at ICANN. And then the model is iterated in accordance with public comment. So, we'll hear public comments. There'll be weighing and analysis and then, you know, a republication (unintelligible). We'll address some of the issues, right, but maybe not all of them. So then, maybe there might be a third model published until it is felt that the bets accommodation can be made, taking into account the desires of all parties.

So, you know, just – I haven't planned this as well as I should, but thinking off the top of my head, when ICANN implemented the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, the policy was so much for an implementation, though. So, the first thing ICANN did was pull together a team of registries to – and others – to understand the technical aspects of transfers and what aspects of an implementation of transfer policy would work and what wouldn't. So, that was sort of the expert advice that was used to publish an early model.

Here in new gTLDs, you know, we've used experts in several issues. You know, in (unintelligible) the process we hired, you know, insurance companies and risk analysis to identify the risks and costs associated with the system. We conferred with the ICT in Paris to determine the mechanics of how a dispute resolution process would work. We hired, you know, trademark examiners that developed and utilized algorithms to understand how an algorithm might be effective and how it might not in measuring whether strings, similar strings would cause user confusion.

And so, I think it's very typical and also very important for ICANN to consult with outside experts when creating policy implementation. So, in this case, you know, the staff was sort of pointing in a direction when the board directed that the IRT be formed. And so, the board formed that group primarily of IP experts in order to fairly quickly generate some solutions that would be for public discussion.

So, that's kind of where we are in this process right here. We've solicited expert opinion and then we've published that and then we've gotten comments both on the, you know, the new gTLD process overall and on the IRT Report in particular. And as part of that comment, you know, others have suggested alternative models. You know, that for example, demand media has made and Paul Keening (ph) have also generated models for implementation of some aspects of trademark protection. The NCUC representatives (unintelligible) released papers that recommended models for implementing, you know, IP clearinghouse or a rapid takedown process that were, you know, considerably different than the IRT. So, that's where we are right now. We have expert opinion. And you know, thanks to the participation of everybody in the community, considerable comment on all that.

And so, what's gonna happen next is that the comment and the reports will be taken and – in a position that can be seen as the implementation of a model. So, that again is meant not to be conclusive, but rather to put in – you know, start black and white terms either in a proposed registry agreement or in the (unintelligible) guidebook. You know, how these – how some different trademark protections might take final forum. And then that, I think, will inspire another round of public comments that will be really meaningful and then we'll get into this iteration process.

So, that's – so, the whole point of all this talking is to say that, you know, (unintelligible) messages or a very typical ICANN process to solicit expert opinion and then test that opinion against the ICANN committee in creating a model. You can go to the next slide, Nick.

So, you know, a brief history of the world is that this will be a quicker slide, you'll be grateful to hear. The history of the (unintelligible) space is that the GNSO approved 19 policy recommendations. And associated with them were implementation advice and materials, but you know, a cornerstone recommendation said that new gTLDs should not infringe the rights of others. And so, it's considerable discussion about implementation, details of working group forums but, at the end of that, there were not a lot of specific recommendations, say, regarding how to implement that particular policy recommendation.

And so, the initial version of the guidebook was published in that way then, that new gTLDs should not infringe the rights of others, should have rights protection implemented but not state what they would be with any specificity in spite of discussion about that. And that's when the board formed the IRT to get some expert advice, which sets us up, you know, at the top of the bullet in the previous slide. So, that's kind of why we're here and what we're doing at this stage of the game.

So, where we are here specifically is – and I've – this has already been data.

Whoops, you went forward and then you went back, but I was okay with going forward, Nick.

Yeah. So, we received the IRT Report. There's been a lot of discussion about it. I think the IRT Report was constituted by the board with that membership and performed its work in a pretty darn transparent way. They published minutes of every meeting and published a preliminary report for public comment, and really reacted to the public comment that, you know, as a non-participating member I was sort of a dash support, the guy who gets the coffee and stuff. But you know, I sat in all the IRT teleconferences which were held weekly for about two hours and the two face-to-face meetings that lasted two to three days each. And I saw them really struggle to incorporate public comment and balance that.

So, while the product you see definitely has an intellectual property slant, because that's where they're from, they did, you know, publish FAQs and conduct other public sessions so that the work they did was as transparent and responsive as possible to public comment. I don't – to tell you the truth, I don't even think that was their role. I think their role was what the board said, for them to go off and create, you know, an extra report from within their community. But – well, I've already said that, that they tried to be responsive to public comment.

