Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Public Forum in Accra Real-Time Captioning

13 March 2002 - Morning Session

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the morning session of the ICANN Public Forum held 13 March 2002 in Accra, Ghana. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

A video archive is available of the public forum. Click here for details.


ICANN PUBLIC FORUM
WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 13, 2002

>>VINTON CERF: TESTING, TESTING, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT. HOW'S THAT?

>>: GOOD.

>>VINTON CERF: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. I HOPE I'M AS FUNCTIONAL AS THIS MICROPHONE NOW SEEMS TO BE. MY NAME IS VINT CERF. I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ICANN. AND I WELCOME YOU TO THE OPEN FORUM PART OF THE ICANN MEETING HERE IN GHANA. I WANT TO MAKE SOME REMINDERS TO THE BOARD. SO IF THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD PLEASE PAY ATTENTION FOR A MOMENT. THIS PART OF OUR ICANN MEETING IS FOR US TO LISTEN TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. NOT FOR US TO TALK TO THEM.

I WILL ENTERTAIN SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR CLARIFICATION. I EMPHASIZE "SOME." TODAY, OUR JOB IS TO LISTEN TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. TOMORROW, WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AMONG OURSELVES AND IN FRONT OF OUR PUBLIC OUR VIEWS OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE PRESENTED.

MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, PROFESSOR PISANTY, VICE CHAIRMAN HAS SOMETHING TO SAY NOT TO THE BOARD, BUT TO OUR ATTENDEES AND PARTICIPANTS. MR. PISANTY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: HELLO. I'VE SAT IN ANOTHER SMALLER FORUM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT ON MOST OF THE ISSUES ON THE TABLE TODAY, ON THE AGENDA TODAY, THE BOARD HAS BEEN GETTING A LOT OF INPUT FROM PUBLIC FORUMS, FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE ADDRESSED US INDIVIDUALLY BY E-MAIL, BY PHONE, OR IN CORRIDORS HERE. THIS MAY NOT BE TRANSPARENT, BUT IT'S VERY EFFICIENT. WE HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF INPUT ON THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED, AND SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE DECIDED UPON. I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY SORRY WASTE OF THE RESOURCES THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE INVESTED THROUGH FOUNDATIONS AND MANY OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING, A SORRY WASTE OF TIME TO USE THE TIME AT THE MICROPHONE TO REPEAT ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN VERY EFFICIENTLY AND ABUNDANTLY CONVEYED TO THE BOARD. AND I THINK IN THE NAME OF MANY OF THE OTHER DIRECTORS THAT IT WILL COME AS A LOT – THAT THE PUBLIC INTERVENTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS TODAY TAKE US ONE STEP FURTHER FROM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, SO THAT WE CAN ALREADY ASSUME THAT THE BOARD IS IN KNOWLEDGE OF THESE POSITIONS AND THAT WE CAN GO ONE STEP FURTHER IN THE REASONING IN FLESHING THEM OUT, INSTEAD OF JUST DRAWING LINES WHICH WE SHOULDN'T CROSS AND WHICH WE ALREADY ARE AWARE OF.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D LIKE TO CALL UPON ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND OUR HOST FOR THIS MEETING, DR. NII QUAYNOR, WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ A COMMUNICATION FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS. I HOPE YOUR MICROPHONE IS WORKING. NOT WORKING. CAN WE GET NII QUAYNOR'S MICROPHONE UP.

>>NII QUAYNOR: NO, NO, NO, IT'S FINE.

THE UNITED NATIONS' SECRETARY-GENERAL'S MESSAGE TO THE MEETING OF THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, ICANN, ACCRA, MARCH 2002:

IT IS A GREAT PLEASURE FOR ME THAT SO MANY OF THE LEADERS OF THE INTERNET WORLD ARE GATHERED IN GHANA AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE THIS IS MY HOME COUNTRY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS MEETING WILL UNDERLINE BOTH THE IMMENSITY OF THE CHALLENGE WE FACE IN AFRICA AND THE GREAT POTENTIAL OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES TO (INAUDIBLE) DRAMATIC ADVANCES IN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES THROUGHOUT THE CONTINENT. WE NEED TO BUILD BRIDGES TO THE PEOPLE TRAPPED IN EXTREME POVERTY, UNTOUCHED BY THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES CHANGING OUR WORLD. IF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE TO COMPETE IN THE INCREASINGLY KNOWLEDGE-BASED GLOBAL ECONOMY, ONE KEY FACTOR WILL BE THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE EFFECTIVELY IN PROCESSES AND FORA THAT DEAL WITH NEW POLICY AND TECHNICAL ISSUES SUCH AS THIS ONE. THE PRESENCE OF AFRICANS AND OTHER PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS ON THE ICANN BOARD IS A GREAT SIGN. SUCH EFFORTS ARE, OF COURSE, ONLY A BEGINNING. I ENCOURAGE ICANN TO JOIN HANDS WITH THE UNITED NATIONS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE THAT I STARTED LAST YEAR, WHICH IS ADDRESSING THIS AND MANY OTHER ISSUES. I ALSO SEE A KEY ROLE OF ICANN IN ADDRESSING VARIOUS QUESTIONS (INAUDIBLE) BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION THAT AFFECT THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET AND ITS COMMUNITY. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES ARE NOT A PANACEA OR A MAGIC BULLET, BUT THEY ARE, WITHOUT DOUBT, ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL TOOLS FOR DEVELOPMENT. THEY CREATE JOBS, THEY ARE TRANSFORMING EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, COMMENTS, POLITICS, AND MORE. ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING CHALLENGES IN THE NEW CENTURY IS TO HARNESS THIS EXTRAORDINARY FORCE, SPREAD IT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND MAKE ITS BENEFITS ACCESSIBLE AND MEANINGFUL TO ALL HUMANITY, IN PARTICULAR, THE POOR. BY WORKING TO BUILD THESE BRIDGES IN AFRICA AND BEYOND, WE CAN MAKE AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL PEACE, PROGRESS, AND THE ECONOMY. IN THAT SPIRIT, PLEASE ACCEPT MY BEST WISHES FOR A SUCCESSFUL MEETING.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NII. THAT'S, INDEED, –

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: NOW I'D LIKE TO CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT, STUART LYNN, TO MAKE HIS REPORT. STUART.

>>STUART LYNN: THANK YOU. JOHN?

>>: THERE'S NO MICROPHONE.

>>VINTON CERF: WE NEED SOMETHING EXCITING TO GO ALONG WITH THE RIDE TO THE RESCUE THERE.

>>STUART LYNN: GOOD MORNING. WHOOPS. TRY AGAIN. GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY ECHOING, I THINK, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID MANY TIMES, WHICH IS TO SAY HOW PLEASED I AM, I KNOW EACH OF YOU ARE, TO BE IN GHANA, IN ACCRA, TODAY, AND TO THANK OUR HOSTS FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS MEETING SUCH A SUCCESS. TO THANK EACH OF YOU FOR COMING TO JOIN US.

I'M GOING TO GIVE A – A HOPEFULLY BRIEF PRESIDENT'S REPORT, AND THEN OPEN UP FOR COMMENTS. IN THIS PRESENTATION, I AM NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT REFORM, YOU'LL BE PLEASED TO HEAR, BUT ONLY – YOU MAY BE PLEASED TO HEAR. BUT IT'S ONLY A TEMPORARY RELIEF FOR YOU, BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION WILL, INDEED, TALK ABOUT THE CASE FOR REFORM. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF I MIGHT, IS TO TALK ABOUT THE STATUS OF AGREEMENTS, SOME COMMENTS ON STATUS OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES, SPEND SOME TIME ON THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND WHERE WE'RE HEADED, ICANN, AND A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES.

AGREEMENTS, CCTLD AGREEMENTS: AS WE HAVE SAID BEFORE, CCTLD AND US HAVE NOT REACHED EYE TO EYE ON SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS. WE HAVE, HOWEVER, SINCE WE SPOKE LAST, YOU'LL RECALL AT MARINA DEL REY WE HAD JUST SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OPERATOR OF .AU , AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY THAT WE HAVE, AS WE ANNOUNCED, SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH JPRS IN JAPAN, THE OPERATOR OF .JP. I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY IN THE JAPANESE INTERNET COMMUNITY WHO CAME TOGETHER TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE THIS AGREEMENT POSSIBLE. I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD, AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP.

THE STATUS OF THE NEW TLD AGREEMENTS: YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THIS FOR SOME TIME NOW. AS OF LAST NOVEMBER, I BELIEVE, WE HAD SIGNED FIVE OF THE SEVEN AGREEMENTS, ANOTHER ONE HAS BEEN SIGNED IN BETWEEN, WHICH LEAVES ONE MORE. THE LAST, BUT NOT LEAST ONE, THE DOT PRO AGREEMENTS WITH REGISTRY DOT PRO IS BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY ON ITS AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL, GIVING AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT.

SO ASSUMING FOR THE MOMENT THAT THE BOARD AGREES TO DO THAT, THEN THAT WILL BE THE LAST OF THE SEVEN AGREEMENTS.

NOW I HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT THE NEW AGREEMENTS LATER ON.

AGREEMENTS FOR THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES, AGAIN, VERY CONSTRUCTIVE, FRUITFUL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NOT JUST OUR STAFF, BUT ALSO, OF COURSE, THE RIRS, AND A NUMBER OF THEIR BOARD MEMBERS FROM THE THREE RESPECTIVE BOARDS, INTO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE VERY PRODUCTIVE. I KNOW I ALWAYS SAY WE'RE ALMOST THERE. I FEEL LIKE THESE ARE THE STORY YOU MAY RECALL OF THE BEWITCHED RABBIT WHO WANTS TO GET TO ITS HOLE. A SPELL HAS BEEN CAST OVER IT SO IT CAN ONLY JUMP HALFWAY TOWARDS THE HOLE AT EACH STEP. WE KEEP GETTING HALFWAY THERE, BUT NEVER QUITE THERE. BUT I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT WE WILL REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH APPROVAL OF THE BOARDS IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE.

ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATOR AGREEMENTS: WE HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENTS FOR SERVER OPERATOR AGREEMENTS. WE HAVE A DRAFT MOU FORM OF AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE POSTED, WHICH ARE IN PROCESS WITH THESE INVOLVED MEMBER INSTITUTIONS. AS OF NOW, NONE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN SIGNED. WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHERE THAT GOES AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AS I'VE INDICATED, ANOTHER CONTEXT OF THE REFORM PAPER, SIGNING OF THESE AGREEMENTS IS AN IMPORTANT COMPLETION OF THE FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH ICANN HAS SET UP, ALL OF THESE AGREEMENTS, NOT JUST THE SERVER AGREEMENTS, BUT THE CCTLD AGREEMENTS AND THE RIR AGREEMENTS AS WELL. SOME OF THOSE (INAUDIBLE).

COMMITTEES: THE IDN COMMITTEE, OF COURSE, WAS FORMED UNDER THE CHAIR OF KATOH-SAN, AND THE MEMBERSHIP WAS APPROVED AT MARINA DEL REY. IT'S A VERY ACTIVE COMMITTEE. IT'S ISSUED TWO PAPERS, ONE OF WHICH IS A POSITION PAPER THAT LEADS TO VICE – TO THE RELEASE – TO RELEASE ITS POSITION THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF A PERIOD DELIMITER INTO ABOVE DNS SYSTEMS SUCH AS KEYWORD SYSTEMS WOULD CAUSE CONFUSION WITH THE DNS AND WITH THE FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR DNS (INAUDIBLE). AND ALTHOUGH ICANN DOES NOT HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN THE ABOVE DNS SPACE, IT MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT OUR POSITION IS (INAUDIBLE) IN THE FUTURE AS WELL AS CONFUSION.

THE OTHER PAPER IS NOT SO MUCH A POSITION PAPER AS IT IS THE ADVICE TO THE IETF WITH REGARD TO USE OF – ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CODE POINTS THAT ARE NOT WELL REFINED TODAY, SUGGESTING THAT A POSITION – ENCOURAGING THAT THESE NOT BE USED TODAY UNTIL BETTER THINGS CAN BE WORKED OUT AS TO HOW THEY SHOULD BE USED. AND IT'S NOT A POLICY ISSUE SO MUCH FOR ICANN TODAY AS IT IS ADVICE TO THE IETF, WHICH THEY MAY OR MAY NOT CHOOSE TO TAKE. IT COULD LEAD TO A POLICY QUESTION.

SECURITY COMMITTEES: I ANNOUNCED RECENTLY, I'M ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED THAT STEVE CROCKER HAS AGREED TO CHAIR THE SECURITY COMMITTEE. I'LL TALK IN A MOMENT ABOUT THAT. STEVE, AS YOU KNOW, IS A VERY LONGSTANDING, DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, IN SOME WAYS, HE'S ONE OF THE FATHERS OF THE IETF. AND HE'S WELL-RESPECTED BY ALL OF US. AND THE FACT THAT HE HAS AGREED TO UNDERTAKE THIS DIFFICULT ROLE SHOWS BOTH SERIOUSNESS OF THE ISSUE AND HIS DEDICATION TO HELP MOVING FORWARD IN THIS AREA.

THE BOARD RESOLUTION THAT SET THIS THING UP, IT'S – WE SET IT UP AS A PRESIDENT'S STANDING COMMITTEE WITH A PROPOSAL TO CONVERT IT TO AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, LIKE THE RSSOC AND THE GAC AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE IT APPROVES THE CHARTER AND WILL LATER HAVE TO APPROVE THE MEMBERSHIP. THE CHARTER IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY. THE MEMBERSHIP, ALTHOUGH IT'S ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE, WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY. YOU KNOW, THE APPROVAL OF THE CHARTER IS ESSENTIALLY A PREREQUISITE BEFORE FINALIZING THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO WANT TO SERVE ON THE NEW COMMITTEES TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO WE'RE SEPARATING THOSE TWO ACTIONS. JUST TO STEP FORWARD A SECOND, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SECURITY WITH THE CHARTER, THAT I'M GOING TO BE PROPOSING TO THE BOARD THE RESOLUTION TOMORROW. THIS IS BEING DEVELOPED IN FULL CONSULTATION WITH STEVE CROCKER AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WORK OF THE PRESIDENT'S STANDING COMMITTEE, ABOUT 20 MEMBERS WHO COME FROM VARIOUS BACKGROUNDS, ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATOR COMMUNITY, FROM THE REGISTRIES, THE REGISTRARS, THE IETF, GEOGRAPHICALLY DIVERSE, FROM ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD. I THINK IT'S A VERY, VERY GOOD THING, WHEN WE FINALLY ANNOUNCE IT, WE WILL BE VERY PLEASED WITH IT. IT'S A LARGE COMMITTEE, BUT THAT'S INEVITABLE WITH THE SCOPE OF WHAT IT'S TRYING TO COVER. BUT THE CHARTER THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED IN FULL CONSULTATION AND SUPPORT OF STEVE, THE PUTATIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, IT IS CHARGED, NUMBER ONE, TO DEVELOP WHAT WE CALL A SECURE FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS SORT OF A TAXONOMY STRUCTURE, DEFINING WHAT THE KEY FOCUS AREAS ARE AND SHOULD BE, WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITIES CURRENTLY LIE, OR THE MISSING RESPONSIBILITIES, TO IDENTIFY THEM. FOCUSING ON THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CRITICAL NAMING INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE TO KEEP EMPHASIZING THAT ICANN'S ROLE IN SECURITY DOESN'T COVER THE WATERSHED OF SECURITY AS A WHOLE OF THE INTERNET. WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR OVERALL SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY. OUR ROLE IS LIMITED AND WELL-DEFINED, AND THE SECURITY COMMITTEE (INAUDIBLE) THAT WITHIN THE CHARTER.

SECONDLY, TO COMMUNICATE AND STAY IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE OVERALL INTERNET TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, OPERATORS OF CRITICAL NAMING INFRASTRUCTURE, MANAGERS, GATHERING THE SENSE OF REQUIREMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY, ARTICULATING THESE, HELPING TO ADVISE THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE COMMITTEE THINKS THE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS LIE. THIRDLY, TO ENGAGE IN ONGOING TREND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT. I MIGHT SAY, FIRSTLY, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF WORK TO DO THIS. AND I THINK SOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS CAN CERTAINLY HELP US DO THIS, BUT NOT WITHOUT THE RESOURCES TO BACK IT UP. I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE FUTURE.

ASSESSING THREATS, ADVISING ON WHERE THE THREATS EXIST, RECOMMENDING THOSE RESPONSIBLE WHERE PERHAPS AUDIT ACTIVITY MIGHT PERHAPS BE USEFUL TO HELP TEASE OUT SOME OF THE ISSUES.

FOURTHLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THE COMMITTEE DOES IS SYNCHRONIZED THE WITH ONGOING ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE VARIOUS BODIES, REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, THE IETF, SO FORTH, AND OTHER COMMUNITIES, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THE COMMITTEE DOES IS IN SYNC, IS IN GOOD TOUCH WITH THOSE RESPONSIBLE, MONITORING, AS NECESSARY; ADVISING; BUT VERY MUCH CHANNELING ITS ADVICE THROUGH THE BOARD BY FREQUENT REPORTING TO THE BOARD, AND MAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AS APPROPRIATE.

SO THIS CHARTER WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD TOMORROW FOR APPROVAL. AND IF THE BOARD APPROVES, THEN IN ITS NEXT MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ITSELF WILL BE APPROVED, OR PRESENTING APPROVAL – PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL.

GOING BACK TO OTHER COMMITTEES, THE – ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE. LET'S SEE WHO WAS IN MARINA DEL REY AND WAS AWAKE. HATS UP FOR ANYONE WHO KNOWS WHAT NTEPPTF IS. GOOD, WE HAVE A FEW. NTEPPTF IS THE NEW TLD EVALUATION PROCESS PLANNING TASK FORCE. I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NAME. BUT – I DIDN'T INVENT IT. THIS IS A TASK FORCE THAT IS CONSIDERING – WHICH IS DEALING WITH MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON WHAT EVALUATION PROCESS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED ON THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW TLDS IN ORDER TO LAY A BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW TO MOVE ON INTO THE FUTURE. AND I WILL BE REPORTING ON THAT LATER TODAY IN A SEPARATE PRESENTATION.

THEN, OF COURSE, THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE, COMPLETING ITS REPORT THIS MORNING, OR PRESENTATION. AND SHOULD THE BOARD DECIDE IN FAVOR OF ELECTIONS, DENISE MICHEL WILL STAY IN CLOSE TOUCH WITH MYSELF, ANDREW, AND THE AT LARGE CONTINGENCY FOR DECIDING THIS.

THAT'S THE COMMITTEES.

FINANCIAL: STAFFING. IN THE BUDGET, WE'RE AUTHORIZED TO 21. THE AUTHORIZATION, HOWEVER, ISN'T A LICENSE TO SPEND. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, WE CAN'T HIRE. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY AND WE'RE NOT HIRING UP TO THE LEVEL OF 21 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT TO DO SO. WE HAVE HIRED, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT OUR TECHNICAL SUPPORT BE BEEFED UP SO WE'RE NOT SO DEPENDENT ON, ESSENTIALLY, ONE OR TWO PEOPLE, LARGELY ONE PERSON, THAT WE'RE TERRIBLY EXPOSED IF WE DON'T HIRE SOMEONE – DIDN'T HIRE SOMEONE TO TAKE ON THE ROLE OF MANAGING THE OVERALL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS. I'M ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED THAT KENT CRISPIN HAS AGREED TO JOIN US ON AN 80% BASIS AND HAS – IS ALREADY MAKING A DIFFERENCE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT. I'M GOING TO TALK IN A MOMENT ABOUT SIX-MONTH RESULTS. BUT LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE FORMAL SIX-MONTHS RESULTS HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED. WE HOPE TO HAVE THEM – WE HOPED TO HAVE THEM POSTED BY LAST WEEK. UNFORTUNATELY, WE FOUND AN ERROR IN THE REPORT THAT WAS NOT OF THE – THIS ISN'T AN AUDIT REPORT, THIS IS AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT, AND THERE WAS AN ERROR THAT'S BEING TRACKED DOWN AS WE SPEAK. AND WE EXPECT TO POST THEM NEXT WEEK, THAT WILL SHOW YOU, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THEY SAY. I'LL ALSO SHOW YOU BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR, AND TALK ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR.

I'D LIKE TO IN THE NEXT CHART NOT TO CONCENTRATE ON NEXT YEAR'S FIGURES UNTIL WE TALK ABOUT THIS YEAR. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY HARD TO DO. I HAVE MADE THE MISTAKE OF PUTTING IT ALL ON ONE CHART. BUT I KNOW YOU'RE ABLE TO SPLIT YOURSELF DOWN THE MIDDLE. JUST LOOK OUT OF YOUR LEFT EYE, AND CLOSE YOUR RIGHT EYE WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. I DON'T KNOW HOW LEGIBLE THAT IS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

BUT THE FIRST COLUMN IS THE APPROVED BUDGET. NOW, IN ORDER TO SQUEEZE EVERYTHING ONTO ONE SLIDE, I'VE DONE SOME SORT OF REORGANIZING OF THE BUDGET CATEGORIES TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SEE. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE – HERE WE ARE – SUDDENLY IT CHANGED FROM WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. OKAY.

