ICANN Meetings in São Paulo, Brazil

Excerpt from the realtime captioning of the ICANN Public Forum Part 1 held on 04 December 2006 (The full text is available at: http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-icannpublicforumpt1-04dec06.htm

<Begin Excerpt>

>>VINT CERF: [......]

WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL STATUS REPORT TO DO BEFORE WE GO ON TO Q&A AND THAT'S TO GO SOME VIEWS ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM, AND MARKUS KUMMER HAS AGREED TO OFFER THAT OBSERVATION.

SO IF MARKUS IS WITH US, I'D LIKE TO ASK HIM TO JOIN US ON THE DAIS.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THINK AS WELL AS MARKUS, WE HAVE ALSO GOT AYESHA HASSAN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE REDOUBTABLE LYNN ST. AMOUR FROM ISOC WHO ALL PARTICIPATED STRONG HI IN THIS AREA SO I THINK WE ARE ASKING ALL THREE TO GIVE US AN UPDATE.

>>MARKUS KUMMER: THANK YOU, VINT. GOOD MORNING TO YOU ALL.

MANY OF YOU WERE IN ATHENS SO I WON'T GO TOO MUCH INTO DETAILS.

THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM AND IT INCLUDES ALL STAKEHOLDERS. I'M VERY PLEASED TO HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF TWO IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS HERE, THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, WITH LYNN, AND PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTED HERE BY AYESHA HASSAN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. BUT WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THERE ARE ALSO TWO VERY IMPORTANT GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS, GOVERNMENTS AND CIVIL SOCIETY.

ATHENS -- THE MEETING IN ATHENS WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE, I THINK, FOR ALL THESE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. MAYBE THE TOUGHEST EXPERIENCE WAS FOR THE GOVERNMENTS, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BLEND IN WITH THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, NOT AS IN WSIS WHERE THEY HAD A PRIVILEGED SPACE AS IT IS NORMAL IN INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS, BUT THERE WERE ONE GROUP AMONG OTHERS, AND HAD NO PARTICULAR PRIVILEGES COMPARED TO THE OTHER GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS.

ALL IN ALL, I THINK THE IGF CAN BE DESCRIBED AS AN EXPERIMENT IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN HIS MESSAGE TO THE MEETING CALLED IT A MOVE INTO UNCHARTED TERRITORY.

ATHENS, THE MEETING, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY SAY, EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS. MOST PARTICIPANTS WERE EXTREMELY HAPPY WITH THE MEETING, AND IT IS A VERY SOLID BASIS TO BUILD ON WHEN PREPARING THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE IN RIO IN NOVEMBER 2007.

AND I'M PARTICULARLY PLEASED TO WORK WITH THE HOST COUNTRY TEAM, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME TEAM AS THE TEAM THAT IS HOSTING THIS ICANN MEETING HERE IN SAO PAULO, SO WE HAVE, I THINK, VERY SOLID GUARANTEES FOR A SUCCESSFUL MEETING IN RIO NEXT YEAR.

LET ME SAY A FEW WORDS WHAT THE IGF IS, FOR THOSE WHO WERE NOT IN ATHENS. AND MAYBE IT IS EASIER TO SAY WHAT THE IGF IS NOT RATHER THAN WHAT IT IS. IT IS NOT A NEW ORGANIZATION. IT IS NOT A DECISION-MAKING BODY, AND IT IS NOT A DIPLOMATIC TYPE CONFERENCE, SUCH AS WE HAD WITH THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.

CRITICS SAY IT'S JUST A TALKING SHOP WITHOUT TEETH. I WOULD TURN THIS ARGUMENT AROUND AND SAY WHAT MAY BE SEEN AS AN APPARENT WEAKNESS IS ACTUALLY THE STRENGTH OF THE IGF. NOBODY NEEDS TO BE AFRAID OF THE IGF. NOBODY NEEDS TO BE AFRAID OF ANY WRONG DECISION THAT COULD BE TAKEN. AND THIS GIVES, ACTUALLY, PARTICIPANTS THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK OPENLY. IT ALLOWS FOR AN OPEN DIALOGUE, FOR AN OPEN EXCHANGE OF VIEWS AND INFORMATION, AND FOR THE SHARING OF BEST PRACTICES.

THE IGF HAS NOT THE POWER OF REDISTRIBUTION. IT CANNOT TAKE AWAY ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY, BUT IT DOES HAVE THE POWER OF RECOGNITION. IT CAN PUT AN ISSUE ON THE AGENDA OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, AND AS SUCH, IT HAS -- IF IT HAS ANY POWER -- A KIND OF MORAL POWER.

I WOULD SAY IN MANY WAYS, THE IGF IS LIKE THE INTERNET ITSELF. IT IS BASED ON A BOTTOM-UP COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, AND IT'S VALUE ADDED IS ACTUALLY MORE AT THE EDGES THAN AT THE CENTER.

THE MEETING, THE PANELS WE HAD, THIS WAS ALL GOOD, BUT I THINK THE REAL VALUE ADDED FOR PARTICIPANTS WERE AT THE EDGES WHERE THEY COULD MEET OTHER PEOPLE, REACH OUT TO PEOPLE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE MET OTHERWISE.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF WORKSHOPS, I THINK MORE THAN 30 WE HAD, AND THERE PEOPLE COULD FOCUS ON ISSUES THEY CARED ABOUT, MORE SPECIFIC ISSUES.

AND OUT OF THESE WORKSHOPS, WE HAD A NUMBER OF WHAT WAS TERMED DYNAMIC COALITIONS, COMMON INITIATIVES THAT EMERGED AGAIN IN A BOTTOM-UP MANNER. IT WAS NOT A NEGOTIATED OUTCOME, BUT IT WAS INITIATIVES FROM PEOPLE WHO GOT TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO PURSUE A COMMON OBJECTIVE.

WE HAVE NOW DYNAMIC COALITIONS ON SPAM, WHICH GROUPS ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE OECD AND APEC BUT ALSO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND THEY HAVE CREATED A COMMON WEB SITE AND THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE IGF AS A CATALYST THAT TRIGGERED OFF THIS COMMON ACTIVITY.

WE HAVE A COALITION ON OPEN STANDARDS, ON PRIVACY, ONE ON INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS, AND WE ALSO HAVE A COALITION OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO FIND FUNDING FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPANTS.

THE IGF, I THINK, FILLED A GAP. THERE WAS A DEMAND HERE FOR THIS KIND OF MEETING TO DISCUSS IN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER SETING A BROAD RANGE OF INTERNET-RELATED ISSUES. AND BASED ON THE BROAD DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE AS IT WAS ADOPTED BY WSIS IN TUNIS, WHICH GOES WELL BEYOND THE ICANN'S REMIT.

WE PUT THE DISCUSSION ON THE FOUR BROAD THEMES OF OPENNESS, SECURITY, DIVERSITY, AND ACCESS, AND ON THESE THEMES WE HAD INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS WHICH WILL BE PURSUED IN RIO.

ATHENS WAS PREPARED BY A MULTISTAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP. NOW TIME HAS COME TO TAKE STOCK, TO LOOK AT WHAT WORKED AND WHAT WORKED MAYBE LESS WELL, AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED. WE HAVE OPENED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS ON OUR WEB SITE, WWW.INTGOVFORUM.ORG. AND WE ARE HOPING TO HOLD AN OPEN CONSULTATION MEETING IN FEBRUARY NEXT YEAR ON THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY, BUT THE DATES CANNOT YET BE CONFIRMED. THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE U.N. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS, WHICH WILL BE ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. BUT 99.9% CERTAINTY, IT WILL BE ON THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO END MY BRIEF INTRODUCTION BY THANKING ALL STAKEHOLDERS WHO ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS. AND I THINK LYNN AND AYESHA REPRESENT TWO STAKEHOLDER GROUPS WHICH WERE RATHER SKEPTICAL TO BEGIN WITH, AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT, IN PARTICULAR, THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR ACTUALLY HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE PROCESS.

