Page History

Gisela Gruber:                             Welcome to everyone on today’s NARALO call on Monday, the 14^th of May.  On today’s call we have Beau Brendler, Darlene Thompson, Allan Skuce, Gordon Chillcott, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Glenn McKnight, Gareth Shearman, Garth Bruen.  We have apologies from Seth Reiss and Eduardo Diaz.  From staff we have Matt Ashtiani, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco and myself, Gisela Gruber.

                                                If I could also please remind everyone to state their names when speaking for transcript purposes.  I hope I haven’t left anyone off the attendee list and over to you, Beau.  Thank you.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, thanks for getting the agenda prepared, especially on the short notice on my end.  We’ll just go ahead through the agenda as you did.  So we’ll put the action items from the last call.  I’m getting a password protect on that so I cannot get into the agenda items. 

Gisela Gruber:                             Okay, I’m going to put those into the chat and Matt, if you can just look into that.  He shouldn’t be getting that.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, well, we’ll come back to that.

Gisela Gruber:                             Actually, they’re in the chat.  Do you see that in Adobe Connect – I just put them in the chat?

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, sorry.  Yeah, there they are; they’re in.  There should be a consensus vote regarding the holding of a showcase.  Okay, we sort of did that in other business, so that action item’s taken care of.  The Toronto meeting is on all future NARALO agendas and I think we have that by at least extension, given the mention of the showcase item and other business which we’ll get to at the end.

                                                Okay, so the Policy Statement Update – thanks for the notation from staff on the Policy Advice Development Calendar.  There’s a link there to the ICANN public comment page where you can review.  Recently adopted ALAC statements include the .com Registry Agreement Renewal; the Draft ALAC Statement on the Fake Renewal Notices Report; At-Large Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition.

                                                I did not hear from the roll call – is Evan Leibovitch on the call?  The reason I ask is that there was some commentary on the list from Evan on the Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition Working Group.  He and a couple of other people – including me – had discussed actually creating a Draft Advice Letter, so I just wanted to get an update from him on that.  But we’ll move on to that for the list.

                                                Draft Statement on the IDN Variant Issues Project – Proposed Project Plans for Next Steps - you can review that as you wish.  Statements currently being reviewed by the ALAC.  Second Annual IDNccTLDFast Track Process Review – comment period closes 30 April.  Then we have the Current Open Policy Forums on the Draft Plan and the IDN Variant TLD Program, so you can check on those as you wish.  If you see something that you believe is not being adequately covered by us, you can send us a note or initiate public comment, as you wish as an individual. 

So let’s move to item 4 here – the New gTLD Program Update – I’m going to turn this over to Darlene in a moment, but just to briefly recap, we had a wealth of volunteers to serve on the Working Group which is terrific.  I think we had six in all, so we have, as you’ve seen from list traffic, compiled the names and we will need to be rather quickly having a vote.  And there are some logistics that go along with that, including Statements of Interest and what not and at this point, if I can just ask Darlene to briefly review the material that’s already gone out on the notes…  Darlene, if you could do that.

Darlene Thompson:                     Yes, Darlene Thompson for the record.  Yes, today is the last day that you can put in your interest on joining this group – the gTLD Group.  We already have six people which is great – that’s more than any other region – they’ll compliment us on that one.  So today you must put in your Statement of Interest and then get in your proper SOI and COI on that and staff will send you the parameters for doing that so that you know exactly how to do it.  So that’s it for me.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, now material has also been posted in the current chat now so you can review it again there and please be aware of all those deadlines.  We’re going to have to adhere to them fairly tightly because obviously the choice of our participants is one link in the chain of a number of things.  And we also note that none of the nominees have submitted their Statements of Interest which is, in fact, not good, so we should get everybody who is involved to please file those right away so that we as voters can make responsible choices and responsible votes.  I see a hand up from Heidi.

Heidi Ullrich:                             NARALO nominees have actually submitted their SOIs and they’re on that work space that I’ve just put in the chat.  So there’s only actually one person who has not yet sent in their SOI from the NARALO region.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, so please disregard the zero nominees have submitted note in the chat.  Alright, well that’s good news actually, so thank you for that.  So does anybody have any questions regards the new gTLD Review Group process or anything like that or have we visited that fairly substantially now?  Okay.

Darlene Thompson:                     Darlene.  If I may say, the COIs are extremely important because we need to know who has conflicts of interest, who has new registrations they’re involved in and stuff like that.  So we do really need to have that information – that’s extremely important.

