GAC -ICANN Board Joint Meeting
 Open Session
 Tuesday, 12 February 2008
 ICANN Meeting
 New Delhi, India
 
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So, now we can -- I call to order the open session of the GAC and the board and warmly welcome all those who kindly joined us for this session.  And we have planned two items for discussion in this open session.  Namely, Joint Project Agreement midterm review and the domain name tasting.
 I am not sure whether we will have sufficient time to address the second question, but if we will, we will.  Otherwise, we will restrain ourselves discussing Joint Project Agreement midterm review.
 So I hope that that will be acceptable to the board.
 The GAC, during these days in New Delhi, had several opportunities to address questions related to midterm review of Joint Project Agreement.
 I must say that these discussions did not bring us to any kind of common conclusion, at least not yet.
 And, therefore, today, GAC members will be expressing themselves in their national capacities, including myself.  And everything that I will say will not be on behalf of the GAC but as the Latvian representative of the GAC.
 Nevertheless, before doing that, I would like maybe to kick off this discussion by asking a question that was raised by a number of GAC members during our internal discussions, and namely, what was the reason behind the board's decision to submit comments on Notice of Inquiry of the Department of Commerce.
 Maybe that would be the subject to start with.  And after that, we will go on the -- in discussion.
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   I think there's a very simple answer.  We can go on in more detail, but the simple answer is we were asked to by John Kneuer, Assistant Secretary.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Okay. Somehow we expected a little longer.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So, it was very clear.
 Now I'm turning to my fellow GAC members.  So who would like to take initiative and start discussion?  France, Bertrand.
 >>FRANCE:   Take my usual role of jumping first in the water.
 Before making comments, I have already made some in the open session the other day, I found very interesting the combination of the two elements.  One, the response of the board itself, and the additional elements that were presented yesterday, if I'm not wrong, in the open session, because they are actually addressing two complementary elements.  One was addressing particularly the JPA in the response from the board and the notion of when it should terminate, or if it should terminate at all.  And the other one was more focused on what is needed towards the transition.
 And as I said yesterday, I think the second element is almost as important as the first one.
 Could the board elaborate a little or present in more detail how it envisages the coming months and the process moving forward?  Are there already discussions on that?  And if yes, what is basically the elements of the roadmap, if any?
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Bertrand.
 The answer is that we are starting the process here.  And the seminar that you mentioned was the first step in that.
 I appreciated the discussions I have had with a number of members of the community, including yourself, as to, obviously, the need for that.  A recognition of the reasonably tight time frame that we want to do this in.  And the need to publish a roadmap.
 At this stage, there isn't one, but we are working on it.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Peter.
 Italy.
 >>ITALY:   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 When the NOI was started, I registered that the intervention of Peter was the fourth in line.  And it caused a changement in the following comments because the statement that JPA is no longer needed, or something like that, generated the idea that there was sort of an agreement that the JPA could be actually terminated just after the midterm review.
 Then there was a clarification that perhaps it is true that it is no longer needed, but there is necessity to do a number of things in order to verify what will be ICANN after the termination.
 So in the end, we do not see so much difference, because if we want to do something very serious about it, then, also, 18 months is not a long time.
 So we have to build up something that will be accepted by the community, and ICANN will have to prove to go along with the initial criteria that were established when ICANN was created.
 So also, the role of the GAC, the relation of the GAC with the board, the work going on of the presidential strategic committee, studying, for example, possible different solution about the legal status of ICANN and these things should be urgently elaborated.  And the comments that we have observed in the NOI are very clear about that, and the expectations that there are on the future asset of ICANN.
 So I say that perhaps your contribution made as an effort to elaborate what will be after.  In any case, if it is now or if it is 18 months from now.  This is the crucial point.
 And so I think that you, as the board and, of course, also us as government representatives have to very seriously attack these problems and try to have an answer that is convincing and make it public.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Stefano.  Any other requests?
 Australia.
 >>AUSTRALIA:   Thanks, Janis.
 Does the ICANN board have an expectation that GAC will provide some sort of advice or comment about this issue going forward?  I mean, what's your broader view of this?
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Could you say it again?  I'm sorry.