THANK YOU.

>>AYESHA HASSAN: THANK YOU, PAUL. THANK YOU, MARKUS.

MY NAME IS AYESHA HASSAN, AND I AM FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WHICH IS BASED IN PARIS.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, ICC WAS VERY INVOLVED IN COORDINATING BUSINESS INPUT TO THE WSIS PROCESS, AND HAS CONTINUED TO BUILD ON THOSE EFFORTS POST WSIS.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TODAY FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO JUST GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF HOW BUSINESS PARTICIPATED IN THE IGF, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE EXPECTATIONS, AND SOME OF OUR REFLECTIONS POST THE IGF IN ATHENS AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO COMING BACK TO BRAZIL NEXT NOVEMBER FOR THE RIO IGF --

BRIEFLY, BUSINESS DID HAVE A SENSE OF SKEPTICISM, AS MARKUS HAS NOTED. WE DID ENGAGE IN THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE IGF THROUGH THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP, AND RECOGNIZED THAT IN PREPARING THIS IGF IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL MEETING THAT DID ALLOW ALL THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO COMMUNICATE AND EXCHANGE EXPERIENCES IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS SHAPED FOR JUST THAT KIND OF EXCHANGE.

-- ONE OF THE KEY WAYS IN WHICH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTING TO THE IGF HAS BEEN THROUGH ICCS NEW INITIATIVE, THE BUSINESS ACTION TO SUPPORT THE INFORMATION SOCIETY INITIATIVE, BASIS FOR SHORT. AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS BUILD ON THE NETWORK THAT HAD BEEN STARTED THROUGH THE SUMMIT PROCESS, BRINGING TOGETHER ASSOCIATIONS AND COMPANIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD, FROM ALL SECTORS, OF ALL SIZES, TO HELP CREATE A COORDINATED SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE IGF PROCESS. AND THE BASIS MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES ICC AND NON-ICC MEMBERS.

BASICALLY, THE PLATFORM IS NOT ONLY TO COORDINATE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM BUT ALSO TO A VARIETY OF OTHER ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT FORA AND THE POST WSIS ACTION LINES.

SO IN A NUTSHELL, WHEN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY CAME TO THE IGF, ONE OF OUR HOPES WAS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LEAVE SAYING THAT THEY HAD LEARNED SOMETHING NEW; THAT THEY NEW KNEW MORE ABOUT WHO WAS DOING WHAT, AND THEY HAD MET PEOPLE THAT THEY COULD CALL ON AFTERWARDS TO ADDRESS ISSUES TOGETHER AT THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL.

AND WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THE IMPORTANT EXPERIMENT THAT WAS THE IGF WAS A SUCCESS IN THIS REGARD, AND PARTLY THIS IS DUE TO THE IMPORTANT FORMAT THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER. THE FACT THAT ALL STAKEHOLDERS WERE PARTICIPATING ON AN EQUAL FOOTING REALLY ALLOWED US, AS MARKUS POINTED OUT, FOR SOME SUBSTANTIVE EXCHANGES WHICH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FELT WERE VERY MUCH LINKED TO THE FORMAT AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE PROGRAM WAS SHAPED.

THIS WAS ALSO ONE OF THE EXPECTATIONS WE HAD WAS THAT THE INFORMAL PART OF THE IGF WOULD BE A COMPLEMENT TO THE FORMAL EVENTS. THIS CAN BE UNDERSCORED AS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD CONTINUE.

THE INFORMAL EVENTS WERE NOT ONLY THE ENCOUNTER PLAZA, AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE HAD EXCHANGES AND WERE ABLE TO TALK WITH EACH OTHER AND PROVIDE INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER ABOUT THE BROAD RANGE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES THAT THEY MIGHT BE WORKING ON, BUT IT WAS ALSO THE SOCIAL EVENTS AND THE ONE-ON-ONE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED IN THIS VERY SPECIAL SPACE. AND BUSINESS WOULD HOPE TO SEE THAT IMPROVE AND CONTINUE WHEN WE COME BACK TO RIO.

IN ADDITION, THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WAS INVOLVED IN THE MAIN MEETING SESSIONS THROUGH THE VARIOUS SPEAKERS AS WELL AS THROUGH MANY WORKSHOPS. AND FOR INSTANCE, ICC AND BASIS WORKED WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AS WELL AS A CO-SPONSOR OF A WORKSHOP ON CAPACITY BUILDING TO BUILD MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES. AND WE ALSO WORKED CLOSELY WITH ISOC AND APC TO ENSURE THAT THE PANEL WAS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION AND A REAL SHARING OF CONCRETE EXPERIENCES. AND WE FELT THAT THAT WAS A GREAT SUCCESS.

MANY OTHER BUSINESS ENTITIES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF BASIS WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOPS AND OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE WORKSHOPS. MANY OF THEM ARE IN THE ROOM AND I'M SURE ALL OF YOU CAN CONSULT THE WEB SITE TO SEE THE DETAILS. BUT BUSINESS WAS INVOLVED IN THAT ELEMENT AS WELL.

WE WERE ALSO A PART OF THE OPENING AND CLOSING AT THE IGF, AND ALL OF THOSE THOUGHTS ARE ON THE WEB SITES FOR YOU TO CONSULT.

OUR HOPE WAS THAT THE IGF WOULD BE A REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTISTAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS, AND ALSO THIS KIND OF COOPERATION, WHICH WE FELT WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF BRINGING ABOUT DIALOGUE AND EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY PROMOTE THE BENEFITS OF THE INTERNET FOR MORE STAKEHOLDERS AT ALL LEVELS.

ONE OF THE OTHER HOPES IS THAT THE INFORMAL AND FORMAL EXCHANGES AT THE IGF WILL BE TAKEN HOME, AND THAT THOSE EXPERIENCES AND PERHAPS GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS AND VIEWPOINTS OF THE BROAD RANGE OF ISSUES THAT WERE ADDRESSED WILL TRANSLATE INTO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL DISCUSSIONS ON THESE ISSUES TO TAKE THEM FURTHER AND HELP PUT INTO PLACE THE APPROPRIATE FRAMEWORKS AND ENVIRONMENTS TO CONTINUE TO BUILD.

A FEW FEEDBACK AND REFLECTIONS ON THE IGF. AS MARKUS HAS SAID THERE IS A FORMAL CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS THAT PEOPLE CAN CONTRIBUTE ON THE WEB SITE, AND THE ICC/BASIS GROUP IS PUTTING TOGETHER A MORE FORMAL CONTRIBUTION, BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE KEY ELEMENTS THAT HAVE SURFACED AS GOOD FEEDBACK AS WE THINK FORWARD AND OUR BRAZILIAN HOSTS WILL BE PLANNING AHEAD. AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WAS THAT THE IGF'S FORMAT DID ALLOW THESE DISCUSSIONS AND WE WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO THAT CONTINUING.

IT WAS A REAL SUCCESS, AND THAT'S PARTLY THE LEADERSHIP OF MARKUS AND MR. DESAI WHO PROVIDED THE ADVISORY GROUP AND THE PROGRAM WITH GREAT LEADERSHIP AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD CONTINUE AS WE GO FORWARD TO RIO.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED AND THE IGF IN RIO HAS THE BENEFIT OF EXTRA TIME, WE WOULD HOPE THAT THE NEXT IGF'S PLANNING IS GIVEN MORE TIME THAN THE IGF IN ATHENS WHICH HAD TO WORK QUICKLY AND RAPIDLY AT A RAPID PACE, GETTING READY, AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE FINALIZATION OF CERTAIN LOGISTICS AND FACILITIES AND THE PLANNING OF THE SESSIONS AND FINALIZATION OF PANELISTS THAT WOULD JUST ALLOW FOR A DEEPER LEVEL OF PREPARATION.