WHY DID IT CHANGE? I KNOW WHY IT CHANGED. BECAUSE THE AT-LARGE EXPENDITURE DROPPED OUT OF THE CATEGORIES FOR SOME REASON. I DO NOT KNOW. I'LL HAVE TO VERBALLY TELL YOU WHERE THAT IS.

STAFFING, AS I SAID, IS 21 IN THE BUDGET. AND WE BUDGETED A CONTRIBUTION TO RESERVES. IF I ACTUALLY REFORMAT WHAT WAS DONE TO THE BUDGET, OF 750,000 LESS 250,000. THE MISSING ENTRY ON HERE IS AN EXPENSE OF 250,000 TO SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ALSC. SO IN YOUR MIND, ADD 250,000 FOR EXPENDITURES, AND DROP THE CONTRIBUTION TO RESERVES 1,750,000. THAT'S THIS LINE RIGHT HERE. THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE 250,000 GREATER. THOSE ARE PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES.

THE SECOND LINE, THE AT-LARGE COMMITTEE IS MISSING OUT OF THIS DATA, IS INDICATED HERE. WE'RE NOT HIRING UP TO FULL LEVELS. OUR STANDING EXPENDITURES ARE LOWER THAN WHAT WE'VE PROJECTED THIS TIME OF THE YEAR. PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES IS ABOUT WHERE WE EXPECT IT TO BE. AND, AGAIN, A LITTLE LOWER THAN WE BUDGETED BECAUSE OF SOME FREEZES THAT I PUT ON SOME OF THOSE AREAS.

THE THIRD LINE, HOWEVER, WHICH IS WAY AHEAD OF BUDGET, IS THE COST OF ALL THE BOARD, PUBLIC MEETINGS. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THIS. ONE IS THAT WHEN THE BUDGET WAS SET LAST YEAR, IT DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT MEETING EXPENSES WERE MOVING HIGHER AND HIGHER, FRANKLY, AS SOME TRAVEL THAT HITHERTO WAS PAID FOR BY EMPLOYERS, IN THE CHANGING ECONOMY OF THE WORLD, IS NOT PAID FOR BY EMPLOYERS, IT NEEDS TO BE PICKED UP BY ICANN. SECONDLY, BECAUSE CERTAINLY MARINA DEL REY, FOR INSTANCE, WE KNOW WAS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN BUDGETED BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT PARTICULAR MEETING. THIRDLY, BECAUSE IN THE CHANGING ECONOMY, SPONSORSHIP WAS NOT AS GREAT AS WE HAD BUDGETED. AND THOSE ARE ABOUT THE MAIN REASONS, EXCEPT MY LOUSY MANAGEMENT AS WELL.

SO THAT'S VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. THE FUTURE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FUTURE – ON THE OTHER HAND, STAFF TRAVEL IS MOVING AT A SLOWER PACE THAN PREDICTED. I HAVE BEEN PUTTING A TIGHT FREEZE ON TRAVEL, AND ALSO CHANGING THE APPROVED MODES OF TRAVEL. AND THAT WILL END UP THE YEAR WITH A BIT LESS THAN BUDGETED.

ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS IS MOVING AT A HIGHER CLIP, THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE OUR INSURANCE COSTS HAVE SKYROCKETED. WHEN ICANN WAS FIRST SET UP, NO ONE KNEW WHO WE WERE, BUT IT WAS EASY TO – IT WASN'T EASY, THERE WAS SOME HARD WORK DONE IN CONVINCING PEOPLE THAT WE REALLY WEREN'T A BIG RISK. NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THREE YEARS, INSURANCE COMPANIES STILL DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE AND HOW TO ASSESS US AND HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT OUR RISKS ARE. BUT THEY DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME – WHAT, 17 LAWSUITS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND ALTHOUGH WE HAVE PREVAILED IN EVERY LAWSUIT THAT'S BEEN HURLED AT US, IT MAKES THEM NERVOUS. AND OUR EXISTING CARRIER WOULD NOT RENEW SOME OF OUR INSURANCE. AND AS CARRIERS LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL RISKS OF AN ORGANIZATION, THEY'VE ASSESSED, PARTICULARLY SINCE OUR RENEWAL CAME CLOSELY AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 11TH DISASTERS, OUR INSURANCE COSTS ESSENTIALLY TRIPLED THIS YEAR OVER WHAT WAS BUDGETED.

ON THE REVENUES SIDE, THE GTLDS ARE ALMOST ON SCHEDULE. THE REASON THEY'RE BEHIND IS THAT THE – IT WAS PROJECTED IN THE BUDGET THAT THE NEW TLDS WOULD ALL BE AGREED AND SIGNED BY JULY 1, AND THE APPROPRIATE FEES WOULD BE PAID ON THAT TYPE OF SCHEDULE. AS YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE BEEN SPREAD OUT THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR, SO THE FEES THAT GET PAID GET SPREAD OUT INTO NEXT YEAR.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON, THE GTLDS ARE SLIGHTLY BEHIND THE BUDGET.

CCTLDS WE DON'T KNOW YET, LARGELY BECAUSE IN ORDER TO AVOID OVERLAP, CONFUSION WITH LAST YEAR, SINCE WE'RE STILL COLLECTING REVENUES FROM THE CCTLDS FROM LAST YEAR, WE DECIDED NOT TO SEND OUT A REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OR IN THE CASE OF THE REGISTRIES WITH WHOM WE HAVE AGREEMENTS, THE INVOICES, UNTIL RIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING. THEY'LL BE SENT OUT NEXT WEEK. AND ALTHOUGH WE INDICATED IN THE BUDGET THAT REVENUES WILL EXCEED BY $49,000, WHICH IS A LEFTOVER FROM LAST YEAR, 49,000, WHAT WAS BUDGETED, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT REALISTIC. WE PUT IT THERE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO PICK A NUMBER AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT JUST AS LAST YEAR, WE REQUESTED CONTRIBUTIONS AMOUNTING TO 1.3 MILLION, AS WE WILL THIS YEAR. BUT LAST YEAR, WE RECEIVED PLEDGES OR INVOICES, WE REALIZED AFTER ALLOWANCE FOR BAD DEBTS, PROBABLY SOMETHING LIKE 830,000 ON THE 1.3 MILLION. CERTAINLY, THIS YEAR, WE FULLY EXPECT THAT NUMBER WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WHAT IS INDICATED THERE. IT'S – WITHOUT AGREEMENTS, WE JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE GOODNESS OF THE HEARTS, WHICH THEY CERTAINLY ALL HAVE OF THE CCTLDS, WE APPRECIATE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY, BECAUSE WE HAVE MANY – WITH MANY CCTLDS, WE HAVE DIFFERENCES OF VIEW. AND ALTHOUGH WE WANT TO WORK THROUGH THOSE TOGETHER, WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM HAVING DONE SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

THE – THAT'S WHY I PUT A QUESTION MARK ON THE RIGHT. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE ADDRESS REGISTERS. WE'VE BEEN BOOKING THESE REVENUES THROUGH WAYS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. HOWEVER, WE DON'T SIGN AGREEMENTS – IF WE DON'T SIGN AGREEMENTS VERY SOON, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I THINK WE'RE ALL OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE – THEN THAT $496,000 THAT'S INDICATED THERE IS ALSO IN JEOPARDY. ON THE GOOD SIDE, REGISTRAR FEES, THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO KINDS, KINDS THAT COME FROM APPLICATION FEES FOR NEW REGISTRARS, THOSE WHO WANT TO BE ACCREDITED BY ICANN, THE BULK COMES FROM ANNUAL RENEWAL FEES FOR REGISTRARS, AND THAT'S BEEN RUNNING CONSIDERABLY AHEAD OF BUDGET BECAUSE MANY REGISTRARS, NEW REGISTRARS, ARE ENTICED BY THE FULL RANGE OF THE NEW TLDS, AND PAY THE FEES FOR THAT. SO WE BUDGETED (INAUDIBLE) THERE. AND IT LOOKS AS THOUGH WE'LL END THE YEAR OVER.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER IS BASICALLY – WE'VE DONE VERY WELL ON THAT.

SO THE SIX-MONTH FIGURES, ALTHOUGH IT SHOWS THEM RUNNING NEGATIVES, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NO SORT OF – REVENUES DON'T COME EVENLY THROUGH THE YEAR. MOST OF THE REVENUES COME FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR. WITH THE CCTLDS AND ALSO FROM THE ADDRESS REGISTRIES, WITH THE CAVEATS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

SO IF WE LOOK AT THE PROJECTED END OF THE YEAR, THAT 944 FIGURE, YOU AGAIN HAVE TO SUBTRACT $250,000 BECAUSE OF THE ENTRY FOR THE STUDY GROUP WILL SPEND $250,000.

IT SHOWS A SURPLUS OF AROUND $700,000. BUT THAT HAS TO BE SEVERELY MEDIATED IN YOUR MIND BY CONCERN OF WHAT MIGHT OCCUR FROM THE CCTLDS AND THE RIRS. AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO COMMENT ON WHAT THAT MIGHT BE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT. I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY SMALL REGISTRIES AROUND THAT WORLD THAT SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS OR THE INCOME TO PAY US. THAT'S TRUE OF SOME MEDIUM-SIZED ONES AS WELL.

SO WITH LARGE REGISTRIES, DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY ARE, AS WITH ALL THE REGISTRIES, VOLUNTARILY CHOOSING TO.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS CONTINUES TO BE A CRITICAL AND SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR ICANN.

FINANCIALLY, AS FAR AS ICANN IS CONCERNED, WE'RE BUILDING NO RESERVES, IN SPITE OF THE – THAT WE SHOULD HAVE RESERVES OF ONE YEAR'S OPERATING REVENUES, WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR THAT PICTURE. AND THERE'S NO ORGANIZATION CONSIDERED TO BE STABLE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A SENSIBLE-SIZED RESERVE. WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANY RESERVES BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED GAP IN THE BUDGET. WE'RE NOT EVEN STAFFED UP TO THE AUTHORIZED LEVELS, LET ALONE THE FACT THAT WE'RE – LIKE MANY OF YOU, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THREE YEARS, RUNNING FLAT-OUT ON THREE CYLINDERS AND WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CYLINDERS TO DO NOT ONLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TODAY, BUT TO FULFILL THE COMMITMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THE MISSION OF ICANN AND HOW THAT AFFECTS IT LATER ON.

BUT IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO OPERATE ICANN IN THE BEST WAY THAT I CAN, MEANING THE DIRECTIVE THAT'S BEEN GIVEN BY THE COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY BY THE BOARD. AND IT'S MY JUDGMENT, AND I KNOW MANY PEOPLE SHARE THAT, THAT WE'RE RUNNING SO FLAT-OUT THAT IT'S NOT HEALTHY. THERE'S NO BACKUP OF PERSONNEL. PEOPLE DO SO MANY THINGS AT ONE TIME THAT MISTAKES GET MADE, THINGS GET DELAYED. I KNOW MANY OF YOU GET FRUSTRATED BY MANY OF THE RESPONSES TO SERVICES, ABILITIES.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO TODAY, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK UNDER THE WAY WE'RE STRUCTURED RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'VE STARTED WORKING ON THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET. WE'RE LATE ON IT, FOR THE SAME REASON, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

HOPE TO POST THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET NEXT WEEK.

THAT PRELIMINARY BUDGET WILL FOLLOW A PROCESS.

WE'VE HAD AN INITIAL MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, TO CONSIDER IT.

AND IT WILL GO THROUGH A PROCESS BETWEEN NOW AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET IN JUNE.

AND THE PROCESS FOLLOWS ONE OF POSTING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR, AS I SAY, NEXT WEEK.

WE'LL ALLOW FOR A PERIOD OF FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY UNTIL APPROXIMATELY THE MIDDLE OF MAY.

THEN THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF DIALOGUES WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, CHAIRED BY LINDA WILSON, AND THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, WHICH IS COMPOSED OF INDIVIDUALS NOMINATED BY THE FOUR CONSTITUENCIES THAT PROVIDE FUNDING TO ICANN, OR PASS ON FUNDING TO ICANN AS THE CASE MAY BE.

THE GTLD REGISTRIES, THE GTLD REGISTRARS, THE CCTLDS AND ADDRESS REGISTRIES AND WE'LL HAVE CONSULTATIONS WITH THEM AND THEN PRESENT A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR ADOPTION BY THE BOARD IN JUNE.

AND IN JUNE'S MEETING IN ROMANIA, THE BOARD WILL CHOOSE TO ADOPT MY RECOMMENDATIONS OR NOT, AS THEY SEE FIT.

BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME OUTLINES OF WHERE I'M HEADED RIGHT NOW IN THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET.

AND THIS IS NOT COMPLETE.

I RECEIVED A BIT OF ADVICE YESTERDAY, AND IT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE MODIFIED FROM WHAT YOU SEE POSTED NEXT WEEK.

BUT I BELIEVE NOT ONLY TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY WE NEED TO STAFF UP TO OUR CURRENT AUTHORIZED LEVELS, BUT FOR REASONS I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON TODAY, UNLESS YOU WANT TO, THERE IS A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL NINE STAFF POSITIONS FOR US TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES WILL OPERATE AT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL.

THIS IS NOT JUST OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES, BUT OUTSIDE TECHNICAL SERVICES AND OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES, LIKE ACCOUNTING SUPPORT AND SO FORTH, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

AUDITORS, OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

BOARD/PUBLIC MEETINGS, WE'RE GOING TO THREE MEETINGS A YEAR NEXT YEAR.

I THINK WE'LL DO A BETTER JOB OF BRINGING THE COST DOWN, BRINGING THAT DOWN TO 600,000.

OTHER TRAVEL TO MEETINGS, BECAUSE OF THE HIGHER STAFF LEVEL, THERE WILL BE HIGHER TRAVEL COSTS.

I'M NOT SURE IT WILL BE THAT HIGH, BUT I AT LEAST WANT TO PUT THAT DOWN FOR NOW.

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE WILL EXPAND NOT JUST BECAUSE OF EXPANDED STAFF, EXTRA COST THERE, BUT ALSO THINGS WE NEED IN THE TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT TO MAKE IT WORK BETTER, MORE SOLID, SO WE CAN REALLY BE CREDIBLE 24 BY 7 OPERATION.

"OTHER" IS 170,000 REQUESTED BY THE DNSO SECRETARY FOR SUPPORT.

REVENUES IS HOW IT MAPS OUT IF WE'RE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR THAT KIND OF A EXPENDITURE LEVEL AND YET CREATE EVEN A MINIMAL CONTRIBUTION TO RESERVES.

HOWEVER, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AT LEAST RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES YESTERDAY, WHICH WILL DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF TOMORROW'S BOARD MEETING.

SO I'M PUTTING IT HERE BECAUSE I'M UNCERTAIN HERE BUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING IF THERE'S AN AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION, IT'S GOING TO BE FORMED, THAT ICANN IS SERIOUS, AND I KNOW I'LL TALK ABOUT HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT PERSONALLY, HELPING TO JUMP START AT LARGE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES AND PUT IN $200,000 IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT.

AND THE COMMITTEE REALISTICALLY POINTED OUT THAT EVERY COMMITTEE WILL BE FACED WITH UNFORESEEN PROJECTS TO BE FINANCED LIKE THE IDN COMMITTEE THIS YEAR, AND SO WE PUT A RESERVE IN THE BUDGET TO BE SPENT NOT AT THE PRESIDENT'S DISCRETION BUT ONLY WITH BOARD APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS.

THOSE ARE ALL ON THE DRAWING BOARD

SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU'LL SEE A LOT POSTED ABOUT THAT NEXT YEAR AND I'M SURE YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

THE STUFF AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE HERE RELATES TO THE NEW GTLD PROJECT.

IF YOU RECALL, WE CHARGED APPLICANTS $50,000 EACH, WHETHER THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR APPLICATION OR NOT.

THAT BUILT UP A SUM OF MONEY TO PAY – INTENDED TO PAY FOR THE NEW GTLD PROJECT.

I PREDICTED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WHEN WE WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE SIGNED AGREEMENTS WITH ALL SEVEN, DEPENDING ON THE BOARD'S DECISION TOMORROW, WE WILL HAVE SPENT $600,000 OF THAT MONEY, OF THAT 2.4 MILLION ORIGINALLY.

923 IS WHAT WE CARRIED FORWARD INTO THIS YEAR.

THE REST WAS PREVIOUSLY SPENT.

WHICH WILL LEAVE 323,000 LEFT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SMALL AMOUNT TO PAY FOR ANY EVALUATION WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND ALSO AS A RESERVE FOR LITIGATION, AS PAYMENT FOR LITIGATION.

WE ALREADY HAVE HAD SOME LITIGATION THAT IS NOT INDEMNIFIED.

PART OF THE 600,000 OF EXPENSES HAS PAID FOR THE EXTERNAL LEGAL FEES THAT WE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT.

AND WE CERTAINLY EXPECT OR HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE, BUT WE CAN'T COUNT ON IT.

WE DON'T KNOW.

SO THAT, I HAVE TO PREDICT THAT NEXT YEAR THE BALANCE OF THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE SPENT, AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO FORWARD WITH THAT

OKAY.

SO THAT'S FINANCIAL.

"OTHER," I'M VERY PLEASED IN TERMS OF THE EMERGING RIRS THAT THE LACNIC TRANSITION PLAN AND APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED.

IT WAS RECEIVED VERY MUCH WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF ARIN, THE ORGANIZATION CURRENTLY COVERING THE REGION FOR WHICH LACNIC IS SEEKING TO BE APPROVED..

WE FILLED ONE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD WHICH IS DEFINED APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR EMERGING RIRS.

THAT'S BEEN POSTED, A FAIRLY BROAD APPLICATION CRITERIA BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO PUT STRICTURES ON AT THE ICANN LEVEL.

WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO US IS THE ADDRESS REGISTRIES AGREE AMONG THEMSELVES THAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE REALLY JUST FULFILLING OUR OBLIGATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS PROCEEDING IN AN ORDERLY WAY.

THE STAFF HAS EVALUATED APPLICATIONS.

WE'RE POSITIVE ABOUT IT.

THERE'S NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AS I INDICATED, THE APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED SUPPORT, THE EXISTING ADDRESS REGISTRIES.

AND I WILL BE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD THERE IS STILL WORK TO BE DONE, BUT THAT WE GIVE A POSITIVE INDICATION THAT THERE IS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

THERE MAY BE WORK TO BE DONE, BUT THE TRANSITION WOULD BE COMPLETED, AND I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME DISCUSSION OF THIS LATER ON TODAY IN WHICH LACNIC WILL MAKE ITS STATEMENTS, WE'LL BE JOINING THEM, AND I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS MOVE FORWARD AS WELL

THE REMAINING THING IS DOT ORG, AND YOU'LL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT LATER TODAY AS WELL SO I WON'T SAY ANYTHING NOW.

THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>>VINTON CERF: STUART, I NOTICE THAT THE MICROPHONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FRONT FOR PEOPLE TO USE TO ASK QUESTIONS HAS NOW DISAPPEARED.

SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO SHARE THAT.

>>STUART LYNN: WE WILL SHARE.

>>VINTON CERF: WHAT YOU MIGHT DO IS PERHAPS TAKE YOUR SEAT, AS YOU RESPOND TO QUESTIONS

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT IN THIS MOMENT – I'M GETTING FEEDBACK.

I WANT TO POINT OUT TWO THINGS.

FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN TRANSLATION, YOU CAN GET TRANSLATION HEADSETS AT THE REAR OF THE ROOM.

THE TRANSLATION IS AVAILABLE FROM FRENCH TO ENGLISH OR ENGLISH TO FRENCH.

SECOND, I HOPE THAT YOU NOTICED A REMARKABLE IMPROVEMENT IN THE – WHAT WE CALL REAL-TIME CAPTIONING GOING ON ON THE SCREEN HERE.

THIS MEANS A LOT TO ME PERSONALLY BECAUSE REAL-TIME CAPTIONING WAS DEVELOPED FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF AND WHO COULD NOT HEAR.

IS THIS NOT WORKING AT ALL?

HOW'S THAT?

FOR DEAF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HEAR, INCLUDING ME AND YOU.

THIS REAL-TIME CAPTIONING IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DEVELOPED FOR DEAF PEOPLE, AND IT'S A REAL PLEASURE TO SEE IT BEING USED IN ANOTHER CONTEXT OF PEOPLE WHO – FOR WHOM ENGLISH IS NOT NECESSARILY A NATIVE LANGUAGE.

SEEING REAL-TIME CAPTIONS IS VERY, VERY BENEFICIAL.

I'M GOING TO THANK OUR TWO CAPTIONERS LATER ON IN THE DAY, BUT I WANTED TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS NEW FEATURE OF THE ICANN MEETINGS.

>>STUART LYNN: CAN I ADD TO THAT BRIEFLY?

>>VINTON CERF: PLEASE.

>>STUART LYNN: I'D LIKE TO THANK VINT, ACTUALLY, WHO DREW IT TO MY ATTENTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT WE'D BEEN DOING BEFORE, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK DURING THE DAY OR AFTER THE DAY AS TO HOW YOU ARE FINDING – HOW USEFUL YOU'RE FINDING IT.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, STUART.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE LEAPING FORWARD WITH QUESTIONS, SO I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM IN THE AGENDA, WHICH IS YOUR PRESENTATION ON THE MATTER OF REFORM.