 >>AUSTRALIA:   The question was does the ICANN board have an expectation the GAC will provide advice or comment upon the issue of the JPA and what should happen afterwards, going forward?  It's really a question about whether you are seeking GAC to do it's broader function, which is provide advice within the ICANN organization.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you for the question.  It's an interesting question in terms of timing, seeing that we have not yet got to the 28th of February or have any sense of what the situation may well be after the 28th of February.
 But taking, as a starting point, that a number of the community to date have said to us, "We think it would be a good time for the Department of Commerce and ICANN to be sitting down now and talking about transition, final stage, post JPA," whatever sort of languages are being discussed, I think it would be the view of the ICANN board that of course that will involve the whole ICANN community.  And the ICANN community very much includes governments, representatives of the Governmental Advisory Committee.
 So if that was to be the case, we would expect that of course this would be a key organ for discussion, in the context of ICANN being a full multistakeholder organization, and in the context of a lot of comments we have heard from members of the community that they are concerned that the 20-year long-term model ensures that no stakeholder gets dominance over other stakeholders; that there's not a danger that one set of stakeholders get to sort of control ICANN in that sense.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.
 I don't see, for the time being, requests.
 I recognize Brazil.
 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And thank you, Paul, for your last comment, which goes very much in line with something that I was ready to say.
 But as we are in an open session, first I would like to publicly acknowledge the work of our Indian colleagues, in particular from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, in hosting this ICANN meeting.
 This event and the ongoing preparations for the third Internet Governance Forum, to be held also here later this year, show the strong belief and interest of the Indian nation in supporting the process of internationalization of the Internet.
 Internationalization, by the way, is the word that best describes the momentum, not only of the technical perspective of top level of the domain names, but also from the political perspective of preparing grounds for the position of the ICANN management structure to a truly international environment.
 These issues seem to bear no apparent relationship, but in the end, the question that needs to be answered is, in short, how will the addition of the next billion Internet users affect present governance structures?  And how should such structures be reshaped to respond to the building of inclusive, reliable, and democratic governance processes on a truly multistakeholder setting?
 The government of Brazil is fully committed to the internationalization process of ICANN and its independence from any single government.  To that end, the nonrenewal of the JPA in 2009 is a requirement.  Its termination should be seen, however, as an initial step of a long-term process aiming at providing worldwide users continuous assurances of integrity, stability, and reliability of the Internet.
 Moreover, any new governance structure should be designed to facilitate the expansion of the Web as a means to support development and digital inclusion, taking into account cultural diversity and multilingualism.
 We considered that the principles and decisions adopted in the World Summit on the Information Society must serve as an inspiration of an enlightened vision by the board in the conduct of this process.
 In the transition phase, we should aim at striking a carefully balanced participation of all stakeholders in ICANN decision-making processes.  Governments, the civil society, the private sector, intergovernmental and international organizations, should pledge to understand each other's roles and responsibilities according to the terms agreed at WSIS.
 If the new scenario is perceived as allowing a clear predominance of one stakeholder over the others, the legitimacy and credibility of the whole transition will be compromised.  As far as governments are concerned, for instance, the international management of the Internet should allow governments to coordinate themselves to define public policy issues, which is their sovereign right.
 For this purpose, there is an urgent need to strengthen the GAC in terms of its role, representation, and methods of work.
 My delegation considers this, Mr. Chairman, a key element to be included in the roadmap for the transition period, and better sooner than later.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   I thank delegation of Brazil.  And Peter, you asked for the floor.
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes, I wanted to repeat to the GAC something I have been saying.  And I think I am going to keep saying at this meeting and in public.
 And that is to ask you not to adopt some terminology that has been going around.  And that's the terminology about liberating ICANN or freeing ICANN or releasing ICANN.
 That is not what this process is about.
 What this process is about is increasing the accountability of ICANN as it's making the ties stronger.  It's about increasing the obligations.  It's about making ICANN accountable to a wider group, to the entire Internet community.
 It's not about releasing or going free.  So please, if I can invite GAC members to make sure in their discussions, none of that language intrudes.
 Clearly we are going to need advice from you about your concerns about the future.  What is it that you would like to see by way of accountability mechanisms and structures as we go forward.  What are your concerns?
