Page History

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Right let’s re-start, good morning good afternoon and good evening.  This is the ALAC call with NPOC which is the non-profit operational concerns constituency on the 7^th of December 2011 and the time is 14:10 UTC.  I think we will start with a quick roll-call.  Gisella, please.

Gisella Gruber:                        Yes on today’s call we have Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Natalia Enciso, Sergio Salinas Porto, Evan Leibovitch, Alan Greenberg.  From NPOC we have Klaus Stoll.  For staff we have Sylvia Herlein Leite, Heidi Ulrich and myself Gisella Gruber and apologies for [names not completely clear] and can I remind you to say your name for the transcript.  Over to you Olivier.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Gisella

Carlton Samuels:                     My name is Carlton Samuels. I am on the call.

Amber Sterling:                       My name is Amber Sterling I am the interim chair for NPOC.  I’m on the call as well.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Welcome. Fantastic. Thank you so Carlton and Amber as well.  Welcome to everyone.  This is the first call between the NPOC and ALAC and regional leads as well that we have invited on this call.  So we have quite an open agenda I think that will enable us to get to know each other.  It’s got three main points I think they quite loose and the timings on the side are also quite loose as well. 

First one is the brief introduction of the Not for profit operational concerns constituency and also for At-Large and ALAC.  Then we will move on exploring common interests between our two parts of the ICANN organization and finally any questions or where do we go from there basically.  What I wondered was uh since we are having our first call together is for those on line to briefly introduce themselves.  Perhaps should we start with the NCOP members? That’s ok with you?

Amber Sterling:                       That sounds good.  I’ll go first.  My name is Amber Sterling and as I said I am the chair of the NPOC and I have been asked to extend apologies for, as we have a very small presence on this call.  Many of the members of the executive committee are preparing to testify in front of the U.S Senate tomorrow regarding the new gTLD issue.  We were invited to give a small presentation. 

You know when your government asks, you do. So they are holed up in a conference room, dealing with that, preparing and answering questions and so I just wanted to extend their apologies.  So a brief history of NPOC is that this was when the board appointed three new GNSO councilors to the NCSG group, Debra Hughes was one of them of the American Red cross. 

With her appointment she was charged with bringing more not-for profit organization voices to ICANN and so um as you guys know and you see is a fantastic constituency and they uh have been doing wonderful work for many years now but they have traditionally represented an individual voice so uh they want one of the organization voice um non-profit organizations represented so she took it off and so in January 2010 we really hit the ground and we had NOIS permitted that June of 2010.  So we were approved a year later in Singapore and we are up and running. 

We have 23 confirmed members both confirmed with the NPOC as well as the NCSG as the charter requires from around the world; Bangladesh, Gambia, U.S, Ecuador as Klaus will tell you.  So we have all five ICANN regions and we have thirteen more organizations in the hopper for review and approval.  We are growing quickly and we are very excited to bring our voice to the ICANN community.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Amber and a little bit about yourself too please.

Amber Sterling:                       Oh yes of course I’m sorry.  Um I am a paralegal and I work for a large non-profit in Washington D.C. – the association of the American medical colleges.  We are most known for the MCAT exam, the entrance exam standardized test to enter US and Canadian medical schools.  So we are a quasi-academic association and our members are the teaching hospitals and medical schools of the U.S and Canada so 136 medical schools and 450 plus teaching hospitals.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank You Amber.  Next I was going to ask Klaus to introduce himself

Klaus Stoll:                             Okay thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity of participating in this call.  My name is Klaus Stoll.  I’m in NPOC responsible for fund raising and membership and my background is I worked in um management of uh a small foundation all around the working for the last thirty years.  I am currently the Executive Director of the [inaudible] Partnership Foundation GKP which some of you might now and I am also very proud to be a member of [inaudible] in Ecuador. 

The reason why I’m very much interested and engaged in NPOC is very simple that the needs of the uh non-governmental organization so non-profit organizations through internet are rising to becoming more and more essential and the point of view and the interest of these organizations needs to be represented in the whole spectrum of ICANN.  I will leave it at that.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Klaus.  I think then we can also go then on the introductions on the ALAC side.  I’m just going to take the list of participants in the order it is on the conference page starting with Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Okay you want me to introduce myself Olivier?