Then we had a public comment on it which received, you know, quite a bit. I think there were about 200 comments on the IRT Report itself. And then we had the consultations in New York, London and Sydney.

So, what we've done is we've summarized all that. And if you've read the public comments analysis on other sections of the guidebook, you'll see it's like sort of broken up into topics. And all the comments on that topic are listed and then there's some analysis of what the results of all that comment should be. So, that's what we're in the middle of right now. We have summarized all the comments from each of the public sessions and from the public comments fora. And we've got that synthesis and we're creating a report now.

So, if you think about the string of events, you know, we've got the IRT Report, which fits the recommendations. We've got, you know, a handful of other reports that provide alternate recommendations. We have a couple hundred comments plus the transcripts from the other meetings that are summarized. And then, what we've got to get to in the end is a version of the applicant guidebook that includes the registry agreements that, you know, synthesizes all the comments, gather all the comments, all the IRT Reports. And so, that's what's being written now.

And I'll say, as one of the people leading that effort, the creation of a (unintelligible), an explanatory memo of a – or a document that bridges from, you know, a bunch of comment into a guidebook and provides an explanation of the reasoning and balancing and numbering behind that is a complex task.

So, when – I'm asking you when you read it in advance, try to remember that we're starting out with a blank sheet of paper and trying to take what's a complex issue and just fill it into different topic items. So, that's what you'll see in several weeks in the new guidebook. And then, you know, that whole guidebook's a proposal and especially this section of it. So again, please comment. And you know, in the comments, you know, especially the letter from ALAC. And the letter ALAC and NCUC were read very carefully, as well as, you know, all the individual At Large vendors that I know. But if you feel your comment wasn't addressed, there's another bite of that apple.

And you can go on, Nick.

So, I think everybody's familiar with these. The IRT made seven specific recommendations. What's important, though, is, you know, everybody reading the few words on this slide will have a very different opinion of what they are absent careful reading of all the documentation. So, you know, when I first heard of IP clearinghouse, I thought, well, you know, my mind leapt to the uses to which such a list could be put.

And so I think it's important to read – you know, read what these are. And that, you know, an IP clearinghouse would be used for two purposes. One would be the IP claims mechanism or a sunrise period, depending on the option of the registry. So, in each of these cases, the debate should be pointed up by, you know, a knowledge of what these things are. And I think, you know, publishing some form of some of these in the guidebook will also, you know, point out the debate.

And again, I just want to point out the very important parenthetical at the top that this list does not mean that all these are going into the guidebook, or these are going into the guidebook as recommended by the IRT. You know, the IRT members are a bunch of smart people and their input is taken very seriously, but so is all the other comments that have been made. But I think this presentation just required a comprehensive list of all the recommendations that were made. And I'm happy at any time, to the best of my ability, explain what the gist of these things, but I wouldn't do them justice, but I (unintelligible) my understanding of them.

Just a second.

Okay. So, yes, I think I'm gonna (unintelligible) ahead and we can come back to this one. And if anybody has any questions, we certainly can.

So, you know, every optimistically – and I know, you know, every time I think that way at ICANN it doesn't work out that way. But there are beginning to gel some areas of agreement around some of these things and that is there's still a very heated debate. But in some areas, anyway, and in some of these recommendations, the debate isn't about, you know, whether to do things (unintelligible) how to do these things.

So for example, you know, an IP clearinghouse can be put to (unintelligible) owners usually as a blocking mechanism or it can be used to, you know, just provide a notification service and then a whole spectrum of uses in-between. You know, two or the uses recommended by the IRT are the IP claims stuff and sunrise. So, people are talking about, you know, how such a mechanism might be used and how (unintelligible) might be placed to prevent its abuse or a stronger use with the rapid takedown.

And I don't want to make short-shift with these arguments because I know they're complex and people have much – people are arguing (unintelligible) with URLs. I know a very (unintelligible) argument is about the (unintelligible) 14-day notice for the registry. And with – you know, in a post-delegation this model. There has to be some post-delegation dispute of IP claims, but an actor can just start acting badly overnight after he has a delegation. But you know, you need to write a (unintelligible) very clearly.