 That's what this is about, developing mechanisms and structures that are responsive and accountable to the entire Internet community.
 So please, no talk of getting out from under agreements or being released or getting free, because that's not what we seek.  We seek greater mechanisms, more ties, tighter accountability mechanisms.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.
 Any further requests?  Let me maybe then put my Latvian hat on and tell you that my government acknowledges the progress and improvements ICANN has made in many areas, its operations and administration since October 2006, and its commitment to continue the evolution and encourage the organization to maintain that direction.
 Latvia recognizes the significant effort that ICANN has undertaken during the period in improving transparency and accountability.  The GAC and ICANN board engaged in constructive dialogue on the possible measures to improve transparency, and practical examples of this improvement in transparency include the revamped Web site of ICANN, the preparation of annual reports, and the timely posting the board agenda and corresponding minutes.
 Latvian government also acknowledges that the accountability definitions provided to the board by the Governmental Advisory Committee have been reflected in ICANN's recently published ICANN accountability and transparency frameworks and principles.
 Equally, Latvian government recognizes and encourages the work ICANN is doing in rolling out IDNs in both CC and G space.
 And finally, Latvian government is of the opinion that ICANN, in consultation with the Internet community worldwide, should start discussions on modus operandi which would be adopted after expiration of the Joint Project Agreement in September 2009.
 So now I am putting back my hat of the Chair, and I see that France is asking for the floor.
 >>FRANCE:   Thank you, Janis.
 I was asking a question earlier.  I would like to use this session to provide some comments on the substance.
 The first thing is that we were seeing that this is a delicate issue.  I mean, let's not hide ourselves.  It's one of the most important issues we will have to address in the next two years.
 It's a very delicate moment, and it requires a real understanding and cooperation among all the different actors who compose the ICANN community, be it governments, private sector, civil society, or at large, and other actors, to understand that we are trying to build something together.
 Each community has different interests.  Some have existing positions or existing interests that have to be protected.  It is true for everybody.
 Everybody is afraid, and I am very sincere about it.  We are all afraid of the unknown.
 There are changes that have to be made.
 And the reason why I was insisting on the process is because if the process doesn't bring the actors face-to-face enough within ICANN, we will nurture the fears instead of alleviating them and building confidence.
 There will have to be decisions to make the nearer we get to the target date that we more or less understand is going to be at the end of 2009.
 There are more issues that have to be identified before they can be addressed.  To be honest, in this very meeting in Delhi, I identified in the various sessions ways to define problems that have to be solved for the transition to be efficient.
 Our main objective, as France, is to make sure that when the transition occurs, there is a real transition that can provide this organization and this mechanism long-term viability and flexibility for the future.
 We all know that ICANN has been going on many, many, many iterations in the last eight years, or nine years, since its inception to address the different elements.  And this constantly evolving nature of ICANN is a natural consequence of the originality of the model that we are trying to build.
 So it's not a bad thing.  It's a flexible mechanism, and a lot of issues have been explored during that period.
 I think now it's time to draw lessons on things that have worked very well and a lot of progress, I don't get into the details, but a lot of progress has been accomplished during those periods towards something that is fully multistakeholder and more accountable.
 Now it's time to draw a certain number of lessons and identify the very specific items that must be addressed in the next two years.  And as a matter of fact, even making this list of issues is already a process in itself.  Because we might have different visions.  We might formulate them in a different way.
 I was very interested, for instance, in the discussion between the  ccNSO Council and GNSO council yesterday which has to do with how common is a PDP, for instance.
 How trans-constituency is a PDP?  This is a very important question.
 How to build a multi-script domain name system is a major unifying question because it's not only a technical matter.  It's a structural matter.  It's a policy matter.
 I won't make the list because we will have the opportunity to discuss that.
 But I just wanted to share that fundamentally, what we are facing here is a very exciting opportunity.  And I hope that -- not so much the board will come back with a roadmap saying this is what we plan and that's how it will move forward.  I think in the time until the Paris meeting, which is the next one, and that we're very proud to host, there will be a possibility for consultations, and that, actually, the Paris meeting can be used and seen by the board and the different constituencies as an opportunity to ask very simple questions.