>>STUART LYNN: THEN I HAVE TO TAKE THE MICROPHONE BACK.

(LAUGHTER)

>>: TURN IT OFF.

>>VINTON CERF: HOW MANY ENGINEERS DOES IT TAKE TO TURN ON A MICROPHONE?

(LAUGHTER).

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: MORE THAN YOU THINK.

>>STUART LYNN: HOW MANY ENGINEERS DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A MICROPHONE?

>>: THEY ARE NOT ENGINEERS; THAT'S WHY.

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK WE'RE JUST ABANDON THE MICROPHONE HOLDER AND DO –

>>STUART LYNN: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE POLICY, NOT OPERATIONS.

HAS ANYBODY NOT HEARD THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT REFORM?

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME, FOLLOWING ALEX'S DICTUM, REPEATING THINGS ALREADY HEARD, BUT I THINK I'LL AT LEAST LAY THE STAGE FOR WHAT I HOPE WILL BE A HEALTHY AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE OF HOW YOU KNOW I FEEL AND AS OTHERS HAVE EXPRESSED TO ME THEY FEEL THAT ICANN NEEDS TO CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD ON REFORM.

LOOKING AT A LITTLE BIT OF WHERE WE ARE, SUMMARIZING MY VIEW THAT WE'RE REALLY AT SOMETHING – NOT SOMETHING – WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS, AND LOOKING AT HOW WE MIGHT MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER IN RESHAPING WHAT THE FUTURE OF ICANN MIGHT BE.

THERE'S ONE SET CONTEXT THAT WILL REMIND YOU THAT ICANN WAS SET UP AS A PRIVATE SECTOR BODY ENGAGED IN GLOBAL COORDINATION, AND PRIVATIZING AND INTERNATIONALIZING WERE AND STILL ARE KEY PARTS OF WHAT WE ARE IN ALL ASPECTS OF OUR VISION.

AGAIN, ICANN WAS SET UP AS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION, ONE OF THE LARGE DRIVING FORCES WAS A SENSE THAT A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION COULD BE AGILE, COULD BE EFFECTIVE, COMPARED WITH AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF HOW GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS TEND TO OPERATE, WHICH WAS THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE UNDER CONSIDERATION.

AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION ON WHAT THE MISSION OF ICANN WAS AND IS.

SOME PEOPLE VIEW IT AS A VERY NARROW MISSION FOR COORDINATING NAMES, NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES, BUT THEN AS THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GRAFTED ON TOP OF THAT, IT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF ICANN.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OR THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ICANN WAS ESTABLISHED, ONE OF THOSE PRINCIPLES WHICH WAS TO PROMOTE COMPETITION WHICH HARDLY SOUNDS LIKE A TECHNICAL ACTIVITY ITSELF.

AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS IN THE COMPLEX DNS SPACE WHICH JOHN KLENSIN INDICATED IN HIS TALK YESTERDAY THAT I KNOW SOME OF YOU HEARD HAS BEEN OVERLOADED WITH MANY ISSUES THAT PERHAPS WASN'T DESIGNED FOR.

IT WAS, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE CALLED IT, A BOLD EXPERIMENT.

IT HAD NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE.

IT WAS SET UP AS – ON ITS OWN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WITH NO FUNDING, NO AGREEMENTS, JUST TO BE CARVED OUT OF WHOLE AIR AND PUT TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER DUE TO THE DEDICATED EFFORTS OF THE VARIOUS BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, THE STAFF, AND THOSE OF YOU IN THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE DEVOTED SO MUCH OF YOUR ENERGY, PRECIOUS TIME, TO THE SUCCESS OF ICANN.

BUT WE'RE NOW THREE YEARS LATER.

AND ANY ORGANIZATION HAS TO ASSESS ITSELF PERIODICALLY AS TO WHETHER IT'S ON THE RIGHT TRACK AND WHETHER IT'S GOING TO ACHIEVE WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO.

AND I BECAME, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SELECTING ME AS YOUR PRESIDENT, EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO TODAY, WHICH IS RATHER STRANGE FOR ME TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SUCH A MAELSTROM AND IT FEELS LIKE – IT FEELS LIKE A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR LIKE A LIFETIME, DEPENDING ON THE PLACE AND TIME.

BUT I'VE BEEN GIVING A LOT OF THOUGHT, AS I'VE INDICATED, TO WHETHER OR NOT IF ICANN KEEPS ON ITS PRESENT TRACK WHETHER IT'S GOING TO ACHIEVE WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO.

AND AS I HAVE INDICATED TO MANY OF YOU, MY MAIN THESIS IS THAT ALTHOUGH ICANN HAS ACCOMPLISHED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT, AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT, AS IT'S STRUCTURED TODAY, AS IT OPERATES TODAY, IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING SOME OF THE KEY GOALS.

AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SET OUT IN THE VERY BEGINNING.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE WHOLE IDEA OF TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROOT, THE DNS ROOT, FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ICANN IN MY VIEW IS JUST NOT ATTAINABLE UNDER THE PRESENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND WE NEED TO ENGAGE IN SIGNIFICANT REFORM.

AND THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY AMAZING IF WE DIDN'T NEED REFORM.

TO ASSUME A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WISDOM AND THOUGHT WENT INTO THE FORMATION OF ICANN THREE YEARS AGO WAS GOING TO BE THE RIGHT STRUCTURE, THE RIGHT COMBINATION FOREVER WOULD BE A REALLY AMAZING ACCOMPLISHMENT, AND NOT ONE I THINK IS REALISTIC.

IT ABSOLUTELY, IN MY VIEW, WOULD BE THE NORMAL THING TO DO, TO REFORM PERIODICALLY.

IN ORGANIZATIONS THAT DON'T THINK ABOUT REFORMING FROM TIME TO TIME, THEY GENERALLY WILL MOVE DOWN THE PATH WHERE THEY FAIL.

AND I DON'T WANT ICANN TO FAIL AND I DON'T THINK NOR DO YOU.

AND I THINK IF WE TAKE THE RIGHT STEPS THAT WE COLLECTIVELY TOGETHER, WE CAN SUCCEED AND WE WILL SUCCEED.

AND WE BETTER HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ACROSS THE COMMUNITY, IS OUR MISSION.

I'VE ALSO ARTICULATED, AS YOU KNOW, THAT A PART OF THAT IS GOING TO BE A NEW KIND OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

IT CAN TAKE MANY FORMS.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, BUT IN THE CHANGING WORLD OF THE INTERNET, WHERE THE INTERNET HAS SUCCEEDED TO SUCH A MAGNIFICENT EXTENT BEYOND OUR WILDEST DREAMS, THAT A PURELY PRIVATE ICANN WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THE ESSENTIAL ROLE THAT THE INTERNET IS NOW PLAYING IN THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS IN NATIONS ACROSS THE WORLD.

WE CAN'T SUCCEED WITHOUT THE RIGHT KIND OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, WITHOUT SAYING EXACTLY WHAT THAT SHOULD BE.

AND I ALSO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE, FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF ICANN, THAT A PURELY GOVERNMENTAL ICANN WILL NOT SUCCEED.

THAT IS THE WRONG FORM.

THAT IS WRONG FOR THE INTERNET, BECAUSE THE KIND OF AGILITY THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING IS (INAUDIBLE).

SO WE NEED SOME KIND OF WORKABLE BALANCE.

I'VE ARTICULATED IN THE PAPER THAT WAS POSTED ON THE WEB THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BEING PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WAS POSTED ON THE WEB FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE TO SEE – I'M SORRY I RUINED YOUR WEEKENDS AND MONDAY MORNINGS AND SO FORTH.

THERE'S NO EASY WAY TO INTRODUCE THIS.

I KNOW EVERYBODY TOLD ME THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED IN ADVANCE.

THIS ISN'T A COMMUNITY UNFORTUNATELY WHERE WE CAN DO EXTENSIVE CONSULTATIONS IN ADVANCE AND NOT HAVE IT LEAK OUT, SO IT CAN BE OPENLY SHARED WITH THE COMMUNITY

THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR REASONS I ARTICULATED IN THE DOCUMENT, WE CANNOT GET AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO WHERE WE'RE HEADED.

FULL PARTICIPATION BY KEY STAKEHOLDERS:WE'RE NOT HEADED IN A DIRECTION TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

AND I'VE INDICATED IN ANOTHER CONTEXT IN MY VIEW THE ONLY REAL MEASURE OF LEGITIMACY IN WHAT ICANN HAS SET OUT TO DO IS TO ESTABLISH THAT FRAMEWORK OF AGREEMENTS THAT SETS US UP IN A WAY THAT AT THE VERY LEAST IS A SET OF PREREQUISITES FOR THE TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO ICANN.

BY THE WAY, THAT WHOLE NOTION OF PRIVATIZING AND INTERNATIONALIZING WAS IMPORTANT TO ME IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IT STILL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

I BELIEVE, AS YOU KNOW, THAT I THINK WE HAVE BECOME OVERBURDENED BY PROCESS TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE NO LONGER TO BE REGARDED AS A (INAUDIBLE) ON THE GROUNDS THAT WE'RE MORE AGILE OR EFFECTIVE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT.

WE'RE TOO SLOW.

AND WE'VE ALLOWED OURSELVES-- EVEN THOUGH THE PROCESS IS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT TO CROSS DIVERSE CONSTITUENCIES AND COMMUNITIES TOGETHER -- WE'VE ALLOWED OURSELVES TO PLACE PROCESS IN MANY AREAS SO THAT IT BECOMES AN END IN ITSELF, AND EFFECTIVENESS HAS BECOME SUBORDINATE TO PROCESS.

YOU KNOW I BELIEVE THAT PROCESS SHOULD BE A MEANS TO AN END WITHOUT AN END IN ITSELF.

AND THE ONLY REAL MEASURE OF ICANN ENDS UP IN WHAT WE PUBLISH AND WHAT WE DO, MUCH MORE THAN JUST HOW WE DO IT.

I'VE INDICATED ALREADY THAT FUNDING IS INADEQUATE.

IT'S UNRELIABLE. WE CAN'T PREDICT IT, BUDGET IT.

THE PART THAT IS PREDICTABLE IS LARGELY U.S. CENTRIC.

THAT GIVES US A SENSE OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.

THE CULMINATION OF ALL OF THIS BY MANY KEY STAKEHOLDERS WE'RE NOT PERCEIVED AS A MATURE, STABLE, WELL-LED, PROPERLY FUNDED, ADEQUATE ORGANIZATION TO WHICH, FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER TO EVEN CONSIDER TRANSFERRING THE ROOT UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

I KEEP EMPHASIZING THIS TRANSFER OF THE ROOT BECAUSE REALLY A LOT OF WHAT IS PROPOSED CENTERS AROUND THAT.

I THINK THIS COMMUNITY HAS TO DECIDE ONCE AND FOR ALL WHETHER THAT'S AN IMPORTANT GOAL.

IF IT'S NOT AN IMPORTANT GOAL, WE CAN DO THINGS IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WAY.

IF IT IS AN IMPORTANT GOAL, THEN WE OUGHT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

SO I'VE INDICATED THAT WE NEED REFORM.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF ALL OF THAT TODAY BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALL READ THINGS, BUT LET ME EMPHASIZE AGAIN, I MEAN REAL REFORM, CORE REFORM.

NOT TINKERING AND HOPING THIS LITTLE BIT WILL CHANGE IT BECAUSE I THINK YOU MAY FIND A LITTLE BIT OF TINKERING WILL DEAL WITH ONE LITTLE PART OF THE PROBLEMS BUT NOT THE FULL RANGE OF PROBLEMS.

WE NEED RADICAL CHANGE, THAT FOCUSES ON KEY GOALS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, CREDIBILITY, CONFIDENCE AND FULL PARTICIPATION.

AND AS YOU KNOW AND I'VE ARTICULATED, I THINK THE RIGHT KIND OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IS WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE I THINK ANY ALTERNATIVES TO THAT ARE EITHER NOT WORKABLE OR UNDESIRABLE.

SO HAVING ANALYZED THE PROBLEMS, AND LET ME JUST SAY THAT IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT I FIND NOT UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE IF ICANN HAD A UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT.

BUT I FIND IT STRIKES A COMMON CORD IN ALMOST EVERY MEETING AND EVERYBODY I HAVE TALKED TO THIS WE CAN IS WE PERCEIVE THESE PROBLEMS AS BEING THE REAL SET OF PROBLEMS.

AND THAT'S GRATIFYING TO ME PERSONALLY.

WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BEYOND THAT, IF WE ALL AGREE THE PROBLEMS EXIST AND IF WE ALL AGREE THEY HAVE TO BE SOLVED, THEN I THINK COLLECTIVELY WE CAN FIND A WAY TO SOLVE THEM.

AND I LAID OUT A PRETTY RADICAL PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE, WHICH I KNOW CAUSED A LOT OF STICKER SHOCK, AND MAYBE STICKER SHOCK IS WHAT IS NEEDED TO WAKE US ALL UP TO THE NEEDS TO ACT AND MOVE FORWARD.

BUT INDEPENDENT OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL, I THINK WE HAVE TO ATTACK FOUR THINGS.

WE HAVE TO ATTACK A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR MISSION IS, AND THE PAPER THAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED DID NOT REALLY ATTACK THAT BECAUSE IT WAS WORKING WITHIN THE CONTEXT THAT ASSUMED WE ALL AGREED ON THAT, BUT THAT IS WORK WE HAVE TO DO.

AND AS A STARTING POINT FOR THAT, A STAFF PAPER WAS POSTED ON THE WEB SAYING WHETHER YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO IT OR NOT, THIS IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY ARE DOING, OR AS WE SEE OURSELVES DOING OVER THE NEXT YEAR.

IT'S GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO REALLY SORT OUT, AND THE BOARD TO SORT OUT, A COMMON UNDERSTANDING SO AS WE STOP ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE THIN OR THICK OR THIN-THIN OR THIN-THICK OR WHATEVER IT IS, THAT WE WORK TOGETHER IN A COMMON DIRECTION.

WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OUR STRUCTURE.

ARE WE REALLY STRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MISSION.

AND REALLY IN A WAY, WHAT I POSTED WAS NOT, AS I'LL SAY LATER, NOT AN END POINT BUT AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT WAS LAID OUT, AND THIS NOTION OF BEING A PREREQUISITE – A DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE EFFECTIVE WAS A PREREQUISITE TO SOME OF THE GOALS THAT I LAID OUT, AND I THINK WE MOSTLY AGREE ON.

WE HAVE TO BE PROPERLY FUNDED AND WE HAVE TO CARRY FORWARD OUR CORE VALUES OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY, AND MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THAT MODE.

THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE TO SOLVE, PARTICIPATION, WE MAY HAVE TO USE A COMBINATION OF A CARROT AND A STICK TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT BETWEEN CARROT AND STICK, THERE'S A RANGE OF INCENTIVES THAT MAY BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE.

WHATEVER STRUCTURES WE ESTABLISH, THE WAYS OF OPERATION WE PUT TOGETHER, WE HAVE TO REDUCE PROCESS, REPLACE IT BY MODES OF FUNCTIONING WHERE WE HAVE GREATER OPPORTUNITIES TO ACT AND ACT IN INTERNET TIME SCALES, AND NOT DELIBERATE INTERNALLY BUT MOVE AND MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T WANT TO TAR EVERYBODY WITH THE SAME BRUSH.

I DON'T WANT TO TAR ANYBODY WITH A BRUSH BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY HAS TRIED TO MAKE THINGS WORK, BUT I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE THINGS WORK WITHIN A CONTEXT WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS EASY.

AND THERE ARE PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION WHERE EVEN THAT DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THINGS WORK VERY WELL.

ONE OF THE CRITICISMS I HAVE OF MY OWN PROPOSAL I PUT FORWARD IS IT CREATES SORT OF SYMMETRY ACROSS THE STRUCTURE.

I'M NOT CONVINCED WE NEED SYMMETRY BECAUSE EACH PART OF ICANN IS DIFFERENT AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THOSE DIFFERENCES.

AND WE HAVE TO HAVE BROADER PARTICIPATION IN OUR FUNDING.

WE SIMPLY CANNOT MOVE FORWARD THE WAY WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE STAFF THEMSELVES WILL JUST NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY THE LOAD FORWARD IN THIS WAY, AND IF WE CONTINUE THE WAY WE HAVE, THINGS WILL GO EVEN SLOWER THAN THEY HAVE UP TO NOW.

I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR: THAT'S NOT A THREAT, THAT'S A REALITY.

NOTHING I PUT HERE IS A THREAT.

SO I DID LAY OUT A PROPOSAL.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, THAT PROPOSAL IS A STARTING POINT; IT'S NOT AN ENDING POINT.

AND THE BOARD HAS INDICATED AND I HAVE INDICATED THAT WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU.

IF THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS, LET US KNOW; GIVE US BETTER SOLUTIONS.

BUT "A," DON'T JUST FOCUS ON YOUR LITTLE CORNER; PUT YOURSELVES IN THE BOARD'S SEAT IN HAVING TO THINK ABOUT ALL THE PROBLEMS AND GIVE US SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS ALL THE PROBLEMS ACROSS THE BOARD.

SECONDLY, WE NEED YOUR IDEAS, YOUR COMMENTS, YOUR CRITICISMS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NEED THEM FAST. WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF TIME FOR A THREE-YEAR DEBATE ON HOW TO RECONFIGURE ICANN, BECAUSE WE'LL LOSE CREDIBILITY LONG BEFORE THAT, AND I'VE MENTIONED IN ANOTHER CONTEXT THAT THE DRIVING FORCE OF WORK, THAT WE HAVE TO BE SEEN, THAT WE'RE MOVING ON A PATH VERY RAPIDLY TO BE CREDIBLE

SO HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD?

I WANT TO MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT ENDORSED MY PROPOSAL OR ANY PROPOSAL OR HASN'T ENDORSED ANYTHING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

BUT I HAVE GIVEN MY OPINION TO THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD RAPIDLY ON REFORMING ICANN OR WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO SOME PRETTY IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEMS TO SOLVE.

SO I'M URGING YOU, AND I KNOW YOU'VE SPENT SO MUCH OF YOUR MEETING TIME THIS WEEK THINKING ABOUT THIS, TO COALESCE YOUR IDEAS AND GET THEM TO US, AT LEAST YOUR INITIAL COMMENTS AND PROPOSALS, BY MAY 15TH.

WE'LL HAVE A STRUCTURED PROCESS POSTED WHEN WE GET BACK TO MARINA DEL REY THAT WILL SORT OF GIVE US SOME INSIGHT ON HOW TO DO THAT, AND WE'LL POST YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND POST YOUR PROPOSALS.

WE'LL CREATE AN OPEN COMMUNITY DIALOGUE.

BUT NOT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALLOWS IT TO BE CAPTURED TO THE POINT THAT ALL OF YOU DON'T FEEL FREE TO CONTRIBUTE YOUR IDEAS AND YOUR THOUGHTS.

IT MAY WELL BE A MODERATED POSTING TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN LISTEN TO ALL OF THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONCENTRATING ON SERIOUSLY HELPING US MOVE FORWARD.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD SOME REFINEMENT OF OUR MISSION ON ROUGHLY THE SAME SCHEDULE, SO DON'T JUST FOCUS ON MY PROPOSALS OR SUGGESTIONS ON RESTRUCTURING BUT GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE MISSION, BUT GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS IN THINKING BROADLY NOT JUST ABOUT YOUR NARROW AREAS BUT BROADLY ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT ICANN AFFECTS

I HAVE TOLD THE BOARD THAT WE WILL NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD NOT BY THE MEETING IN BUCHAREST IN JUNE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE AND FAIRLY STRUCTURED ROADMAP FOR MOVING FORWARD ON THE TABLE AT THAT TIME.

WE'LL USE THE FOLLOWING FOUR MONTHS FOR DISCUSSION AND REFINEMENT, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE POSTED YET, FOR REASONS OF LOGISTICS AND [NOT] BEING ABLE TO GET THINGS POSTED REMOTELY THIS WEEK, BUT WE ARE ANNOUNCING THAT THE MEETING IN OCTOBER, I'M VERY PLEASED TO SAY, WILL BE IN SHANGHAI, CHINA, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO TAKE NOTES, IT WILL BE OCTOBER 21 [SIC, 22] THROUGH 26, THE FORMAL MEETING 22 [SIC, 23] THROUGH 26 AND THE PRE-DAY OCTOBER 21 [SIC. 22].

AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

BUT THAT'S A TIME WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME FINAL DECISIONS, NOT ON JUST WHERE WE'RE GOING BUT ALSO A TRANSITION PLAN, ON HOW TO GET THERE.

THAT'S AN AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE.

IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO COME TOGETHER ON THAT SCHEDULE BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE IT OUR ALL IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

SO WHAT CAN WE ACCOMPLISH?

I THINK ONE WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO, ONE WE HAVE TO WORK TOWARDS IS A REALLY STRONG EFFECTIVE ICANN, EFFECTIVE AND AGILE.