I'm stealing my thunder for later, but a lot of the debate, I think, is about how and whether. So we have – you know, we have demand media and some of those – you know, supporting some of the recommendations, supporting some of the recommendations versus qualification and, you know, rejecting, the rejecting another proposal. And we did have registry and registrar participation in the IRT and we had seen, you know, the (unintelligible) comments, how they lack in the NCUC that were very pointed and very helpful.

Evan Leibovitch: (Unintelligible.)

Kurt Pritz: Yes.

Evan Leibovitch: You claim that you had registrar - registry participation. But as per the production to the IRT's draft report, they were not allowed to discuss anything of the IRT with other parties. So basically, your claim that you have registrar or registry participation is a bit of a whitewash. You had people who work for registrars or registries who may have been involved. You did not have the participation of the (unintelligible).

Sebastien Bachollet: Please, we'll leave Kurt to terminate his presentation and I will open the floor for comments and questions. I know that you are--.

Evan Leibovitch: Yeah, but this is – the thing is that this is the same presentation that we've already seen about five times.

Sebastien Bachollet: You, maybe, but not the other participants, I guess, and I appreciate. And there are other people who already want to talk and say something along with what you are saying. But I would like Kurt to go through his presentation and then we will open the floor. Thank you.

Evan Leibovitch: But Sebastien, I'd just like to make one more comment along the lines of this. Remember that this is a meeting for the At Large gTLD working groups. We are already extremely well versed on the basics of the process and, you know, for a lot of the – you know, the core thing. We're already pretty far along this way.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. Thank you. Kurt.

Kurt Pritz: Yeah, so I – well, (unintelligible) just want to take their questions, plus I think it's a really important point. So, I didn't mean to advocate that, you know, the IRT was open to registries and registrars. What I meant to indicate was that there – two things. One is, clearly, the registry reps and the registrar reps that participated in this discussion had a significant effect on the outcome based on their technical knowledge of operations and what would work and what wouldn't work. And also, you know, just not purely technically, but also from the standpoint of, you know, themselves, registries and registrars, and what their contractual and other obligations were to registrants.

And so, while some of the writing might have indicated that they were not to play a role, I sat in every meeting and they had a significant role, but that got to, you know, in a PowerPoint presentation that, you know, I made two days ago, so nobody's seen it before. But nobody's – you know, I'm not advocating that all registries and registrars have bought in. I'm merely saying that participation in a group like that and signing the final product indicates some degree of understanding and probably, you know, marshals support.

So, where I think the community was very divergent, you know, months ago, a lot of the comments about the report were about how we can do some of these things and not, you know, whether we should do anything. So, I didn't mean to characterize it as, you know, we have nirvana. I just meant to indicate that it seems like the discussion is going toward how and not whether for some of these recommendations.

So anyway, we're almost (unintelligible). Sebastien, I didn't mean to preclude questions during. I should – if I indicated that, I shouldn't have said that.

So again, this slide is extreme shorthand for the work that many on this call and others have done. But I want to – you know, first of all, I want to thank you for the first couple of lines in the papers that strongly advocated the creation of new gTLDs. So, thank you. the At Large response and the At Large NCUC paper and the papers received from Kathy Kleiman and others had quite a bit to say about the GPML; quite a bit.

So, I think I'll – I can leave it. I'm just gonna leave that one at that because I think I understand the opposition to keep GPML and problems – the potential problems with it are well understood.

There was a lot of discussion about all of the implementation – the URS had significant problems according to the comments, one of which was insufficient time for notice.

Something I have not looked into or I don't think many at ICANN have looked into yet, but we will, are these privacy standards and guidelines. And so, you know, we certainly will and understand how that might affect the implementability of a requirement for Whois.

And then, finally, I think Hong wrote, reiterated the ALAC position on string confusion. So, I want to make sure we – that, you know, we understand the issues raised there.

So, what these comments do, and these comments taken into account and richness of the detail that was provided, you know, go back – you know, I would show the first slide again, but you don't have to, Nick. It's there. So, here's where we are in the process, taking into account the recently – the comments from the recently closed public comment session and the sessions and, you know, formulating a genesis. So, that's what staff and outside counsel and others are working on at ICANN right now.

So, that's – while there's elements of old PowerPoint presentations here, you know, intentionally I – you know, we set out this process to get expert advice. You know, and iterate that (unintelligible) with some sort of emphasis to guidebook for public comment again. Now we're running that process and we're right smack-dab in the middle of it. So, necessarily there's some repetition of--. Maybe it might be a little scary if there wasn't, so that would mean we departed from the process we laid out to generate some potential solutions in this area.