Beau Brendler:                            Alright, thank you.  So back to Darlene actually for the discussion on the proposal for the RALO Rules and Procedure Working Group.  Darlene, you still there?

Darlene Thompson:                     I was still on the previous item.

Beau Brendler:                            Was there more you needed to say about the previous item?

Darlene Thompson:                     No, no, not at all.  Now on the proposal for the new RALO Working Group, what we’re looking at is Rule 21 of the ALAC Rules actually where it says that if your elected ALAC member was – in very short form – if your elected ALAC member is not performing up to snuff and the Chair says that this person has to come down, what does the group do about this? 

This has never happened to us before.  Usually the person will step down, but if they don’t, what happens?  What do we as a group choose to do about this?  So that’s what this group is going to be about.  And I encourage anybody that has an interest in this to please step forward and join the group. 

I put a call through the internal and the Secretariat notice board, but if you want to join this group, please just put a note to me through the NA discuss group or just to me personally because this is an interesting question and we do have to change our own By-Laws on this.  So this is a By-Law change for the RALO and RALOs are looking at this now and saying, “Wow, what do we do?”  So thanks; that’s it.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay.  Let’s just take a pause here in the chat.  I know that this is a session about we do have some clarity on the fact that we need to take a big pulse vote in the region, correct?  I think I see that in the chat so the vote’s going to begin on Wednesday; we will publicize the link.  Okay, so it looks like we are straight on that.  In terms of any coordination that needs to be done setting up the big pulse vote, let Darlene know and if you need additional help, you can let all of us know.  Alan Greenberg has his hand up – go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg:                          Yeah, it was on the item we were talking about before.  But on this one, what is the big pulse vote going to be?  What are the parameters?  Is everyone going to vote for two or everyone vote for one or what are the parameters?  I assume we’re talking about voting for the new gTLD Committee.

Beau Brendler:                            Right.  Since there were so many volunteers in our region, more so than I believe others, we have to actually take a vote, so yes - it will be on the two recommended people.  We’re not just giving our recommendation by votes.

Alan Greenberg:                          Okay, but what I’m asking is – is everyone going to vote for two or everyone vote for one and we’ll take the two highest numbers, or what is the…?

Beau Brendler:                            Well, I think it would be easiest if we just had one vote and then the people with the two highest vote numbers become our region’s recommendation I think.

Darlene Thompson:                     Darlene here.  The two highest numbers – yes.

Alan Greenberg:                          Just be careful because if, for instance, everyone believed that X is the best candidate, there would be no second.  There would be no second number.  So…

Beau Brendler:                            Somehow I’m not anticipating that being a problem, but…

Alan Greenberg:                          Okay, fine.

Beau Brendler:                            … and I’ll certainly address it if we have to.

Alan Greenberg:                          Alright, with regard to that, I vaguely remember that I am the formal rep of the non-ALS people.  Am I supposed to try to coordinate with the other ones or are we doing it electronically?  If I’m supposed to do it by hand, then I need to know who the other non-ALS people are.

Darlene Thompson:                     If I may say, you should be consulting with your group to make sure that they know how you’re going to vote and then, yes, you will be voting on their behalf.

Alan Greenberg:                          Then I just said I’d appreciate knowing who the others are.

Darlene Thompson:                     When I sent out the email as per the “Hey, have I got y’all here?” that would be the one that’s got everybody on there and nobody said, “Oh, you’ve missed,” anybody.  I can send that over again if you’d like.

Alan Greenberg:                          If you can remind me cause I can probably find it, but I might not be able to. 

Darlene Thompson:                     Will do, Alan.  This is Darlene, by the way.

Alan Greenberg:                          Appreciate it.  And now what my hand was up for originally – I’m trying to remember what the subject was now.  What was the next subject we went on to?  Oh, the Rules of Procedure.  Darlene made reference to Rule 21.  Rule 21 right now has some pretty draconian words in it saying if you don’t meet certain qualifications, you’re out – period.  In fact the implementation is a little softer.  The implementation is a little bit softer than that and, in fact, that Rule is in the process of being rewritten by the ALAC Rules of Procedure Group.

Darlene Thompson:                     And, Alan, if I may make that very, very clear.  This group that I am talking about will not be talking about – at all – the metrics of the ALAC Rules of Procedures.  This will only be whatever those metrics happen to be, once this person gets kicked back to the RALO, what shall the RALO do.  So it has nothing to do with the draconian rules that are in play right now, which I agree with you, because the ALAC Rules of Procedure Metrics Group will be looking after that.

