ICANN Public Forum
Thursday, 09 December 2010
ICANN Meeting
Cartagena, Colombia


 ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***

 

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, could you take your
seats, please.  We'll be beginning in about one minute's time.

 >> Ladies and gentlemen, please remember we have headsets if you
need translation interpretation.  Headsets are located on a table
just outside of the auditorium.  And please return them back to the
table when you're finished.  Thank you.

 Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.  We're about to begin
the public forum.

 Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome chairman of the board of
ICANN, Peter Dengate Thrush.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Nancy and welcome, everybody.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  This is one of the most
exciting times of the week at ICANN.  This is when the board
assembles and gets ready to listen to the community, and this is for
you.  This is public comment to make your positions known.

 So we look forward to hearing from you both as individuals and as
representatives of the various groups that have been working, to hear
your views on the topics.

 What we try and do for this is prepare an agenda which has been
published in advance, so that you know when topics are coming up.  

 I reserve the right to modify that as the circumstances dictate. 
If it seems that we need slightly more time on one topic and there's
a sense from the community that that's the one they want to talk
about, well, we'll try and extend the time.

 And at the end of that, there's time for other things that we
haven't put on the agenda.

 So the first topic is the one that's been occupying a lot of us for
a long time, and it's the topic of the new gTLD program, and so
without further ado, I'm going to throw open the floor to you to talk
about issues in relation to the new gTLD program.

 I see there's no interest in the new gTLD program, which means we
can move on to the -- 

 Oh, I see.  Sorry.  Amadeu.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  You're forcing me.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Amadeu, thank you for being the brave
first speaker.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  In alphabetical order --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Oh, sorry.  Just before you begin, please,
for those of you who -- and Amadeu has been here and knows these
rules but not everybody does.  

 When you come to the microphone, we would like you to identify
yourself and any affiliation on behalf of whom you're speaking, and
also to keep an eye on the screen where there is a two-minute clock.  

 That's your limit, and I will cut you off at that point for the
benefit of the speakers behind you.  

 So with that, let's turn to Amadeu.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  Amadeu Abril i Abril, CORE Internet
Council of Registrars.  

 Peter, you need to keep an eye on the watch for me.  I don't see it.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes, sir.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  You're very good at that.  

 So I have a question, you know, not regarding the program or the
draft itself, but regarding, you know, the board procedures.

 More or less lots of people came here with the feeling that this
was the final RFP and many things might be final.  

 Then we are listening to some stakeholders, mainly governments,
saying there are two or three things or two and a half things that
perhaps not yet.  They don't feel that we have completed the process.

 My question is:  Do you think that we can vote tomorrow on these
things?  And if not on all of them, do you think that -- I mean, can
you explain what's the procedure that the board will follow to check
with the GAC when both parties feel they are ready for that?

 And I will just -- repeating something I said yesterday in the open
GAC session, it was the first time it was addressing the open mic at
the GAC, but it was talking to the GAC the second time.  Both times
were when I was not on the board.  

 When I was on the board, my feeling going to the GAC session was
like going to the dentist, you know, to go through it.  But, you
know, the sooner the better and, you know, the shorter the better.

 We still believe, in the community, that the board is doing a very
good job, the GAC is doing a very good job, but there is something
which is the communication with the two bodies that could be
improved, and we urge you, both bodies, to please improve that to
make sure that you can iron out the issues that are still
outstanding.  Thanks.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Amadeu, and thank you for sticking
to time.

 In general, yes, the communication issue is one that we had started
to address with -- as had the GAC by the formation of the joint
board/GAC working group which has been addressing that, and we also
see that some very interesting and helpful recommendations have been
made by the accountability and transparency review team in relation
to that.  

 So that's an ongoing, if you like, subtext.  

 In relation to this particular issue, I'm not sure what the board
is going to do tomorrow when it's faced with this.

 Remember that our job is to balance all of the competing interests.
One of the undertakings in the principles, for example, in relation
to new gTLDs is not to do so in a manner which infringes the rights
of others, and the concerns of governments about that, for example,
needs to be taken into account very carefully.

 My personal preference would be to see -- to close off all those
areas where there seems to be reasonable agreement that there is
closure, so that the community knows what's settled, and if there are
any outstanding issues remaining, that we then work on those.

 And in anticipation that there may well be some outstanding issues -
- and we have a number of very clearly marked ones, including in
relation to geographic name protection which we have written to the
GAC and said "We appear to be about to differ from your advice" -- to
help us resolve those, we have invite -- suggested a session with the
GAC in the same way that we made a lot of progress with the board
with a two-day workshop -- and I'm sorry I'm going on at length about
this but we had a very good workshop with the board and managed to
break through a lot of issues in Trondheim.  

 We think that if we got together with the GAC and had a two-day
session on a lot of issues -- on the remaining issues, that would be
very helpful in clearing the way.

 Delighted to see in the GAC communique that they've accepted that
offer and one of the resolutions tomorrow will probably be
instructing the staff to press on full steam to organize a two-day
workshop with the GAC to --

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  -- to make -- that sounded -- I mean, so I
hope that's enough.  It certainly was a long answer, but it was a
complicated question.  So let's come now to this microphone.  Steve
Metalitz.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 I'm Steve Metalitz.  You've heard me here on behalf of the
Coalition for Online Accountability many times.

 That group includes three of the largest music industry
organizations in the United States.

 Today, I've been asked to speak on behalf of 16 national and
international trade associations representing songwriters, recording
artists, music publishers, record labels, and performing rights
societies around the world.

 The coalition members represent the people that write, sing,
perform, record, manufacture, distribute and/or license over 80% of
the world's commercial music.

 We care about music and how it is created, used, and consumed over
the Internet, and this coalition wants any new music-themed gTLD to
be used productively and responsibly and not as a means to facilitate
copyright or trademark infringement.

 And in connection with this theme, three points about the latest
draft applicant guidebook.

 First, an ultra-high standard for community objection.  The
proposed final guidebook has, without adequate explanation, suddenly
raised the bar dramatically for community objection to the point
where it seems unlikely that any community objection will prevail.

 We fear that we will have no realistic ability to object if a
pirate chooses to hijack a music-themed gTLD to enable wide-scale
copyright infringement of our works.

 So we hope that the material detriment standard will be revised back.

 Second, we've taken comfort in the amount of application material
that would be made public, but this has been sharply curtailed in the
latest draft.  That's effectively limiting our ability to use this
information to assess when or how to comment on the fitness of the
applicant or the sufficiency of safeguards against malicious conduct.

 And on malicious conduct, we would like to work with ICANN and
others to ensure that best practices are developed and used to ensure
that the type of malicious behavior that our industry has faced in
the Internet environment does not occur in new gTLDs.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Steve, thanks very much, and thank you for
the precision of the issues that you raise.  Appreciate that.

 If I can recommend that as a model for other people coming to the
microphone, it's not helpful for the board just to hear generic
arguments and complaints.  

 So congratulations and thank you for the precision of that, and
thank you for that last offer that's contained to come and work with
us in relation to the malicious conduct.

 Back to that microphone.  Ron Andruff.

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Ron Andruff, RNA Partners,
member of the BC, but speaking in my own capacity and also a
potential applicant for new TLD.  

 There are three comments which have been continuously made and
echoed by members of the community, both by institutions and
individuals alike, for the past three years at every public comment
period.  And considering that ICANN is consensus-driven and it is
quite clear that we are in consensus regarding these issues, the
community is at a loss as to why we're not getting some
implementation of some key elements.  

 My hope and that of those who join me in this consensus is that the
final applicant guidebook will, in fact, include the community's
wishes.

 The first issue is community evaluation and the extreme level of
subjectivity that it entails.

 It has been often noted one objector puts a community in jeopardy
of gaining the right to manage its TLD, which is stacking the deck in
favor of the objector and that's antithetical to what the ICANN
community is trying to achieve.

 Making the scoring 13 of 16 points creates a vastly more fair
process.  So until the staff can prove to the community that 14 of 16
points is necessary, an allowance of an additional point to offset
this subjective process must be given.

 The second issue:  A lower cost for communities to apply for IDN
equivalents along with their ASCII string.  

 If ICANN will consider allowing lower prices for applicants from
less developed nations but ignore the cries of those who do not read
or write English, it is setting a double standard.  ICANN will also
be delaying the rollout of IDNs to communities by as much as two
years simply because of the long process times for each application.

 Again, until staff clearly defines its logic as to why denying
community-based applications the ability to provide IDNs for their
community members, ICANN must reduce the cost for IDN equivalents to
a cost recovery amount.

 Finally, market differentiation or, put differently, working
towards a semantic DNS must be the way forward to an orderly rollout
and expansion of the domain name system.

 Anything less will lead to duplicative registrations, user
confusion, and other issues over the longer term.

 It's incorrect to say that market differentiation --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Mr. Andruff, your time is up.

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Thank you, sir.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 You can go to the back of the queue.  There's nothing stopping
people from having multiple periods of two minutes.  So if you can
grab another one, we look forward to hearing the end of your
submissions.  

 Let's go to this side.  Dirk.

 >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Okay.  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 
My name is Dirk Krischenowski and I'm speaking on behalf of the dot
Berlin top-level domain project. 

 My first points regard the difference between wish and reality in
the gTLD process.  In ICANN's bylaws, Section 2, "Core Values,"
Paragraph 9 as written:  "Acting with a speed that is responsive to
the needs of the Internet."  

 While the number of domain names from the foundation of ICANN in
'98 to today has grown over 5,000% to more than 200 million domain
names, the number of new gTLDs has been grown only around 14.  

 14 is not the speed of the Internet.  Therefore, I call the board
of directors to set free the power of the innovation of new TLDs with
the introduction of new TLDs and approve the guidebook tomorrow on
Friday.

 My second point regards the applications for capital city names
where we asked for a universal protection of capital city names
against bad-faith actors.  

 Even if we have the support of a non-objection letter from our
government for dot Berlin, another applicant with a confusingly
similar string to dot Berlin may direct dot Berlin into an auction.

 I think the provision of a universal protection of capital city
names can easily be added with consent to the applicant guidebook.

 Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Back to that side.

 >>YALING TAN:  Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Board.  

 My name is Yaling Tan.  I'm speaking on behalf of CDNC, the Chinese
Domain Name Consortium.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Sorry.  Scribes, we've just got the wrong
name.  You've got Antony Van Couvering's name up.  

 >>YALING TAN: Ah.  Yes.  It's all right.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Could you just say your name again and
we'll just allow you a little bit of extra time at the end for this
interruption.

 >>YALING TAN: Okay.  My name is Yaling Tan.  

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you.

 >>YALING TAN: Is this correct?  Okay.  Let's proceed.  

 As an organization committed to the widespread adoption of the
Internet, the CDNC encourage ICANN to adopt CDNC's policy of
delegating paired traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese domain
names for gTLDs.  

 We strongly believe that delegating only one version of a Chinese
gTLD to an applicant will deprive the registry operator, CDN
registrant, and the Chinese users worldwide of the ability to
properly use CDNs and, hence, impede their use of the Internet when
navigating using Chinese domain names.

 And we have -- we provide with the following advices to ICANN to
adopt.  

 Point one is to amend the gTLD applicant guidebook to reflect
paired delegation of simplified Chinese and the traditional Chinese
version of domain names to one applicant at one time.

 If the applicant -- if the application is successful, the Chinese
domain name TLD will be treated as a paired delegation and implement
it as separate NS delegations.

 And point two is, divide the string similarity paired discussions
in the gTLD applicant guidebook into two parts.  

 One is a string similarity panel for proposed labels in alphabetic
and phonetic scripts, and the second one will be Chinese domain name
evaluation panel for proposed labels in Chinese characters.

 My third point is to amend the registry agreement to reflect that
the CDN and its preferred variants will be seen as one TLD for
review, approval, and contractual purpose, per current practice at
second level for Chinese TLDs.

 CDNC has posted up our suggestions to ICANN's public comment Web
site.  CDNC thanks ICANN for allowing IDN at top level and we would
appreciate that so much if ICANN would listen to the community and
make a workable variant policy.  

 We'd like to work with ICANN to ensure that an acceptable
implementation of CDN TLDs is feasible as part of the first round of
the new gTLD process.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you very much.  

 I've had an indication that Harald, who has been very helpful in
advising the board in relation to variants, wants to make a comment.

 >>HARALD ALVESTRAND:  Thank you very much.  

 I believe that it is possible to integrate some aspect of that. 
ICANN has undertaken to investigate the matter of variants in order
to make some forward progress.  We are definitely going to try to
look at what can be done to facilitate the usage of the Chinese
scripts without attempting to solve the apparently unsolvable problem
of solving all problems for all scripts.

 So we hope that we can achieve a good outcome that will satisfy all
of us, and soon, and look forward to looking -- to working with you
in bringing this forward.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Harald.  

 And a further comment from Dennis, who has chaired the board's
working group on this.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:  Testing.  Oh, yes, I managed the technology. 
Thank you, Peter.

 Yes, to follow on from what Harald said, you will remember that the
board instructed the CEO to develop an issues report in the area of
variants for new gTLDs.  That was picked up by the staff under the
supervision and oversight of the ESWG, the board ESWG working group. 
That's the ES working group.

 And I'm happy to say that significant progress has been made.  

 There is a proposal being developed for -- and you'll see a
resolution tomorrow for an issues project, a variant issues project --
in fact, a set of projects -- which will try and establish what the
issues are around variants in new gTLDs in a number of scripts, one
of which will be the Chinese script, and teams will be set up to try
and establish, as quickly as possible, what the issues are and derive
from that specifications and how the delegations may be done.  

 We understand your anxiety and we look forward to discussing it in
the -- with you in the light of the resolution that the board will
pass -- hopefully pass tomorrow.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Dennis.  Let's go to this side. 
Mikey.

 >>MIKEY O'CONNOR:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman.  There we go.  

 My name is Mikey O'Connor.  I'm the now retired junior co-chair of
the vertical integration working group and I wanted to come and let
you know that I wanted to thank the board for what I think is a very
good decision with regard to vertical integration and also support
the process by which that decision was made.

 I think one of the things that we as ICANN need to think about is
how we make decisions.

 Sometimes decisions are well made by consensus.  Sometimes they're
not.  In the case of the vertical integration process, that turned
out to be a decision that didn't lend itself to being made on a
consensus basis, so I want to expunge the record of the word
"failure" because an outcome of consensus is to arrive at a place
where you discover you don't have consensus.

 At that point that doesn't mean that you can't make a decision.  It
means that you need to make it a different way.  I think the board
acted entirely correctly in proceeding the way it did and I will now
reveal to all in the working group that which has never been revealed
before, which is my opinion about vertical integration.  I think you
made a great decision, and I just wanted to say thanks to you all.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  You see, people, you are allowed to come
to the microphone and say nice things about the process as well, so...

 Just in case anybody thought there was a rule about that.  You can
do that.  

 Mikey, thanks for that.  

 Let me repeat the e-mail comments I shared with you and the group.  

 The board thanked you and your other chair very much for the work
that was done.

 It's interesting to the board that there hasn't really been any
criticism that we've seen of the decision itself.  Most people seem
to have either accepted or embraced it and the major talking point
has been the process by which the board reached that decision and we
are in the process of working out, in conjunction with the minutes of
the meeting, a published statement of the full rationale for the
process.  

 So hopefully that will answer the only remaining question about
vertical integration.  Now, Antony Van Couvering.

 >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING:  Thanks, Mikey, for having to follow you.

 The promise and beauty of ICANN -- and it is beautiful -- is that
it's multistakeholder.  That multiple voices are heard.  And that out
of many, we can act as one.

 That promise, we've seen, is really under threat.

 Instead of multiple voices being heard, considered, and a
compromise being reached within ICANN, some groups are going outside
of the process.  Instead of convincing their peers, they are lobbying
governments, and governments, unaware of all the facts, are listening.

 This has to stop.

 We've heard -- we've had many meetings with intellectual property
concerns who have brought forward their valid points and their
concerns, and many concessions have been made to them.

 But instead of working within the community, they're taking second
and third bites at the apple available to them, and only to them,
because of their wealth and special access to power.

 Governments, for their part, need to really fully inform themselves
of the issues and of all points of view.

 The GAC can become a respected member of this community and not
just one imposed on it by rejecting lobbying efforts by those with
the wealth and the access to the corridors of power.

 Decisions at ICANN need to be made based on facts and good-faith
compromise by the community.

 If, instead, decisions are based on fear, ICANN doesn't need more
meetings.  It needs some psychiatrists.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING:  And if the will of the community continues
to be thwarted by a few powerful people working in back corridors, it
may need an undertaker.

 We've seen the first serious threat to the unity of the root in a
while in the peer-to-peer DNS initiative undertaken by Peter Sunde of
Pirate Bay.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Antony, your time is up.

 >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING:  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Let me share the concern that you express.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  It is a worry to the board when people go
outside the process, and we look forward to the day when somebody
approaches a government with a problem that's being dealt with at
ICANN, the government response is, "Don't bother us, take it to
ICANN, that's the place for those issues to be resolved."

 So let's come to this microphone.  Philip.

 >>PHILIP CORWIN:  Good afternoon.  Philip Corwin, counsel for the
Internet Commerce Association, representing domain name investors and
developers.  

 And to set my remarks in context, ICA members own and manage
approximately 10% of all gTLD domains and are actively -- I know our
members are looking actively at new TLDs as both investors and
registrants, and we've just filed detailed comments.  Be happy to
work with ICANN staff on the refinements I'm going to mention now.

 Two principal concerns.

 On the three strikes rule for UDRP losses for applicants, we're
concerned the UDRP is not consistent or predictable.  That needs to
be addressed down the road in UDRP reform.  But we think that this
three strikes rule needs to take portfolio size into account. 
There's a big difference between losing three -- if you have 300
domains versus 300,000.  It should look at your overall record if
you've won the significant majority of UDRPs brought against you you
shouldn't be considered a bad actor.  

 And if you've used the UDRP appeal process, gone under national
law, and want a reversal of the initial decision, that should not be
counted in the record.  

 And also, to balance the things, those who have tried to steal
domains through repeatedly abuse of the UDRP and have been found
repeatedly to be reverse domain name hijackers, there should be a
similar rule.

 On the URS, we're somewhat dismayed that the board changed the
response time from 20 to 14 days which was part of the unanimous STI
RT recommendations adopted by the GNSO.

 We would hope that there would be some better guidance -- not
inflexible rules but guidance -- on when good-faith exceptions will
be granted.

 And finally, we want to -- and we hope the URS providers are put
under contract, which is another recommendation.

 Finally, want to commend CEO Beckstrom for his remarks in the GAC
meeting the other day about the ease of recognizing fears versus the
inability to recognize benefits.

 Had the public Internet been put on hold until all the industries
be disrupted by it, had all their concerns alleviated, we would still
be waiting for it and would not have realized all the benefits. 
Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Back to this side.

 >>SCOTT SEITZ:  I'm Scott Seitz with dot gay, and I think my
concerns have been voiced and are going to be continued to voice
regarding the TLD -- gTLD process for communities and the possibility
of losing points that were gained, very honestly, to people who don't
necessarily have the same bandwidth or responsibilities in the
community of the endorsers that were -- that we and other gTLDs are
going to have.

 So I -- we're going to be filing edits to the -- or recommendations
to the weighting process specifically focusing in on the two points
for community and I'm sure there are going to be two or three other
suggestions that are coming in, and I -- and none of us want to slow
this process down but I encourage the board to act what's being
said.  

 Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  This side.

 >>JOHANNES LENZ-HAWLICZEK: My name is Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek.  I'm
managing director of dot hotel.  I have stated before in front of
this forum that we are going to apply for a TLD for the globally
hotel industry and that we do this with the support from hotel
associations worldwide such as the international hotel and restaurant
association.

 We appreciate the value proposition of this new TLD.

 I want to make a short comment on trademark protection.

 We understand the concerns of trademark owners with regard to
defensive registrations and we have discussed this issue with our
partners in the hotel industry.

 As a consequence, we have created a protected names list, which
includes the trademarks of the 100 largest hotel companies.  Thank
you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you very much.  Left-hand side.

 >>ELLIOT NOSS:  Elliot Noss from Tucows.  Peter I want to start by
really applauding the spirit and, Heather, you as well of the board
and the GAC later in the week to get together and to start to evolve
and take your relationships to a new level.

 I think the idea of an off-site is fantastic and I think it's
important that we recognize that this is a new experiment in
governance and now that we've moved from some devolution of power
from the U.S. Government to the rest of the world, that you'll have
to feel your way around the relationship, and that's okay.  And so I
want to just encourage the positive spirit and progress.