IF WE'RE NOT AGILE, THERE'S NO REASON FOR ICANN TO BE A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

IT'S SUPPORTED BY ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS -- KEY STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDES GOVERNMENTS, IT INCLUDES MANY OF YOU IN YOUR COMMUNITIES, ALL OF YOU IN YOUR COMMUNITIES, IN THE RIGHT KIND OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

IT'S LED BY THE BEST TEAM POSSIBLE, THE BOARD, AND IN MY PROPOSAL I CALL THEM STEERING COMMITTEES AND POLICY COUNCILS, THAT WE HAVE THE BEST PEOPLE IN THOSE POSITIONS WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS BEING INTERNATIONAL LEADERS, EFFECTIVE AT MEETING CRITERIA OF BOTH DIVERSITY, GEOGRAPHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL, BUT WHO ARE DEDICATED TOWARDS ENSURING THE SUCCESS OF ICANN ABOVE AND BEYOND BEING DEDICATED TO ANY PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY OR FUNCTION.

WE'RE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT BUT WITH REAL PARTICIPATION, NOT PROCESS.

AND LET ME COMMENT ON THAT A MOMENT.

MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THAT IN MY PROPOSAL, I PUT FORWARD THE NOTION VERY LOOSELY TERMED SELF-ORGANIZING FORUMS.

I MEAN THAT IN TERMS OF ESTABLISHING REAL PARTICIPATION BY AS MANY COMMUNITIES AS POSSIBLE.

I THINK OUR DANGER IS NOT THAT WE'LL HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE AT THE TABLE BUT WE'LL HAVE TOO FEW.

NOW, WE NEED TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE RIGHT KIND – AND I THINK THIS IS WELL-ARTICULATED IN THE ALSC REPORT, THAT WE NEED TO BRING NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS INTO THE TENT, BUT ALL SORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE PART OF REPRESENTING PUBLIC AS WELL AS PRIVATE INTERESTS WHO ARE NOT AT THE TABLE TODAY.

WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO DO THAT, ENCOURAGE IT, MOTIVATE IT.

I'VE MADE NO SECRET IN MY REPORT THAT I PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ONLINE ELECTIONS ARE THE WAY TO GO TO ACHIEVE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS AND THEN DISAPPEAR INTO THE WOODWORK, AND I WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY – INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO HELP US STICK TO THE PROBLEMS ON AN ONGOING, CONTINUING BASIS, CONSTRUCTIVELY TOWARDS THE GOALS WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.

AND WE HAVE TO BE PROPERLY FUNDED.

SO LET ME LEAVE IT AT THAT.

I HOPE, AS I SAY, I'D BE VERY GRATIFIED BY THE DEGREE TO WHICH ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE VARYING DEGREES OF SUPPORT OR NOT ON ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL I PUT DOWN, THE PROPOSAL ITSELF IS NOWHERE NEAR AS IMPORTANT AS OUR MUTUAL COMMITMENT TO GET IN, SOLVE THE PROBLEMS, BE AGILE, AND CREATE AN EFFECTIVE ICANN TOGETHER

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WITH THAT LET ME OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.

>>VINTON CERF: JUST A REMINDER, WE HAVE A BREAK SCHEDULED AT 10:45.

WE DON'T HAVE TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THAT, BUT WE HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THEN THERE WILL BE OPEN MICROPHONE TIME AT THE END OF THE DAY AS WELL.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK A QUESTION, WOULD YOU ALSO KINDLY INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AS WELL, PLEASE.

>>HANS KLEIN: OKAY.

THANKS.

I'M HANS KLEIN FROM COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I AGREE WITH STUART LYNN OF THE PROBLEM OF PROCESS.

IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S FRUSTRATED US ALL, I THINK, AND THERE HAS BEEN AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY GOING INTO PROCESS IN ICANN.

JUST TO REVIEW, THERE'S BEEN A SEEMINGLY ENDLESS NUMBER OF STUDY COMMITTEES AND OF STAFF REPORTS, CERTAINLY ON THE SIDE OF THE USERS THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK AS WELL.

THERE'S BEEN NO LESS THAN 11 REWRITES OF THE BYLAWS WHICH HAS CONSUMED A LOT OF TIME.

NOW, ALL OF US COMING HERE AND ANTICIPATING THIS MEETING, I CAN'T TELL YOU THE SENSE OF RELIEF I HAD IN ANTICIPATING MAKING CLOSURE ON THE AT-LARGE PROCESS.

IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE FINALLY GOING TO GET BEYOND PROCESS.

WE'RE FINALLY GOING TO MOVE TOWARDS PUTTING THE DEFINITIONS TO SLEEP, AND MOVING ON AND ACTUALLY CONDUCTING BUSINESS.

FINALLY, WE HAVE TWO PROPOSALS ON THE SHELF IN FRONT OF US: THE NAIS GROUP WHICH HAS TRIED TO WORK ON AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXISTING BYLAWS AND STRUCTURE, THE ALSC WHICH HAS PROPOSED AN INNOVATION

AT THIS POINT, ALMOST ANYTHING THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE CLOSURE AND MOVE ON JUST SEEMS SO ATTRACTIVE.

NOW, THEN THREE WEEKS AGO, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I KNOW YOU PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS REPORT, BUT YOU COMPLETELY RE-OPENED THE PROCESS AGAIN, AND AS HE JUST PRESENTED, WE'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS TO BUCHAREST, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE REVIEW AND MORE PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS GOING INTO SHANGHAI.

I'M SURE THE INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, BUT IT WOULD BE SUCH A RELIEF INSTEAD TO MAKE CLOSURE WITH PROCESS AND TO JUST MOVE ON AND GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.

WE HAVE TWO SOLUTIONS.

THEY MAY NOT BE THE BEST, BUT PLEASE, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE CLOSURE SOMETIME.

LET'S PICK ONE AND MOVE ON.

THAT WOULD REALLY BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

ANOTHER POINT I WANT TO SAY IS THERE'S PROBABLY MORE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION OUT THERE AND READY TO GO THAN SOME PEOPLE MIGHT APPRECIATE.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION ARE PERSISTENT, HAVE DONE PRETTY HIGH-QUALITY WORK, HAVE HELD MEETINGS AT EVERY SINGLE ICANN BOARD MEETING AND SO ON.

YOU HAVE A LEADERSHIP, YOU HAVE COMMITTED MEMBERS, YOU HAVE A BROUGHT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD, I THINK, PARTICIPATE CERTAINLY IN ELECTIONS, BUT A SUBSTANTIAL CORE WHO WILL PARTICIPATE IN AN ONGOING BASIS AND CONTRIBUTE CONSTRUCTIVELY AND IN A WELL-INFORMED MANNER.

IF WE COULD MAKE CLOSURE NOW AND INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON PROCESS FOCUS ON GETTING THOSE PEOPLE AND THOSE ORGANIZATIONS IN MORE OPERATIONAL MODE, I THINK THAT IN A VERY SHORT TIME, YOU COULD HAVE AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP AND AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION THAT'S FUNCTIONAL, THAT'S ONGOING, THAT'S RESPONSIBLE, THAT CAN MAKE COMMITMENTS AND CAN STAND BY THEM.

WE'RE NOT FAR FROM THAT.

SO I WOULD URGE THE BOARD TO PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE CHOICE TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS.

MAKE CLOSURE, AND LET'S GET THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION UP AND RUNNING, WHICH WE CAN DO QUITE QUICKLY.

THANK YOU.

>>STUART LYNN: MAY I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT?

>>VINTON CERF: YES, PLEASE.

>>STUART LYNN: WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ICANN IS FACING?

>>:I THINK THE – THE QUEST FOR THE SOLUTION OF ALL OF THE PROBLEMS IS – IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR WHAT'S THE BEST SOLUTION, WHAT'S THE MOST WORKABLE SOLUTION.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, THE STABILITY OF ICANN, AND THE FUNDING STABILITY OF ICANN WOULD BE VERY WELL-SERVED BY MAKING CLOSURE ON PROCESS AND JUST MOVING FORWARD WITH THE AT LARGE. IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE EVERYTHING. WE KNOW THAT. THERE IS NO TOTAL SOLUTION. BUT THERE IS A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION. THAT'S TO MAKE CLOSURE AND MOVE ON. THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT.

>>:MY NAME IS WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE. YOU KNOW, I FOLLOW THE ICANN JOURNEY AS AN INDEPENDENT ACADEMIC OBSERVER SINCE THE VERY EARLY DAYS. AND THOUGH IT –

>>VINTON CERF: EXCUSE ME. IF YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY. EVEN FURTHER AWAY. IT REALLY WORKS. IT'S NOT – WE CAN REALLY HEAR YOU.

>>:THAT'S FINE?

>>VINTON CERF: IT'S OKAY.

>>:OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT – IT DOESN'T COME AS A SURPRISE FOR ME THAT THE TIME FOR REFORM HAS ARRIVED, EVEN IF I HAVE TO CHANGE MY BOOK TITLE. AND LET ME MAKE (INAUDIBLE) BECAUSE THE MOMENT WE HAVE TO DECIDE, FORWARD, BACKWARD, TURN LEFT, OR RIGHT, I THINK ARE THE FOUR OPTIONS WE HAVE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE THREE COMMENTS. NUMBER ONE IS,

>>VINTON CERF: I'M GOING TO – IT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>:OKAY. THE FIRST COMMAND IS, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP GROUPS. IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE ON SUNDAY THAT ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUPS, THE NAIS, STUDY COMMITTEE, THE NCC, AND ALL THE OTHER GROUPS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME TOGETHER AND BE UNITED. AND A SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IS ALREADY IN THE MAKING.

IT'S ALSO INTERESTING TO SEE WITHIN TWO WEEKS, THEY GOT 600 MEMBERS AND 50,000 U.S. DOLLARS. SO THERE IS A PROCESS OF INSTITUTIONALIZING AND OF ORGANIZING THIS.

AND YOU SHOULD TAKE NOTE OF THIS.

THE SECOND COMMENT IS, IT IS AN ILLUSION TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE MORE EFFECTIVENESS IF YOU EXCLUDE ONE GROUP. ALL – IF YOU EXCLUDE ONE GROUP, THIS GROUP WILL LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVE WAYS AND MAYBE DO – TO FIGHT FOR THEIR INTERESTS, AND MAYBE YOU SETTLE ONE PROBLEM, BUT YOU WILL HAVE OTHER PROBLEMS.

SO INCLUSION IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN EXCLUSION. IT'S ALSO NAIVE TO BELIEVE YOU CAN SOLVE YOUR FINANCIAL PROBLEMS BY GIVING GOVERNMENTS DECISION-MAKING IN YOUR BOARD.

YOU KNOW, WHY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY – A GOVERNMENT CAN NOMINATE A PROFESSOR FROM SAO PAOLO FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. YOU KNOW, IF I WOULD BE A GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALREADY – WE PAY A HIGH MEMBERSHIP FEE, AND WE CAN BRING THE WHOLE SYSTEM UNDER A STUDY GROUP WITHOUT ANY EXTRA COSTS. AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE ITU WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THIS WORK.

AND SO FAR, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR PROPOSED PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT REALLY A STEP FORWARD; IT IS A STEP TURNING RIGHT. AND WE HAVE TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE AND TO CREATE MORE THAN A PUBLIC-PRIVATE MEANS – A PRIVATE-GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP. AND I THINK NOT A NEW FORM – ANOTHER NEW FORM OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP HAS TO BE INVENTED, AND TO HAVE A GLOBAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM WITH GOVERNMENTS IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.

THANK YOU.

>>: MY NAME IS AL HASSAN ABIANCA, PRESIDENT (INAUDIBLE) FOUNDATION, GHANA.

I'M SPEAKING AT THE MOMENT ON BEHALF OF WORLD DEMOCRACY.

NOW, TALKING ABOUT REFORM, I PRAY THAT THIS SUGGESTION DOES NOT BECOME A RADICAL IDEA. THE SPEAKER DID MENTION THAT YOU ARE A SMALL GROUP OR ORGANIZATION.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME, AND AS WE HAVE ALL COME TO KNOW, ICANN TODAY IS CONSIDERED AS THE WORLD "GOVERNMENT." I'M SAYING THIS, AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE (INAUDIBLE) GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE ICANN CONTROLS THE INTERNET. AND TO CONTROL THE INTERNET IMPLIES THAT YOU CONTROL THE WORLD. BECAUSE TODAY, THE INTERNET REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.

NOW, MY QUESTION AND MY CONTRIBUTION IS THIS: CAN ICANN CONSTITUTE ITSELF AS A WORLD DEMOCRACY BODY? OR CAN ICANN MOVE FURTHER TO SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPORTING THE PROCESS OF BRINGING ABOUT WORLD DEMOCRACY. WE SEE THIS AS THE MISSING LINK IN THE GLOBAL PROCESS AS WE ARE ALL ADVISING BOARD. THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>: MY NAME IS STEFANO TRUMPY FROM NATIONAL (INAUDIBLE) RESEARCH WEEKLY, WITH CONSTITUENCIES.

LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF DEMOCRACIES AND THEN END UP WITH A QUESTION.

IN THE OLD TIMES, THE DNS AND IP ADDRESSES WERE IN THE HANDS OF TECHNOCRATS OR TECHNICAL PEOPLE. AND IETF WAS CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR THE BROAD CONSENSUS, LISTENING TO ANY VOICE.

BUT RATHER THAN A REAL BOTTOM-UP DEMOCRACY, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS AN OLIGARCHY OF TECHNICAL MERITS IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE MORE EXPERT SUCH AS THE FATHERS OF THE INTERNET WERE LEADING THE DISCUSSION, THEN GOING TO CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS. AND IF YOU WANT TO BE INFLUENTIAL IN THE DECISION-MAKING, THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ONE OF THE MORE EXPERT AND – SO THAT'S MY – I AM CONCLUDING THAT THIS IS A SORT OF OLIGARCHY OF MERIT.

BUT AFTER THE WHITE PAPER, WHEN ICANN WAS CREATED, APART FROM THE ECONOMICAL IMPLICATIONS, THEN ALL OF THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS STARTED, BECAUSE NO LONGER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS THE BACKING FORCE BEHIND IT.

AND THEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY CHANGED, BECAUSE ALSO THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENTS HAD BEEN INVOLVED. AND THE – THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP WAS ACTUALLY WAS UNDERSTOOD LESS AS A (INAUDIBLE) OF GLOBAL DEMOCRACY, AND PERHAPS THE ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED. AND IF YOU HAD TO ELECT A POLITICIAN OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY, WHILE THE FINAL GOAL WAS TO HAVE A GOOD PERSON SITTING IN THE COUNCIL OF ADMINISTRATION.

THEN THE REFORM WAS PRESENTED TWO WEEKS AGO. AND WE READ THAT THERE IS THE INTENTION TO INVOLVE MORE THE GOVERNMENTS IN ASSURING THE, LET'S SAY THE LEGITIMACY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO, OF COURSE, IN THE GAC, WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS ASPECT, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, NOT EASY. BUT THIS IS A CHALLENGE.

AND SO THE IDEA IS TO HAVE NOT SIMPLY AN AUTOMATIC APPROACH FROM THE COMMUNITY WITH BROAD INPUT WITH ELECTIONS, BUT TO HAVE ASSISTANCE, WITH THE GOVERNMENTS ASSISTING ICANN AND SO ON.

SO THIS IS THE GAME. AND IF WE DO NOT SUCCEED IN THAT, I SEE ONLY THE SOLUTION THAT PERHAPS THE CONTROL AND THE LEGITIMACY OF ICANN SHOULD BE TURNING BACK TO A STABLE MODE TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WE DO NOT WANT, I MEAN, THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY.

SO THE QUESTION IS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE THIS CHALLENGE.

BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE ICANN FROM INSIDE? I MEAN, NOT CHANGING THE STATUS AND THE – SAVING THE STATUS OF THE COMPANY ESTABLISHED IN CALIFORNIA, OR WE NEED TO THINK TO SOME DIFFERENT FRAME FOR ICANN. THIS IS THE QUESTION THAT I HAD, THAT WE STARTED DISCUSSING.

>>STUART LYNN: ARE YOU ASKING THAT OF ME?

>>: YEAH, I'M ASKING YOU.

>>STUART LYNN: IT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION TO FORM A NEW ORGANIZATION AND START OVER. PERSONALLY, THAT'S NOT THE OPTION I WOULD BEGIN TO FAVOR AND SUPPORT.

OBVIOUSLY, RADICAL CHANGE IS GOING TO REQUIRE BYLAW CHANGES AND SO FORTH, CONFORMING EXISTING AGREEMENTS TO ANYTHING NEW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED AS PART OF A TRANSITION PLAN.

CERTAINLY I'M WALKING DOWN THE PATH OF BELIEVING THE PREFERABLE OPTION BY A LONG SHOT IS TO TAKE ICANN AS IS AND TO MOVE IT INTO A DIFFERENT KIND OF ICANN IN THE FUTURE.

>>: OKAY. JUST A – OF COURSE, BETWEEN HAVING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION, OF THE CORPORATION, AND HAVING THE INTERNATIONAL BODY FORMALLY ESTABLISHED, THERE ARE MANY, PERHAPS, INTERMEDIATE PRESCRIPTIONS.

>>: GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RON ANDRUFF. I'M MANAGING DIRECTOR OF (INAUDIBLE) PARTNERS AND MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. BUT I'M HERE SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

I FULLY AGREE WITH DR. LYNN'S IDEA OF A BROADER FUNDING, AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST PRIORITY FOR ICANN.

THIS WILL CERTAINLY FIX THE FUNDING COMMITMENT. I AGREE WITH THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE REFORM PAPER THAT MOST OF THE PROBLEMS ARE ABOUT FUNDING AND STAFF NEEDING FUNDING.

THE PAPER SEEMS TO PRESENT A VIEW THAT CCTLDS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH FUNDING – CCTLDS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH FUNDING, HOWEVER, MOST OF THE FUNDING, I FEEL, SHOULD AND COULD COME FROM REGISTRANTS.

THERE ARE 10 TO 12 MILLION IN THE CCTLDS. THE CCTLDS GET DIFFERENT SERVICES FROM ICANN. SO I BELIEVE THE PROPER PLACE TO LOOK FOR FUNDING IS THE MOST DISTRIBUTED FUNDING BASE POSSIBLE. AND THAT'S THE REGISTRANTS AND THE GTLDS. TODAY THE REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE A MECHANISM TO ASSESS A FEE PER NAME, COLLECT AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, AND PASS THROUGH A PAYMENT TO ICANN BASED ON THE NUMBER OF NAMES.

NO CHANGE IN THIS PROCESS IS NEEDED. THEY NEED ONLY TO INCREASE THE PAYMENT BY A FEW CENTS PER NAME.

SOME WILL MAINTAIN THIS IS A TAX ON REGISTRATIONS, THIS IS A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC AND A SILLY ARGUMENT.

WHILE SOME IN THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR COMMUNITY WILL MAINTAIN THIS IS A FEE WHICH THEY SUBSIDIZE, I QUESTION HOW ANY ENTITY THAT PASSES ON MY MONEY COULD CONSIDER IT THEIRS.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>: ALL REVENUE INTO THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM COMES FROM THE REGISTRANTS THROUGH THE REGISTRATION OF NAMES. THE REGISTRANTS RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT FROM ICANN'S EXISTENCE. THEY SHOULD AND CAN FUND ICANN THROUGH A SIMPLE USER FEE BASED ON CENTS PER NAME. AND AFTER THE SUBTRACTION OF AN ADMINISTRATION FEE, THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS PASS THE PAYMENT ON TO ICANN.

IF (INAUDIBLE) EQUALS JUST UNDER 10 CENTS A NAME, THEN A FEE OF PERHAPS 20 CENTS OR 25 CENTS PER GTLD COULD BE ASSESSED.

ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER THE CCTLDS PAY THE SAME AMOUNT, FOR NOW, THIS IS NOT A PRODUCTIVE ARGUMENT. THE CCTLDS DO NOT RECEIVE THE SAME SERVICES NOR ASSUME THE SAME LEVEL OF STAFF SUPPORT. THEY COULD BE ASKED TO PAY A LESSER FEE PER NAME, AND CCTLDS WHO OPERATE AS GENERICS SHOULD BE ASSESSED THE SAME FEE AS GTLDS.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE SYMPATHY FOR THOSE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS WHO GIVE NAMES AWAY, AND THEREFORE OBJECT TO SUCH A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR ICANN. FREE MERELY MEANS SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR SUBSIDIZING. CLEARLY, REVENUE MODELS BUILT ON SUCH ASSUMPTIONS DO NOT BODE WELL TO THE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET AND ITS SUPPLY CHAIN AND SHOULD BE RETHOUGHT.

IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ALL RISE ABOVE OUR OWN INTERESTS AT THIS CRITICAL TIME TO SERVE THE GREATER GOOD. MANY HAVE SHARED WITH ME THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED AT THE ORIGINAL OUTSET OF ICANN. AND I BELIEVE WE CAN ALL DO IT AGAIN AND ASK EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM HERE TO DO SO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

>>: GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS IZUMI AIZU. I AM A MEMBER OF AIS. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO OUR (INAUDIBLE), TO BE ABLE TO COME TO AFRICA, ONE OF THE MOST DISADVANTAGED PARTS OF THE WORLD. AND I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS. AND HOW GRATEFUL. AND TO DISCUSS THIS.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

>>VINTON CERF: YES.

>>: IF – TO THINK OF THIS AS STUART SAID, WE HAVE SOME PROBLEM IN OUR BODY, MAYBE HEART OR – WE DON'T KNOW WHERE EXACTLY THIS – WHICH PART OF THE BODY IS NOT WORKING WELL.