Alan Greenberg:                          Darlene, all I was saying was that you made reference to the current Rule 21 and if anyone goes to look that up, that’s not likely the rule that’s going to be in place when we have to do something.  But the issue you brought up of what happens if, for whatever reason, following due process, the ALAC decides that one of the RALO people is not performing – what do we do then.  I was just rephrasing it so people don’t go off and read Rule 21 and get upset about what it says or something like that.

Darlene Thompson:                     Right, yeah, no, Alan has it totally, yeah.

Alan Greenberg:                          Okay.

Beau Brendler:                            This is Beau.  Heidi has kindly posted a link in the chat, Adobe Connect chat, that in Rule 21 work space, so my hope might be that Alan or Darlene or one of you at the podium can just maybe post the current language and transition for Rule 21 in that work group if it’s not already there?

Alan Greenberg:                          The group is working on them one-by-one and we’re on Rule No. 1 right now; we’re not at 21, so we’re not likely to see any substantive direction for a while there.  That’s why I was making the comment that don’t agonize over the words.  What Darlene was asking about was what happens if we are told that someone is not performing?  What does the RALO do then?

Darlene Thompson:                     And we are going to have discussion about this in two hours time at 5:00 Eastern Standard Time as to what the new working group is going to be actually handling.  Olivier has posted me this privately, so yeah.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, so I see that Evan is on the call and I wanted to skip back on the agenda for a second if you don’t mind to return to the issue of the ALAC Statement on the Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition item.  Evan, is there any update to give on that right now?

Evan Leibovitch:                         Okay, I’m a part of the working group but not what I would call either its most active participant or its most active supporter.  Olivier is also on the call and he’s been involved in the group and can probably speak better to it’s doing.  I mean, I can give a summary but you’ll know ahead of time that I have some bias involved. 

                                                The intent of the working group is to try and associate some metrics that can be applied to determine whether or not the New gTLD Program and, in fact, the gTLD Program as a whole is actually increasing Consumer Choice, Trust, Support and so on.  I have had significant problems with it personally because 1) it gets into the minefield of what is a consumer, which I believe, ICANN in this context is defining as both registrants and end users, which I think is overly broad.

                                                But the bigger problem I have is that all of ICANN’s metrics are planned based on its own frames of reference.  So metrics are things like: is there an increase in the number of registries; is there an increase in the number of registrars; is there an increase in the number of business models and things like that.  And when talking about issues such as Consumer Trust and Choice and the internet, doing this kind of thing without considering not only domains, but even alternatives to domains such as search engines, QR codes and so on, isn’t properly really addressing whether or not the new program is really increasing Consumer Trust and Choice.

                                                I could ramble on for a lot longer on that but I’ll leave it at that.  Like I say, I’ve been a participant in the group.  The working group added in a paragraph to its report to the Board saying that it was not complete without measuring external factors.  And I see Olivier’s hand up so maybe you’re in a better position to talk about the rest of this than me.  I’ve been a somewhat vocal critic of some of the limitations that have gone on with this group and I’ll leave it at that.

Beau Brendler:                            Alright, thank you, Evan.  Yeah, can we go to Olivier then.  I see your hand up, Olivier, go ahead.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thanks very much, Beau.  It’s Olivier for the transcript and thanks to Evan for providing a quick run-down on what the group did.  I just wanted to add one more thing.  You know, the points which Evan has made are very valid indeed.  One of the problems that the working group faced is the way that the Board has dished the work to the working group by referring to the expression “Consumer Trust,” and effectively finding out if consumers were being served properly with the expansion of the top-level domain space. 

                                                That expression is actually one which was taken from the Affirmation of Commitments – the AOC – so it’s something which is actually started with the U.S. Department of Commerce.  So its equating with consumers and users is obviously wrong but its origin comes way further back.  And I think that ultimately it’s something that the ALAC and our Committee should take up for the next time that we have a meeting with the GAC, for example, because certainly this equating of consumers and users is something that many of us feel very strongly about and those who don’t talk about it at the moment are certainly thinking about it.  So that’s one thing for the future. 

                                                The statement which was drafted was drafted by a couple of people in EURALO showing that the term “consumer” is actually seen in some parts of the world as being totally inappropriate as well.  So not only is it inappropriate to equate consumers to users, but also to use the word “consumer” in this particular context.  That’s it. 

