IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 20th June 2011, 05:06 AM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Transcript of ICANN Singapore 41 board meeting

Transcript converted to all lower case as it is far easier to read that way than the upper case they transcribe in...


test.
test test test test.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
test. test.
icann- singapore.
welcome ceremony.
20 june 2011.
>> ladies and gentlemen, if you would please take your vets seats, we would
>> like to begin our welcome ceremony.
ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. we are going to begin our program.
devanagari,.
>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, chair, icann board of directors,
>> peter dengate thrush.
[ applause ]
>>mr. peter dengate thrush:
ladies and gentlemen, welcome to singapore, and goverm, everybody. i have
just been speaking to the minute ster who i am about to introduce and she
was explaining the demonstration we have just seen. the idea is to help us
calm our thoughts, get rid of evil influences, and the appearance of a
dragon rather than a lion in singapore means this is a very special
occasion.
so thank you, ladies and gentlemen, of the performing troupe.
[ applause ]
>>mr. peter dengate thrush: this is, indeed, a special occasion and i want
>>to welcome everybody to icann's 41st international public meeting. and
>>it's great to be back in singapore. and you might say it's a home coming
>>of sorts for many of us because our very first international meeting was
>>held here in singapore in the international convention and exhibition
>>center in february and march of 1999.
in fact, some of you in the room today were at that meeting, as i was, 11
years ago. that very first icann meeting ran for all of three days.
committee meetings the first day, an opening meeting the next, and a board
meeting to wrap things up.
and 40 meetings later, that structure remains the foundation of our
international public meetings.
so for those of you who weren't there, what was the first icann meeting
talking about? what was the brand-new icann community discussing in 1999?
and some of the issues were familiar to you.
the domain name supporting organization proposals were coming in as to how
to build what became the dnso.
we had a report from a brand-new governmental advisory committee, meeting
privately because they weren't sure what their reception was going to be and
chaired by a rather tall australian government official who we later came to
know very well as our ceo.
and a report from the dns root server system advisory committee.
but the community also came together to talk about internal icann policies
and politics. remember, this was february and march of 1999. icann was only
a few months old. there were nuts and bolts issues to be discussed and
decided. we needed to hire people. we only had two or three staffs. we knew
we were going to be having consumers, and suppliers in all parts of retail
and supply chain making policy so clearly establishing conflict rules were
necessary. finances were a terrible issue. we didn't have any money. we had
a small loan from one of the major companies, and much of the first
expenditure was financed by staff personal credit cards.
rod, perhaps we go back to that. i'm not sure, there may be some doolts.
[ laughter ]
>>mr. peter dengate thrush: so icann was taking its first steps on the
>>international stage here in singapore. and the domain name system itself
>>was a very different place. there was all of 171 million internet users
>>across the globe. what we thought at the time was a staggering number.
56% of those original 170 million users came from canada and the united
states. just 15% came from the asia-pacific region, and less than 5% of the
global citizen community was connected.
today, of course, over 2 billion users. fewer than 14% come from north
america, as the technology has spread across the globe. 44% are from asia.
so icann and the internet together have truly become global. now our
meetings one-run for a full time five days and we start with two days of
preliminary meetings, and i can tem you there is considerable pressure on us
to extend that period and we see meetings being added on the front end and
back ebbed.
the board and staff come from all over the globe as does the community. and
the volunteers who drive our supporting organizations come from every
continent except ant architect arctic at that.
pratt internationalized domain name is changing the address bars of the
browsers, accessing across the globe. there are now 30 idns in the root
representing 20 nations and territories and 21 different languages.
and as we move forward, it will be more than just country code idns. our new
gtld program will soon be the foundation of an internet that will make it
possible for people across the globe to get their name and their language
and script to make it their internet.
and icann continues to collaborate with the cctld managers, with scientists
and technologists and governments from across the world to enhance the
security of this greatest shared communication resource of all time.
sweden was the first country to implement dnssec at the root back in 2005.
thanks to the combined efforts of registries around the world, the new
security protocol will soon be available to the majority of domain name
registrants in almost a quarter of the tlds.
and today, of the 310 top-level domains, 74 are signed, and 70 have trust
anchors, published as ds records in the root zone, meaning their fully
dnssec compatible.
and what was it that makes all these efforts so important? and it stretches
beyond the work itself. it's something greater than the goal of each of
these individual initiatives.
what's at stake and what we are here this week to help grow is the internet
itself. not merely the technical connections and agreements, not just the
transfer of packets and megabytes. what we are working on is the most
powerful tool for transforming our society that we have ever seen.
so let me just step aside a little bit from that and talk about the place
that we've gathered today, the lion city of singapore, because there's a
hint in the story of this city about the possibilities that could change the
internet.
let me refer you to a recent book: physics of the future, american respected
physicist speaks with colleagues at the cutting edge of various fields
across the sciences. his goal is to redict what the world will be like in
one century. and part of that prediction is based on what he calls the
lessons of singapore.
he delves into the stoirp of this city state. and thanks to a message from
the prime minister of diswor from 1999. and.
when lee first came to singapore it was famous, mostly as a back water port
known for piracy, smuggling and as a stopping off point for sailors. it was
a city with no significant natural resources other than it's people who
were, of course, hard working and semi-skilled. and what he forged from that
beginning was the fifth richest nation on earth.
in a few decades, that nation was revolutionized through science, education,
and a focus on high tech industries. the workforce is now highly skilled,
building and selling and velings electronics, chemicals, biomedical to the
world.
of course there were bumps in the road. top scientists didn't want to stay
here. there were no cultural amenities to be found. so lee's government
founded fostered the arts, theater, and the scientists stayed and so
singapore today ranks among the top nations for science. so to me what lee
and singapore accomplished wax the power of the internet and why we're here
today.
the internet now is the same tool that connects people to culture, to fellow
researchers, to cutting-edge technologies. but it's not these things in and
of itself but it what it makes possible for the creation, sharing and
adoption.
and the miracle that happened in singapore can happen the rest of the world
over with the help of the internet. and that's why our work here is so
important. because it's poignant for me because as many ever you know this
will be my last meeting in my role as chair. what makes it significant is
the work we are going to achieve in the week ahead.
we are going to be talking about how we can keep working together to make
sure the domain name system is more secure. we're going to be talking about
how we can unleash its potential to connect people in new ways, thanks to
new gtlds. and we're going to continue talking about the internationalized
domain name system and how we can spread that and continue connecting new
languages, new names and new people to the global internet.
we are going to talk about many more things. after all, the internet and the
work we support are enormous.
so let me close by thanking you all for coming here to help us with this
important work, and all that it may bring.
and now, on behalf of the icann board, i welcome you and declare the 41st
international public meeting of icann open.
thank you.
[ applause ]
>>mr. peter dengate thrush: it's now my great pleasure to introduce our
>>official representative from the government of singapore, the minister of
>>state for information and communications, ms. grace fu.
in a speech last near ms. fu said man has always been driven to create
innovation devices to improve his life. we see all around us how man's
creativity has shaped our world. and we have to say having come here,
singapore is the living embodiment of this idea.
we're in one of the few countries in the world with broadband access readily
available to just about any would-be user anywhere in the country. but
that's not the end. it's just the beginning, because singapore's intelligent
nation plan is aiming to go furpt. they are building ultra high speed
pervasive and intelligent infocomm infrastructure. they are dpofering an
info come industry, and an infocomm savvy workforce and a globally trained
manpower.
so singapore's senior minister of state for information communications is
happening under your watch. so join me in welcome being ms. grace fu to the
stage.
ms. fu.
[ applause ]
>>ms. grace fu: welcome.
mr. peter dengate thrush, chairman. icann board, mr. rod beckstrom, ceo of
icann, ladies and gentlemen, it is, indeed, my great pleasure to join all of
you here this morning at the 41st icann public meeting. and singapore is
deeply honored to be able to play host to this annual meeting.
i would especially like to extend a warm welcome to all overseas delegates,
and i hope you will have time to explore a bit more of singapore in your
time here.
and thank you very much for being here, because with your presence, our
official mobile phone penetration rate and broadband penetration rate has
just gone up.
[ laughter ]
>>ms. grace fu: now, hands up to those who do not have more than one laptop
>>with you.
[ laughter ]
>>ms. grace fu: just going around and i am just amazed at the number of
>>mobile gadgets you have.
the rapid einvolvement of the internet has had a great impact on social and
economic involvement worldwide . we are inundated by the sheer amount of
information available online. and a good many of us have been caught up in
the web of social networking.
in this regard, icann plays an important role in bringing together the
global internet community to build understanding and appreciation of
challenges facing the internet, as well as to facilitate challenges to
address. this.
given the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives, we are concerned with
the stability, security and the continued usability.
one of the ways to ensure the security of the internet is through the
management of the domain name system, or dns. i note that dns abuse is one
of the greatest internet security vulnerabilities exploited for cybercrime,
child pornography, identity theft, spam, and phishing. hence, the effective
and secure management of the dns will serve to prevent inaccuracies of
information as well as cybercyber attacks and abuse. in line with icann's
efforts to preserve the operational stability of the internet, singapore
has, through the singapore network information center, or sgnic, signed an
exchange of letters for icann in 2009 to express our commitment to operate
and maintain authoritative name servers for the dot sg domain in a stable
and secure manner.
i note that idn andsga have formed a task force in collaboration with
various stakeholders to look into the protection of our dot sg domain names
in cyberspace as well as to promote the awareness and adoption of domain
name scurpt extensions, or dnssec, through training and information sharing.
at the international level, to scem rate dnssec adoption and provide a
secure facility for the hosting of a critical internet infrastructure,
singapore is also participating in the dnssec signer platform for country
code top level domains. this is a joint initiative by a packet clearinghouse
and icann.
i'm pleased to share that singapore will host the third global site for the
pch at the premises of the national university of singapore.
with the exponential growth of the internet, internet protocol addresses are
also being consumed at the rapid pace with all available ipv4 addresses
expected to be exhausted very soon.
icann and its stakeholders have been monitoring the issue closely.
singapore, in preparation for this, has developed a multi-prong approach to
holistically address the transition from ipv4 to ipv6.
besides working at the government level to incorporate ipv6 requirements in
national projects, such as the next generation nationwide broadband network,
the infocomm development authority of singapore will be providing seed
funding to spur the industry's initial adoption of ipv6 technologies for the
internet-facing services.
ida will also be facilitating technical training to grow the pool of ipv6
competent technical experts to complement the ongoing based training
programs for infocomm professionals.
ida is launching a public consultation today internet service provider to
ensure the seamless transition from ipv4 to ipv6 by users.
in addition, ida will also be putting in place controlled measurements to
ensure that there is no lag in the performance of ipv6 services as compared
to those provided on the current ipv4.
i note that one of inclusiveness is also a key focus of icann's initiatives.
many recognize the internet as a game changer and an important leveler that
allows even the less privileged and those of disabilities to seek equal
opportunities available to the general public.
in singapore, while about 82% of households here are hooked up to a
broadband connection at home, 16% of households still do not have basic
computer access at home.
to this, has a conclusion to bridge this digital divide as part of
intelligent nation in 2015 master plan to build an infocomm savvy nation.
these initiatives include the new pc class program which gives assistants to
students from low-income households the establishment of infocomm
accessibility center where those with disabilities wb empowered relevant
skills to enhance their integration into society and the silver com
initiative which offers affordable infocomm training and curriculum for
senior citizens.
in closing, i'd like to commend icann for organizing this meeting which
serve as important platforms to discuss issues pertaining to the future of
the internet and the sustainability as well as provide opportunities for
members to share experiences and perspectives, to foster a better
understanding of the challenges and opportunities brought forth by the
internet.
i wish everyone here a fruitful discussion ahead.
thank you very much.
[ applause ]
>>mr. rod beckstrom: thank you very much, minister fu.
i'd now like to introduce ms. aileen chia, deputy director expwrn of the
info communications development authority of singapore. she overseas policy
and competition development for the ida, contributing to that organization's
commitment to growing singapore into a dynamic global information hub.
in addition to developing and implementing the regulatory policies that have
created a competitive infocomm sector in singapore, she was an instrumental
part to make singapore one of the first few countries to fully liberate the
postal services sector.
ms. chia holds a bachelor's degree in economics with honors and a master's
of public policy from the national university of singapore.
ms. chia.
[ applause ]
>>ms. aileen chia: mr. peter dengate thrush, chairman of icann board, mr.
>>rod beckstrom, ceo icann, gentlemen, good morning and welcome to
>>singapore.
in the last decade, the world of infocomm has witnessed innovations that
have brought about pervasive and profound changes to our every day lives,
work and play.
internet protocol for ip-based services and applications connecting people,
businesses, and communities are offering diverse suite of information
services, communications, productivity tools, commerce opportunities,
entertainment options and more.
the deployment wireless broadband networks have brought the internet to
everyone. and everywhere. and has accelerated these transformational
changes. the internet today has become an integral part of our lives. many
organizations regard it as a critical infrastructure for the success of the
businesses. and many individuals, like us in this room today, rely on it for
personal communication, information, news, making purchases, and even making
friends. the internet has brought together the traditionally separate worlds
of info come, broadcast, and media and has brought about a new era of
conversions. the success of internet is a large part due to its unique model
of shared global ownership. open standard development and easily accessible
processes for technology and policy development. singapore has always
maintained that internet governance must be inclusive and responsive. and it
is not the sole domain of governments. ida recognizes the benefits of a
partnership approach by governments, industry, and a civil society work
together to shape the development of the internet. broadly speaking,
government's role to be to implement policies that would ensure citizens
success to a safe and secure internet and to create a conducive environment
for service providers and operators to provide innovative services in a
hands on infrastructure. the private sector would be best placeed to deal
with technology, technical and commercial aspects of the internet
architecture. while the civil society organizations and individual
communities would have a role in creating relevant content, community
services that cater to the needs and the situations of different societies
and promoting responsible use of the internet.
over the years icann has played an important role in the development of the
internet. through its multistakeholder approach. it has served as an
important catalyst in allowing active and purposeful participation of all
icann stakeholders and the broader internet community. it has also provided
an effective platform to facilitate community consensus building in the
formulation of many icann policies, initiatives and activities that have
brought about significant progress. the holistic and shared responsibility
approach taken by icann has worked well for the development of the internet
to date. for sustainable development going forward, it is important that we
continue to engage the many voices affecting and being affected by internet.
a clear demonstration of this multi-stakeholder approach is icann's new
generic top-level domain name or new gtld program which hopefully will see
numerous new gtlds like dot shop, dot car, dot movie into the internet. we
have come a long way and i know many of us in this room have worked very
hard and have played an important role in bringing this piece of work to
where it is today.
we're now very close to seeing a new gtld program come into fruition. and i
sincerely thank the collaborative efforts of icann and gnso, gac, ccnso and
alac and other committees who have worked together pain takingly to address
and resolve many complex issues.
[applause]
the many principles and policy discussions that have been developed over the
last three years arising from the development of the new gtld framework can
also serve useful references for country code top-level domain names or
cctld communities to azapt, to fine tune the local policies and make them
more robust and effective. another example of this multistakeholder approach
is the enabling of multilingual tlds. internet today is no longer
monolingual. when it was first commercialized in the early 1990s, the
internet community recognized the need to have multi lingual platform to
cater to the preferences and needs of many peoples around the world. we
applaud both the icann and international community's efforts over the last
10 years to bring the nationalized domain names to fruition. the idn
initiatives and the development work started as early as the 1990s. since
then, the community has worked cooperatively to overcome various challenges.
be they technical, policy, economic, or social ones. it is heartening to
note that the pervasiveness and the perseverance of the pioneers,
researchers, including those from national university of singapore, some of
them may be here today -- has now benefited so many countries in introducing
idns to meet the diverse needs in language and culture on the domestic
front. to date there are more than 30 application requests for idn cctlds
and at least 20 countries have had their idn cctlds delegateed to them. i'm
pleased to highlight that singapore launched industries last week and
registrations for these idns will commence from july onwards. we're
confident that the launch of the industry cctlds will greatly benefit end
users, especially businesses which need to reach out to communities who
predominantly use chinese or tamal as their working language. with the
proliferation of the internet other issues sprang up. net neutrality.
specifically, net neutrality refers to internet or network service providers
or internet services treating all sources of internet content equally. and
they're right for consumer to access content and services on the internet on
a non-discriminatory basis. ida has consulted on this issue and we issued
our decision last week. our approach on this is a balanced one that allows
consumers reasonable access to the internet and at the same time provides
businesses and telecom operators with sufficient commercial flexibility to
differentiate their services. our stance on net neutrality hinges on a
3-pronged approach. the first is to enhance and promote competition amongst
retail service providers in market to allow market forces to drive
operators' behavior. competition can reduce the incentive of operators to
engage in practices that restrict consumer choice in terms of what is
accessible over the internet.
to this end, the singapore generation broadband network oshes ngbn has been
structured in an open access manner with structural and functional
separation requirements to catalyze service competition and development in a
new environment. this is accompanied by regulatory frameworks on
interconnection and competition that checks discriminatory practices. the
second prong is to increase information transparency for consumers to make
informed choices on internet access services. issues like traffic
management, or the discrepancies between actual and advertised internet
access speeds have often been cited as issues that affect the experience.
but it remains to consumers, past few years idn has improssed firments on
providers to publish publish the network practices so consumers know and can
better choose the service providers based on their surfing needs. we're glad
the service providers in singapore are moving in this direction and are
begin to advertise and publish typical access speeds. on our own ida
regularly tests and publishes on our web site the performance of broadband
services in singapore to help consumers navigate the variety of broadband
services and choices in the market. the third prong is to ensure that
consumers enjoy a reasonable quality of access to the internet. in this
respect ida prohibits operators from blocking legitimate internet content.
since 2001, ida has also imposed quality of service requirements on
broadband, fixed line service providers including maximum latency
prescriptions for local and international network access. we believe that
singapore is the first, if not amongst the first regulators that have done