 I feel compelled to also add to that that the stakes are now higher
than they've ever been.

 The Internet is an agreement.  It is a series of protocols.  Antony
saved me a few seconds by highlighting the first example.

 We are seeing the first, from my perspective, serious fraying
around the edges.  Antony mentioned the Pirate Bay situation.  You
know, there you were talking about what I would call extra-legal
domain seizures.  The WikiLeaks example is even scarier for me.  And
it's not that the specifics of the right or wrong of the actors in
that example matter, but it's the confidence that Internet users
start to lose in the role and ability of governments in relation to
the Internet.

 ICANN is seen as part of that mix.

 I strongly encourage and urge that we keep to the published time
lines and that whether we can agree on all issues that GAC and the
board come out with agreement -- because we don't want this issue to
be the archduke Ferdinand for the Internet.  Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks Elliot.

 Mr. Foody.

 >>PAUL FOODY:   Hello, gentlemen.  Two minutes; okay?

 ICANN was set up under a white paper dated June -- July the 1st,
1997, which asked for the domain name system to be privatized in a
manner that increase competition and facilitates international
participation in its management.

 The fact that we've got the IDNs now is great.  That introduces
people to the -- that introduces the global perspective.

 But the trouble is, we're talking about competition, improving
competition.  Harald Alvestrand, back in Seoul, suggested that he
thought that the root of a million names would be a good thing.  In
Brussels, he corrected himself.  He said the root of a million names
would be an incredibly bad thing.  I think I'm accurate in saying
that.

 He's on the board of maybe 15, 20, I haven't counted.  And despite
the fact that what he said in Seoul was totally opposite to what he
said in Brussels, not one of you said, "Actually, I think you're
wrong, Harald."

 Given that, given the fact when we're talking about competition,
and this is a big deal, the Internet is a vast -- vastly valuable --
it's the most important tool known to man yet devised.  And we are
giving it away.  And yet we haven't done a study yet that will
determine if we are going to improve competition.

 And it won't improve competition, because what we're doing is we
are replicating the dot com system at the top root level.  We are
giving the bigger corporations the opportunity to object to string
similarities and to have protection at the lower levels.

 And all this, at the moment I can get a dot com domain for $10.  In
the future it's going to cost me a million for the first if we work
on the basis of the figures that we've mentioned before.

 I'm out of time.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that.  And thank you for
watching the time.  I appreciate the response we are getting to that.

 Let me just change tack slightly.  One of the other features of
ICANN operations is remote participation.  This forum has remote
participants, and I am going to ask now if staff can read out any of
the comments or questions that are coming in from the public forum.

 Filiz.

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   Hello.  Filiz Yilmaz here.  I will be reading a
remote comment and I apologize if I am misreading the name.  It is
from (saying name) Khalid from Ministry of ICT of Indonesia.

 I think the most important of GAC result is not only commit that
written in the paper, but GAC don't show yet is the power to approach
other parties in ICANN.

 This is not all about organized two-day meetings agenda, but how
the leader of GAC have special approach, skill to approach and to
show his power to another parties.

 GAC, as advisor committee, should be tough in applying their
advice, not only to draft deadlines.

 Thanks.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Filiz.  Are there any other
online comments?

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   Not at the moment.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   We will come back to this side of the
microphone.  Mr. Tindal.

 >>RICHARD TINDAL:   I am Richard Tindal, and I am a prospective TLD
applicant.  I would like to commend the board for the great care you
are taking on this very important program.  I apologize for my voice.
It's been cracking.

 I see it as a historic event and therefore the care you are taking
is very important in my view.  In particular, the attention you have
paid to trademark protections is greatly appreciated.  

 As a prospective TLD operator, I appreciate the tools you have
given me to protect my customers and to trademark holders.  

 I intend to compete with dot com, and to the extent I am
successful, my customers will enjoy far greater protections than
enjoyed by dot com customers.

 I think there are a few outstanding issues to be resolved in the
Applicant Guidebook, and I look forward to that occurring other the
next month or two.  I look forward with great interest and have
analyzed the advice provided by the GAC over the last three years. 
My analysis shows over 70% of the requests made by the GAC are now
embodied in the Applicant Guidebook.

 Given the extremely important role played by the GAC, I think
that's a completely appropriate that they have achieved such a IRI
high proportion of their requests.  And should some additional pieces
of GAC advice need to be included in the book, I would support that
also, depending upon the nature of those.

 Finally, closure of the Applicant Guidebook does not mean finality -
- does not mean the finality of our ability to make future changes. 
All registries are subject to the policy development process.  All
registries can and will have future requirements placed upon them.

 Entry of the new TLDs to the root will not occur until 2012, and it
will be spread out over a 36-month period.

 There will be adequate time and opportunity to assess impacts and
to make any adjustments to the program as it unfolds.

 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Richard.  I might approach you
for that analysis of the treatment of GAC advice before we go to that
meeting with the GAC.  I think it would be quite helpful for us both
to know exactly what that pattern and what the detail, and of course
what the 30% of unresponded or unacknowledged or unagreed to pieces
is.

 Thank you.

 >>RICHARD TINDAL:   I do have copyright on that, but if you can
provide me with adequate protections, I will provide it to you.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   That's all right, I happen to know a
copyright lawyer or two.

 [ Laughter ].

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes, thank you.

 >>DANIEL SCHINDLER:  Good afternoon.  My name is Daniel Schindler. 
I would like to make a few brief comments in connection with the
launch of new TLDs as a potential applicant.

 Most importantly, I'd like to say that I like the proposed final
Applicant Guidebook.  The community and the staff should take much
credit for it.

 That doesn't mean I think it is perfectly suited for my benefit,
but it most certainly provides a framework within which any
reasonably minded person can operate successfully and responsibly.

 What I don't like, to put it mildly, is the same individuals taking
every opportunity at every microphone to spew out the same scare
mongery based on no foundation and which has been discounted over and
over again for many years.  I have heard nothing new for so long.

 The so-called trademark lobby is demanding protections online far
in excess than what they get off-line for which there have been
proven remedies in law for more than a century.  For example, I asked
a well-known trademark attorney how long it would take if I opened a
store in the mall and had my sign writer's name my store in his
global brand name.  He admitted it could take four years to have me
remove it.  

 The consensus reached by the STI upon which the trademark lobby
agreed will ensure the solution to their problem online is resolved
in about four weeks.  And they are still not happy.

 I'm not saying they are not entitled to their opinion, too, but the
time for more caution long since became constant procrastination.

 As I posted previously this week, some people will never ever be
happy, but that is no reason for further delay.  So I implore the
board to open the application window as a matter of urgency and
credibility.  Nobody can argue that ICANN has rushed this process,
and nobody could possibly conceive every possible issue for the
future launch of any product, even if we wait for DAG 99.

 With reference to the application window, it makes no sense to me
to have the window open for more than a couple of weeks.  Given there
is no advantage in applying early, why would anyone hand over
$185,000 just to be sat on for several weeks by ICANN.  Consequently,
everyone will wait until the last days and create a logjam for the
appraisers.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Your time is up.

 >> Congratulations for the community and the board and staff for
getting us so close to the finishing line.

 Thank you.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   And happy birthday to you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   I guess that is a sign of devotion,
coming to ICANN on your birthday.  Thank you, Daniel.

 Let's go to the other side, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I am
speaking as the chair of the business constituency.  The business
constituency represents the interest of the broader business
community at ICANN.  And I am going to note for the record that it is
in our charter that we adhere and respect the core values and
principles of ICANN, which in fact is also a requirement of the board
and the staff and all other parties at ICANN, to listen attentively
to all views.

 I think that comment came because I am hearing people object to
hearing from others, and it's important we continue to hear.

 And now for the comment about the B.C.'s formal position.

 We have responded formally to previous versions of the Applicant
Guidebook and have undertaken such a process again and have filed our
formal comments.

 I will summarize the overarching perspective, and then leave it to
other individual B.C. members who will identify themselves as
speaking for the B.C. when they address a particular topic, for your
convenience and the understanding of the full community.

 The B.C. continues to support managed responsible introduction of
new gTLDs.  We are not saying no new gTLDs.  We are saying do it
right, and do it at the right time.  And in order to do that, we must
complete the work on the overarching issues and incorporate that work
in a reflective, responsible manner into the elements of the
Applicant Guidebook.

 We continue to prioritize community-facing TLDs in order to avoid
just cloning or duplicating the space.

 We, in fact, will say you're not done yet, so I'll make a comment
about being 70% done.  If you take a cake out of the oven at 70%
done, you will have something other than a cake.

 We need to be careful about thinking that 70% done is enough.  We
need to complete the work and then move forward with new gTLDs.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Marilyn.  This side.  Jeff.

 >>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN:  Thank you.  Jeff Brueggeman with AT&T.  A
couple of specific points on the process and we are at a critical
juncture now with the new TLDs, and I think a lot of the discussion
today is how to bring it to closure.  And one point I want to make
is, Peter, accept your invitation to make a positive comment about
the recently completed phase 2 of the economic study.  It reflects
what we have long called for, which is it actually looks at some
experience with new domain names and we think there is very relevant
information from that analysis about the potential cost to new domain
names, but also the potential benefits and how to learn from
experience and manage the risks that are created by a significant
expansion.

 So we would urge that that be incorporated into the process.

 More broadly, I would like to reiterate the B.C. position generally
that it's important to think about all these issues holistically in a
way that the process to date has really not facilitated.  There is a
clear interrelationship between trademark abuse, malicious conduct
and the economic analysis of the cost and benefits that would really
benefit the process.  And a sense of closure on the issues to assess
those issues together.

 And finally, a broader point is that however ICANN decides to move
forward with the new domain names and makes decisions that some
community members undoubtedly will be unhappy with.  It's very
important to have a full, thorough, reasoned decision that explains
the treatment of the input that was provided by the community.  I
think this will be very important for all of us, regardless of our
position.

 And, Peter, maybe your comment on the vertical integration issue
might be a model for a way to bridge the gap between the detailed
public input and the high-level board resolutions that don't really
facilitate that type of thorough explanation for the decision.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  I am going to stop before we
come to the next one and go back to Filiz.  I see the light is on
which is my signal there's public comment.

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   Yes.  We do have another one from Paul
Tetterfield (phonetic), grant project management.  The lack of board
comment analysis and community discussion on the economic studies is
very concerning, and as a result there are still significant serious
concerns buried in the detail.

 One quick example to show the depth and seriousness of these
issues, what happens if Microsoft secures dot search?

 How does Google or any startup search provider, for that matter,
feel about it?

 Microsoft may be happy to allow Google to register Google.search if
they can point video.search and news.search to Bing.

 If there's the wholesale migration to the right of the dot, then
yes, this matters because once users come to perceive entities to the
right of the dot as superior, we have managed to create a series of
private monopolies in perpetuity in every vertical in the world. 
This allows a contracted party can use the implicit branding of the
DNS to compete against all others in their market who are forced to
compete from the second level.

 Trademark law doesn't allow such advantage nor should ICANN.  I
really fail to see how granting the most economically advantaged
private corporations such implicit DNS branding advantage can ever be
in the public interest.

 I can see this would be contracted parties' interest, and I can see
ICANN's interest.  But where is the public interest required under
the Affirmation of Commitments?

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Is there another one there,
Filiz?  No?  We'll come back to you later on.  Philip Sheppard.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   Thank you, it's Philip Sheppard speaking on
behalf of the B.C. and that was almost a planted question, bearing in
mind the comments I want to make.

 We were very encouraged by what we heard in the interaction between
the GAC and the board this week.  It's clear government had been
listening attentively and carefully, doing good analysis and
understanding the concerns of business.  We heard a very good summing
up from that from an incoming board member when he explained there
were costs and benefits.  But in this bizarre world, the benefits are
falling on one side the and costs on the other.

 The input we have been giving you over trademarks and rights
protection over the last few years has to do with one thing and one
thing only.  That's protecting the reputation of those currently
doing business.  All we are trying to do is to secure a set of new
TLDs that allows benefits to come out for the guys who want that
without imposing costs on a different set.

 I would encourage you to look at the latest version of the comments
made from the B.C.  We have done them this time as a sort of cut and
paste.  We have taken the precise wording in the DAG and we
recommended precise changes to it to make very clear what we're
suggesting in terms of changes, with small paragraphs on
justification.

 One key detail to bring to your attention.  The board did some
excellent work at your Norway retreat recently, and you tried to
craft some wording which is related to the qualifying reasons why
trademarks may be in sunrise or some of the other rights protection
mechanisms.  The wording was good, with you not quite good enough in
scaling globally.

 You will see in our paper some suggestions which take precisely
your objective, but make it in way that scales in more countries.  In
essence the board's wording was rather more specific to the U.S.
regime and did not take into account other trademark regimes.

 The objective is the same, and that's something that you will find
in our submission.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Philip.  Look forward to
reading those, particularly if you have taken the care that you say
to reflect them the way you have done.

 Let's come to this side and hear from dot New York.

 >>TOM LOWENHAUPT:  I am Tom Lowenhaupt.  In am director of
Connecting NYC, Inc. We are a New York state not-for-profit that
focuses on the development of the dot NYC top-level domain as a
public interest resource. I appreciate the great work that you have
in this incredibly difficult process and I see forever moving closer
and closer to fruition.  I went to many of the meetings this week and
heard a lot of perhaps valid objections and thought if you wanted to
course through tomorrow, if you want to adopt something, I am going
to suggest city TLDs are a good measured course through the process. 
And I will provide two of the many reasons that I posted yesterday on
our blog.

 For those concerned about intellectual property, city TLDs reduce
the likelihood of trademark confusion.  The dot cat experience
attests to this.  Additionally, cities are responsible players with
ready resource through the nation state structures.  City TLDs will
provide a test for those concerned about the human and technical
readiness of the ICANN and the root.

 So I give my minute to the guy behind me here.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Very generous.  Thank you very much. 
Let's go to the go behind you, over on that side.

 >>STEVE DELBIANCO:   Thank you.  Steve DelBianco with Net Choice
and a member of the business constituency.  I would like to pick up
on something.  Peter and Bruce were there in a workshop this morning
on joint applicant support, which is the notion of providing help for
applicants who need money or other assistance.  

 The question would be about your Nairobi resolution, the one that
gave birth to that joint applicant group.

 In that resolution, you have a whereas that mentions the needs of
registrants and users, and you acknowledge the need to meet
organizational objectives.  For instance, the Affirmation of
Commitments which calls for global public interest of users.

 But what leads me to conclude, though, is that joint applicant
support group focusing exclusively on applicants and not on users.  

 The business constituency's official position is that applicants
for new strings should be encouraged to offer versions of their
string in other scripts and languages, especially for communities
that would not otherwise be served.  And that assistance and
encouragement would include discounts for these bundled applications.

 My question for you is would the board please clarify the Nairobi
resolution.  Was it only about needy applicants or was it also about
getting the applicants we need to serve the global public interest of
small linguistic communities.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Steve.  That sounds like a
working group discussion rather than for the board to consider.  I
know were you raising it with the working group.  Can you make sure
that comes through that process?  That will be the most efficient for
us.

 >>STEVE DELBIANCO:   It needs to show up in the guidebook, and we
are down to the final days on that.  And that's why I ask you to
clarify as soon as you can.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay.  Point noted.

 Thank you.  Let's come to this side, to dot music.

 >>CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS:   Hi, this is Constantine Roussos from the
music domain initiative.  I have expressed the same concerns in two
other sessions this week and to some individual board members.  I
echo Steve Metalitz's comments in regards to a legitimate music led
effort, being unable to reach the 14 points under community
application.  Unfortunately, the current community evaluation
criteria is prone to gaming and loopholes.  A general legitimate
community music top-level domain should be consistent to ICANN's
Affirmation of Commitments in regards to transparency,
accountability, openness, international participation, and ensuring
fairness and preventing harm.  A music top-level domain should be a
value added to the music community, not a nuisance.  It goes to
ensure the music industry and the legitimate international music
community is assured a safe top-level domain or equivalent that
prevents malicious conduct and music related trademark or copyright
infringement.

 Piracy hurts the music community. 

 Another request is that the third-party evaluators are given the
appropriate instructions, guidelines, and flexibility to identify and
solve all the concerns of the at-large legitimate global
multistakeholder music community.  I applaud the ICANN board for the
decision on vertical integration to spur innovation and competition.

 I am also excited to be given the opportunity to provide
exceptional value and brutal efficiency to the music community in a
responsible manner.  Thank you for listening and thank you for having
me here.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for your submission.  Let's go
to the other side.

 Thank you.

 >>YANG YU:  Thank you.  Yang Yu with China Organizational Name
Admission Center, what is abbreviated as CONAC.

 We are the member of CDNC, and I am standing here to appreciate
Dennis and Harald's comment.  And I am willing to support my
colleague Yaling's comment regarding variant issues.  The Chinese
characters is really a tough job.  And I am looking forward to the
variant report which you have just mentioned, because we trust ICANN
and we want to assist your work in the future.

 And just keeping in mind that if you -- should you need any further
assistance, (inaudible), and your decision just make the future of
the over 1.6 billion people.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes, thanks to that.  I see Dennis wants
to reply.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you for that.

 Just to let you know that the issues project will, by design
involve the community which has the issues.  So it will be very much
community based and in terms of the Chinese scripts very much based
on the subject matter knowledge in the Chinese community.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

 So this side, Bret.

 >>BRET FAUSETT:   My name is Bret Fausett.  I am an attorney in
private practice, and I am speaking to the board right now from the
perspective of an applicant.

 Having gone through multiple iterations of the Applicant Guidebook,
we have seen the first set of comments focused on the broad policy
choices the board should make in implementing new TLDs.  Over
multiple iterations, we are now down to very fine details.  And I
looked through the public comments this morning, including some I
have submitted a couple of hours ago, and they are on the details of
corrections that should be made to language, Claire any indications
that applicants don't quite understand.  And while I very much hope
that tomorrow the board will pass a resolution meaningfully moving
forward on new TLDs and including approving the guidebook, I hope
that that resolution will give staff the ability to look at those
fine details that people have put in over the last couple of weeks
and make corrections to that guidebook before it becomes final.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Bret.  I can give an absolute
assurance that the board and the staff pay great deal of attention to
all public comment, and that will be taken into account, and the
balancing exercise, of course.  Not everybody gets what they want in
their public comment, but it is noted.

 Thank you.  Werner Staub.

 >>WERNER STAUB:   My name is Werner Staub.  I speak in my personal
capacity as someone who is not sure whether he is sad or proud to
wear this medal of 30 ICANN meetings.

 The reason, of course, is the time it takes us.  And in this
context I would like to build upon the metaphor that Marilyn that is
just brought about the cake in the oven.

 Indeed, there is sought likelihood that some of the cake is not
done yet, but the top of it, in this very big cake, is getting burned
and has been quite badly burned already.

 Now, there is a solution to it which we all know, and we somehow
seem to be forgetting it all the time.  Make smaller cakes more
often.  That's easier.  If you just have one oven, we can use time to
divide it up.

 You make smaller rounds.  We should at least give an opportunity
for people to go on later rounds.

 Right now, we are pushing everybody, whether they are ready to not,
just to defensively jump on the next round.  This is particularly
true for brand TLDs where it can be a very big risk not to be there
when the competitor has a brand TLD.

 Now talking about the top of the cake, so to speak, the fruit is
being burned.  And right now, I have a comment about how we should
deal with that.

 Namely we have this scoring system.  I have never been a friend of
it, but it introduces a couple of criteria.  One of these criteria is
pretty wrong.  Namely, we want people to have card-carrying members,
and only card-carrying members of that community can make
registrations, and we get a point for that.  That is not a good
idea.  

 However, we forgot the very important criterion; namely, that the
community-based registry should be accountable to the community.  And
there is no requirement currently in the Applicant Guidebook for the
applicant to provide proof of accountability to the community.

 That's all.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Let's come to this side.  J.
Scott.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:   I am J. Scott Evans.  I am president,
Intellectual Property Constituency.  I am also senior director of
global brands and trademarks at Yahoo!.  And I am a member of the
Board of Directors for the intellectual property -- International
Trademark Association on the Executive Committee there.

 I want to say to the board that I completely agree with the
comments we heard from the GAC the other day.  My 9,000 members tell
me we are not done.  And there are members who are very supportive of
new gTLDs.