MAYBE TRUE WHAT STUART SAID. BUT CAN WE, AS A PATIENT, DIAGNOSE THIS AND WHICH WAY TO GO, WHICH MEDICINE, TWO, BRAIN SURGERY, OR (INAUDIBLE) BY THE PATIENT ITSELF? HOW DO WE DO THAT?

I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT AS SORT OF A PROCESS QUESTION. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT SHOULD BE VERY CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND THOUGHT HOW TO REALLY CURE THESE SYMPTOMS SO THAT WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT PART. AND (INAUDIBLE) THAT IF THE PATIENT ONLY DECIDES WHAT'S WRONG AND COME UP TO THE SOLUTION, THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

SO THE BOARD – I TRUST THE BOARD TO COME UP WITH, AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY – BUT SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE AT-LARGE BOARD TO COME OUT OF REVIEWS, WE NEED SOMETIMES GOOD, WORKABLE (INAUDIBLE) COMMITTEE OR (INAUDIBLE) PEOPLE, SOME KIND OF FORUM TO REALLY ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. OTHERWISE, I AM AFRAID SOME KIND OF (INAUDIBLE) OR INCOMPLETE (INAUDIBLE) FROM THIS BOARD WILL NOT WORK. I WILL TRY THIS, BUT I ASK YOU ALSO, HOW DO WE DO THIS IN A MANNER SO THAT (INAUDIBLE).

AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, AND I WILL FINISH THAT, THE QUESTION OF DIRECTION.

ARE THERE SIDE EFFECTS FOR THE ELECTION THAT WE EXPERIENCED? DO WE STUDY THAT AND COME UP WITH SOME OF THE SAFEGUARDS AND MECHANISMS TO (INAUDIBLE) EITHER ON FEE ISSUES OR (INAUDIBLE) AND WE ARE CLOSE TO CONSENSUS, AND THEN SAY, NO, THERE'S NO CONSENSUS, SO WE NEED TO GO FORWARD.

YES, IT IS NOT A TOTAL SOLUTION, BECAUSE WE WERE NOT (INAUDIBLE) BY THE BOARD TO ADDRESS AT LARGE ISSUES, NOT TOTAL REFORM.

(INAUDIBLE) LET US FIRST SOLVE ONE PROBLEM. AND THEN WITH THAT, ANOTHER BOARD, ANOTHER (INAUDIBLE) AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION FOR ANOTHER REFORM IN, YOU KNOW, SIX TO 10 MONTHS OR A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT'S FINE.

BUT DROPPING OUT THIS STUDY AND OTHER EFFORT MANDATED BY THE BOARD, YOU MANDATED THE ALSC AND (INAUDIBLE) TO COME UP WITH IMPLEMENTATION, NOT THE CONCEPT OF FRAMEWORKS. AND JUST BEFORE THE IMPLEMENTATION, NOW COMES (INAUDIBLE) DON'T MAKE SENSE TO US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

>>: HI, I'M ALAN DAVIDSON FOR THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. I WANTED TO ADD A COMMENT ABOUT A FEW SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL.

WE ARE – APPRECIATE THE HONESTY AND STRAIGHTFORWARD CANDOR OF THE PROPOSAL AND I THINK WOULD ADD OUR NAMES TO THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO THINK WE HAVE PUT A FINGER ON SOME OF THE KEY PROBLEMS BUT MAY NOT FEEL GOOD ABOUT ALL OF THE PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE THING THAT I THINK WAS LACKING IN THE INITIAL PROPOSAL AND I AM GLAD TO HEAR WAS FOCUSED ON IN THE ORAL PRESENTATION, ICANN'S MISSION AND POWERS, WHICH WE THINK IS THE CRITICAL MISSION RAISED BY THIS PROPOSAL. IT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH UNDERLINING – THAT A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR ICANN IS THE POTENTIAL SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY, BECAUSE OF ITS EMERGING AUTHORITY OVER KEY INTERNET FUNCTIONS, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL IN THE FUTURE TO EXERCISE A GREAT DEAL OF CONTROL OVER BOTH THE – DIRECTLY OVER THOSE WHO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH IT, BUT INDIRECTLY OVER A GREAT DEAL OF INTERNET ACTIVITY.

AND THE BOARD HAS ADMIRABLY SAID IT HAS NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO EXPAND ICANN'S MISSION BROADLY, BUT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT FUTURE BOARDS WILL FACE BOTH EXTERNAL PRESSURES AND INTERNAL TEMPTATIONS TO EXERCISE WHATEVER POWERS ARE AVAILABLE TO IT. SO IT'S NATURAL THAT PEOPLE WILL LOOK TO ICANN TO DO MORE – THE QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT?

OUR FEAR IS THAT IN SOME WAYS THE PROPOSAL MAY MAKE THE PROBLEM EVEN WORSE BY CONSOLIDATING SOME POWER THROUGH ICANN BY – THE INCREASE IN BUDGET, MOSTLY, IN FACT, INCLUSION OF GOVERNMENTS ESPECIALLY IN FUNDING ICANN. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT EXACERBATE THE POTENTIAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHAT ICANN'S TRUE POWERS ARE.

AND SO WE WOULD STRONGLY SUPPORT AND FEEL THAT THE MOST URGENT THING THAT IS NEEDED IS AN ASSESSMENT OF ICANN'S MISSION AND POWER. AND I WOULD URGE THE BOARD TO THINK ABOUT THREE CRITERIA IN DOING SO.

FIRST, CLARITY IS CRITICAL. THE MISSION AND POWERS OF ICANN MUST BE CLEAR SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT AND SO THAT WE CAN CREATE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS FOR THAT POWER.

THE SECOND IS, THIN IS BETTER. WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT A NARROW ICANN IS MOST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A PROCESS THAT MAKES ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS ACCEPT ITS LEGITIMACY.

AND THE THIRD THING IS THAT LIMITS MUST BE ENFORCEABLE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO LIMIT ITS OWN POWER, TO SAY HERE ARE REAL MECHANISMS THAT WE CAN POINT TO SO THAT THE WORLD CAN TRUST US, BECAUSE THEY KNOW OUR POWERS ARE LIMITED.

ON ANOTHER NOTE, I WOULD ADD ALSO OUR DISAPPOINTMENT TO SOME EXTENT AT THE EFFECT THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS HAD ON THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF THE AT-LARGE ISSUE. I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE LATER THIS AFTERNOON. BUT WE FELT THAT WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROCESS THAT MIGHT BE LEADING TO SOME – A BROADLY-SUPPORTED PROPOSAL. AND WE'RE SORRY THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE TO ACT ON. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.

I WANT TO FINALLY CONCLUDE BY SAYING, PARAPHRASING THE 1960S ROCK AND ROLL BAND, THE MONKEES, I'M A BELIEVER. I'M STILL A BELIEVER.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>: AND WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE HOPE THAT THIS VISION OF ICANN, OF THIS NEW EXPERIMENTAL, NONCOMMERCIAL – I MEAN, NONGOVERNMENTAL, PRIVATE SECTOR, BOTTOMS-UP ORGANIZATIONAL MECHANISM FOR SELF-COORDINATION CAN WORK. SO THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: BEFORE I CALL ON THE NEXT SPEAKER, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT – WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT OF BREAK. HOWEVER, I DON'T WANT – NOT GOING TO STOP YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU WOULD AGREE THAT MARILYN CADE, WHO IS THE LAST PERSON IN LINE NOW, WOULD BE THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK ON THIS SUBJECT SO WE CAN HAVE A BREAK, WHICH WILL BE DELAYED.

THERE WILL BE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE DISCUSSION AND OPEN MICROPHONES LATER ON IN THE DAY. SO IF THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE, WE'LL GO THROUGH TO MARILYN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A BREAK.

YES.

>>: PETER DENGATE THRUSH FROM THE CCTLDS: I WAS INTENDING TO JOIN THE QUEUE AND WOULDN'T LIKE TO BE THROWN OUT.

>>VINTON CERF: YOU'D LIKE TO BE LAST?

>>: NOT LAST, BUT AFTER MARILYN.

>>VINTON CERF: HOW ABOUT LEAST?

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINTON CERF: IF NOT LAST?

ALL RIGHT. I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE BIO BREAK NECESSITIES WILL SURELY DRIVE US. SO, PETER, YOU ARE THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK IN THIS SEGMENT.

SO, PLEASE.

>>: MY NAME IS MANON RESS, I WORK FOR A SMALL CONSUMER GROUP IN WASHINGTON, D.C. I'M NOT GOING TO READ YOU A LONG STATEMENT, PROBABLY LATER TODAY, AFTER HEARING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU TWO QUESTIONS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITICISMS ABOUT ICANN HAS BEEN THE MISSION CREEP.

AND THAT'S WHAT, AT LEAST, CONSUMER GROUPS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT QUITE A LOT.

I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW INTRODUCING GOVERNMENTS ON THE BOARD WOULD DO ANYTHING TO THAT PROBLEM, TO FIX THAT PROBLEM.

AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU BEEN THINKING AT ALL HOW EACH REGION WILL SELECT ITS GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE? I KNOW IT'S JUST A PROPOSAL AND YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE ANSWERS ON DETAILS. BUT THESE THINGS ARE SORT OF BUGGING US, AND WE'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: ONE SMALL QUESTION. A SMALL CONSUMER GROUP IS STILL VERY VAGUE FOR ME. COULD YOU GIVE THE NAME OF THE GROUP.

>>: MY GROUP IS ESSENTIAL INFORMATION. IT WAS CREATED BY RALPH NADER IN 1985. IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSUMER PROJECT ON TECHNOLOGY.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THANKS A LOT.

>>STUART LYNN: VINT, DID YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER?

>>VINTON CERF: ACTUALLY, NO, I DON'T. I THINK I WANT TO GET MORE INPUT FROM THE FOLKS WHO ARE WAITING. PLEASE.

>>: OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M ELLIOTT NOSS, TUCOWS. . WOULD I LIKE TO REITERATE THE THANKS FOR THIS MEETING. IT IS A SPECIAL AND UNIQUE MEETING. I HAVE PERSONALLY ENJOYED IT. SO THANK YOU.

I WANT TO COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THE PROCESS OF REFORM. YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT MUCH LESS THAN TABLING A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, WHAT STUART LYNN HAS DONE IS THROWN DOWN THE GAUNTLET OR A CHALLENGE TO EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM, EVERYBODY FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WHO'S ONLINE TRACKING THIS AS WE SPEAK, TO ENGAGE IN TRULY REDEFINING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

AND AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS HAD TO IN MANY WAYS LIVE UNDER THIS PROCESS IN OPERATING OUR BUSINESS, I THINK THAT STUART HAS ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED THAT IT IS INEFFICIENT IN GETTING A LOT OF ITS MANDATE DONE, AND IT AS A BODY IS FRUSTRATED BY THAT INEFFICIENCY.

THE MOST CHALLENGING THING ABOUT THAT, AND WHEN I SAY THAT, I MEAN ON A LEVEL OF PERSONAL CHALLENGE, SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN RISE TO, IS THAT MEANS WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND HAVE BEEN INVITED TO DEFINE MISSION. I THINK ALAN DAVIDSON QUITE ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED MISSION OR GOALS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES AS THE TWO MISSING PIECES HERE.

WHAT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT IS, EFFECTIVELY, A CONSTITUTIONAL TYPE DOCUMENT OR A SPINE TO THE WHOLE PROCESS.

WHEN ONE LOOKS IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR AT WHAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN ENGAGING IN FOR FOUR YEARS OR MORE NOW, FIVE, REALLY, IF I TRACK THIS BACK THROUGH THE ORIGINAL CORE, WE ALL SEEM AT TIMES TO BE MAKING COMMENTS THAT ARE ADDRESSING DIFFERENT BELIEFS AS TO WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS.

THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING IF YOU WANT ANYTHING VALUABLE TO COME OUT OF THIS PROCESS IS TO TRY AND COME TO SOME – I WON'T SAY CONSENSUS – BUT MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO DO. YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT IN STUART'S LAST SORT OF "HERE IS WHAT WE DO" DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS LESS HERE IS OUR MISSION, BUT HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE DO. NOW TRY AND WRAP A MISSION AROUND IT.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT INSIDE THE REGISTRAR'S CONSTITUENCY, WE'VE STARTED TO TAKE THAT APPROACH TO THINGS. WHAT ARE THE SIMPLE PRINCIPLES THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON? I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE GET MADE PUBLIC AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS CAN ATTACK THEM AND CHALLENGE THEM AND PUSH THEM FORWARD, SO THAT WE CAN GET TO SOME COMMON SET OF BELIEFS AGAINST WHICH WE CAN TEST ANY STRUCTURES THAT WE TRY AND PUT IN PLACE.

AND, TO ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THAT IS, WHEN TRYING TO DEFINE STRUCTURE OR THE SPECIFICS OF HOW THIS WILL WORK, WITHOUT AGREEMENT ON THOSE COMMON PRINCIPLES, WE WILL GET NOWHERE AND CONTINUE TO SPIN OUR WHEELS IN THE MUD.

AND I WANT TO SAY SPECIFICALLY, I FIND IT DISAPPOINTING THAT IN THIS PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE AT LARGE, WHICH, BY THE WAY, I AM A BIG SUPPORTER OF, WOULD LIKE TO SEE WORK; OR, MOST SPECIFICALLY, FUNDING, THAT IS, NOT JUST PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, BUT IT'S PUTTING THE WHOLE PARADE BEFORE THE HORSE.

LET'S AGREE ON WHAT WE ARE, OR WHAT YOU ARE AND HOW WE ALL INTERFACE WITH YOU. THEN LET'S TRY AND FIT A STRUCTURE INTO THOSE PRINCIPLES. THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, THE SPECIFICS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT BE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT OR HOW THE AT LARGE WORKS. YOU KNOW, WITH ANY OF THESE THINGS, THE BEST THING THAT ANY SUPPORTER OF THE AT LARGE CAN DO RIGHT NOW IS SHOW THAT IT CAN BE AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE PROCESS. AND, BOY, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS REFORM.

SO, AGAIN, STUART, I THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, STAND UP AND SHOUT A BIT ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND TO TRY AND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF PUBLICLY – AND I DON'T MEAN IN THIS QUESTION PERIOD, BUT AS THE PROCESS GOES FORWARD, YOU KNOW, PUBLICLY KICK AROUND IDEAS. AND I REALLY HOPE THAT EVERYBODY CAN, TO AS GREAT AS EXTENT AS POSSIBLE, RISE ABOVE THE FRAY OF INTERNECINE CONSTITUENCY OR BUSINESS PROCESS AND RISE TO SOMETHING THAT HAS LEGS TO IT.

>>VINTON CERF: PLEASE.

>>: GOOD MORNING, SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET FROM FRENCH BUSINESS USER ASSOCIATION, MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO SPEAK TO TWO SIDES. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT I AM SPEAKING TO THE BOARD, BUT AS WELL, I AM SPEAKING TO THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, BECAUSE I THINK WE MUST SHARE TOGETHER IDEAS AND COME TO THE BOARD WITH A (INAUDIBLE) PROCESS. AND IT'S AS WELL AS YOU AND THE OTHERS THAT I AM SPEAKING THAT I CONCERN MYSELF.

IN THIS BOTTOM-UP PROCESS, WE MET A FEW INDIVIDUALS FROM ISP, IP, AND BC ON MONDAY IN A BRAINSTORMING SESSION. AND THIS IS AN INFORMAL SUMMARY OF YOUR VIEW ON SOME OF THE KEY PARTS OF THE CASE FOR REFORM.

WE APPRECIATE STUART'S IN-DEPTH OVERVIEW AND THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING ICANN. IN GENERAL TERMS, WE AGREE WITH THE DIAGNOSIS, BUT HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS THAT THE NECESSARY FIX, WHICH WE BELIEVE MUST BE ARRIVED AT BY CONSENSUS, CAN BE AGREED UPON IN THE EXTREMELY TIGHT TIME FRAME PRESENTED, SIX WEEKS FROM THE ACCRA MEETING.

TO THAT END, WE WOULD LIKE ICANN TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN TIME LINE WITHIN WHICH THE DIALOGUE WILL TAKE PLACE.

WE RECOMMEND THAT ICANN CONTINUE AS A BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS-DRIVEN ORGANIZATION IN A RESPECTIVE FORMAT WITH POLICY REVISED TO CREATE THE NIMBLE ORGANIZATION THAT WAS ANTICIPATED WHEN IT WAS FUNDED.

FURTHER, WE FEEL THAT LYNN'S PROPOSAL IS TOO COMPLEX, LACKS APPROPRIATE AT-LARGE REPRESENTATION, AND THE SELF-PERPETRATING ORGANIZATION LEADING TO A TOP-DOWN PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF ALL DECISION MAKERS.

LYNN'S PROPOSAL ALSO LACKS APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION FROM BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND END USER WHICH NEED A FORCE IN CCTLD AND GTLD POLICY AND TECHNICAL MATTERS.

WE BELIEVE THAT LYNN'S PROPOSAL APPEARS TO ELEVATE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT CREATION OF POLICY, IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY MUST BE SEPARATE. I WILL NOT ELABORATE ON THAT. BUT IF YOU WISH, I COULD LATER ON.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT TO MY INTENT AND DEVELOP A BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS-DRIVEN ICANN, WE MUST ENGAGE OUR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUENTS THROUGH CONCERTED OUTREACH INITIATIVE TO CREATE THIS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER AND TRULY GLOBAL CONSTITUENCIES THAT IS TRULY ENGAGED IN THE ICANN PROCESS.

PROGRESS HAS BEEN SLOW, BUT WE ARE STILL WORKING ON AND WE WILL ACHIEVE THIS.

THE CASE FOR REFORM APPROACH IS NOT AN ANSWER.

WE GENERALLY AGREE WITH ICANN'S RECENTLY PUBLISHED STATEMENT OF MISSION WITH REGARD TO TECHNICAL ASPECT. WE BELIEVE THAT ICANN SHOULD CONTINUE ITS NARROWLY DEFINED POLICY-MAKING SCOPE IN KEEPING WITH ITS ORIGINAL MANDATE.

I WILL NOT COME BACK TO THE FUNDING PART OF MY PAPER BECAUSE RON ALREADY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, AND I – AS WE ARE LACKING OF TIME, I WILL SKIP THIS PART.

WE BELIEVE THAT TRANSPARENCY IS PARAMOUNT AND SUPPORT THAT FOR MOST OF THE ICANN WORK. HOWEVER, WE FURTHER FEEL THAT THE BOARD SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IN PRIVATE FROM TIME TO TIME TO ENABLE ALL MEMBERS TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT DIALOGUE AND DECISIONS IN A MORE NORMAL BOARD ARRANGEMENT.

TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY, MINUTES SHOULD BE TAKEN AT ALL BOARD MEETINGS, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC, AND BE DULY POSTED ON THE ICANN SITE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

SOME MEETINGS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER. AND THAT PUBLIC INPUT SESSION CONTINUE AT REGULAR ICANN MEETINGS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: SEBASTIEN, WILL YOU SEND, PLEASE, THE COMPLETE MINUTES OF THESE MEETING OR SIMPLY THE COMMUNIQUE YOU WERE READING TO THE BOARD?

>>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: YES, AS SOON AS THE MAIL SYSTEM WILL WORK, I WILL BE ABLE TO SEND IT TO YOU, BUT NO PROBLEM, YES.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY.

>>KILNAM CHON: THIS IS KILNAM CHON.

I'M SPEAKING AS A SYSTEM ENGINEER

I APPRECIATE YOUR DEVOTION TO THE – WHAT SHOULD I DO ON THE ICANN.

THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE MID-COURSE REVIEW PROCESS, AND YOUR REPORT VERY MUCH LOOKS LIKE MATHEMATICIAN, WHICH IS YOUR BACKGROUND.

OKAY.

IF I PUT THIS WAY, THERE IS A PROBLEM IN DOING THE REVIEW, AND I WANT TO SEE THIS REVIEW TO BE DONE MORE ORDERLY, AND WE HAVE TO DO EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE.

AND THERE'S TWO APPROACH WE CAN TAKE.

ONE OF THEM IS ALL AT ONCE, WHOLE THING.

AND THE MATHEMATICIAN TYPICALLY LIKE SWEEPING THOSE SOLUTIONS.

AND THE SYSTEM ENGINEER TYPICALLY LOOKING TO THE DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, DIVIDE IT INTO SEPARATE PIECE AND ATTACK EACH ONE OF THEM.

AND I HOPE BOTH THINK WHICH APPROACH WILL BE BETTER IN THIS CASE.

LET ME GET MORE IN DETAIL.

FIRST OF ALL, LIKE HE RAISE THE – YOU RAISED THE ISSUE PROBLEMS, ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MAJOR PROBLEMS.

AND OF COURSE YOU CAN THINK OF WHOLE THING AS A FINANCIAL PROBLEM, BUT LET'S LOOK INTO THE, SAY, LIKE RIR AND THE CCTLD, AT LARGE, THERE SEEMS TO BE FOUR OR FIVE MAJOR PROBLEMS.

AND TO ME, THEY ARE NOT RELATED.

THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND ALSO THEY'RE IN THE VERY DIFFERENT STAGE, YOU MAY BE BETTER OFF TO SOLVE THE DIVIDE AND CONCUR.