so in the world. while the internet has brought significant benefits to our
economies and our societies it is clear that there are areas of challenge
and finished work which the international community should continue to work
on so that businesses and consumers can continue to benefit from the
internet.
we should continue to develop and review our policies and frameworks to
bring about an internet that would encourage greater innovation, secure use,
and inclusiveness. in closing, i would like to extend my best wishes for
your many discussions taking place this week. and i hope you have an
impactful and fruitful discussion which will impact the workings of the
internet across the world. i wish you success at icann 41st meeting at the
same time have an enjoyable stay in singapore. thank you.
[applause]
>>mr. rod beckstrom: "come, come, whoever you are, just come." these are the
>>words of the beloved 1 threnth century poet rumi. they were shared with us
>>by chief of cabinet to the president of turkey in ankara just a few weeks
>>ago and they echo the philosophy that has brought us together once again:
>>icann's door is open. it is open to everyone, no matter your
>>nationalities, your language, your position, your level of expertise or
>>your opinion. it is open because the unique voice matters to the future of
>>the internet. welcome to icann 41, and to wonderful singapore. it is a
>>living example of the transformative power of technology. in 2011, for the
>>second year in a row, singapore was rated as the second most connected
>>country in the world. thanks to your leadership and others in the
>>government and private sector. icann's first public meeting was held here
>>back in 1999, as peter mentioned. we welcome our special guests today who
>>honor us with their presence. miss grace fu, senior minister of the state
>>for information, communications and the arts and ms. aileen chia, deputy
>>director general of the info communications development authority. they
>>have spearheaded a national effort to ensure singapore's smooth transition
>>to ipv6. the singapore internet exchange is now a major internet hub in
>>the region serving our interconnected world. i would like to recognize
>>asia's internet leaders, including professor tan tin wee of singapore for
>>his pioneering work on internationalized domain names, dr. wu jianping of
>>china, winner of the 2010 jon postel award, professor kilman chon of
>>korea,, james sang for his contributions in advancing the development
>>idns, and professor jun murai of japan's wide network would have done so
>>much to advance the internet. they are a reflection of asia's legacy of
>>achievement in the high tech field. a legacy based on solid engineering
>>excellence, ingenuity, creativity and a lot of hard work. we're also
>>deeply grateful to leong kung thai, the infocomm development authority of
>>singapore and the singapore network information centre for their
>>generosity and the unparalleled hospitality in hosting this meeting and
>>for the attention they have paid to every detail to ensure the success of
>>this key event in icann's history. and i ask you have you ever had such
>>great hotel food before?
it's amazing. as we gather here, we face a number of important issues. a
decision is expected shortly on new generic top-level domains.
recommendations of the accountability and transparency review team,
including implementation plans are due for action by the board of directors.
and a new chair -- i know there's some interest in that. and a new chair and
vice chair of the board will also be electedthis week. this is a truly
significant moment in icann's history. according to a recent study by
mckinsey global institute, the internet contributed about $1.7 trillion to
global gross domestic product in twine and the internet contributes about
3.4% of global gdp according to the study. in more mature economies, 21% of
all economic growth -- 21%!
>> -- over the last five years can be attributed to the internet. at a time
>> -- when world needs more jobs, our efforts to open up and advance the
>> -- internet and the dns can be a contributing factor. for every job lost
>> -- through technological advances, 2.6 are created, according to the
>> -- study. that's a good ratio. this increase in employment and the
>> -- resulting productivity boost have led to higher living standards and
>> -- greater wealth worldwide.
they have also become key factors in international efforts to alleviate
poverty and in developing nations and this is a potent argument for keeping
the internet open and unified as we do. the internet advances economies
through innovation, it provides a global launch pad for ideas that will
generate tomorrow's great economic opportunities. it empowers creative
thought andry-taking. and never, never in the history of mankind, has there
been a more fertile field for innovation to grow in. here in asian you have
much to be proud of. south korea and japan enjoy the fastest broadband
access speeds in the world. reportedly far surpassing the united states and
many european countries. in japan the average access speed for broadband is
84 mega bits per second. in the united states 17. asia has 42% of world's
internet users, more than 800 million people. 400 million in china alone. it
has grown, the user population has grown by more than 600% since the year
2000. according to cisco, global ip traffic will increase 4 fold by 2015 and
42% of that will be here in asia. china alone is expected to 670 million
users by 2015.
the internet's mega economic impact and its potential for greater growth and
influence make icann -- and our role collectively more important. our
economic future depends on major tan a stable domain name system in order to
provide the foundation for continued communication and innovation. icann
must part of the dialogue to ensure that this role is understood and to
advance our common goal of a secure, stable, and unified global internet.
a key element of that dialogue is the internet governance forum. through the
dedicated work of many stakeholders, the igf's mandate has been extended for
five years thanks to the efforts of many you. at the same time the un called
for changes that could profoundly alter the igf's form and function.
icann is contributing to their development through the commission on science
and technology for development and we look forward to participating in
future igfs including in lovely nairobi kenya this september. engagement
with governments is also fundamental to icann's role and to the very future
of the internet. in representing governments at icann, the governmental
advisory committee or gac continues its growth indicating that governments
are increasing their participation in our work. the gac's significant role
in icann, of course, complements many other groups. this constructive
international engagement was well-demonstrated in the board-gac
consultations in brussels and in sorting through 80 complex and challenging
issues related to new gtlds. it demonstrates that once again the multi take
holder model is alive and working. and now for today's big news. every icann
public meetingis important. but this meetingis particularly important for an
obvious reason. this morning, the board of directors will consider whether
to approve a program to insure deut new generic top-level domains into the
dns. it has been a -- do i need to tell you?
-- a long, long long, hard road. but we are here. almost six years after the
-- formal policy development process began, we're facing a decision today on
-- whether to move ahead with one of the most significant changes in the
-- history of the internet and the dance. a lot of people thought we would
-- never get here. if the board votes to approve the new gtld program, the
-- name space of the internet could expand dramatically with the promise of
-- significant economic impact. many organizations with an online presence
-- will be affected in some way. this represents great opportunity as well
-- as some risk that we must and will manage. new businesses are already
-- poised to move forward. consulting businesses to advise applicants have
-- sprung up. over 120 organizations have publicly said they intend to apply
-- and declared applications and more than 90 have ak sieve web sites
-- marketing their proposed new concepts and ideas. this is innovation at
-- its best. they are proposing all types of new gtlds,, city names,
-- community ideas, branding opportunities for companies and products, igos
-- and others. this demonstrates the rich platform for innovation that new
-- gtlds represent. others are preparing to take advantage of the up coming
-- change even if they do not intend to apply for tlds themselves.
-- development of the new gtld program continues to be conducted in a highly
-- transparent, inclusive and comprehensive fashion and this has continued
-- here over the last several days. the community has contributed to
-- tremendous lengths to address the concerns of all interested parties and
-- to seek balance among them.
some claim that icann stands to profit from this new program. this is not
true. the program will be run on a cost recovery basis as designed by you,
the community, and as approved by the icann board. if approved by the icann
board.
as ceo, i have neither advocated nor opposed this program. now that this
phase has been completed, i will be raising my hand to vote. this was a
strategic decision i made when i came to icann to remain neutral. i saw my
role as fostering the environment, the processes, the skills and the
practices to develop the program's framework successfully. when the icann
community develops and implements policy, everyone gets a say and the close
cooperation among the community, save, and board was particularly beneficial
in the development of the applicant guidebook. this careful and extensive
consultative process, especially on detailed matters of such consequence,
takes time, but the result reflects a well-considered community consensus.
we have reached the end of the policy and implementation planning phases of
new gtlds. now the real hard work begins: program launch and execution.
application processing will proceed according to our policies, the applicant
guidebook and icann's bylaws. the ultimate decision, following staff
processes and independent panel findings comes when the board chooses
whether or not to delegate a string into the root. we have an obligation to
represent the global public interest in every aspect of this policy
development, implementation, and execution. but each of these phases is
distinctly different. and icann and this community must acknowledge that
once the decision is made to move forward with this implementation, if it
occurs toward, one chapter has closed and another begins.
the open-door process of private industry and other parties promoting
specific outcomes, which contributed so richly to the policy development
process, must now come to a close. application processing must be neutral
and objective and be seen as such. with new and clean lines of separation
among community, applicants, board, and staff on all issues related to
applications. as application root zone evaluated we must maintain the
integrity and transparency of the process so that all stakeholders can have
confidence in this program.
icann has a clear confidentiality policies and under my leadership, we will
continue to enforce them. i think we can all feel proud of this community's
achievements in developing this incredible innovation and in bringing this
innovation and this issue to a conclusion. huge technical and political
challenges have been overcome through inclusion, cooperation, diplomacy,
compromise, and a lot of hard work by many, many individuals. a lot of them
in this room. we thank you.
no one ever thought it would take this long, but the commitment -- and some
might even say extreme endurance -- needed to bring so many conflicting
interests into balance to produce a credible and well-grounded program has
never wavered. it reflects the very best of the multistakeholder model and
this community at work. internationalized domain names make it possible to
access the internet 234 scripts other than latin-based characters and their
successful adoption has been one of icann community's greatest successes,
the new gald program will enable additional idns. one pending issue the
potential delegation of variant top-level domains, some scripts -- chinese,
for example -- exist in multiple forms with several ways to represent the
same concept. idn variants would allow their use at the top level. on
saturday the community started work on case studies of variants in arabic,
chinese, cyrillic, devanagari, greek, and latin. these community-led teams
plan to finish their report to the board by the end of this year.
you may recall that at the silicon valley meeting i called for the widest
possible range of voices to respond to the u.s. department of commerce's
notice of inquiry on the iana functions. no matter what your view. in
keeping with the multistakeholder model, it's important that everybody be
heard.
it was wonderful to see so many people, organizations and countries coming
forward.
more than 80 organizations and individuals offered their views on these
important issues. the comments indicate strong percent, over 80% for icann's
performance of the iana functions and for keeping those functions together.
the call for greater transparency and greater multistakeholder involvement
in and oversight of the iana functions was also strongly supported.
further evidence of support comes from the ietf, the internet architecture
board, the number resource organization. at their request we have begun
discussions about icann managing and operating the single global trust
anchor for internet number resource certification.
we applaud their important efforts.
as many of you are no doubt aware, the department of commerce has asked for
additional comment on enhancing the iana functions. this further notice of
inquiry seeks input on more detailed proposed changes to the iana contract.
again, i urge all of you and everyone in the community, each one of you, to
please submit your views, no matter what they are, on how you think iana
function should evolve in this component of the internet. again, i urge you
to join us and engaging in the dialogue. it's imperative that the
performance of the iana functions receives the support of the global
internet community and we thank the ntia for providing the community with
multiple opportunities to provide open and trance parents input. icann
continues to implement the recommendations on the accountability and
transparency review team. we created a team of executives to focus on this
area to ensure that adequate resources were dedicated and that the work got
done we have proposeed that all 27 recommendations, all 27, be adopted. the
board must take action by the end of june and allocate the necessary
resources. we have been conducting the analysis, listening to the community
input and developing implementation plans for board consideration. many
operational improvements have already been implemented, as you have seen.
irk has a strong foundation of accountability and transparency-related
achievements and we will continue to build upon this. the internet has
tremendous capacity to improve lives through greater economic growth, as we
discussed. but its capacity for good also has a shadow: the capacity for bad
and harm. the new gtld program includes many new protections for rights
holders and measures to mitigate malicious conduct. but the work does not
stop there. the gnso is reviewing concrete recommendations to address domain
name registration abuse in gtlds including cybersquatting, malicious use of
domain names, fake renewal notice dz, uniformity of contracts who is access
problems among other issues. the community is developing a discussion paper
on non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address
these matters and a workshop is being held here in singapore. whois data
includes registered domain names, registrant contracts and other critical
information. the gnso council is working with icann's policy staff to
conduct choice studies to provide a more fastball ubility data-driven
foundation for future policy making. one is very viewing previous gnso whois
policy issues and current and potential technical requirements. a strong
whoiz database is a priority as icann increases its collaboration and
engagement with law enforcement. law enforcement has a key role to play in
our multistakeholder community and interpol is an important international
leader in this field. i was privileged to visit interpol headquarters in
lyon, france, last month where i met with select general ron noble to
explore avenues for closer clan ration on internet security. this was the
first high level meeting between icann and interpol. we were pleased to
learn of their interest in joining the gac as an observer. the icann
community is also part of a wide-ranking discussion on the registrar
accreditation agreement to better address the concerns of security and law
enforcement communities, enhance protections for registrants and provide
better compliance tools. i hope that more progress on these matters can be
made this week. this meeting will also bring together a broad spectrum of
community experts on dns security and stability, a full day working session
on the aoc ssr review family, workshops on the dnssec implementation and
technical sessions with the cctld community. as always, icann continues to
face a massive global agenda. we must have the leadership, professional
skills, and experience to meet these increasing demands. and while we have
made solid progress, the challenges continue to grow and we must redouble or
efforts.
these past two years have been a period of significant transition for
icann's staff. many changes have been made to ensure that we continue to
serve this community and public interest to the highest professional
standards. i was explicitly given this challenge when i was hired.
our need for different leadership and processes does not diminish the
enormous contributions of previous staff members, who have given so much to
this organization and community. many of whom have moved on to other
organizations where they continue to thrive and contribute to the icann
community from a different perspective. together we have a true success
story to tell. we are building a world-class organization. we have upgraded
policy development support, created a communications department, and
enhanced iana processing and enhanced its resiliency and we strengthened the
security team and also contractual compliance. the changes to date have also
produced a mature and cohesive senior management team that functions at a
very high level of quality, productivity and teamwork and continuance to
grow in its scope and abilities. simply put, we have a great executive
management team.
we continue to bring in many individuals with diverse international
backgrounds. this helps to globalize our organization and extend our
language skills to address more communities.
we're also building new tools our our staff can do their jobs more
effectively. a new financial system, the tld processing -- application
processing system, and a new and more effective internet that replace he
previous outdated systems.
all of this has been achieved while keeping turnover well below industry
norms.
a normal rate of turnover in the high tech and nonprofit sector, as you know
because many of you function in it, is 20 to 25% a year.
despite material upgrades in numerous key positions, icann's turnover in
2010 was only 11.62%. 11.62.
and in 2011, overall icann turnover is tracking at an annualized rate under
13%. still below average.
but it is important to note that turnover is likely if not certain to
increase if new gtlds are approved today. we will be substantially
augmenting and improving the new gtld program office. and we could see a
rise in departures as our highly qualified staff are recruths crutd by other
organizations, including some in this room, for their unique experience in
this emerging area.
this would be a solid endorsement of our staff. not unexpectedly, the first
such resignation has already occurred.
kin icann's ethics policies need to be strengthened.
the past two dwrers years have been a tremendously rewarding period in my
professional life. what we have all achieved together in only two years is
truly remarkable.
if new gtlds are approved, it will be our fourth major achievement of global
significance since my arrival just two years ago.
together we completed the affirmation of commitments. we then completed idns
and the fast-track program not long after that. and then dnssec was
successfully launched last year and has now been rolled out around the
world.
everyone in this community can be proud of these accomplishments, on time
and in a high-quality manner.
and of course we have seen a significant strength of the multistakeholder
model through enhanced relationships around the world.
we did all of this while ensuring 100 percent accuracy in iana delegations
and redelegations, and maintaining the stability of the internet's root.
which is job number one.
but our work is not done. i will not stand here and pretend that any of this
has been easy. it has not been easy. or that there have not been naysayers.
there are.
i am proud to have led this organization through such a productive period
under such enormous pressures and change.
peter dengate thrush and i are very different people. we have different
talents, different work styles, different backgrounds and interests. but
together, we forge an extremely productive relationship that has always been
focused on performance, delivering quality and lifting this organization.
peter sharpened the focus on the board and i did it with the staff. we
worked together to ensure the public interest is always well served.
the power and stability of this relationship will be gone on friday as peter
completes his term as chair of the board quite successfully.
it has been a great platform for board, staff, and community success. and,
peter, i'm thankful to you for everything you have contributed.
i look forward to building that kind of relationship with the new chair and
vice chair.
today we face a fateful decision for icann. our reputation and the future of
the multistakeholder ecosystem depend on how well we respond.
and i'm confident that the new board will rise to this challenge.
the new gtld program will be a crucial test of our ability to execute and
stay focused on what matters, not on the noise that can distract us all.
we are dedicated to delivering this program, and all of our responsibilities
to the highest possible standard, and we will.
i would like to thank icann's incredibly dedicated staff who have worked so
hard and with such professionalism to bring this moment.
the new gtld program may be icann's most important achievement yet. for the
community, the board, and the staff, for everyone who has worked so hard to
make this happen, this is an historic moment, the moment that we together
can and will make history.
thank you very much.
[ applause ]
>>mr. rod beckstrom: this closes the morning session, and we will meet again
>>this room at 11:00 a.m, in about 50 minutes, for the icann board meeting
>>where we will consider certain issues, including new gtlds.
thank you.
[ applause ]
>> ladies and gentlemen, don't forget that this evening we have a reception
>> in this very room, and it's a farewell and thank you to our chairman.
so let's make sure we all return this evening.
thank you.
test test test test.
icann - singapore.
board session - new gtld program.
20 june 2011.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
>> ladies and gentlemen, we will be beginning this session in approximately
>> two minutes. if you would please turn off all electronic devices, put
>> them on silence, we would appreciate it tremendously.
two minutes, and our program will begin.
thank you.
[ applause ]
>>peter dengate thrush: good morning, again, ladies and gentlemen.
thank you for coming back for this special session of the board scheduled as
you will recall in san francisco for work in relation to the new gtld
program.
many of you will have been following the milestone steps we set out in that
resolution, and i'm dilated to report we have met every one of them. and i