 What are the fundamental issues that have to be addressed for ICANN to really make the transition?
 We don't believe that the termination or the end of the JPA in itself is enough to place ICANN on the long-term viability a path.
 And so it's not only the question of closing or not closing the JPA.  It's what are the concrete elements in terms of evolution of the corporate structure, as discussed by the President's Strategy Committee in terms of how the different structures within ICANN can be reviewed and improved, et cetera, et cetera, that have to be addressed.
 So it's not so much a position at the moment of where we want this to go, but on how we can make sure that we move forward together, and also, as I said in the public comment, how we can leverage external fora, including, as I see Markus Kummer here, the IGF as sounding boards or as outreach space so that the process that we are collectively conducting here, outreaches to actors who may not like ICANN, who may not be participating in ICANN, but whose opinion has to be taken into account if we want to build something that is really international and open.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Bertrand.
 Any reactions?
 Finland.
 >>FINLAND:   Yeah.  Thank you, Janis.
 First of all, I'd like to associate myself, or ourselves, Finland, with the positive assessment by Latvia of ICANN's performance, especially concerning relations with GAC, with transparency and accountability development.
 But as many have said, the important thing now is the road map, the road ahead, and also where that road will lead.
 And it's not a question of what ICANN will look like after 2009, but it's a question of how it will look like after ten years and 20 years.
 And I think that this is a tremendous challenge for all of us, for all communities and all actors, including governments, because the change has to be a plus.  It has to be positive for all actors, for all communities, and for all governments.  It has to be a win-win situation for all.  And that's a tremendous challenge for all of us.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Yrjo.
 So I see no further requests.  I now turn to the board members.
 Do you want to add something or comment on the subject of this discussion?
 Yes.
 >>NJERI RIONGE:   I just want to say I (No audio) -- how we can move forward.  So it's just, again, just agreeing.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So Paul, please.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Can I just -- thank you, chairman.
 Can I just make the observation from what we've heard today from people's comments, and also what we've heard in other parts of the room, I think it's an important point to point out that as people have talked about consultation, as people have talked about road maps, have talked about steps to go forward, they've all put it in the context of this forum.  And I think that's very important.
 The Joint Program Agreement is, by its nature, a -- it is an agreement between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN.  And that's the first -- I think that's the first key thing we need to recognize, is that existing relationship and that existing forum.
 And the second part is, I think, a recognition when we say "ICANN," that ICANN is this multistakeholder entity which has all of you participating in it, as Peter said, to which we should all be accountable, including the board and staff, accountable to that community.
 So I think the important thing I've heard here also, chairman, is questions as people are thinking about the future, they are reiterating this forum and this community talking.
 And while other parts of the international environment might be places people may want to discuss this topic, this is the forum in which -- this is the forum in which the stakeholders are meeting and this is the forum in which the discussion -- people seem to be saying is where it should be taking place, which, I think, is important.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Certainly I can assure that you from the GAC side, we are fully committed to be part of the cross-constituency discussions on the subject and contribute to all possible and maybe impossible means.
 Maybe, then, if there is no further requests on this subject, we can move to another one.
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Before you leave that, could I just thank you on behalf of the board for that final commitment to GAC participation, and just to say that we all feel the same about this, obviously.  And I think Bertrand got it absolutely right when there is a fear of the future.  But I've taken from today's meeting with the GAC a sense that there is a commitment to face that future and the challenge to go forward to make an ICANN that will meet those accountabilities.  So I'd like to thank all of the GAC for the very positive way there's movement forward, despite the fear, which I, like Bertrand, acknowledge about the future.  So I thank you all for that.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you, Peter.  Now, we can move to the next agenda item for today's discussion is domain name tasting.
 To kick off the debate, I can tell you that the GAC today for the first time addressed this issue by receiving the briefing from ICANN staff.  This briefing followed a not very long exchange of opinions.
 What I got from this exchange was an appreciation of GAC that the issue is addressed in a constructive manner.  And maybe we can start by asking what are board's intentions on this issue.  There was a board resolution.  But how you see this process evolving and trying to eliminate this practice.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thanks for that.  Thank you for that.
 The board is paying close attention to this particular arena, and you'll get a presentation. 