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Yes please Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jemaa:                    Okay thank you so my name is Tijani Bin Jemaa.  I am vice chair of ALAC member I don’t know what to say but as we know at large is if the voice of the user so I’m representing them in Africa.  Is that okay?

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Absolutely Tijani thanks very much.  We’ll continue with, we will first start with ALAC members so Evan? [Pause] Evan you might be muted.

Evan Leibovitch:                     Sorry could you just go to somebody else for a moment and I will be right there.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Okay no problem.  So next on the list we will ask Carlton Samuels

Carlton Samuels:                     Thank you chair.  Hi everybody my name is Carlton Samuels.  I am the ALAC member from Latin America Caribbean region through the non-profit.  I am very interested in this constituency probably because of my own origins in the higher education sector.  We are very uh we take a very watchful eye on these developments and certainly hope to make contributions as we go along.  Thank you.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Evan.  Next is Natalia.  Natalia Enciso you want to say a few words about yourself please?

Natalia Enciso:                        Hello.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Yes Natalia we hear you.

Natalia Enciso:                        Thank you yes. Sorry I am Natalia Enciso from Paraguay and I am an ALAC member.  I am going to put my phone on mute again.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thanks very much Natalia.  As you can see Amber and Klaus we are scattered around the world so conditions can be very difficult for great communication.  So we will continue then with Alan Greenberg.

Alan Greenberg:                      Hi I’m Alan Greenberg former ALAC member from North America and GNSO ALAC, sorry ALAC liaison to the GNSO.  Most of my recent life has been not-for profit so I think I fit in.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank very much Alan.  So we continue with Cheryl Langdon-Orr. [Pause] Cheryl you might be muted.  OK looks like we lost Cheryl.  Evan, can we go back to you?

Evan Leibovitch:                     You most certainly can sorry about that earlier.  Hi mane is Evan Leibovitch. I’m co vice-chair of ALAC and the designated liaison between At-Large and the NCSG.  Hopefully I can make myself available to you folks anytime.  I’m based in Toronto, Canada.  I do work for York University as well as my own consulting firm mainly on issues to do with social media and electronic publishing.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thanks Evan I think that just leaves me I guess.  I’m Olivier Crepin-LeBlond.  I chair ALAC.  It’s my second year running now.  I’m from the European region.  I’m very blessed to be surrounded by a group of dynamic individuals around the world.  I’m sure we will be able to speak a lot later in future meetings when we meet with you Amber and Klaus if you do come to the meetings.   A little brief background about ALAC; First thing I think there’s always confusion between At-Large and ALAC. 

At-Large is the committee of the internet users.  Well committee in ICANN is it supposed to represent internet users? I’m not quite sure.  It’s very hard to represent people out there 2.1 billion people on the internet.  So really what we are trying to do as a large group of people to act in what we think are the best interests of the internet user.  So when we look at a problem we look at it in this specific way. 

The particularity of At-Large is that it is divided into five distinct geographic regions and that in order for it to be able to channel the voice of users worldwide rather than having some parts of the world having the voice all the time and others not being able to place a word in the debate. So the five regions are run by regional at large organizations, RALO’s.  They have their own chair and secretariat and vice chairs as well.  The way information flows if actually from the grassroots through the regional leaderships over to the ALAC. 

The ALAC having in the At-Large advisory committee being the ALAC, and that’s a fifteen member group.  The ALAC discusses things and then passes them as either policy or advice. The At-Large advisor committee as it’s called is part of ICANN that provides advice on anything and everything that ICANN does.  Sometimes it doesn’t please some people but it is our duty to be able to bring the point of view for the internet user out there.  Sometimes we are completely at odds what some of the process taking place at ICANN and sometimes we agree with them. 

That’s all part of the multi stake holder input that comes in to ICANN.  I think I have provided some kind of descriptions.  Amber, Klaus do you have any questions that you would like to touch on based on the introductions? Or should we just continue on with the next part of our agenda.