So with that, you know – I'm sorry, Sebastien. I should have let you know I would've have taken questions iteratively, but I'm happy to address any questions the best I can.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. Thank you, Kurt. I think Nick has a – sorry, Evan has a question. And then if you can put your hands up in the Adobe Connect room, it will be easier for me to recognize who wants to make the next speech. Then Evan and then Olivier and then the others.

Evan Leibovitch: First off, Kurt, thanks for having this call. Obviously, I mean, one of the reasons that we're having this call is because we have been involved with the process. Because, contrary to what is shown in one of the slides, there is not, you know, some agreement within At Large and NCUC. I think it was made very clear in Sydney that, you know, the actions of the IRT was not utter hostility. It was one of totally not even understanding how this process could have happened with so little seeming input from the At Large and non-commercial community. The reason we're having this call is to debate what was happening in Sydney and how we can move forward from there. I mean, this was my understanding.

Kurt, are you aware of the motion that was taken at the ALAC meeting? I think we're talking either last week or two weeks ago that was intended to try and, you know, come up with something positive. That in Sydney we said what we didn't like and now we want to start a process to work with other stakeholders and try and figure out what we can find common ground on. Are you aware of any of that work that's been going on?

Kurt Pritz: Yeah.

Evan Leibovitch: Okay. What I want to try and find out and what I'd like to try and do is get your support on the motion that was taken at the ALAC meeting for us to put together a multi-stakeholder group to try and find out where our common ground is. As you correctly stated, the issue is not whether or not we want to have trademark protection. I think the issue is not only just how, but also what in terms of how much ICANN really should be policing within its scope.

One of the things we identified with the IRT, and in fact, even going back to the original second draft, is that there appear to be a number of areas where ICANN wants to extend into, you know, actual bounds of national law and treaty organizations. And we thought there were areas where ICANN has a role to play, but there's also rules for WIPO and national law to play that ICANN really shouldn't be getting into. So, I think the issue is not just how, but the issue is also what – you know, what ICANN should be doing. I think there is some divergence as to how broad ICANN should be casting its net.

What I'd like to find out is how supportive you are of this multi-stakeholder group idea that we want to put together to see if we can come up with some common ground in time for Seoul. Can you help us put this together? This is a good faith attempt at trying and come up with some thing positive. It's one thing for us to day we don't like what we saw in the IRT. Now we want to come up with a constructive alternative. And I guess I'm asking for your help and support in this.

Kurt Pritz: Yeah. And what – and so, the really short answer is yes. So, do you have a vision for that support or how the At Large will go about organizing to get comments in time for Seoul? What's your idea?

Evan Leibovitch: Well, we're--.

Kurt Pritz: And then I – because I want to be able to provide. And the reason I'm asking is – I'm gonna put you on the spot – is so that I can – so maybe we can, you know, create some really specific areas of support.

Evan Leibovitch: Okay. If the other people on the call will indulge me for just a moment or two. It wouldn't have been, you know, right for me to come in this call without having some kind of idea of this. This idea's been fleshed out through quite a number of people.

And essentially, the idea was for us to bring together a small, shall we say, task force of people from various communities. So, it's not just At Large and non-commercial, but to try and get people who were on the IRT, to get some people from other constituencies to identify what our common ground is and to at least find out what are the parts we can all agree on that need to be done, that need to be revamped. And where are the – and to identify where the ideas that some constituencies feel that this is out of ICANN's scope so at least you have a fair idea what are the components we can all agree on and what are the – you know, what are the areas where, you know, some of us think ICANN is going to far and should be entrusting things to national governments and WIPO and whatever.

And so, in terms of a vision, the intention is put together a task force. We can't make the expectations that the IRT did that people are gonna be able to go away from their jobs full time for a period of time. Kurt, if you want to have input from At Large and non-commercial, that can't happen because people have day jobs in our communities.

So, we have to have a process that allows for multi-stakeholders to come in, to have input into this, with the intention to perhaps having a couple of conference calls, maybe a core face-to-face group in advance of Seoul and then actually having the report come to you at Seoul that basically says here's what we're suggesting as a response to what ICANN needs to do in terms of trademark protection on the gTLDs. Not only that, but to do it so in such a way that doesn't impede your progress with the actual application process for new gTLDs. It's not our intention to hold this up.