THE INTERACTIVE NATURE OF THE SESSIONS, THE MAIN MEETING SESSIONS, AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, THEY WERE MODERATED BY PROFESSIONALS WHO HELPED TO STIR DISCUSSION AND ELICIT THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ON THE VARIOUS BUCKETS OF ISSUES THAT MARKUS TALKED ABOUT, AND MANY IN BUSINESS FEEL THAT A SMALL NUMBER ON THE PANEL, BUT THE SAME USE OF INTERACTIVE FORMATS FOR THOSE PANELS, WOULD BE VERY USEFUL.

THAT'S JUST A FEW BRIEF HIGHLIGHTS.

A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WILL BE WORKING ON AND ICC AND BASIS ARE VERY COMMITTED TO TRYING TO RAISE THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE IGF NEXT YEAR, BUT ALSO DIVERSIFY. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A DIVERSITY IN BOTH GEOGRAPHY AND SECTORS IN ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT WHAT THE IGF OPPORTUNITY IS FOR BUSINESS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT I'M VERY THANKFUL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK HERE TODAY, AS ALL OF YOU GO BACK AND THERE ARE CONNECTIONS AND CONTACTS WITH BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE INVOLVED FOR NEXT YEAR. I WOULD CERTAINLY BE PLEASED TO HEAR FROM YOU AND DO WHAT I CAN TO HELP FACILITATE THAT.

ANOTHER LAST POINT IS I THINK THE IGF IN ATHENS, FROM THE BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, REALLY UNDERSCORED THE FACT THAT THE BROAD RANGE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES CANNOT BE MANAGED BY ANY ONE STAKEHOLDER GROUP ALONE. AND THAT HAVING THIS KIND OF SPACE TO SHARE EXPERIENCE AND COOPERATE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES IS VERY IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD.

AND SINCE THE RANGE OF ISSUES IS MUCH BROADER THAN WHAT IS ADDRESSED IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT BUSINESS WAS DOING THERE. AS YOU KNOW, BUSINESS IS INVOLVED IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY AS WELL, BUT WHERE IT'S HELPFUL AND WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE, HELPING TO BRING THE RIGHT EXPERTISE TO THE IGF FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS, THE BROAD RANGE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES AS WELL AS SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE MORE EXPERTISE IN THIS COMMUNITY, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPERTS TO PARTICIPATE.

I WILL FINISH WITH THAT REMARK AND JUST WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO BE IN TOUCH WITH ME WHILE I AM HERE. I AM HAPPY TO SHARE ANY MORE INFORMATION AND OBVIOUSLY THE ICC WEB SITE IS A SOURCE FOR THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

>>LYNN ST. AMOUR: THANK YOU.

I WILL ACTUALLY ECHO A LOT OF WHAT AYESHA JUST SAID, WHICH IS PROBABLY AN INDICATION OF HOW COLLABORATIVE AN ENVIRONMENT THE IGF WAS AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE PREPARATIONS LEADING UP TO IGF AS WELL.

IN THE ISOC'S EXPERIENCE, BOTH AS A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY GROUP AS WELL AS SUPPORTIVE AND LEADER IN MANY OF THE PANELS, WAS JUST AS RICH AND JUST AS VARIED AS ANY OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES. AND IN PARTICULAR, IS CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENTS AS WELL, WHOM WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH VERY CLOSELY.

I THINK THE THING ISOC WAS MOST PROUD ABOUT IS WE ACTUALLY MADE A SPECIFIC EFFORT TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKSHOPS.

THROUGH THE WSIS AND WGIG ACTIVITIES HAD VARIOUS SPONSORSHIP PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE ACTIVITIES, LARGELY AS WE ALL DID, LARGELY AS OBSERVERS. PARTICULARLY FOR THE IGF, WE TRIED TO PUT AS MANY PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON THE PANELS AND IN THE SESSIONS AS POSSIBLE. SO WE DIDN'T PUT ISOC STAFF, BY AND LARGE. WE ACTUALLY FOUND PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO HAD EXPERIENCE AND WERE EXPERTS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE SESSIONS. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THE IGF TO DO IN THE FUTURE IS TO FIND A WAY TO FUND AN EVEN GREATER AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CRIES FROM MOST OF THE PARTICIPANTS THERE, THAT A FACILITY TO SUPPORT GREATER PARTICIPATION FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WASN'T THERE IN A PHYSICAL SENSE. AND I THINK WE CAN ALSO DO A LOT TO INCREASE THE VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CAPABILITIES AS WELL.

JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMENTS. WE WERE VERY, VERY HAPPY THAT IGF FOCUSED AS MUCH AS IT DID ON CAPACITY BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IT'S NO SECRET THAT WE WERE PRETTY DISAPPOINTED THROUGH ALL THE WSIS ACTIVITIES THAT A RELATIVELY SMALL SHARE OF ACTIVITIES THERE FOCUSED ON ACTIVITIES THAT WERE GOING TO BRING THE INTERNET TO THE 5 BILLION PEOPLE THAT AREN'T YET CONNECTED. SO WE PUSHED VERY HARD THROUGH THE IGF. WE WERE EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT THE IGF DID MAKE THAT SUCH A SIGNIFICANT FOCUS. AND ACTUALLY, LARGELY REMAINED COMMITTED TO IT THROUGH THE FULL AGENDA.

I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THAT COMMITMENT REMAINS THROUGH RIO AND SUBSEQUENT IGF MEETINGS. ONE MEETING DOESN'T FIX IT.

I WOULD HATE TO SEE US SLIP BACK AND FOCUS PRIMARILY -- AND THERE'S PROBABLY EVEN A DANGER OF US FOCUSING LARGELY SOLELY ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE MATTERS OR MATTERS HAVING TO DO WITH INTERNET RESOURCES. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT LOSS, NOT ONLY FOR THE MOMENTUM WE HAVE BUILT UP FOR THIS LAST IGF. IT'S CLEARLY A GREAT LOSS FOR THE CONTINUED DEPLOYMENT OF THE INTERNET.

I THINK THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH, VERY, VERY CLEARLY ENABLED MORE DIALOGUE AND MORE OPEN DIALOGUE BETWEEN ALL PARTIES. AND I CERTAINLY HOPE THE DISCUSSION IN MANY FORUMS, NOT JUST IGF FORUMS, MOVES BEYOND WHERE -- BEYOND WHETHER CIVIL SOCIETY SHOULD PARTICIPATE, BUT IN FACT, HOW CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATES.

I THINK WE HAVE SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME IN VARIOUS COMMUNITIES, THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES, CIVIL SOCIETY, BUSINESS, ARGUING ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PARTICIPATION. I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S NOW TIME TO START MOVING TO A PRINCIPLE OF PARTICIPATION FOLLOWED UP WITH, AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE, TO WHAT PURPOSE, AND TO WHAT EXTENT. I THINK WE HAVE DONE THE PLEAS AND THE PASSIONATE CRIES VERY EFFECTIVELY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. I THINK WE NOW NEED TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP TOWARD ACTUALLY FACILITATING VERY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS.

I THINK THERE CLEARLY WAS A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH ON ALL MATTERS AFFECTING THE GROWTH AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE INTERNET, WHETHER IT WAS THROUGH THE WORKSHOPS OR THROUGH SOME OF THE PANEL SESSIONS AS WELL.

DIALOGUE WAS OPEN AND FRANK, CERTAINLY IN SMALLER SESSIONS AND IN SMALLER WORKSHOPS, BUT IF ANY OF YOU SAW SOME OF THE SESSIONS SUCH AS THE SETTING THE SCENE OR THE OTHER PANELS, IT WAS EQUALLY FRANK THERE. AND I THINK TO EVERYBODY'S CREDIT, INCLUDING MANY GOVERNMENTS, THEY STAYED IN, THEY STAYED IN THE PROCESS. AND TO DATE, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY SIGNIFICANT RETRACTION OR WITHDRAWAL FROM FUTURE PROCESSES. SO I THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT.