 There are trademark owners who are very excited about the ways they
can use new TLDs, but they want to make sure that it's done correctly.

 NTIA, my company, we have been here all along, participating to
find reasonable solutions to the problems.  And we want to continue
to do so.

 This process is being watched closely by governments and
participants who aren't here, and we need to make sure that we move
through this responsibly and that this is a success.

 I wish a success for everyone involved who has given their time,
their effort, their talents, most of it unpaid.

 I would like this to be a success.  We are here to help it be a
success, but we still have issues that must be worked out.

 I thank you for your time, I thank you for listening, and I just
want to you know we're here to help.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks very much.

 Back to the other microphone.

 >>CASPAR VELTHEIM:  Hi, there.  My name is Caspar Veltheim.  I am
working for the company Bayem Connect that is actually applying for a
variant top-level domain in Germany.  

 I was talking to a person yesterday, actually, somebody who has
been involved within the ICANN community for years.  He has been
there since the beginning and he told me about the first ICANN
meeting in Los Angeles 12 years ago.  They were sitting in a room
with several people from IBM, NSI, and the U.S. government, actually,
and they were talking about the introduction of new gTLDs.  And he
said, guess what?  They had the exact same pros and plans that we
have today.  The concerns whether the benefits outweigh the costs and
of course the trademark issues.

 So he said here we are now 12 years later and we are in the same
spot as back then.  Of course a lot of progress has been since then. 
But overall, it's the same issues.

 Certain people and of course trademark holders will never be in
favor of new gTLDs and will keep on using their channels to continue
lobbying against them.  So we can delay the process again one year,
two years, three years.  I don't know.  But however these people who
stand for -- No.  Sorry.

 But no new information will be gathered.  It doesn't matter how
long the process still will take.  There's not much more that we can
find out, and I think we should realize that.  We will be in same
spot as we are today.

 The only thing that will probably happen is that people who want to
apply for new gTLDs might not be around anymore because of the
endless delays and the costs they have.  However, these are the
people who stand for innovation, progress, and competition, and they
are the ones who will help to create new jobs and new opportunities.

 Also I want to add that there's a discussion about TLDs confusing
the Internet users.  In Germany, we actually are used to multiple
TLDs.  There is no confusion.  We use dot ee, dot de, dot eu, dot
com, dot info, and we know that dot AT, NL, or even dot PL.

 I'm very aware the process needs to be done in the right way.  But
most things already in the guidebook are done in the right way.

 So please approve it and sort out the last two, maybe three issues
without any delay for the proposed timeline.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Excuse me.  Thank you.  Yes, now to this
side.

 >> TOWELA JERE:  Thank you.  My name is Towela Jere.  And I'm a
second-time fellow in the ICANN fellowship program.  And I would like
to commend the board and the community for that program.  Standing
here actually speaking on behalf of the African Union Commission,
which has observer status to the GAC.

 The African Union Commission recognizes the work of ICANN in
developing the new gTLD program and further recognizes the role and
work of the GAC in providing advice to the ICANN board regarding the
new gTLDs and the implications thereof.

 The African Union Commission welcomes the new gTLD process insofar
as it is handled responsibly and allows for and promotes wider
participation and inclusiveness in the Internet ecosystem.

 The AUC takes this opportunity to inform the community that at
their third meeting held in Abuja in July 2010 the African Union
Conference of Ministers responsible for ICTs in their declaration
requested the African Union Commission to set up the structure and
modalities for the implementation of a dot Africa project.  Following
this directive, the AUC has convened a task force of experts to
define the strategies and the means for implementing dot Africa.

 The AUC intends to follow a transparent and open process towards
implementation of a dot Africa registry consistent with the desire to
use the dot Africa namespace for the benefit of the continent and in
consideration of the need to uphold public interest in its
implementation.

 The AUC further seeks to ensure that delegation of gTLDs that have
continental significance such as dot Africa and variants and
derivatives such as dot Afrik and dot Afrika are handled in a manner
consistent with the desire of the ministers and under guidance of the
Africa Union.  

 The AUC requests the support of the board, the GAC and the entire
community in ensuring that the objectives of preserving the dot
Africa namespace for the benefit of Africa are upheld in assisting
the AUC to realize this important objective.  Thank you.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  Thank you very much for sharing the views of the
African Union.  And thank you very much for coming here for the
second time as part of the fellows program.  Let's give her a hand. 
Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Sorry.  To the other side.  Thank you.

 >>BOB HUTCHINSON:  I'm Bob Hutchinson from Dynamic Ventures
speaking as an implementer of internet technology.  ICANN serves two
ends:  Names and numbers.  The immense effort being expended on names
and the new gTLD program should be matched with a similar effort to
support the community during the IPv4 to IPv6 transition.  

 The IANA contract is about numbers, and it's up for renewal in
2011.  At the same time, ICANN will be entirely focused on gTLD
applications and the launch process.  ICANN's relatively small effort
to encourage adoption of IPv6 will leave the organization vulnerable
to criticism when we hit the wall on IPv4 addressing -- addresses,
probably next year and there will probably be an ISP in the
developing world who will be the first to hit the wall.

 Therefore, to avoid a perfect pending storm, would like to see
ICANN spend more resources on supporting the adoption and the future
of the Internet IPv6.

 [ Applause ]

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:  Peter, can I just ask a question of that?  >>PETER
DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes, of course.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:  What resources are you expecting on the IP version
6?  Because the technical infrastructure is there.  So I'm interested
in what you mean by ICANN putting more resources there.  Like, it is
available in the root?  It is available in the major TLDs?  What do
you think ICANN's role is there?

 >> BOB HUTCHINSON:  For example, the draft applicant guidebook only
gives IPv6 support one point and it's not mandatory.  That's wrong,
in my opinion.  It should be mandatory, and it should be a
disqualification if you don't fully support IPv6 in your application.

 Another point is there's a great deal of confusion within the
implementation community about how IPv6 and the transition is going
to affect the entire global infrastructure of the Internet.

 And ICANN, I believe, needs to step up to the plate and start
communicating a bunch of that information and support more outreach.  

 See, I'm getting head nods here.  There is a lot of confusion about
how IP 4-to-6 transition should and could occur.  And this
organization needs to step up to the plate and start telling people
what the timeline should be and how to go about doing it.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Sorry.  Having trouble here.  Ray, a quick
response?

 >>RAY PLZAK:  Thank you, Peter.  My first question would be:  Have
you gone to the regional Internet registry in the region where you
reside?  Because I know all five of the regional Internet registries
have an extreme amount of outreach activities going on which include
interface with governments, with the business organizations, with
communities.  They have available a large amount of information
that's educational in nature.  They all have had very active policy
processes in this area.  So there is a lot of resources that are
available and have been available for quite a period of time.  And
the board is well aware of these activities and applauds them.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  Can we just have one quick
response?  We are actually on new gTLDs.  We are straying off to a
different topic.  A very interesting one but let's stick to this
topic.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  We will bring it back to new gTLDs.  In the draft
applicant guidebook, IPv6 is a requirement.  The community has
supported and it is it is a requirement in the new gTLD program.  

 Just want to second Ray's comments.  The regional Internet
registries are really the lead on this issue.  New gTLDs, yes.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Sorry, checking with Katim.  It is a new
gTLD point?  Yep.

 >>KATIM TOURAY:  Thanks, Peter.  To the extent that the whole issue
of IPv6 deployment is going to be of fundamental importance to the
resilience and stability of the Internet, I'd just like to say that
I'd like us to go beyond just encouraging people to work with their
regional registries to actually inject ourselves in those various
mechanisms -- they have capacity-building and outreach -- and see
what ICANN can do to support them.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Let's get back to new gTLDs.  Let's come
to this side of the room.  Thank you, sir.

 >> My name is Chris Jamonga (phonetic).  I'm currently
administrator of dot CD.  My point is just to realize that people are
not talking about the cost of the new gTLD, which is quite amazing. 
It is quite normal that the price is a bit -- is normal.  

 I just want to reiterate that the process -- the cost is too high. 
And because we intend -- back home, we intend to promote the cultural
and linguistic as well as the ethnic of our -- within the country. 
And when we look at also -- in the north and south, we realize that
have a lot -- much that we can benefit from if the cost could be --
let me put it, it is too high.  But, please, look at how you can
reduce the cost.

 And I'm also thinking of when we consider that on the north of
Africa, we got also the linguist -- we got the Latin character and
Arabic script.  And we think that -- looking at how you can join us
on the table would be to make it as a bundle -- bundle the prices in
terms of -- because it is a Latin character and this one is Latin and
we have got also Arabic, then you give us a choice of giving us a
bundle price.  Then that will be -- will assist us because when you
consider in Africa we've got a lot of culture.  Looking at the price
you are putting up, it is quite a bit expensive.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  If I could just answer one of
your questions, just stay there for a minute.  The reason why we
don't discuss costs so much is that we've had a lot of discussion
about costs at previous meetings.  And the issue is that the whole
program has been designed on the instructions of the community to be
on a cost-recovery basis.  So the Finance Committee has done a lot of
work in making sure that the application price is intended to recover
costs.  

 Built into that, of course, is the cost of the uncertainty of
litigation, et cetera, around the first round.  So it is the general
expectation that later rounds will be considerably cheaper as the
uncertainties become more certain.

 Secondly, because we recognize that that cost is reasonably high
for some applicants, there is an active working group working on a
way of assisting applicants who need funding.  So you might like to
make contact with that group.

 And, Rod, I think you were going to respond in relation to the
bundling point.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  Sure.  The -- each string stands alone.  And
there is principles that have been developed by the community in the
plans.  And so there's -- there has not been a consensus developed on
any sort of bundling.  So I think that would need to be, perhaps, a
contemplation for the future.  

 Thank you very much.  We hear you on the issues and appreciate your
sharing that.

 >> Okay, thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  One more.  

 Dennis, a quick response?

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:  It is not on this, Peter.  It is just that we
are ten minutes over the allotted time and we have a long queue. 
Just reminding you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes.  I was about ready to see -- we are
going to take more time.  We have used up the allocated time on new
gTLDs.  I assume if we can close off the lists behind each of the
last people, if I can give you warning that we are about to close off
the list and if you still want to say something, perhaps you could
join the queues.

 I'm assuming from that, that there is a general sense that this is
important enough to continue and that we can delay and obviously
eventually lose some time on some of the later issues.  

 Is that a general consensus of the room?

 [ Applause ]

 It is.  Thank you.  Thank you.  I appreciate that.

 Well, let's go back to -- I see we are starting to get second
rounds.  Amadeu, what I would like you to do is stand to one side. 
I'm going to ask Mr. Foody to do the same.  Amadeu, could you yield,
please, to people who yet haven't had a chance.  I rather hear from
new speakers first in case we run into a time problem.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  It's called friendly censorship.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Well, I prefer to think of it as fairness
in terms allocation of the time resource, but you may be right.

 Kieren.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Hello, Kieren McCarthy here from the GIBC.
First, I wanted to say some positive comments, which was that I think
as the board, you've made excellent progress the last few months. 
And I think it has been very difficult.  I think you have done an
extremely good job.  You have actually, for the first time, really
acting like a board of ICANN.  So I want to take my hat off to you
for that.  And I appreciate it.

 However, you have had some criticisms.  And I have to say I agree
with those criticisms, and I hope that you reflect them back and say
that you recognize that you did fall short on one or two issues.

 The vertical integration explanation -- I actually think you have
made a perfectly logical, reasonable, rationale economic decision,
but the explanation of it was dreadful.  I don't know anyone that
wasn't shocked by your decision.  It is the right decision, but it
was really unexpected.  And you should have done a much better job
reiterating that or making it clear to people how you got there.  I
know you are going to do it, but you really should have done it at
the time.

 The economic studies, I really don't want to go into the economic
studies.  I think it's done.  I think the costs clearly outweigh the
benefits.  I wish you would have done it a while ago, but that's a
lot of water that's passed since then.

 I hope that you will think ahead this time --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Kieren, do you want to go on record the way
you said that as saying you think the costs clearly outweigh the
benefits?

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:  No, I want to say the opposite.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  Just to --

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Thank you, Peter.

 [ Applause ]

 I hope you look forward a little bit with economic studies in the
sense that there's -- if you started a process now saying you are
going to go to an economic study for a year after gTLDs have come in.
I think that would be very valuable.  But you shut start that now.  I
think you should learn from a lesson of the past and say, We will all
have one in the future.  Let's start the ball rolling now.  

 Not enough time to comment.  Actually, I think that's a fair
comment.  I mean, it is very difficult to read these documents and
get back that quickly.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I think your time is up.  Just let me
respond to the thanks to the board, which are very much appreciated. 
You have got to realize we are only as good as the material we are
given.  And that comes as a result, first of all, as the enormous
work by the community and to the working groups and to all of the
organs and then the enormous work the staff does in preparing that. 
I can tell you the staff work in preparation for Trondheim was just
awesome.  Let me just say that.  They are all done here if you want
to thank them.

 [ Applause ]

 Okay.  Let's come to this side.  Elaine.

 >>ELAINE PRUIS:  Hi, I'm Elaine Pruis.  I work with Minds+Machines.
I just have three points.  First, I wanted to express my opinion that
the board made a great decision to allow cross-ownership.  I think
that's wise, and it will benefit the entire community.

 Second, I wanted to thank the members of the Rec 6 working group
and the ICANN staff for their dedication and work in responding to
the GAC concerns on the morality and public order objections.  That
working group superbly modeled the consensus building that makes
ICANN successful, and I hope the board adopts the recommendations.

 Third point, throughout the week, some people have expressed
concern that they're not sure if the benefits of introducing new
gTLDs outweigh the costs.  Rod Beckstrom opened the meeting with a
speech in which he said, "Opening up the namespace to new generic top-
level domains is intended to promote competition, innovation, and
consumer choice.  Innovation lifts people out of poverty.  Innovation
not only creates jobs.  It creates industries.  New gTLDs will create
jobs, not only for registry operators like myself and registrars but
for the increase demand for DNS services.

 New gTLDs will create new jobs for domain hosting services, new
jobs for online advertisers, new jobs for marketers, new jobs for
customer support, new jobs for attorneys, new jobs for payment
processing companies, new jobs for journalists, new jobs for software
engineers, new jobs for server location facility operators, and new
jobs for factory workers that build hardware devices.  All of these
new jobs create competition.  

 Finally, the new gTLDs will bring more security to the Internet
through the requirement to utilize DNSSEC.  

 I'd like to ask the board to not allow further delay.  Please vote
to approve the proposed applicant guidebook and begin the
communications period.  Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Mike?

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:  Thank you, Peter.  Mike Palage.  The majority of
everyone you have heard speak hear today has an economic interest in
seeing new gTLDs go forward or in some cases actually oppose that. 
If there is any question as to the economic interest, if you take a
look at the big poster board behind you with the sponsors that are
making this meeting happen, you will see many of them are the
infrastructure providers that will benefit.

 Now, the reason -- and that's not a bad thing, but here's the
important thing.  

 Paragraph 4 of the Affirmation of Commitments states that ICANN and
the D.O.C. recognize that there is a group of participants that
engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users
generally.  And there is an important part that follows on that talks
about how ICANN needs to go about protecting the public interest.

 ICANN's greatest strength is the bottom-up consensus-driven
process.  But that greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. 
As we've seen in the vertical integration, there are some times when
economic interests will prevent consensus from happening.  

 And like we -- for someone coming here and hearing the demand for
new gTLDs, it would sort of be a no-brainer, Wow, why haven't you
done this long ago?  I would submit that ICANN's biggest safeguard to
ensure its long-term longevity is the GAC.  That is one of its most
important safeguard mechanisms in the bylaws as well as, I think, in
the Affirmation of Commitments where the U.S. government sort of
stepped aside and looked to holding itself accountable, not only to
the entire Internet community but also other governments.

 One final -- one final point here, we've heard a lot about how we
have been talking about this for ten years and it's time to just go
forward and we've waited too long.  I would -- I've had the benefit
over the last couple of years of working with the ITU and the UPU,
both international organizations with 130-plus years of institutions.
Ten years is not that long.  Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Now to this side of the room. 
Wendy?

 >>WENDY SELTZER:  Thank you.  Wendy Seltzer speaking here as an
individual.  Just to recall that ICANN is, as Michael noted, founded
on bottom-up consensus-driven processes.  This new gTLD process
started as a GNSO Council consensus policy.  And it is important to
recognize that consensus and then the board's role in implementing
that consensus.  "Consensus" often requires compromises and anyone in
a consensus, if asked, will have a problem with one issue or another.
But overall, I think we've now reached the point where we need to
implement consensus policy and move on.  And I urge you to move on
and not undermine the consensus by breaking down the compromise
points.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Wendy.  And now across to the
other side.  Thank you.

 >> LIMEI LIU:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Limei Liu from
China.  I speak on behalf of China Organizational Name Administration
Center, CONAC in short.  

 I would like to comment on the timeline to open new gTLD
applications.  As many people in this room agree, we wish ICANN will
open the application round as soon as possible.  We appreciate all
the hard work ICANN has done.  

 While there are some minor issues still working in process, we
believe that the AGB is mature in general.

 We are not here to find out 100% perfect solution for all the
problems in the world, which is an impossible task because as we
know, DNS itself is not perfect.  Holding up innovation fails to
serve community's needs and not bring enough competition, at all we
are trying to avoid.  

 Thus, we urge ICANN to move forward and put this paperwork into
practice.  We would like to see ICANN stick to its original timeline
published a few weeks ago.  Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  I just want to say thank you, and we particularly
recognize and appreciate the pressing need in non-Latin script-based
languages for more consumer choices and offerings.  So thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  So back to this side.

 >> JOHN BERRYHILL:  My name is John Berryhill.  I'm an intellectual
property attorney with extensive experience in domain dispute
procedures.  I'm very encouraged by the words of Mr. Sheppard a few
moments ago that we should be focused on protecting the legitimate
interests of those currently doing business in the trademark dispute
policies because that crystallizes what is not reflected in the types
of proposals which have consistently been made in this area.  

 Any process which recognizes that any registered trademark anywhere
is of equal scope, strength or weight as any other is not consistent
with that purpose that Mr. Sheppard had crystallized because there
are businesses whose business consist of nothing more than
accumulating trademark registrations.  

 And over the last few years as this process has slowed down, there
are businesses whose business has been to accumulate them for the
purpose of gaming ICANN trademark dispute processes.

 Let me just give you one example.  During the dot biz launch, a
U.S. paint company had seen the process coming and had nimbly applied
for a French trademark registration for the trademark paint.biz,
which advanced no legitimate purpose of theirs, was not used as a
mark on any good -- any goods or services of theirs.  It was not a
brand.  It was obtained simply for the purpose of obtaining a domain
name.

 In Mr. Sheppard's jurisdiction, the Benelux trademark office, there
are six trademark registrations for the word "shopping."  One of them
is owned by a person sitting in this room through a shell company. 
And if you would like to stand up and wave, he can do so.  

 But we've heard a lot -- it is true.  And one of the other ones is
owned by a company which has an apparent relationship with an entity
that is going to apply to ICANN to run the trademark clearinghouse.

 The types of games going on I don't think were necessarily informed
of at your level.  We've heard a lot of talk about externalities, and
I would suggest that the loss of communicative language to these
sorts of games is also an externality having definite economic
consequences.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, John.

 [ Applause ]

 Yes, ma'am, over to you.

 >> GABRIELLA SZLAK:  Hello.  My name is Gabriella Szlak.  I'm a
fellow from Argentina from the ICANN fellowship program.  I represent
the Latin America E-Commerce Institute.  In Spanish, the name is
(saying name in Spanish), which is a federation of e-commerce
chambers from Latin America.  Now I'm directing their regional
program for online dispute resolution for the digital economy.  

 So, first of all, I just wanted to thank you so much on behalf of
all the fellows for this great opportunity that you give us and that
we are really learning a lot and we would like to become a part of
this community.

 Now, I understand that a new gTLD program is expected to bring new
and more disputes that will have to be addressed by the dispute
resolution providers accredited by ICANN in the application of UDRP.

 So I understand currently there are only four dispute resolution
providers accredited by ICANN, none of which is from my region.  So
in a scenario of new and more conflicts to arise in the future, I
encourage you to address this issue so bring to us a possibility to
file a case at a regional provider.  

 I understand that these dispute resolution providers are
independent and neutral organizations.  Still, we would like to see
ICANN trying to ensure representation of every region also when it
comes to selecting dispute resolution providers.