Kurt Pritz: Alright. So, you know, that seems to me to be the role that At Large and – you know, it's something you should be doing in any event. So, I'll tell you the problems with it and then I'll tell you that we're gonna support it.

The problem, of course, is in the timing that the board made this call for input in whatever that meeting was. Was that in Mexico City? That the board formed the IRT and then asked other community constituencies to mobilize if they wanted to and create input along the same timelines on the other hand. So, that's the sense of – that's what's going on right now. And so, that is churning towards a conclusion that you'll see in the next version of the Applicant's iBook. That'll be published, you know, probably sometime in September.

But you know, it has to – you know, these are important decisions that have to be undertaken with the right amount of input and have to be done right so that if – you know, if At Large can commit to an aggressive timetable like that, that would be – that's admirable.

And you know, Nick, I don't want to overstep my bounds here because this isn't my group. But I would – the group that I provide support to. But I would, you know, encourage us to the sorts of support that are being recommended here. Being conservative. And so, what I'll – you know, what I can commit to doing is taking the request back and talking to Nick and others and getting some support for it.

So, that was a long yes, wasn't it?

Nick Ashton-Hart: Sebastien, I think Olivier has his hand up.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. I was with – sorry. Thank you, Kurt. And Olivier, please. Is the transmit on?

Olivier Iteanu: Hello?

Sebastien Bachollet: Yes.

Olivier Iteanu: Okay, that's more like it. Sorry. I was – I totally agree with what Evan has said. I was actually one of the people with whom he spoke to prior to this call and in the past two weeks. And I totally support what his proposition is and his proposal there.

I have a couple more concerns to add to this call. One was the issue of the consultations having been done in Sydney, in New York and in London. There were two other consultations, one in Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi. But I just wondered why the IRT propositions did not seem to be part of the discussions taking place there? I mean, surely trademarks and so on is a worldwide issue. It's not just an Anglo-Saxon thing. So, that was one question I had.

And the other one was, of course, with regards to the actual – with the actual mission of ICANN. And really, wondering whether we are not spending an enormous of time on something that is not ICANN's mission. But I was hoping that the multi-stakeholder discussions that hopefully will take place will bring and shed some light on that.

The – I think these are the main things. I'm not gonna repeat everything else that you said before. I think everyone knows about them. So, that's basically my comments for the time being.

Kurt Pritz: Well, so to the extent that they were questions, I don't know what the specific intent was, but the consultations were really concepted differently. So, months ago we were – we among staff were talking about how to generate some solutions for protecting trademark rights that were at the right level and had the thought of consultations in Asia, the Americas and in Europe. And so was born the idea of having these three consultations to discuss with specificity trademark issues.

Then when – we also arranged for consultations in Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi, there was just a sense that they were gonna be – you know, they were planned to be somewhat different, whether it was planned to be more general outreach sessions, more of a focus on IDNs and I think a more broad-brush issue. So, there was a presentation in those sessions about trademark issues, but also, you know, they weren't recreations of those other meetings, but kind of took a broader brush.

And then, you know, with respect to expense, there's, you know, significant money being spent in this implementation of new gTLDs in many areas. And you know, I just think with – you know, I think that it's extremely important to get it right. You know, I personally think that the process has been thought through several times and then thought through again. And you know, with a lot of valid and (unintelligible) but yet there are some areas that aren't settled yet and it's important with what's at stake to settle them in the right way.

So, you know, again, there's some balancing. We decided not to bring the IRT team to Abu Dhabi and Hong Kong because they had already conducted three consultations and there was an online session. So, those sessions were, you know, somewhat skinnier in IRT issues and thicker in other issues.

Olivier Iteanu: But surely these IRT accommodations would affect them as much as the other countries.

Kurt Pritz: Yeah, I think so. I think so. I don't know. It's all license and balancing, right? So, when we went through those places we had – ICANN had never given a presentation about, you know, ICANN's policy support group and different ways of participating in ICANN through its policy development process with constituency groups and At Large, for example. So, we devoted a period of time during the day to that and then, you know, a period of time to other gTLD issues.

So, the trademark issues are very important and there are some other very important issues, too. So, I don't know. I'm just telling you how the decision was made, not necessarily that it was the right one or wrong one.

Olivier Iteanu: And if I could add one more--.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you.

Kurt Pritz: Sure.

Olivier Iteanu: Sorry.