The work of the working group is still going on.  I think that it’s very worth continuing being part of it.  It actually is designing a very large quantity of metrics which will show whether the domain name space is going to be positive for registrants, you know, is it going to be more choice for someone who buys a domain name; is it going to provide more geographical diversity, etc.

But I’m not even sure if the Board will say yes to all of those metrics.  Some of them are costly to follow.  I hope they say yes because ultimately I think it’s something that will not only benefit the new top-level domains that are created, but all the ones which are already there.  And it certainly will bring some truth, I guess, some statistics to some of the claims that are being made by operators that more domain names is better.  But we’ll see in time.  Thank you.

Beau Brendler:                            Thank you, Olivier.  This is Beau again.  Heidi has very nimbly put up a link in the chat room to the ALAC Statement that we have just been talking about if anybody wants to take a look at that and see what you think and offer up any comments as necessary.  I’m sure that we would be more than grateful to get them.  Evan has also posted his explanation for his abstention on the vote which we thank him and thank his candor for on that. 

                                                Okay, so I think we’ve now moved into the realm of No. 6 here – any other business.  There’s a URL there not intended to be self-serving, but in fact if you click on it, does lead to an article I just wrote on the uniform… well, basically the mechanisms that are in place for primarily copyright holders, but others ostensibly to object to misuse of copyright.  I invite you to take a read of that and to agree or disagree with it.

                                                Evan had made some points about it that did not actually get in there due to some editing back and forth over the weekend, but I’m sure that if he reads it and takes issue, he will feel free to comment.  The reason I bring it up here is if this is a subject of interest to people in the region, then you know, perhaps we might consider at some point making a statement or encouraging some discussion of this at the at-large level.  So we can get back to more of that on the list as needed.

                                                Item 2 in any other business, which I will hold onto just a second.  I want to check for hands up.  Evan has his hand up.  Go ahead, Evan.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Hi, Beau, I’m putting my hand up not to comment on what you said cause I agreed with it; I actually want to call the attention of the rest of the region to it.  Please have a look at what Beau said – this whole thing about ICANN’s having to rework the Take-Down Program for potentially fraudulent domains – is potentially a ticking time bomb in that it goes to some of the painful negotiations that the ICANN Board had with the Government Advisory Committee over the complaint that the New gTLD Program was going to end up being a shake-down for brand owners. 

                                                The URS was designed to be an answer to that and if the URS is going to require a massive design, this has the potential to open up some of those old wounds.  I hope that’s not the case; it may be just brushed off as an implementation issue, but I advise other people in the region to keep their eyes on this as being potentially explosive, but that the very least, contentious.  Thanks.

Beau Brendler:                            Thank you, Evan.  Also before I forget, we did need to make the point – and in other business we originally had on the agenda an update on some of the various projects that have been going on, including the survey and the video and other things you’ve heard about.  The video is already up and linked to; in fact, if you read the article that we’ve just been discussing, you’ll see at the very end there’s a link to the NARALO video encouraging people to take part, but Matt had…  Is Matt on the call?

Matt Ashanti:                             Yes, I’m here.

Beau Brendler:                            Matt, do you just have just a moment briefly to just update?  Just tell us what the update is from your end on the translations, I think is the issue now?

Matt Ashanti:                             (Inaudible)?

Beau Brendler:                            Yes.

Matt Ashanti:                             I actually kind of made out today, (inaudible) and it will go out for a test and as soon as I get back from the individuals (inaudible).  So hopefully everyone will get back to me by tomorrow and we can launch.

Heidi Ullrich:                             Matt, can you adjust your headset a little bit?  It’s Heidi.  People were not able to understand you.

Matt Ashanti:                             Sure, let me reconnect.  I said I’m actually completing the entry of the text into the Survey Monkey.  I’m going to send out a text today to the selected individuals.  As soon as they respond to me and let me know if it works and if they had any problems, then it will be ready to launch.  So hopefully we can fully launch within 24 hours.

Beau Brendler:                            That’s great; that’s great.  And I wanted to publicly thank Seth, Matt and Heidi and anyone else on the team who has worked on it.  One of the reasons that the survey has taken so long to do is that we ran into some unexpected issues related to whether to use Big [Post] or Survey Monkey and we’d already basically used up the budget to actually do the survey and staff has been helping us with that on their own time or on work time which is great and I really would like to recognize their effort for that.