 Of course, this would bring lots of benefits to our region like,
for example, encourage competition among providers, lower the cost
for filing a case not only -- because now only the big trademark
owners have access to these processes because you have to go to a big
law firm to do this.  Also only regional arbitrators are capable of
paying the cost for the training courses that are, for example,
offered by WIPO.

 So, again, this is all.  And I would encourage you to really
address this issue, not only this but other benefits will come with
this decision.  Thank you very much.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM: Thank you for coming to our meeting.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  And thank you for participating in our
fellowship program.

 Can I just ask people to be briefer than they have been.  And if
you are standing in line simply to repeat what somebody else has said
in your own words, please think hard.  The board doesn't really need
to hear encouragements to move forward, nor do we need encouragements
to take care as we move forward.  There is a certain pattern
emerging, that it has gotten to a point where I think it is
reasonably obvious.  

 I don't want to cut anybody off.  This is a public forum and you
have come a long way and we want to hear from you.  Just think about
what different information or different advice we might be -- you
might be able to give us.  Thank you.

 Tony?  No, sorry, back to this side.  Naomasa.

 >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA:  My name is Naomasa Maruyama with JP NIC.  I'm
very happy that on Monday Kurt Pritz mentioned about the criteria for
measuring success of the new gTLD program.  And the answer -- his
explanation was that the success should be measured against the
purpose of the -- raised in the final report; that is, promoting
competition and increase the consumer benefit and blah, blah, blah,
blah.

 That is a very important thing, I think, and I really appreciate
that he mentioned about that because I gave the comment about this
point that in the last comment period, let us see how we can measure
the success of the new gTLD program.

 I'm not sure this point is -- was first raised by who, but anyway I
am very happy to hear that.

 But still in this regard, I have one question that is about the
single registrant TLD.  Recall that in the very first DAG, the public
comment was raised by the Microsoft.  That is mentioned on page 58 in
the analysis of public comment, dated 18th February, 2009.  That is,
if ICANN does not intend to allow the community-based gTLD
designation to apply to corporate-branded gTLD, it should state so
and provide a detailed explanation as to why not.

 So this point is very important, I think, and I strongly believe
this point is not -- nothing to do with the measurement criteria.

 So what's the board's consideration about this point?  And what's
the -- your point?  I want to hear the answer about that.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  I can't do that here, but we'll see
if we make sure that's answered.  

 Tony.

 >>TONY HARRIS:  Yes.  I'm Tony Harris, with the Latin American
Federation of the Internet and Electronic Commerce.  I won't urge the
board to move forward.  You all know that I'm a TLD applicant, so
there's not much point in repeating that.

 I would rather use these brief seconds for a very humble
suggestion, without in any way wishing to instruct the board on how
to proceed on what comes.

 And basically, I'm concerned that there may be more delay in the
proceedings due to these last-minute developments.  I don't know how
to call them.  And in that sense, it is my understanding that we are
committed, at some stage in the process, to a 120-day communication
period to let the whole world know that new TLDs are in the offing or
imminent.

 My suggestion would be:  Why don't we start that communication
period?  It has to be done anyhow.  I think the budget allocation is
there.  

 And when you point to the -- whatever version of the DAG is up on
the Web site for that communication purpose, you can simply highlight
those sections of the DAG which are still under discussion so anybody
who comes in and looks at it knows what may be changed, but we get
through that 120-day period and that does not hang over the
applicants for the moment when you finally take the approval decision.

 It's just a suggestion.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 Tony, thanks for that.  

 Just a very quick response.  It's a question the board asks itself
very frequently is when is the appropriate time to launch, and what
we keep hearing from the community is the most important thing we can
tell you is when it's going to start.  

 So with that essential element not yet available, we think it's
inappropriate to launch a communications program.

 But we'll be looking at that again as part of this round.

 Let's come to this side.  Khaled.

 >>KHALED FATTAL: Thank you, Peter.  

 Khaled Fattal, group chairman of the Multilingual Internet Group
and member of the ICANN 30-plus meetings, which puts me in a position
where I actually want to safeguard ICANN even from itself, if I can.

 I thank ICANN for going out of its way putting under bright, you
know, lights something new in the final proposed guidebook which I
find of great concern to the core ICANN values and mission, and the
single root I believe in, and I quote, Section 1.2, "Information for
All Applicants" on Page 28, the paragraph on legal compliance.

 It states:  "ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules and
regulations.  One such set of regulation is the economic and trade
sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Asset
Control, OFAC, of the United States Department of Treasury.  These
sanctions have been imposed on certain countries as well as
individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's list of specially
designated nationals and blocked persons, the SDN list.

 ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to the
residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or
to SDNs without an applicable U.S. Government authorized exemption."  

 And I will -- the paragraph goes on.

 Now, the question here -- the point here is:  For those who are not
familiar with OFAC and the SDN list, they reflect the U.S.
Government's government list of undesirables that reflects
legitimate, but only, U.S. legal and foreign policy interests.

 Now the very loud fire alarm bells on Internet governance.

 Does ICANN really want to tell international communities and many
sovereign nations it seeks to become ICANN supporters -- like China,
Russia, India, Brazil, the Arab states and many others -- that the
Internet that will reach them and will reach their territories, and
especially in their local languages through IDN gTLDs, will be
governed by and is subject to U.S. laws and U.S. foreign policy?

 Because this is what it's telling them.

 I believe this has grave risks on the single root, the validity of
the Affirmation of Commitments.  

 And detailed statements, due to the shortness of time, on the
ramification will be submitted, if you wish.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Khaled, thank you very much for your
remarks which we really appreciate and which I think we're all
sensitive to.  

 You are correct there are sanctions, and in fact there are
sanctions in almost every jurisdiction in the world, including the
United Nations.  We are under U.S. sanctions.  That's a fact.

 And really appreciate your raising this issue --

 >>KHALED FATTAL:  Thank you.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM: -- and sharing it.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Now across to the other side.  

 Fred.

 >>FRED KRUEGER:  Fred Krueger.  Minds + Machines.  

 I would like to make a suggestion to the board.  I think that
there's an overwhelming concern that has emerged at this meeting that
the economic benefits of new gTLDs may not be outweighed by the costs.

 Now, I think -- personally I'm 90% convinced they are.  I think 75,
80% of this room are convinced.  And I believe that the board is
convinced, because you've been voting in favor of new gTLDs for the
last three years.

 I think you need to actually put that in writing.  I think you need
to take the economic studies, the six economic studies.  There's a
lot of other data you can get from Minds + Machines, from other
participants on both sides.  You need to come up with a position
paper to say, "These are the reasons that we feel that the economic
benefits are probably going to be bigger than the economic costs,"
and let's let that thing die.  

 Let's put it on paper.  Let's have a position statement that we can
give to the GAC that we can say, "This is our position."  

 Because unless you have that paper, unless you've codified your
arguments -- and some of them may be qualitative.  Some of them may
be "we can't predict the future."  I made that argument yesterday.  

 We can't exactly.  But we do have some quantitative basis.  We do
know the pattern of registrations over the last round of gTLDs.  We
know the pattern of registrations in the last ccTLDs.  We know how
much infringement is happening.  We know probably what the URS will
do as far as cutting down the costs.

 We can make some back-of-the-envelope cases.

 I suggest that having that analysis would help a lot with improving
relations with the GAC, with improving relationships with the U.S.
Government, and really making your case for being who you are and
pushing this program and calling us to this process.  Thank you very
much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks very much, Fred.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I have a great deal of sympathy for that
position, and certainly the economic study that's just come out is
going to be used in that way.

 >>JOTHAN FRAKES: Hi.  My name is Jothan Frakes and I hadn't
realized who I came after, but this might be fitting.  

 I stand here a man who is unemployed, and I'm unemployed and
underemployed as a result of the delays in the new top-level domain
process, and I'd like to tell a story about a variety of people who
are ready to hire, who are ready to put money into businesses to
start commerce directed towards consumer choice and competition, and
they're ready to hire and ready to create jobs as soon as there are
dates certain for this new TLD process.

 So I personally would like to see this move forward.

 I find myself still engaging in a productive way in the ICANN
process.  I know many of you.  You know me as a very reasonable
person.

 I'm very grateful for any momentum that could continue, and God
bless the fact that there could be certain dates quite soon.  

 Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Jothan.  So across to the other
side.  

 Ma'am, your turn.

 >>HAWA DIAKITE: Thanks, Peter.  

 I'm Hawa Diakite.  I represent I.T. of Mali in the GAC, so allow me
to make my speech here in French to promote my native language, and
thanks (saying name) for her service.

 [ Applause ]

 >>HAWA DIAKITE: Thanks.

 And further, to the Union of -- to the African Union regarding the
Dot Africa Project, in fact after the recommendation of the meeting
of the ministers, they recommended to the African Union to observe,
to analyze -- to analyze the possibilities to implement the Dot
Africa Project.

 Further, to this meeting, the committee of the uni-Africa entrusted
African experts like the speaker the possibility of Africa proposed
for the Dot Africa Project like geographic domain name.  

 And with respect to this matter, the group of experts, in fact, is
working on this matter in order to have an open process, a
comprehensive process in place, in order to propose a better offer to
preserve the interests of Africa.

 Because of all these manifold reasons, Mali will accept any
initiative -- individual or isolated -- of what could result from the
community.

 As a member of the working group, I confirm before the whole
community that Mali supports the Dot Africa Initiative with respect
to this project.

 >>JAIME WAGNER: I'm from Brazil.  I represent the ISP community
there.

 I'm in the GNSO Council, but here I'm speaking in my personal
capacity.

 I would say that the work done by ICANN under the guidance of the
board in the applicant guidebook is a model of transparency to how
issues should be treated in a connected world, but sometimes a
connected world can become a tied one.  

 And in this respect, I want to endorse Werner Staub's comment and
humbly ask your patience to add some specific suggestions.

 Much of the debate over the new gTLD process would be reduced if we
reduced the size of the batch of new TLDs to be periodically released.

 The more incremental approach would enable also progressive
evaluation of the process, allowing its acceleration or deceleration,
given its benefits or costs to the overall Internet community.

 As to each applicant who should be given priority in this process,
I would give it to all those communities and groups that already have
manifested their interests.  The upper part of the cake mentioned by
Werner.

 In particular, I would leave out brand names whose registration
brings about trademark protection concerns beside the possible
impression that ICANN could be prioritizing financial aspects.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Jaime.  Yes, your turn.

 >>JONATHAN MATKOWSKY: Hi.  My name is Jonathan Matkowsky.  I'm from
Las Vegas Sands Corp. but I'm speaking here in my personal capacity. 
Las Vegas Sands is a member of the biz constituency, but I'm speaking
only on my personal behalf.

 I wanted to bring to the board's attention a factor that I haven't
heard considered frequently in the discussions over the last few
days, and that is:  In the cost/benefit analysis of the -- as you
consider the benefits of the changes that are being proposed in the
applicant guidebook, it needs to be weighed against the cost of delay
and the cost of uncertainty, because those two factors do have a
cost, whether you're an IP holder or a business that has an interest
in launching a gTLD.  It is really not specific to the type of
interest you have, whether it's IP or not.

 For everyone involved, there's a cost in delay, in the uncertainty
and not knowing when this is going to launch.

 Although the campaign for marketing has not begun, it's all over
the Internet.  Everyone knows that this is a possibility, and
responsible businesses are planning accordingly and they need to know
how to plan.  And if the applicant guidebook is constantly changed,
there's a cost in that to business.  

 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks for that.  

 Sophia.

 >>SOPHIA BEKELE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished board and
participants.  And also great thank you for the local host and
organizers in this meeting.  It has gone very well.

 My name is Sophia Bekele and I represent Dot Connect Africa, an
organization that's applying for the dot Africa gTLD in the next
round of application.

 Also, we've been championing the dot Africa TLD all over Africa.

 Most of you here have recognized our activities through our regular
press releases and distributions on Facebook and Twitter.  Not to
advertise here, if you want to get to know more of our work, please
do follow us.

 While I stand here in front of you, ladies and gentlemen, to
express, like most, not to delay the application process, also being
careful not to ask for exception for Africa, I want to say why the
African continent needs this gTLD most.

 DCA has championed dot Africa for Africa anchored on three key
principles.  One is to brand the continent's products and services so
people will know what Africa does and the positives that Africa has
to offer.

 While Africa's image has suffered through war, famine, and
governance issues, there is also another image that the world does
not know about Africa, and that can be told through the people when
they engage in promoting their products and services for trade and
investment through a new gTLD.

 This is also quite in line with the current U.S. administration
policy on focus on Africa to assist increasing trade and investment.

 While we acknowledge ICANN as an international organization, it's
also based in the USA.  Therefore, the dot Africa TLD fulfills this
U.S. agenda in support for Africa's speedy entry into the global
village.  The second key principal is, Dot Connect Africa has created
a "Generation Africa" theme to empower the youth to adapt to the
powers of the Internet and its use, thus enjoying a great following
so far.

 ITU is a goodwill partner to ICANN, and also the Secretary-General,
Dr. Hamadoun Touré, an African as well, under his administration, has
championed broadband for Africa since 2007, and since --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  Thanks, Sophia.  Time's up. 

 >>SOPHIA BEKELE: One moment.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: No.  Thank you, Sophia.  Your time is up. 
Thank you.  

 We'll go now to Mr. Foody.  Your turn.

 >>PAUL FOODY:  Thank you, gentlemen.  

 Given my view that this is going to turn into a land grab for TLDs,
with the people who have known about this the longest having the
advantage -- they've had some -- people have had 10 years to prepare
for this, and given the board's notice, the demands of panelists in
the new gTLD guidebook reflecting your exceptions that you're working
in the public interest, that you are -- that unethical actions or
even the appearance of compromise are not acceptable, the fact that
the new gTLD program is a program that the board is enacting on the
recommendations of the GNSO who, to a very large extent, are actively
involved in lobbying for new gTLDs either directly or indirectly, the
board really should start again.

 I'd suggest you've got a thousand new gTLDs -- 500 top cities, 500
of the world's biggest communities -- and just so I don't have to get
up again, make one of them a dot xx and tie it into dot com, please. 
Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Mr. Foody.  

 Amadeu, I didn't want to cut you off.  You're entitled to your --
you have the honor of going first and now last.  Well done.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  Okay.  I keep (inaudible) the part that
we're repeating something that some other people were saying.  Just
going on behalf of many of the community-based TLDs that we are
advising and representing here, they are not here because they cannot
afford, in terms of time and money, to follow the ICANN world circus.
And there's no pejorative intent on "circus."  It's simply that this
is going around playing a show, besides a lot of things.  It is that
on the community -- in the community priority evaluation, besides the
problems mentioned here, there's another one.  

 The registrations policies that are considered ideal for ICANN --
that is, the ones scoring the four points -- are registration
policies that none of the existing TLDs really can put a score for
points.  Not dot museum, not dot cop, not dot aero, not dot cat, to
mention some of the most restrictive TLDs that are always mentioned.  

 I think that the problem is that they are not realistic.  They are
taking different approaches, which is eligibility, but most
especially name selection and content-and-use regulations as they are
cumulative when they are used as alternatives in different cases or
in different TLDs.  And this means it is impossible to score a
complete higher score for anyone, and I don't think that ICANN should
ask for unreasonable policies.  Policies that nobody wants and nobody
uses.

 I repeat:  Even though the most restrictive TLDs in ICANN today to
score something that allows them to succeed that, we shouldn't be
unreasonable.

 So either we increase the range -- so it is 0, 1, 2 for each one,
it could be possible but 0 and 1 means they're failing in most of
them -- or we make some of them alternative or with decrease the
total to 13 as it was until the second-to-last version with the same
rules.  It could work.  Thanks.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks very much and thank you all very
much for the contributions to the new gTLD debate, which I'm going to
close now, and we'll take the break at the scheduled time -- 

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Peter?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: -- but given that we've --

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Peter?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  Given that we've run over time, I'm
going to shorten the coffee break, so that we'll be back here at
3:30, as the catering is ready, and we'll continue.  

 All right.  You are now using up the coffee break.  Jean-Jacques.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:  Yes.  At the risk of eating up a few
seconds of coffee break, I just wanted to say -- sorry for reacting
so slowly -- that I was impressed by Khaled Fattal's intervention. 
He brought us a subject which is really important, I think.  I don't
think we have a quick reply to that.

 His point was that there are sanctions which were decided by one
country or a group of countries, and because of the nature of ICANN,
which is to the public service of the general public worldwide, there
is a misfit or perhaps a contradiction.

 So I know it's very difficult to arrive at a proper mix, a policy
mix, but I would suggest that we take that seriously as a subject for
study.

 We are a U.S. corporation under California law, but I think we must
find a better medium way between our international dimension and our
anchoring in California law.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Jean-Jacques.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  All right.  Let's take the break.  We'll
be resuming at 3:30.  Thank you.

 [ Break ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming
back.  We're about to restart.  This is the one-minute call.  So if
you haven't got your coffee, please get it.  If you've got it, please
come back and sit down.

 >> Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.  We'd like to
continue with the public forum to give you enough opportunity to get
to the microphone and express yourselves.  Once again, if you would
please take your seats, we would appreciate it.

 Also, for those people asking questions, we would appreciate it if
you slowed down a little.  The interpreters are having a bit of a
problem, as well as the scribes, understanding every word.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  It's good to see people taking
their seats.  We're about to begin.

 Before we get back to the published agenda, I just want to leave --
plant a seed in the public mind about this meeting.

 One of the things I'm doing at this meeting is looking at ways of
improving the quality of engagement between the community and the
board, and this is one of the major ones.  

 I want you to think about, if you wouldn't mind, for the San
Francisco meeting ways that we might improve this as we do it.

 This is one of the important sessions for the board.  We're about
to start preparing, after this, for our board meeting tomorrow, and
we need to take into account what we hear.

 The other thing we're thinking of is the overall structure of the
week, and it puts us under an extraordinary amount of pressure and it
puts staff under even more pressure to go through this process of
discussions and meetings, with the expectation of passing resolutions
at a board meeting on Friday morning or Friday lunchtime.

 And given the importance of these issues and the importance of
taking time to digest public comment and hearing you and having
questions that need answers, we are wondering as to whether the
format that we've used all these years is still appropriate for what
we are trying to do.

 So I wonder if you could think about that as we move forward.  Is
there a better way of running the ICANN meetings?  

 Would it be better, for example, if we came here, had the debates,
and then had a board meeting a fortnight later or three weeks later,
or some other period, for time for collating the public comment and
preparing it instead of the rush that tends to happen now.

 Now, equally, on the other hand, we appreciate the cathartic effect
these meetings have.  Everybody knows they've got to work, they've
got to get it done.  We put a lot of energy in it and we get to a
result.  So there's obviously a lot of advantages in the present
system.  

 Perhaps we could do an economic study on the cost/benefit analysis
of -- 

 All right.  What I'd like to do now is see if there is any interest
-- public comment arising from the accountability and transparency
review team's report.  

 They made a number of recommendations in relation to aspects of the
Affirmation of Commitments -- sorry, performance against the
Affirmation of Commitments in relation to relationships with the GAC,
the way the board operates and qualifies itself and so forth,
openness and transparency, and the review processes.

 So the floor is now open for discussion about the accountability
and transparency review team report.  

 Kieren?

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Hi.  Kieren McCarthy speaking as an individual.

 With regard to your comments, Peter, about how to improve, well,
I've been on record 800 times saying I absolutely hate this format
with you standing a very, very long away from us, up on a stage, me
standing with a mic with a room behind me.  I don't like it.  I think
it makes it adversarial.  

 I know, having been on the other side, it's so easy to switch off,
especially when it's gone on for hours and hours.

 But I've made my views plain and I think you've already got four or
five reports that I've sort of authored and got your community on.  

 So I'd like you to reread what I did.

 With regard to the ATRT, this was very important and I think it's a
shame.  I think it was a great opportunity to shine and I think there
were some real issues with it.

 So the actual team had very, very little time to work.  It
basically had a year, because we knew as soon as the affirmation came
in that there was going to be a year, but I can't remember how many
months they actually had of work.  It was very limited.  

 And that was for a whole bunch of reasons, but I'd like you to sort
of go over and think about future reviews, how you avoid that.  

 Most of it came in admin.  You lost several months choosing who was
going to be on the team.  There was a huge amount of admin in the
process about where are you going to stay and what's the policy for
this and what's the policy for that.

 So I think you really -- it wasn't a good process, to be honest
with you.

 I was somewhat surprised, I have to say, at the board's behavior at
various points.