want to thank the staff for an extraordinary effort in making sure the board
was prepared for this meeting and there was assistance provided along the
way for the gac and thank the board for the incredible effort that went into
helping prepare, receive, digest those materials and for the gac in prapting
as actively and as thoroughly, diligently as they have done in relation to
all of those meetings.
in addition to the public meetings in brussels and san francisco, we have
had weekly calls, and the gac chair has participated in most of those. we
have had conversations with the gac topic leads, and in general the entire
effort has been exemplary. so thank you everybody associated with this
effort.
what we have come to, thens a series of resolutions in relation to the new
gtld program. and i'd like to begin first of all just by confirming to the
community that, as with all of these processes, there has been a strict
adherence to the principles of conflict of interest as set out in our
conflict-of-interest policy.
and in accordance with that policy, i'm now going to ask the voting members
of the board to declare whether or not they have a conflict, and if so,
whether they intend to vote.
and i'll begin, and i will declare that i have no conflict, and that i
intend to vote.
rod.
>>rod beckstrom: i have no conflict, and i intend to vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: cherine.
>>cherine chalaby: i have no conflict and i intend to vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: intertd bertrand.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: i have no conflict and i intend to vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: katim.
>>katim touray: i have no conflict and i intend to vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: george.
>>george sadowsky: jof any conflict and i intend to vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: sÉbastien.
>>sÉbastien bachollet: the same.
>>peter dengate thrush: rita.
>>rita rodin johnston: i do not have a conflict and i am very excited to
>>vote.
[ laughter ]
[ applause ]
>>peter dengate thrush: rita, we are going to miss your passion about such
>>things.
skipping, for those that aren't aware, there are also members of the board
who are liaisons from the various technical community who don't vote. during
the course of the proceedings, they have also been bound by and followed the
conflict-of-interest process. but at this stage, as it's a matter of voting
we will only polling the voting members. so we are go past the three liaison
members and go to ramaraj.
>>ramaraj: no conflict. i will vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: steve crocker.
>>steve crocker: no conflict. i will vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: mike silber.
>>mike silber: no conflict and i am vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: erika.
>>erika mann: no conflict and i will vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you. ray.
>>ray plzak: i have no conflicts. i will vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: kuo-wei.
>>kuo-wei wu: no conflict. i can vote.
>>peter dengate thrush: bruce.
>>bruce tonkin: i will abstain from voting. this may surprise people because
>>i have worked very hard as a member of the community to find solutions to
>>various problems that have consensus support in the icann community. i
>>have not involved myself in discussions on the board on topics such as
>>vertical integration praft actual decision to launch the program and the
>>date of launching the program would have an impact on my employer,
>>melbourne i.t., which both a gtld and cctld accredited registrar, and
>>provides a range of services to corporations considering applying for new
>>gtlds.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, bruce. that position is understood.
now, there's a series of resolutions in relation to this. the first one is
entitled approval of the new gtld program. and i'll ask rita rodin johnston
as the gnso appointed representative, recalling it was the gnso in 2007 that
sent this to the board, it seems appropriate to ask the gnso appointed
representative.
rita.
>>rita rodin johnston: thank you, peter.
whereas on the 20th of november 2005, the gnso council voted unanimously to
initiate a policy --
>>peter dengate thrush: sorry, rita, just to interrupt, we seem to have
>>stopped scribing. lealts just wait and make sure we're describing.
>>rod beckstrom: they are scribing.
>>peter dengate thrush: so just to clarify, the scribes are scribing, we are
>>just not having it displayed.
>> that's correct. it's a network -- we are working on it.
>>peter dengate thrush: on ts basis we are being scribed, please carry on.
>>rita rodin johnston: more delays.
[ laughter ]
>>rita rodin johnston: whereas on the 20th of november, 2005, the gnso
>>council voted unanimously to initiate a policy development process on the
>>introduction of new gtlds.
whereas the gnso committee on the introduction of new gtlds addressed a
range of difficult technical, operational, legal, economic, and point of
impact questions, and sphim tatd widespread participation and public comment
throughout the policy development process.
whereas, on the 6th of december -- of september, 2007, the gnso council
approved by a supermajority vote a motion supporting the 19 recommendations
as a whole as set out in the final report of the icann generic names
supporting organization on the introduction of new generic top-level domains
going forward to the icann board.
whereas, the board instructed staff to review the gnso recommendations and
determine whether they were capable of implementation, and staff engaged
international technical, operational, and legal expertise to support the
implementation of the policy recommendations and developed implementation
plans for the gnso's policy recommendations.
whereas, on the 26th of june 2008, the board adopted the gnso policy
recommendations for the introduction of new gtlds and directed staff to
further develop and complete its detailed implementation plan, continue
communication with the community on such work, and provide the board with a
final version of the implementation proposals for the board and community to
approve before the launching of the new gtld application process.
with whereas staff has made implementation details publicly available in the
form of drafts of the gtld ag and supporting materials for public discussion
and comment.
whereas the first draft of the ag was published on the 23rd of october,
2008, and the guidebook has undergone continued substantial revisions based
on stakeholder input on multiple drafts.
ag was advisory group what are whereas the board has conducted governmental
advisory committee including in brussels in levin, in san francisco in march
2011, by telephone in may 2011, and in dispor singapore on the 19th of june
2011, resulting in substantial agreement on a wide range of issues noted by
the gac. and the board has directed revisions to the applicant guidebook to
reflect such agreement.
whereas icann received letters from the united states department of commerce
and the european commission addressing the issue of registry/registrar cross
ownership, and the board considered the concerns expressed therein.
the board agrees that the potential abuse of significant market power is a
serious concern, and discussions with competition authorities will continue.
whereas icann has consulted with the gac to fund mutually acceptable
solutions on areas where the implementation of policy is not consistent with
gac advice, and, where necessary, has identified its reasons for not
incorporating the advice in particular areas as required by the bylaws.
whereas the icann community has dedicated countless hours to the review and
consideration of numerous implementation issues, bip the submission of
public comments, participation in working groups, and other consultations.
whereas the board has listened to the input that has been provided by the
community, cluck the supporting organizations and advisory committees,
throughout the implementation process.
whereas careful analysis of the obligations under the affirmation of
commitments and the steps taken throughout the implementation process
indicates that icann has fulfilled the commitments detailed in the
affirmation.
whereas the applicant guidebook posted on the 30th of may 2011 includes
updates resulting from public comment and from recent gac advice.
whereas the draft new gtlds communications plan forms the basis of the
global outreach and education activities that will be conducted leading up
to and during the execution of the program in each of icann's geographic
regions.
whereas the draft fy operating plan and budget includes a new gtld launch
scenario and the board is prepared to approve the expenditures in the draft
fy budget.
whereas important to ensuring an inclusive and diverse program and will work
to implement a model for providing support for potential applicants from
countries.
whereas the board's risk committee has reviewed a comprehensive risk
assessment associated with implementing the new gtld program, has refined
the strategies for identifying the mitigated risk and will review
contingencies as the program moves towards launch.
whereas the board has reviewed the current status and plans for operational
readiness and program management within icann.
it is resolved, the board authorizes the president and ceo to implement the
new gtld program, which includes the following elements.
1, the 30th of may 2011 version of the applicant guidebook, subject to the
revisions agreed to with the gac on the 19th-of-june 2011, including, remove
references indicating that future early warnings or advice must contain
particular information or take specified forms.
b, incorporation of text concerning protection for specified requested red
cross and iocc names for the top level only until develop policy advice
based on the global public interest.
and c, modification of the loser pays provision in the urs to apply to
complaints involving 15, instead of 26, or more domain names with the same
registrant.
the board authorizes staff to make furpt updates and changes to the
applicant guidebook as necessary and appropriate, including as the possible
result of new technical standards, reference documents, or policies that
might be adopted during the course of the application process, and to
prominently publish notice of such changes.
2, the draft new gtld communications plan as posted at, and there's a link,
as may be revised and elaborated as necessary and appropriate.
3, operational readiness activities to enable the opening of the application
process.
4, a program to ensure support for applicants from developing countries,
with a form, structure, and processes to be determined by the board in
consultation with stakeholders, including,(a) consideration of the gac
recommendation for a fee waiver corresponding to 76% of the $185us dollar
evaluation fee.
(b), consideration of the alac and gnso as chartering organizations of the
joint applicant support working group.(c) designation of a budget of up to
$$2.for seed funding and creating opportunities for other parties to provide
matching funds. and(d) the review of the additional community feedback,
advice from the alac, and recommendations from the gnso following the
receipt of the final report from the jas working group, which was requested
in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for the board's
consideration at its october 2011 meeting in dakar, senegal, with the goal
of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the opening
of the application wointd.
5, a process for handling requests for removal of cross-ownership
restrictions on operators of existing gtlds who want to participate in the
new gtld program, based on the "process for handling requests for removal of
cross-ownership restrictions for existing gtlds," as modified in response to
comment, consideration of modification of existing agreements to allow
cross-ownership with respect to the operation of existing gtlds is deferred
pending further discussions, including with competition authorities.
6, the expenditures related to the new gtld program as detailed in section 7
of the draft fy12 operating plan and budget.
and finally, 7, the timetable as set forth in the attached graphic, which
there should be a link, elements of which include the new gtld application
window opening on the 12th of january 2012, and closing on the 12th of april
2012, with the new gtld communications plan beginning immediately.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, rita.
is there a seconder for that resolution? i see ray plzak.
before i put that resolution, then, is there any comment from any board
members.
cherine.
>>cherine chalaby: thank you, rita. today, many people may think we have
>>reached the end of the journey for the new gtld program.
the board would say no. it is only the end of the beginning.
the hard and difficult work is yet to come.
icann must execute with excellence a program of such scale and importance.
the icann board understands that there will be continuing challenges ahead,
and looks forward to a long-term interaction with the gac and the community
for the mutual benefit of all.
yes, the multistakeholder model is alive and working. but the board however
understand and the model is not set in stone and is not complete. the model
must continue to evolve and we must continue to improve.
in particular, the board recognizes that it can do more in fostering better
consensus in the community and in reaching closure.
we will continue to work hard at building trust, at better explaining our
rationale, and in developing more mature and responsible relationships with
all members of the community.
on that basis, i support the launch of this exciting and innovative program
which will have a major impact on the global internet community.
thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thanks, cherine. is there anyone else who wishes to
>>speak to this resolution?
george.
>>george sadowsky: thank you, peter.
this is one of the most important votes in which i will participate within
icann. i have agonized over it, and i finally decided to vote against the
resolution. the reasons are complex and ner not obvious and i want to
provide a more they are row explanation.
this is a vote regarding expansion of the gtld space but it's also a vote
that will fundamentally affect two of icann's most important relationships.
the first relationship is irn ternl, that is the relationship between the
board and parts of the icann community with the gac, which, lest we forget,
is also a part of the icann community.
the second relationship is external, and it is the relationship between
icann and the large mass of people in the developing world, plus many who
are disadvantaged in special ways in other parts of the world, with respect
to internet access and use.
i don't take comfort in opposing this resolution. legitimate demand for new
generic top-level domains clearly exists. satisfying this demand is critical
for idn gtlds. and they are absolutely essential for many script and
language communities.
these idn gtlds have long been held hostage to the overall gtld policy
process, with the only possible alternatives being the newly established idn
cctlds, which may or may not be available to individuals in businesses and
which may have undesirable properties regarding privacy of information.
however, it's clear that there are still some significant and strongly felt
differences of opinion between the content of the resolution and the views
of the gac and some of its members.
in the last months, the board/gac relationship has been tested by many
differences, and there has been progress in resolving many of these, some by
compromise and others by the development of better communication and better
understanding of common goals and what consists of mutually acceptable
solutions. however, this process is not sufficiently complete, and there is
more work to be done, including making significant improvements in our
understanding of each other's culture, and making our communication patterns
more effective.
advancing this agenda should not be based on the results of a residual
zero-sum game.
i strongly favor the creation of new gtlds, but i want to see this process
concluded satisfactorily. we need to launch this program in the right way on
the basis of strong and shared agreement among the community, but we are not
yet there in my opinion.
while i reject this motion, i would welcome a vote in favor of launching a
new gtld program several months from now, but only when our differences are
largely resolved.
the second relationship involved in this vote, the relationship mostly with
the developing world, is, i believe, as important as the new gtld decision.
even though it rates only a passing mention in the resolution, and i think a
line or maybe a paragraph in the guidebook.
take out last period.
long after our current fascination with our current creation new gtlds has
diminished, we will be increasingly involved for a long time with what might
best be called in this context the rest of the world. that is the class of
people mostly in developing countries who do not have adequate or usable
internet capabilities by virtue of shortcomings in dns capabilities. it's
very important to get this relationship started on the right track.
i don't doubt the sincerity or the motivations of those both in the jas and
in the gac who argued for subsidizization and assistance to so-called needy
applicants. however i believe we can and should do significantly berpt and
the current proposal is not, in my opinion, an effective way to assist these
populations in a manner consistent with the mandate of icann. it's my sense
that the focus of this resolution which was limited to assistance of various
kinds with regard to applying for new gtlds is an inadequate scope and
advances our relationship on the wrong basis.
let me explain and i will do so by making two observations followed by some
reasons why i believe this is so.
the first observation is that i strongly favor planning for and providing
assistance to the developing world. i have personally assisted in more than
50 developing countries, about 20 in africa and i have spent somewhere
between a third and a half of a long professional life working with them, in
them and on their behalf. i have seen more than my share of the effects of
hunger, disease, lack of education, i will literacy and poverty. people in
these countries need all kinds of help and we should provide assistance that
helps them most, consistent with our strength, our resources, and most
important, within the scope of our mandate.
secondly, i'm painfully aware of the optics of this vengs intervention. i'm
from the north and i am sitting next to my friend and colleague katim touray
who is from the south, and i am in effect saying that what he is
passionately arguing for is not best for him. this goes counter to the
conventional wisdom that southerners understand their problems and issues
better than northerners and that assistance provided to them should
primarily enable them to address those problems themselves. to this i would
say i hope we can in this discussion rise above political correctness and
opinions of northerners regarding political correctness are sometimes
correct and opinions of southerners are not always the most effective.
now i would like to provide reasons why this initiative, however well
meaning, does not serve its beneficiaries or icann effectively or well.
the proposal is based largely, but not totally, on making funds available.
casting icann in the principal role of funder or banker -- that's not the
only role, but that's the principal role. given what icann could provide in
terms of assistance, do we want the developing world to see us largely as a
source of funds? if they do then demand for assistance is likely to be high
and will inexorably grow. once a funder we will always be seen as a funder.
growth will be based more upon this perception than anyplace other.
the proposal ignores the opportunity cost of directing the resources
elsewhere. assuming the amount of $2 for such a program, that's the net
figure that's been mentioned from time to time, wo one could probably assist
from 20 to 40 so-called needy applicants.
one could equally well provide 1,000 additional fellowships to icann
meetings. or provide 100 to hundred in the field in developing countries on
access and stability. or loam registrars in developing worlds tor conduct
nult multiple other combinations of goods and services. $2 million can be a
lot of money if it's used well.
so which of these alternatives or which mix of those alternatives is most
effective for achieving our goals in the developing world? i don't know. and
i would argue that collectively we don't know.
and the reason we don't know is that we never asked the question.
instead, we asked the wrong question, which was in effect, how can we get
money to propagate new gtlds about which we're really enthusiastic into the
developing world.
this is a tool-based approach, not a goal-based approach.
another problem is posed by the insistence that such an initiative be
included in the first round of applications so that, as i understand it, i'm
not sure of this but i think i understand it, needy applicants somehow have
equal access to good names.
in doing so, it's my feeling that the proposal implicitly lack of faith in
the private sector led orientation of the program. in my opinion what
matters is that good names become available for consumers and whether a
needy applicant or a nonneedy applicant offers the name should not really be
an issue. why should subsidies be granted when there is no evidence to
indicate whether or where they are needed to provide consumer choice. if the
market doesn't provide them in the first round then we do have the option to
adopt in the future a more sharply -- set of more sharply set of remedial
measures based upon actual experience.
i believe it is not icann's job to influence the choice of winners and
losers in such competitions, but that is implicitly what we will be doing.
the selection of who is truly needy, whether decided internally or by an
external body, nevertheless guided by icann's terms of reference, is fraught
with danger, is political sensitive and has nothing to do with icann's
technical mandate. it is outside the scope of icann's mission, whether
delegated or done internally.
i would like to suggest an alternative. recognizing that we do have a
responsibility for helping the developing world, let's make a serious effort
to determine what reasonable goals for icann might be in this space, given
icann's substantial wealth of talent and experience and potential financial
resources.
the goals are likely to be met by a combination of products and services,
and one that may well vary by geography and by time.
i don't believe that the icann community alone can define such a program
effectively. we don't have the combined skill set or depth of experience. so
let's figure out who our most effective partners would be. let's then move
promptly to execute so we can achieve these goals and meet our obligations
to the global public interest in a manner consistent with and within our
organizational mandate.
i would be enthusiastic about affiliating with such an alternative and about
voting for a resolution that resolves to create it, in contrast the approach
contained in the current resolution offers a poor and misdirected substitute
and should be rejected.
thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, george.
i have erika next.
erika.
>>erika mann: thank you so much, peter.
my experience from the -- my 15 years experience from the political world
and all this being international -- engaged in international fora and
international agreements, i think it is actually time to take a decision.
and my personal opinion being a relatively new member on the boards that
actually the multistakeholder model is working pretty well.
there is, of course, never a guarantee that one can find a compromise in
such a way that everyone, hundred percent, will agree on every decision that
will be taken. but that's part of the multistakeholder mom that is embedded
into the philosophy of it.
but that's the beauty of it, because if you look at it, how otherwise one
could negotiate something, it is much more complex. if you look into all of