                                                Glenn McKnight is also on the call.  I don’t know if Glenn had anything to add.  Glenn, do you?

Glenn McKnight:                        I’m sending around some stuff on research I’ve been doing on using surveys with an Android or an iPhone or an iPad.  Possibly we can capture some surveys when we’re in Czechoslovakia this fall, as well as from actually a few of us having our own iPads.  So I’ve been back and forth with some developers as well.  But I have not found out whether or not they can work with Survey Monkey.  I have been communicating with Survey Monkey people on this, but no update yet.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay.  I saw Alan’s hand and then Heidi.

Alan Greenberg:                          My hand was commenting on Evan’s comment on the URS so why don’t we continue on this one and then come back to me whenever this topic’s finished.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay, Heidi, your hand is back up?

Heidi Ullrich:                             Yes, sorry.  I was trying to put Alan’s down, but yes, to advance or add to Matt’s.  The survey is going to go out today to various people for their language capabilities.  For example, we’re going to be sending it to Beau and Glenn in English; Eduardo in Spanish and to Monique in French.  So when they take it in those languages, we’ll be able to see if there are any issues.  It’s not really a text, it’s an advance to them just to highlight any issues that might be of concern.

                                                Once we realize or we see that they’re being able to take it completely correctly, we’ll go ahead and send it out to everyone.  And Matt’s going to put the base of the survey into the chat in just a moment.  Thank you.

Beau Brendler:                            Thank you, Heidi, and again the original scope of work didn’t really call for translations which was an oversight on my part and to be able to have the survey translated, of course, only opens it up to a much broader community which is an unexpected bonus and that’s great.  So thank you very much to those who are participating in getting that done.

                                                Alright, so let’s address the – we can do this fairly briefly cause a lot of it’s been already trafficked on the list – the call for volunteers to lead the NARALO Toronto event effort.  We did sort of refer to it earlier in the action items.  We did take a consensus opinion of the region and that seemed to be that - well, it didn’t seem to be – it was that we should not, in fact, have a NARALO showcase but there were some folks who offered some ideas about other things that we could do; including Glenn offered some suggestions and others, so this is a first call for volunteers to lead that effort. 

In other words, coordinate with some others who might have ideas and see which are feasible to do, if any.  Some of them have bordered on sort of just having a table and showing the video and showing the survey and showing the brochures and such.  So it can be as low-key as we might need it to be.  So we’ll be continuing to call for volunteers or call for a volunteer to coordinate that effort over the next coming week or two.

Then moving finally to update on the Final Report from the WHOIS Policy Working Group.  Seth is not with us today, but if there is anybody who would like to give us an update on that – is has been sent around and has I think met with some compliments.  Would anybody who’s close to the WHOIS Policy Working Group Report like to give us any comments or update on that?

Alan Greenberg:                          It’s Alan.  I can if no one else wants to.  I’m not active in the WHOIS Group but I can comment on the report if you’d like.

Beau Brendler:                            Yeah, if you’d like to and you can just… this being the last item, since you’re hand is up you can segue into the other item too if you’d like cause I’m going to have to step away from my computer and watch for my kids.

Alan Greenberg:                          Alright, my summary is I thought the report was good.  I haven’t read it very thoroughly, but I have read the Executive Summary.  It’s relatively masterful in my mind that it sidesteps almost all of the real controversial issues which would just get us back into the discussion of “I want x” and “I want y.”  It puts the blame solidly on ICANN for saying ICANN has let down the internet essentially in not policing WHOIS properly, identifies that it is clearly possible to do better. The group must have better reporting; it must report directly to the Board, not to someone who has other concerns within ICANN.  And I think the report is very good.

                                                It kept some very, very tight timelines for the Board to act.  I can’t see how the Board can act within six months on some of these things, but I’m delighted to put the pressure on and I felt the report was well done, given the fears that they might have ended up in disputes within the group.  I thought it was very well done.  Thank you.

Beau Brendler:                            Thank you, Alan.  Okay, any comments or additions to that?  Again I have actually stepped away from my computer and I’m on the doorstep with the phone in hand watching the rain fall, waiting for the school bus.  So I will have to rely on you to let me know if there’s any comments or questions.

Alan Greenberg:                          Alan, my hand is still up to go back to the URS when we’re finished on WHOIS, but other than that, no one else has a hand up.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Beau, this is Evan.  I’d asked if Garth had anything to say cause he’s been following this issue and compliance issues very closely.  So this I imagine would be something near and dear.  Garth, what’s your take on what’s been happening?