Sebastien Bachollet: Go ahead, Olivier.

Olivier Iteanu: Yes. So, I'll – yeah, I'll do it very quickly then. One more thing, Kurt. You often mention – and I mean not by you. I'm not saying you in person, but various members of the team mention the fact that time is of the essence and we're always running out of time and the problem is delay for this, delay for that. And I don't think that we're looking at the right way to do things in trying to rush things through.

Surely, the whole IRT issue there or – well, the whole issue looks as though it's being kind of pushed through pretty fast. And we all understand that the gTLDs need to be created very soon and that there should not be any further delay with regards to the creation of new gTLDs. But at the same time, I hope that we're not going to start just rushing some of these recommendations through without really thinking them carefully because mistakes, mistakes in those recommendations might go as far as actually endangering the very existence of ICANN in the future. Some of these issues are extremely important.

And I know some people might be smiling right now thinking, "Endanger ICANN?" But yes, if you're going to have lists that will not work with international law and that will not work with other internationally established organizations, ICANN will be in trouble for that. And I hope that you understand that and some of your colleagues will understand that. Thank you.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Olivier. Kurt, you want to add something before Hong?

Kurt Pritz: I would just echo that I think it's very important to do this right. I think that's the mantra we have. So, we are trying to move ahead and deliver, but certainly that's the second consideration behind the quality of the product.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you. May I give the floor to Hong.

Hong Xue: Thank you, Sebastien. The new detail, the guidebook, is a most important document for implementation of new gTLDs. And the users all over the world are reading this document very carefully. The IRT Report was actually an extra document. So, my first question is what is the relationship between the IRT Report and the new gTLD guidebook? And to my reading, the guidebook had five sections or five motifs. Motif three is on this resolution in which this resolution for legal rights is one of the categories. And there are other categories such as morality and public order, community based are the other reason to (unintelligible).

Motif four is on string contention. There is a strong rational to separate string contention from this resolution because they are two things. They're not the same things. But it seems the IRT Report, there is a line between string contention and distant resolution. They use their principle to resolve the dispute with respect to legal rights, to interfere, the string evaluation, assume that is not a very logical and feasible approach. And especially think about the potential for IDNs. It seems this will really open a dangerous door for the unnecessarily extension of the protection for trademarks. The trademarks must not cover the meaning or aural similarity as specifically required by the IRT Report.

But of course, I don't have to go into detail. This is not really a legal debate. But what I want to raise is that are we going to observe the present structure of the guideline, that is the five motifs, and separate the string contention from the distant resolutions instead of mixing them. Thanks.

Kurt Pritz: I think the recommendations of the IRT affect different sections of the guidebook. So for example – you know, I'm not – I'm just using this for illustrative purposes. But you know, a thick Whois is essentially a contract requirement so it would be in section five, you know, of the guidebook as part of the model agreement. And you know, I think a post-delegation – a lot of – post-delegation dispute model also is a post-contractual requirement so that it goes to the contract.

And in fact, I think most of the – with the exception of how they treat – how they want to treat the – or use the algorithms, which is in section two, you know, I think most of the targets of the IRT Report go into the agreement because most of the targets of the IRT Report go in – you know, are about second level registrations. I think that, you know, rights protection at the top level is fairly well addressed already in the dispute resolution model, you know, in module three that you call out.

So, you know, I feel like I'm not answering your question and getting to it. I feel like I'm answering a different question. So, could you elaborate with some specificity tell me exactly what you want me to answer. Because I think – I know you're making an important point, but I'm like just of fit a little bit.

Hong Xue: Oh, sorry. What I mean is that what is the relationship between the IRT Report – I know it is addressing an overarching issue – and the guidebook? Which one should prevail with this contradiction between them?

Kurt Pritz: Oh. Well, the IRT Report is a report by (inaudible). Despite my representation to the contrary, it's a report essentially by a simple constituency group for public comment. And then, at the end of this, you know, it's for ICANN staff to take that report and, you know, all the public comment and other suggestions and find a set of solutions that could be published as a guidebook.

So the guide – if your question is what takes precedence, certainly the guidebook takes precedence. And my point is that the implementations for trademark protections that you will see will mostly be probably in the registry agreement that's near the end of the guidebook. But right now, you know, the guidebook is the present representation of how to apply for a gTLD and it will also be a proposal until it's finally put to the board for approval and always subject to public comment before then.