the international agreements, the way they are negotiated, it takes as long,
if not even longer, than the time it took for us to find a decision, and it
is not uniform as well.
so there is no guarantee if one would look into another solution of finding
solution that the outcome would be more harmonious.
so my understanding is that we have find the best solution, the optimum
solution possible.
there is always the need to improve. not in end because of the decision
taken today . improvement is always needed but this is true because of the
way the multistakeholder model and icann is designed, but that's true for
all other way international operate -- international organizations negotiate
their agreement.
so i am confident that the way we have drafted the resolution is the optimum
what we can reach, and i will support it.
i am deeply convinced that it will enhance competition, that it will bring
more innovation into the ecosystem, and that it will help many new business
to involve. and i am deeply convinced as well that for the developing world,
the seed fund which we give, and it's a seed fund which hopefully will be
matched by other donors, and will actually help developing countries -- or
not developing countries, but organization and companies from developing
countries to find their way and their access into this ecosystem.
i think it's time for reality check. one can continue forever to negotiate,
and i have deep respect for all the governments and for all the stakeholders
involved. but particular, the gac. i know how hard they have worked, and i
know how deeply governments must stay committed to their national regulatory
environment. but i'm deeply convinced as well that the internet, it's a
global, as we always say, environment, it's an international environment,
which automatically means that compromise is needed on this level.
so my support for this resolution is there.
thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, erika.
i have mike silber next.
mike.
>>mike silber: thank you, peter.
i've made a decision to abstain on this vote, and i wanted to make a
statement.
my decision to abstain on this resolution has taken a great deal of thought
and internal debate. i am aware, as one of my colleagues will no doult
shortly point out -- thank you, ray -- that in terms of the voting
procedures in the icann bylaws that my abstention amounts to a vote in the
negative. at the same time i want to be clear that that i am no, no way
opposed to the idea of new gtlds or their introduction. instead it is the
process that has led to today's vote. in fact, i am a firm believer that the
introduction of new gtlds will enhance competition, innovation and consumer
choice. however, a belief is in my view scant grounds for executing my
fiduciary duty especially when the affirmation of commitments calls for a
bottom-up policy model for dns team coordination that acts for the benefit
of global internet users and further calls for fact-based point of impact
development, cross-community deliberations and responsive consultation
procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions,
including how comments have influenced the development of policy
considerations, and particularly requires that icann will ensure that as it
contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that
are involved, including competition, consumer protections, security,
stability, and resist yens is i, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty
concerns and rights protections will be adequately addressed prior to the
board and government advisory committee on sunday 19 june, 2011, i'm of the
view that the the process is close to finality but not yet there. there are
still issues open that prevent me from con cluing that issues have been
adequately addressed from this vote. heading towards midnight and still
working on substantive issues, i could not conclude that policy was being
developed based on facts and on a bottom-up basis. in particular it is my
view that all aspects of the competition implications of the manner of the
introduction of new gtld and in particular the issue of separation between
registries and registrars and on the impact of both existing and new
registries and registrars has not been comprehensively resolved. in addition
i have graph concerns regarding how the new gtld program affects the least
developing country, i greatly appreciate the hard work and effort that have
been done since the issue started receiving the attention it deserves.
however, i cannot agree that providing assistance actually dresses the needs
of communities in the least developed economies. i refer in particular to
the work done by several colleagues in the cctld community. using surplus
funds generate bid providing domain names to then support the development of
technology, policy and community involvement rather than handing out a few
free or price reduced domain names. while new gtlds could be useful to many
communities including in the least developed economies, believe that we have
fulfilled our responsibilities to assist such communities by subsidizing a
new new gtlds is in my view naive. i must indicate a great deal of sympathy
with my colleagues on the gac and their frustration regarding this and a
perceived lack of willingness on the part rd board to receive consultation,
i do however, believe that many issues raised in that engagement were the
result of communities forum shopping and having not achieved the desired
result in one place lobbying their governments to raise it in another.
however, that is the result of the multi-stakeholder model and whether
desirable or not, it is a consequence with which we must deal to obtain all
the other benefits that multi-stakeholder engagement brings. i would,
however, encourage the gac to be more responsive as a result of these
interactions and not to retreat, to raise issues earlier if possible and to
consider how best to respond to the fast paced and fluid nature of policy
work in a multi-stakeholder environment. they have done much work and
managed to change thinking and influence policy in many areas and in all
that, they have achieved much. i congratulate my colleagues on the board in
the sos and acs who have worked so hard on this issue over many years and in
particular the staff for their dedication and expertise. however, when the
end is in sight, i cannot bring myself to vote in the affirmative for a
resolution that is brought to the board now based on eart official and
ego-driven deadlines particularly when, in my view, the program is so close
to completion but still weeks or only days way from adequately addressing
those considerations contained in the affirmation of commitments. i will
accordingly abstain.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, mike. we move then to ray plzak. ray?
>>ray plzak: thank you, peter. and thank you for that nice introduction,
>>mike.
for the community, you need to understand that in the bylaws, the rules of
quorum for the board basically says that whe read the fine print that if you
abstain, your vote in effect is a "no" vote. it's unfortunate that persons
who wish to recuse themselves for legitimate reasons such as bruce has done,
in effect are casting a "no" vote. particularly in the case of bruce who has
worked so hard for this program. however, because of that peculiarity, i
have grave misgivings of anyone who abstains for other than reasons of
conflicts of interest. and therefore, i consider any other reason for
obstaining to actually be a "no" vote. and the preface of both george, who
is voting no and mike who is abstaining is basically the same. the
peculiarities and details of why they're casting their vote are similar.
however, they do have some differences.
therefore, i just wish to go on the record stating that i consider any
abstention other than the one that's given by bruce as being a no vote on
this matter.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, ray. we move then to steve crocker.
>>steve crocker: thank you, peter. this has been a very, very long process.
>>enormous amount of work has been put into it. you've heard from my
>>colleagues cherine chalaby and erika mann talking about the work that's
>>been put into it and the quality of discussions and the need to move on
>>and i fully support that. this is one of the obligations and expectations
>>that icann -- that was part of the founding of icann. and this is a quite
>>historic point in time in that this will discharge, but as cherine said,
>>it will be the end of the beginning, not the end of the process. but it
>>will discharge the long long standing obligation to open up the tld space.
>>i've been involved in and listening carefully to the arguments back and
>>forth about whether this is a good thing, whether it will actually
>>generate any interesting ideas, or whether it will be to the advantage of
>>everybody. the case for the idns was very strong. the case for new tlds is
>>a little harder to pin down. but one of the most important principles in
>>the creation of the internet from a very long time ago was not to stifle
>>or prejudge what the paths to innovation are.
so the default has to be that absent a strong case that such things will
cause harm, we must move forward. and i strongly support this. is this
program perfect?
of course, not?
is it solid?
it is. every imaginable aspect has been examined six ways from sundayment
everybody has had a voice. not everybody who has spoken and has a position
has had their position satisfied. but that is the nature of the very big
environment and all-inclusive world that we live in.
i want to say a little bit about support for developing countries and for
needy applicants. katim has been very forceful and consistent and persistent
about pushing in that area and there is a great deal of empathy and desire
to be supportive.
i also very much appreciate george's and mike's comments. just because we
are empathetic and sensitive, doesn't instantly create a clear path forward.
so as you've seen, we are committed to figuring out what makes sense in that
area. but it is also equally clear there are many things we could try to do
that would have the appearance of being helpful that in the end would not
necessarily make a significant difference. so we continue to wrestle with
that and to find a way forward and i think we're all committed to doing
that. and that remains a part of the refinement of the process as we move
forward.
if you take time to work through the applicant guidebook and imagine how
much work has gone into that, the number of iterations that you've all seen,
the dedication of the staff to put the pieces together, what you'll see is a
very solid program. many people will write positive and negative things, i'm
sure.
i hope that this is studied in business schools going forward and analyzed
in many ways. and we'll look back and try to understand what the results
were compared to what we expected. and i think that's a very healthy
process. but having been involved in a series of key decisions along way
from the very beginning, i fully understand that trying to do it exactly
right and particularly trying to hold things up to get things exactly right,
is exactly the wrong thing to do.
so with no hesitation really, i plan to vote and not only vote in the
affirmative, but to be full -- wholeheartedly behind the execution. hard
work remains very much in front of us. and the hard work will be for the
entire community. as hard as it is for the icann staff to be organized and
staff this up, i know full well how much work everyone in the community will
do as applications are prepared as plans are put in place to bring forth new
gtlds and then the enormous amount of energy needed to promote and bring
them in to live operation and make them succeed. and strap yourself in.
there will be a little bit of turbulence along the way, but it will be a
quite exciting ride. thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thanks very much, steve. next on my speaking list,
>>katim.
>>katim touray: thanks a lot, peter. good morning, everyone. i just want to
>>very briefly take this opportunity say a few words dealing with a profound
>>feeling of gratitude i feel toward the communitiment i think we should all
>>be proud of what the community has been able to do over the past 6 or so
>>years in putting this thing together, the new gtld program through a very
>>highly consultative multi-stakeholder process. i dare say for me, i've
>>always told mem that the multi-stakeholder process is not just something
>>that i like to see work for icann. but to have it really serve as a new
>>paradigm for development partnership and international cooperation. and
>>i'm glad to say it's actually having its effect beyond icann because i
>>think it was just sometime last year when there was a lot of hew and
>>crying in the international development community. when an attempt was
>>made to really steer the gif process, it was, i believe, in a direction
>>that was not multi-stakeholder and, of course, the resulting pushback
>>meant that there had to be an effective climb down and make sure that we
>>ended up with a multi-stakeholder process. so congratulations in not only
>>achieving this but in the process. it's one of evolution and i'm sure a
>>lot of people will take the cue from you. the process has also resulted in
>>an addition that's been taken to ensure that we provide support to
>>applicants from developing country and needy applicants generically. i say
>>this is very important because from the get-go, the desire has been as put
>>out in the resolution by the icann board in nairobi last year, resolution
>>20, the -- excuse me, the desire was that we have an inclusive process,
>>that is, those that can have genuine grounds for applying for a new gtld
>>to serve a community, serve a cultural need, geographic need or whatever
>>you about do not have the wherewithal because of virtue of their economic
>>disposition, their virtue of which being located in a developing country
>>that do not have the wherewithal to come up with resources to meet the
>>application requirements will and should be provided support. and i think
>>the issue here is that we have not quarreling about whether we should do
>>it or not. i think that that much is very much been resolved now,
>>generally people now understand or agree that we need to do something
>>about providing support to needy applicants. the way i see it is that we
>>have decided that we're going to cook dinner and the issue now is whether
>>we're going to have chipotle or pizza. i think that's a huge process and
>>i'd like to congratulate you for that. i'd like to say that this commit
>>many or desire to provide support to needy a.m. plants from developing
>>countries is very much along the lines of prevailing practice, prevailing
>>best practice and sentiment in the international development community of
>>which icann i consider is becoming an increasingly important player. it
>>was just last month actually in may in istanbul, turkey, that u.n.
>>organized its fourth summit on least developed countries that was attended
>>by 10,000 people including heads of states from all over the world where
>>basically the meeting was they brought in all hands on deck to discuss the
>>agenda for agents in a developing community and providing support and
>>assistance and partnership with and for the developing countries. and i
>>think icann needs to pick a cue from that. and i'm glad to say that we're
>>also in the process of trying to see whether it would be possible to
>>organize a summit along those lines in the senegal when icann has its last
>>international public meeting this coming october. in the same vein, my
>>good friend dr. sadowsky and a couple other people including myself are
>>organizing a workshop in nairobi in the up coming igf to be held there to
>>precisely discuss the role of the icann and ietf and similarly named i
>>organizations and internet governance and their role in development
>>assistance and development partnership. so let's see this as really one
>>plan in the very important series of steps that we need to take to build
>>and strengthen the partnership that we have. i think given where we are,
>>what remains now is to really figure out how we implement and again here,
>>let me take this opportunity to say a big thank you to the jas working
>>group, the gnso council and the alac and the gac for wonderful support and
>>incredible efforts that they put in and continue to put in developing a
>>strategy and devising ways and means that we can use to support the
>>community. we really couldn't say thank you enough to them. and finally i
>>always keep saying let's keep in mind this one simple thing that to me i
>>think should be key to everything we do in regards to our support that we
>>provide to developing world. that we should not do this from a very
>>patronizing perspective. we should do this because i think -- because it's
>>what's best for the developing world. but also it is was best for icann.
>>and indeed, on a very much larger scale, i'd like us to really remember
>>this as we move forward in our engagement as we move forward with
>>implementation program. that the world is a better place if it is better
>>for all of us. it is not going to be a better world if it's only better
>>for a few, for the rich, for the wealthy, for those that have the
>>wherewithal. thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, katim.
[applause]
sebastien.
>>sÉbastien bachollet: thank you, peter. this new gtld program brings a lot
>>of challenges. i would like to underline some of them. first, a point
>>about the way we organize the here in singapore. stakeholders maw have
>>been able to interact on a equal footing, equal footing means to listen
>>also to the non-gac part of the community about the new gtld program
>>before it's final adoption. in line with icann's value, it would have been
>>better if all the parties had an opportunity to express their views,
>>limiting the way to gac board increase potential for misunderstanding.
>>another point i wish to make is about principle of cost recovery. despite
>>the place and sounds of the world, it's not always a good idea. it is like
>>just if we ask a coworker in monopoly mark tote introduce the cost in
>>institution. that puts discrimination against newcomer and fellow
>>incumbent. the proposed timeline is too long. but i hope that it will help
>>new project to emerge. i believe it allows icann community to prepare a
>>satisfactory solution to help needy applicants. some people fear that new
>>gtld will cause confusion. to decrease the risk we need to be able to
>>adapt the program without letting the timeline slip. most importantly, we
>>need to announce when the second round will be open. it will degrees the
>>pressure on the up coming round. many potential applicants will prefer
>>later round. but they can only do so in they have a reliable timeline.
>>concerning the fear of confusion for any reforms, there will be a phase of
>>stress until people get used to the change.
the longer we defer reform, the more there will be stress when we finally
act.
in the case of new gtld, i trust that we have the tools to ensure that the
phase of stress will be brief.
it means, of course, that we need to be able to apply remedies once problems
appear, taking it -- gac advice and other stakeholder input are key
mechanism for this. the only way to complete the preparation of the new gtld
program is to place is into real life. it is why i will vote for the new
gtld program. thank you very much.
[applause]
>>peter dengate thrush: thanks sebastien. kuo wei and he's indicated he
>>wants to speak in chinese. so please use your head.
>> please allow know speak in chinese. the reason is we're here in
>> singapore. and also the chinese is around world , you know? in every
>> country, every region you can see all the chinese. so please allow me to
>> do that. today we have the opportunity to express our views in a
>> non-latin language system. first of all, we'd like to thank the few
>> persons who were involved in this whole process, dr. john kinsing has
>> helped this team with this working group would be able to progress. and
>> secondly, we would like to thank professor chin from china and dr. j from
>> taiwan and from japan. and today we have this development. this would
>> would not be possible if this were not for the efforts of these four
>> persons, without them there would not have been this idn so for those who
>> use this idn to service an organization and make use of the services
>> they're very glad that we have this development. the idea has a lot of
>> function that has not been perfected for example e-mail, ftp lock in and
>> there are a lot of functions yet to be perfected. so we must know that
>> there are still -- we still have a lot of passionate and participatory
>> nations to make sure that the idn can have the same effect as the other
>> latin-based language systems. so this is a long way to go i think for
>> everyone who provides the idn to service has the duty to let people know
>> our limitations. today i support this resolution because i feel that for
>> most of the registry organizations, that you have concentrated in a few
>> places only. i am hoping that this idn would enable this organization to
>> be developed in more countries and more territories, not only in china,
>> taiwan, hong kong or in fact any place in the world so that the registry
>> or gtld registry would not be confined to just a few places.
and another point that i'd like to raise and to remind all our participants
today, domain name is not the only challenge that we have to face in the
future. in fact we still have the ipv6 that we need to promote.
so on the 6th of august, i shall attempt to make a proposal this is a great
development. but it is not the end. so i hope that the ipv6 will be as
secured and as convenient as the ip v4. in many of us in the domain name
market please do not feel that we can nominate this market if we do not have
full support for the ipv6, our development will be limited and, of course,
we want to su port related development in this field. so no matter how the
voting goes, how the result will be, and this will be a very important
beginning for our future development. thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, kuo. next i have gonzalo.
>>gonzalo navarro: thank you, peter. since kuo was speaking in chinese, i'm
>>going to take the opportunity to do it in spanish.
[applause]
thank you. you can read in screen if you cannot get the headphones. i'm
going to be brief, because i think that most of the important things have
been already expressed by my colleagues in the board. but i do believe that
it is necessary to be grateful to the community as a whole because of the
great amount of hours devoted to this project. i am really impressed. i've
never seen such work. and i want to congratulate my colleagues on the board.
it is also very good to see that the system of the multi-stakeholder model
is working and is working in a good way. perhaps in some -- at some time
we'll see that what we are doing right now represents the first step in a
change of an internationalized system allowing a better dialogue and more
productive dialogue in different areas that in the past didn't have the
possibility of communicating, not only in topics related to internet but
also in other topics of the national community. when it comes to the program
we're approving now, when you think of public policy, you have to be open
enough to accept that in public policy, nothing is perfect. because it can
be ideally perfect from the very beginning but what we do have as public
policy that might be better than other policies because they have more
effort or because they imply more opportunities. then after more than one
year of hard work with my colleagues on the board and as i said, with the
input of the community, i think that we have reached a level of seriousness
and maturity and we are about to approve this program. and this allowed us
or the at least it allows me to see the most difficult part, which is the
implementation of this policy. when we implement this policy or this plan,
we will realize if it is a quality policy and a good one, i think that we
are on the way. but in order to reach the goal and to build something useful
for the community, we are representing, we will need the not only your help
but we will need to continue working in the conversation or communication