Amber Sterling:                       I do have a brief question if you don’t mind.  This is Amber.  We have been going through getting some of our member approved with the NCSG.  As you know many small non-profits that are free domain names available you know on the third level and so some of our smaller member definitely avail themselves of these free options because they are free. 

The NCSG has said that the more appropriate place for them is at the At-Large group because they do not literally own a domain name and I am unfamiliar enough with the At-Large community to know whether or not I should refer them to you as members to get involved with ICANN since they have clearly expressed interest and how you would like me to do that and what membership qualifications are for you.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you Amber.  We actually have a list that is published of what the minimum requirements for an At-Large structure.  Could I perhaps ask Heidi to forward these to you?

Heidi Ulrich:                           Hi yes sorry.  This is Heidi. I’m happy to do so

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          They are a whole set of well they quite loose guidelines they are not particularly restrictive as such.  I’m sure I mean if we can help each other with some organizations that might be more suited to the ALAC and some of the issues are more suited to the NPOC so that’s the first good step we have here.  I see some people have put their hands up in the Adobe room so I’ll let Evan Leibovitch take the floor.

Evan Leibovitch:                     Hi Amber this is Evan.  I’ve been, since becoming liaison, I have been subscribed to the NCSG mailing list so I have seen a little bit of what’s going on.  In regards to I think there were two recent organizations that had applied to join NCSG and were denied.  In one case I think one was an African NGO that was denied because they didn’t own their own domain.

Amber Sterling:                       Correct.

Evan Leibovitch:                     When you come across organizations like that, certainly an African NGO I think I even made a point on the mailing list of saying that I believe that actually I forward their information to a couple of people within ALAC and I think they were totally suitable to qualify as At-Large structure within ALAC.  One thing to keep in mind is that one of the things that At-Large is involved is is that people who are part of the domain buying cycle here but we are actually in not some cases totally off of the ICANN food chain and so folks like that are absolutely appropriate in my opinion as ALS’s and I would encourage them. 

The criteria differs slightly from region to region and some regions you can have individual members, in some it must be a non-profit organization and in some they make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial entities. So it’s going to be up to the individual region but I think the rule of thumb is that it never hurts to ask.

Amber Sterling:                       I just wanted to, the reason why I was asking here is that it’s a little awkward through our out-reach efforts that we feel is qualified they get denied and then to hand them off to another group to be denied again you know you lose their interest.  I don’t want ¬ I want to make sure that when I hand off an organization to another constituency or the At-Large or whatever bucket within ICANN feels, I want to make sure that the hand off is the right one because two denials and their interest is gone.  They feel like they don’t have a home here and that’s not true so I’m very conscience of that.

Evan Leibovitch:                     It may be necessary to do it on a case by case process. In the particular case of the most recent one I did check with my counterpart at RALO and it did seem appropriate for them.  In most cases the criteria are published.  Once the organization applies, there is some due diligence applies.  If the due diligence passes, the acceptance is normally straight forward. Normally the only time there is a problem is if the due diligence has failed or they haven’t met the criteria but the criteria are published.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you Evan and in fact we will send you the criteria and I guess that Amber you can share the criteria with this organization and if they do qualify they will know right away without needing to apply.  I must stress though that it is not the ALAC itself allows or ratifies the joining of an organization.  It actually acts on the recommendation of the region concerned. 

If that organization is based in North America then it would have to well it would have to go through the due diligence but also it will be reviewed by other at ‘large structures# in  North America in a RALO prior to being accepted or evaluated.  I have quite a few people waiting.  Alan first, but just before Alan, Cheryl actually points out on the chat, I notice Amber that you are not on the adobe connect chat.

Amber Sterling:                       I’m trying to find the link right now.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Because Cheryl pointed out the only limitation really are predominantly of representing the interests of the internet users and Cheryl’s also put her bio on the chat as well, her biography.  She was muted there earlier.  Alan?

Alan Greenberg:                      Thank you. I put on my historian hat for a moment.  When the GNSO was re-organized a few years ago, I was one of the people who pushed hard that the membership criteria not be that you are a registrant but simply that you are a user.  That didn’t win the day so at this point and its likely to stay that way you must be a registrant, however I will point out that typically you can get a domain registered for under $10 these days there is no rule that you have to use its, just own a domain and I think that the GNSO and NCSG rules are that you have to be a registrant not even of a gTLD but a CCTLD would work as well I think but I need to check that that hasn’t changed. 