 At one point you formed a working group within the board and
started questioning whether the ATRT -- whether it had done the right
things and you didn't provide it with the funds, which held up its
work, and I thought that was -- I really think you stepped over the
line, considering what we were talking about here, which was the
independent review in the Affirmation of Commitments.  

 I think the board, you pushed it far too far.  You crossed over a
line and I think you damaged U.S. Government relations because of
that, so I -- please bear that in mind.

 All that said, unbelievably -- and I didn't think it would happen --
the team actually came out with a whole bunch of good recommendations.

 Unfortunately, because they ran out of time, I think most of them
are based on GAC/board, that sort of thing.  In fact, the things I
would really like to see them work on -- work you on is exactly
things like this:  public forum, public interaction, public comment
period, how participation works in ICANN.

 You ended up working a lot on the GAC and on the board itself.  I
understand why.

 And so broadly I would say of those recommendations, once you take
out the preamble and the wherefore, I think they were pretty good. 
And I liked the meeting you had with the ATRT as a board --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   We still have the clock running, Kieren. 
You are well over it.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   So you had a good interaction.  I thought the
board was slightly defensive, but you opened up a bit.  I actually
think the ATRT has done a good job considering all those aspects. 
And I hope you take the recommendation seriously.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Let me help you with some of the facts
that the negotiations -- the board is responsible for conducting
those reviews.  So it's perfectly appropriate -- in fact, would have
been negligent for the board not to have formed some kind of
oversight process to make sure the reviews are conducted properly. 
That's what the working group for the board did.  It never interfered
in the independence.  It worked very hard not to interfere in the
independence of the ATRT.  And the time spent discussing that didn't
hold the working group up at all.  The thing that held the working
group longer than the discussion about budget in fact was signing a
contract with an external consultant, which is the kind of process
that any review team is going to have to go through.

 So let's not say the board crossed a line.  Let's not say without
authority of any sort that it interfered with relationships with
anybody, and let's not say some of those other things.  Let's get the
facts right.

 Mr. Zuck.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Peter --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   We can take this off line, but I think
you need to get -- I can help with you the facts, Kieren, because
that seems to be the problem here.

 Mr. Zuck.

 >>JONATHAN ZUCK:   Yes, Jonathan Zuck from the Association for
competitive technology.

 Thank you for the opportunity to be here.

 I think ICANN has found itself in the center of a lot of criticism
of late from a lot of different places and in a lot of different
languages and luckily people can criticize and read criticism in
their own scripts more lest easily now due to the increase in IDNs,
but there's a lot of it swirling around.

 And I think the impulse to adopt a kind of siege mentality in that
environment has got to be almost overwhelming.  But I think there's
two different kinds of criticisms out there and to conflate them
would be to a big mistake.

 I think there's both constructive and destructive criticisms and
both sort of idealistic and what might be considered fatalistic
recommendations.  And I think making the distinction between those
two is imperative.

 There has been a lot of constructive criticism by fans of ICANN,
both inside government in the private sector, and most recently from
the ATRT in the form of recommendations.

 And so while there have been various statements made over the
course of the week that would seem to indicate some resistance to
some of those recommendations, I would implore you that the best way
to accomplish the kind of independence and sustain the independence
you seek is actually through complete interdependence.  

 So I would suggest really adopting almost wholesale, find the time,
find the money, find the will to adopt all of the recommendations put
forth by the ATRT, and please insert metrics to measure the success
of those initiatives as well, if you would.  

 And to save 2 minutes at 6:00 p.m., I think the strategic plan
should include a call for metrics across the board.

 My language Spanish-language  skills are sorely lacking but there's
a saying here in Colombia (in Spanish) which roughly translates to
all talk and no action.  And I think of all the criticisms that are
surrounding ICANN and the process of accountability and transparency,
that is the one criticism that you can't afford to endure.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Jonathan.  Very quick response. 
I haven't detected on the board any resistance in implementing any of
the recommendations, but we'll be -- because we haven't really
received the report.  It comes in on December the 31st.  The
impression I have had from the board so far, cluck the session that
the board had with the ATRT, is that most of those recommendations
seem very reasonable.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   And I can say the same certainly on behalf of
staff.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   So this is an unofficial response.  We
haven't got the report --

 >>JONATHAN ZUCK:   I am very excited to hear that.  I hope that
we're not all naive enough to believe that there haven't been some
indications along the course of the week that there is some concern
about the affordability, the ease with which they can be adopted. 
There's been push back that the board may do some things and not do
others.  That's all I'm saying.

 I am just encouraging to you simply adopt them and to find way to
do T that's you will.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   If you read the Affirmation of Commitments, the
independent review is done, and then the board has six months to
decide what to do with those recommendations.  Until a scoping is
done on what is required -- some of those are simple process changes,
and the communities have got to make decisions.  Others definitely
involve resources.

 And in order to be successful in doing what you said, which is
doing the walk and not just the talk, we need do that serious
planning.  And we will be working on that.

 So no hesitance whatsoever to seriously look at all the
recommendations.  So thank you.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   I just want to make one comment here just
to jump in.  You will see the process now that the board is going to
have to go through with these.  I want to echo the fact that the
board is not reluctant to reform itself.  Many of us on the board
have been asking for many of the reforms that are contained in these
preliminary recommendations for years.

 But as you can see, it's a balancing act with budgets and with
needs, et cetera.

 But I want to just encourage everyone in the audience to believe
that we, as a board have taken these very seriously and are very
excited about some of these and looking forward to implementing them.
We just need to figure out a plan to do so.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   And one of our former responses to the
ATRT is please give us the priority list so we can get started on the
most important ones first.  

 So I hope we have dispelled the sense that there's a "them and us"
about this or any resistance.  I think there's a professional
response to receiving these and processing them properly.  But I
don't characterize that as resistance.

 Thanks.

 Jeff.

 >>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN:   Hi, Jeff Brueggeman with AT&T.  I just want to
applaud the work of the ATRT and both in terms of the process they
used as well as the substantive outcome.  And I do believe it was
undertaken in a very constructive way and that it helped set the
model for how future reviews can be conducted.  And I can tell you as
someone who is now on the security, stability, and resiliency review
team, we are approaching our work the same way.  And hopefully the
ATRT has helped work through some of the process issues as the first
one out of the gate.

 I would also reiterate that I think follow-through and
implementation is going to be very important, both because the
recommendations will help to strengthen ICANN and as well as the -- I
think the external perception of ICANN's standing and strength as an
organization.

 And finally, I just wanted to highlight and reiterate my earlier
comments.  I think paragraph 20, which focuses on the recommendation
that the board should articulate the reasons for its decisions,
should identify the public comments that it relies on in the
affirmative and also explain the public comments that it does not
choose to adopt, is a very important part of the recommendations. 
And if I do a gap analysis, I think it's probably where we may be the
furthest from where we are today to what is recommended.  I think
other aspects of the public comment process are more tweaking.  But
that one stands out to me as a more significant gap.

 Thank you.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   Jeff, I would like to thank you personally as
one of the co-selectors along with Heather.  I think we are very
proud of the exceptional candidates that applied to be on both the
SSRT, the security, stability review team and also the WHOIS.  

 So thank you very much.  Your points are well taken.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Let's come to this side.

 >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Thank you.  My name is Wolf-Ulrich Knoben. 
I am from Germany and with the Internet services end provider and
connectivity provider constituency, and I would like to make a
statement on behalf of this constituency with regard to an item we
think should be taken more attendance throughout this process.

 The Internet service providers and connectivity providers
constituency wants to congratulate the members of the review team for
the amount of work done in such short period and offers supports for
most of the draft recommendations.  We would stress the need to
implement the final recommendations in a timely manner.  

 We appreciate that the review team based its analysis on several
sources:  input from the community, either inviting or in person,
during the Brussels ICANN meeting; doing interviews; and fact finding.

 Few issues still require additional information or refinement. 
Much of the review team analysis is focused on issues about the board
and the Governmental Advisory Committee in the context of generic
domain names.  The ISP constituency is concerned that issues related
to IP addressing were not deeply analyzed.  The ISP constituency is
calling for more information and discussion on IP addressing issues
at the ICANN level.  The addressing community is facing difficult
challenges.  ICANN should fully play its role in this area with the
full participation of all stakeholders and so fulfill its commitment
in CIOC, continually assessing and approving the processes by which
ICANN receives public input.  And as we go along we will provide more
detailed written contribution to that to the chair of the review team.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  I am a little bit confused
about what it is the review team has been reviewing that would have
included IP addressing issues.  So look forward to the further
information.

 Thank you.

 Amadeu.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   Okay.  First on the issue you raised
about participation and the format of the meetings.  This is my 34th
public meeting of ICANN.  I only missed three.  I don't know where is
my medal, but probably somewhere.  I got one in Mexico, by the way. 
And I still feel -- it's not that I still feel uncomfortable in this
public forum.  I feel increasingly uncomfortable.

 We now don't have the written statements from the stakeholders. 
Now we have the written comments from the participants here in the
public mic because they are under the double pressure of the
stopwatch and a schoolmaster mannered chairman of the meeting.  And
both things put a lot of pressure, which ends up in not having a
solution.  This is a solution of continuous monologues.  There's no
dialogue at all.  You know, while the board is either checking
Facebook or perhaps listening, but we don't know.

 Perhaps we don't have any other solution for that, but we have
solutions for other things.  For instance, what's the way for the
participants to give input on what's been cooking this week?  I have
been invited quite often to be on a panel, but, you know, I never
know who are even the other panelists.  Why this panel and not
another?  Who is participating?  What a brilliant idea?  Whom should
I tell that we would like discussing about a topic or not?

 There's never an available room for discussing anything.  We spend
a whole week here.  Very often we don't talk about things that are
important, if not to this week's agenda.  This week I have been
awakened each day at 4:00 in the morning by a journalist in Europe
asking me questions about WikiLeaks, domain name (inaudible) and
things like that.  As has been mentioned before, we will leave here
without saying a single word.  It is not in our mandate, but we would
like some people having, half an hour, a room to discuss this.

 And another thing that's missing is the general discussion.  This
is the only thing we have.  We have the rooms.  We have the
constituencies, the houses, the stakeholders, the SOs, the ACs.  Each
one has a mailing list and a room and they discuss.  But we lack
things that really work to discuss, as ICANN, the topics that we are
interested.

 And I think there is room for improvement here.

 Regarding the review team --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   Just one question.  Regarding the review
team.  They have done a very good job considering the time frame they
had for doing the actual job.  And I apologize to them for my
skepticism in what they would achieve.  Congratulations.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   One of the places you can direct your
comments about this is to the PPC, the boards Public Participation
Committee which is charged with helping public participation in ICANN
processes, including at the meetings.  And the chair of that -- the
current chair of that, of course, is Jean-Jacques, and we'll be
looking into that in the next few days.

 >>STEVE DELBIANCO:   Thank you.  Steve DelBianco with Net Choice.

 I'd just like to quote the paragraph from the Affirmation of
Commitments.  One little sentence that actually created the ATRT.  It
says, quote, "ICANN commits to mechanisms for public input,
accountability, transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its
decision-making will reflect the public interest, and be accountable
to all stakeholders," end quote.

 Now, the ATRT did an outstanding job on the accountability part,
but not so much on the "reflect the public interest" part.  And I
don't blame them.  How could they when we don't have any definition
what have the public interest means in the ICANN context?

 But I believe the ATRT, as they move to final recommendations,
should recommend a cross-community working group to define the term
"public interest" and what it means for ICANN.  And while they are at
it, let's define one other term that's essential to two other AoC
reviews, and that term is consumer trust.  That's a requirement of
the team studying WHOIS right now and it will be a requirement of the
team that will be studying the new gTLD program a year or so from now.

 They are not self-evident terms.  Consumer trust and public
interest means something totally different for ICANN than they would
for an organization in charge of the global fisheries or world
hunger.  There are two reasons we have to define it.  First, if we
don't define it, it won't mean anything.  The second is if we don't
define it, groups may suggest their own definition in a way that
could move their own agenda and expand ICANN's scope.

 The third reason is if we don't define them, ICANN stakeholders
might think that we actually need to create new institutions and
constituency groups to advocate for these undefined terms, like
consumer trust.  One example was yesterday, I attended a meeting of a
group that wants to create a new constituency for consumer trust and
consumer interests at ICANN.  Look, when the AoC called for
accountability, we didn't run and create an accountability
constituency.  We baked it into our DN.

 So I will close by saying instead of defining a new institution to
advocate our core values, let's define our core values so that we can
institutionalize them in everything ICANN does.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Steve.

 Ayesha.

 [ Applause ]

 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you.  Ayesha Hassan from the International
Chamber of Commerce.

 First of all, we have expressed our general support and really our
pleasure at what the great work that the ATRT did and the
recommendations that they came up with, which clearly reflect a lot
of work by the various bodies, the community on these issues over the
past few years.  And they did a great job of concretizing many of the
recommendations that had emerged over the past couple of years.

 I was very pleased to hear earlier in response to comments about
implementation that the board will be looking at implementation. 
ICC's comments, the overarching message was a lot of these
recommendations are very solid and concrete, and we look forward to
seeing them implemented as soon as possible.

 In order to -- We have inserted specific clarifications and did
participate in the ATRT's discussion with the community, and have
called attention to some of the specific clarifications that we've
offered.  I would just like to update score two of them.  One is vis-
a-vis the GAC.  We think that the recommendations are a good path
forward to continue to build that relationship, which is extremely
important.  And secondly, on the public comment and participation
area, those recommendations as well, I participated in the Public
Participation Committee's meeting this morning and it's good to see
the progress that's being made.  Those recommendations will also go a
long way to help that effort.  And we hope that that will be
implemented promptly.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much, Ayesha.  I know the
time clock puts pressure on you but just remember the thing about
pace for the interpreters and translators.  Thank you.

 Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade and I am the
CEO and principal of a small consulting company that focuses largely
on Internet governance issues.  And I am going to make a comment,
first of all, of appreciation to the what I consider a really kind of
phenomenal process which we have instituted in a short period of
time.  And I do think that there were some challenges in both
figuring out what the process was by which we would put names forward
for the selectors to pick from, and there were also probably other
challenges about how and when to get resources allocated.  But we
need to remember this is the first time we have done this and take
the learning out of this and apply it to the review team process
which will be with us on a regular basis.

 So I want to say I think we should all look at this as a job well
done.

 But my comment now is actually for the community before I go on.

 So I think that the review team has worked hard, and I'll make a
comment about some of their recommendations.

 But my comment to the community is I think we failed to look hard
enough and often enough at the reports that the review team has given
us.  And some of us, broadly, have not taken the opportunity to give
you substantial comments on the recommendations that are put forward.

 So that's something that I think we have to take back as our own
responsibilities, to come back and say more.

 It's an awesome number of concrete recommendations, but not, of
course, a concrete implementation plan.  So I know how hard it is to
assess how to implement things.  And I think it should be welcomed by
all of you as the board that we think it is a priority for you to
find those additional resources to focus fully.

 I will just say that I did think the board was maybe -- sorry.  The
recommendation was maybe navel gazing a little bit about the board
thinking itself about what new skills were needed, and I think that
needs to be the community thinking about the skills of its governing
board as well as the board providing input.  I have other comments
but I will save those.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  I agree completory with the
role of the community and helping develop the skill set.

 Mr. Foody, you get to be last on the ATRT.

 >>PAUL FOODY:   Thank you for bringing the new gTLD discussion
forward to the beginning of the meeting.  I think that was really
good of you.  So thank you.

 The second point is regarding Steve DelBianco's points about public
interest, I have always thought public interest is fairly clearly
defined.  But if there's any doubt about it, since it's an agreement
between the U.S. government and ICANN for either side to unilaterally
redefine it I think would be very unwise.  And if it is to be
redefined, it must be done with agreements of both parties.

 The other thing is maybe we could get a definition of stable.  What
is a stable incident?

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Bruce.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   Just wanted to pick up on a couple of things from
the ATRT and also maybe just sample the room a little bit.

 So one of the comments, Peter, were you asking is whether these
formats work well, and Kieren said he doesn't like the format.  I
hate the format, too.  I hate sitting up here.  I think that's the
wrong message because you are the community making the decisions.  It
appears as though we're somehow the gods of the Internet and you have
to appeal to the gods and they might give suggest in return, which is
not really the right way the process should be working.

 What the ATRT report said is that in the public comment forum, in
the online public comments, there should be sort of a reply-reply
comment form which allows people to state their views but then
comment on other people's views and they can start to share and reach
common views.  And I don't think we do enough of that.

 There is a good session on recommendation 6, a couple of sessions
this week, which I thought worked well.  A couple of board members
were there, but really the board members were just facilitating
chairing.  But it was really sort of the staff working with the team
to work out what the common ground was.

 So first question for the audience, raise your hand if you think
this format is effective, this public comment forum that we're having
right now.

 So it's a bit hard to see too in the distance but three or four
hands.

 How many people think it's not effective, raise your hand.

 Okay.  And everyone else is reading their e-mail.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay.  Let's move.

 We are going to come to something that I like do now which is to
thank people who have been working hard in the community.  We had a
process originally of only thanking board members at these fora,
which gave again the impression that Bruce and others are trying to
dispel.  

 This is actually a community exercise and there's a huge amount of
work done by often unsung, unpaid volunteers in making the bottom-up
consensus work, the multistakeholder model.

 It gives me pleasure now to confer thanks on your behalf to a
number of people who have come and worked and have come to the end of
their particular terms.  I have grouped them into organizational
categories, and I am going to call out their names and if you are in
the room I would really like to you come forward, stand with your
colleagues for a photograph and a chance for us to thank you and then
as you leave we have a little certificate to record our thanks.

 So the first group come from the at-large volunteers.  And again
with apologies for mangling any of the names and languages that I am
not familiar with.  

 Could we have Carlos Aguirre come forward.  An ALAC  representative
from LACRALO from December 2006 to December 2010.  Four years of work
by Carlos.

 Sébastien Bachollet.  We will hear more about Sébastien tomorrow,
but Sébastien at this stage is being thanked for being an ALAC
executive committee vice chair, a ALAC representative from EURALO
from March 2007 to December 2010.

 Find a place and hopefully your colleagues will gather around you.

 Beau Brendler, ALAC representative from NARALO from November of
2007 to December of 2010.

 Hawa Diakite, ALAC representative from AFRALO from March 2007 to
December 2010.

 Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chair of the At Large Advisory Committee from
November 2007 to December 2010.  

 Alan Greenberg, vice chair of ALAC, November 2008 to December 2010,
and a NomCom appointed ALAC representative from NARALO from November
2007 to December 2010.

 Dave Kissoondoyal, African representative on ALAC from November
2008 to December 2010.

 Come and stand up front, you guys.  The stage is yours.

 Did -- That's better.

 [ Cheers and Applause ]

 >>RAY PLZAK:   Peter, you should know better than to give the stage
to Cheryl.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Way to upstage the board.  Go Cheryl.

 Evan Leibovitch from -- NARALO chair from June 2007 to December 2010.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Adam Peake, NomCom appointed ALAC
representative from EURALO from November 2008 to December 2010.

 Patrick Vande Walle, ALAC representative -- he is not here, but he
was from EURALO from November 2008 to December 2010.

 Dr. V.C. Vivikanundun (phonetic), ALAC representative from APRALO
2008 to December 2010.

 And Carlton Samuels, ALAC Executive Committee rep, auteur from
October 2009 to December 2010.

 Is Carlton in the room?

 So ladies and gentlemen, those are the members of the ALAC
volunteer crew who have been here many years, working hard.  They
have come to the end of their terms.  Please show them the
appreciation they deserve.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.  You have built an
institution I think we can be proud of.

 The next group is the ccNSO volunteers, and there's only one and
she is unfortunately able to be with us because she is sick.  That's
the Nashwa Abdel-Baki.  She is the NomCom appointee to the ccNSO
Council from November 2007 to December 2010.  We have convey our
appreciation to her and her certificate.

 [ Applause ]

 .

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   There are also going to be formal
resolutions to these people adopted by the board.

 Let's come to the GNSO.  The first on my alphabetical list is Edmon
Chung, councillor representing the gTLD registry stakeholder group
from March 2006 to December 2010.  So that's two-and-a-half years of
service by Edmon.

 Is Edmon in the room?

 Come on up.

 Terry Davis, NomCom appointee to the GNSO Council from November
2008 to December 2010.

 Chuck Gomes who nearly wasn't with us, but we're delighted to say is.