FOR EXAMPLE, RIR, WE ARE ALMOST THERE.

JUST COUPLE MONTHS THERE, AND THEN OUR PROBLEM IS DONE.

AND THE CCTLD, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM.

PROBABLY IT TAKES FIVE TO TEN YEARS.

AND SEVERAL ICANN SECRETARIAT DECIDE TO TAKE DIFFICULT PATHS.

YOU CAN DO THE EASY WAY OR DIFFICULT WAY, BECAUSE THE EASY WAY MEANS EVENTUALLY YOU HAVE TO SPEND MUCH MORE TIME, BUT DEFINITELY YOU CAN DO THE DIFFICULT PARTS WHICH TAKES MUCH LONGER.

AND (INAUDIBLE) I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT, JUST EXPENSE OF THAT EFFORT

LET ME COMMENT ON THE ROOT SERVER.

THIS IS ONE MAJOR ITEM, DR. STUART LYNN ADDRESS VERY PROPERLY.

IT (INAUDIBLE) UP TO $10 MILLION.

AND IF WE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, THEN I GUESS WE MAY BE IN BETTER SHAPE.

BUT THIS ROOT SERVER, WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS PROBLEM.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY STUDIED IT.

LIKE FIRST OF ALL, THE MAJOR PARTY IS, FIRST OF ALL, ICANN BOARD AND THE SECRETARIAT.

AND THE TLD.

IN PARTICULAR, CCTLD.

THEN THE ROOT SERVER CONSORTIUM, AND THOSE SEEM TO BE MAJOR PARTIES WHO HAVE A STAKE HERE.

AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY STARTED ANY DIALOGUE YET.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE MOST OF US HAS A – WE HAVE A COMMON GROUND.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S OPERATED (INAUDIBLE)-BASED, AND WE WANT A MORE ACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM IN WHICH SUBSTANTIVE AGREEMENT CAN BE CONTRACTED WITHIN THE OPERATOR IN THE ICANN AND THE CCTLD.

AND WE HAVEN'T START THIS DISCUSSION YET.

AND I STRONGLY COMMEND YOU OR US TO START THIS – GET INTO THIS PROBLEM WITHOUT HOLDING UP ANYTHING.

OF COURSE YOU CAN DO IT TOP-DOWN, THE WHOLE THING, BUT THERE'S THE OTHER ISSUE.

THE ROOT SERVER ITSELF, I GUESS WE ALREADY STARTED BECAUSE IT TAKES SOME TIME AND THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE, AN ISSUE YOU CAN SOLVE.

AND I PERSONALLY BELIEVE WE CAN SOLVE IT: FINANCIALLY, TECHNICALLY, OR ANY WAY.

BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE HAVE VERY MUCH SHARED A COMMON GROUND.

SO LET'S INVESTIGATE TECHNICALLY, THEN LET'S INVESTIGATE MORE POLICY-WISE.

AND REALLY, WE SHOULD START THIS ABOUT $10 MILLION PROBLEM AT ONCE WITHOUT HOLDING THIS PROBLEM – WITHOUT HOLDING THIS PROBLEM AT ALL.

THAT'S MY COMMENT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, CHON.

MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

I'M THE ELECTED REP FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY TO THE NAMES COUNCIL, AND I'M THE (INAUDIBLE) FOR THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY ON AT-LARGE ISSUES AND ON STRUCTURE.

LIKE ALAN DAVIDSON WHO SPOKE EARLIER, AND LIKE KILNAM, WE ARE BELIEVERS, WE'RE ALSO DOERS, AND WE'RE FULLY COMMITTED TO BEING PART OF DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS AS WE ALL WORK TOGETHER OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

WE GENERALLY AGREE, I MIGHT EVEN SAY LARGELY AGREE WITH THE LIST OF PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE PAPER, THE CASE FOR REFORM.

WE ARE NOT YET AND MAY NEVER BE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH MANY OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD.

WE ARE, HOWEVER, AGAIN, I WILL SAY, FULLY COMMITTED TO HELPING TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WHERE WE OPPOSE OR DISAGREE WITH THE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED.

WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR URGENCY.

THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY OPERATES SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY AS EACH CONSTITUENCY DOES.

WE DEVELOP POSITIONS ON ISSUES, SYNTHESIZE THEM AND TAKE COMMENT ACROSS OUR CONSTITUENCY, AND THEN TRY TO PUT FORWARD AND ADVOCATE ACROSS OTHER CONSTITUENCIES AN APPROACH THAT CAN BENEFIT ALL OF US.

WE'RE COMMITTED AND REMAIN COMMITTED TO A VISION OF A CONSENSUS-BASED POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

FOR US THAT VISION HAS NOT CHANGED.

WE WERE PART OF THE FOUNDING CONSTITUENCIES OF THE DNSO AND WE ARE NOT WILLING YET TO GIVE UP ON THE SO PROCESS.

WE DO BELIEVE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND IMPROVEMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN THE SO PROCESS FOR IT TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

WE AGREE THAT FUNDING IS A CRITICAL ITEM, AND FOR US, WE THINK MANY OF ICANN'S CHALLENGES STEM FROM LACK OF FUNDING; THEREFORE, LACK OF TIME; THEREFORE, LACK OF RESOURCES.

AND IT HAS BECOME A VICIOUS CIRCLE RATHER THAN A VIRTUAL CIRCLE

YOU HEARD EARLIER FROM ONE OF THE BC MEMBERS ABOUT WHERE OUR MEMBERS ARE COMING TO AND HOW BEST TO FUND ICANN.

THAT IS WORK IN PROGRESS, BUT IT IS GAINING STRONG SUPPORT WITHIN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

ON PROCESS, WE AGREE THE PRESENT PROCESS IS NOT PERFECT.

WE DEDICATE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES TO TRYING TO WORK WITHIN IT, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.

BUT WE ARE CONCERNED, AT LEAST FROM OUR PRESENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPROACH OF FORUMS, THAT WE WILL NOT ACHIEVE THE OUTCOME OF CONSISTENT AND FULL AND REPRESENTATIVE PARTICIPATION.

PERHAPS WE DON'T UNDERSTAND FULLY THE FORUM APPROACH.

BUT TODAY, WE REMAIN SIGNIFICANTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS A REPLACEMENT IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

WE BELIEVE, AND THE BOARD MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE, THAT SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT COULD BE MADE TO THE EXISTING POLICY DEVELOPMENT IF IT WERE STRUCTURED AND SUPPORTED BY ICANN STAFF IN A WAY THAT VOLUNTEERS WERE NOT PROVIDING US STRUCTURE AND FRAMEWORK AS WELL AS TRYING TO PROVIDE THE INPUT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY.

WE DO NOT SUPPORT IN ANY WAY ELEVATING POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO THE BOARD, AND THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CONCERN THAT YOU WILL HEAR FROM US.

ON THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS, WE CANNOT SUPPORT A KIND OF CHANGE THAT COULD LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT OR INCREASED CHANGES IN THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT.

WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE NEED FOR IMPROVED SUPPORT ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT.

AND WE URGE THE GAC TO CONTINUE TO ADD IN AND RECRUIT AMONG OTHER COLLEAGUES OF THEIRS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES TO BROADEN THE PARTICIPATION IN THE GAC AND TO STRENGTHEN THE SUPPORT THAT THE GAC CAN PROVIDE.

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE BOARD IN ANY WAY SHOULD CONSIDER ACCEPTING FUNDING FROM GOVERNMENTS.

WE WILL GIVE YOU A WRITTEN AND EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

WE WILL START WITH THE SINGLE STATEMENT.

MOST GOVERNMENTS, WE REPRESENT GLOBAL COMPANIES, MOST GOVERNMENTS REQUIRE AUTHORIZATION OR SOME MECHANISM FOR FUNDING.

IN MY OWN COUNTRY ALONE, A SINGLE SENATOR COULD HAVE CONCERNS AND NOT BE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FUNDING, CREATING A NEW VULNERABILITY AND PERHAPS UNEXPECTED ONE FOR ICANN.

I SUSPECT MY COUNTRY IS NOT UNIQUE IN THAT.

ON AT LARGE, WE HAVE BEEN A SUPPORTER OF AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ENABLE AN AT LARGE.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO REQUIRED THAT THAT MUST BE BASED ON MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION, AND WE DO FEEL THAT ELECTIONS SHOULD NOT GO FORWARD UNLESS THE PARTICIPATION MECHANISM IS IN PLACE

WE HAVE SUPPORTED THE IDEA THAT THE AT LARGE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHANCE AND WE CALL IT THE TOUGH LOVE APPROACH.

IF IT IS NOT MET AND NOT STABLE, THEN AN ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE FOUND.

ON THE CCSO, WE HAVE MET AND SUPPORTED THE CC'S ON THEIR SO MODEL.

WE BELIEVE THIS COULD BE A WAY FOR THEM TO SELF-ORGANIZE AND BE PART OF ICANN AND THIS SHOULD BE A PART OF ANY GLOBAL REFORM.

FOR BUSINESS USERS, WE REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES NOT IN A SINGLE COUNTRY BUT ACROSS MANY COUNTRIES, AND CC'S ARE A MAJOR RESOURCE TO US.

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, MARILYN.

MR. DENGATE THRUSH.

>>: THANK YOU, FOR ADDING ME TO THE LIST.

CAN I CONGRATULATE YOU FOR THIS TEXT CAPTURE.

IT'S EXCELLENT.

(APPLAUSE).

>>: CAN I BEGIN BY AGREEING WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION, DR. CHON.

I THINK HIS ANALYSIS IS, AS ALWAYS, INSIGHTFUL, AND I URGE YOU TO PICK UP THE DISTINCTION HE GAVE THE BOARD, DO YOU WANT TO DO A BIG BANG ANALYSIS -- A CLEAN-SHEET START, OR DO WE TAKE THE SYSTEMS APPROACH? DO WE LOOK AT THIS AS A PATIENT THAT CAN BE FIXED, OR DO WE KILL OFF THIS PATIENT AND TRY AND GIVE BIRTH TO A NEW BABY?

I'M FROM INTERNET NEW ZEALAND AND INTERNET PACIFIC ASSOCIATION AND THE TLD ASSOCIATION BUT I'M SPEAKING PERSONALLY.

I WANT TO PICK UP ON, FIRST OF ALL, ONE COMMENT IN THE CCTLD COMMUNIQUE WHICH IS GOING TO BE GIVEN TO YOU LATER IN THE DAY, AND THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT DR. LYNN'S PROPOSAL MOVES AWAY FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNMENT-FREE INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION.

AND I WANT TO ADD TO THAT MY CONCERN THAT IT ALSO MOVES AWAY FROM THE CONCEPT OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW, RECONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD, BY THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL.

IN MY VIEW, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS IS ONE OF THE SUCCESSES OF THE ICANN EXPERIMENT, AND I KNOW THAT IT FORMS TASK THREE I THINK IN THE CORPORATION'S MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS BE THROWN AWAY.

LET ME ALSO JOIN WITH THE FAN OF THE MONKEES, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A SUPPORTER OF ICANN SINCE 1998 AS WELL.

AND IT WORRIES ME THAT IN THIS – ADDITION TO THE RESTRUCTURING THAT'S GOING ON, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS IN EXISTENCE WHEN DR. LYNN'S PROPOSAL CAME OUT THE NAMES TASK FORCE ON RESTRUCTURING AND THE BOARD COMMITTEE ON RESTRUCTURING.

SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT SOME RESTRUCTURING IS REQUIRED AND WAS IN FACT IN TRAINING.

WHAT WORRIES ME ABOUT DR. LYNN'S PROPOSAL IS IT IS NOT A RESTRUCTURING.

IT CALLS FOR A RADICAL CHANGE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ORGANIZATION: THAT'S THE FIRST BIT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE PRINCIPLES, LET'S GET THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR BEFORE WE START LOOKING AT WHAT STRUCTURES MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO BUILD THOSE PRINCIPLES.

AND AS I SAY, CCTLD COMMUNIQUE LISTS AND I'VE ADDED TO SOME OF THOSE PRINCIPLES.

THOSE ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE ICANN EXPERIMENT, THAT WE CAN BUILD A GLOBAL BODY THAT IS GOVERNMENT FREE, INDUSTRY LED TRANSPARENT AND SO FORTH.

WE SHOULD BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL BEFORE THROWING AWAY OR SUBSTITUTING ANY OF THOSE PRINCIPLES

THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT STUART'S PROPOSAL IS THAT IN HIS PROBABLY ADVISABLE CARE NOT TO ATTRIBUTE BLAME FOR SOME OF THE POSITIONS WE FIND OURSELVES IN THAT WE MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES.

THINK WE ALL ACCEPT THAT WE LEARN FAR MORE FROM OUR MISTAKES THAN OUR SUCCESSES AND I WANT TO FOCUS IN WHAT I REGARD AS ONE OF THE FAILURES AND THAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CCTLDS.

I THINK IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR THE ROLE OF THE CCTLDS WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE DRAFTERS OF THE WHITE PAPER, IT DOESN'T FORM A PART OF THE U.S. MEMORANDUM WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AND ONLY WHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS MADE AND AFTER SOME TIME WHEN THE FOCUS SHIFTED OFF THE DOT COM PROBLEMS DID IT BEGIN TO BE APPRECIATED BY SOME OF THE STAFF AND BOARD THAT THE CCTLDS HAD AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THIS ORGANIZATION.

BUT EVEN ONCE THAT WAS ARRIVED AT, THE CCTLDS WAS NOT IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE OTHER CRITICAL COMPONENTS AND I MENTION IN PARTICULAR THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ROOT SERVERS OR THE REGIONAL ADDRESS REGISTRIES.

THE APPROACH THAT'S BEEN TAKEN TO THE CCTLDS HAS BEEN, FOR REASONS THAT AREN'T CLEAR TO US, DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO SAY THAT THE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS CONTAINING ABUSE, INSULTS, AND THE CCTLDS BEING IGNORED.

NOT ONLY THAT, THERE'S BEEN THE INSISTENCE, AND IT WAS DESCRIBED IN MONTEVIDEO BY OTHERS AS BLACKMAIL IN WHICH THE BOARD AND THE STAFF TOOK THE POSITION THAT REDELEGATION SHOULD BE DENIED AND CONTRACTS SIGNED.

IT'S NOT SURPRISING IN MY SUBMISSION THAT FACED WITH THAT KIND OF DURESS, ONLY TWO CCTLDS WHO HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES IN EXTREME SITUATIONS, AND THAT'S AUSTRALIA WHICH HAS A FAMOUS PROBLEM AND, MORE RECENTLY, JAPAN FOR ITS OWN REASONS, HAVE ACTUALLY SIGNED CONTRACTS.

SO THERE'S LESSONS TO BE LEARNED, I THINK.

LET ME ALSO COME TO THE FAILURE BY THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO GARNER MUCH GOVERNMENT SUPPORT.

WE NEED TO ANALYZE WHY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD HAVE TAKEN PART IN DECLINING NUMBERS, IT SEEMS TO ME – I HAVEN'T GOT THE FIGURES FOR THIS GAC MEETING HERE IN GHANA, BUT AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THERE'S BEEN A REASONABLY STEADY DECLINE IN GAC INVOLVEMENT.

THIS IS DESPITE AN OUTREACH PROGRAM BY THE GOVERNMENTS.

AND I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT PART OF THAT REASON MAY LIE IN THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE CCTLDS, IN FACT, HAVE COMPLEX AND CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND IN MANY CASES THEIR GOVERNMENTS TRUST US TO REPRESENT THEM AND THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEY HAVE.

IF YOU CARE TO LOOK, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT WEB SITE YOU'LL SEE A SPECIFIC ENDORSEMENT OF INTERNET NEW ZEALAND AS THE MANAGER IN NEW ZEALAND.

SO OUR ROLE IN RELATION TO OUR GOVERNMENTS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NEITHER BEEN EXPLOITED NOR USED BY THE STAFF, THE BOARD, OR THE GAC.

ANOTHER LESSON THAT WE COULD LEARN.

LET ME FINISH BY SAYING THAT WE'VE MADE CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING A SUPPORT ORGANIZATION WHICH WE SEE AS IMPORTANT FOR US TO TAKE PART IN ICANN.

I SUGGEST THAT VERY FEW GLOBAL BODIES HAVE EVER BEEN FORMED AS QUICKLY AS WE ARE FORMING THE SO.

NOT ONLY THAT, WE HAVE AGREED TO FORM AN EXTERNAL ORGANIZATION OUTSIDE OF ICANN WHICH WILL ALSO FACILITATE THE RELATIONSHIP THAT – THE PEER RELATIONSHIP THAT THE STAFF FIRST CALLED FOR IN 1999.

SO I WOULD SAY LET'S LEARN FROM SOME OF THOSE MISTAKES.

I WOULD URGE AGAINST A CLEAN-SHEET APPROACH UNLESS IT CAN BE VERY CLEARLY JUSTIFIED, AND FINISH BY SAYING THAT I, AND I BELIEVE MOST OF THE CCTLDS IF NOT ALL OF THEM, REMAIN COMMITTED TO THE ORIGINAL ICANN PROJECT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, PETER.

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: THEORETICALLY, YOU SHOULD BE FREE TO HAVE A BREAK; HOWEVER, I HAVE ONE ONLINE COMMENT WHICH I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.

AND THEN WE'LL BREAK.

NOW, I'LL READ THIS TO YOU.

THIS IS FROM VITTORIO B BERTOLA AND HE HAS TWO QUESTIONS.

HIS FIRST QUESTION IS, UP TO NOW, OBJECTIONS TO THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP MECHANISM WERE BASED ON A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL ISSUES, INVOLVEMENT OF LARGE NUMBERS OF UNINFORMED PEOPLE, NATIONALISTIC CAPTURE, ET CETERA.

BUT IF YOU HAD AN EFFECTIVE AND WELL-STRUCTURED ORGANIZATION OF A FEW THOUSAND ACTIVE AND INTERESTED MEMBERS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD, AS THE ALSC PROPOSES, WOULD YOU STILL REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT AND LET IT ELECT A PART OF THE BOARD?

AND IF YES, WHY?

>>: TURN UP THE MIKE.

>>: SPEAK INTO THE MIKE.

>>VINTON CERF: THE MICROPHONE WASN'T WORKING.

I'M SORRY.

HOW IS THAT?

BETTER.

I APOLOGIZE.

MAYBE IT'S BETTER IF YOU JUST READ UP THERE AND I WON'T REPEAT.

THIS APPEARS TO BE A QUESTION WHICH IS MORE CENTERED ON THE AT-LARGE MATTER, AND SO WHAT WE MIGHT DO IS POSTPONE DISCUSSION OF THAT AND RESPONSE TO IT UNTIL THE AT-LARGE DISCUSSION.

THE SECOND QUESTION, IF I COULD PUT THAT UP, PLEASE, THIS ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE GENERAL QUESTION OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE ICANN PROCESS.

MR. LYNN SAYS THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE INTERNET COMMUNITY PUBLIC INTEREST BETTER THAN THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.

THIS MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE CHOSEN BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN BY THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO GET DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(LAUGHTER).

>>: ALSO BY USING THE INTERNET.

IRAQ IS AN EXTREME CASE.

I'M GLAD MR. BERTOLA ADMITS THAT, BUT YOU CAN APPLY THIS TO MANY NONDEMOCRATICAL COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.

OR DOES GOVERNMENTS, IN QUOTES, IN YOUR VIEW ONLY MEAN DEMOCRATICAL GOVERNMENTS OR WESTERN GOVERNMENTS OR ANY OTHER SUBSET OF THE WORLD'S GOVERNMENTS, AND HOW WOULD THIS SUBSET BE CHOSEN?

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: DO YOU CARE TO RESPOND TO THAT?

>>STUART LYNN: WELL, FOR ALL I KNOW THE 5,000 VOTERS THAT MR. BERTOLA REFERS TO ARE ACTUALLY IN IRAQ.

NO, LOOK, SERIOUSLY, THERE'S ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW, OF COURSE, WHEN RHETORIC TERMS GET USED VIA THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AS TO WHETHER SEVERAL THOUSAND VOTERS CAN, IN MY VIEW, LEGITIMATELY SPEAK FOR 400, 500 MILLION USERS AROUND THE WORLD.

THESE ARE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON IT.

I THINK A MEDIATING PROCESS OCCURS BETWEEN – WHEN YOU MAP 244 GOVERNMENTS INTO FIVE INDIVIDUALS ON THE BOARD, DO I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE IRAQI PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE INFLUENTIAL IN THAT PROCESS?

COME ON, GIVE ME A BREAK.

>>VINTON CERF: SPEAKING OF A BREAK, WHY DON'T WE TAKE ONE

(LAUGHTER).

>>VINTON CERF: LET ME ASK IF YOU – YOU HAD A BREAK SCHEDULED FOR HALF AN HOUR.

COULD YOU TRY TO MAKE IT IN 20 MINUTES.

SO WE'LL RECONVENE AT ABOUT 11:40.

(BREAK)

>>VINTON CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, – IS THIS MICROPHONE LIVE?

AM I LIVE?

HELLO?

YES.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS.

I'D LIKE TO RECONVENE THE MEETING SO THAT WE CAN AT LEAST GET ONE MORE THING DONE BEFORE LUNCH.

ATTENZIONE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS, AND CEASE CONVERSATION.

IS PAUL TWOMEY IN THE ROOM?