I THINK I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH THE FACT THAT THE INTERNET BROKE MANY BARRIERS, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO FUTURE PROCESSES THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE JUST AS CREATIVE AND JUST AS INNOVATIVE ABOUT THOSE PROCESSES AND THEIR FUTURE EVOLUTION AS THE CREATORS OF THE INTERNET WERE.

I THINK THERE'S, AT TIMES, STILL PRESSURE TO MOVE TO A STRUCTURE WHICH PEOPLE RECOGNIZE. IT CAN BE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, A U.N. STRUCTURE. IT CAN EVEN BE AN INTERNET COMMUNITY STRUCTURE THAT ALL OF US WOULD ACTUALLY PUSH, I GUESS, FOR GREATER ADOPTION. BUT I REALLY WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO BE AS OPEN AS THEY CAN WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MODELS, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WILL HELP THE GREATER DEPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET.

BUT I THINK IN SUMMARY, WE WERE SLIGHTLY SKEPTICAL, WHICH MAYBE IS IN OUR NATURE. WE'RE ALSO PRETTY PRAGMATIC. WE'RE DRIVEN TO PROBLEM SOLVE.

THOSE CHARACTERISTICS WOULD MAKE US A LITTLE BIT SKEPTICAL ABOUT WHAT WAS INITIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS A TALK SHOP

HAVING SAID THAT, COMING OUT OF THE IGF, I WAS VERY, VERY IMPRESSED.

I THINK IT WAS EXTREMELY VALUABLE, ABSOLUTELY DO SUPPORT IT GOING FORWARD, WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE.

I THINK IT BROKE DOWN BARRIERS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AND ALLOWED PEOPLE TO LISTEN FREELY AND OPENLY WITHOUT HAVING TO DETERMINE WHAT THEIR NEGOTIATION POSITION WAS, WITHOUT HAVING TO READ FROM A PAPER THAT HAD BEEN PREAPPROVED A MONTH BEFORE THEY WALKED IN THE FORUM.

I THINK THAT ENABLED LISTENING BEYOND WHAT I HAD ACTUALLY IMAGINED IT MIGHT ENABLE.

SO I THINK IT WAS A VERY REWARDING EXPERIENCE FOR ME AND FOR ALL THE OTHER INTERNET COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO THAT PARTICIPATED.

AND I SIMPLY HOPE THAT WE KEEP THAT SPIRIT AND THE FOCUS TO THE ORIGINAL CHARTER AND PURPOSE ALIVE FOR RIO.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO ALL THE PANELISTS.

I'D LIKE TO INVITE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR, IF THERE ARE ANY, ON ALL THE TOPICS THAT HAVE BEEN COVERED THIS MORNING.

I REALIZE THAT WE'RE KIND OF IMPINGING ON THE 2:00 START OF THE GNSO ACTIVITY.

SO WE'LL TRY TO DO THIS IN A -- AN EFFICIENT WAY.

I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE IGF.

I SPENT THE TIME THERE BEING VERY IMPRESSED BY THE DIVERSITY OF PARTICIPATION.

AND IN THE END, I KEPT THINKING WE SHOULD BE CALLING IT THE INTERNET FACILITATION FORUM, BECAUSE AN AWFUL LOT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET MORE INTERNET OUT THERE AND IN EVERYBODY'S HANDS.

LET ME INVITE THE FIRST QUESTION.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WELL, I ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO SUPPLEMENT THE PANEL WITH THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WAS MISSING FROM IT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SORT OF VIEW FROM CIVIL SOCIETY.

I HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN ELECTED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AS ONE OF THE COORDINATORS OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS THE PLACE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY SIMILAR TO WHAT AYESHA, FOR EXAMPLE, IS DOING FOR BUSINESS.

SO I THINK IT'S -- IT WAS A GOOD EXPERIENCE.

I THINK EVERYONE WAS SATISFIED, AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE I TALKED TO WERE MORE SATISFIED THAN THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE.

SO I THINK THE SAME APPLIES TO CIVIL SOCIETY.

WE WERE A BIT CONCERNED THAT THE ENTIRE MEETING WOULD JUST BE A LOT OF TALK, BUT NOTHING PRACTICAL WOULD HAPPEN.

AND INSTEAD, WE REALIZED THAT A LOT OF THINGS ARE HAPPENING AND PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.

SO EVEN IF THERE IS NO FORMAL WAY TO MAKE DECISIONS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE HOT TOPICS OF THE MEETING, THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON.

THERE'S PEOPLE TALKING TO EACH OTHER, AND THE RESULT IS THAT SOLUTIONS ARE STARTING TO BE IMAGINED FOR PRACTICAL PROBLEMS.

AND EVEN IF IT WILL TAKE YEARS, I THINK POSSIBLY ALL THE FOUR YEARS THAT WE STILL HAVE IN FRONT OF US, I THINK THERE WILL BE IMPORTANT THINGS COMING OUT OF THE IGF.

AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY WILL BE THINGS THAT WILL BE SHARED BY EVERYONE.

AND I'M PARTICULARLY HAPPY TO HEAR PEOPLE FROM THE PANEL SAYING THAT THEY ARE STARTING TO ENTER INTO THIS MODE, TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE CAN BE PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS COMING OUT FROM THE IGF IF WE START TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.

SO MAYBE WE NEED -- WE STILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO MAKE IT MORE PRACTICAL, SO IN THE END, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE RELEASED BY THIS ENTITY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE A LOOK AT IT, EVEN IF IT WILL NOT BE BINDING, THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE A REFERENCE SO IN FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THEY THINK, THEN PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT, USE IT OR NOT, BUT AT LEAST THERE WAS SOMETHING FROM WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

BUT STILL, I THINK THE FEEDBACK WAS VERY POSITIVE.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VITTORIO.

>>ADAM PEAKE: ADAM PEAKE, AND I WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY GROUP FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM.

AND AYESHA HAS CERTAINLY DISCOVERED MANY OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSING HOW WE WORKED AS AN ADVISORY GROUP AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE MEETING.

MANY OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW FROM THE WSIS PROCESS THAT THERE WERE -- THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS WERE SORT OF DIVIDED UP INTO CONCEPTS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, PRIVATE SECTOR, AND GOVERNMENTS.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE SUCCESSES AND EXCITING OUTCOMES OF THE IGF WAS TO SEE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY RECOGNIZED, AS IT WERE, UNDER THE U.N.'S FLAG AS A STAKEHOLDER GROUP.

IT WAS GOOD TO SEE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AT THE OPENING AND CLOSING CEREMONIES.

SO FOR THIS ROOM, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SUCCESS.

AND IT'S A PLEASING OUTCOME TO SEE THE INTERNET RECOGNIZED IN THAT WAY.

THINKING ABOUT ICANN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS, I HOPE ICANN AS AN ORGANIZATION WILL BE MORE CONFIDENT OF ITS POSITION. AND AGAIN, I THINK YOU HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF BRICK BATS AND STONES AND STICKS THROWN AT YOU OVER THE WSIS PROCESS.

AND, ACTUALLY, IN THE EXAMINATION, ICANN COMES OUT QUITE WELL AS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER BODY THAT DOES POLICY AND AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WAY.

SO IF YOU FEEL ANY HESITANCE AT PARTICIPATION, DON'T, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOOD.

AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO TAKE FOR ICANN GOING FORWARD.

A THOUGHT ABOUT REACTION TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAGE.

I DON'T THINK IGF IS JUST ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING IN SAO PAULO.

IT'S A DIALOGUE AND A DIALOGUE OF DISCUSSION AMONGST ALL STAKEHOLDERS, AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THESE DYNAMIC COALITIONS ABOUT HOW DO WE TAKE DISCUSSION ON NOW, CONTINUING NOW, SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER MEETING IN SAO PAULO.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS; IT'S NOT THE SORT OF I NET OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUMS THAT OCCUR EACH YEAR.

