Bertrand asked about using IP Clearinghouse after sunrise period. Staff (Karen Lentz) said no requirement but registry could use it after sunrise.

UK not happy that IP Clearinghouse will exclude all EU TMs since they don’t do substantive examinations. Won't include UK TMs issued after 2007. "This is a significant point of concern"

Sweden: can't see the differences between EOI and new gTLD round. Have issues with TM system too.

Unknown: will TM Clearinghouse include TMs in different languages? Will geographic names in all languages be in the clearinghouse? ICANN should announce EOI strings translated to all languages, even if the expression was only for an English string.

UK (Mark) on GAC comments on DAGv3:

Comments are drafted and undergoing edits/review. Danish edit is most significant.

Overarching issues still give us concern. Registration abuse is key but still being worked on.

Strong consensus that economic justification for gTLD expansion has not been fully developed yet.

Germany: geographic names should include common abbreviations too.

Bertrand: need to address single-registrant TLDs, like brands where registry will give customers second-level domains – but not sell them. And the GAC wants to see exploration of how categories/track differentiation could help in EOI and gTLD program.

Bertrand gave an interesting example of why the EOI could create problems: imagine a city govt wants to solicit RFPs from multiple operators. But if the city selects the operator after EOI begins, the applicant will have missed the window to apply for the string. This could penalize categories like geographical names.

Presentation by Paul Horne (UK Law Enforcement) on recommendations for RAA amendment:

These recommendations are supported by Interpol and G8 Cyber WG.

Called out lack of accurate registration info and proxies. "27% of domain name owners not readily traceable in top 5 gTLDs"

Wants mandatory minimum requirements instead of optional best practices.

ICANN should carry out periodical due diligence on every Rr and Ry and on every proxy/privacy service provider.

Mandatory for Rr to collect and validate accurate registrant data.

Proxy/privacy should only be available to private individuals for non-commercial purposes.

These requirements might raise registration costs but would also raise risks to criminal enterprises.

UK (Mark): UK fully backs these Interpol recommendations. Let's get rest of GAC to support them as well. Let's do it this week as a consensus of the GAC. (2 other govts indicated support )

Report from WIPO:

GAC, INTA, and WIPO are concerned about proposed TM protections. But "Special interests have transformed concerns into unworkable proposals." WIPO and IRT proposed post delegation methods, but present STI models have lost sight of objectives in order to get the round going.

ICANN should re-focus on original WIPO/IRT proposals.

He questioned GAC draft letter on DAGv3, which says that IP Clearinghouse and URS adequately address concerns that GAC raised in its Seoul communiqué.

UK: GPML is a lost cause but I'm still hearing that GPML would provide a powerful instrument for global brands.

Bertrand: What's being done to address these problems in exist Rr and Ry? Are current rules being enforced?

WIPO reply: we're more concerned with post-delegation mechanisms, since applicants aren't likely to fail in the pre-delegation stage.

New topic: Linguistic Communities (LC) are not being adequately served in new gTLD proposal. Presentation by Abril I Abril on lessons from .cat

40,000 domain names in .cat

over 30% were first-time registrants (no prior domain name or website)

.cat has real success in content: 22 million pages in .cat (per Google)

only 4 UDRP cases; only one was cyberquatting

.cat complies with its charter; he rejected proposal to register 5000 cat names!

.cat has very little malicious conduct (less than .gov! )

policy promotes language and culture – not domainers

IDN's are treated as same registry object as their equivalent ASCII

ICANN must request high standards for registration policies and enforcement.

New topic: EOI

Bertrand: GAC letter to Board asked to delay vote until Nairobi discussions. GAC has questions about EOI proposal and its impact on the gTLD process:

Is the EOI establishing rules that have not yet been finalized?

Is the EOI the start of the new gTLD round? If so, there are consequences to be addressed.

1.     Has the purpose of the EOI been clarified? (data or pre-registration)

2.     Mandatory nature may have unintended consequences (land grab, artificial boost in number of strings,

3.     Does EOI penalize small applicants?

4.     Does EOI facilitate or prevent an orderly launch of new gTLDs?

Questions about EOI are not questions about whether to launch new gTLDs. That's a given.

Italy (Stefano Trumpy): EOI is really completion of preparation for real launch. Could inform categories sought by applicants.

Sweden: we don’t see difference between EOI and real launch. If EOI is indication of market response, okay. But if the EOI is really a pre-launch, we have concerns.

Unknown: DAG must be finalized before EOI or it would be useless.

Bertrand: tension is that applicants need a level of certainty in order to apply. But not if we just want to know the number of strings (and objections).

Bertrand asked if EOI will inflate the number of strings sought.

Unknown: no, the $55K fee is so high that EOI will not stimulate more strings.

Australia: if there are outstanding policy issues it will create risks for applicants. Risks may outweigh potential benefits.

Bertrand: EOI is going beyond data gathering. If it is really the beginning of the round, won't that make it harder to explain what it is as you (ICANN) go around the world to communicate new gTLDs?

Staff: not really. If Board approves EOI we will start our communications process right away with press releases and announcements. To last at least 4 months.

Unknown: ccTLD EOI was non exclusive and not binding. Why do we call it EOI if it does not give us any flexibility afterwards?

Staff: that's why we'd call it "Expression of Interest and Pre-registration" if it's mandatory.

Germany: from what I've heard this is purely a pre-registration on the basis of rules not yet set.

Unknown: I thought EOI was a good idea to identify strings and do market analysis.

African: if EOI is the pre-launch why hasn't the communications program occurred first? A lot of uncertainties surround the overarching issues. Govts of developing countries are listening but we have not begun educating our people.

Staff: EOI fee is refundable only if new round does not begin in, say, 18 months.

Bertrand: EOI proposal would be mandatory on the string and mandatory on the applicant. Only the number of strings is related to root scaling. If that's all we want to know, then let any applicant apply for published strings.

Valuable keyword strings have high semantic value and short length. Is a TLD a product to be marketed, or a resource to be managed? Keywords have public value and so they should be managed in the public interest. Is the EOI model serving public interest? France proposed EOI for the strings but not for applicants.

EOI has really already begun: Over last 2 years we have seen publication of strings sought by applicants. (Bertrand displayed his list of about 40 geographic, keyword, and community category strings )

Germany: categorizations are interesting, but GAC should not take stand on this.

Unknown: If GAC just raises concerns, we are accused of slowing down progress. We should help to find solutions. A category model could be a solution. What's expected of us by end of this week?

Stefano: GAC should ask ICANN to give space to less developed countries and new actors in the first round. The EOI is a discriminatory process because it follows market rules.

USA (Fiona): If EOI is data gathering, we're fine. But if EOI is a pre-launch before issues are resolved, then it is not consistent with Affirmation of Commitments.