Garth Bruen:                               This is Garth.  I haven’t done a complete review of it.  I mean, I’ve had some issues with the Working Group’s exclusion of some things I’ve submitted in the past, so I have to sidestep some of my own prejudices and keep reading it.

Beau Brendler:                            Sorry about that alarm there.  That was me.  It’s finished now.  That’s actually my alarm to meet the school bus, so… Anyway, okay, anything else?  Should we go back to Alan then for his URS comments?

Alan Greenberg:                          Okay, what Evan was commenting on, I’m not sure whether this group has really been briefed on it or not.  Buried… well, I won’t use the word “buried,” but that is the inclination.  In the middle of the budget document was an allocation of $175,000 to fund some meetings – they were called summits – to discuss rework of the URS.  The URS is the Fast Take-Down Procedure for domains which are misusing trademarks.

                                                It was designed to be self-funded.  The profit that was outlined was developed by a multi-stakeholder group that went into the discussions with very, very different points of view and came out with basically something that everyone could live with.  The providers of dispute resolution mechanisms have looked at it and said, “For what you want us to do, there is no way we can do it anywhere near the price that you’re saying the price has to be.”  And it was designed to be cheaper than the UDRP process.

Beau Brendler:                            Is there more than one, Alan – pardon me for interrupting; it’s Beau again.  It’s

WIPO and someone else, right?

Alan Greenberg:                          There are multiple providers and they’ve all basically said we’re out of our minds; there’s no way it can be done for that price.  And it’s designed to be a self-funding thing – ICANN doesn’t put money into the ongoing process, just as it doesn’t put any money into the UDRP.  So it’s a problem and the larger problem, however, is there was no active heads-up to the GNSO that developed the policy.  It was just in this fudge document and someone happened to notice and then it said we’re going to have to have some summits instead of booting it back to the GNSO because that’s where it lived within ICANN.

                                                ICANN has come back; Kurt Pritz has come back and basically said, “Well those were just placeholder words that we’ll put in the budget; of course it’s going to be done in the proper multi-stakeholder model with the GNSO being actively involved or leading it.”  I don’t know the exact words.

                                                So at this point they said, “Mea culpa.  We didn’t really mean what we wrote in the budget document; we’re going to handle it properly.”  It now remains to be seen how one actually does that.  As Evan did say, this was a hard battle that we got what we wanted – at least all parties got something that they wanted – to do a major rework which makes it a lot less onerous to implement is probably going to take away some of the checks and balances which the non-IP people put into it. 

                                                So it remains to be seen whether we can actually implement a URS which is acceptable to all parties at a price which will make a useable as a fast path to take from new domain names into the New gTLD Process.  So it does have the possibility of blowing up and reinforcing the demands from the Intellectual Property community that there be better protections.  Because one of the key protections looks like it is not implementable and that’s serious.  So it bears watching; it’s not clear how it’s going to unfold, but it bears watching at this point.  Thank you.

Beau Brendler:                            This is Beau again.  Is it reasonable to say that starting this process all over again - apart from the potential pitfalls of not being able to hold onto things that were good for all communities - is this not sort of an abuse of volunteer labor?  I mean there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time working this out, right?

Alan Greenberg:                          Well, yes, but the reality is it was only going to be viable if it could come in at $200 or whatever the price was and the Dispute Management Groups are saying for us to implement it, given all of which you put into it, it’s going to cost $600.  I’m making up the numbers, but something like that.  So we’re stuck with the reality that it’s not implementable by the people who have to implement it at the price that they’re likely to do it at.  So is it unfortunate that we didn’t get the price vetted while we were doing it – probably. 

                                                I should point out that if you go back in the history, the URS originally was developed as part of the IRT which was a group of IP people who went off and said, “These are the protections you need.”  It was denounced by the world.  Everything the IRT did was denounced – some of it reasonably; some of it not.

                                                The staff came out with a new version on their own and that was basically vilified by everyone and as a result the Board said, “Fine.  If you don’t like what staff did – GNSO – go off and do something better and you have a month or two months to do it.”  I don’t remember the details.  And a small group was put together that in fact came out with something that was acceptable. 

                                                So what the process is going to be to do it again, I don’t know.  Is that abuse of volunteer labor – probably.  Maybe most of what we do is an abuse of volunteer labor.  Anyway, Evan has his hand up.