framework in this situation or this role, the gac will be very important.
and i am very happy and satisfied to see how all this dialogue has been
carried out. the great amount of hours devoted by gac. and the input, very
valuable input are very positives. and, of course, we have the possibility
of going on with the conversations within this framework or respect.
so i would like to say, not as enthusiastically as rita, but i would like to
say that i am in favor of this program. and i have my commitment with you.
[applause]
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, gonzalo. i have rita next and last that i
>>have on my speaking list for this one. thank you, rita.
>>rita rodin johnston: thank you, peter. new gtlds. woo hoo!
[applause]
can somebody please pinch me?
i'm sure many of you are not surprised that i'm thrilled at the idea of
having what i hope is going to be a vote in favor today. after six years on
the board of working through these issues and there's been so much more time
spent by people in the community, and i'm thrilled not because i agree with
everything in the guidebook. it's not because i like disagreeing with the
gnso constituencies or the gac or other community advice. it's not because i
think the organization or the community, frankly, is close to understanding
the massive undertaking that we are all embarking on. but it's because i
really believe in this multi-stakeholder process and this community. all of
you out there. i believe in compromise and i believe in innovation.
i also agree with what ira magaziner said at our meeting in san francisco. i
think by the introduction of this program we're continuing the tradition of
allowing the internet to operate in a constant state of chaos which ground
rules that would allow those with huge investment in it some grounds of
cre'tivity and we're also fostering ground rules so that the internet would
be secure stable and resilient but in such a way as to allow as much freedom
as usable for the users of the internet to create standards, content, modes
of access and economic activity without government interfierce and that was
a quote from what ira said in san francisco. these are very noble goals. but
as we can all see, they're somewhat difficult to implement. the amount of
content and information on the internet is exponentially greater than under
ira's watch. the community here and around the world is much ratherer and
more international and diverse than it was.
both the commercial and the non-commercial interests involved are infinitely
greater.
yet we also have one thing in common. the love for the internet.
the board today will hopefully be executing on a plan the community first
approved in 2005. and we are putting into motion arguably the largest shift
in the dns history. we're ratifying community compromises and ideas, but we
are not necessarily making everyone happy.
and what's interesting to me is we really have no idea what will happen. but
i, for one, am extremely excited to find out. as many of my colleagues have
said, the work here is far from over. think of this as phase i. there is a
lot more to do. i want to join gonzalo and others in thanking this boards
and boards before us both for their hard work and for their difficult and
sometimes courageous decisions. and my true hope for everyone when i leave
the board is that everyone will continue this hard work in the collective
spirit of cooperation, progress, and adventure. thank you, everyone. and
good luck.
[applause]
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, rita. i'd like to put that motion just to
>>remind you it's been moved by rita rodin johnston, seconded by ray plzak
>>and effective portion of the resolution is first part. the board
>>authorizes the president and ceo to implement the new gtld program. all
>>those in favor of authorizizing the ceo to implement the new gtld program,
>>please raise your hands.
[cheers and applause]
>>peter dengate thrush: any opposed?
any abstentions?
carried.
[cheers and applause]
hang on a minute. now, for the i think --
[applause]
>>peter dengate thrush: for the record i would also now like to poll the
>>members of the board. i think for the record on a motion of this
>>importance t might be appropriate to poll the members of the board. so
>>i'll just move down from the opposite end bruce tonkin, how do you.
>>bruce tonkin: i abstain.
>>peter dengate thrush:
>>> yes.
>> in favor.
>>
>>ray plzak: aye.
>>peter dengate thrush: erika erm erm aye.
>>peter dengate thrush: i can't see who is next. mike abstain voc
>>affirmative.
>>ramesh phadke: yes.
>>rita rodin johnston: in favor.
>>gonzalo navarro: yes.
>>peter dengate thrush: sebastien.
>>sÉbastien bachollet: yes.
>>peter dengate thrush: george.
>>george sadowsky: no.
>>katim touray: i almost said no. i say yes.
[laughter]
>>peter dengate thrush: bertrand.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: ouie.
[applause]
>> yes in arabic is auya, ouie, yes.
>>peter dengate thrush: you still only get one vote though.
>>rod beckstrom: yes.
>>peter dengate thrush: i also vote yes. i declare the resolution carried.
[applause]
>>peter dengate thrush: discussions with all the members of the community,
>>of course, there's been a particular focus in relation to asking for,
>>getting and discussing advice from the governmental advisory committee,
>>one of the most important parts of icann is government advisory committee,
>>icann cannot survive without a full support from the governments of the
>>world. and we're very grateful for all those members of the gac who
>>participate showing by participating their support for icann and their
>>multi-stakeholder model. in the course of that process there are aspects
>>of gac advice that we have elected not to follow and that position is
>>perfectly acceptable and is, of course, predicted in the bylaws that
>>create a process for us to receive gac advice, consider it and not accept
>>it or portions of it. so because that's the circumstances in this case, we
>>have a resolution dealing with that. and it reads as follows: resolved,
>>the board and the gac have completed good faith consultations in a timely
>>and efficient manner under the icann bylaws. article 11 section 2j. as the
>>board and the gac were not able to reach a mutually acceptable solution
>>solution on a few remaining issues pursuant to icann bliz article section
>>2k, the board incore freights and as adopts as set forth in the document
>>describing the remaining areas of difference between icann's board and the
>>gac -- there will be a url, the reasons why the gac advice was not
>>followed. the board's statement is without preng disto the rights or
>>obligations to gac members with regard to public policy issues falling
>>within their responsibilities. so as chair i'll move that as a matter of
>>form amountment i
r bertrand de la chapelle. thank you, bertrand.
is there any discussion about this resolution?
i see none, in which case i will put that resolution.
all those in favor of this resolution, please raise your hands.
(hands raised).
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you. any opposed?
abstentions?
bruce tonkin abstains.
okay. the resolution carried.
thank you.
and one further resolution dealing with thanks to the community, and
particularly to the gac. and i'll ask bruce tonkin, who i think will not be
conflicted in relation to this resolution.
bruce.
>>bruce tonkin: thank you, peter.
before i formally read the resolution, i'll just make a couple of remarks.
one was that i had the honor of chairing the policy development process that
began in 2005, and i think it's important to recognize that that policy
development process included representatives from internet service
providers, business users, noncommercial users, intellectual property
experts, registries, registrars, noncommercial users, and members of the
at-large advisory committee.
that policy process started with people very wide apart. there were great
diversity of views. and in the end, there was close to consensus on nearly
all of the gnso policy recommendations in august of 2007.
since then, it's been interesting that those core policy recommendations
have stood the test of time with huge scrutiny, since 2007, and the board
has not changed any of those policy recommendations. so i'd like to commend
the work of that group, particularly in compromising and reaching a
consensus position at the time.
i think it's also important to recognize the work that's been done by
members of the governmental advisory committee in the last six months. so we
had a meeting in cartagena, we had another meeting -- which was in december
of last year, i believe. then another meeting in brussels in february, then
another meeting in san francisco in march, and then a teleconference while
we're in istanbul, i think, in may, then another meeting yesterday. and i
think it's important to recognize that those gac members had to consult not
just with their colleagues to reach positions at the gac which would have
been compromise positions but also needed to consult with their colleagues
in their home countries to reach resolution.
so i think it's really important to recognize that while, at times, there's
differences of opinion, the work that the gac members have done in assisting
in this program has been immense.
and also note that while in the public sessions where we're speaking between
the board and the gac it may appear as though only a couple of board members
are engaged, the truth is that on every single one of those pieces of advice
from the gac, we had a long consultation within the board. you can see the
board up here, it's 21 people. think about each person taking a rough, an
average of five minutes, some take shorter, some take longer, but every
single topic takes about 75 minutes of discussion that the board -- line by
line.
so you add the number of lines by the gac statement, multiply that by 75
minutes. that's how much time we spent on every issue. so don't get the
impression we treat anything like that lightly. and we also respect that nor
does the gac treat what we say lightly.
and finally, i think it's important to recognize the effort of the icann
staff. the staff have worked tremendously hard, particularly in the last six
months where often these meetings and calls are in the middle of the night.
they would have worked all weekend to prepare the papers for those calls and
for these meetings.
and so i think it's probably surprising that any of them have still remained
married or have any personal life left. and we still have big calls on the
staff in the months ahead.
so i think it's important, if you individually see a staff member in the
corridors, please express your thanks because they don't get thanked enough.
often they are caught between two warring parties, and they get a lot of, i
guess, flack as a result of some of those battles. but, really, they deserve
tremendous respect and thanks from the community.
[ applause ]
>>bruce tonkin: so i would now like to put the resolution. it is resolved
>>that the board wishes to express its deep appreciation to the icann
>>community, including the members of the gac, for the extraordinary work it
>>has invested in crafting the new gtld program in furtherance of icann's
>>mission and core values. and help from the community's ongoing support in
>>executing and reviewing the program.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, bruce. is there someone prepared to
>>second that resolution? george sadowsky was first. i think a lot of people
>>want to be associated with that thanks, and thanks for putting that so
>>well, bruce.
so it's been moved, bruce; seconded, george. would anybody like to speak to
this resolution thanking the staff? you can do it before or after. anybody
like to speak before?
sÉbastien.
>>sÉbastien bachollet: i will speak in spanish.
i want to speak in spanish because it's not my mother tongue, but i believe
that it's important because this is the communities at work. so everybody
needs to participate and has participated in english mainly. so it's always
harder for non-english speakers to participate.
therefore, this is one of the reasons why i want to thank the entire
community for their work, and i want to thank the volunteers community here,
present here on account of the completion of this program.
i think it's important that we should all -- or they should all remain
working here with a focus on the next phase, that is the implementation.
thank you.
[ applause ]
>>peter dengate thrush: would anyone else like to speak to this resolution?
heather, the chair of the gac, is the liaison to the board.
thank you.
>>heather dryden: thank you very much, peter. i'm trying to gauge where
>>would be an appropriate moment for me to make a few comments, given the
>>significance of this decision. i think it would be remiss for the chair of
>>the gac to not make some comment, and in particular, to thank those in the
>>community and on the board that have really played a leadership role in
>>working with the gac and understanding and recognizing the significance of
>>government concerns in that it really is necessary to find a way to have
>>the gac working as part of the community in developing community consensus
>>and to generate results that, if anything, reinforce the multistakeholder
>>model that we all work so hard to maintain.
so i think it's true that, as others have said, this is the end of the
beginning, and the gac certainly will have, at a minimum, a role to play
regarding the operational aspects or implementation aspects that remain, as
well as others.
so i look forward to raising the decisions that have been made today within
the committee, and i'm sure we will continue the discussion with the board
and with the community regarding the new gtld program as a result of that.
so a thank you, as i say, to all of those who have played a role. you know
who you are, and thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, heather.
[ applause ]
>>peter dengate thrush: bertrand. en francais. it.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: on that one i won't. apologies.
i want to take the opportunity at this end of this phase not only to
associate myself to the thanks that are being expressed but also to explain
what you and we collectively have done, which is basically a global public
interest function, because you are icann as well. and this global public
function is to find the better rules or the better modalities for allocating
a common resource.
this common resource can be named in many different ways. i name it the
semantic spectrum, whatever. it's about defining a policy for a common
resource.
it's a very important function.
and the originality of this is this quasi regulatory role is exercised by a
community that is open, as rod said in the beginning.
if you think about it, it's an amazing exercise. and the very fact that it
was able, of course, in three years, but even if you think about it, the
level of detail that has been achieved, the level of debate that has been
achieved in three years, the fact that it can be produced by a community
where anybody can come and participate, is a testimonial not only to the
value of icann as it is, but to the fact that the fundamental assumption
that allowing the participation of everyone in governance processes is a
fundamental positive and working assumption.
however, when you define the global public interest, there's nothing more
difficult than going not only beyond the individual private interests but
also articulating the global public interest with the national public
interest that are represented in the gac. and as you know, nobody is better
placed than i am to understand the tension between the two.
i think what this program and this phase in the program has done is test the
meddle of our procedures, to basically make the equivalent of a stress test
to see whether the resilience was there and whether we could overcome the
bumps. and as a result, i think our procedures are better. the interaction
between the gac, in particular, and the board, but also between the gac and
the other parts of the community has been strengthened. as i said before,
this is not a zero-sum game. whenever one part of the structure is seeing
its role strengthened, its engagement broadened, it makes for a stronger
structure.
and so at that stage, i would like to make an analogy. there have been many
analogies about this program. mine is about the construction of an airport.
in 2008 we agreed on the master plan. today we are basically finishing the
facilities. i mean, we are cutting the ribbon and saying, okay, the
facilities are there. we are going to invite companies, small planes, to
apply for the right to take off to whatever destination.
and in this phase, there will be small planes, large planes, but we want to
have rules that are both unified and simple to understand enough so that we
don't have to -- and they are fair, but also that are flexible enough to
allow for diversity.
in this new phase, the challenge for the board and the staff will change. it
will not be more policy-making. this is a phase that is closed. it will be
implementation. and as many have said, it's almost a bigger challenge to be
up to par in that respect.
but what i would like to do in closing is to make a call to most of you and
all of you. most of you are going to, after this day, get into operational
mode like we do, preparing your own applications, supporting other
applications, preparing and ramping up your capacity.
i would love to ask you all to continue your engagement in this process. not
only to go on your own activities, but to keep engaged, because of two
things. the first one is that we will need you to spread the word and to
make this program known so that it reaches who it can benefit.
but the second thing is more subtle. and by the way, we need you also to
continue to participate in whatever process will be needed to address the
unavoidable, unplanned things that will emerge. there is no way this program
can be implemented without things emerging that will need to be solved.
and so we will need you also to participate in whatever adaption may be
needed so that they remain fully multistakeholder endorsed.
but in more subtle way, you have participated here not only to defend your
own interests, which are legitimate, but also to participate collectively in
a global public interest exercise.
please keep it with you in everything you do, because it is a global
responsibility and a common responsibility to make sure that this program is
implemented, and that whatever flaws it may still contain, whatever
loopholes it may still contain, are not exploited that will make it fail.
so you are with us in charge of making all those planes fly correctly and
safely. build nice planes so that there is no need for additional
regulation. and my final word is a quote from somebody the people in the
european union know is called janina who is actually the originator of the
idea of the european union. and the quote is when an id corresponds to the
necessity of the time, it no longer belongs to those who invented it, and it
becomes stronger than those who are in charge of implementing it.
thank you.
[ applause ]
>>peter dengate thrush: thanks, bertrand. raf rita.
>>rita rodin johnston: thank you, peter. i think bruce did an excellent job
>>of expressing some of the time and just the scale of the discussion that
>>the board is engaged in in general on these issues but especially with
>>respect to so. gac advice. and i just want to thank heather for her
>>remarks as well.
i think it is very important to integrate the gac and governments around the
world into these important dialogues.
it's been a little bit bumpy. some em bos have been thrown.
i, for one, have been somewhat uncomfortable with some of the exchanges in
the dialogue between the board and the gac. and i'm very hopeful that the
board, the gac, and the rest of the community can continue to improve the
participation of all stakeholders in this process, and do so in a way that
respects both the ideas and the processes of the other groups.
thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, rita.
there being no further comments in relation to this resolution, i'll put the
resolution thanking the community for the work in building the new gtld
program.
all those in favor, please raise their hands.
(hands raised).
>>peter dengate thrush: any abstentions?
any opposed?
carried unanimously.
[ applause ]
>>peter dengate thrush: so, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the
>>resolutions that we have scheduled for this meeting. rod has asked to make
>>a comment. so, rodz, you have the floor.
>>rod beckstrom: thank you very much. i was almost speechless a while ago
>>but i think that was the cold i've had while traveling the last few days.
on behalf of the organization and the staff, we thank the community and the
board for your exceptional efforts over the past six years.
there have been many long days and nights of working. there was even a
pajama party along the way, as some much you might recall, when some of us
were in nairobi and others were in d.c. dialing in remotely.
there have been many meetings in every region of the world, thousands of
pages of e-mails, documents, drafts, revisions, submissions, and many, many
opportunities for public input.
the process has been truly open, and a good model for accountability and
transparency.
thank you, and congratulations.
and as ceo, i accept the great responsibility of this authorization you have
granted me, and, under my direction, our excellent staff. a very large ball
with years of work has just rolled this way. and i want to assure you that
we will execute, and we will do so professionally. and i want to assure you
that the icann staff is prepared to support the launch, and we will execute
with competence, transparency, and accountability while respecting
confidentiality when appropriate.
following this vote, the first step will be the communications program which
will start later this afternoon with the press conference following this
meeting.
we are committing --
[ applause ]
>>rod beckstrom: thank you. we were not wasting time. we are moving ahead.
we are committing substantial resources to this, but we will also rely upon
the community and need your work -- your help to get the message out around
the world.
i'd like to take just one moment, please, to recognize some of the
exceptional contributions from some of the people and teams in icann. first
kurt pritz. kurt pritz and his team. let's give him a hand.
(standing ovation).
>>rod beckstrom: please stand, kurt.
[ applause ]
>>rod beckstrom: and i would now like to recognize john jeffrey,
>>affectionately known as j.j., and our legal team.
john, please stand up.
(standing ovation).
[ applause ]
>>rod beckstrom: and finally, i would like to recognize all other icann
>>staff in the room. please stand up. please stand up first, and let's
>>recognize all the icann staff that have supported this.
thank you so much. thank you all of you.
[ applause ]
(standing ovation).
>>rod beckstrom: thank you.
>>peter dengate thrush: thank you, rod.
so i have the pleasure now of closing the meeting. just a few final
comments. first of all, supporting what's been said about the principle of
innovation.
unless there's a good reason to restrain it, it should be allowed to rain
free. and remembering also what president clinton said in the speech in san
francisco. we know that the program isn't perfect. we know that not
everyone's view has been incorporated. we know we have to watch it very
carefully, and as president clinton -- and so we will stumble sometimes. but
as president clinton said, as long as we are stumbling forwards, then that's
the way of progress.
so there's a lot to be done.
as people have said, this is the start of a whole new phase.
the perfect, though, is the enemy of the good, and we have got to the stage
where, as steve crocker and others have said, this is a good program. and i
think we have got community support for it, and i look forward to handing
that big ball over to rod and the staff, and to the rest of the community.
it's an enormous challenge, but i think we're up to it.
so congratulations.
meeting closed.
[ applause ]
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 20th June 2011, 06:36 AM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: Transcript of ICANN Singapore 41 board meeting