 [ Applause ]

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   You can't keep a good man down!

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Chuck.  Chuck was GNSO Council
chair in 2010, vice chair from 2008 to 2009, and a counsellor
representing the registry stakeholder group from 2006 to 2010. 
Extraordinary service, Chuck.  Thank you very much.

 Carolyn Greer is not with us.  She was a councillor representing
the registry stakeholder group from December 2009 to December 2010.  

 And Mike Rodenbaugh, councillor representing the commercial and
business constituency from December 2006 to December 2010.

 Mike, welcome.

 [ Applause ]

 .

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Guys, thank you for that.  We do
understand the hundreds of hours, the phone calls, the late nights,
the millions of words, the crafting and compromises, the hours of
meetings that go into making ICANN what it is.  Thank you very much.

 There are others.  The next two board liaisons, we are about to
lose the services of Vanda Scartezini.  Vanda, would you stand.  I
think we might have a little gift from the board for you.

 [ Cheers and Applause ].  

 [ Standing ovation. ] 

 And we're also losing the services of Jonne.  Jonne, your turn to
come out.

 [ Applause ]

 Again, thanks to those who do extraordinary service as liaisons for
their various communities and have to endure the hundreds of hours of
board meetings, board calls, board conferences, board retreats and
the clamor on the board list.

 Let's move then to members -- oh sorry, just checking where we are
up to on the agenda, which means we can pick up where we were, which
is the host of the ICANN Silicon Valley meeting.  Can we call on the
host of that, starting with Rod.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  That would be ICANN.  So in the late 19th
century, a gentleman who is Robert Baron was very prone to betting on
horses.  And he decided to enter a wager with another gentleman about
whether a horse at a full trot -- full run had all four feet coming
off the ground.  And so he was also a governor of California around
that time.  And so they had a bet.  

 They had a bet about whether those feet came off.  To do it, they
had to invent a new technology.  So necessity is the mother of
invention.

 The motion picture camera was invented in the late 19th century in
Santa Clara Valley on Governor Stanford's farm to win a bet.  And
that was the invention of the motion picture camera.  

 Not long thereafter, the radio tube was actually invented in
Silicon Valley in the early 20th century.  And the first radio
station was launched in 1909 in Santa Clara as well.  As many of you
know, the semiconductor that our technology relies upon was developed
jointly through work at Texas Instruments in Texas and Silicon Valley.

 So in the 1950s, something very interesting happened when Bill
Hewlett and David Packard and other students at a university started
working in their garage to explore the potential for a new technology
called the transistor.  

 And in 1971, Don Hoefler wrote articles referring to Santa Clara
Valley as Silicon Valley, and ever since the name has stuck.  

 Companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, Intel, Seagate, Cisco,
Apple, Adobe, Google, Yahoo! and so many others have helped drive
this Internet revolution since the '90s.

 And arguably, Silicon Valley has become a synonym for innovation
worldwide and has been much referred to as a positive model for
innovation around the world.

 It also, incidentally, was one of two nodes first connected that
made the Internet happen.  The first connection was between Los
Angeles and Silicon Valley.  And a message was transmitted by, I
believe it was Charlie Klein, who recently joined us at our Silicon
Valley office opening.  Sent the very first message on the Internet.  

 So silicon Valley has a special place, and that's why it seems
appropriate that the broader Silicon Valley area, including San
Francisco, be the site for our next public meeting, which will be
held in March of 2011.

 More specifically, we'll be at the Westin Hotel, Westin St. Francis
on Union Square in lovely downtown San Francisco.  The thing I think
you will like, we will all be in the same hotel, if you choose to be.
There should be enough room.  And the meeting rooms will be there as
well, and there is many great sights to walk to in the area.

 [ Applause ]

 We hope you will all join us on in San Francisco in March.  Thank
you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Rod.  Great.  There is a couple of
other announcements to go through.  First of all, we are going to
begin with a report from the chair of the 2010 Nominating Committee. 
So if I can invite Wolfgang to come to the stage.  Sorry, to come to
the microphone.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  How does it work?  There, we should have
slides here.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Sorry.  We haven't set -- if you can grab
that microphone, bring it up on stage and do it from the stage and
then your --

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  Can we bring up his PowerPoint, please?  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Go from there.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  Yes.  I can do it from here.  Thank you
very much.  I want to briefly about the work of the 2010 Nominating
Committee.  The committee is composed by members which are nominated
by the various constituencies.  And being for four years now in
various nomination committees, I have to say that the nomination
committee is probably the most democratic element in the ICANN
structure because the constituencies themselves elect their
leadership because the voting members in the nomination committee are
selected by the constituencies and they have the voting power to
elect or select the leaders for the organization.  This is a bottom-
up process which is really unique.  

 If you go around other corporations, mainly the selection for
leading positions is a top-down process.  But here we have a bottom-
up process.  Each constituency in the ICANN community has a right to
send somebody, a voting member, to the nomination committee.

 And the interesting thing is also that the chair, the associate
chair and the adviser to the chair have no votes.  So their role is
to steer the discussion and really to let the constituencies decide
who are the leaders of these organizations for the coming years.

 So we started like always with a call to send in statements of
interest.  And we received like in previous years a total of more
than 80 SOIs, exactly 82.  And you see already from the first figure
here that it was a gender imbalance.  We got a lot of men, 78 men,
and only four women.  Geographically, it was a right balance.  But
the big imbalance is really in the application pool, is the gender
imbalances.

 So by region, you see this is fair but there is another imbalance. 
It is that the majority of the applicants want to have a board
position.  And this is also an important point which probably the
next NomCom has to fix.  But we have to do more outreach to make the
other positions more attractive, that we get better candidates for
the councils and for the At-Large Advisory Committee.  

 I understand that a lot of people are looking first at the board. 
But to be frank, the policy is developed in the councils.  And so
far, membership in the council is probably much more important.  If
you want to contribute to policy development in the ICANN community,
then the best place is in the council.  And I think the next NomCom
will certainly try to communicate this better.

 We have to fill in total seven positions:  Three for the board, one
for the GNSO Council, two for the At-Large Advisory Committee and one
for the ccNSO Council.  

 And our selections were published already in early September.  So
we selected for the board of directors Cherine Chalaby, Bertrand de
La Chapelle and Erika Mann, one of the four women who applied under
the SOIs.  So fortunately we have a better gender balance in our
selection than it was under the applications.

 For the GNSO Council, we selected Carlos Dionisio Aguirre from
Argentina.

 For the At-Large Advisory Committee, we selected Sébastien
Bachollet and Marc Rotenberg.  And for the ccNSO, Sokol Haxhiu from
Albania.  

 Let me add one word to the At-Large Advisory Committee, to
Sébastien Bachollet, because as you have meanwhile seen, after his
nomination, he applied also for the seat from the At-Large Advisory
Committee for the board and he won.  So this has certainly created
some problems for the nomination committee.  

 So, fortunately, we have a procedure in place that means if one
candidate is not available anymore, then we go to the alternate or
the other alternates.  

 And in the last couple of days, you know, we were trying to settle
this problem with a lot of communication and legal advice.  And ICANN
make the announcement just one hour ago.  We got the confirmation
from the NomCom members that we have selected as the At-Large -- the
European representative in the At-Large Advisory Committee, Jean-
Jacques Subrenat, a former ICANN director.

 [ Applause ]

 Who will hopefully will give the At-Large community a higher
profile and we are looking forward really to his activities because
he was a wonderful director in the three years when he served on the
board.  And as I said, the other councils and committees are as
important as the board.  And Jean-Jacques hopefully will make the
right contribution to bring the voice of the At-Large community also
to the attention of the board.

 You know, just a short overview of how the nomination committee is
working.  Though we tried to respect, on the one hand, the
confidential principle with regard to persons but we tried to be open
and as transparent as possible with regard to procedures.  Though, it
was known and we communicated this to the community, that we have
phased our work into a total of four phases.  We started with the
outreach.  Then we had the evaluation phase and, finally, the
selection phase.  All this here as you can see on the slides.  

 We had a lot of teleconferences and face-to-face meetings.  It was
a very careful process.  And as you see from phase 2, when we started
the evaluation, we used an approach which we call the World Cup
approach because if you have 80 candidates, you cannot handle all the
80 candidates until the very last moment.  

 So we trimmed it down first to 40 and then made a deep diving from
the 40s and with external evaluation of the O&B company we reduced it
to 20 and then we discussed the 20 candidates in the final phase
after the process of ICANN meeting.  So it was really a very careful
selection process and the evaluation process was very, very careful
and surrounded by deep diving and individual discussion about each
candidate.  But it means we didn't ignore any single candidate.  It
means every candidate who applies under the SOI, you know, got the
same treatment.  But at the end of the day, you cannot please 80
candidates.

 That means in the beginning, this is my only experience, is you
have a lot of friends.  But then when you make the decision, the
situation is a little bit different because you cannot please 82
candidates.

 Anyhow, the methodology we used, I said it already, was a Trac
system.  This is the individual evaluation by all NomCom members
based on the SOIs and the references.  Then we had the external
evaluation by O&B.  Then we had the specific deep diving by
individual NomCom members and the collective discussion of the
results.  And for the finalists, we had also personal interviews by
the whole NomCom where we had a 15-minute discussion before the
interview and then 15 minutes, another discussion after the
interview.  So I think we did what we could to get the full picture
about the candidate.

 The criteria, you know, for our selection came out from a lot of
consultations with the ICANN community.  We had discussions with the
CEO and President.  And we're very thankful that Rod Beckstrom came
to our meeting, came to an outreach meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh.  And
we had also a joint meeting in Nairobi.  And he also gave us
guidance, respecting the independence of the nomination committee. 
That certainly is a fine line here.

 Thirdly, the nomination committee has to know what the CEO and what
the board expects from the nomination committee, even if we do not
follow their guidelines.  Certainly, we have to take this into
consideration.

 We had also discussion with the chairs of the supporting
organizations and advisory committees.  We were good briefed when we
moved to the final decision-making phase.

 You know, our criteria -- and when we came up said, Okay, what is
needed?  And this has been the three main criteria for the
individuals, in particular for the board.  That means:  Is this a
candidate who has experience with public policy development and
strategic planning?  Is this a candidate with experience with
corporate governance, management and finance knowledge?  And is this
a candidate who has experiences with negotiation, dispute resolution
and consensus-building capacities?  

 When I compared our work with the Recommendation 1 of the review
team on accountability and transparency, I discovered that, more or
less, we operated in the spirit of this recommendation.  I made
already this statement two days ago when the discussion was here. 
And that's why I'm very thankful for this recommendation, and I
express the support for this recommendation saying that this
recommendation is certainly doable.  It should not be a problem to
translate this recommendation into practice.

 We had two problems.  I mentioned it already, the gender balance
and the concentration on the board positions.  There is no need to go
further here.  And the problem is what we do with so many excellent
candidates who finally do not make it to the board, though, there is
experience, knowledge and wisdom of outgoing candidates, how this can
be saved for the community.  We have excellent candidates who are not
selected.  How can we integrate these candidates in other bodies of
ICANN?  I think these are some questions where we need further
thinking about it, whether we have certainly, you know, a committee
of wise men or something like that where we can further benefit from
the wisdom, experiences and the knowledge of the outgoing
candidates.  

 I remember the time when Vint Cerf left the board, that the
question was:  What can the ICANN board do without Vint Cerf? 
Certainly the ICANN board survived.  But it always was very
beneficial to have his voice directly or indirectly in the room.  And
I could imagine here are some innovations that can be introduced for
the future.  But this will be certainly the task of the next NomCom
chair, and this gives me the opportunity now to hand over to the
incoming chair, so I will be the chair until Friday noon.  And then
on Friday, 1:00 Adam Peake will overtake the nomination committee for
the year of 2011.  

 Adam was in the committee for a couple of years.  We both served in
two other nomination committees.  I think it is a good handover, and
I will serve as an adviser to the chair for the next year.

 I thank, once again, for the community investing in me and the
whole committee -- the nomination committee.  

 Thirdly, we did our best to serve the community but we couldn't
please everybody.  Thank you very much.  

 And, Adam, probably you can just sum up.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Just hold a minute.

 [ Applause ]

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  First I want to thank you so much, Wolfgang, for
helping train so many people in this industry in your DiploFoundation
and what you have been doing for years and now helping to shape the
leadership.  And we will express our loss with the terrific board
members we have been having, but so much appreciate your efforts.  

 I particularly also want to thank you and CONAC and CNNIC's for the
very nice -- and The Internet Society of China for the very nice
event they did in Beijing where they allowed us to meet various
candidates, et cetera.  I just wanted to call that out.  Thank you,
Wolfgang.

 (Speaking in German)

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Wolfgang, I want to thank you as well. 
Let's thank -- ladies and gentlemen, let's thank Wolfgang now for an
extraordinary job done under difficult conditions.

 [ Applause ]

 While we are singling Wolfgang on, please share that with the
entire committee who worked with you under this extraordinary
process, the amount of work, the number of people you have to see,
the whittling down you have to do, the balancing exercises.  You
mentioned the gender, the geography and all those other things.  A
very difficult job but tremendously important to ICANN.  Thank you.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  Thank you.  

 Adam, sorry.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Just wanted to say thank you to Wolfgang for his
introduction.  Thank you to the board for your confidence.  And I
think the -- I will keep it brief.  Just wanted to say, first of all,
that I'm very pleased to have been able to invite Jacqueline Morris
to be my associate chair and, I think, adds great strength to the
Nominating Committee this year.

 [ Applause ]

 A request to all of you, particularly to the board, I think we need
your help in finding candidates.  And we are looking for three
members of the At-Large, two members of the GNSO, one member of the
ccNSO and two directors.  So I'd ask you to think about your
networks, not just you here but everybody in the audience, for
candidates that I'm sure you know can fill these positions and help
us to build the best possible pool possible.  That sounded rather
mixed up.  But anyway, we want a strong candidate pool.

 As Wolfgang has mentioned, it's important that we think about
gender.  And I think we need to think about our gender balance
throughout ICANN.  It is reflected actually in the composition of the
Nominating Committee itself:  21 members, and we have three female
participants in the committee.  So if we can remember that men and
women are needed in our organization, thank you very much and look
forward to your support.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you very much.  Okay.  Thank you. 
Next we come to thank the ombudsman, and I invite Frank to come and
present the report from the ombudsman.  Where's Frank?  Can we get
the ombudsman's slides up?  Thank you, Frank.  I think the way
Wolfgang did it worked very well in the absence of a --

 >>FRANK FOWLIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I will be excessively
brief to try to get you back on track, as always.  The ombudsman
report has been on the Web site since Monday, and I'm pleased to take
any questions from the table or the floor in connection to that.  I
guess everybody read it and really, really liked it.

 [ Laughter ]

 Amadeu said he read it twice.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Frank, you know one thing about this
community, if they don't like something, they are not shy about
standing up and saying so.

 >>FRANK FOWLIE:  I didn't notice that.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  It must have been perfect.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  They always do so in civil tones and
respect for each other.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:  I have a quick question, if I might, Peter.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes, Bruce.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:  Frank, in the ATRT report, it mentioned that they
are looking at the review of various, I guess, appeals processes, for
want of a better word.  And there was mention they thought the
ombudsman office should meet the various international standards that
might relate to that.

 Wonder if you could comment very briefly on whether you think the
ombudsman office today does meet those.  And if not, what are some of
the things that would need to be changed, in very summary form?

 >>FRANK FOWLIE:  Thank you, Bruce.  Actually, I had the opportunity
to provide a briefing to Brian Cute on this matter, and I shared it
with you yesterday.

 The office of the ombudsman is probably -- this office of the
ombudsman is probably the most scrutinized and evaluated ombudsman's
office in the world, not only against international standards but
also against standards that were developed within this office as I
did my doctoral dissertation.  

 The difficulty in putting this particular office uniquely into a
cache of one of the various ombudsman associations that exists is
that it is an executive ombudsman office.  It is created by a
legislative body, being the table, and performs a specific function
of answering questions about fair treatment within the community.

 There is no specific ombudsman association in the world that caters
exclusively to executive ombudsmen.

 The United States Ombudsman Association and the International
Ombudsman Association reflect either end of the spectrum.  The United
States Ombudsman being the classical or governmental ombudsman and
the International Ombudsman Association being organizational
ombudsmen who have very different characteristics of dealing usually
with staff issues, client issues and who do not formally report.  So
there are elements of both.

 In the work that we've done in the evaluation of this office of the
ombudsman, we have developed a checklist of the 50 top
characteristics found across all ombudsman associations and have
classified where this office fits in those.  That has been reviewed
by an independent third-party evaluator who has provided a commentary
and who's put -- that's available on the Web site.

 Very early in the development of the office, I contracted with an
evaluator from the International Standards Association, ISO -- our
organization, excuse me.  They have two standards that deal with
complaint handling:  One for complaints internal to an organization
and one complaints external.  ISO 10,002 and 10,003.  The evaluator
went through our framework and our process and confirmed that the
ICANN office of the ombudsman met all international standards with
respect to complaint handling.

 My advice is that the office in and of itself is meeting all
international standards, meeting all national standards and is a
leader across the globe in the evaluation of standards for ombudsman
offices.  

 I think there are weaknesses, and those were addressed in the
commentary.  I think one of the weaknesses that does need to be
addressed in terms of how international bodies look -- or state
bodies or national bodies look at the use of having an ombudsman as a
structure in their organization or government is the linkage between
the board and the ombudsman.

 I think one of the weaknesses that needs to be explored is the
recommendation process.  The Bylaw 5 is very, very clear, that the
ombudsman is to make a report to the board and provide
recommendations on how the ombudsman thinks matters should be dealt
with.

 A weakness in this organization is the reply back or the follow-up
action.  Normally where there is a statement legislature who has an
ombudsman, the ombudsman will be authorized by law to demand or reply
and report on the implementation of recommendations within 30 days. 
Obviously, in an executive ombudsman framework where the legislature
and the ombudsman are much more closely attached, that becomes more
difficult.  

 But I think part of the ATRT review and the review being taken up
at this point should include an evaluation not just of the ombudsman
but the relationship between the ombudsman and the board of
directors.  And that will provide for a much more healthy and
curative result to complaints that come through the office of the
ombudsman.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Very fulsome reply.  Any other questions
for the ombudsman?  Any questions from the floor?  In which case, let
me move to another part of this, which, of course, is to note that
Frank is leaving us at the end of January next year.  

 And Frank, of course, was our first ombudsman, was instrumental in
setting up the ICANN ombudsman framework and the online presence.  

 So, Frank, could you come and join us on the stage.  We have a
little gift to note that.  Frank also, as he said, earned his
doctorate in online dispute resolution and the assessment of
ombudsman offices while he was at ICANN.  I understand his doctoral
dissertation on that won the prize for dissertation of Monash
University for doctoral theses that year.  

 So, Frank, thank you for setting up our office and thank you for
holding it to the high standard you have always aspired to.  Thank
you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  And we have one more comment of that
nature where also -- just noting that we have a certificate to mark
our thanks to Kevin Wilson, ICANN's CFO, who also will be leaving in
January.  

 Kevin is not able to be with us at the moment.

 Kevin joined us as CFO in 2007, and at that stage marked an
important growth in the organizational development at ICANN, and
during his time at ICANN the budget has grown from 31 million to 55
million.  

 He's also been instrumental during this time in helping us develop
a number of very important policies relating to ICANN's finances,
including cost accounting, procurement, disbursement, investment,
international investment, as well as also being instrumental in
developing the very important travel support program that we now have
in place for community members.

 So ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking Kevin Wilson
for his sterling service.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I know Kevin will appreciate that.  He's
got to know many of you very well.

 And in fact, also I should have announced he opened our meeting in
Seoul in Korean which is a talent that I didn't know he possessed
until I saw it in action.

 Back now to a matter of more substance for the community to help us
with, and that's the xxx application.  

 The board has on its agenda for tomorrow the xxx application.  Is
there any public interest or comment that you can help us with in
relation to the xxx application?  

 The floor is open.

 And while people are thinking if they want to make that, please,
again, specifics are very much more helpful than "Please go ahead and
do it" or "Please go ahead and don't do it."  

 Reasons and rationale are much appreciated.

 If you're ready at this microphone, we can begin with you.

 >>DIANE DUKE: So we have the two-minute --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  We certainly do have the two minutes.

 >>DIANE DUKE: Okay.  I'm Diane Duke.  I'm the executive director --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  And -- sorry.  And remember because it's
being translated, you're going to have to speak slowly for those two
minutes.