 There was a board resolution suggesting one potential way that could be considered by the GNSO in its present consideration of this process.  We recognize that's one of the potential ways the GNSO could respond.  We are conscious as of this afternoon that the registries and the registrar constituencies certainly have a perspective about the importance of the add grace period for other activities, something which needs to be considered.
 The GNSO process is an appropriate process going forward.  The community's consideration of the budget may be another.  So it's not a question that the board is trying to give a top-down answer to this question.  There may have been perceptions to that.  And I am conscious that there was a recent press release that may have been a bit too bluntly written, which, therefore, was misleading on that.  But the board does not have a final or specific position on this topic except that it thinks it's important that both for the board -- both through the GNSO process and potentially through the budget process, that the community really needs to move forward and try to address this.
 I think it really is, especially after some of the consultations we've had today, I think you'd have to describe this topic as work in progress.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Paul.
 I now open the floor for any questions or comments.
 I see none.
 Then it seems that everybody is expecting a good party.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Chairman, may I just -- there were a couple of members of the GAC who asked a question before about agreements.  And I wonder -- I've got the facts now, if I could share them, on advice from general counsel and others.
 There are nine sponsorship agreements between country code top-level domains and ICANN.  The last was with EURID, the operator of dot EU, in 2003, and I know it was put in place at the request of the Commission, actually.  And we have 37 accountability frameworks in place since that time.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you, both, for this clarification.  I think that we -- in absence of any further requests for the floor, I maybe would like, before closing, just to express our appreciation of ongoing ICANN support to the GAC secretariat.  And in order to further improve GAC performance, if I may use this opportunity to formally ask ICANN to assist the GAC secretariat in the renewing of the GAC Web site.  I think that this is essential for successful operation of GAC work.  And also, that will stimulate our intersessional work.
 You have acquired a lot of experience in upgrading ICANN's Web site, and maybe you can modestly share your experience with the GAC secretariat in improving our Web site.  And please take it as a formal request from the chairman of the GAC on this.
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   I wonder if I might ask a further question about internal matters as well.  That is that we are continuing to review meetings like this.  And I wonder if the GAC could take some time -- I know it's very busy -- just to go right back to the basics and consider the ICANN meeting structure, the timing, so that we can make sure that the expense and the time and the trouble that we go to to have these meetings is best organized and we get the most from it.
 Some specific questions are, how many meetings a year should we have?  Would you like and would you be able to have intersessional meetings between other meetings?  What do you think we should be considering at these meetings?  How do you know that the meeting has been a success?  What are the standards that you're using to measure the success of the meetings?  Who do you want to meet with when you come to these meetings?
 All these fundamental questions we need to review, because we found that some things have been solved over the years, and we no longer find that we're all meeting in our own rooms and not aware of what's going on down the corridor.  But on the other hand, it's been pointed out we now spend an awful a lot of our time meeting with other groups, explaining what we're doing.  And maybe the expense of coming here can be better spent by other mechanisms.
 So I'd appreciate, as we look at the meeting structure, if the GAC could help with its view about those questions.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Without preempting any further comments, what I would like to say from my side, for the GAC, the face-to-face meetings are very important.  If meeting structure is changed or the number of face-to-face meetings are reduced, that may influence the outcome of GAC work, because it is very difficult for us to take any decisions intersessionally.  And, therefore, at least at first glance, the frequency of the meetings, three, for me personally, looks like optimal solution.  If ICANN is looking to decrease the number of meetings, we may consider what would be the consequences for the GAC.  And I personally cannot exclude that GAC may have one meeting outside ICANN meeting.  Of course, that would be more difficult to arrange, because we're using excellent facilities of ICANN meetings and hospitality of the host.
 In absence of that, and taking into account that GAC itself does not possess any administrative capabilities, that would be very difficult for us to do.
 I think that what would be useful, in general, is to create cross-constituency group where, certainly, GAC would be happy to delegate some participants who could discuss the meeting issues and could come up with option.  And maybe that's the way forward.  And that would not be -- I know that the board has abolished the meeting committee.  I am not speaking about board meeting committee.  I am speaking about cross-constituency ad hoc group which would be created just for the purpose to discuss and propose some options and would be dissoluted immediately after.