Beau Brendler:                            Evan, go ahead.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Yeah, well in terms of abuse of volunteer time, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time, as anybody who spent any effort at all working, for instance, on the Morality and Public Order Group – whose results were totally trashed at the end – would be able to assert.

                                                But back to this.  Alan, am I being too alarmist in saying that this has the ability to reignite the whole Board GAC thing because name protection and protection of names and trademarks seem to be a cornerstone of the friction between the GAC and the ICANN Board.  And I’m just wondering if this has the potential to be a ticking time bomb, perhaps even worse than the Application System IT delays.

Alan Greenberg:                          It depends how quickly we resolve it and if we resolve it.  If what comes out of it is something that is far, far worse from the point of view of the Intellectual Property community and they go to their respective governments, yeah.  If what comes out of it is just fine from the IP community but the NCSG and ALAC aren’t happy with it, I’m not sure the governments are going to cause a fight over that.  So it’s going to depend on how it unfolds; it’s not clear at this point how it’s going to unfold.  If we cannot come up with anything that anyone is happy with at a price that is affordable, that’s going to be an interesting problem.

Beau Brendler:                            Okay.

Alan Greenberg:                          And yes, it could reopen the whole issue of are we putting an unreasonable [own] on the Intellectual Property community and businesses to defend names because there’s no other alternative.  Yep.  I mean, they claim that’s the situation today with the URF, so I’m not sure how different it is, but it would just add another piece of armament into their armory.

Evan Leibovitch:                         I think Beau expressed it very well in his article in saying the balance is that if somebody wants to create a domain “Citibank Sucks,” that clearly isn’t trying to defraud people by claiming to be Citibank – there shouldn’t be objections to that.  Whereas, a fraudulent site that is trying to claim to be Citibank but in fact is not should be immediately the target of a successful take-down.

Alan Greenberg:                          And that kind of argument was exactly the reason that there were a lot of checks and balances in the process, in the URF process.  And the freedom of speech – Citibank Sucks – is the kind of thing that everybody admits should not be an issue and the rules have to be structured so that if the contents of the site are clearly editorial comments about Citibank and not attempting to masquerade as Citibank, as opposed to the Louis Vuitton site and stuff that are the subject of today’s discussion, that should not be a problem.

Beau Brendler:                            Interesting topic.

Alan Greenberg:                          Yep.  One for which there is no resolution.

Evan Leibovitch:                         And, Beau, it has the potential to make the current TAS problems look minor by comparison.

Beau Brendler:                            Yeah, yeah, I mean, boy, and the TAS problems are pretty bad.  I mean, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a bid for public outrage about that, but it’s May 22 now, is when it’s supposed to come back up?  Does anybody have an update on the TAS? 

Alan Greenberg:                          Haven’t paid any attention in the last week or so.

Beau Brendler:                            Last I read was that it’s supposed to be back up and functioning on the 22^nd of May, but that they’d found additional instances of people being able to see information from other applications.  Actually I’m now back in my seat.  My children are inside and wet and I can see the hands-up queue.  Garth was first, followed by Olivier.  Garth, go ahead.

Garth Bruen:                               Yeah, Alan, excuse my ignorance, but is there room in this for like a lower price option for mitigating them if the existing parties won’t accept the lower rate of $200.

Alan Greenberg:                          Sorry, say that again.

Garth Bruen:                               You’re saying that the issue is about price of the mitigation providers.  I mean, is there room in this for other providers to step up who will do it for a lower cost?

Alan Greenberg:                          Oh sure, if there are other providers who are credible in this area and if they could do it for a lower cost, I would think so.  I don’t think this was a closed shop; I think it was an open request for providers and all the ones who came back said, “Sorry, that’s not doable.”  That’s my understanding.  I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the details or the process.

Garth Bruen:                               But at the moment there’s just like one or two, right?  Is that the case?

Alan Greenberg:                          There’s several.  I don’t know exactly what the number is.

Garth Bruen:                               Okay.

Alan Greenberg:                          There are certainly several who do the UDRP.  I’m assuming they all might have bid on the URS.  I haven’t paid attention.  But there is a small handful of them; it’s far more than one but probably not more than six or something like that.