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS NOW.

I'D LIKE TO CALL TO THE LECTERN MR. PAUL TWOMEY WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WILL YOU KINDLY CEASE DISCUSSIONS.

SHUT UP!

(APPLAUSE).

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: WHICH DEMONSTRATES WE QUITE CLEARLY NEED A FREEDOM OF SPEECH CONSTITUENCY HERE.

>>VINTON CERF: RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T NEED ANY FREEDOM OF SPEECH EXCEPT FOR THE MAN WHO HAS THE FLOOR, PAUL TWOMEY.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.

IF I COULD JUST SHARE WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THE DISCUSSIONS THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAD HERE, AND OUR COMMUNIQUE AND A FEW OTHER POINTS AND STATEMENTS, IF I MAY.

THE GAC MET IN MARCH IN GHANA.

PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.

IT'S THE ONE WE USE EVERY TIME.

ACTUALLY, WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE IT OFF.

WE MIGHT POINT OUT WE DIDN'T SEEK REPRESENTATIVES, (INAUDIBLE) I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE CONSIDERING WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE THE BREAK.

THIS MEETING OF THE GAC IS ACTUALLY THE MEETING WHICH HAD THE MOST MEMBERS ATTEND, 36 MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS.

THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF THE GAC IS THE TOTAL WHO PARTICIPATE AT EVERY MEETING, THERE'S NOW CLOSE TO 50 COUNTRIES OR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

THEY REPRESENT WELL OVER 90% OF THE INTERNET USERS OF THE WORLD.

WHEN I SEE THAT - IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION OF DECLINE.

THAT'S OVER 90% OF THE INTERNET USERS OF THE WORLD WERE REPRESENTED AROUND THAT ROOM.

I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD THE SORT OF EFFORT THAT WENT INTO OUTREACH FOR THIS MEETING.

THE CHAIR WROTE AGAIN TO GOVERNMENTS OF AFRICA, WROTE, ALSO, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ASKED AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSIONS TO BE IN ATTENDANCE.

THE VICE CHAIR FOR MALAYSIA CONTACTED I THINK IT WAS 20 GOVERNMENTS IN AFRICA WHERE MALAYSIA HAS STRONG TIES.

THE VICE CHAIR FROM CANADA WENT TO A LOT OF EFFORT IN TERMS OF CANADA'S INVOLVEMENT IN THINGS LIKE THE (–), SETS OF LINKS TO ISSUE INVITATIONS.

WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED THE ASSISTANCE WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM NII ON THE BOARD, AND THE OUTREACH.

THE EUROPEAN UNION SIMILARLY MADE QUITE AN OUTREACH.

AND THE MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY ATTENDED FROM AFRICA INCLUDED THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAMBIA, RWANDA, EGYPT, AND ALSO GHANA.

SO WE WERE PLEASED WITH THAT ATTENDANCE.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE STRONG EMPHASIS TOWARD OUTREACH.

THAT'S PART OF OUR FOCUS.

BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD BE VERY CONSCIOUS HERE, PEOPLE MAKE THE EFFORT, THEY SPEND MONEY, THEY DO THINGS WHEN IT MATTERS TO THEM.

THEY DO IT WHEN IT MATTERS AROUND THEIR OWN DOMESTIC CONSTITUENCIES.

THAT'S THE WAY GOVERNMENTS WORK.

THE PEOPLE ATTENDING, IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL, REPRESENT SOMETHING LIKE 90% OR MORE OF INTERNET USERS OF THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY'RE THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM DOMESTICALLY THIS REALLY MATTERS.

IF I WAS THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT THAT WAS VERY SMALL AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT WATER, SUPPLY, DISEASE, BASIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T SPEND MY MONEY COMING TO AN ICANN MEETING.

I MAY BE ONLINE, BUT I DON'T THINK I WOULD SPEND MY MONEY ATTENDING.

I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

I DON'T THING WE COULD KEEP IN MIND PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY TEND HERE ARE BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.

AND THEY DO IT – IT IS A SELF-SELECTION PROCESS, NOT AN EXCLUSIVE PROCESS.

AND AS THE CHAIR, I SAY I'M SPENDING A LOT OF MY TIME AND WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE SECRETARIAT THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT HAS GONE INTO OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATING WITH GOVERNMENTS.

IF THEY DON'T ATTEND, IT'S FOR VERY GOOD PERSONAL DOMESTIC REASONS.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF THE GAC OF ICANN NOT HAVING MADE THE EFFORT.

NEVERTHELESS, AS I SAID, WE ARE NOW AT THE PEAK OF OUR MEMBERSHIP.

TO GO FURTHER IN OUR COMMUNIQUE, THE MEMBERS OF THE GAC, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE ICANN REFORM, WELCOME THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT FEBRUARY OF 2002, ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON EVOLUTIONARY REFORM OF ICANN.

SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN NOVEMBER OF 1998, ICANN HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ENSURING THE TECHNICAL COORDINATION OF INTERNET NAMING AND ADDRESS ALLOCATION SYSTEMS.

HOWEVER, THE GAC RECOGNIZES THAT SOME OF THESE FUNCTIONS GIVE RISE TO PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES WHICH HAVE PROVEN TO BE MORE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE AND HAVE GENERATED MUCH DEBATE ABOUT ICANN'S ROLES, IT'S MANDATE AND PROCESSES

THE GAC CONSIDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT HAS IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITHIN THE ICANN THAT REQUIRE SERIOUS AND TIMELY CONSIDERATION. THE GAC REAFFIRMS ITS STATEMENT OF THE 2ND OF MARCH 1999 ENDORSING THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE CREATION OF ICANN AND COMMITS ITSELF TO WORKING THROUGH ICANN TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS ITS REFORM. THE GAC IS OF THE VIEW THAT, THREE AND A HALF YEARS AFTER ITS ESTABLISHMENT, THERE IS A NEED TO SPECIFY ICANN'S MANDATE AND REVIEW AND CLARIFY ITS MISSION AND THE SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH IT IS RESPONSIBLE. THE DEBATE ENGENDERED BY THE RELEASE OF THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT REVEALS THAT PERCEPTIONS VARY WIDELY ON THE EXTENT OF ICANN'S ROLE AND FUNCTIONS. THIS SITUATION UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR CLARITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL REFORM.

THE GAC IS SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERN RAISED IN THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT THAT THE ICANN PROCESS, INCLUDING THE VARIOUS COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR AT-LARGE PARTICIPATION, MAY HAVE REVEALED UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE ORGANIZATION'S RESPONSIBILITIES. WHILE PROCESS AND STRUCTURE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, THE GAC IS OF THE VIEW THAT, AT THIS JUNCTURE, REFORM SHOULD SERVE TO FOCUS ICANN'S MISSION, MANDATE AND FUNCTIONS, WHILE DISCUSSING SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL PROPOSALS.

THE GAC RECALLS THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONALIZATION, REPRESENTATION, GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY, AND PUBLIC INTEREST ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DNS AND SHOULD GUIDE OUR REFLECTIONS FOR ICANN REFORM.

THROUGH ITS TECHNICAL COORDINATION OF THE INTERNET'S NAMING AND ADDRESS ALLOCATION SYSTEMS, ICANN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A PUBLIC RESOURCE OF GROWING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE. THE GAC SHARES THE VIEW PUT FORWARD IN THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT THAT A PRIVATE-SECTOR/PUBLIC-SECTOR PARTNERSHIP WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO ICANN'S FUTURE SUCCESS. THIS VIEW UNDERLIES A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS ISSUED BY THE GAC, AND IN PARTICULAR, THE PRINCIPLES FOR DELEGATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, THE 3RD OF FEBRUARY, 2000.

WHILE IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO COMMENT ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE FRAMEWORK AND STRUCTURE OF THIS PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP, THE GAC WILL FOLLOW CLOSELY THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHICH HAS NOW BEEN ENGAGED, AND WILL BE CONSIDERING AND CONSULTING ON MATTERS RELATING TO ICANN REFORM BETWEEN NOW AND THE MEETING IN BUCHAREST, AND EXPECTS THAT CONSIDERATION TO CONTINUE THROUGH TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

THE GAC IS OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT AN INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION LIKE ICANN WILL REQUIRE EVOLUTION TO ACHIEVE AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND FOCUSED OPERATION. MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE WITH THE – WITHIN THE ICANN PROCESS ON STRUCTURAL ISSUES.THE RECENT REPORTS OF THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE ARE VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION IN THE BROADER DISCUSSION OF ORGANIZATIONAL REFORM.

LET ME MOVE ON TO TWO OTHER ISSUES.

IPV6.

RECALLING ITS COMMUNIQUE OF THE MARINA DEL REY MEETING IN 2001, THE GAC ALSO LOOKS FORWARD TO ICANN PROVIDING DETAILED UPDATES TO THE GAC AND THE COMMUNITY ON THE URGENT ISSUES OF IPV6 DEPLOYMENT STATUS AT THE NEXT MEETING INCLUDING MIGRATION ISSUES FROM IPV4 TO IPV6. THE GAC STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE EFFORTS OF ICANN AND RELATED GROUPS IN SMOOTH AND SAFE DEPLOYMENT OF THE IPV6.

THE GAC WELCOMES THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE DOT INFO COUNTRY NAMES DISCUSSION GROUP. WE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE THE NAMES OF COUNTRIES AND DISTINCT ECONOMIES AVAILABLE TO GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR USE IN THEIR DOT INFO TOP LEVEL DOMAIN. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE BOARD ADOPTING THIS RECOMMENDATION. THE GAC EXPECTS TO PROVIDE A PROPOSAL REGARDING THE ASSIGNATION OF THESE NAMES TO THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT BODIES AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.

THE GAC ALSO LOOKS FORWARD TO FURTHER EXPLORING THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE POSSIBLE CREATION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN FOR THE USE OF GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AROUND THE WORLD.

THE GAC WILL BE HAVING ONGOING DISCUSSIONS OVER THE NEXT MONTHS AND WILL HAVE A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING IN 2002 IN BUCHAREST ROMANIA IN ICANN'S NEXT ROUND OF MEETINGS.

THAT'S THE END OF THIS COMMUNIQUE.

WE HAVE ONE MORE STATEMENT, BUT PERHAPS IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON THE COMMUNIQUE NOW.

>>VINTON CERF: I JUST HAVE ONE OBSERVATION, PAUL.

YOUR REPORT REFERS TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING, AND AS YOU MAY NOW HAVE DETECTED, THE NOVEMBER MEETING IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN OCTOBER.

SO IF THAT'S IMPORTANT WITH REGARD TO PRECISION IN YOUR REPORT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER A MINOR AMENDMENT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: WE ACTUALLY HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD SAY OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER. I SAID IT DOESN'T MATTER, VINT WILL TELL ME IF IT IS WRONG.

>>STUART LYNN: ALSO NOTE CHAIRMAN TWOMEY TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET HERE.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW PLEASED I WAS TO SEE HIM WHEN I GOT HERE.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT, PAUL.

I DON'T THINK I SEE ANY – YES, I DO SEE ONE QUESTION HERE.

>>: WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE.

IN THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, FUNDING PLAYS A ROLE.

DID YOU DISCUSS THE ISSUE?

AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW GOVERNMENTS COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ISSUE?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: WOLFGANG, YOU ASKED THREE QUESTIONS.

DID WE DISCUSS?

YES.

DID WE HAVE ANY COMMENT?

NO.

DO I HAVE ANY IDEAS?

YES, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR THEM. IT'S PREMATURE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.

>>VINTON CERF: ALL RIGHT.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: I'M THE EUROPEAN REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CCTLD ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT. YOU WILL BE HEARING OUR COMMUNIQUE AT 4:00 THIS AFTERNOON.

I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK PAUL TWOMEY AND THE REST TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY WHICH I FOUND PERSONALLY VERY PRODUCTIVE, VERY (INAUDIBLE), AND I WOULD PROBABLY SAY THIS AT 4:00 BUT I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IT NOW WHILE YOU'RE STILL HERE.

(APPLAUSE).

>>PAUL TWOMEY: WHOEVER IS GOING TO BE THE HISTORIAN OF ICANN CAN TAKE A NOTE OF THAT.

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME.

THANK YOU, NIGEL.

TO THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY, I HAVE ANOTHER STATEMENT I NEED TO MAKE.

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE ICANN PROCESS FROM ITS EARLY DAYS.

IT WAS A STRONG PARTICIPANT IN THE PROCESS CONDUCTED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF AN INTERNATIONAL NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION LOOKING AT THE ISSUES REVOLVING AROUND THE TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION OF SOME INTERNET FUNCTIONS AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT HAS SUPPORT FOR THAT, IT HAS CONTRIBUTED TOWARD THE EXPENSE OF THE ICANN PROCESS AND PARTICULARLY THE GAC PROCESS.

JUST SHORT OF $3 MILLION OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ALSO IS SUPPORTIVE OF A CALL FOR REFORM, WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR STATEMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE REFORM BUT ALSO THINKS THAT SUCH A REPORT PROCESS IS TIMELY AND IS WHAT ONE SHOULD EXPECT FROM A NEW TYPE OF ORGANIZATION.

I THINK WHEN WE WERE INVOLVED VERY EARLY ON IN THE WHITE PAPER PROCESS AND IN THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT STRUCTURE ICANN MAY HAVE, THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION THAT THINGS WOULD CHANGE AND EVOLVE.

WE THINK IT'S A NATURAL PROGRESSION OF AN ORGANIZATION

I NEED TO MAKE THOSE POINTS QUITE STRONGLY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAVE DETERMINED AT THE END OF THIS FINANCIAL YEAR AUSTRALIA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN PROBABLY VERY SIGNIFICANT AND IT'S PROBABLY NOW TIME TO RETURN IT TO BE A (INAUDIBLE) FOR THE GAC AND NOT PLAYING A SECONDARY TYPE OF ROLE.

AS A CONSEQUENCE, I ANNOUNCED TO THE GAC YESTERDAY I SHALL BE RESIGNING AS THE CHAIR OF THE GAC EFFECTIVE AS OF THE END OF THE MEETING IN OCTOBER.

AND THAT AUSTRALIA WILL CEASE TO PLAY THE ROLE OF SECRETARIAT OF GAC EFFECTIVE AT THE END OF BUCHAREST

THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN ANY WAY AS THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESIGNING FROM ICANN OR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SAYING IT DOESN'T SUPPORT ANY KIND OF REFORM PROCESS.

IT IS COINCIDENTAL UPON THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND IT WAS A DECISION TO MAKE WHEN THAT REPORT WAS RELEASED.

THE DECISION WAS DRIVEN BY FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE SENSE THAT IT'S PROBABLY TIME FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO STEP UP TO THE BAT.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR THE BOARD AND ALL OTHERS WHO BENEFITED FROM YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THE GAC, BUT YOUR EFFORTS HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY GREATLY APPRECIATED AND OF COURSE THE EXPENDITURE BY THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT FOR THE SECRETARIAT IS EQUALLY APPRECIATED.

I'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE MORE FORMAL ABOUT THIS TOMORROW.

I'M SURE WE'LL INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION FOR THE BOARD, BUT I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL THESE PEOPLE IT HAS BEEN TRULY AN HONOR TO HAVE YOU SERVE IN THIS ROLE.

YOUR LEADERSHIP WILL BE MISSED BUT I HOPE YOU WILL MAKE YOURSELF AVAILABLE AND THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ICANN PROCESS IN ANY WAY THAT SEEMS FEASIBLE.

THANK YOU, PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I HAVE TO SAY YOU ARE CHARGED WITH THIS CHILD BUT SOMEHOW I FEEL I HAD SOME ROLE IN IT, SO TAKE CARE OF MY CHILDREN OR I WILL BE VERY UNHAPPY.

>>VINTON CERF: I AM CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TWO OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA THAT WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH BEFORE LUNCH. THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE CAN DO THAT WITH STILL AN HOUR AND A HALF FOR LUNCH IS PERHAPS SOMEWHAT LIMITED.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE DOT ORG REASSIGNMENT.

I THINK THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A STATUS REPORT. AND I ASSUME, MAYBE WRONGLY, THAT LOUIS IS GOING TO PRESENT THIS.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: YES.

>>VINTON CERF: IT'S YOUR TURN NOW.

SO THIS, I ASSUME, LOUIS, IS A STATUS REPORT WITH WHERE WE ARE ON THAT PROCESS.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: IT'S BOTH A STATUS REPORT AND A PRELUDE TO SOME AUTHORIZING ACTION BY THE BOARD TOMORROW.

ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN WILL BE ASSISTING ME IN PARTS OF THIS PRESENTATION.

WE POSTED LATE LAST MONTH ON THE WEB SITE THE WORK PRODUCT OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION ON THE REASSIGNMENT OF DOT ORG. UNDER ICANN'S AGREEMENT, REGISTRY AGREEMENT, FOR DOT ORG WITH VERISIGN THAT WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE MIDDLE OF 2001, VERISIGN AGREED THAT IT WOULD GIVE UP THE OPERATORSHIP OF DOT ORG AT THE END OF 2002.

IT ALSO AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE – IN AN ORDERLY TRANSITION, AND IN THAT REGARD, TO PROVIDE AT NO CHARGE SOME CONTINUING SERVICES FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD.

THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION FORMED A TASK FORCE, WHICH, AFTER CONSIDERABLE WORK, CAME TOGETHER ON AN APPROACH AND SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR DOT ORG.

THE PRINCIPLES ARE, PERHAPS UNFORTUNATELY FROM THE BOARD AND STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, GENERAL. AND THERE WILL BE DETAILS THAT WILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED IN THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD.

LET ME FIRST TALK ABOUT THE TIMING CONSTRAINTS.

IN ORDER TO SELECT AN OPERATOR, FINALIZE AGREEMENTS WITH THAT OPERATOR, AND ALLOW THE OPERATOR TIME TO STEP INTO PLACE SO THAT IT CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATORSHIP OF DOT ORG AS SCHEDULED ON THE 1ST OF JANUARY, 2003, IT WILL BE NECESSARY, WE BELIEVE, FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION NO LATER THAN THE JULY/AUGUST TIME FRAME.

MAKING A DECISION – THE BOARD HAS A DECISION TO MAKE ABOUT WHETHER IT WISHES TO MAKE THE DECISION IN A REGULAR, PUBLIC MEETING, ONE OF THE THREE MEETINGS WE'RE HAVING THIS YEAR, OR PERHAPS, IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED BY SOME IN THE COMMUNITY, THE BOARD COULD TAKE COMMENT AT SUCH A MEETING AND MAKE A DECISION AT SOME LATER TELEPHONE MEETING.

BUT WAITING UNTIL THE SHANGHAI MEETING IN THE LAST WEEK OF OCTOBER WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH REASSIGNING THE DOT ORG TLD ON THE SCHEDULE THAT VERISIGN HAS AGREED TO.

IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO, AS THE STAFF RECOMMENDS, CHOOSES TO MAKE THE SELECTION AT A PUBLIC MEETING, THAT WOULD MEAN THE BUCHAREST MEETING AT THE END OF JUNE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTREMELY ACCELERATED SCHEDULE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

JUST TO LAY OUT A POSSIBLE SCHEDULE, STAFF BELIEVES THAT BY THE END OF THE FIRST WEEK IN APRIL, IT COULD POST A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AND IT COULD ASK FOR RESPONSES IN ROUGHLY 30 DAYS, THAT IS, THE END OF THE FIRST WEEK IN –

>>MARILYN CADE: MAY.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I'M SORRY, MAY, FIRST WEEK IN MAY.

THEN RECEIVE COMMUNITY COMMENT ON THAT AND EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL. MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE BOARD'S COURSE.

I THINK THAT FOLLOWING THAT APPROACH, HOWEVER, WOULD ALLOW FOR VARIOUS KINDS OF CRITICISMS THAT WERE DIRECTED AT THE TLD APPLICATION PROCESS IN 2000, NAMELY, A LACK OF INTERACTION WITH THE TLD APPLICANTS PRIOR TO THE TIME THE BOARD MAKES ITS DECISION.

THE – IT IS REALLY A DECISION FOR THE BOARD ON HOW IT FEELS THE BEST PROCESS IS. AND WE LOOK FOR THE BOARD'S GUIDANCE ON THAT POINT.

ANY KIND OF PROCESS LIKE THAT ALSO RUNS THE RISK OF SOME LEGITIMATE CRITICISM THAT IT IS MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN IT NEEDS TO BE. GIVEN A GREAT DEAL OF TIME, ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES AND POLICIES AND CRITERIA COULD BE DEVELOPED.

ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH THAT, HOWEVER, IS THAT WE HAVE NOT VERY MUCH GUIDANCE FROM THE DNSO IN ITS REPORT. AND THAT MEANS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PROCESS FOR MAKING UP AND ESTABLISHING VARIOUS KINDS OF ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.

SOME CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE LAST PROCESS. THERE WERE – AS MANY OF YOU RECALL – NINE CRITERIA THERE. BUT EVEN THOSE WERE QUITE GENERAL. AND MANY BIDDERS COMPLAINED THAT THEY WEREN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH IN TERMS OF DEFINING A TARGET THAT THEY SHOULD WRITE FOR IN THEIR BID.