Transcript of IDN Variant TLD Meeting:


icann - singapore.
idn variant tld.
20 june 2011
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***
>> ladies and gentlemen, we're about to begin our program. it is the idn
>> variant tld.
if you move forward in your seats, it would be much easier for our panelists
and much more interesting for you.
thank you.
>>kurt pritz: hi. welcome, everybody, and thank you for coming.
could you guys in the middle sit down or....
hi. i'm kurt pritz. i am the senior vice president of services at icann.
thanks very much for coming to what is this session about very important
work that icann is undertaking with a renewed vigor with the idea of
delegating variant tlds.
it's very important now that idns have been delegated that we continue to
work in order to provide a good user experience for those who use idns so
that they can fulfill their potential and broadening the participation of
the use of the internet across the world.
variants, as the people in this room know, are a very difficult issue.
variant tlds contain characters. because those characters represent the same
character in an alphabetic set, they can be very confusing. and so we have
options right now. either delegating variant tlds that might result in user
confusion and a poor user experience, or not delegating variant tldz tlds,
and essentially disenfranchising a sector of that community that uses that
alphabetic set.
so it's really important that we do this work to resolve that conundrum so
that we can delegate new tlds that are variants and guarantee a good user
experience.
now, there's been a lot of work on this in the past, several working groups.
and the experiences from those working groups have taught you as few things.
one is that when we investigate issues associated with variant tlds, we make
good headway, say in one script set, say chinese, but then we think that
really won't work for arabic, and the discussion of trying to develop one
set of issues and one set of solutions across all scripts has been difficult
and problematic. and so members of the icann community have hit on a
solution that, or a potential for solutions that involve the conducting of
six separate case studies, one each for different scripts, and identifying
the issues solely associated with those scripts. and that way, work can
proceed on each script, a set of issues developed, and then later on,
solutions developed for those scripts.
we'll find that some issues, of course, are across all scripts but some
issues are script specific. so we think this, conducting six different case
studies for six different scripts, is a very good way to go about
investigating what the issues are.
icann's been very fortunate in attempting to recruit participants for these
studies. i think we presently have 65 participants from 30 countries
staffing these six different panels. and we also have the contributions of
several host occurs that are contributing meeting space or a travel budget
or secretariat support, and other means for supporting this project.
so in a very short period of time, we have a broad reach of participation
across the community. and this meeting really represents the start of
substantive work on that. each one of the case-study teams has already met
in developing a set of definitions and carrying on the future work, and each
has made separate plans for how they are going to carry that work forward.
so it's really my pleasure to introduce the people behind me. i'm flattered
is exactly the right word. i'm so flattered that this set of people have
come to work with icann. and when i say "icann," i mean the big icann
community, not the bunch of staff members, to help solve this problem.
and so i'm going to not introduce them all. i am going to, instead,
introduce dr. dennis jennings who is a former board member and is performing
a lot of work in coordinating this group and providing leadership in getting
the right people on board, organizing the work, and attracting host
organizations such as we've had.
so i want to thank you very much for coming for your interest in this topic,
and i want to start by thanking dennis for taking over for me and starting
the presentation.
>>dennis jennings: thank you, kurt. thank you very much, indeed.
if we could have -- well, we have this first slide up. could we go on to the
next slide, please.
so why this project? well, it's been a longstanding request from many people
in the community that we address this issue. in fact, it's been a
longstanding request that we solve this issue.
but when we look at it, we discover that there are many unanswered
questions. and so the board instructed the ceo and the staff to develop an
issues report on the subject.
what do we mean by an "issues report"? basically we mean a statement of
requirements or a statement of the problem that we're trying to address.
now, a lot of people think that the problem is easily stated, and it usually
is "the problem is easy. solve it for me." and the problem is when you look
at the whole variant issues, even the definition of variants is not agreed
across the set of scripts.
so this project is focused on issues, not on solutions.
so where are we with idn variant tlds today? well, in the new program just
announced -- and congratulations to the board and to kurt on that
achievement -- applicants may declare variant strings for the tld in its
application. some work needs to be done, i think, in that area in the
applicant guidebook, but that's the idea. but no variant tld strings are
going to be delegated until variant management solutions are developed and
implemented. and the first step in this is to understand what the issues
are, what the statement of requirements is, what the problem is so that we
can then move on to develop solutions for idn variants.
so here's the scope of the project. first thing is to develop or create a
glossary of terms that's been vetted with the communities. and that turns
out to be an interesting challenge, which i'll talk about in a moment,
because the terms are not precisely defined. they mean different things to
different people, and it turns out they mean different things in different
scripts.
so that's the first thing, to create a glossary of terms that is consistent
across the scripts that we're trying to address, and then to identify the
challenges or the requirements, the problem statement based on linguistic
accuracy, technical feasibility, usability, accessibility, security and
stability, and so on.
so the first proposal or the final proposal for this was published on the
20th of april. the initial proposal was published for this study. there was
-- published for public comment. we got comment back. we're very grateful to
-- the community for, given all the other things that were going on, to
-- actually look at this and to give us comment.
and as a result of that, of the comments, we added a greek case study. we
had originally proposed only five studies: arabic, cyrillic, latin, indic
and chinese. as a result of the public comments, we added a greek case
study, and we also refined what we had called the indic case study, which is
a misnomer because there isn't an indic script, to be the devanagari. a much
tighter script and designation. so we got a lot of positive feedback from
the community and that's the final proposal that was published.
so the next step was we published a call for volunteers for the six case
studies. we received over 70 applications across the six case study teams,
and we did a lot of work to clarify those issues, and we've completed and
published the selection of the team members. and um see that information
later on in this presentation.
and we selected the case study coordinators, the key people who will take
responsibility for these six case studies, major projects in themselves
within the project that we're undertaking.
the teams are comprised of experts in a variety of relevant areas, as you
can read on the slide up there. the dns, operations, linguistics, security,
policy, and, indeed, the idna protocol. they are led by the case study team
coordinator, and they are going to have regular conferences, face-to-face
meetings to do the work. and we in icann will provide support to that.
in addition, we have bolstered our own team with some external experts, and
there are two named there. andrew sullivan, who is a dns and idna expert,
who provides a lot of hep help on the technical side. and andrew isn't with
us. he is in canada at the moment. but he did participate by phone on the
various meetings we've had so far. and niklas ostler who is a linguistic
expert who is with us and who has identified himself by raising his hand so
that you know who he is.
in addition, we have selected, and we're very pleased to have had a number
of proposals for host organizations. as kurt said, they will provide a
variety of support from meeting space through to administrative support and,
in some cases, even financial and travel support for the case study team,
varying from case to case. and we're very pleased and we announced this, we
published this the other day, that ict qatar has been selected, volunteer
has been selected as the arabic host organization. cdnc, the chinese domain
name consortium for the chinese case study, the united nations educational,
scientific & cultural organization for the cyrillic, the department of
technology in india and their department cdac and nxie for the devanagari
case study, ics4 for the greek case study and dot se in swend for the latin
case study. and we are really pleased to have these organizations roll in
behind these studies.
as you saw from the scope of work, the first thing to do is create a
glossary of terms that everybody could dpre with. and we have developed --
the team has developed with a lot of help from andrew and from nicholas a
definitions document defining the terms being used. and that has been
circulated and will be published.
it's an initial document. we felt very pleased with it. we thought that we
had this kind of nailed down, and it's interesting that much of the
discussions on saturday among the case study teams have indicated to us that
there's quite a bit more work to be done on definitions, and the definitions
may vary from case to case.
but what we're trying to do is to make sure that we have a single set of
definitions, and there may be slightly different definitions for different
cases, but we are going to use words with a clear meaning. we want to have a
clear glossary of terms. and if there is a slightly different definition for
one case, we're going to use a different term for it so that it's clear, so
that when we use terms, and hopefully when the community use terms, we'll
all understand precisely what that term means. and that is certainly not the
case at the moment, and i can tell you there is a lot of discussion you may
have heard over the last couple of days where the word variant is bundled --
bundled -- is bandied around in a variety of fashions that are completely
inconsistent with each other.
feedback from the team is required that has been started. we started with
two types of definitions from existing references and new definitions, and
this is very much a work in progress, as i said.
so we asked the case study teams to use the terms as defined. i already
commented on that. really, i've covered this slide in a variety of ways in
what i've just said.
and the gom of this and the restrictions that we're trying to apply is to
minimize the difficulty later on during the harmonization step. i repeat, so
that when we use a word, that everybody knows precisely what we mean by that
word.
so how do you guys in the community stay informed? well, there's a mailing
list that you can sign up for, whether it be information posted regularly,
and where you can participate. and there will be a community wiki that you
can sign up for, and the url is there.
and the work has started. the case study teams met -- what day is today?
today is monday. on saturday. i am already lost and it's only the first
formal day of the icann meeting.
on saturday, we had a whole day meeting with the six case study teams, a
couple of plenary sessions to work together, and individual sessions. and
i'm delighted to say that all the teams got to work and did a lot of work, a
lot of hard work there. i'm very impressed with the amount of effort that
the teams are putting in.
and the case study coordinator will present here a brief snippet of the work
and the ongoing work and the plans for each of the case study teams.
the work has only started. there will be lots of telephone conferences,
there will be meetings. the schedules aren't yet -- or schedules as the
americans say -- aren't yet finalized but they will be published as the case
study teams develop them.
and the intent is, and we're holding to this, if we can, and it's up to the
case study teamgs to try to deliver to this, that each case study team will
develop an issues report by the 30th of september this year. not the 30th of
september next year. the 30th of september he 2011, this year.
that's particularly challenging in the northern hemisphere where you know,
particularly in europe, a lot of people go on holidays. it's also
challenging in the arabic script case study because ramadan is early this
year. but i know every team is going to try to deliver the report by the
30th of september.
and then the final issues report where the leaders will get together in
senegal to see if we can have a harmonized report or whether we have six
individual reports with a report that highlights those things where there is
agreement across the reports. that's due by the 15th of december.
so now let's hear from the individual case studies on some of the work
that's dn done.
and is sarmad hussain here with us? yes, indeed. sarmad, would you like to
take the microphone and given us a brief update.
>> hello, everybody, and thank you, dennis.
i'd start -- so what i'm going to do is very briefly overview, introduce my
team, the team for arabic script case. it comprises of some very experienced
people who have been working on arabic script and arabic script-based
languages for some time. we have abdulaziz from saudi arabia,.
(listing names).
all these people bring a lot of experience in this area on the table, and
that makes the work easy in a way because they are very familiar with the
issues which exist with arabic script. but also, you know, we understand the
challenge because we have to actually close this work in a very short time.
i'll just introduce some of the challenges which are relevant.
so what i've done here is put the idn cctld string for pakistan at the top.
and you can see that both strings which are shown are exactly the same
visually, even though they use different code points from unicode
internally.
and just to highlight the significance of why variant tlds may be required
for arabic script. the second example is just a different word, it's not a
tld, but it highlights a different kind of problem, for example, where it's
not that the different characters look the same way, but a combination of a
combining mark -- excuse me -- with a letter looks exactly the same way as a
letter which already is separately encoded in unicode.
and some of these cases, for example, are dealt with normalization in
unicode, but there are many such cases in arabic script which are actually
not dealt through unicode. normalization.
so just to give you very briefly some examples of the issues we are dealing
with as far as tlds are concerned.
next slide, please.
and here is a very brief but aggressive schedule which we are going to
follow. and i must thank baher for putting this slide together. and just to
take you through this, we are actually going to take two different
activities, the two different activities by the team. and i'll start with
the issues list. so we are going to do two separate documents. we are going
to work on the issues and work on definitions, as dennis pointed out as
well.
we have already identified a first list of issues which -- yesterday, and we
plan to go through and expand our case as much as possible through the
e-mail list we have and try to close -- agree and close on the issues by the
end of the week this week.
and then based on those issues, we are going to draft a document with
clearly -- which clearly explains those issues with examples. and what we
are trying to do is not just come up with some representative examples but
actually come up with an exhaustive list of those examples for each of those
issues.
document is prepared, finalize the document based on internal discussions
and then hand that over to the idn vip team. in parallel, what we're going
to do, though we initially started looking at the definitions document which
was given to us by icann, very quickly on the first day we realized that it
actually may not be responsible for us to close the definitions without
really looking at issues in more detail first.
so what we're now going to do is finalize the issues first and then once the
issues are taken care of, we'll come back to the definitions document. and
first try to define the definitions from our context and then look at how
icann is defining these items or glossary items. and see where we match and
where we don't match, see what the differences are and whether they can be
incorporated into the larger document.
so that's what the brief plan is. we'll first do the document, issues
document, then do the definitions document and then hopefully hand both
things over to icann by the end of september. so thank you.
>>dennis jennings: thank you very indeed, very impressive piece of work. so
>>you're well up and running and thank you for that. i'd like to move on to
>>the chinese case study is professor xiaodong lee here. ziaodong, yes.
>>would you give us the highlights of your work so far?
>>xiaodong lee: this is xiaodong lee. i think i am the chinese case study
>>team. can we move to the next slide?
so i want to keep it very brief introduction about the case study team. you
know, i'm very happy that we have the local chinese domain name. cdnc is --
i've been working for chinese for many 10 years. i think there are so many
memories from the chinese-speaking area and also some cooperation from the
europe and americans. they have so many discussions. so i think if we have
the local host, it would be smooth, some case study work. next slide. i'm
going to just give you a very brief member highlight. you know, as the cdnc
local host in the team members we also have the people from cdnc, the
professor seng, professor james seng is the chairman of nic and cochair and
we also have dr. zhang. also on behalf of the -- and you know, i think you
have to remember that the speech thanks for idn working group chair. and
working group chair. and james seng is also the main contributor for --
myself is the also of the 4713. also the fundamental document for the
chinese issues. and you know, i also cochaired the -- informal cochair of
the ietf idn and eai working group. but i'm also happy that we also have
professor zhang main contributor of the unicode cjk and also the main
contributor of the chinese variant table. it was published in iana. lists
have been adopted by so many registries which provided the chinese domain
name registration. i think next slide?
also i'm very happy to have the team member joseph ye and also sure from
those two people are also the current ietf working group cochairs. co-chair
of the international e-mail address. and yoneya is also cochair of the
working group. so these two work groups is the current active work groups
which are involved in the internationalized issues. ietf. so we also have
the representative from registries from dot dot russia. i think some of them
operate the tlds and west well-documented also have the community person
from the communities from aptrd and also from chinese domain name user in
the asian pacific region. this team is distributed. team members from asia
pacific region but we also have members from europe and american. so i think
that this case study team will work together to finalize the issue report.
i want to give some information about the past two days discussion meeting.
at the request by icann, we have finalized the issue part of chinese case
study in the end of september. but we have a consensus in that case study
team which should review finalize the question list. and the -- in the end
of july. and try to initial the issues report in august. and the first
question of the issue probably should be in the early of september. so give
us much time to discuss and to get the review from other expert i'm going to
-- except for the team member of this case study, we also want to conduct
-- the other expert from ietf or from other organizations to make sure the
-- issue is issue report is accurate and right. i think you know, the
-- chinese variant issue is not fresh new issues. the chinese community has
-- been working on the chinese variant issues for over 10 years, even in the
-- very beginning of the idn internationalized working group in ietf, the
-- variant issue is very important issue.
so many discussions in idn working group in ietf, how to do the chinese --
and also other kind of variant issues of chinese language.
in the past 10 years since it was published it's not a very perfect solution
but it is workable and acceptable by chinese community and i also want to
mention that now ietf is also working on some new solutions for the variant
issues. it's not only for chinese case. it's also maybe acceptable by other
language. i also see that it's involved in this room. so brb did you i want
to clarify that that maybe two states now for the chinese variant issue, it
maybe found acceptable solution. and ways that the issue report. but in the
next state maybe we can find more perfect solution in the ietf or other
organizations. but the most important work for this case study team is to
clarify the issues and finalize the issue product. this issue will be useful
for the icann community. i think that all the members of this case stud
study teamwork very hard and try our best to finish this work. thank you.
dan lewis and kathi goertzen xiaodong, thank you very much indeed.
excellent, and excellent to hear you have a plan to beat the deadline and
get comment out earl e. can i ask.
>>alexey sozonov: who is coordinator for the cyrillic to give an update?
>>alexey sozonov: okay. brief update of our cyrillic case study group is we
>>had a meeting and we understood that here is the scope of the broad
>>definitions which are for all languages. and which need to be boiled down
>>to the definition precise for cyrillic languages.
and cyrillic script. and just from the first meeting we acknowledged that we
could not cover all cyrillic scripts since it's too many languages and so
we'll cover languages which is in the scope of the members of our group. and
we'll have two exerts sergei and authors of cyrillic script 5992. and here
is the list of the members of our group. next, please. we also understood
that we need broader community input during the discussion period on the
wiki to bring the issues that might be overlooked by us as well we think
it's a good idea we'll be to have communications with other coordinators and
to share the working program because sometimes people look to things from
different perspective and they bring up issues which was overlooked. we
decided to meet once a week and we might have a necessity to have a
face-to-face meeting in the end of that work. and we are happy that our host
organization is unesco. we didn't know about that.
and next slide.
here it is. and since we've been learning the current definitions, we
understood that they were created for different languages and different
cases. and most of them are much more complicated than cyrillic requires. so
we need to work on it together with an expert.
and thank you. this is all update.
>>dennis jennings: thank you very much indeed. excellent. could i ask dr.
>>govind to speak about devanagari, i think i will get this pronounced
>>correctly one of these days. thank you.
>> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to speak about the devanagari
>> scripts and thank you for the opportunity to get us into a team which
>> will be going into the various aspects of this idn tld variation. so our
>> team will be consisting of ... (listing names).
i will be taking time to elaborate what these persons like the community
representatives will be that the script will be. the linguist will be
consisting of dr. rajiv and mrs. shashi. they are not reading script. more
than two experience in the linguistic aspects. and kumar. technique are
technical service provider. they will be assisting us in the
registry/registrar operations in the idn tld variations for devanagari
script. we have taken from the diverse backgrounds, diverse agencies who
will be assisting for this activity of tld. then we have james galvin from
afilias who will be assisting us. then we have security and stability,
again, james galvin and amardeep. then we have one of the directors in that.
so overall this team comes from a rich background and a diverse knowledge of
the aspects of the computers and the security aspects. variant aspect and
the script variation aspect. so all these and community expertise is also
there. so we expect that is composite team will help us to come out with a
good study on this devanagari script. some complexities of the script i will
elaborate but it is like l and 1 latin example home graphic variance. like
yesterday we talked about dra and dra. these two look like similar looking
scripts. so the definitions need to be suitably worded to accommodate the
complex script like devanagari script. so that's what we need to see is how
various complexities of the variant home graphic variations in the
devanagari script. how can we accommodate. and which can take aaccount of
that variation. the word register will be changeed to located. and will be
changeed to delegated. that's what we discussed of the last two days. and
director variant definition needs to be redefined as variant dominant uses
be considered. and 1 to 1 mapping of is not the case however, multiple point
sequence may have variance and the language variant table is given what
needs to be accommodateedthis kind of requirement. this will be elaborated
in our discussions with the team from icann. and give them the examples how
this kind of, not 1 to 1 and it is many to many and many to one kind of
mapping. we need to consider this aspect carefully while defining these
definitions and putting that in a proper structure. the case study group
will produce a table containing an explanation of what they understand on
the use definition and provide examples. that is what we discussed at each
of the arabic, cyrillic and chinese groups. if they can come up with a kind
of table, what they understand from these definitions which is given by
icann on each of the idn variant, and how each definition is supported by
the examples. so that will help us to go more into the commonality between
the various definitions and examples of each script which we are studying
here. the same should be shared with all the study group members. that is
also we discussed.
the coming to the timeline, what we discussed since it's a complex script.
so we -- we will have a weekly meeting teleconferencing planning to start
from 27th of june, immediately after reaching our entry. and so that on
weekly conferences we discuss the nuances of various complex structure of
the devanagari script and how we define the definitions and the examples.
then to come out with a overall structure of the indian, devanagari script
conferences we are having a conference on 6 of july in new delhi with
specific references to new gtld where we are inviting all the registrars,
internet community, government officials, industries, so that they also know
and we're inviting persons from icann also to see that they can see how the
devanagari script and the slangz a complex how question have a order.
face-to-face meeting planned in pune, in one of the meetings on conference
calls we discussed how we can have a face-to-face meeting in pune and dates
have also been finalized 21st and 22nd of july where we can have a person
from icann, idn group and various stakeholders of the idn in india and we're
organizing this meeting in pune where premiere institution of the technology
cdac is based. and then we intend to finish this job by 30th of september
which is the timeline for completing that duty. thank you.
>>dennis jennings: thank you very indeed. an extraordinarily complex case.
>>and very impressed that so much work has already got started and so much
>>planning done. i'd like now to ask papaspiliopoulos to speak on the case
>>study on behalf of vaggelis segredakis. vaggelis was unfortunately injured
>>in a car crash. i hope there's no connection but unfortunately he appears
>>to be quite badly injured and we send him all our very best wishes. so
>>panagiotis, can you give us an update on where we with are the greek case
>>study.
>>panagiotis papaspiloulos: yes, on behalf of vaggelis who had a serious
>>accident two or three days before he was going to take a plane to come
>>here to singapore. can i present you please the members of the greek team?
so vaggelis is our coordinator. and he's based in crete where it's the
registry of dot cr domain names and they have a lot of experience there in
and willing the greek letters. we have for your information we have
introduced the greek letters and the dot cr for the second level domain six
years now. and the variant case was examined technically and unilaterally at
that time. and so we believe that we can offer and transfer our experience
and our public attic to the icann project. and next member is asimina member
of the regular tate tore. he's a member of the regulator. and catherine
tsapikidou is working for the ministry of foreign affairs. evangelos is an
expert working for the greek civilization organization and the has involved
many times in formulating relevant iso standards, international standards,
of course. and one of them is the unicode standard.
fotia panayiotou is a member of the dot cy registry. but cy is for cyprus.
obviously since there are two countries with the official language the
greek, greece and cyprus, here help would be valuable in order to have a
common approach and common solution to the problems that might arise. george
papavlou is a member of the commission. it's the regulator. and he used to
work for the commission, the european commission. and maybe some of you may
know him well especially some people who follow icann meetings a long time.
his experience is expected to be very valuable in this project. giannis
papaioannou is a member of the he'll 0 graphical service of the navy, a
linguistic expert. and also an expert in geographical names. and he's also a
participating in several meetings around the world and he's representing
greece in the relevant fora around world. so we expect his help and his
experience to be valuable as well. and it's myself. and i am a communication
expert, i'm working for the ministry of infrastructure transport and
networks for the secretariat of communications. so i'm 9 years now. and we
had cooperated with vaggelis during the launch of the greek -- for second
level domain and dot cr six years ago. and i'm following icann almost 9
years now. and i'm the gac representative of greece. so this is our team.
and we hope to do our best to present something that this -- we all want to
be useful, not only to the icann staff but also to the internet community
and we have realized that even if greek is a language that the not too much
people speak, it's a language that too many people learn and maybe they want
to use and they learn it as well. so in coming to the project now we would
like first of all, to define and identify character set. since greek
characters can be found in poly systems. and it's seted to tables in the
unicode that covers the set of greek characters, for your information, all
the characters are supported for the second level domain at dot cr. and
after that we want to present the variant issue and to provide to the
definitions and to -- for the verification of variants to provide as many
examples as it is necessary in order to identify the problems. just a small
brief, the variant can be two kinds of variants. one kind of the variants
could be if you put the -- on a different vowel. so the letter in capitals
looks the same but actually it's not the same. and the capital is the
problem because otherwise the encoding is different. and then other case is
when you have same two words that look alike. in this case, we have realized
from the very beginning that the -- this could be a feeling that we should
cooperate also with the latin cyrillic team. since many of the greek letters
are also in the cyrillic alphabet. we believe that we have experience and we
are optimistic if we have serious health problem, that we have a line and we
provide the icann full identification of the variant issue. and since we
have, as i told you before, some regulatory experience, even if it's not in
the scope of the project of the states, maybe you could provide some
information, some proposals for this as well thank you very much.
>>dennis jennings: well, thank you very much, indeed.
can i call on jothan frakes, now, who is the case team coordinator for the
latin case.
>>jothan frakes: thank you very much, dennis. my name is jothan frakes and i
>>am a volunteer with the mowzilla process working with the developer
>>communication on am simulating idn into use for the general community.
and it's a privilege to have the opportunity to serve working with a very
good volunteer team.
if we could have the next slide, please.
working with dr. andrzej bartosiewicz.
(listing names).
we also have staff support from kim davies, helping us work together on some
of the issues that exist in documenting those, capturing those, as well as
definitions and around those with respect to the latin script.
we have determined, like many of the others who have spoken here today have
talked about the definitions in and around the use of the term variant, what
those mean within each of the language study teams. and we're working hard
on defining what those are. and in fact, trying to determine some of those
terms -- terminology and variants that do or don't apply, but at least
documenting those.
so the people who finally are the consumers of the end result documentation
that we do are able to make well-informed decisions about the next steps.
we're working with a language set -- excuse me, a script set that has a
fairly good exposure in a very simplified form in that a through z have been
available for well over 25 years now in the dns system.
we're working to capture different elements of user experience and
expectation and how those feed into the use of latin characters as we extend
end into diacritic marks and ligatures, et cetera, as we expand the latin
character sets that would be available in the domain name system at the
top-level domain.
we're trying to factor in things like what the user experience is with
respect to their qwerty keyboards, q-w-e-r-t-y for the transcriptor, as well
as azerty and these different things mean different countries and different
uses.
we also are taking a look at the display of characters and how that
expectation works within applications and fonts for what the user experience
is.
an example of the user experience would be that in the current dns system
that whether you type a capital letter a or a lowercase letter a, the dns
system treats those identically.
and we're working with some character sets and some language character
repertoires that are fairly well structured using the latin code sets -- or,
excuse me, scripts from within the unicode definitions.
it's our objective to help document what we consider to be variants. and
there are a variety of variant classifications, such as homo graphic
characters as well as homo phone strings, as well as orthographic variants,
and a number of other variants. so we're working to define variant so that
we have a common vocabulary amongst our team that we can articulate to the
other working groups.
it we have also determined that we will have some exposure and need to
interact with other teams such as the gentlemen to my right and left, panos
and alexey with the greek and cyrillic teams as well, because there is some
overlap in those character sets as well.
as far as the schedule goes, our team will be working with a biweekly
schedule call. we are making a determination if the necessity of a
face-to-face meeting will be there. we hope to ultimately make that
determination by the end of july.
ultimately, we are pleased to have a very good team composition. we're
already well under way with assignments, and we hope to work within the
september 30th deadline with no issues.
and that is my update.
thank you.
>>dennis jennings: jothan, thank you very much, indeed.
i realize that i didn't introduce a couple of key people from the project
team, and i would like to do that now and these are the case study liaisons.
they are the staff on the team who are the key contact points and liaisons
with the case study coordinators, and they are the people that you should
know about on our side.
and for the arabic case study, baher esmat is the liaison. baher is in the
audience there. for the chinese, steve sheng is the coordinator, who is on
the panel up here. for the cyrillic, francisco who is beside me here is the
coordinator. from the devanagari crypt, (saying name) is the liaison. for
the greek, julie hedlund who is on the panel up here. and for the latin, kim
davies is -- is kim here with us?
>>kurt pritz: kim is unfortunately across town at a dnssec event.
>>dennis jennings: that's right. he is at a dnssec signing ceremony but i
>>think kim is well-known to you all.
i am going to open the microphones to questions from the floor in a moment,
but before i do that, just a couple of things.
when i started working on this project, i, like many other people, felt that
this was a technical problem, and it should be thrown over the wall and a
technical solution should be found.
i've been rudely abused by my technical friends and colleagues that, in
fact, it's not a technical problem. and there is no technical solution. and
if there were a technical solution, it would take a long time to implement
across the dns, the hugely distributed database system called the dns.
so having been disabused of that, and you should note that because there
isn't just a simple technical solution to this. and even if there were --
and some people say, well, dname, dname solves all the problems, i'm not
sure the technical people would agree but even if they did, dname is not
fully deployed cause the dns so it would take time to deploy and implement.
so there ain't an easy solution here. there's a hard solution, which is to
find out what the problem is and then to address that problem.
it's probably at the registry, at the application layer. maybe if we're very
lucky, there will emerge a technical solution but i personally think right
now that's very unlikely.
the other thing , i think i said this at the saturday sessions, is we need
to be conscious to reduce the complexity of the problem sshes we can so as
to maximize the likelihood that some idn variants -- some idn variants will
be delegated.
the perfect is the enemy of the good. peter dengate thrush mentioned that in
relation to the resolutions that were agreed this morning.
we can search for the perfect. we can search for solving all the issues, and
we may find that if we try and do that, that we'll never get a solution.
now, having said that, i must remind everybody the first thing is to
identify the issues, all the issues. but we should be mindful of
categorizing those issues so that we can perhaps, in the next phase, find
solutions for the most important ones that affect the largest number of
internet users.
so let's have in back of our minds that we need to reduce the complexity, if
at all possible.
so with those sort of caveats to the project and to the community, i'd like
to invite anybody who has a question or a comment to come up to the
microphones and to address the panel.
and you don't have to all rush at once.
>> hello. it's (saying name) from university college london with a question
>> to dr. govind about some devanagari issues that came up a couple of days
>> ago.
and there was talk of there being problems with the devanagari script
because several languages use that script, and there was concern that they
would be applying for identical strings and there would be major problems
with variants.
but i was just wondering if you could explain that in greater detail.
>>dr. govind: i will ask my colleague, dr. kulkarni, to explain that.
>>mahesh kulkarni: the deng as you said is a script and there are a couple
>>of languages which are schedule languages are represented using devanagari
>>.
the issue here is that the core page is the same while the languages that
have been derived from that. and we have done a study of the variants
basically. we don't see any problem in relation with the -- basically the
variants which are coming out across the languages.
for example, if you want basically an idn for murati, then automatically for
the hindi language, it will not be a given.
so that's where we are trying to address that. and because from the end-user
perspective, you don't have on the url bar, basically, you don't have a
language identification system. so devanagari, as it appears as a script,
and whose serve applies first? either the hindi people or the murati or the
rest of the languages people come first? so this is exactly what we are
plan.
i hope i have answered your query.
>> yes. now, one -- just very quick additional question. the punjabi has a
>> script, and is that regarded as being part of devanagari or is that
>> separate?
>>mahesh kulkarni: actually, we have too indian languages. there are many
>> more. and some of the languages have been represented by two different
>> scripts.
for example, if you take punjabi, it has been written using (saying name) as
well as sharmuki. but that's like arabic style of writing basically.
but since it has not been currently incorporated into the unicode, we are
not taking that. so we are considering only punjabi which is in muruki
script.
>> and you would not use the word to refer to --
>>mahesh kulkarni: no, no. they are two different scripts basically. for 22
>> languages, we have something around ten different scripts there to
>> represent all the 22 languages.
>> thank you very much, indeed.
>>dennis jennings: thank you, chris. we have a question there in the middle,
>> please.
>>andrew mack: thank you. andrew mack. to your discussion of the different
>> languages that are -- the different scripts that are used for the similar
>> languages, we've talked in the past about the idea of trying to bundle
>> those together so that an applicant might be able to apply for two or
>> more scripts to use -- that are used to express their language. and i was
>> curious about your thoughts about that in the case much india. and also,
>> what would the cost be of that? you know, so if you can add in a second
>> -- what's the actual cost of that? not the 185 but the actual technical
>> -- cost of adding a separate script?
>>dennis jennings: microphone. dr. govind, the microphone is off.
>>dr. govind: ram would like to answer.
>>ram mohan: this is ram mohan. i guess i didn't understand when you said
>>what is the technical cost of adding another script. you would simply
>>instantiate -- if you were running a registry you would simply instantiate
>>another script. and whatever the tld label is, you would simply run it
>>that way.
now, i don't think, so far, there has been much discussion about the
combination of multiple scripts and calling those different scripts as
variants of each other. i don't think we've got there yet. and i don't think
that's what dr. kulkarni was talking about either.
so if you look at, for example, the devanagari example, you have devanagari,
and as dr. kulkarni was saying you have hindi and murati in. there the idea
there is (saying name) which is, for example, india in hindi. if you want to
get perat in hindi or a secretary level domain name in there that's a
different problem set all together. but if you would like to get a domain
name, whatever, dot xyz, in devanagari and you want to get that same string,
xyz, in, say, tamil, there is not a plan or a proposal to treat them as a
bundle.
eventually, you would end up having two separate registries. you would end
up running it through the registrars, and you would offer it as two unique
sets of strings.
so i hope that answers your question.
>>dennis jennings: thank you, ram, for that explanation.
the word bundling, i've heard, has been bandied around quite a bit. like all
these terms, i'm not quite sure what it means. i think we need to define
bundling, and then we need to work out whether this is just a self-serving
statement of interest or whether there really is an issue here, and whether
it belongs to our project or not.
so yet another challenge to us to define bundling and to see what it means.
patrick, we have a question.
>>patrik fÄltstrÖm: pat patrik fÄltstrÖm, i am chair of the ssac, security
>>and stability advisory committee. i just want to make one remark in the
>>process we have here. i am really really happy to see this program
>>starting. let me start there, and i am also really happy with the quality
>>of the discussion here at this session.
i'm one of the authors of the idn standards. i have been fighting with these
kinds of problems myself for many, many years.
but, for example, i hear that people at this session, one of the first time
in the ten years i am looking at this, i hear people really sprament the
definition of script and language. well done.
okay. my remark regard being the process. as the chair of ssac, i just want
to make everyone understand that there are many, many individuals that are
also members of ssac, including staff and also volunteers that are part of
this project. but just because we have that, i do envision in the future
that this project might actually ask specific questions to ssac.
so i just want to point out to everyone that we don't have any liaisons
formally between ssac and this project, but we have individuals that
participate in the proj project. so when we later might have questions that
are sent to ssac or if it's the case that this group for some reason might
like to have a frm mall liaison, because we at ssac do expolitely incoming
and outcoming relationships with other groups in icann in that case i am
really happy to have that discussion and crelt those liaisons. because i
want these individuals to participate in these projects to be able to use
create their individual skills, their individual nodges to participate fully
in these projects and not feel they have to be bound either now or in a
future discussion inside ssac when we try to answer some of these questions
with the work that the previous have done.
thank you.
>>dennis jennings: patrik, thank you very, very much for that and that's
>>very helpful, indeed, and you and i should have a discussion off-line to
>>flesh that out a little bit and see when that's appropriate to set up the
>>liaisons, if and when.
thank you. i appreciate that.
we have an online question, i believe.
francisco. nigh yell you are low, you are going to take the question. of.
>> thank you. we have a question, can verisign now apply for new gtlds or
>> like hebrew and russian, or would they be held up by this variant issue?
>>dennis jennings: and francisco, do you want it take that question?
it.
>> sure. i believe the simple answer is yes, they can apply. they are not
>> going to be held up. anyone can apply for an idn, would be able to apply
>> for an idn gtld.
what we are discussing in this project is the variants of idns.
>>dennis jennings: and if i may add to that, as i said at the beginning, if
>>there is a variant, you may apply for a string and state a variant. if you
>>look carefully at the applicant guidebook, um see that.
i think there's some more work to be done on -- in that area.
so if you have variant strings, although variant tlds will not be delegated
until this project has produced the issues report and then a subsequent
project has looked at solutions, there is, nevertheless, the opportunity in
the first round to apply for a tld and to name a variant. just to make that
clear.
have we any other questions from the audience?
yes, we have a questioner. please come up to the microphone and identify
yourself.
>> my name is (saying name). i come from (saying name) university. this is
>> my first icann meeting.
a question i have is for the members in general.
i wonder if we want to identify the issues of variation variants. if you can
arrive at something like consensus of the classifications -- for example,
looking linguistically at the devanagari script, i can think of two clear
sources of variants. one i would consider historical; that is, we have
characters which stand for sounds which are no more there. but because, say,
the language using it today -- for example, hindi -- has relation with
sanskrit, so although the sounds have changed, but the letters have been
kept intact.
so you have examples, letters of (inaudible) kind of ching which is not
pronounced. (saying word" you can write it in two different ways.
the other has to do with the relevant orthographic level. i think of since
hindi, they have the syllabic script so you have something like a syllable
represented by one, so things like chum in chunden and chum in chumpick. the
variation is on account of treating chun as a full name, and so you have
something called a dot vindu, but if it is not full name, if it is to do
with surface representation, then you have the actual nasal consonants, et
cetera.
so the variations are on account of referring to different orthographic
levels.
so i can think in devanagari, at least, of two different sources of
variants, orthographic level. so there is nawld (inaudible) variation
results that refer to different levels, and historical sort of remnant
sounds.
so i wonder -- i believe the languages, scripts such as latin and greek may
have similar problems. (inaudible) some idea. but some consensus at least ,
something like sharing of discussion, dialogues, can lead to the consensus
on types of -- sources of variants and solutions to them.
thank you.
>>dennis jennings: thank you for that.
yes, one of the things that we have discovered is that we need to have lots
of examples to clarify what we're talking about, and those examples are
helpful. so there's a lot of work to be done here.
dr. govind or dr. kulkarni, do you want to take an initial response to that
question?
>>mahesh kulkarni: yeah, actually, what dr. pandi was referring to,
>>variants, basically, especially coming from two different streams. one is
>>the variant coming from the phonetic variations which comes up and which
>>(inaudible) homophones. and there is another variation which comes from
>>the -- what is called the way one looks at the screen, which means that
>>homo graphs.
both aspects were considered and debated. we did this study for almost last
four to five years, and we came to the conclusion that homophones --
treating homophones will be a difficult task and we might debar a lot of
what is called the possible idns. and we have restricted ourselves only to
the homographs. unicode 6.0 get us to what is called the language nuances as
well the script which is properly represented, the languages which are
properly represented using the devanagari script.
so i don't see we should, at least for the devanagari, we should not treat
homophones. we are only going like homographs, as is the case with the
ascii, like color and c-l-o-r and c-o-l-u-r, and we treat them differently.
a similar case lies with devanagari, like hindi, are it in two different
forms, both are acceptable forms with bindi, and with (saying name).
so these are two forms but since they are not similar looking, we have taken
a decision to keep them separated.
so i hope that answers the question.
>>dennis jennings: thank you.
any other case study coordinator want to comment on the -- nicholas.
>> could i make a method lodge cam point about this. obviously everything
>> that has been said is absolutely correct. but as i understood the purpose
>> of this activity, it is to identify potential cases, to generalize over
>> them and to see what principles might be appealed to in future in
>> adjudicating whether things are variants or not.
we are not giving solutions at this stage, but the more examples we
consider, the more powerful and effective and useful in the future the
principles we arrive at will be. and of course um find different principles
in respect of different scripts.
and probably there will be more principles to scripts we are not considering
as well but that's for the fult.
thank you.
>>dennis jennings: thank you. any case study coordinator want to comment on
>>homophones rather than homographs? i think it's been very well covered by
>>dr. kulkarni. so seeing no volunteer and seeing that we have no questioner
>>on the floor, do we have any further questions from the -- excellent. with
>>five minutes to go we can clear the room for the next session.
thank you very much, indeed, -- oh, ram, you have a question?
>>ram mohan: not a question, actually. just a comment, for very helpful
>>suggestions like dr. pannedi said, dennis, perhaps it would be useful to
>>put up on the screen or someplace where these folks can actually continue
>>to participate and provide input into the various case study teams because
>>this is a community effort and what's need aside that kind of multiplicity
>>of opinion.
whether or not, you know, having two -- considering two sources is a
generalizable problem is one thing, but having that kind of input come in is
really the critical core of what this entire effort is about.
thank you.
>>dennis jennings: ram, thank you very much, indeed. you are absolutely
>>right. this -- to emphasize, this is a community project. it's not an
>>icann project. it's a community project. the case study teams are
>>community teams. and there's an opportunity for everybody in the community
>>to participate. and francisco has brought back up on the screen the
>>mailing list and the wiki. the mailing list for participation, the wiki
>>for information that will be published. and it's our intent, while we will
>>be having -- the case study meetings will be closed just for working
>>purposes, the outputs will be published for everybody to see.
and these are the mechanisms for people to ask questions, to raise
questions, and to contribute.
and we certainly hope, because i emphasize, these are community projects,
not icann projects, that people, as we have seen, will ask questions and
will contribute.
for icann, i would like to say that i have been -- and i think i can say
this as a consultant and not as a full staff member, that i have been
tremendously impressed both with the case study teams and the work they're
doing and with the staff, and i think this project is in good hands.
and with that positive note, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much,
indeed.
[ applause ]
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 20th June 2011, 04:40 PM
squirrel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,940
iTrader: (11)
Rep Power: 7081
squirrel is a name known to all
squirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to allsquirrel is a name known to all
Re: Transcript of ICANN Singapore 41 board meeting