IT SHOULD BE THE DIALOGUE THAT WE HAVE TOGETHER ON ISSUES WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT IN THESE LOVELY NAMED DYNAMIC COALITIONS.

SO THINK OF IT AS A PROCESS OF DIALOGUE AND LET'S TRY TO CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER, PARTICULARLY ON A COALITION THAT WASN'T MENTIONED, WHICH IS ONE THAT I THINK IS FORMING AROUND CAPACITY-BUILDING AND APPROVING PARTICIPATION.

SO THANK YOU.

THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ADAM.

WHO'S NEXT?

IZUMI AIZU? NO? ALEX PISANTY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: WE ARE TRYING TO YIELD -- WE HAVE A COMPETITION TO SEE WHO YIELDS LESS TO THE NEXT ONE.

MY NAME IS ALEJANDRO PISANTY.

I WAS A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY GROUP FOR THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM.

FOR REASONS OF COMMITMENTS IN MY DAY JOB, I WAS UNABLE TO TRAVEL TO ATHENS AND PARTICIPATE PHYSICALLY, AND I HAVE TO USE THIS OCCASION TO CONGRATULATE MARKUS KUMMER, NITIN DESAI, AND THE TEAM THAT ACTUALLY EXECUTED THE MEETINGS IN ATHENS FOR THE BRILLIANT EXECUTION AND FOR WHAT I WAS BENEFITED WITH, WHICH WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMOTELY FOLLOW UP AND PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

THAT WAS EXTRAORDINARY.

AS PAUL MENTIONED EARLIER THIS MORNING, MANY THINGS THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED AROUND ICANN MEETINGS HAVE SPREAD OUT INTO THE U.N. CONTEXT AND MADE IT PARTICULARLY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE.

THIS LARGE SPIRIT OF PARTICIPATION GOES A LONG WAY INTO WHAT WE INTENDED WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THE FORUM WITHIN THE ADVISORY GROUP, WHICH WAS TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR DISCUSSION.

EXCUSE ME, I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE MICROPHONE.

THE MAIN POINT ABOUT ATHENS WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN REALIZED, AND IT'S PARTICULARLY MOTIVE FOR CONGRATULATIONS, IS NOT ONLY THAT EVERYONE WHO WAS THERE WAS THERE AND THE LEVEL OF DISCUSSION THAT CAME OUT FROM THERE WAS SO IMPORTANT, BUT WE HAD A SORT OF WARNING AGAINST ANYTHING EMERGING FROM ATHENS AS THE ATHENS CONSENSUS OR THE ATHENS DECISIONS OR THE ATHENS FREEZING OF THE ISSUES.

IT WAS MORE THE ATHENS DYNAMICS THAT WE WERE AFTER.

IT WAS MORE THE ATHENS DISCUSSION, THE IGF DISCUSSION ON AN ONGOING BASIS THAT WAS STARTED AND THAT HAS BEEN VERY WELL DESCRIBED NOW BY ADAM.

AND I THINK THAT'S ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO SEE ALSO HOW THIS MATERIALIZES IN PRACTICE, IN PARTICULAR, IN THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD IT UP IN ICANN.

ICANN'S PLATFORM FOR OPEN, MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION, BRINGING THE RELEVANT ACTORS TO SOLVE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS STILL IS A MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FURTHER OUT.

ICANN CONCENTRATES AND WE MAKE A HUGE EFFORT TO CONCENTRATE WITHIN A SPECIFIC FIELD TO SOLVE A SPECIFIC PROBLEM WITH THE RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS.

IT'S NOT THE SAME PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN SPEAK OF ISPS AND REGISTRARS, AND SO FORTH, THAT WOULD COME TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH A PROBLEM LIKE SPAM, OR TO DEAL WITH ONE OF THE MANY OTHER PROBLEMS THAT HAVE ALSO BEEN LISTED HERE BY NOW.

AND I'M PARTICULARLY HEARTENED TO HEAR FROM THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE, FROM THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE, ON IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PLATFORM THAT ARE NOT SEEN ANYMORE, THOUGH, AS A BOARD MEMBER, IT'S EASY TO SEE THEM AS MORE REQUESTS FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY, MORE REQUESTS FOR MORE PARTICIPATION.

BUT AT LEAST THEY RECOGNIZE THAT ICANN DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET EVERY FOUR YEARS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO DECIDE HOW TO ORGANIZE.

A DISCUSSION FOUR YEARS FROM NOW BEHIND CLOSED DOORS ON HOW TO OPEN UP THOSE DOORS.

THE DOORS ARE OPENED HERE.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD BUILD UP ON THAT AND OBTAIN ALL THE REQUESTS THAT WE ARE GETTING AS BUILDING UP ON THAT PLATFORM AND I WILL JOIN ADAM'S STATEMENT AND THANK HIM FOR IT, BUT WE SHOULD BE VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE NOT UNDER THIS HUGE LIST OF REQUESTS, BUT ARE REALLY BUILDING UP TO CONCENTRATE ON VERY, VERY SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES UNDER HUGE DIFFICULTIES.

AND SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC FORUM IN THIS WEEK AND THAT'S A HUGE CHANGE IN FORMAT ALSO, I WOULD INVITE EVERYBODY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO DEEPLY INTO THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED, TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEMS, AND THEN BE ABLE TO BETTER BUILD SOLUTIONS FOR THEM.

THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ALEX.

IZUMI AIZU.

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU, VINT.

MY NAME IS IZUMI AIZU.

I'M THE MEMBER OF AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM ASIA-PACIFIC AND ALSO PARTICIPATED AT THE IGF UNDER THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS.

I MAY HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN THOSE EXPRESSED BY ALEX AND ADAM, PERHAPS, OR MAYBE THE SAME.

ON THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AT IGF -- AND I'D LIKE TO SORT OF BRING THAT TO ICANN CONTEXT -- I AGREE THAT AT IGF, THERE WAS VERY OPEN AND FREE DIALOGUE AMONGST VARIOUS OR ALMOST ALL STAKEHOLDERS ON A VERY EQUAL FOOTING BASIS.

AND I'D LIKE TO REALLY APPRECIATE AND COMMEND THAT.

HOWEVER, MY IMPRESSION, AS SOME SAID ALREADY, OR AS LYNN SAID, THE PARTICIPATION FROM THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM ASIA, WERE NOT REALLY AS MUCH AS I -- WE WANTED TO BE.

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS AND FACTORS.

AND I WOULDN'T GO INTO DETAIL.

BUT AT THE END OF THE IGF, I PROPOSED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF MORE PROACTIVE EFFORT, AS SOME SAID, DYNAMIC COALITION, TO HELP THE PARTICIPATION FROM THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF IGF.

AND I'D LIKE TO ASK ALL THE ICANN CONSTITUENCIES HERE TO DO SOME MORE WORK TO HELP SUPPORT THE PARTICIPATION FROM THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO BOTH IGF AND MAYBE TO ICANN AS WELL.

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IGF HAS SUCH A, YOU KNOW, VERY OPEN DIALOGUE ON EQUAL FOOTING AMONGST ALL STAKEHOLDERS IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PLACE TO MAKE DECISIONS, BUT IT'S A PLACE FOR DIALOGUE.

TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, IF IT WAS A PLACE FOR DECISION-MAKING, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE EQUAL FOOTING, MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.

IF YOU REMEMBER THE WSIS PROCESS, IT WAS ACTUALLY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATION.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOOD OR BAD, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BRING ALL THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ON PAR WITH THE GOVERNMENTS IN THAT SETTING.

AT ICANN, BEING AN AT LARGE, WE ARE STILL GRAPPLING TO FORM THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FROM THE INDIVIDUAL USERS.