So, the report is – you know, I would characterize the IRT in their highest role as sort of a first among equals as far as proposed conditions to the guidebook. But you know, it's all gotta be tempered with the public comment. And you know, presumably, you know, portions of that will be included in the guidebook for the next consideration and round of public comment.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Kurt. May I offer the thoughts of the one who didn't take the opportunity to speak until now? If you (unintelligible). And Kurt, can we extend – we were supposed to finish at 4:00. It's already five past 4:00. Can we extend for 10 more minutes, or--?

Kurt Pritz: Sure.

Sebastien Bachollet: You have other commitments? Okay. Thank you, Kurt.

Kurt Pritz: Yep.

Sebastien Bachollet: If there are other speakers to fulfill this time. Who would like to speak? Ask a question or whatever you want.

Nick Ashton-Hart: If I may, Sebastien?

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah. Nick, go ahead.

Nick Ashton-Hart: I'm just noting in the conversation in the Adobe Connect room. Kurt, do you have any – is there anything you can offer related to the GPML and the view of its viability? You're probably – I don't know if your connection is good enough, but there are a number of questions about the--.

Kurt Pritz: Yeah, I saw--.

Nick Ashton-Hart: Status of that.

Kurt Pritz: So, I don't see it. My computer locked up. But without signaling any outcome, I think there was probably more criticism of the GPML than any other aspect of the support and that some – without seeing the comments that's online, some of the important aspects of that comment really went to that there have been attempts at this sort of list before and it's proved problematic. That it's going to be expensive to implement for essentially, you know, the benefit of relatively few entities. I know there's considerable confusion about how many entities would be included on the lists. So, you know, every comment gets written and considered. And certainly, you know, without trying to forecast the outcome, just recognize that the most negative comment has centered around that. I hope that enough of a signal for everybody.

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you, Kurt. Any other – I guess that Evan wanted to speak and then Olivier.

Evan Leibovitch: Yeah. I just wanted to – as you were saying, Sebastien, to try and give a chance to anybody who hasn't spoken yet before I took a second shot.

Sebastien Bachollet: Yeah, yeah. No problem. Go head.

Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Kurt, in general about the relationship between At Large and the whole GTLD process. I mean, you'd probably disagree with me vociferously on this, but there's a real feeling that I get within my colleagues at At Large, at least the ones I've spoken to, that the viewpoints of At Large really are having a hard time getting taken into consideration, that sometimes the comments from At Large don't even show up in the comment section, let alone show up in the final policy recommendations.

We've been very specific on a number of issues regarding cost, regarding process, regarding the morality and public order issues, regarding the independent objectors. Not a single thing that we have advanced has shown even in the comments, let alone in the final policy. Is there something that we can do to try and reconcile the fact that, you know, what seems to be coming out of At Large, you know, which is, you know, probably ICANN's largest constituency in terms of actual number of people.

You know, what can you say in terms about better engaging At Large, which has had a lot to say, hasn't seen much of it incorporated. And you know, this whole process really is very cautious because, you know, the track record to date has not indicated that when we've had something to say it's made its way in.

Kurt Pritz: Well, you see your comments posted, right, in the public comment section? Your comment really goes to they're not being heeded. Is that correct?

Evan Leibovitch: Well, I mean, I'm hoping that At Large, which is a constituency of ICANN's own creation, gets maybe heeded better than, you know, the 200 corporate public comments that come in. I mean, I'm sort of hoping that there's an understanding that the At Large community and ICANN represent something that should be very important within ICANN. And then, when we've got something to say and we're very specific about it, that we don't get what seems to be blown off so easily.

Kurt Pritz: Okay. Well, I don't know. I'm trying to think how to fix that perception. And you know, certainly one – you know, we can't do them every week, but certainly more phone calls like this would be reasonable. That I know, you know, it's not often done for – you know, I'm trying to think of other constituencies that we have phone calls for and they're fairly rare. But--.

Nick Ashton-Hart: If I--.

Kurt Pritz: But I think, you know, additional phone calls like this would be possible with the right – you know, not just with me but with the right subject matter expert on them.

Sebastien Bachollet: Nick, you wanted to add something.

Nick Ashton-Hart: Well, I just wanted to say on – one thing that struck me is I actually read a summary of public comments on the (inaudible) on version – on version two. Actually, I read the first one as well. And it's kind of – there's no way for it not to be hard going. It's, I think, 300 pages long. And I almost wonder, Kurt, is there a way that the views of different communities and what happened or didn't happen with their comments could be – I don't know, separated almost.