george sadowsky had some valid points
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 20th June 2011, 04:50 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4508
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Transcript of ICANN Singapore 41 board meeting

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
george sadowsky had some valid points
Iam not sure it matters what was said.

We have a resolution and a guide book. The rest is history.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 20th June 2011, 05:19 PM
sbe18's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,334
iTrader: (10)
Rep Power: 1641
sbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enough
Re: Transcript of ICANN Singapore 41 board meeting

the economics have changed as well as the history.

why buy a name for a million now or particularly 4 years from now ? ( in general ...mind you.)
when you can pay 185K and 25K per year ...

Loans.com is/ was B of A .

5 years from now, someone will have dot Loans.

ICANN auctions not Sedo or Afternic auctions....

and then the chinese/japanese/russian auctions for dot loans ....

by 2020, a gtld might be $185 not $185K

the Verisign monopoly pricing increases are vacuous.
GTLD price increases will be vacuous if they happen as well.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 20th June 2011, 05:55 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4508
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Transcript of ICANN Singapore 41 board meeting

Not as easy as that. A first level domain costs a fortune to adminster and B of A will probably have to go Auction if they want dot Loans, and even then it will probably go to some industry oversight body.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sbe18 View Post
the economics have changed as well as the history.

why buy a name for a million now or particularly 4 years from now ? ( in general ...mind you.)
when you can pay 185K and 25K per year ...

Loans.com is/ was B of A .

5 years from now, someone will have dot Loans.

ICANN auctions not Sedo or Afternic auctions....

and then the chinese/japanese/russian auctions for dot loans ....

by 2020, a gtld might be $185 not $185K

the Verisign monopoly pricing increases are vacuous.
GTLD price increases will be vacuous if they happen as well.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54