 >>DIANE DUKE: Wait a minute.  I get three more seconds.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I'll restart the clock for you.  

 This isn't one of those elevator pitches to a bunch of venture
capitalists.  This is, let's let the community share your
contribution.  

 Okay.  Let's restart the clock.  Go.

 >>DIANE DUKE: I'm Diane Duke, the executive director for the Free
Speech Coalition, the adult entertainment industry's trade
association.  

 I have letters of opposition from the world's other trade
associations and the top (inaudible) adult companies.  

 Opposition from the sponsorship community has been established and
judging from the board member comments at the last meeting, I think
you get it.

 Entering into a contract with ICM would be detrimental to our
industry, ICANN, and the Internet community as a whole.

 In its Wellington communique, GAC stated its concerns.  

 ICM promised a range of public interest benefits as part of its bid
to operate the dot xxx domain.  

 To GAC's knowledge, these undertakings have not yet been included
as ICM's obligations in the proposed dot xxx agreement.  

 ICM's promises concerning the public interests are impossible to
meet, while still adhering to ICANN's mission.

 For an example, a man who immigrated to Iran from -- I'm sorry,
from Iran to Canada reportedly ran an adult legal Web site.  Upon his
return to Iran to visit his sick father, he was arrested by Iranian
officials.  Last month, he was sentenced to death for operating the
adult site in Canada.

 The first two promises addressed by GAC in ICM's public policy
aspect address this issue.  

 Take appropriate measures to redistrict access to illegal and
offensive content.

 What is illegal and offensive contact in Iran -- I mean content in
Iran is not in Canada.  

 It is impossible for ICM to determine what is lawful and offensive
for the World Wide Web.

 Second, maintain accurate details of registrants and assist law
enforcement agencies to identify and contact the owners of particular
Web sites, if need be.

 Will ICM provide information to the Iranian government?  

 That decision should never fall under the ICANN authority.

 GAC has raised issues at the heart of ICANN's mission.  The board,
disregarding GAC's advice, repeatedly restated, makes ICANN
vulnerable to the problems GAC has highlighted and shows utter
disregard for GAC advice and input.

 I urge ICANN directors to vote against the contract for ICM or
minimally postpone it -- postpone the decision until GAC issues are
adequately addressed.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Let's move to the other
microphone.  

 Kieren.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Hi.  Kieren McCarthy speaking as someone who
has followed this for five years, I think it's been going on.

 I hope you find the courage tomorrow to approve it, despite
probably having misgivings, and we can close this off once and for
all, with any luck.

 I just wanted to say that despite the fact that it's been a big
fight, quite a few good things have come out of this.  So for
example, the new gTLD process, the board is not now deciding.  I
think that was part of the problem.  It was the board that was
deciding.

 Also, the IRT process was used for the first time and it was very
expensive and it went on a bit too long, but it appears to have
worked and I think the fact that there was this very big dispute and
it didn't descend into a lawsuit I think is terrific and it's real
progress for ICANN.

 So briefly, I hope you do approve it, I hope we can close the book
on this, and I think that ICANN actually will be a better
organization for having gone through all this.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Kieren.  I agree with all what you
say.  

 Just be assured it's not a matter of courage.  This is a very brave
board.  It's a question of making sure the procedures are followed
correctly.  Thanks.

 Sir?

 >>JEFFREY DOUGLAS: My name is Jeffrey Douglas.  I'm the chair of
the Free Speech Coalition.  It's an honor to address you.  Appreciate
it.

 There is no good that can come of the ICM proposal.  There are
reasons that every adult stakeholder opposes the proposal.

 Imagine the difficulties for international commerce if several
countries blocked dot biz, dot net, or dot org.  All the major dot
coms would be severely handicapped because of their interdependence
and interactivity with the other top-level domains.  

 The dot coms' ability to function in the blocked countries would be
impaired as well.  

 Yet it's inevitable that dot xxx will be blocked by numerous
countries.  

 So all the existing adult dot coms will either be compelled to
avoid interactivity with dot xxx's or face compromise in their
interface with the blocking countries.

 Perhaps this is a matter of indifference to many here, for it is
merely pornography, yet ICANN is about to embark on a vast expansion
of the TLD space by introduction of gTLDs.

 It is unwise at this time to introduce a TLD which guarantees
passionate governmental opposition, for it establishes a tolerance, a
precedent of tolerance, for expected government blocking.

 Furthermore, GAC's opposition apparently would be disregarded if
the board were to adopt.  Consider the message that that sends to the
countries whose endorsement of the ICANN model is essential for ICANN
as we know it.

 This would be a precedent for disregarding the descent of one of
the most important participatory constituent groups.  

 Should it be adopted, each constituency group must come to the
terms of the new reality that no matter how strongly one opposes,
their opposition may be disregarded if the right combination of
factors occurs.

 I urge the directors of ICANN to reject the proposal, as you have
done before, despite the exhausting process that this has undertaken,
for the sake of the constituency groups, and I urge the members of
the constituency groups to communicate to the directors your concerns
of how endorsement of this proposal could harm your interests and
that of ICANN.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you very much, and thank you for the
measured pace, which is helping the interpreters.  

 Now, I see that we have an on-line comment.  

 Filiz?  

 And I'll just make the comment that the on-line -- the remote
participation facility is actually designed for people who are not in
the room.  There are the occasional person in the room, who either
because they don't want to get up or because they want to jump the
queue are sending a message to the on-line participation.  We'd
prefer that not to happen.  We'd prefer that to be for people who
can't physically be here.  

 So Filiz?

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:  The remote comment is from Reed Lee, Free Speech
Coalition.  

 During the long debate of the proposed dot xxx sTLD, the ICANN
board has naturally been preoccupied with questions of community
support and more general questions about the domain namespace, but it
has not addressed -- at least not publicly -- ultimate questions
about whether a dot xxx sTLD is a good idea at all.  

 Good for ICANN and good for the Internet.  

 It is a bad idea because it will focus a vigorous, widespread, and
never-ending debate on ICANN and on the DNS.

 ICM simply cannot deliver on its promises to keep all sides in the
porn world happy and its failure on the score threatens to land those
problems on ICANN's doorstep.

 Important policy questions, even the membership of IFOR,
International Foundation for Online Responsibility, remain
unanswered, at least publicly, after many years.  Important concepts
such as on-line responsibility remain dangerously unexplored.  

 This is because questions such as these are intractable.  ICANN
should not contract with ICM on the hope and the promise that these
questions will be answered later.

 The board should not approve the ICM proposal on this, and until it
is confident that these matters can be addressed consistently with an
Internet which remains free and open.

 At this juncture, confidence on this score is nowhere in sight. 
Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Filiz.  Are there any other remote
participant comments?  

 Okay.  Let's come back to this side, which is Marilyn Cade.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  

 My name is Marilyn Cade and I'm the CEO and principal of a small
consulting company.

 I want to start out by mentioning to the board something I've said
before when I've made comments, and that is that my background
includes being a child abuse and neglect worker and helping to start
many of the groups in the United States which looked at the thorny
issue of the role of filtering and the role of tools in the early
days of the Internet, and how parents and caretakers could protect
children on line.

 I say that because I am aware, because I continue to work in this
space in a collaborative way, that many of the child safety experts
have, in fact, consulted with the applicant for dot xxx and have lent
some support and education and contribution to some of the
improvements that have been made by the applicant to address many of
the questions that have been made.

 That is an important item, and when I look at what the applicant
has done to add IP protection mechanisms and other kinds of responses
to questions that had been given before, what I've seen is, that
applicant has addressed all of the questions.

 So our bylaws require us to treat applicants in a fair and
predictable manner, according to the rules by which the award at the
time -- the application at the time -- is governed.

 We all are aware that the board previously rejected the application
and there was an independent review, and the independent review, by a
majority, did find that there was a problem with the overturn.

 We will have objectionable strings -- objectionable to someone --
in the root, and I think it's important that the board approve this
and go forward and put this string in the root and let dot xxx
fulfill the commitments it's made in the contract agreement it has
proposed and you have proposed to negotiate with it.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Marilyn.  

 You, sir.  Your turn.

 >> Good afternoon.  My name is (saying name).  I represent ICM
Registry.  I've been working in the adult industry for the last --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Could you just put the microphone up a
little?

 >> Sorry.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Great.

 >> I've been working in the adult industry for the last 10 years
with I think the biggest players on the Internet, mobile, and
satellite television, and I've been following the application of ICM
for dot xxx with anticipation, to be honest.  

 And since I represent them from June this year on several big trade
shows, all the industry people that I meet are very excited,
basically, for the possibilities that dot xxx will give them, more
like an added value and a new way to promote their business.  

 And I think also the -- one second.  The way that ICM and IFOR is
creating a platform to promote the whole dot xxx internationally,
they appreciate it a lot, so they can represent them as good
businessmen who want to do their normal business.  

 I'm sorry.

 I think also one of the points which is important and I want to
point out here, that European Webmasters understand maybe more about
TLDs because they're used to working with ccTLDs and gTLDs, which is
part of their standard marketplace.  

 In general, I want to conclude that people I know -- and I know
most of the adult industry people -- are quite excited for the long
overdue launch of dot xxx.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 Across to the other side.  

 Becky.

 >>BECKY BURR:  Thank you.  

 My name is Becky Burr.  

 As everybody knows, I have worked with ICM since December of 2003,
so this is a familiar -- unfortunately familiar place to be.

 I want to address one tiny, but very significant, issue and call on
you all to make a reality and an honesty check here.

 We have heard the latest song of breaking the Internet because
governments are going to block TLDs, et cetera.

 I want to point out two things.

 First, governments do block TLDs now.  That's not a desirable thing.

 Second, ICM -- every -- every site registered in xxx will have a
tag, and it can be blocked by the tag.  There's no need to block it
at the registry level.  That differentiates it in very significant
ways.

 Third, if you guys approve 500 new gTLDs next year, I guarantee you
that there are going to be 250 of them that some government is going
to want to block.

 So what really needs to be happening with respect to this is the
development of practices and information about how to safely block
TLDs, if that's what you want to do, without breaking the Internet.

 So I find this sort of desperate  "Now we have a new reason not to
approve xxx" which is because it's going to break the Internet which
we never really heard before, I hope you guys will all take that for
both the important global issue it is and for an issue that is not
really limited to this TLD and this TLD will not be the tipping point.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Becky.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  

 On this side.  You, sir.

 >>JOHN VAN ARNAM: My name is John Van Arnam, and I've been a member
of the on-line adult entertainment community for 14 years.  I'm the
owner of I-Bridge International.  It's an e-commerce consulting firm.
I'm also the director of the Association of Sites Advocating Child
Protection.

 I've had the pleasure of working with the ASACP, which is an
industry watch group within the search engines and within the largest
communities in the adult entertainment space and to further the reach
of the search engines and these communities in offering child
protection.

 I do not own adult Web sites.  I do not produce or distribute
content.

 I'm here to offer my support for dot xxx and for ICM in their
efforts to assist the industry to increase its reach in a thoughtful
and child protective manner.

 I began working with the ASACP because of a false perception that
the depiction of the sexual exploitation of children and the on-line
adult entertainment industry are somehow linked.  They're not.  

 That work involved efforts within the policy, editorial, and legal
departments of the largest search engines in the world.

 It was clear from that effort that any effort to protect children
was important and valid and worthwhile, and it was this element of
dot xxx that caused me to take a much stronger look at the offering
of ICM.

 While I understand the argument exists that dot xxx could
potentially make it easier for children to -- for minors to find
adult material, it's an argument that I don't agree with, but there
can be no doubt that the ability for parents and concerned families
to filter out this material simply by thoughtful consideration of the
dot xxx label is valid.

 In addition, protecting the exploitation of children and being able
to filter out and easily determine where this content is coming from
would help.

 I don't pretend that the approval of dot xxx will immediately
eradicate the exploitation of children on line, but I'm here to tell
you that it will help.  I'm here from the on-line adult entertainment
industry to tell you that dot xxx will help kids.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 Mr. Foody.

 >>PAUL FOODY:  Hello.  Yeah.  I didn't want to get up again on
this, but I think that there is a need to tie in dot xxx with dot
com.  And two reasons.

 At the moment, in Canada there's a public information film going
around how child pornography offenses have increased by a factor of
10 in 10 years.  

 Now, that may well be down to better policing methods, better
detection methods.  That's debatable.  

 But there was an incident in Vancouver about three months ago in a
place called Pitt Meadows where a 16-year-old girl was gang raped at
a rave party and this girl -- the allegations were that it was
consensual and it wasn't, you know, actually rape.

 But the interesting point was that there were a number of
observers, and these guys, the observers, were between the ages of 16
and 20, whatever it might have been, and rather than try and
intervene, these guys started filming it on their cell phones and
they posted images of these two to Facebook and the thing went viral.

 And that's the sort of impact that exposing kids to porn on a daily
basis has had.  They are now so unaware of what is right and wrong
that they feel that when they witness a rape, the -- 

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mr. Foody can you link this to the problem
that we have at the moment, which is whether or not the xxx
application meets the requirements that have been set for new TLDs?  

 This is not a discussion about porn or changes in social reactions.
I don't want to cut you off, but we need information about linking
the -- about the contract application that we're faced with, not --
not -- this is not a debate about whether porn is good or bad.

 >>PAUL FOODY:  Well, this is a debate about whether or not the ICM -
- the xxx is the right application, and to let it go through without
linking it to --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  No.  It's not about whether it's the right
application.  It's about whether or not the applicant has met the
criteria that we set them out for them for getting a new TLD.

 >>PAUL FOODY:  Okay.  Well, to my mind, they are people who are
already being served by the Internet.  They don't represent the
community.  

 The community that is not being served here is the community of
people who don't want their kids to be exposed to anything and
everything other people want to put on the net.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  All right.  Thank you.

 >>PAUL FOODY:  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you for that.  Ms. Duke, let's come
back to you.

 >>DIANE DUKE: Diane Duke, Free Speech Coalition.  

 I wanted to address the other two points GAC brought up, and one of
them is the supporting -- the development of tools and programs to
protect vulnerable members of the community.

 We've been talking a lot about child pornography and children, but
child protection advocates, including ASACP, has sent the board a
letter.  ASACP does not believe that dot xxx will help vulnerable
communities.  It will also -- it also thinks that it will facilitate
easier -- it will make it easier for kids to get ahold of adult
entertainment on the Internet through search engines.

 So ASACP has taken a position that it will not help protect
children on the Internet.  

 So even -- whether one of their board members feels that way or
not, the organization itself has sent ICANN a letter on that -- to
that effect.

 Finally, also the intellectual property.

 Yesterday, when I went to the IPC -- or I guess it was the day
before yesterday; they all blur -- ICM made a proposal at which --
and it did a presentation in which it talked about how the adult
businesses would not be able to park their domain names, to park
domain names, and they had -- and ICM's president told us -- told the
adult entertainment industry, told me personally, and on many
interviews that we've had together, said that that would be -- would,
in fact, be able -- adult businesses would, in fact, be able to park
domain names.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.

 They promised the adult industry that they could park the names. 
ICM informed the IPC that adult businesses will not have that
option.  

 Adult businesses are concerned about the trademark and traffic, and
equally that ICM so readily lied to them.

 Again, I urge you to vote no on a contract with ICM.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Wendy?  

 Oh, I'm sorry, this side.  I didn't see you.

 >> Okay.  Thank you.  I'm standing as a mother, as a wife, and as a
concerned citizen of the world that we want to build a better world,
and I want to challenge ICANN with:  The overriding interest will be
that xxx has met your criteria, and as such, our children will be
exposed.

 I'm coming from an environment that the parents are illiterate. 
They wouldn't even know how to block anything.  The child goes all
the way to do whatever he wants to do.  

 We have learned of hacking.  I don't know how resilient the
blocking will be, how protected our children will be.  By the time
that we agree that we give such approval that xxx should be adult, we
are making the argument that it is adult.  

 And I want to raise two issues.  They are technical issues.  They
are political issues.  And I want to say that from the point of view
of the developing countries and countries that are not interested in
doing this one, in exposing our children, there will be a problem of
people raising up -- we're raising up our flag to the highest level
to say, "Look, if ICANN is going this way, then we should take over
the management of the domain name."

 So there are other issues that we should consider.  It's not just
that it met the criteria for the application, but there are moral
issues.  There are moral issues involved in this case.  

 So I want to challenge -- I want to implore the board to look -- to
hear the voice.  There are handwritings on the wall that we need --
on the wall that we should read.  We shouldn't just read the papers.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 Wendy?

 [ Applause ]

 >>WENDY SELTZER:  Thank you.  Wendy Seltzer.

 I think that the xxx applicants have followed the process that
ICANN set out for them, and as such, ICANN is not in the content
business and should not be in the content and morality business.  

 If its process was followed, the application should be approved.  

 And to tie it back to our morning -- or earlier afternoon
conversation, I think the rapid and reliable process for the
introduction of more top-level domains can drain some of the tension
and momentous nature out of the approval of each and every one.

 There's clearly dissent among what should go into particular
strings when there are only a few of them.  If there are many of
them, each group with differing opinions can apply for its own place
in which to house those.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Wendy.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  On this side.  

 Eric.

 >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Peter.  

 I really don't want to speak long because I'd be repeating what I
said the last time I came to the mic to speak to this issue, which is
that xxx met the criteria that we published in the 2004/2005 period,
and that should be sufficient.

 We don't need to be changing -- or creating a system in which we
don't actually state what the requirements are but we edit them in
real time subsequently, creating, well, problems like the one we're
experiencing today in which we have to continuously ask, "Did we do
the right thing in 2005?"

 So I urge you to continue to ask -- or respond as Peter just did in
his comment to Mr. Foody.  The real issue is did the applicant meet
the published standards and is that sufficient.  And I think it is.  

 So thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 Yes.

 [ Applause ]

 >>NICK WOOD: Thank you.  I'm Nick Wood from Valideus.  

 A year ago, I approached ICM because I work in the business of
rights protection and many of my clients were very, very concerned
about xxx.  It's not an easy concept for a large brand owner to
consider.  Do they register defensively?  Do they sit back?  Do they
participate?  What do they do?

 Yesterday, I attended the IPC meeting, and I was very pleased at
the end of it for a reason I will tell you in a minute.  

 I was very pleased at the end of it to hear the IPC meeting say
they were satisfied with the rights protection measures that are
there.

 And I was pleased because I've been spending six months working
with ICM on these rights protection measures.  

 I've employed some new people.  I've hired a new office.  We're
spending money.  

 I really, really hope that you're going to go ahead.  And I'm
saying that on behalf of myself, my own business, but also for the
community, the sense of sort of pregnancy.  Please help us deliver
this.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 Cheryl?

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  Thank you, Peter.  

 I'm speaking in an absolute personal capacity and it's probably the
toughest thing I've ever done here today.

 I'm here to remind you that it's all about process, policy, and the
fact that people have or have not met requirements, and I urge you to
approve the xxx sponsored TLD and I urge you, as that, as a survivor
of pre- and post-sexual abuse.  So if morality issues are suddenly
made different because the Internet's suddenly here, I don't
understand how.  Humans have been abhorrent to each other since we
climbed out of the trees.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Cheryl.

 [ Applause ]

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:  Cheryl?  Cheryl?  

 Thank you for your courage and your sharing and for the power of
your message.  Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Indeed.

 Russell?

 >>RUSSELL KING: Yes.  Good afternoon.  Russell King.  I'm the chief
operating officer of ICM Registry.  I've been with the company for
six months.

 Since your decision in Brussels to move forward with our
application, I think we've absolutely followed the process.  I think
we've gone above and beyond.  We've partnered with global security
companies to offer the sort of malware scanning that we think all e-
commerce should offer.  

 I would like to respond to the issue of blocking.  We've certainly
offered the opportunity for members of the adult community who don't
wish to participate.  They're certainly welcome to park their name.  

 So I would urge you to move forward and let us move forward with
our business.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  

 And John, you have the honor of closing this.

 >>JOHN BERRYHILL: 

 >> 

 Well, or boring you to death.  

 My name is John Berryhill and I'm speaking as a citizen of a country.

 [ Laughter ]

 >> Which one?

 >>JOHN BERRYHILL:  I don't know yet.  

 The prospect that national governments seek to enforce their laws
within their borders is not something, I don't think, anyone has ever
seen as an unusual threat or an unusual phenomenon.  It's simply the
definition of sovereignty.