The threshold for being a registrant is pretty low and you know although don’t think I want to speak against people becoming ALS’s and you could become an ALS and be a member of NPOC that the threshold of not having a registration alone should not be an impediment in the world we live in today.  Thank you.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Alan.  Just to make sure in ALAC and At-Large we are dealing with internet users.  You do not need to have a domain name or to be a registrant as such.  In fact I think the vast majority of our members are not registrants.  Next is Evan Leibovitch.  Evan?

Evan Leibovitch:                     Okay I - sorry I just wanted to add on to one thing going that I just had a quick look at my notes and archives from previous meeting in NCSG.  One thing Amber that I want to stress is that an organization will not be excluded from membership in At-Large because of their perspective.  There is not a, there is not an opinion orthodoxy here. 

We are an extremely diverse group and the fact that you may have an ALS that is a strongly in favor of trade mark protection and another ALS that is strongly against trademark protection doesn’t deny either of them of legitimacy and participation at At-Large having seen some of the discussions going on in the NCSG mailing list, I can assure you and I think Olivier and everybody else on the At-Large side on this call will agree with me that political perspective is not a basis of denial of membership.  It never has been during my tenure and I see no reason for it to start.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thanks very much Evan.  Any further questions on this or should we start exploring the common interests that we have or any common interests we might have none or we might have many. [Pause] Hearing no one go frantic and say no no no, let’s move on to agenda item number two then and looking at the current hot topics for At-Large and the current hot topics for NPOC. 

I suggest that perhaps shall we start since you started with the introductions and I was just going to run through a quick few things.  I’ll ask on my colleagues to add to it if they can as well.  I just drafted this very quickly out of memory.  So the first thing which I think we have had plenty of time and put a lot of effort in is the join up and support working group and that was primarily because had ICANN launched a process of new gTLDs being launched worldwide, that would only benefit the western world i.e. north America and western Europe, there would have been an enormous amount of criticism from outside of ICANN that it only caters for the developed economy and it doesn’t actually cater for needy applicants. 

It’s a little bit like gentleman’s club sort of thing.  Thankfully the board understood and the Jas working group which is a joint working group between GNSO and ALAC was chartered by both organization and I don’t need to run in any of the details of this, I gather you have been following the movement on that.  There is now follow up operations past the final report of the Jas working group which is that of implementation and we actually have a new gTLD working group within At-Large that is looking at the question with members of that working group being on a smaller committee that is working with staff at the moment but I’m sure others might be able, who might actually be on that working group might be able to expand a little bit on this. 

I will just run through the difference in the subjects that we are working on at the moment and then we are open to discussion.  We of course one of our primary functions is to respond to the common period and goodness there are many of them. We sometimes have to choose between them it’s impossible, absolutely impossible to get everyone to answer every single comment period. 

What we usually do it for each one of the comments being asked we set up a wiki page and we ask for input from members someone holding the pen and we go through a process of having a first draft and a second or sometimes even a third draft based on the input.  The various comments that we are currently looking at the geo regions is important, the geographic regions because ALAC is very, since we are distributing geographically and we are set up as five different regions any movement any changes to this would greatly affect us. 

IDM’s, internationalized domain names, lots of comments on that we actually are very lucky to have some experts in the field based in Asia so we currently are looking at the one character TLD’s.  various other issues in regard to IDM’s: the who is discussion particularly heated up in our ranks because as Evan said earlier, some of us are particularly concerned about privacy so are looking at having a who is system that will remain in one location and not be shared among many different entities and also with a more minimum amount of information whilst others are looking at, wish to as far as an internet user is concerned, be able to identify the people they actually do business with when they purchase a product. 

Then of course we are currently really trying to extend our collaboration with the ICANN compliance department.  One department that we think has been under staffed and has not really done enough in the past and we are hoping that it will continue gearing up its operations.  The RAA negotiations is something that some of us have been very much concerned with and dealing with and then finally on the list here the post expiry domain name resolution is a group that Alan Greenberg has chaired very well.  That’s also been matter of a lot of discussions. 