I mean, I can – I know there's the appeal of showing all comments made about a given section and then showing the amendments to that section. But I'm wondering if there isn't some way we could think about to present things different so that perhaps it's easier for people to say, well, I just want to see what, you know, in the first instance, what happened with my comment and then see what happened to the comments of people from my community. And maybe this is not – I'm not suggesting that we would have answer right now, but maybe there's some way that we could help in that way.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. Olivier? And then--.

Olivier Iteanu: Thank you, Sebastien. Thank you. Just two more questions, quick ones basically, following from the earlier discussions. Is it possible that some of the IRT recommendations will be just not followed at all? In other words – because I understand it's all being taken section by section. So, is it possible that some will be just outright rejected due to the comments that have been given? So, that's the first question.

Kurt Pritz: Yeah, I think that's possible.

Olivier Iteanu: Without the replacements being put in place?

Kurt Pritz: Hang on one second. I'm really sorry--.

Sebastien Bachollet: I don't know what to do. If we wait for Kurt to come back.

Kurt Pritz: I'm here. I'm just in a noisy area and I didn't want to be rude.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay.

Kurt Pritz: So, I think it's – for us I think that's possible. I mean, every – in fact, every recommendation is being considered and every comment contrary to a recommendation is being considered.

Olivier Iteanu: Okay. So, that was the first--.

Sebastien Bachollet: Olivier, your second question?

Olivier Iteanu: Yeah. The second one following up on that one is whether you will be considering the proposal which we discussed earlier, which Evan described to you, of having a working group set up? And how soon could we have an answer on this, or whether we can actually agree to this?

Kurt Pritz: Yeah. Nick and I will talk about it right after this call, so you could have an answer in the next couple days. I appreciate your – well, everybody who's a proponent of it, I appreciate the sense of urgency in getting, you know, suggestions together in a coherent fashion in time for the Seoul meeting. So, I'm heartened by that and we'll have – Nick and I will have an answer, you know, posted within the next couple of days. And other than--.

Evan Leibovitch: And to--.

Kurt Pritz: Go ahead.

Evan Leibovitch: To further that, Kurt, I'll make myself available to you and Nick and anybody else as necessary to do what's necessary to move this forward. If you've got concerns or whatever, we'll make ourselves available and let's just do this.

Kurt Pritz: Okay. Thank you for that.

Sebastien Bachollet: Okay. The last one who wanted to talk is Michele Neylon. May I give you the floor?

Michele Neylon: Yeah. No, I'm basically reiterating pretty much what the last couple of speakers have been asking about. I mean, the main concern I have is that a lot of us in the community, broadly speaking, get the impression that the IRT Report, which should be a set of recommendations, is being seen by ICANN as being a given, that all of their suggestions will be implemented, which I think is terribly erroneous.

Kurt Pritz: Alright. So, we're in this period right now where, you know, necessarily we have all this public comment and the report. And you know, we're synthesizing all of that together. So, I can completely understand why people who are very interested and very concerned about this issue because it's so important that they're not seeing a lot of activity now because there's necessarily a period where all this comment has to be organized in some way. And so, you know, I understand that concern.

And you know, so – you know, we'll have to wait a few weeks until we can get it organized into some fashion that's understandable and hopefully clear to everybody who reads it so they understand the point of view and they can comment on it. But, it's not – you know, nothing at ICANN – I don't think there's an appreciation for this, but I don't think anything posted to ICANN is ever taken as a given. And there's always the weighing of all viewpoints.

Sebastien Bachollet Okay, Kurt. Thank you very much. I would like to complete this call and thank you for the participants and the conversation. Thank you for your presentation, Kurt, and your answers. You have some follow-up work with Nick and, as Evan say, he's available. But I guess that our leaders in this work are also available. Even Hong, Patrick and Olivier, I guess, are available to help you. I am also available as Vice-Chair of ALAC if you need anything. And I hope that we – this is helpful for both of us, that it's been for the At Large participants and also for the staff in this period. And we are looking forward to work together to achieve a better understanding in this – all those questions.

Thank you very much for your participation and I close the meeting now and hope you will participate in the next call we will have at the At Large table. Thank you very much. Have a great day.

Nick Ashton-Hart: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

Patrick Vande Walle: Thank you.