IT'S LARGELY PART OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY, BUT WE ARE STILL NOT YET SURE WHAT EXACTLY MEANS AS A CIVIL SOCIETY IN ICANN CONTEXT.

AND WE'LL BE CELEBRATING OUR FIRST RALO FROM LATIN AMERICAN REGION, WITH MANY THANKS TO THE SUPPORT FROM ICANN AND OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.

BUT IT'S JUST ONE OF THE FIVE.

AND WE ARE STILL GRAPPLING WITHIN OURSELVES HOW MUCH WE CAN PARTICIPATE INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF ICANN, AND ARE WE QUITE OKAY WITH THE CURRENT SETUP OF THE ADVISORY ROLE, GIVEN THIS EXTERNAL REVIEW COMING IN, WE TRY TO DO OUR OWN SELF-REVIEW, AND WE HAVE DIVERSE OPINIONS ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD PARTICIPATE.

IF YOU COULD READ OUR SELF-REVIEW, WE TRY TO INCORPORATE BOTH VIEWS OR ALL THE DIVERSE VIEWS.

SO I STILL -- I THINK WE STILL HAVE SOME HOMEWORK HERE, HOW TO REALLY EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IF ICANN WANTS TO BE A REAL MULTISTAKEHOLDER, AND WHAT KIND OF SETTINGS OR STRUCTURE WE REALLY NEED TO FOSTER, IT STILL IS NOT A RESOLVED ISSUE.

AND I REALLY ASK FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS HERE TO CONSIDER THIS.

FURTHERMORE, ALAC WILL DO, BUT I HOPE YOU GUYS ALSO DO JOIN.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

COULD I ASK HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE QUEUE? ONE, TWO, THREE.

OKAY.

THAT'S FINE.

I THINK WE'LL CLOSE THE QUEUE AFTER BECKY, BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO BREAK BEFORE THE GNSO.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, AND I'M THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR INFORMATION SOCIETY IN THE FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTRY AND THE FRENCH REPRESENTATIVE HERE ON THE GAC.

I JUST CONTINUE THE LIST OF USUAL SUSPECTS, MAKING COMMENTS ON THOSE ISSUES RELATED TO WSIS AND IGF.

JUST A FEW REMARKS.

THE FIRST ELEMENT IS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A LINK BETWEEN A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY PAUL TWOMEY IN HIS PRESENTATION AND SOMETHING THAT MARKUS MENTIONED.

PAUL MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT HOW DO WE PUT AN ISSUE ON THE AGENDA.

AND MARKUS MENTIONED THAT THE IGF IS AN AGENDA-SETTING SPACE, OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AGENDA.

THE WAY AN ISSUE IS PUT ON AN AGENDA IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF FRAMING THE DEBATE.

AND THERE IS -- THERE WAS A GREAT VOID IN THE INTERNATIONAL SPHERE IN PURE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS OF PROCESSES THAT WERE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH AND OPEN ENOUGH TO LET ISSUES EMERGE IN A VERY NATURAL AND BOTTOM-UP MANNER.

ONE OF THE MAIN BENEFITS OF THE IGF -- AND IT HAS DEMONSTRATED ITS EFFICIENCY IN THAT RESPECT IN ATHENS -- IS THE CAPACITY THROUGH THE WORKSHOPS IN PARTICULAR TO ALLOW THE ISSUES TO EMERGE AND TO BE BASICALLY TESTED IN THE COMMUNITY.

PEOPLE PROPOSED WORKSHOPS.

SOME LED TO FURTHER WORK; SOME DIDN'T.

SOME CHANGED THEIR PERSPECTIVE AFTER THE DISCUSSION; SOME DIDN'T.

A FEW COALITIONS EMERGED.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MENTION HERE THAT WITHIN ICANN, AS FAR AS I DISCOVER, TAKING A NEW ROLE WITHIN THE GAC, THE WAY ISSUES ARE PUT ON THE AGENDA IS, AS PAUL WAS MENTIONING, A MAJOR ELEMENT, IN PARTICULAR, HOW THE DEBATE IS FRAMED WHEN YOU PUT AN ISSUE ON THE AGENDA.

AND THE SECOND POINT IS THAT IN PUTTING AN ISSUE ON THE AGENDA AND IN FRAMING THE DEBATE, MULTISTAKEHOLDER INTERACTION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING IS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE.

IT'S ONLY BECAUSE YOU GET THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AT THE SAME TIME FROM THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES IN THE SAME ROOM WHEN YOU EARLY ON FRAME THE DEBATE THAT THE DEBATE IS PROPERLY FRAMED.

AND ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE CONTEXT OF ICANN IS THE FRAMING OF THE DISCUSSION IN SEPARATED CONSTITUENCIES.

WHICH LEADS TO A LAST POINT.

WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF IGF, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW DYNAMIC COALITIONS, AS MARKUS HAS -- AND OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED.

ONE OF THOSE DYNAMIC COALITIONS IS THE ONE ABOUT PRIVACY AND DIGITAL IDENTITY.

FRANCE, AS A GOVERNMENT, IS A MAJOR ACTOR IN THE SETTING UP OF THIS DYNAMIC COALITION.

AND WE HAVE ENGAGED VERY ACTIVELY IN THE SETTING UP OF METHODOLOGIES FOR THOSE COALITIONS TO WORK.

I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THIS BECAUSE WITHIN ICANN, WITHIN THE IGF, AND WITHIN ALL THE POST-WSIS PROCESSES, THERE'S A BIG CHALLENGE FOR GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES TO FIND EXACTLY HOW THEY DO INTERACT, WITH DUE RESPECT TO THEIR INTERNAL PROCESSES, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, TAKING PART IN VERY FLUID INTERACTION.

I WON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM HERE.

I JUST WANT TO RAISE THIS, BECAUSE THE IGF IS PROVIDING A TEST BED THAT CAN BE REPLICATED IN MANY OTHER PLACES OF WAYS FOR GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES TO INTERACT IN A FREER MANNER WITHOUT LOSING THEIR CAPACITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT ENGAGING IN VERY EARLY PROCESSES.

THANK YOU.

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: YEAH, MY NAME IS WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER.

I'M FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS, AND I'M ALSO ONE OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORS TO THE CHAIR OF THE IGF.

I CAN ONLY SUPPORT WHAT MARKUS HAS SAID, THAT WE SEE OR WITNESSED THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW CULTURE OF COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION. AND THIS COMES BOTTOM-UP.

AND I ALSO SUPPORT HIS OBSERVATION THAT IF YOU COMPARE THE STRUCTURE AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE SEEN IN ESSENCE, THEN THIS IS -- WAS SIMILAR TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INTERNET.

SO -- AND WE KNOW THAT THE INTERNET IS -- THE MAIN EFFECT COMES FROM THE END-TO-END PRINCIPLE.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE VALUE OF A NETWORK IS GROWING IN THE SQUARE WITH THE NUMBER OF ITS PARTICIPANTS.

THIS HAS MADE THE INTERNET SO VALUABLE THAT EVERYBODY COULD COMMUNICATE WITH EVERYBODY.

AND IF WE HAVE THIS ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLE AS THE BASIS FOR THE IGF, THEN WE SEE A TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION IF IT'S DONE ON THIS BASIS, ON EQUAL FOOTING, SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN REALLY COMMUNICATE WITH EVERYBODY, BY USING THE SAME PROTOCOL.

WE HAVE USED ALSO THE DYNAMICS OF THE IGF TO CREATE SOMETHING NEW.

AS YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER, THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE HAS IDENTIFIED NOT ONLY THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY AS A SPECIAL COMMUNITY WHICH IS MORE OR LESS NOT ITS OWN STAKEHOLDER GROUP, BUT IS HORIZONTAL LINK TO THE THREE MAIN STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.

SO WE IDENTIFIED THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY AS SUCH A SPECIAL GROUP.