 We've successfully conducted ICANN meetings in countries run by
governments which don't recognize certain other governments, and
while I had to go a week without the inspiring words of a certain
dear leader during the Seoul meeting, we somehow muddled through.

 But, you know, certainly there are countries, and even countries in
the developing world, in which certain types of content is
objectionable, and in some of those same countries the execution of
human beings for holding certain religious beliefs or sexual
orientations is perfectly acceptable.

 We recently had a U.N. resolution where the governments of the
world could not agree on whether or not the execution of persons on
the basis of sexual orientation is or is not acceptable.

 But approval of this application for an addressing system on a
computer network is not a threat to the sovereignty of any
government, and the assertion of the sovereignty of any legitimate
government, whatever it wants to do within its own borders, is not a
threat to the survival of the Internet or ICANN.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Khaled.

 >>KHALED FATTAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

 As I did in the -- during the Lisbon ICANN meeting where this was
first deliberated in front of the board, I wish to go first on the
record.  And perhaps the transcribers could put this in capital.  I'm
neither for nor against.  

 But I would like to address an issue which I think the board is
probably well aware of in the -- on the issue of freedom of
expression and perhaps what has been believed to be the term
"blocking."

 Within the United States -- 

 And let me add, also, a flavor of culturalism as well.

 Within the U.S., we all know that the word "blocking" has always
been used to refer to censorship about political ideas, et cetera, et
cetera.  From a cultural point of view -- and I speak here from a hat
representing a different culture -- it is not about freedom of
expression whether we provide certain content to communities or
whether they choose to block it.  I think the ICANN board would be
wise to only consider the facts of whether this meets or doesn't
meet, instead of getting or dwelling into the issue whether blocking
is legitimate or illegitimate or whether it's actually curtailing the
freedom of expression.

 Pornography, so to speak, or adult content from certain -- from the
culture -- the perception of some cultures is not an expression -- a
freedom of expression.

 So -- and I'm sure you are wise enough to recognize these points
and deliberate on the issues at hand and the way it should be
considered.  

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

 Okay.  We are closing the topic on that, unless anybody on the
board has a comment.

 Seeing none.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   I do.  I just have one comment.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Rita.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   I have been listening to the debate here,
and I am sad to say I have had it a few times while I have been on
the board.  But I am thankful for those who are reminding us that
this is about process.

 For me on the board, I don't even think we have to decide whether
this applicant meets the criteria.  I think the Independent Review
Panel said that it does.  So really what we are trying to do now is
figure out follow our process to make sure it gets into the root.

 [ Applause ]

 >> Peter.

 Peter.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought that was
somebody on the board.

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   That's me.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Filiz.  Is it somebody online?

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   We have a remote comment from (saying name)
Khalid -- again, apologies if I am pronouncing that wrong -- Ministry
of ICT of Indonesia.

 If XXX will become sponsored TLD, this time GAC lost again with
their morality and public order.  Morality and public order will go
trash, and GAC has already spent more time meeting to draft morality
and public order.

 How ICANN will take position about this?  XXX will become registry
who feed ICANN.  Meanwhile, GAC is advisory committee that give ICANN
advice only.

 Thanks.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay.  Let's close that topic and move to
the next one, which is a discussion on ICANN's draft strategic plan.

 And I'm looking, making sure that Kurt is going to be ready to help
with that.

 Thank you, Kurt.

 Questions on the strategic plan.

 Thank you, David.

 >>CHRIS CHAPLOW:  Hello, I am Chris Chaplow, vice chair of the
business constituency, vice chair finance operations.

 On behalf of the business constituency, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to review the strategic plan and for inviting
early constituency input into the FY12 framework and budget.

 Last year, the FY11 budget was really -- very just headlines, and
it was very difficult to make any valuable comments on that.  And I
think it was presented too late in the cycle for us to be able to
help you.

 So I understand there's better systems in place this year.  And so
we look forward to an FY2012 draft budget being much more granular so
we can give the feedback that's worth having.  And it only remains
for us to thank Kevin for all the hard work that he's done over the
last few years, and for coming to our meetings and for answering our
questions.  And to warmly welcome Juan to carry the torch for him.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Chris.  And we will make sure a
Kevin gets those thanks.

 Any other comment on the strategic plan?

 Just while anyone else might be, there were some people at the end
of the Nominating Committee process who felt that they hadn't got to
the microphone in time to ask some questions of the Nominating
Committee or about the Nominating Committee process.  If -- We can
come back to that in any other business if those questions are still
extant.

 Dr. Lee.

 >>YOUNG EUM LEE:  Thank you, Peter.  Young Eum Lee, ccNSO Council,
but speaking on my personal behalf.  

 I would first like to congratulate the NomCom for their success in
selecting one of the most competent people for the positions they are
filling.  I have personally noticed the diversity and the competency
that the NomCom appointed members of the ccNSO Council have been
bringing into the ccNSO community.

 I would go so far as to say that the establishment of the NomCom
committee representing the multistakeholder model has generally been
a huge success.

 I'm here to point out one special area that's enabling us to have
more confidence in the NomCom.  This is related with the third
criteria for selection, the one emphasizing that the selected
candidates will produce the broadest cultural and geographic
diversity on the board.

 I spoke at the public forum of ICANN's November 2008 Cairo meeting
emphasizing the underrepresentation of certain regions and the
overrepresentation of certain regions on the board and the ICANN
staff.

 As you are well aware, this has been a factor in the unprecedented
decision by the board to hold the ICANN meeting in the AP region
twice in a row, resulting in a most successful Seoul meeting in
October 2009.

 I also notice that ICANN now provides information about the board
representation by nationality on its Web site, which I see as a
conscious effort on the part of ICANN to ensure regional diversity. 
Photograph I'm also happy to see that the ASO has selected Kuo-Wei as
an Asian candidate as its representative to the board.

 In addition, I commend the NomCom for selecting an additional Arab-
African candidate to fill one of the seats of the three departing
board members from the European region.

 I would like to encourage the NomCom to continue this attention to
geographic diversity and to notice that the NomCom has not yet
selected a candidate from the East Asian region, and to consider this
when they begin their work next year.

 Lastly, I hope -- and this was a concern that was expressed by
Wolfgang.  I hope that the NomCom maintain consistency in its
evaluation criteria by considering the excellent candidates from
previous years.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.

 Just to make the obvious point that the NomCom can only work with
the material that it gets, and the most important thing in terms of
increasing gender and other diversity is for us to go out and make
sure that we are collecting and attracting and bringing those
candidates to the Nominating Committee.

 So just to repeat the call that Adam made.  Make sure we are using
our extensive networks to help that process.

 Sir.

 >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Hi.  My name is Evan Leibovitch.  I have been
the chair of At Large North America, coming into ALAC, and I simply
want to comment on the strategic plan to let you know how delighted I
was when Kurt displayed the strategic plan and I saw a note about
registrant rights being a component of that strategic plan.

 This is something that I think is very important to both the At
Large and other communities.  And I look forward to working with the
board, with other constituencies and with staff on moving this
forward.  It's already come a long way since it was almost an after
thought of the RAA amendments meeting, called the aspirational
document and I look forward to having it move ahead.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Naomasa.

 >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA:   Thank you.  This is Naomasa Maruyama.  One
small correction to Ms. Lee's speech.  There was one person, Mr. Ito
Joichi was selected to the board in the previous.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that correction.

 Are there any other matters of general business that the community
wants to take up with the board while you have us as your disposal?

 Kieren.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Hello, Kieren McCarthy here.  And with a
different hat on, which is as the organizer of a conference in San
Francisco in February all about new gTLDs, which hopefully you will
have sorted the rules for by then.  So I would like to invite you all
as board members to come to that.  It's the business as running
gTLDs, and I hope it will be enormously valuable for you and for
ICANN staff and for the community.  So do please come along and we'll
have a very interesting conference.  And hopefully make the whole
gTLD process go extremely well.

 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   This is a paid advertisement sponsored
by....

 Thanks, Kieren.  If we can, I'm sure many of us will be there.

 Yes.  Your turn.

 Thank you.

 >>FATIMA SEYE SYLLA:  Thank you, Peter.

 I'm Fatima Seye Sylla from Senegal, chair of At Large --

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Can you talk more into the microphone for
me, please?  I am having trouble.  Or turn it up, please.

 >>FATIMA SEYE SYLLA:  Is it okay?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes.  Thanks.

 >>FATIMA SEYE SYLLA:  I would like to inform the community about
the application of Senegal to host the 42nd ICANN meeting in October
2011 and seek for their support.

 Key points to consider. Senegal, West African country, French
speaking, democratic and politically stable.  Never a military coup
nor -- Never a military regime nor a coup.  And Dakar, the capital
city, is the most advanced point in the Atlantic Ocean in Africa
facing America.

 Senegal is very committed to the development of ICT and Internet in
Africa with the leadership of its president in charge of the ICT
component of the NPAT (phonetic).

 Senegal has the right infrastructure to organize such an event.

 One, we have several five-star hotels.  About 30 hotels around the
main venue, meaning Hotel Meridien.  Some of them are at walking
distance, and the Radisson Blu is a ten minute walk -- drive.

 We have direct flights from almost all the major cities in the
world.  Senegal has experience of organizing big events, such as we
have organized events from 1500 people to 5,000 people.  From 2005 to
tomorrow we'll be organizing the first World Black Arts Festival and
we are expecting more than 5,000 people. 

 Senegal has the support of all the African countries.

 So we invite you to support our application and to come and enjoy
our country's teranga, meaning our hospitality, in Dakar in October
2009.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks very much.

 [ Applause ]

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   Thank you very, very much for the expression of
your willingness to host the ICANN meeting, the next ICANN meeting in
Africa.  And I also encourage you to have discussions with Barbara
Clay, our vice president communications, who helps organize such
events.

 Barbara, can you raise your hand?  Fatima.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Can I just explain in case it's not
clear, we have taken the board out of making such decision.  The
board's role is not to act as meetings committee and pick places we
like.  The board's role is to set out the criteria for meetings and
what the choices are, and we leave that largely to staff to check the
applications as they come in.

 I just mention that because one of the things we want to try to
avoid is lobbying of the board about meeting venues.  We have very
little influence in relation to except to check that our policies
have been properly carried out, and the place that has been selected
has been done using the process.  Just to make that clear.

 Bertrand, it's a great pleasure to welcome to you the microphone.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Absolutely.

 I wanted -- I couldn't resist the pleasure of congratulating the
Nominating Committee for the remarkable and direction contribution
they made to the efficiency of the public forum.  Because by putting
me on the board, which I am very honored, we have obviously gained
more than half an hour of speaking time.

 [ Laughter ]

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Bertrand, I am just resisting making the
obvious corollary.  That means board meetings are going to be how
much longer?

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   It's been a great pleasure to have
Bertrand already participating in our debates and contributing
fantastically.

 Yes.

 >> My name is Mary Udumam (phonetic) from Nigeria.  And first I
want to congratulate the board, especially the CEO, the speech he
made, the opening speech concerning the new relationship with ITU.  I
am excited about it.  And I want to say that is a good development
and that I wish that it continues.  The dialogue not only with ITU;
with other international organizations, like the UPU and the rest of
them.  So I really want to congratulate you on that.

 And I want to support Senegal to host -- we're not asking the board
-- we are not lobbying the board.  We are just saying the community
should know that Senegal wants to host.

 And Nigeria will want to host at 2013.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   Thank you very much.  And just to share, it's
really been a great year of progress in partnering and collaboration
between ICANN and members of the United Nations family.  Dot post was
delegated into the root, and we have entered in a very good
relationship, working relationship with the Universal Postal Union.

 We also signed an MOU with UNESCO on the introduction of IDNs,
support for IDNs in more countries around the world.  And we are also
very, very pleased to be seeking and working towards improved
relations with the ITU.

 So thank you so much for your support for that.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Mike.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   Thank you, Peter.  Mike Palage.

 In 11 years of ICANN, one of the more interesting processes that I
participated in last year was the Nominating Committee.

 And I really appreciate the leadership that Wolfgang and the rest
of the committee members did in selecting the current slate that we
put forward, not only on the board but of the entire leadership.

 One of the things I'd like to address, though, was there was some
criticisms that I and others heard from the community about the
nonselection of some of the sitting board members and how that
impacted chairs of the committees.  I think there were three chairs
of different committees that we kind of -- I don't want to say stole,
but kind of took that leadership from the board.  And the reason I
think this is important from a board governance standpoint is, as I
look at some of the committees, I see some of them a little thinner
than when you and I were serving on the board, Peter.  And, for
example, I would look to the Board Governance Committee.

 During the years when you and I served, that was a committee in and
around say five to six people.  We now have a situation where it's
three with Ram serving as an observer, which creates a situation
where two directors can potentially control the outcome.

 I think it would really be important in diversifying the leadership
so that we don't have that failover to perhaps enhance the number of
directors that sit on some of these boards.  And I don't think it
will necessarily increase or decrease the efficiency, but provide
more of a leadership capacity for future transition.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Sorry, can I just ask a question?  I
don't understand at all the connection between your removing a number
of chairs and the size of the Board Governance Committee.  Can you
just help me with that?

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   Well, what the concern that some people had
raised is that we had, shall we say, stole leadership quality.  And
so the problem is if you have nor people serving, perhaps, as a vice
chair in a Board Governance Committee, the ability for someone to
step in and provide leadership I think is there.

 When you only have three people serving on a committee and you lose
the chair -- So let's just look at the Board Governance Committee. 
You have three people:  Dennis, Rita, Ray, and Ram as a nonvoting
observer.

 Rita's term, she is up for reelection very shortly.  In six months,
she may or may not be reelected.

 There's a potential within a six-month period of time your Board
Governance Committee will lose two of its three members.

 So I think when you look at this from a governance standpoint and
making sure that you have a bench with quality that will be able to
step up and provide this leadership, I think this is something that
was there when we served on the board, and we had a board committee
of around five to six people.

 I think three is cutting it a little tight.

 And not only is it cutting it tight, as I said -- I don't want to
use the word capture, but you do have a situation where two directors
can basically essentially dictate the outcome of a board governance
issue.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   I see.  So guarding against the future
prospect that the NomCom will again remove three committee chairs, we
should make sure there's always a backup against that.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   No.  I think it's good governance to sit there
and have the leadership of the board have a well-established
committee.  I think three members on a key committee is cutting it
thin, Peter.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   I get that.  Yep.

 So, yes.  Nice to see you.

 >>PHILIP OKUNDI:  My name is Philip Okundi.  I am chairman of
Communications Commission of Kenya and currently leading the Kenyan
group who are in this meeting.

 I would like to congratulate the leadership of ICANN who I have
seen in my time in meetings in ICANN considerable democracy being
displayed and very good meetings taking place and allowing the
members who attend this meeting to express their views very freely
and find a medium through which an agreement is agreed.

 So I really wish to congratulate the leadership.  I wish to
congratulate you all very much, indeed.

 Also, I want to thank ICANN to help the process of electing one of
my colleagues from Kenya, Alice, as vice-chairman of GAC.  And we
think this is a very good honor to Kenya.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PHILIP OKUNDI:  We are very happy about this.

 And also, now that I have the opportunity, I want to thank all of
how came to Nairobi for the ICANN meeting, which we thought was very
successful.  It gave us, as a country, considerable insights the work
of ICANN.  And you can be sure that you have a very good support from
Kenya.

 Finally, I am happy, on behalf of my country, to support the offer
of Senegal for the hosting of ICANN conference after we've done the
one in Francisco.

 Thank you very much, indeed.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   Philip, I would just like to thank you, sir, for
the amazing job that you and the Kenyan government and KeNIC and the
community in Kenya did in hosting that beautiful, stunning meeting we
had in March at the Kenyatta center.  I think we are all going to
remember it.  It was just an amazing week.

 And let's give Philip and the Kenyans a hand for that amazing event.

 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PHILIP OKUNDI:  And may I just add another word.  Next year,
September, we can -- we are really looking forward to hosting the IGF
conference and we are sure that it will be approved.

 Thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes, sir.

 >>EMMANUEL ADJOVI:  I am Emmanuel Adjovi from International
Organization of Francophonie, French-speaking communities.

 I would like to bring the support of my organization to Senegal
candidacy.

 I have trust in the will of the board to take into account
diversity and inclusion principles when the board will take this
decision.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, sir.

 Marilyn, I think you are going to be last.  And please, go ahead.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.

 I'm going to speak -- My name is Marilyn Cade.  I am going to speak
briefly on three topics.

 The first one is speaking as the chair of the business
constituency.  It is my pleasure to announce that the business
constituency heard from Debbie Hughes and a colleague of hers about a
proposal that they have to launch a new constituency focused on NGOs,
nongovernmental organizations, that are focused more on the
organizational interests of those noncommercial parties.

 When we first founded ICANN, it was our dream that we would have
such organizations actively engaged in ICANN.  And so far we haven't
been fully successful.  Some have tried to participate and not found
it quite as rewarding or welcoming as needed.  This new constituency
offers the opportunity to diversify the constituency participation
within the NCSG and to add balance to the noncontracted parties'
house.  

 I am a member, as the business constituency, of the CSG, the
commercial part of that house, and we would greatly welcome the
diversification of constituency within the other half of our
sisterhood, so to speak.

 So I bring you that message from the business constituency.  I
heard Debbie speak to not just us but others.  I would -- And receive
support as well.  I now want to just make a comment about the
importance of the inclusion of the governments in the work of ICANN. 
Going back historically, again, when we created ICANN, we understood
the importance of governments being with us in participation and in
advice, and in the interaction.  So when I hear people raising a
question about the importance of governments, I remind them that we
are all critical stakeholders and that I appreciate the work and the
effort that the governments do in order to be here and to work with
us.

 [ Applause ].

 >>MARILYN CADE:   May I beg indulgence to make a quick comment
about WSIS and the IGF?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   As you are not holding anyone up, yes.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   In 2004 and 2005, I was part of a
multistakeholder group here at ICANN who helped to organize briefing
sessions for the full participation held at a time when all of the
government attendees and the rest of us could participate in a public
environment and talk about the importance and the emergence of this
concept about Internet governance.

 Coming out of the work of the WSIS, there was a call for the
creation of the Internet Governance Forum.  It has been established
and been a successful opportunity to work together and examine
critical and difficult issues that are parallel to some of the work
that we do, but related to the work that we do.

 And many of you participate there.

 I am here to say that that is a very important forum for all of us,
and that I urge that the board will continue the support not only of
the senior staff and the board members, the regional liaisons and
other staff, but that we will continue to actively participate in the
global IGF and also in the regional and national IGFs.

 We're doing that today.  I think we could do more and should do
more.  And I will say personally, when people say, "I hope we'll be
in Kenya," it is my intention to be in Kenya at the IGF.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Marilyn.

 We are going to close the forum.

 I just had a --

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   Sorry, Peter.  Light is on.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Filiz.

 >>FILIZ YILMAZ:   Edmon Chung, dot Asia, is reflecting on the many
discussions about cross-community; i.e., joint SO/AC working groups,
which are springing up in various forms on different topics this
week, and remembering back at the Sydney or so ICANN which I first
brought this issue up, I think it may have come the time for us to
pick up this important subject, which is to explore putting together
a framework for these type of joint working groups.

 I know every time a work group or a process is being put together
for the development of a process it probably sounds more make work. 
Nevertheless, I will try to make a suggestion again for the board or
the community, for that matter, to consider initiating work on a
framework for the convening of cross-community; i.e., joint, SO/AC
working groups.  This will help reduce the duplicative and often time-
consuming effort to create these cross-community working groups which
substance themselves have proven to be of great use, but processwise,
cumbersome and unnecessarily contentious.

 Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

 Ram.

 >>RAM MOHAN:   May I quickly add to what Edmon is saying?  We have
empirical evidence that this actually works with what SSAC has done
along with ccNSO, as well as with the GNSO.  Multiple topics, both on
security and on IDNs.  This is a really good approach, and well worth
replicating across the board.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes, I think we have seen other examples
that ccNSO with the GAC on IDN ccTLDs, perhaps most recently the rec
6 working group in relation to the new gTLD program.

 Any other comments from the board?  If not, I am going to close the
public forum with the board's thanks for the comments that we have
received today.

 What we do now is we are going to go and have a working dinner and
try to prepare our positions for the board meeting tomorrow.

 Early in the morning we will be hearing reports from various SO and
AC chairs.  Then we go into the board meeting and then we will close.

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   And Peter, if we may, if we can give a hand to
the entire community.  Give a hand.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes, thanks very much.

 [ Applause ]