We also collaborate with the GACK on several things.  We have some agreements with the GACK and some places in disagreements and others on agreement side.  For example well the needy applicants support the GACK was pretty much in line with the ALAC on many views and we actually released a joint statement with the GACK but there are matters such as intellectual property where there is significant over the right given to rights owners. 

We believe that there shouldn’t be more rights given to rights owners than what is already out there thought the ripple process.  That’s just a quick round up.  Any of my colleagues wish to add to this?

Carlton Samuels:                     No I think that is okay.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you Carlton.  Maybe then I should open the floor for Amber or Klaus to give us a few details and what are the current hot topics for NPOC.

Amber Sterling:                       Sure this is Amber I will start with this and Klaus feel free to interrupt or as I misspeak or forget something.  Since we are a brand new constituency and we are getting brand new members we spend more of our time educating our members to the ICANN acronym world than um the mail the direct comment as often as we’d like and so the new gTLD is a big ticket for us because it’s tangible. 

You can talk to someone, you can talk to a new member about it and explain it to some extent but it’s a tangible piece of work that ICANN doing for a person just entering the ICANN community.  A lot of our comments have been focused on that because it is in fact tangible.  So that’s on to star there.  The new gTLD is clearly, you have I’m sure met [inaudible] with his work on the Jas working group and we are very interested in that piece of work and the implementation process and that moves us forward. 

IDM is well there is no reason why the internet should only be in Roman characters.  There’s just no reason.  So we are clearly on board with that.  The RAA negotiations will prove interesting and that something that we have to dig into.  I, we haven’t discussed this as a group but I can clearly agree personally and for my association that ICANN compliance department whatever we support we can give them, we will because that definitely does need to be a higher ticket item in the ICANN community. 

The other things that if the UDRP process is to be reviewed we will be involved with that and so out, the non-profit perspective on IP rights and trademark is that we are not brands.  Trademarks for us are tools and how I can protect my constituency and how I can protect my members, how I can protect well my association does not receive donations but that’s how a non-profit can protect their donation dollars making sure they get to them and so people think oh well you  know its IP so it’s a brand. 

For me and my group trademarks are tools and I need to make sure that tool is sharp and that also goes in with who is so we do while I fully respect privacy concerns, while I fully respect that European privacy laws and I do understand rationale for who is, for me to do my day to day job and protect my constituency I think who is a benefit and so the comments come out as such because as organization, I have my organization that who is has helped me do my job faster economically.  Klaus is there any other issues that I haven’t?

Klaus Stoll:                             No I just would like to perhaps very simply to reaffirm that there is hardly anything asking where there are no synergies between at large and NPOC the simple person because our interest is with the interest of the non-profit community and everything you mentioned is affecting the non-profit community in the same way or in a specific way. 

You just have to think on the issue of the gTLDs for example if somebody applies for or implements the domain .ngo for example this has a huge impact for the whole community and there needs to be clear discussion about the opportunities and also the risks of this domain name and what can be made out it. 

You have to think about for the non-profit world now most of their fundraising income is somehow coming over the internet and internet governments is becoming a crucial issue for the non-profit world and also for the NGO’s and that brings me back to one very simple point; one of the roles and interests of the NPOC has to be still and I know it’s an old habit, people it’s not very sexy but it’s still about education and information. 

Yesterday for example we had to explain to the non --profit basically what are the changes and why is it significant for them and we have to go on with that.  So for example I was last week at the e-Asia meeting in Bangladesh there were 5000 people and over 1300 non-profit NGO’s and they hardly have any information or are informed about anything about internet governments and the rights they have and the role they can play. We just have to chip away in the way that people get informed all about the rights and all about the structures and how they can make their voice heard.  For me it’s as simple as that.  Thank you very much

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thanks very much Klaus.  I think that although I have not seen any ticks in the actual conference room I can imagine quite a few head nodding on the ALAC and At-Large site because it is the issue of spreading the word and getting ICANN to be known and the whole feel of internet governs is wanting that many of us in our own parts of the world are faced with every day.  Certainly, in my part of the world which is Europe, when I speak about ICANN I often get an absolute blank look.  It is not a look that’s saying oh yes that’s the American organization running the Internet and needs to stop doing so. 

