No Such Weblog

Paul Verhoef reports on the ICANN staff perspective on the state of affairs. The current step in the process is to ask expert advice regarding economic, competition, trademark, intellectual property issues. OECD has an internal draft report out. ICANN is in contact with WIPO. SecSAC is working on this. Expect to get expert advice on some issues. Will need to derive from that what questions need to be answered. Expect that GNSO PDP will be needed. Not yet in a position to put out the questions that are to be asked in such a process. OECD has promised to do their best to declassify their document prior to KL. All on the way. Once preliminary round of expert advice is in, able to put questions on table. Expect that "all of it" come together by September 30.

Tonkin: What is "all of it"? Verhoef: Looking at legal interpretation of what is in front of ICANN now. Current thinking: 30 December will be initial assessment of staff based on expert advice which then puts up questions to be asked, and process by which questions to be answered -- including PDPs. Totality to be what ICANN calls "strategy."

Problem is: Unclear what questions ICANN needs to ask itself. OECD report isn't very clear on whether or not there is net benefit from more competition in the gTLD area. If their advice is "yes, more competition useful", then one direction, if "no, not useful", then other direction. Right now, none of that. There are even then steps to go through. How to determine whether we need more competition or not? How do we come to conclusion? If come to conclusion that there is need for more competition, then: How to do that? OECD may have some recommendations on that. Also then, variety of possibilities. Continuous processes or step processes. Step processes, once a year, every five years? Looking to find longer term answer to number of these questions.

If there is decision -- not saying that this is necessarily going to happen --: "yes, we need more competition", "yes, go for regular competitions for more gTLDs", then have to design process. Still at the phase of defining that, working through it. Don't jump to conclusions too early on detailed questions. It is important that collectively go through entirety of considerations in step-by-step mode. That is what will have to bring to paper, so thinking in terms of process and options is in front of that.

Marilyn Cade: Cogizant of time frames and deadlines. Appreciate information. Concerned about Council being too far away from process. Must develop PDP in timely manner. Thinking right now: Strategy planning moving away from Council? Staff taking input from experts, then present set of questions to Council? Sounds like may not get that after Sep 30?

Verhoef: Concern is to make sure to have SOs fully abreast and fully involved. Question with expert advice is, need to take material, turn around in sth that is presentable within community as a whole. Then ask questions, "agree with OECD analysis and conclusions"? Haven't gotten material together. Don't oversee all of this. Still struggling how to move forward. Some internal discussions. As soon as come out with that, position to inform Council in detail.

Cade: Personal interpretation? Conclude PDP so ICANN has defined and agreed to process? Interpreting that differently? Not have to conclude PDP by end of year?

Verhoef: Some of the internal thinking, have GC confirm that. If give personal interpretation, some of this was written, deadlines + text, under assumption that there would be more gTLDs, need to design selection process and conditions how it is going to be done. Currently looking at additional step that needs to be inserted: Decision, is there -- yes or no -- going to be a need for more gTLDs at this point in time? Need to find some specs to determine that, how to come to conclusion, whatever it be. Careful to give ourselves right questions. Sense that this was not foreseen at time when this was drafted. Then: "Yes, there need to be new TLDs, but don't know about the process." Presumption was made that there would be new TLDs. Not necessarily a given any more.. See if can interpret "predictable strategy" in slightly wider sense than maybe it was originally foreseen.

Tonkin: Subject to dialogue between ICANN and DoC?

Verhoef: DoC would have to agree with us.

Pritz: Scenario mgith be: Result from studies could be that strategy that is adopted, or recognized on 30 Sep might be that part of new TLD strategy be full implementation of IDN. That implementation would require policy questions to be answered by GNSO, technical questions answered by others. Strategy: "Full implementation of IDNs"?

Cade: Helpful. Given intense interest around world in IDNs and challenges there, resources? Answer helpful.

Verhoef: Results of KL workshop to provide further input to that. Part of IDN complexity is that it is not only ICANN and its community, but other parties there who need to do other things so it works for end user. Broader complex of issues. KL workshop to make complexity transparent to non-experts in that field, other entities who need to move forward on their responsibilities.

Stubbs: Planning to post agenda for IDN workshop?

(The discussion then continues with details on the IDN workshop in KL, and IDN issue.)