AND A NUMBER OF ACADEMIC MEMBERS OF THE WGIG HAS FORMED IN THE PROCESS OF THE PREPARATION OF THE IGF AN OWN NEW ACADEMIC NETWORK, WHICH IS CALLED GIGANET, GLOBAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE ACADEMIC NETWORK.

WE HAVE NOW -- WE HAD MORE THAN 100 PARTICIPANTS IN A SPECIAL ACADEMIC SUMMIT BEFORE THE IGF STARTED, IN ESSENCE.

WE HAVE MORE THAN 50 UNIVERSITIES INVOLVED, FROM THE BIG U.S. UNIVERSITIES, HARVARD, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA, TO NANYANG TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY IN SINGAPORE, OXFORD, MANY EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES, AND ALSO UNIVERSITIES FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES.

AND WE WILL HAVE A SECOND GIGANET MEETING, A SECOND ACADEMIC SYMPOSIUM ON THE EVE OF THE NEXT IGF IN BRAZIL.

THERE WILL BE A CALL FOR PAPERS PUBLISHED SOON.

AND I INVITE ALL ACADEMIC MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO JOIN GIGANET.

BY THE WAY, IN ONE OF THE PAPERS PRESENTED IN ATHENS, THERE WAS AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION THAT ONE OF THE RESEARCHERS ANALYZED THAT WE SEE IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND NEGOTIATIONS MORE AND MORE A SHIFT FROM AGREEING ON CONTENT TO AGREEING ON PROCEDURES.

THOUGH WHILE IT GETS MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO AGREE ON CONTENT ISSUES IN A GENERAL BASIS, YOU SEE MORE AND MORE THAT THE AGREEMENT GOES VIA PROCEDURES, AND THEN YOU SETTLE INDIVIDUAL CASES ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.

AND I THINK THIS COULD BE A GOOD ADVICE FOR THIS PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMISSION, TO LOOK DEEPER INTO THE PROCEDURES, HOW THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS INTERACT, BUT TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR A SPECIFIC CONTENT QUICKLY, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE PROCEDURES IN PLACE WHICH ALLOW YOU TO MOVE FROM A TO B TO C, THEN IT'S MUCH EASIER TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR A SPECIAL CONTENT QUESTION, AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE WAY.

PAUL HAS MADE CLEAR IN HIS PRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE ALREADY A LOT OF PROCEDURES, THERE'S THE GNSO AND THE CNSO AND OTHERS, WE HAVE ALSO PROCEDURES FOR INTERACTION AMONG THE GAC AND THE BOARD.

BUT THERE ARE NO PROCEDURES IN PLACE FOR THE INTERACTION AMONG THE -- BETWEEN THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY GROUP AND THE ICANN BOARD.

I THINK THIS IS A CONCRETE ISSUE WHERE SOME WORK SHOULD BE INVESTED.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

BECKY.

>>BECKY BURR: THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NOTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ORGANIZATION IS NOT A TREATY, AND IT'S NOT A MULTIGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST, IS THAT THE BENEFIT IT PROVIDES IS IMMUNITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, GETS YOU OUT OF LAW THAT YOU MIGHT OTHERWISE BE UNDER.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW COMMERCIAL DISPUTES WOULD BE RESOLVED? AND NOT ONLY COMMERCIAL DISPUTES WITH ENTITIES WITH WHOM ICANN HAS A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, BUT ENTITIES THAT DON'T HAVE A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: WELL, PERHAPS I'LL HAVE A -- THANKS, BECKY.

IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, AND I HAVE TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE THAT WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT YOU'VE PAID ATTENTION TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PODIUM RATHER THAN THE LEFT.

THE -- I THINK (AUDIO DIFFICULTY) IF THERE WAS TO BE ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE BENEFITS OF INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS -- AND THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT PLACES, AND THERE'S A LOT OF EXPLORATION ABOUT THAT -- THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND, AT LEAST, AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THAT ICANN SHOULD NOT BE WALKING AWAY FROM LEGAL-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY BOTH FOR CONTRACTS AND FOR THIRD PARTIES AFFECTED BY ICANN DECISIONS.

SO THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT I THINK ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE PUTTING ON THE TABLE.

BUT SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE (AUDIO DIFFICULTY).

IS THIS WORKING? THERE WE GO.

CENSORSHIP ATTEMPT BY SOMEONE.

>>BECKY BURR: NOT ME.

I'M DOWN HERE.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: NO.

I THINK -- I THINK THIS IS THE -- ONE OF THE -- THIS IS PROBABLY THE KEY AREA OF IN-DEPTH EXPLORATION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY INTENT TO BE, AS I SAID, OUTSIDE THAT LINE OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S CLEAR WORDING THERE.

BUT THERE MIGHT BE BENEFITS OF THOSE IMMUNITIES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND THERE MIGHT BE FURTHER BENEFITS OF THE RECOGNITION OF THE STATUS, SO THERE'S BOTH A PRACTICAL ASPECT AND POTENTIALLY ALSO A SYMBOLIC ASPECT WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REALITIES THE COMMITTEE REFLECTED AND I THINK MANY OF US HAVE HEARD IT, THAT THERE WERE -- I MEAN, THERE ARE BENEFITS OF A PUBLIC-BENEFIT CORPORATION IN CALIFORNIA IN PRACTICAL TERMS.

BUT IN SYMBOLIC TERMS, IT HAS AN IMPACT WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE.

>>BECKY BURR: I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE SYMBOLIC ISSUE.

I JUST THINK THAT'S VERY -- IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION AND ONE THAT WILL DESERVE A LOT OF CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE ICANN IS -- IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL INTERACTIONS WITH ITS CONSTITUENCIES.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: IT'S NOT EVEN JUST THAT.

AS YOU POINTED OUT, IT ALSO, I THINK, AGAIN, TALKING PERSONALLY AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, NEEDS TO HAVE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK, AND I SUPPOSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF ARBITRATION, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, AS A POTENTIAL FORUM.

>>BECKY BURR: BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHOSE LAW APPLIES.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THAT'S RIGHT.

WELL, AS SOME OF US KNOW, ALL INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CHOOSES A LAW, DOESN'T IT? I MEAN, IF YOU SET UP INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, YOU ALWAYS -- YOU ALWAYS END UP SELECTING A PARTICULAR LAW TO APPLY.

>>BECKY BURR: I AGREE.

BUT THAT'S WHY -- AND WE SHOULD TAKE THIS OFFLINE, BECAUSE IT'S A LONG DISCUSSION.

BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE IS, AT THAT TIME, WITH RESPECT TO AGREEMENTS IN A DISPUTE ARISING FROM AN AGREEMENT, DISPUTES ARISE FROM OTHER THINGS, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING AN ARBITRATION.

SO IT'S NOT --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: EXCELLENT POINT.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE -- WE SHOULD BE THINKING -- IF WE WERE TO MOVE THIS -- WE MAY NOT BE ATTRACTIVE. IT MAY NOT WORK OUT.

WE MAY TALK THROUGH THE ISSUE AND FIND OUT, LOOK, WE'RE BETTER OFF WHERE WE ARE.

BUT AT LEAST, AS A COMMUNITY, WE'VE DONE THAT.

BUT I THINK I PERSONALLY THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP IN THE DISCUSSION WAS, WE ALSO NEED TO ENSURE THERE'S SOME MECHANISM FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY DECISIONS WHO ARE NOT IN CONTRACT BUT ARE THIRD PARTIES TO HAVE SOME SORT OF LEGAL BASIS TO COME AND SAY, I WANT MY HURT OR MY CONCERN LISTENED TO.

I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

JUST TO TALK ABOUT, IN THAT SENSE, WE MAY WANT TO THINK THAT THROUGH, BECAUSE, POTENTIALLY -- THIS IS DRAWING ON TOO LONG -- I KNOW, IN FRANCE AND AUSTRALIA, YOU HAVE A BODY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY AND ARE IN THE U.K., BUT DOESN'T IN CANADA OR THE U.S -- I'M MAKING SOMETHING UP NOW.