I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT ONLY ALLOWING 30 DAYS FOR COMMENTS, OR FOR POSTING OF BIDS, MAY PERMIT, AND PROBABLY WOULD EASILY PERMIT, THOSE REGISTRY OPERATORS WITH – WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE ICANN PROCESS AND FAMILIAR WITH OUR OPERATIONS TO SUBMIT BIDS, BUT IT MAY MAKE IT MUCH HARDER IN TERMS OF OUTREACH FOR THOSE THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT BIDDERS TAKE A LONG TIME TO EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF PROCESS THEY'RE ENGAGING IN. AND 30 DAYS MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THAT.

WITH THAT, I THINK I'D LIKE ANDREW TO MAKE A FEW REMARKS ABOUT THE POLICY CHALLENGES OF THIS. BUT LET ME JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING. WELL, LET ME PUT ANDREW UP, AND THEN I WANT TO GO OVER WHAT SPECIFICALLY THE BOARD – WE WOULD HOPE THE BOARD COULD DO AT THIS MEETING, WHAT TOPICS IT COULD COVER.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: FOLLOWING ALEX'S INJUNCTION, LET ME TRY TO AVOID REPEATING THINGS LOUIS JUST SAID.

I WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF NOTES FOR THE BOARD ON TWO ISSUES. I THINK THE NAMES COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION DOES A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF COVERING THE WATERFRONT. BY THE WAY, THIS MIKE IS AT PAUL TWOMEY HEIGHT, SO I'M STANDING ON MY TIPTOES. SEE IF I CAN....

THE NAMES COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF COVERING THE WATERFRONT OF ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT THEY DON'T GIVE A LOT OF SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE GUIDANCE TO THE BOARD, IN PARTICULAR, ON THE POINT OF HOW TO EVALUATE WHETHER AN ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS THE NONCOMMERCIAL COMMUNITY AT LARGE. IT'S HARD TO DO. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF GUIDANCE.

ONE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS OF THE BOARD IN NOVEMBER OF 2000 WAS THE SENSE THAT YOU WERE MAKING SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS WHERE YOU WOULD PREFER TO BE MAKING OBJECTIVE DETERMINATIONS.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO AVOID THAT IN THIS PROCESS, IT SEEMS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, IN THE NONCOMMERCIAL WORLD, TO PUBLISH THEIR OWN CRITERIA, MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON THAT QUESTION.

I'VE TALKED WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR PROCEEDING IN THAT WAY.

BUT THE REASON I RAISE THIS IS BECAUSE IT RELATES DIRECTLY TO THE SCHEDULE. AS LOUIS SAID, YOU'VE REALLY – IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE DECISION AT A PUBLIC MEETING, IT'S GOT TO BE BUCHAREST OR SHANGHAI. SHANGHAI SEEMS AWFULLY LATE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

BUCHAREST REQUIRES A VERY ACCELERATED SCHEDULE.

SO THE BOARD, I THINK, WILL WANT TO SIGNAL TO THE COMMUNITY ITS INTEREST IN GETTING THAT KIND OF FEEDBACK IN THE FORM OF DEFINED CRITERIA, WHICH CAN THEN BE APPLIED TO THESE PUBLICLY POSTED APPLICATIONS.

MY ONLY OTHER NOTE IS THAT THE NAMES COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION BASICALLY ALLOWS FOR EITHER OF TWO MODELS FOR THE DOT ORG REGISTRY. ONE MODEL IS MAYBE BEST DESCRIBED AS AN EXCELLENT REGISTRY WHOSE JOB IS TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ITS REGISTRANTS, AND IF THERE'S ANY SURPLUS MONEY LEFT OVER, YOU USE IT TO REDUCE YOUR COSTS OR INCREASE YOUR SERVICES.

THE OTHER MODEL IS TO HAVE MORE OF AN INSTITUTION FOR THE NONCOMMERCIAL WORLD WHICH TAKES SURPLUS FUNDS AND THEN USES THEM FOR SOME GOOD PURPOSE.

YOU COULD IMAGINE NETWORK DEPLOYMENT, FELLOWSHIPS FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS STUDYING INTERNETWORKING, OPEN CONTENT INITIATIVES, YOU COULD IMAGINE A LOT OF POTENTIALLY USEFUL THINGS TO DO. AND THE NAMES COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION GOES AT THAT. BUT THOSE ARE STILL THE TWO MODELS, AND THEY ARE QUITE DIFFERENT.

THE FIRST MODEL IS PROBABLY MUCH EASIER TO ACHIEVE BUT MUCH LESS INTERESTING TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND POTENTIALLY A SQUANDERED OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING GOOD.

THE SECOND MODEL REQUIRES ALL OF THE THINGS THAT COME ALONG WITH TRYING TO ALLOCATE MONEY. AND THAT MAKES IT POTENTIALLY MORE POLITICIZED AND MORE DIFFICULT.

SO I THINK EITHER MODEL IS FEASIBLE. SOME GUIDANCE ON THE SECOND MODEL MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE I THINK THAT ANY SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION IN THAT AREA WOULD HAVE TO BE A TRULY BROAD-BASED, FEASIBLE, WIDELY ENDORSED MECHANISM FOR ALLOCATING THOSE KINDS OF FUNDS.

AND, AGAIN, THE FIRST MODEL, I THINK, – THE FIRST MODEL WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE PROBLEMS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MIGHT BE A LOST OPPORTUNITY.

SO THOSE ARE MY NOTES ABOUT THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. I THINK THERE'S NO PARTICULARLY GOOD ANSWER TO THE TIMING PROBLEM. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TRADEOFFS.

>>VINTON CERF: ACTUALLY, IF I COULD INTERJECT A QUESTION FOR LOUIS.

WHEN YOU PUT UP ONE OF YOUR SLIDES EARLIER, IT LOOKED TO ME AS IF THE COMMITMENT FROM VERISIGN INVOLVED A POTENTIAL OPERATION OF THE REGISTRY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE TRANSFER.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>>LOUIS TOUTON: NO. IT ONLY INVOLVES OPERATION OF THEIR NAME SERVER CONSTELLATION FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD.

>>VINTON CERF: I SEE. SO – WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR, FRANKLY, WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING A DETERMINATION – ALLOWING A DETERMINATION TO OCCUR AS LATE AS THE SHANGHAI MEETING, BUT TO ASSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF THE REGISTRY WOULD CONTINUE AND THEN WOULD BE PICKED UP MORE FULLY OVER A TRANSITION PERIOD.

PERHAPS THAT'S A – I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN OPTION AT ALL FOR US.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: JUST SOME CONCLUDING POINTS TO THE BOARD.

THE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE, VERY IMPORTANTLY, ANDREW'S – THE THING ANDREW HIGHLIGHTED ABOUT WHAT KIND OF REGISTRY ARE WE REALLY LOOKING FOR HERE IN A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE AND LOW COST, AND MAYBE SERVING SOME OTHER GOALS AS WELL, AND HOW WE COME – THE DNSO REPORT ALLOWS THAT WHOLE RANGE. HOW DO WE COME TO GIVING GUIDANCE TO BIDDERS ON HOW THE BOARD WILL VIEW WHERE WE COME OUT.

I THINK ANDREW HAS SOME GOOD SUGGESTIONS FOR SOLICITING COMMENTS FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL COMMUNITY OR THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN.

I THINK THE OTHER CONCRETE ACTIONS THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE WOULD BE AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHEDULE, AND ALSO THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FEE, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT STUART PRESENTED IN HIS PRESIDENT'S REPORT THIS MORNING, THERE IS VERY LITTLE ABILITY TO AT THIS POINT OUTSOURCE MUCH OF THE WORK. AND TO THE EXTENT THE WORK IN EVALUATING IS NOT OUTSOURCED, THE TIME REQUIRED FOR THE STAFF TO COMPLETE IT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION? MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I DO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. AND ONE OF THEM IS FOR ANDREW. AND THEN ONE IS ACTUALLY MAYBE FOR LOUIS OR ANDREW.

I'M REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY DID DRAFT A POSITION ON THIS AND ALSO PARTICIPATED ON THE TASK FORCE.

AND I DON'T HAVE THE TEXT WITH ME, BUT I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, ANDREW.

I DID NOT RECALL – I THINK – I THOUGHT WHAT WE DID WAS PROPOSE PRINCIPLES. AND I DID NOT RECALL THAT WE SUGGESTED AS CLEARLY AS YOU SEEM TO BE ARTICULATING IT TWO DIFFERENT MODELS, ONE WHICH WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT REGISTRY, AT LEAST FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY PERSPECTIVE, WE WERE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT STABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS, OUR VIEW BEING THAT NONCOMMERCIAL USERS DESERVE AT LEAST THE SAME KIND OF QUALITY OF SERVICE AND PERFORMANCE THAT COMMERCIAL USERS GET. AND I KNOW THAT IS THE FULL INTENT OF EVERYONE ON THIS.

THE SECOND OPTION THAT YOU SUGGESTED WAS THAT SOMETHING LIKE AN INSTITUTION WHICH WOULD TAKE ON ADDITIONAL ROLES, SUCH AS FUNDING DIGITAL DIVIDE PROJECTS OR TECHNICAL TRAINING, THAT THAT MIGHT BE A MORE INTERESTING MODEL.

AND I'M – I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF HAVE YOU CLARIFY FOR US.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: TAKE A LOOK UP ON THE SCREEN HERE.

WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS IN THE NARROWEST FORM, HOW DO YOU USE SURPLUS FUNDS. THAT'S THE BASIC DIVISION BETWEEN THESE TWO MODELS. YOU'LL SEE HERE THE NAMES COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION SAYS APPLICANTS SHOULD BE SPECIFIC HOW THEY PLAN TO DISBURSE SURPLUS FUNDS. THE USE OF IT FOR PURPOSES NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE REGISTRY OPERATION IS PERMITTED, PROVIDED THAT THE REGISTRY IS ADEQUATELY SUSTAINED AND THAT THE ADDITIONAL PURPOSES BEAR SOME RELATIONSHIP TO INTERNET USE, ADMINISTRATION, AND POLICY.

SO THAT'S PERMITTED, NOT RECOMMENDED. IT'S NOT PROHIBITED IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING TO THE BOARD IS, IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATIONS AMONG THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST ONE APPLICATION THAT SAYS ALL SURPLUS FUNDS ARE USED STRICTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REGISTRY. IF WE HAVE MONEY LEFT OVER, WE IMPROVE SERVICES OR CUT COSTS. THAT WOULD BE SORT OF A KIND OF BUSINESSY SORT OF MODEL.

ANOTHER WOULD SAY WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE THESE SURPLUS FUNDS FOR WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, DIGITAL DIVIDE PROJECTS OR SOMETHING.

SO MY POINT IS, IF THE BOARD HAS A PREFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, IT PROBABLY OUGHT TO SAY IT. IF IT DOESN'T, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO MAKE A VERY HARD CALL BETWEEN THESE TWO VERY WORTHY, COMPETING OBJECTIVES. THERE MAY BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND, TOO.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO COME UP – IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE SURPLUS FUNDS IN SOME WAY, THEN PROPOSALS HAD BETTER WELL HAVE GREAT DETAIL AND CLARITY, SPECIFY WHO GETS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, ACCORDING TO WHAT CRITERIA, AND HOW.

>>MARILYN CADE: SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, I WOULD SAY THAT OUR OWN VIEW WOULD BE, IN OUR DISCUSSION OF THIS, WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO – AND WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THIS. LET ME JUST SAY THIS CLEARLY – CHANGING THE PURPOSE OF THE REGISTRANT FEE IS A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT. AND I THINK FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY PERSPECTIVE, WE THINK THIS WOULD TAKE MORE EXAMINATION, WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT, WHICH –

>>LOUIS TOUTON: ACTUALLY, COULD I FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON YOUR FIRST POINT.

I THINK IN – ANDREW GAVE A SPECIFIC ASPECT OF THIS BALANCE HAVING TO DO WITH WHETHER SURPLUS FUNDS WOULD BE USED IN A PARTICULAR WAY.

ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS, AT ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM IS A PURELY – PURELY A BUSINESS RUN IN BASICALLY THE SAME WAY IT'S RUN NOW, AT THE LOWEST COST AND THE HIGHEST EFFICIENCY.

I NOTICED IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY'S MINORITY REPORT THAT IN POINT 1, THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY BELIEVES THAT DOT ORG SHOULD BECOME A RESTRICTED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, WHICH IN TERMS OF COST TO REGISTRANTS, WOULD INEVITABLY ADD CONSIDERABLE COST. SO CAN YOU RECONCILE THE TWO.

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH, LOUIS, IT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT ADD CONSIDERABLE COST.

THE VIEW OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, MOST PEOPLE KNOW THAT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, DOT ORG AND DOT NET HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED IN SOME CASES TO BE CLONES OF DOT COM. IN OTHER CASES, COMMERCIAL USERS HAVE REGISTERED THERE FOR DEFENSIVE PURPOSES.

THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY HAS MAINTAINED THAT GRANDFATHERING SHOULD BE MAINTAINED, BUT THAT THE NEW REGISTRATION SHOULD REALLY BE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF OUR SAYING IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED – HAVE BEEN STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO MOVE BACK TO THE NONPROFIT – THE NONCOMMERCIAL MODEL THAT WE BELIEVE IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR. SO THAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION, IF YOU THINK, OR THE RATIONALE, FOR THINKING IN THAT AREA.

WE ALSO – LET ME GO TO MY SECOND QUESTION AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK IF YOU THINK I HAVEN'T ANSWERED IT.

THE POINT WOULD I MAKE IS WE ARE FULLY COMMITTED AND WE URGE THE BOARD TO BE FULLY COMMITTED TO MEETING THE SCHEDULE OF SPINNING DOT ORG ON THE TIME FRAME BEFORE YOU. WE ARE URGENTLY CONCERNED THAT EVEN AS WE FACE OTHER CHALLENGES, INCLUDING REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING, THAT WE HAVE TO CONCLUDE SOME CRITICAL TASK. AND THAT SPINNING DOT ORG SHOULD BE DONE THIS YEAR. IF WE WERE TO GO BACK INTO NEW EXAMINATIONS OF WHAT IF'S, WHAT IF'S, I THINK IT COULD THREATEN THE ABILITY OF MOVING FORWARD IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY OF MEETING THAT TIME FRAME.

I WOULD HAVE A SECOND QUESTION, WHICH IS THE QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, LOUIS. THE FIRST WAS MY STATEMENT. THE QUESTION IS, IF ANY SLIPPAGE OCCURRED, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING AGREEMENTS WITH VERISIGN AND WOULD THERE BE ANY RISK IN BACKTRACKING ON ANY OF THOSE AGREEMENTS.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: IF THE SELECTED REGISTRY OPERATOR WERE UNABLE TO ITSELF ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION OF THE DOT ORG REGISTRY, I THINK YOU CAN READILY IMAGINE THE OPTIONS. BUT ONE OPTION WOULD BE FOR IT TO GO TO VERISIGN AND WORK OUT SOME INTERIM AGREEMENT. I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT VERISIGN'S ATTITUDE WOULD BE TOWARD THAT. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT AS A GOOD MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, THEY WOULD BE ACCOMMODATING.

>>MARILYN CADE: MY QUESTION IS IF ANYTHING CHANGES IN THE SCHEDULE, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE EXISTING CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY ALLOW VERISIGN TO CHANGE ANY OF THEIR COMMITMENTS?

>>LOUIS TOUTON: NO.

IF THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED NOW, TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE REGISTRY SERVICES OTHER THAN THE –

>>MARILYN CADE: BUT THE $5 MILLION AND OTHER COMMITMENTS WOULD STAY INTACT, EVEN IF THE SCHEDULE CHANGES.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I BELIEVE THAT BY ALL MEANS, THE SCHEDULE WILL NOT CHANGE ENOUGH THAT WE COULDN'T GET A NEW REGISTRY OPERATOR APPOINTED BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

IT'S REALLY THAT LAST PERIOD WHEN THEY'RE GETTING READY WHICH IS THE ISSUE.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO THERE WOULD BE NO RE-OPENING OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH VERISIGN BECAUSE OF ANY CHANGE IN THE SCHEDULE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I MEAN....

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M LOOKING FOR A YES-OR-NO ANSWER.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON THE TABLE, AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IF YOU VARY ONE ELEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT, DOES IT OPEN EVERYTHING ELSE UP?

>>MARILYN CADE: YES.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: BEATS ME.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO TALK IT OVER WITH VERISIGN.

AN AGREEMENT IS AN AGREEMENT.

IF YOU CHANGE ONE PART, PRESUMABLY EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE.

SO PROBABLY IT'S BEST TO TRY TO AVOID THAT SCENARIO.

>>VINTON CERF: LET'S TRY TO WRAP THIS UP.

THERE ARE A FEW MORE PEOPLE AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE AFTER THESE TWO, SO WE CAN BREAK FOR LUNCH.

>>HANS KLEIN: QUICK COMMENT AND A QUESTION.

I THINK THE MANTRA OF THIS MEETING IS AS STUART INTRODUCED THE MANTRA, TOO MUCH PROCESS.

LET'S MAKE MOVEMENT.

LET'S MAKE ACHIEVEMENTS.

IN THE CASE OF DOT ORG AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING AT THIS MEETING, I'D URGE THE BOARD TO TAKE STEPS TO KEEP ON SCHEDULE, DON'T GET INVOLVED IN RENEGOTIATING CONTRACTS, REACH DECISIONS, AND MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION, NOT TOWARDS RE-THINKING THINGS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S COMMITMENT TO THAT HERE

A QUESTION.

I THINK THIS TOUCHES ON WHAT ANDREW SAID.

DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING TOWARDS THE NON-COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY TO HELP DEFINE SOME CRITERIA, SOME OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA?

AND IF SO, IS THERE A SHORT TIME FRAME FOR THAT MOVING FORWARD AND HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY STEPS TOWARDS INITIATING THAT.

>>VINTON CERF: CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME.

>>HANS KLEIN: HANS KLEIN FROM COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: MY SUGGESTION IS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO AVOID HAVING TO MAKE SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATIONS OF WHO IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL COMMUNITY, A GOOD WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT IS TO ASK FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE NON-COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY TO DEFINE CRITERIA, REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES, APPLY THEIR OWN CRITERIA TO THE APPLICATIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD.

AND I'VE TALKED WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THE NON-COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY HERE ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF DOING THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE

OBVIOUSLY, THE WHOLE REASON WE POST THESE APPLICATIONS PUBLICLY IS SO ANYBODY CAN READ THEM AND ANYBODY CAN COMMENT ON THEM.

MY SUGGESTION IS THAT IN PARTICULAR, THAT VERY THORNY AND POTENTIALLY SUBJECTIVE QUESTION COULD BENEFIT FROM STRUCTURED INPUT FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY.

SO WHAT I'VE BEEN URGING PEOPLE TO DO IS QUICKLY CONVENE PEOPLE, FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A REPRESENTATIVE NONCOMMERCIAL POLICY-MAKING STRUCTURE WOULD BE, EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS AS THEY COME IN.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SET EXPECTATIONS.

HOPEFULLY THE PROPOSERS RESPOND TO THEM IN ORDER TO GET THE BLESSING OF THE PEOPLE SETTING THE CRITERIA, AND THEN THE BOARD WILL TAKE NOTE OF WHERE THE BLESSINGS FALL, PRESUMABLY, IN MAKING THE DECISION.

>>HANS KLEIN: I THINK IT'S A TERRIFIC IDEA.

AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, IT REMAINS FOR THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY TO REALLY DEFINE THAT GROUP.

SO WE SHOULD GET ON THIS.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: IT'S GOT TO BE SELF-ORGANIZED IF IT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE I THINK.

THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS THE TIME SCHEDULE.

IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SIX MONTHS TO PULL THAT TOGETHER BUT THAT GETS US TOO CLOSE TO THE END OF THE YEAR, I THINK.

>>HANS KLEIN: THANKS.

>>TIMOTHY DENTON: GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS TIMOTHY DENTON. I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE REGISTRARS' ASSOCIATION.

WE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF THE DOT ORG REDELEGATION.

WE HAVE A STATEMENT AT ICANN HYPHEN REGISTRARS.ORG.

I REFER YOU TO IT.

WE HAD A VOTE WITHIN OUR ORGANIZATION AND THIS VOTE IS SUPPORTED 24 TO NIL WITH ONE ABSTENTION THE STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE ON OUR WEB SITE IN RELATION TO DOT ORG REDELEGATION

WE ARE PLEASED WITH THE SPEED WITH WHICH THIS IS GOING FORWARD, AND WE URGE ICANN TO CONTINUE ON ITS EXISTING SCHEDULE TO GET THIS DONE AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE.

WE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS THAT ANY CHANGES TO CURRENT OPERATIONS BE ADDED TO IN A PREDICTABLE MANNER BY ANY NEW REGISTRY.

THE COMPLETE STATEMENT IS AT ICANN HYPHEN REGISTRARS.ORG.

I URGE YOU TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT IF YOU HAVE TIME, AND WE SUPPORT WHAT'S GOING ON.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT TERSE AND CLEAR STATEMENT.

I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE ADJOURN FOR LUNCH NOW, AND THAT WE RECONVENE IN AN HOUR AND A HALF.

WE'LL TAKE UP THE DOT PRO MATTER AFTER LUNCH.

(LUNCH BREAK)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers