Whilst I was in London, I was also online and discussed the IRT online in the discussion room that was taking place at the same time. PDT came to me and said, "Look. I understand that ALAC is against the inaudible and voiced it quite a few times. We know that. However, do you have any counter-proposals for us? What do you suggest, instead?"

I have a feeling that somehow they must be under intense pressure from inaudible to come up with something. The IRT team itself has come up with a solution that the board also feels might not be the best solution.

I spoke to a number of people on the IRT team that inaudible including Fabricio Vera. The thing is, I have a feeling they don't even want to change whatever solutions they've built in there.

They are absolutely convinced about the difference in there. They're convinced that trademarks are there to protect people. In fact, even people should pay for trademarks to be there to protect them.

At the end of the day, they always come up with the initial things. Talking about medicines and fake goods that might injure people. Trademarks are enforced. They will basically have to be somehow paid for by users and -- of course -- by themselves.

That's the gist of the story. But the big question we're faced with now is, "What can we do right now?" Does ALAC want to continue working with NCUC? My own belief is that those two constituencies can make a really strong case. Then at the same time, is ICANN going to push back and say, "Right! We hear you guys. We know that the users are the most important people in ICANN. So we're going to stop that."

Nick: Well, I have a comment there that may be useful.

Alan: And I have a comment, also.

Cheryl: Yes. I believe it's very important that Nick -- you're probably going to make the clarification that I suspect you're going to. So, if you'll go first -- and then Alan.

Nick: I was just going to note that -- as far as I know -- and this is really all that I'm aware of… The only thing that the staff is doing at the moment related to the IRT is… looking at whether or not their proposals are actually implementable. Because it's not at all certain that even if there were agreements, those proposals should be accepted. They could be implemented in any way that would be really workable.

I don't know of any stop effort that suggests that the IRT report should be rammed through. The board has certainly not resolved that in any way. They've done nothing but thank the IRT for their input.

ALAC and the NCUC are far from the only communities that objected to various parts of the IRT report. I think there are plenty of people who feel that the report is imperfect in various ways. Evan, of course, has proposed a way in a multi-stakeholder way to try to come up with something that would work, and gain wide adherence.

That said, I have to tell you -- and I hope that you'll accept this in candor, and not repeat it… The At-Large community has far more credibility on any issue you care to mention than the non-com users' constituency does. The best evidence of that is what is going on with the NCUC charter.