MAYBE YOU CAN EVEN GO THAT FAR TO EXPLORE IT.

>>BECKY BURR: IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.

I THINK WE AGREE ON THAT.

THANK YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: OKAY.

>>VINT CERF: (NO AUDIO.) IS THIS NOT WORKING EITHER?

>> IT'S NOW WORKING.

>>VINT CERF: IT WORKS.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

I OFFERED RON ANDRUFF, BECAUSE HE'S LEAVING BEFORE THE MEETING IS OFFER, ONE SLOT ON THIS OPEN MOMENT.

BUT THAT'S TO -- KEEP IT SHORT, PLEASE.

AND THEN WE'LL BREAK.

THE GNSO FORUM WILL CONVENE HERE AT 2:00.

RON.

>>RON ANDRUFF: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

RON ANDRUFF, TRALLIANCE CORPORATION, THE DOT TRAVEL REGISTRY.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO GO ON RECORD WITH SOMETHING WE THINK IS ON THE MINDS OF MANY OF US HERE.

TRALLIANCE CORPORATION WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD ON THE RECENT TELEPHONIC BOARD MEETING, VIS-A-VIS THE DENIAL OF TRALLIANCE'S REQUEST TO IMPLEMENT A MUSEUM-LIKE WILDCARD.

WE'RE ADDITION APPOINTED BY THE DECISION OF -- BY THE DECISION AND THE BOARD'S APPARENT LAPSE IN PROCESS.

HOWEVER, WE'D LIKE TO STATE THAT WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH THE QUALITY OF THE WORK BY THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE SCHEDULED TO WORK ON THE RSTEP.

THEY WERE WELL QUALIFIED AND DID WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF THEM.

I'D LIKE TO ASK PAUL FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE DECISION BEING TAKEN ON THIS MATTER PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC FORUM PERIOD CONCLUDING SO THAT WE CAN ALL BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THIS HAPPENED.

WHERE WE TAKE ISSUE IS WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE AMBIGUITY OF THE CONCLUSION.

AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE SENT A LETTER TO THE ICANN BOARD REQUESTING THAT TRALLIANCE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEST OUR SERVICE TO SEE THAT IF IN POINT OF FACT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE INTERNET.

AND TO THIS POINT, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD AND STAFF TO WORK WITH US IN ESTABLISHING A TEST THAT THE DELIVER ICANN AND THE COMMUNITY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'LL HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS.

RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION, TRALLIANCE HAS BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE TEST OF THE MORE THAN THREE-LETTER TLD ISSUE FOR THE LAST YEAR, AND THE RESULTS OF THAT TEST HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT A FIX WAS NEEDED, AND YESTERDAY A PATCH, IF YOU WILL, WAS RELEASED BY ICANN TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM ACROSS THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF THE INTERNET.

THIS IS A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF HOW WORKING THROUGH UNKNOWNS TO THE FACTS IS A RESULT OF BETTERMENT OF THE INTERNET GOING FORWARD.

THE MANDATE OF ICANN AND THE ICANN COMMUNITY IS TO CREATE A ROBUST INTERNET THAT SERVES ALL CONSTITUENCIES IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY POSSIBLE.

TRALLIANCE HAS A MANDATE TO SERVE ITS CONSTITUENCY, THE GLOBAL TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMMUNITY, ONE OF ICANN'S CONSTITUENCIES AS WELL.

SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO A RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH SOME QUALIFIED TEST AS DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BETWEEN TRALLIANCE AND A TECHNICAL TEAM, AS DETERMINED BY ICANN, OVER THE PERIOD COMING TO GAIN SOME KNOWLEDGE THAT WILL BENEFIT US ALL IN THE SAME WAY AS WE RESOLVE THE THREE-LETTER ISSUE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PAUL, IF YOU WOULD RESPECT, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: (NO AUDIO).

ONE THING THAT WILL GET FIXED OVER LUNCH IS THE MICROPHONES.

>>STEVE CONTE: ABSOLUTELY.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THE -- IS KURT IN THE ROOM?

>>KURT PRITZ: YES, OVER HERE, PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS QUESTION?

>>KURT PRITZ: SURE.

I'M GOING TO JUST RESPOND TO THE PROCESS PART.

>>RON ANDRUFF: OF COURSE.

>>KURT PRITZ: BECAUSE THE -- THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED BY THE ICANN GNSO DEVELOPED CONSENSUS POLICY WAS REALLY FOLLOWED PRECISELY.

IT INCLUDED A 45-DAY COMMENT PERIOD, A 13-DAY COMMENT PERIOD, THREE INDEPENDENT REVIEWS OR SOLICITATIONS FOR ADVICE, AND THEN IT WAS ALSO TIMELY EXECUTED.

AND SO THIS, I THINK, GETS TO THE NUB OF YOUR PROBLEM.

BECAUSE THE POLICY REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD REACT TO THE TECHNICAL REPORT WITHIN 30 DAYS.

AND SO YOU'LL SEE PUTTING AN ENDING DATE ON THE COMMENT PERIOD THEN BECOMES KIND OF IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE BOARD IS GOING TO ACT.

SO THE MISTAKE WAS THAT -- NOT THAT THE POLICY WAS FOLLOWED, BUT, RATHER, THAT A CLOSING DATE WAS PUT ON THE COMMENT PERIOD.

AND THAT WAS MISSED BY THE REVIEWER OF THE POSTING, WHICH WAS ME.

BUT THAT FACT DID NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCESS OR ANY PART OF THE PROCESS.

AND THE PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED COMPLETELY.

THE HARM THAT MAY HAVE RESULTED WAS IN MANAGING THE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE WHO WISHED TO COMMENT.

AND SO WE'VE LOOKED INTO THAT.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO TRY TO GET PAST THAT HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT.

AND WE REALIZE WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR COMMENT PERIOD SOMEWHAT.

WE CAN'T JUST HAVE A CLOSING DATE ARBITRARILY SOMETIMES, BUT, RATHER, WE NEED TO CLOSELY FOLLOW THE COMPLEXITIES OF A POLICY THAT KIND OF PROHIBITS A CLOSING DATE AT THE VERY LAST COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH WE WANT TO BUTT UP RIGHT AGAINST THE BOARD DECISION.

>>RON ANDRUFF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, KURT.

(AUDIO DIFFICULTIES).

I SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING -- THE MINUTES WILL SHOW THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD HAD A TANTRUM.

[ LAUGHTER ]

>>VINT CERF: THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER YOUR PROPOSAL.

I WON'T HAVE A REACTION ON THE SPOT.

>>RON ANDRUFF: WE DON'T EXPECT ONE.

WE EXPECT THIS WILL TAKE TIME.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE'LL WORK THROUGH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

>>RON ANDRUFF: WE HAVE UNDERSTANDING FOR THAT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

LET ME THANK THE PANEL MEMBERS ONCE AGAIN FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND PRESENTATIONS.

WE'LL BREAK NOW UNTIL 2:00, WHEN THIS ROOM IS REUSED FOR THE GNSO OPEN PUBLIC MEETING.

AND I HOPE YOU HAVE A MOMENT OR TWO -- WELL, NOT MUCH -- TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING TO EAT.

SO WE'RE ADJOURNING UNTIL 2:00.

NOT EVERYONE IS EXPECTED TO BE AT THE GNSO PUBLIC FORUM.

I'M SORRY, WHAT DID I MISS?

>>JANIS KARKLINS: (NO AUDIO.)

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A SMALL ANNOUNCEMENT, A REMINDER FOR THE GAC MEMBERS THAT WE ARE MEETING AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE ADJACENT ROOM TO CONTINUE OUR DELIBERATIONS.

THANK YOU.

(12:50 P.M.)

</End Excerpt>

 



 

 

center">