 So please take it as my personal opinion on this.  And I'm looking around whether there are -- somebody who wants to make other comments.
 I see Bertrand.  Because I think that this will be personal comments as well, as were mine.
 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Yes, absolutely.
 First, to support fully, as I've done many times, the cross-constituency approach.  The more the meetings can separate the moments where thematic discussion in a cross-constituency manner takes place and the moments that are saved for the different constituencies to work together on their own, the easier it will be to structure work.
 We had a long discussion today on internal GAC working methods.  And one of the elements that I wanted to mention is that we can improve our own working methods and our interaction with the community at large also if ICANN itself is evolving some of its methodologies, including by using more processes where we can feed in in a more informal way, as well as in a formal manner.
 And, finally, on the question of how do you measure success, maybe there's a way to see whether there is progress milestones on certain issues, like the meetings having the purpose of finalizing an issue paper for that subject or a recommendation regime for another one or final adoption of a regime.  But knowing when things have really made a milestone is important in terms of visibility.  And in this respect, some very interesting progress was made on the Web site using the process timeline.  And I think this can be used more.
 In terms of the number of meetings, three or two has advantages and disadvantages.  I don't have a very definite position on that, actually.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.
 Does anybody else want to make comments on the subject?
 Doesn't look to be the case.
 I don't know, Paul, maybe before concluding we should inform what was decided on the joint working group.  Would that be a good idea?
 So we had a joint working group meeting on Sunday with --  This group evaluated the need for developing the next set of terms of reference for the group, if any.  And the conclusion that was reached during this meeting was the following:  The working group, which was created in 2006, has concluded its initially -- or has attained its initially set objectives and contributed to the improvements in work of ICANN and the GAC, and interaction of ICANN constituencies, including the board and the GAC.
 It was decided that at this moment in time, there is no pressing need to continue with the working group.  And at the same time, we also agreed that the meeting time of the GAC with the board will be increased from one hour, 15 minutes this meeting, to two hours in the future.  And if the need will arise, part of the meeting with the board will be closed, as it was also the case today, and part of the meeting with the board will be open.  And if in the future the need will be felt that some specific working group is useful to address a specific issue, that ad hoc working group will be created.
 So that was the essence and conclusions of our discussion in this joint working group.  And we should acknowledge that the working group is abolished or abandoned, not abolished.
 So this was a point of information.  And by saying this, I would like to thank board members for having time to come to the GAC meeting.  I would like to thank GAC members for active participation.  I would like to thank our guests, who saw that even closed meetings are taking place with an open-door policy.  And I hope to see all of you or many of you tonight in the gala dinner.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Can I also, before Peter says a final word, can I also say thank you to the GAC again for questions and this period of the engagement.  Look forward to that going forward.
 I'd also tyke to say formally say thank you to the government of the republic of India for hosting our meetings here and for the work they've done.
 I'd like to, if you don't mind my talking again personally, but knowing the interests that your ministries may have domestically at home, you may -- I know you were caught in meetings today.  But the Shri Jainder Singh, the secretary of the department here, personally ensured that five of the leading Indian I.T. business leaders addressed us today on I.T. success story of India.  Their presentations were really good.
 The five gentlemen represent over a billion dollars worth of personal wealth, and they're the leaders of companies of about $25 billion of market capitalization.
 And they made presentations on what had contributed to India's success in building an I.T. sector, electronic sector, a software sector, and in business process outsourcing.
 And the presentations are available, the transcript's available through our public participation site.
 For those of you who may have colleagues back at home who find such things of interest, I recommend you may want to look at those presentations.  They were actually very valuable.
 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Janis.
 Paul has actually done the job, I think, and thanked the GAC.  If I could just add that.  This is a very important session to the board.  We look forward to it, and we look forward to it continuing.  Thank you for this one, and we look forward to the next one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So for the GAC members, we are -- planning committee is meeting tomorrow at 8:30, and we're starting at 9:00.
 Those members who would like to contribute to the text of the communiqué, please send e-mail to me and to Donna.  We are working on the first draft.
 Thank you, and enjoy the evening.
 [ Applause ]
 (6:34 p.m.)