That’s the kind of welcome that I get on that side of things.  And so what we really try and do is to get more and more at large structures involved from every single country around the world.  In fact we actually have an aim to have at least one At-Large structure in each county so it’s for internet users to be able to have an input into the ICANN processes and the development of the future of ICANN.  Evan?

Evan Leibovitch:                     Hi Klaus if you don’t mind I have go two questions based on what you said.  You were talking that NPPOC has an interest in the RAA issues.  At large does to and I think this might be an area of some close collaboration.  Could you give me a better idea of what NPOCs concerns are about the RAA negotiations?

Klaus Stoll:                             I think Amber you can better answer this

Amber Sterling:                       Okay our, from what I you know that RAA is a long and complex document and with much history and so I say this with as I have only been involved in ICANN for two years so clearly I do not know anything so disclaimer there.  From our perspective the importance of the RAA is, is to understand non--profit organizations and I know many of you have experience with them. 

If there is a legal department it’s like a legal department of two and so having the registrars under ¬ having that ability to ask them to take down a website that it is trying to circumvent your donation dollars and having that quick response and having them be obligated to forward insist that the registrant is protected by a privacy shield, knowing that the registrar is in fact forwarding your letter to them and making sure that is done and having them be held accountable to the promises they made in the RAA.  So that is where our initial perspective is.  That is what our initial perspective is.

Evan Leibovitch:                     Amber just to let you know, one of the things that has been with ALAC about the RAA amendments, we tired bringing it forward in the last round of this and now that’s it opening up again we may have another shot, which is the establishment of the charter of registrant rights.  That firmly explains what are the rights of registrants within the process? And that anything between registrars and ICANN and between registrars and registries must take into account these registry rights.  It’s going to be difficult to install this into the ICANN DNA and if you’re interested in working with us it would be extremely appreciated.

Amber Sterling:                       We will try.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you Evan and thank you Amber.  Might also add although we are working on this one side at At-Large, we are also currently, well we always are in discussions with registrars and registries so as to be able to develop some kinds of gender neutral information for registrants as to what they can do, how for example are they able to change form one registrar to another, what are they signing up for when they are signing up for a domain name.   It kind of links up with the registrant rights actually, very much so.  Anyone else who wishes to ask questions or continue on the discussion?  The floor is open. 

I see there is much discussion going on the chat and I think what we will ask is for the chat to be sent to all participants of the call afterwards and in fact perhaps to be sent also to the people who have sent apologies and were not able to participate.  Once concern I think and that’s just from listening in remotely to the discussions that are taking place between the NCSG, is the concern that many of the organizations are in NPOC are concerned primarily just with trademarks and protection of their trademark and not enough about the rest of the ICANN world. 

I’m not saying it is true I’m just saying this is things that I hear and I wanted to obtain your point of view on that

Klaus Stoll:                             I think this is the point where I have to come in and I want to come in politely but very strongly because I am fairly much involved with NPOC not right from the beginning but for quite a while and I just have to shake my head because I just can’t see it.  It’s like in an organization of 123 people have the same profession and suddenly it’s an organization of that profession. 

The other point is quite clearly that in the leading world often the lawyers who are dealing with non-profit arguments are also dealing with the copyright organizations and I really don’t understand where and in which that opinion or this rumor or this accusation is grounded in because it just can’t be substantiated by figures.  It’s actually for me very worry and painful process because it distracts us from our real work and from our real mission.  Also it affects us what we said before about our outreach and things like that. 

Yes hardly anybody knows ICANN and if they know ICANN they would like to criticize it.  I think it’s about time that we change a little bit also inside ICANN the attitude and start presenting ICANN in a positive way and the simple example is just look at if the internet would have been worked by the united nations in the same function as ICANN did, do you think it would have worked better/ I think ICANN actually did a very good and positive job with a lot of problems with a lot of difficulties but the outcome is what counts for me and that we should really present.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Good to hear. That certainly clears some of the misconceptions that are floating around

Klaus Stoll:                             You also have to understand I’m coming from the perspective in NGO from Ecuador which is not the smallest one but it’s not the big one.  When you, and you just shake your head and say look it’s about us surviving, making this world more inhabitable place and all you are concerned about are three copyright lawyers.  Frankly my dear I don’t give a….. 