Beau Brendler:                            I’ll be they were surprised when they saw that bid.  Olivier’s next.  Go ahead, Olivier.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond:                Thanks very much, Beau.  It’s Olivier for the transcript.  Just a note on the TAS interruption – the update that was published with that would be, they’re targeting 22 of May, 2012 as the intended opening date and they’re anticipating the 30^th of May closing.  So you target the 22^nd; you anticipate May 30.  I don’t know what the rest of the timetable is after that – they haven’t said.  But it appears they have four types of users that they’re corresponding with – users of the TAS system who did not have file names or user names viewed; users who had one or more file names and/or user names that may have been viewed by other users; users who have seen other files names and users who have seen other file names and have also had their file names seen.

                                                I don’t know why they’re going in such detail; there might be more to this than we know about.  But ultimately it’s just interesting to see this and watch it from the sidelines.  We’ll see how it goes.  I guess they probably know more than we do but at the moment (inaudible).  I’m not quite sure that we need to be so concerned about it.  Ultimately internet users will at some point be able to register new names under new gTLDs; domains under new gTLDs at some point.  When is anybody’s guess.  Thank you.

Beau Brendler:                            Yeah, Olivier, my user – Beau again – my user-focused argument on this – which I haven’t seem to win any converts on is just this seems like such an administrative and managerial disaster from all different directions that it puts the whole question of the competency of the organization have all these new gTLDs into doubt.  But anyway, Garth has his hand up.  Garth, go ahead.

Garth Bruen:                               I’m sorry, I don’t.  I’m going to take it down,

Beau Brendler:                            Okay.  Alright, then, well I don’t see any additional hands up.  I think we’ve covered a wide range of business.  Do we need to visit anymore topics related to the forthcoming Toronto meeting?  Going once, going twice.  Evan, go ahead.

Evan Leibovitch:                         I’m only going to mention this cause I think I was one of the people that brought up the idea of an open house as opposed to a showcase being the kind of thing where we would try and get invites out to at least the NGO community in at very least the Northeast North America within a train ride of Toronto, perhaps to come and find out more.  I’m simply recalling the kind of event that recruited Darlene and me into ICANN and I think we could do very well to try and duplicate that if we could for other non-profits and other potential ALSs at least in the region.

                                                It would be far less ambitious than a showcase, but essentially the idea of designating a spot maybe in the evening as an open house where people would be invited to basically be given an introduction to participation in ICANN from the point of view of a potential ALS.  Thanks.

Beau Brendler:                            Thanks, Evan.  Yeah, I guess I’ll put out the call for a volunteer to lead a Toronto event effort in a similar vein as before.  I think it’s going to be tough for Evan to do it.  I wouldn’t expect or ask, given all that will be going on for him being that the event is happening in his hometown.  So anymore on that as we proceed.  Let’s see – anyone else?  I don’t see any hands up.

Evan Leibovitch:                         Glenn and Gordon, you’re both on the call and in the area.  What do you guys think about doing that and helping perhaps with some of the local logistics?

Glenn McKnight:                        Yeah, as I said, happy to help in whatever way possible.  My suggestion was I guess a little less showy than a showcase, but an information table similar to what we did with NomCom to get people to get their application at the NomCom.  It was a little less cost I suppose.  Again, we can… I think it’s an opportunity and I think it’s critical, given the fact that it’s in Toronto.  So I’m more than happy to volunteer on the project.

Beau Brendler:                            Thank you, Glenn.  We will place the crown of blame on your head.

Glenn McKnight:                        Oh gosh, that’s what I dreaded. 

Beau Brendler:                            Well, hey, if I lived closer to Toronto I’d be happy to help, but I’m afraid it’s going to be a little tough to do that. 

Darlene Thompson:                     I’d be happy to help but I’m not going to lead.

Gordon Chillcott:                        I may have to put myself in that position too.  This is Gordon Chillcott speaking.  I’m not sure what’s going to be happening to me over the next year for myself, but I will definitely provide any help I can to Glenn or anyone else.

Beau Brendler:                            Well, thank you, Gordon.  There’s a person for you to call on there, Glenn, as necessary.  And I see Darlene’s hand up.

Darlene Thompson:                     Oh, I was just going to say – Darlene here – I would be happy to help but I’m not going to lead.  But I’d help anywhere I can.

Beau Brendler:                            Well, thank you.  That’s a little bit of help there for the cause.  Well, unless anybody has any pressing issues, I’m going to call it a wrap here seven minutes early and we’ll look forward to the next call which I believe is going to be obviously a month from now, but before I’m not held in concurrence with the meeting in Prague.  Alright, thanks everybody and we’ll see you on the list.

[End of Transcript]