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Oh I think we might have lost Klaus

Klaus Stoll:                             No I didn’t want to say the last word

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          I thought the technicalities were cutting us for.  Right ok the floor is open for more questions.  I think we can reach the last part of our call. The questions and wrap up.  The great silence.  Have we spoken about everything that we wanted to discuss?  I think Evan did you have questions that you mentioned earlier.

Evan Leibovitch:                     I have got two follow up questions.  Klaus and Amber have there been any discussion in your group about PIR about to create a .ngo top level domain is that values and views.  Is it even relevant to discussions that you had and if we have got any time and you are, if there’s an opportunity to give us an insight in to what your members are saying to congress that would be quite enlightening.

Amber Sterling:                       Starting with the PIR .ngo they have certainly come to us and we are reviewing the proposal as we can and trying to weigh all the options and so I will speak from my organization perspective only.  Its, there are pros and cons.  I mean PIR has a pretty great track record overall and so if someone is to operate .ngo, PIR is a good organization to do so.  Conversely, does my organization need a .ngo? 

My .org is fantastic, it’s all I need and so to some extent, would I have to yet purchase another domain name and maintain it and redirect it to my .org and so you know if a .ngo is to move forward regardless of you now PIR is a good organization to run it. So that’s my organizations perspective on the .ngo that’s under discussion and this is something that has been requested to go to the NPOC community and we will be doing so shortly once we get more information and more formal documents other than just hallway conversation.   

As for congress tomorrow, the U.S senate tomorrow, the general council to the YMCA of the USA will be delivering the testimony.  She has graciously agreed to fly out at the last minute from Chicago to do this for her organization as well as for herself and we were asked to discuss the economics of the new gTLD program on non-profit using YMCA and then my organization as an example. 

The crux of it is that you know the pricing we agreed with the Jas working group recommendations we agreed with the conceptions behind the recommendations and we will bring that up to some extent that you now lower fees should be applied, meet criteria, you know understand that and so that was overarching purchasing price or to apply to the DTLD program.  We are also discussing a little bit about the auction process and how that is kind of inherently non-profit at a loss there. 

It would be hard for them to come out victorious going against a large for profit organization for a generic term and just the maintenance fees surrounding the expansion with the again trademark rights but with the right protection mechanism built in, how expensive would that be for non -profit who are large enough that they almost have to defend their name and get the defenses name registration. 

There is the kind of that tipping point where if you are small enough you know you don’t have to quite as much or you can put your head in the sand in that regard.  Sometimes when your names a little bigger and more people know about you and people know they can use your name to get them something you almost have to get the defensive registration.  In the new extension and so we will be discussing that as well.

Klaus Stoll:                             I would like to give another comment to the topic about PIR and .ngo domain.  I also have to make two disclaimers.  First of all till about two or three years ago I was a member of the PR.org advisory committee and secondly I can only speak from my perspective and the perspective of my organization.  I would like to try to plead a special case.  Just imagine the domain .ngo comes about and my experience is actually that there is a huge demand in the NGO community for that domain name because it would solve a hell of a lot of development and fundraising and other problems and in so far the domain name .ngo goes further than just signifying an organization or group. 

It signifies a concept it signifies the development issues.  It signifies a way how we actually run things in a large part of the world.  In so far I think that when the discussion comes to .ngo the discussion also has to be about realizing and making sure that the opportunities that a new domain name would offer out also realize. 

That means I think that in my opinion in my private opinion our.org is an excellent registrant for this domain but at the same time they need to be in very close coordination with the needs and interests of the real .ngo community and I hope that I’m actually fairly certain that they will try to find ways to do that.  It just has to be realized and the message in my opinion has to come out that .ngo is more than just a domain

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Klaus that was quite interesting to hear the ins and out of the application.  Alan has actually mentioned on the chat that PIR is not the only group planning to apply for the .ngo TLD’s so I gather there will probably be more discussion in the future when the application process opens up.  Alan your hand is up.

Alan Greenberg:                      Just a comment.  There have been a number of statements where that PIR will be a good organization to run .ngo.  assuming the NGO will come into existence and its almost certain that it will by someone even if, in particular NGO doesn’t have an interest in using it will be effectively a brand and then presumably there will be some auditing on who is allowed to register under it.  I think it’s going to be relevant for all NGO’s who it is that’s running it so it may be something NPOC wants to look at, or NPOC members want to look at as things go forward.  There could be a difference between one possible NGI and other so it’s something to think about.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Alan.

Klaus Stoll:                             I can tell you Alan that the topic of how to evaluate what is actually .ngo in that range is for discussion that we are having now for at least 4 months and It will be over for a long time but it’s also a fruitful discussion because It forces us to think about ourselves and our function your own conscience from time to time that actually not a bad thing.

Alan Greenberg:                      No I don’t disagree with that.  The point I was making though was that other than filing an objection against the gTLD application there is nothing really wanting to support a gTLD application once it’s submitted.  So if the ngo community have a strong feeling that one of the possible bidders in NGO is better than another it’s probably going be a good thing to say that um in conjunction with the application because there may not be an opportunity to do that afterwards.

Amber Sterling:                       This is Amber.  If and when there are two or more application for .ngo I have a very strong suspicion you might feel that this is near and dear to Klaus’ heart, perhaps.  And so NCOP will more than likely if not as a constituency or individual numbers will more than likely sign up to the public comment period and individually or collectively publish our support on to one of the yeah if we do truly feel that strongly that you .ngo.

Klaus Stoll:                             The problem Amber is that I don’t think there is a public process as such.  There is an objection process to get one to not be accepted but I don’t think there is anything in the other direction.

Amber Sterling:                       My understanding though is that in the guidebook period is that as the applications are received by ICANN once the application period is close, each application will be up for a 30 common period whether or not any one is obligated to read them or act on that is entirely different.  I think there is an opportunity for us to say yayy or boo.

Alan Greenberg:                     I’m not an expert but I believe that’s incorrect.

Amber Sterling:                       Ok that’s fair.

Alan Greenberg:                      There is a process where you can file an objection at a cost to that and there has to be a reason as to why someone should not get it.  I don’t believe there is a process to support it other than something that’s included in the application.

Amber Sterling:                       There are just so many versions of the that that I do get confused at times.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          It sounds like several of us are going to be able to spend the holiday season reading the applicant guidebook for our bedtime reading which is extremely exciting.  Anyway so um I realize that we are running a little bit over time.  Just one little bit of trivia with regards to the .ngo, it is interesting to know that .org was originally created and had an acceptable use policy that it was solely for non for profit organizations and it is interesting to see how at some point that was lifted and now virtually has got a .org and that we are going full circle with .ngo very likely to be created. 

Any last points or questions or topics that anyone wishes to add? or otherwise I’ll close the call. I think we have gone quite a long way.  Any other subjects? And any questions which you might have Klaus and Amber.

Klaus Stoll:                             I don’t have a question I just have an observation.  The observation is that we have a lot of synergy in the two constituencies and the two groups and we really should find ways to talk them out and to discuss them and to coordinate.  I think there should be the major lesson learned out of this talk.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Thank you very much Klaus.  Amber?

Amber Sterling:                       Whole-heartedly agree with Klaus.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Fantastic I think that on our side, if we can call it our side since we are all part of the same organization really. I think that there’s also very much interests with the not-profit community.  Certainly I think this call has answered a few questions and dispelled a few fibs that were floating around and it’s been very productive and very good certainly good synergy.

And I’m hoping that we can actually build on this perhaps with a regular discussions or exchanges either formally or informally, not quite sure how you’d like to structure this but perhaps if we all go back to our own communities and ask, find out how we can bring synergies of working together and making not only ICANN better but also bringing the world of ICAAN exists and this multi stake holder exists to the rest of the world.  That’s something we can do until our next call and I hope that there will be a next call.

Klaus Stoll:                             Okay thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity and your time.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond:          Okay thanks very much.   Thanks everyone this call is now adjourned.

-End of Recorded Material-