Workshop: ICANN Board Governance Committee at-large review working group discussion. 25 June 2008. Paris, France. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Ladies and gentlemen, in a few moments we will be starting the ALAC Board Governance Committee working group workshop on the ALAC review, and if that's not enough acronyms in your life, you need to get out more. This meeting will be simultaneously interpreted into English and French, and to make that work, you'll need one of these things (indicating). They're found in a box over there (indicating) or over there (indicating). And just a reminder, sadly in English for the French speakers, that it's perfectly all right to speak French. The people down the back are very, very good, and they'll be able to translate anything that you say. So if I can encourage you to speak French if that's what you would prefer to do. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I think we're about to begin. Firstly, can I welcome you here to this second session of the ALAC review working group. I'm going to quickly run through the slides to recall in terms of Monday, and I'll be speaking in English this time so that's probably a bit of relief. But just in doing that, the Monday session that we had was really for Westlake consulting to present their independent report. Today's session is really to be collecting views and input into the working group activity, and I'm hoping that we will actually draw out from today comments -- new comments. I think we've heard very clearly, both on Monday but also on Sunday and Tuesday's sessions that we attended with the ALAC meetings, issues relating to voting history and a number of other very, very important things. But today I'm hoping that we're going to be able to cover other points from the report as well. So just a very, very quick run-through of where we're at. So the ALAC review is part of ICANN's commitment to continuous improvement. The board, as we heard from Richard Westlake, appointed Westlake to undertake this review. They did their homework and produced the report -- the draft report for this meeting, and I believe that translations of the executive summary are going to be available later today. I'm not sure if that's Pacific day today or European time, but that's what I understand. This week, we have the Monday workshop to understand the Westlake report, and today is all about beginning the conversation of the way forward. We've also had two informal sessions this morning, which actually we only received one attendee, but the office hours informal sessions, and then tomorrow is another one of those. In terms of the report, that is the view of the independent reviewer and in fact even though there is -- there will be opportunities to give input into that draft report, reviewers, or the reviewers are their own men and their own company, so they may or may not change their own report to reflect that. That's something that they have to decide. But the consultation on that is going to go up to the 11th of July, which has been extended by two weeks so that the RALOs and others can have input into that. Then there will be the public comment period. The working group are going to consider everything, and come up with our draft report of where we are for Cairo, with the intention then of producing a final report in time for the March 2009 meeting. I think one thing before kicking off today's session is really to say this is the beginning of getting input. We really, really want to receive input as much as possible, and in whichever way you would want to give it, so today as I say we're actually going to be looking at and hopefully encouraging you with Patrick's help to cover other aspects of it. There's one -- before we kick off, and my colleagues on the working group are going to be working very hard today, so this is just my little piece here. Before we kick off with the working group members cover some of the other points in coming out, I would like to give the opportunity for anybody with a prepared statement to read it now because rather than interrupting the flow or breaking the flow, I think it would be good to hear those now. So I don't know whether any of you want to do the one from North America, and I think there may be one from EURALO. If you don't, that's perfectly fine, but it was just we thought we'd bring it up up front so that we can have a big flow. And equally, if there are any others, so, for example, in the EURALO, that would be fantastic as well. >>PATRICK SHARRY: As you come up, if you can just let the people there know your name and then I'll set the microphone up here for you. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Hello, my name is Evan Leibovitch. I'm the chair of the North American region of at-large. We had considered actually presenting this at the public forum later today, only to find out that the forum has been heavily structured in such a way that there is no real time given to the ALAC review during that time, so I'm just going to give this now. This statement has been essentially agreed to by consensus of the entire North American region. There have been a number of other ALSs that have come on board in agreement with this statement. When I get back, I will publish a list of those ALSs and other regions that have endorsed this. The North American region of ICANN at-large, by consensus agreement, believe that the ALAC review process is significantly flawed. Its recommendations serve neither the multistakeholder goals of ICANN nor the needs of Internet users. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny at-large voting membership on the ICANN board is puzzling. The rationale emphasizes rigidity over good governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's at-large community, they take a significant step backwards. Their request that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists being composed of nominating committee appointees who are neither elected by nor responsible to at-large. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak. Indeed, opposing the recommendations of the nominating committee's own review. In rejecting both the process and the substance of the consultant's report, we commit to working with ALAC to create creative and viable alternative recommendations designed to increase accountability while enhancing the bidirectional communications required between ICANN and its grass roots community. This review must address not only what the computer -- what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN owes to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current review and to suggest alternatives, and to challenge even the very frames of reference upon which this was constructed. We believe such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Thank you very much. Are there any others? As I say, there was a few that perhaps EURALO might have something. Okay. >>WOLF LUDWIG: Thank you, madam. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Go ahead. >>WOLF LUDWIG: I'm on? Yes. Thank you very much for this opportunity. We were discussing with our colleagues from NARALO in length, and we had just a meeting before the lunch break. We were editing our position paper, our statement, which is more or less in the same direction but which is more detailed, and we will be ready with a written version we can present in the early afternoon. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Or you can post it -- you can post it on the site. So would you like to do it at the end of the meeting? >>WOLF LUDWIG: I hope we will be finalizing the written dedicated version because it's a little bit more difficult. This is part of the problem because as you know, Europe is a multilingual country, and we need some native English speakers to make the final editing. Therefore, it was taking a little bit more time. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Okay. Well, if it's done before the end, then come back. We were just very keen that there were not interruptions but distractions from -- so as it's the beginning, if it's not ready, if it's ready at the end, that's good. If not, post it. >>WOLF LUDWIG: Okay. I will let you know and we will read it down. Thank you very much. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Okay. Thank you, thank you. So on now to the discussion for today, which is really around the reports and also, say, answering and giving input in terms of some of the -- many aspects that haven't yet been answered, and Patrick, if you're ready, it will be fantastic to move forward. And just as a final word, this is not the only opportunity. We really are encouraging you to use the public participation Web site, and also our own -- or the ALAC review work page is going to be updated regularly with input on there. So thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: What we're trying -- what we will try to do today is to have a conversation about the ALAC review, the report, and what we should do next. The way that we will do that is we'll start with the working group, who are up here on the stage at the moment, and just get their impressions of where we are at this point in time. Then we'd like to take comments from the floor. But we'd like this to be a conversation rather than a string of possibly unlinked comments. To that end, we will swap you in and out with the working group, so that we can continue a conversation happening on the stage with whoever is relevant for the conversation at that point in time. To make this work with our scribes, we'll need you to form an orderly queue down here (indicating), rather than at that microphone. So when it comes time for comments, once we've heard from the working group, we'd like you to form a queue here, and the reason for that is that it allows the scribes enough time to get your name and that makes their process run much more smoothly. So what I'd like to do is to start the process by asking Thomas Narten, member of the working group, just to give his impressions of where we are and what the big issues are that we should be talking about. Thomas. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Thank you, Patrick. I'm going to speak just very briefly, and what I'd like to sort of encourage the community to do here is to always sort of step back and focus on the problem and try to identify the problem. And I say this partly because this is -- this is my background as an engineer and in the IETF, where often we talk about solutions and if you talk about the solution without actually talking about the problem, you often find out later that the solution doesn't solve the real problem that we have, and what I find interesting also is there were some other meetings I was at this week where this approach was taken and by turning that question around, it completely changed the dynamics of the conversation that followed, because all of a sudden people talked about what they perceived the problem was, which was not at all apparent from what the solution or what the conversation had been previously. So what is the problem? What are the impediments to ALAC being an effective organization and carrying out the mission that it has? And sort of my perspective from listening to people and sort of seeing what's in the report and my sense of what needs to be done, I think the number-one issue is: Does ALAC have an effective seat at the policy development process table? Are they actually engaged in the process and are they impacting the process? So are they, you know, involved in making the policy and, second, are they actually having an impact on the policy. I don't say necessarily are they getting their way or are they always right and are they always listened to, but are they having an impact. Because as always, things have to be balanced across the multiple constituencies. And then lastly, sort of continued or increased demonstration that the interests of users and end users are being represented. Thanks. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Harald, what's your view? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Well, I could say a lot of things, but... One of the recommendations of the report that I kind of liked was that, hey, we don't have enough data to go on. It's still early in the game. ALAC is new. So I got to thinking about, okay, in three years' time, we're going to sit here again and go through the same exercise of review, so what are we going to be reviewing? So when I want to see if an organization has been effective, I want to say what did it plan to do? Did it achieve it? Were the actual goals realistic? Was there a realistic planning process? Did it have the support it needed to get it done or were there other reasons why it failed? I mean some things work, some things don't. So one of the recommendations in the report that I was looking at said ALAC needs to develop a strategic planning process and an operational planning process mirroring what ICANN does, but of course ALAC has to be the one to do that. I'd like to have discussions about, okay, we need a plan. How do we get to have a plan? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Jean-Jacques? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Well, a word of caution. I've been on the board only for a few months. I do realize that most of the people in this hall are widely more experienced than I am. So the way I view this report, the preliminary report, the draft submitted by Westlake, is not necessarily with the same view that most connoisseurs in this room have, or -- I would like to point out a couple of things. First, I'm struck by the fact that on the part of some of the at-large community, as expressed, for instance, just a few minutes ago, there is very high emphasis on very specific, of course, important matters of voting/nonvoting, of representation, of process. I do realize the extreme importance of that. But at the same time, I cannot but be struck by the very solid common sense of what my two predecessors have said, Thomas and Harald, that perhaps we need to have a really fresh look at the whole thing, to determine what the overall -- the overarching objectives are for having an at-large representation, whatever you call it and however you organize it. How can you best ensure a true wide, fair representation of end users. So I will not discuss any specific item, but I would like to say that what I see as a relative newcomer to the ICANN board is that the way the Westlake draft is formulated does not, in my mind, exclude any specific or generic solution. They had to start somewhere. It is not up to me to speak on behalf of Westlake, but I speak as someone who will have to use both their input and yours as a member of the working group, so I think that's quite important, and I would like to make sure that I get input of an equal quality and addressing the main questions rather than starting with important details without having a clear enough picture of what the overarching issues are. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Jean-Jacques. Before we go to Vittorio, can we just go back to Thomas and I'd just like your reflections on what Jean-Jacques has just said and how it ties in with what you said a little earlier. Do you see it being consistent? >>THOMAS NARTEN: I see it being as consistent, yes. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Yep? So there's a sort of a common position there about needing an understanding of really what the problems are and then moving forward and to Jean-Jacques' suggestion of taking a fresh look? >>THOMAS NARTEN: Right. I mean, I think whenever you're talking about changing the process, changing something works, introducing change, you have to always keep in mind is what is the real problem, what is the bottom line and how will you know, after you've made the change, whether it was actually successful. And I've seen just too many instances where the change is made sort of under the assumption that change will be good and it's going to fix the problem and then you find out it didn't really address the real issue that was there. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Great. Thank you. Vittorio? >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you. And well definitely from Jean-Jacques, I've been involved with the at-large for the last eight years or so, so I think my point of view is really special in the sense that it is from someone who has lived in first person a lot of these mechanisms and interactions between ICANN and the at-large community. So I think that there is a two-way message they want to send. I mean, seen from the bottom, the review working group towards the ALAC, I think that the ALAC has to do some work, which means that it also has to take care of its internal organization, it has to take care of communications with its own community, with individuals in the at-large structures, and also verify whether they're really active and have a vibrant community and a vibrant discussion with its community. And this is starting to happen and this is getting really better in the last couple of years, but still needs to be developed and a lot of effort and planning effort should be put into that. And also, maybe it's good if -- I think too many people in the at-large community really focus on the authority issue, so how many votes do we get. I think it's really important to focus also on the authoritativeness or credibility issue. I think that in the end, the ALAC has a role if it can put smart people to make smart policy suggestions in all places of ICANN. This is really something I think the ALAC has to focus upon. But, on the other hand, I think that after all these years, the at-large community also has to get some replies from ICANN. There's at least a couple of issues that I think should be maybe addressed by your work or by ICANN in general. I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate process but they need to be addressed. The first one is the relationship with staff, and I think -- I mean, I thought of these by -- while listening to the statement by the NARALO. Over time, there's been a relationship routine between the ICANN staff and the at-large that I would define a bit like love, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, love, hate. So a lot of hate and a little of love. And I don't really understand why. I'm not able to point fingers and say it's the ALAC's fault or staff's fault, but it's never been working very well. And I guess this is at the roots of the distrust then you see towards the report and the review, to a certain extent. And so this is something that needs to be addressed. It's not just the quantity of staff support, it's the quality in the interaction. And the other is really the purpose of the ALAC. I think it's really unclear to the community what is the actual purpose of the ALAC. If you look at the ICANN bylaws, it's just providing advice to the board. If you look at the report of the consultants, the reviewers, it's providing advice and ensuring accountability and I think that other people have really other views. Now, I'm not sure that this is the group that should take care of ensuring that ICANN is accountable to the general public, but somewhere we need to have that discussion, and I think this is what the at-large people are asking for, so we need to have that discussion. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. Just before you go, Nii, we'll let the rest of the working group have some comments, and by the time we get towards Karl, I'll open the queue. There is actually a hologram of Sebastian Bachollet over there at the moment. He's holding his seat there because his back is a bit sore and standing up would be too much so he'll be the first cab off the rank if that works as an analogy and we'll form the queue from there, and Evan I'll take you next. So sit down, don't worry just yet, and then Izumi. We'll try to get everyone through, as we go. Nii. >>NII QUAYNOR: Okay. I was a member of something called MAC. I don't know if in your history you recall that, but I was also on the board from about 2000 till 2003. For me, I think the goal, no matter which detail we use, is a very noble one and one that we should make every effort to advance, you know, in spite of it being very young. We have to make strong effort to advance it. On the other hand, I think for our own sake, we need to ask ourselves if we have a billion users, where are they? You see, we need to be asking ourselves how -- what effort must we make for that billion to be more involved in whatever activity that we are doing. And it is those kinds of things I'd like to hear from you, the, you know, active ones as to what you need, what is missing, that will make the billion become much more involved. And I think that's really where, you know, my position stands. Now, of course I understand that a much more cohesive group can be much more effective in recruiting or engaging these people in the at-large, and most important, we ought to make finite progress. I mean you need to move forward and get some results that will help ICANN in this regard. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Nii. Karl? >>KARL AUERBACH: Yeah. I'm Karl Auerbach, and I'm Nii, I came onto the board through an election for the public, and that was -- that process ended in 2003 when the ALAC came in, and by my computation, it's been five years since the ALAC was born, so I heartily consider the ICANN to be a baby, newborn. I believe it's existed long enough to prove itself and be tested today. Now, when I look out at the audience here and through the camera at the community of Internet users, I don't see stakeholders. I see people. Some people are just merely going to use the Web. Some people own intellectual property, some people create intellectual property. Many own companies, many own businesses, many own or work for businesses, but nevertheless, they're people ultimately, they're not stakeholders. Each person is a bundle of conflicts of interests, and those conflicts can only be resolved in the context of each individual person balancing those competing interests. I disagree with Thomas in the basis that we're not solving a problem. I don't believe we're here to solve problems. I believe we're here to create a process for solving problems. As a lawyer, I've learned that process is more important than individual questions. Now, my main point right now is accountability. I -- speaking as a California lawyer, I look at ICANN and I see a California public benefit corporation, and as such, it is responsible and accountable to the public. But what does accountability mean? Does it mean merely giving advice which may or may not be listened to, or does it mean something stronger? To my mind, accountability requires some mandatory position which people can be heard and at which their opinions must be taken into account. They cannot be ignored. They are not subject to any other discretion. Now, also, ICANN has been characterizing itself through the years as a body engaged in technical coordination. Just look out in the hallways here. Look at what we're doing. It is pretty clear that that is not an accurate statement. ICANN is involved in the regulation of business, economic interests, the allocation of social resources, social engineering. As such, I don't see ICANN as a proper inheriter of the IETF process of consensus. I see ICANN more as a political body in which competing interests duke it out. And I mean duke it out in the roughest ways, full-blown opposition, debate and ultimately voting, not humming and consensus. So I see ICANN as very much A mini government sitting on top of the Internet, not as a technical coordination body. And the mechanisms of accountability to the public require an ALAC that has a mandatory -- a place through which it must be heard. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Karl. Would any of the other working group members like to make a brief comment about that? You can see we don't have a unanimity of opinion and that's a fantastic thing. Nii. >>NII QUAYNOR: I don't see ICANN as a California company to start with. That's what we are working towards, much more global. Much more part of a global activity. My second concern is I don't really think we should think of ourselves as a mini government. We are treading very dangerous grounds with that kind of thought. I mean, in fact, by thinking that we are a political organization, that's what makes the decision process, rather, very difficult and unwieldy. Let's narrow our focus and make sure that the people are heard. And if, in fact -- if they do have an issue, we will pay attention to them. We need to assure that they will be heard and they will be listened to and acted upon and do it that way so we coordinate our work. If you don't like consensus -- people are asking for voting. Is that the same thing? Anyway... That's my feeling, we should be a little bit more flexible and cooperative and coordinating done instead of throwing ourselves to the hands of governments. >>KARL AUERBACH: We are inventing something new so cooperation is really important. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Karl. Thomas? >>THOMAS NARTEN: Yeah, so I will disagree a little bit with Karl here and say ICANN has a mission and I think that, again, we should always focus on the mission. Why are we here? What is it we are trying to do? And I don't want to view us as a California non-profit because I think that is the wrong starting point for understanding what it is we're trying to do or how we go about doing it. We always got to think of what's the problem we're trying to solve. What is our mission? That's what we should always be focusing on, achieving our mission. If we don't agree with the mission, we can change the mission first but let's start with the mission and keep that firmly in mind. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Thomas. Tricia? >>TRISHA DRAKES: So as we lead into -- because now I think we'd like to hear a few words of what you have to say. You've met the team or the working group that the Board Governance Committee and the board selected for us. And, Roberto, I see, is sitting there. But I think they have done a very good job, and there is a very broad range of both current and former director skills and expertise. We've already, in our working group discussions, had some heated debates. And part of the objective of today, A, was for you to hear firsthand and no who the working group members are but also, then, for you to give input into us and the discussion. And Patrick has to also make it also active and interesting because that's the way we're off to delivering a very good report for ICANN. And as Annette said in one of the meetings yesterday, you have a very challenging task there and I think we certainly do. And the quality of the output from that task depends on the home team of the working group taking into account the input and feedback given in the best way possible because we're all for the same objective, and that's what we really want to try and achieve. So I will pass over to Patrick. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Tricia, I will take your microphone and your chair. So if you would like to step down there. And we'll get Sebastien. I would like for you to be seated and be part of the group. >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you, may I be allowed to speak in French? I wish to speak in French if you can listen. Perhaps headsets are in order. My name is Sebastien Bachollet. You have seen me several times in the past few days. Today I am speaking as an individual and as an individual user of the Internet. Even though I am also vice chairperson of ALAC, that is an elected representative of European users. One of the reasons that I wanted to speak very early on in this discussion is to say that we should not forget that the work that has been done for seven or eight years, as Victor reminded us, was preparatory work. We had something we called interim ALAC, and the true ALAC or the final ALAC, so to speak, was only created a year ago. So we're reviewing a structure that's barely one year old. I think that this is far too early. We should have realized that ALAC needed to come into being, to be able to exist for two or three years just as other ICANN bodies that haven't really been reviewed during the first year of their existence. This is why this situation is quite unusual. We've had a review conducted by an external group after barely a year of existence. In fact, less than a year because they started their work at our meeting in India and were already talking about changes when we haven't even had time to set up properly. Of course, you can argue that there never is enough time or you can go faster, but to be conducting review now, I really believe it's too early. So bear this in mind. It is true this has been going on for eight years, but truly ALAC is only one year old. Of course, there is progress to be done, improvements to be made. I think the RALOs, the regional organizations, and the ALAC are ready to make the necessary changes and all input that will make it possible to -- for ALAC and RALO to work better are welcomed, even though this may not require an in-depth change or reform of the operations. So I take this in the following way. Thanks for being concerned about our fate. You are going to help us along the way. Maybe we don't need reforms, but maybe a better operation for our own structure. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Is there anyone on the working group who would like to make a response to Sebastien? Karl? >>KARL AUERBACH: Yesterday I went up to the ALAC review meeting, at least one in the afternoon, and there was a comment made in the room that seemed to obtain large agreement which was it would be hard to conceive of a structure that made it more difficult to carry out meaningful discussions in a timely manner than the current structure. Now, that seemed to me to be a loud call for reshaping of the ALAC. And I would remind you also that the intellectual property group got its act together so fast when ICANN was formed that it was able to get the UDRP railroaded through. And in the year 2000, we had the electoral process. Within a period of a couple months, we had several hundred thousand people sign up. We had elections, we had debates. We had all kinds of things. It seems to me that the difference is qualitative rather than merely quantitative. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Sebastien? >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I take your point, but I am not sure that we are fulfilling the same goal because we need -- we need first to be organized and then to deliver for the I.P. constituencies, the people who wanted to participate were there and then no real need for organization. It was a single buddy, a single constituency, a single group of people. Here we have to deal with the differences about culture, about language, about continent in one single organization, what ICANN is facing globally. That is why we should take more time to kick off. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Sebastien. Thomas? >>THOMAS NARTEN: I will just say, Sebastien, on a personal level a lot of what you say makes sense to me. One possible conclusion from that is now is not the time for major changes but some fine-tuning is still possibly in order. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Thomas. Karl, you want just one more quick reply, I think. >>KARL AUERBACH: Given the contrast between the organization of the various so-called stakeholder groups, do you feel it is unfair for the ALAC to compete against them? That you are on an unfair competitive basis? >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I don't think that we need to compete. We need to be involved in the ICANN. We are with the other stakeholders of ICANN. We need to be more involved. And I don't see really that we need to compete. We need to discuss with the others. We need to be able to be convinced or to convince the others and to move together because at the end of the day, we need one Internet working for everybody. And when there is discussion about where you are, there is some opponent to your position, frankly, we need good providers, [inaudible] providers, we need intermediaries, [inaudible] intermediaries but they all need good customers and [inaudible] customers for end users and for business users. We need all together to be [inaudible]. If not, we will fail all together. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Sebastien. Evan has some more to say so let's hear from them. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Actually, it is not necessarily more to say. Prepared statements are one thing. Now I speak as myself. I am talking for nobody else. Not for my ALS, not the RALO. I am here as an individual who has been involved with ICANN for barely more than a year, and I have found the entire process kind of daunting. I'm extremely happy that we were -- that the outreach program from Jason Malthouse brought us in. I am extremely happy for that. I just find a lot of this very perplexing. So I have made a couple of notes and I hope you will bear with me. Again, this is just from me. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Evan, what I might do is let you get one or two of them out and then come back to your other ones, if that's okay. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: That's okay. One of them is just fundamentally a matter of definition; that is, what is at-large? What is ALAC? It may sound like really weird first principles. But we have an application as an ALS right now from the ISOC of New York. They also happen to be an NCUC. And I have a little bit confusion about when I do outreach and talk to people and I try to say, "Where is the best place for somebody to put themselves forward and show their opinion within the process of ICANN?" Are they at-large? Are they a member of NCUC? I see some confusion there. I don't know if there is any documentation that says if you are this, come here. If you are this, come here. And I find it blurs that a bit. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I will just stop you there because I know that's something we spoke about in the working group earlier today. I wonder if there is someone on the working group who would like to make a comment about that. >>IZUMI AIZU: Sorry. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I will get to you very soon but you just need to be patient. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Do you want to respond to that particular comment? [Speaker Off Microphone] >>PATRICK SHARRY: No, sorry. Would you sit down, please. Would anyone on the working group like to respond to Evan? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Why won't you give him the floor? >>PATRICK SHARRY: I will in a moment. I am trying to make sure we keep the conversation going. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: I want to listen to what he has to say. >>PATRICK SHARRY: So do I, I want to make sure we hear these other people as well. >>KARL AUERBACH: I fine the lines are arbitrary, too. As someone that sells things on eBay, or commercial, what are they? I find the lines to be very arbitrary. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Evan, what was next? >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: The other confusion has to do a little bit with two things. One with the timing of the Westlake report and at that point, one of the things that Westlake got absolutely dead on was the concept of there being an ALAC 1.0 and ALAC before that. And I really, really have to take issue with Karl saying it has been around for a long time and we judge it based on the entire history. If I recall correctly, the very last memorandum of understanding with the RALO was done at the last meeting in Delhi. I mean, when does the clock start ticking on the ALAC that actually has a grassroots body behind it? Until then -- until recently, it's been mainly appointees by people who have been merely a best guess at representing the public as opposed to the grassroots itself. So the timing of this, I sort of wish the three-year clock had started ticking when the last RALO came on board as opposed to from some other organization that once upon a time thought it was ALAC. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Okay. I will stop you there. I am going to take Karl off the stage because we have heard a lot of him and put Izumi on because he is the next cab off the rank. Come and take a seat. >>IZUMI AIZU: I don't want to sit there. I went to the preparatory meeting this morning with them as the only one participant, if you remember, right? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Indeed. >>IZUMI AIZU: And it is very difficult for non-English speaking people out there to participate into the discussion. And you asked me if something like that happens, please tell us. That's why I wanted to. Going up there even sometimes creates some people nervous. Are you aware of that? Giving some space to ask people to participate is another thing you didn't really do. You chose some people. That's my impression. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but these are the difficulties -- Thomas, you mentioned a mission or program. It is related to how to really make the global participation of small individual users into the ICANN's policy making process. Most individual users are not really ready to come up to the microphone like me, even up to the podium. So that's why I suggested to have small group meetings for the next meeting, not this one, right? But it is very difficult if I go here, there is a distance. So I ask you to reach out to the far end physically. I try to be very, very constructive. I don't want to criticize too much but bear, please, in mind that we need to do in this manner that can accommodate everyone. That's how we've been grappling since day one. I was a member of chair of the working group of membership at the IFPP which created ICANN, and then a member of this and that. I went all through interim ALAC and now I'm ALAC 1.0. But it is the same thing. So how do we really hear our voices together to the ICANN process? That's all I want to say. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Izumi. Would you like the chair? >>TRISHA DRAKES: Just while Alan is going up there, Izumi, we have listened and this is really -- we were talking about for the next meeting. This is an experiment of a way of engaging. If it didn't work, then we change. But please let -- let's have a go and see how it does and keep an open mind. And for the next meeting, we'll have the smaller groups. But we have listened. And Patrick is actually working on the experiment that we agreed. And if somebody is really shy, please, we'll have a system that says we won't participate. But what we really want is the comments. But we really, really do appreciate all of your input and guidance. And what we want to do is to try and get the input from many different types. So if we could just bear and try. We're very happy that you get up to say that with passion because it will help us to get it right. And what we really want is everybody's input. In these smaller groups, we'll try -- or we'll do for next time. Let's have a go in getting the input through. I really appreciate and implore -- and if this way doesn't necessarily give us an outcome, we will try a different way. We want to get your input into this. If you have got any comments, then either jump up as Izumi did or pass them through to us. We would like to spend as much time to for getting the input through. Forgive us all if we don't get it quite right. Thank you. I did try to speak in French at the first meeting, which was a way of trying to reach out. We're looking to reach out and there are many different ways. So let's have a go. If we get it wrong, well then at least we've tried. And we really want everybody, whether they're shy, impatient, have a language thing -- I hadn't spoken French for 30 years -- to just really to try to do that. So my comment is not a negative one to you. It is a positive one in that I'm here to reply. But I want everybody's comments as much as possible into this study which is really important. And we also want you to continue, Izumi, to helping us because you are a great asset in doing that, and Wolfgang, too. Thanks. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Tricia. I think more than comments, we need conversation. The way that the world moves forward is people talk to each other about their ideas. They don't just make comments and sit down again. And what we are trying to encourage here is actually conversations about the ideas. And that's why we're trying to have a conversation with the working group. So I would encourage you to come and take a seat at the metaphorical table and at least be part of that conversation for a while. >>ALAN GREENBERG: My comments are not about the review as such so I'll stand here. Karl made a comment before that someone yesterday said that if someone tried hard, they couldn't come up with such a convoluted structure of the ALAC or something to those words. I was the one that said it. In fact, I was not talking about the ALAC. I was talking about the user ALS RALO ALAC structure that is four levels of hierarchy that we're supposed to communicate down and up over for every discussion. So that's somewhat different than the ALAC itself. So I just wanted to clarify that. The second thing is I understand you are trying to do a conversation but from somebody sitting in the audience, it is sounding like more of a debate between the interveners and the review committee. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Maybe that's where we need to start the conversation, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: It may make it a little bit intimidating. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. Sebastien is on the phone. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: You have a very weak imagination speaking as someone who has worked in corporations. But, seriously, one comment I want to make to Evan is ALAC is now in the position -- you don't have to ask anyone how -- what your definition in. Just state one and tell them to refute it. [ Laughter ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Harald. Nii. >>NII QUAYNOR: Okay. I have been reflecting on the discussion about small groups. I think if you have a billion users, you really should not be expecting small groups. We need to find maybe a way in which we can break down barriers even when you have large groups. I mean, the smaller groups may occur elsewhere. But by the time you get to this level, the expectation is it will be a lot of people. And in spite of that, we have to still be able to relate at that level. And I thought I would make that comment. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Nii. I would encourage us back into the ALAC review, if we can do that. Vanda? >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: That's exactly what I'm thinking about. Being in ALAC, I have been in ICANN many years but being in ALAC less than one year, I still don't see how we could accomplish our mission. That's the main point that I would like to have the report to discuss. We are trying one kind of architecture to reach people and to get their opinion. If it will work, we don't know. I'm not sure if the ALS or the RALOs will, you know, accomplish their goals. We need to produce or translate for us the opinion of the region. So discussion on that is very important. And I believe that's more important for us than really not -- you know, discuss our position inside ICANN. Inside ICANN we need to be listened, certainly. But I have different opinions, and I can agree with both. To have a vote position could be good for sometimes because we can force some position during some votes. But at the same time, if you have this vote position, you cannot speak for your community. So what do we want? Or let's change the idea that once in the board, once voting, we are -- just represent ourselves, our community. If we don't do that, the vote could be a trick for us. So there is some kind of issues that is not clear for what is the best for represent community. So that's just questions I have. >>PATRICK SHARRY: That's good. Thanks, Vanda. Quick comment, Evan? >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Actually, that's a perfect connection to a confusion that I had going to something specifically in the report. And it is a confusion about what the nature of ALAC should be. If it is to be an advisory board, that is one that in the report is defended as something that unabashedly represents the interests of the public to all different facets of ICANN. Well, if that's the case, why are there any Nominating Committee people in there? Why isn't it all just grassroots? There are no nominating people on the GAC. There is no Nominating Committee people on SSAC. If you have an Advisory Committee that is there to unabashedly there to represent the interests of the public, why do you need some greater, overall wisdom injected into this when it exists at so many other levels of ICANN? If, on the other hand, there is a need to have this greater wisdom into ALAC, then it is not really a classic Advisory Committee in the sense of the other ones that are in ICANN right now. That's where the confusion is. Is it a true Advisory Committee? There is people, I believe, in at-large that I've spoken to that think that ALAC should be on a very similar level to GAC, which doesn't have a board either, but also is totally represented within its community, doesn't have anybody in from the outside and is free to totally independent make its views known. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Evan. We can't convince you to come to the table. I will give you the microphone. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Annette is also there. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Okay, there is a line? >>PATRICK SHARRY: I'm sorry, I thought you were next in line. If that's the case, it must be you, Annette. >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: I'm confused now. What's going on now? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Come and take a spare chair. >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: I'm confused now. Was there a question here to me or am I asked to just give a little statement? Okay, well, as I am on this panel now, I would like first to say is that for me I really suffer that we are talking about procedure again. And I have this feeling my God, we had just this great talk with the governmental advisory yesterday and there was this guy outside, we had to stop this really productive talk on content, on real issues on the introduction of new gTLDs and openness of new TLDs which will be introduced. And now we had to stop that discussion because, yes, I follow the duty and I'm here and I will discuss the ALAC review. It's painful. I want to get some content. I want to get something done. That's what I wanted to express first. Talking about the review itself, I already said, yes, it is a huge challenge and all of us tried to first -- and I really liked what you have been saying of the working group here. You first have to find the overarching ideas, what is the purpose, what -- how could we achieve this, and we said, yes, we want to bring -- really making the body of ICANN, the board and all these constituencies actually should focus on what -- how do these policies have an impact on users, and, therefore, we have to also get users in and say, "Hey, this has an impact on us." And I don't really agree with Evan concerning this NomCom stuff and all this, because the most difficult thing is there is no natural way of being represented. All these constituencies, I mean, we also have to have a closer look at those because their representation is also a little awkward, but they are there. And they find a way, they don't need funding, they have money or, you know, something like this, or government. They are there, they are elected people. So it's a different thing. So at least for the beginning, I like the idea of having a little mixture with some elected people and NomCom people, but I don't think that this is really the problem. I was wondering, concerning the review itself, I was very -- to me, it was unclear what is the scope of this review. I expressed that yesterday when I heard it was not in the scope that -- to look at the participation of users and maybe possibly their rights of voting and direct impact, and I said, "Oh, well, if that is not in the scope, what are you looking at?" So that should be part of the board review, I was told, and then the board review people said, "Ooh!" So we have to look, if we look at the ALAC and at the RALOs, of course we have to look at at-large, and of course we have to look at all these difficulties there, out there. Who is at-large? We had a long discussion -- and again, procedure, procedure, procedure -- about how do you become an ALS? Who might join? And we had a discussion, "Yes, we want to represent consumers, users," but in many countries, there are no especially Internet consumer organizations. Actually, you know, where do you find those? So good initiatives are rather there where, especially in developing countries, you have a mixture of government, business. It is so tricky to get a real user representation there. So you have to be really careful in how do you get in. So I think it would be really helpful to look closely what are the issues and how could issues be dealt with in an effective way and how do you get users' opinions and step by step. Go ahead. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Annette. Thank you. Any comments on that? Harald? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Yes. I mean, in three years' time, next time we look at the ALAC. I really do hope that the main content of the report will be, "Yes, we address these issues and we had this impact," and everything else we do, I think, needs to push that forward. So the whole purpose of organizing should be: Get the right people to discuss the right issues at the right time with the right input. Get things done. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Harald. Was that a hand there, Jean-Jacques, was it? No? That's fine. Sebastien, I'll get you to come down. The next in the queue was Alejandro? >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: May I add something still? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Absolutely. >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Patrick. I won't be able to participate fully in this discussion, so I'm -- I will make a very brief statement only. I will be moving in a few minutes to another meeting. I would just like to come back to some point which seems to gather a lot of assent that every time it's expressed. Karl has already done this -- I'm sorry, I'm not speaking with my back to you. >>KARL AUERBACH: I thought I was getting in your way. >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: The complexity of the at-large organization is not a deliberate attempt to create a confusing and hard-to-escalate structure. It's -- this complex -- I mean, the fact that having ideas, discussions and so forth trickle through the structure, becomes difficult, is an unwanted consequence of a deliberate design. The deliberate design, of which I was part -- I mean this has many parents -- of which I was part was based on opposing the troubles and averting and cutting off the troubles that Karl's approach brings up frontally. Whoever has run elections in a country or in any organization knows that the quality of an election is totally bounded by the quality of the voters list. If you have districts and you have gerrymandering -- this is an English term which means it's called (non-English word or phrase) in France, if I remember well. It's creating the districts in such a way that favors or creates deliberately an outcome by putting together certain groups of voters. That is the exact recipe for capture, which is so much of a concern in our organization, in ICANN and all the surrounding organizations. That's the perfect precipitation for capture. What we observed in the election in which, among others, Karl was elected was that we were this far (indicating) from real crisis in all five regions for different reasons. The concept that Esther Dyson, among others, came up with, which is the concept for the at-large structures, regional at-large organizations and the whole of the ALAC was that you don't know who is the other voter unless it's relatively close to you or you have a reference to these other voters, so the concept of wave of trust was translated to this. The concept is that if you are an IEEE local chapter in a small city in Mongolia, you trust or know who the other IEEE guys in Ulan Bator are or if there's another city in Mongolia with another chapter, you know who those guys r and you probably you also know the ISOC chapter and probably you also know the ACM, association for computer machinery members, and so forth. And regionally, and through the organizations, you get this sense of trust. You have a system of checks and balances that tells you it's going to be very difficult for a large organization, for example, a large company for example to order all 60,000 employees to vote the same way. It tells you it's going to be very difficult for it to happen again, for example, that Brazil or Germany -- someone in Brazil or someone in Germany will tell people in their language and local culture and with a flag up. It's time for us to find our place under the sun, as happened in those countries. So you won't have "Der Spiegel" make an unabashed effort to get Germans, even if it's Karl's computer club, on the board. So that concept is key to put a check on capture. The unwanted consequence is that the structure becomes large, unwieldy, as issues -- as real issues become of interest to these users because that's the only -- the other thing that we don't see coming in as a river -- we'll streamline communications, we'll make it so that you will have a constant flow of substantive resolutions being worked out through the ALAC. And that's the concept that's being given a lease of life by the -- by the ALAC review that we have seen. I'll close by saying that I found very interesting in the document of the review that it closes essentially with a paragraph that I hope I don't characterize wrongly by quoting approximately. It says, "We still believe there's a role for the at-large, and we are pretty sure it will be found if we keep this thing three years more." So even the reviewers are basing their conclusion more on belief than on the natural proof that these concerns of the large number of users really concern ICANN and are really being expressed, and one also has to be cognizant of the opposition of many other parts of ICANN where the money and the funding comes from for this effort to continue to grow, so one really would think that understanding this concept of trust among parties as a way to avert capture can still give us a structured approach for the several years coming. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Alejandro. Any comments there? Nii? >>NII QUAYNOR: Yeah. I think the structure also gets closer to where the people are, improving participation in ways that would have been impossible given the barriers for participating globally, so even though the structure may have its challenges, I think it does add some value because it gets close to where my people, for example, are. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Okay. I just want to emphasize the one word that came through multiple times in that, and that was "trust," and the flip side of that which is "cynicism" which to me is the single biggest obstacle to this working. Both on the part of cynicism directed at ALAC and also cynicism directed by at-large into the process. When I first got involved, there were a number of people that told me I was just participating in a public relations stunt. I don't believe that, but there's still a widespread cynicism of the system in general. I think it has to be addressed both ways. It's not an easy challenge. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Evan. Sebastien? And then on to Roberto and then to the front. >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Just a short word in between Alejandro and Roberto, because Alejandro was key in the ICANN 2.0 and Roberto is trying to -- now to set up, I don't know ICANN 2 point something or 3 point something. My feeling is that for the moment, he has the possibility to build 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and it will be really difficult to go to 3.0 as it is done today, and good luck, Roberto, and we will try to help you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Sebastien. Roberto? What's your thoughts? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I simply wanted to make the following comment. I'm going to wake you up a bit here by speaking French. So that I can see who is still listening. Thank you, Sebastien. I think that we are all here trying to make ICANN into a better organization. There's no such thing as Version 1, Version 2, Version 3. That makes no sense to me. What does make sense is that we have a process here of continuous improvement, as long as everyone puts effort into it. And if I can contribute to that, then I'm very pleased to do so. But it's not only my effort, it's everyone's effort. I wanted to answer one of the comments that was made here up on the rostrum. On the people who are NomCom appointees in ALAC, I think it would be a very good thing if all the members of ALAC could be elected by the at-large community, and if there were no NomCom appointees. The problem is that we saw initially, because there was no direct link with the local community or at least in some regions there were problems with contacting that local community, it was necessary to have people to sponsor, so to speak, the emergence of ALAC, and I think that was a provisional situation. And I think that in the future, that situation is going to change. And I also think that Westlake is proposing here -- and you'll remember that I asked the question why the two extra members from Asia should be appointed by the NomCom and not elected by the local Asian community. And I asked them that question, and their answer was that if the -- if the problem was to bring in the grass roots and to get the local community, which is not active, more active, then appointing representatives by NomCom could be a good thing. But I agree with you eventually in the long term, ALAC should be totally elected by the local community. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Roberto. Can I just ask where we are with the queue? So we've got Elliot, Izumi, Cheryl and you're coming back for a second go. Ah, and the gentleman here. Okay. I'll go to you first because you've certainly been the most patient. Would you like to take a space up there? I'll ask -- Nii, you've been up for a while and -- >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: What's going on here. Please! >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: I join you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: What we're doing is staging a German takeover, Annette. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Two Germans now dominating the at-large movement. >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: East, west, east, west (indicating). [Laughter] >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: You know, I feel -- to be frank, I feel we are here directing a decision which was made five years ago in a way which was never really accepted by the at-large movement as it has grown, you know, from the 1990s, and the phase after the elections, because this ALAC/RALO/at-large structure came top-down, and produced a lot of controversies, and then, you know, a huge part of the community ignored this whole structure for a couple of years because they said, you know, this is not what we wanted. The arguments which came from Roberto, also from Nii and from others, that we have at-large structure on the ground and we have regional at-large organizations and it has merit because it brings the community closer to the grass roots is a strong argument, but here is the -- exactly when you make a mistake in the process, if it comes top-down. Then it's not accepted and then you have the problem we have now, because we are still struggling with this wrong decision which has been made five years, you know, and -- five years ago in a way which is not part of the ICANN culture. I've worked in various different organizations, and ICANN is neither a governmental organization nor a trade organization. It's a multistakeholder organization and has created over the years a different culture, and you have to accept this culture, and you know what Christopher Wilkinson said in one of the -- one of the meetings, he said, "Okay, if ICANN, you know, really reduces the -- or sidelines the users, then it risks to become a trade organization and then it will be treated by governments as a trade organization." So that means you have to find a way how to, you know, implement this culture with creativity and innovation. So after a learning period of five years, I think the structure as it is now with at-large and Regional At-Large Organization is not so bad, as long as we can open also a channel for individuals, because this is important. Internet users are very individual persons and they have to have a channel. If you ask an individual, you know, to join an organization which then, you know, has to ask for recognition to become a member of another organization which then can send two delegates to a body which sends a nonvoting liaison to a board, this discourages really to become involved. That means you have to have a channel which is inviting, which encourages, which enables the people, if they raise their voice, that their voice is really directly heard and not via four or five or six hierarchies. This makes no sense. And this brings me to my two last points. One is procedure and substance. You know, if we continue to discuss procedures, then we lose really the opportunities of the challenges of the future. We have to come as a community, as an at-large community, as quick as possible to substance. There are so many issues where the individual Internet user is concerned. Human rights issues, freedom of expression, privacy, consumer rights. There are a lot of other issues, you know, where really the individual user has a concern, and, you know, it doesn't help if we continue to discuss, you know, which body should send how many people to another body, you know, which will send then some people to another body and what will be the right procedure. So please come to an agreement as soon as possible with the procedural issues that we have more space to discuss substance. And the second thing is this question voice and vote. You know, I myself, I was sitting in Bucharest in this top-floor restaurant with Andrew McLaughlin and Esther Dyson and we talked about what to do now with the at-large and I used the terminology to say we have a governmental -- we have this triangle in ICANN. You know, there's this user, private sector, and government. And, you know, while the governments have an advisory committee, why not, if we have no supporting organization for the users, why not then to have other advisory committees, so to compare advisory committee, government, and user on the same level. So this was accepted, okay, fine. But what happens now? Governments have a clear procedure how to interact with the board, and it's correct -- somebody said this earlier, that governments are not interested. They rejected the invitation from Stuart Lynn to get a voting seat on the board, because at this time, Sharif's argument was we cannot vote as governments. This brings us into certain difficulties with obligations and all this, so we want to give advice, but then we want to see that the advice is recognized. And if you have been at the meetings here when Suzanne Sene told, you know, the board that governments now, much more than five years ago, expect that advice is not just a nonbinding recommendation. Governments expect that advice is taken by the board. Let's wait and see how this will be figured out. So -- but what about at-large? They have no -- no chance that advice is really, you know, taken by the board, that we have an interaction as to this, and so my proposal is for the future, we have to be innovative and creative solution for two things. We have to have a voice via a liaison which is free to do whatever is -- but we need also voting members in the board which represent or which are coming or have their roots in the at-large movement. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Wolfgang. Elliot? And if you're happy to take a seat up there, I'll bring everyone else up at once and we'll -- >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: Don't leave us alone here. You know, I thought this is a certain strategy setting. >>ELLIOT NOSS: You know, I don't think -- you know, I think I'm somebody who supports at-large and observes at-large, but I don't think I should in any way be seen to be representing at-large because I'm one of the governed, I'm one of the -- you know, one of the evil corporations who are taking advantage of ICANN. [Laughter] >>ELLIOT NOSS: So there's -- I want to extend, on a couple thoughts that Wolfgang raised. I mean that sets up beautifully for me around a couple ideas that I think are not heard often enough. You know, the first is that, you know, I really believe that one of the traps of the current structure is that it has this geographical tether. So much inside of ICANN which really, when it's working as it should, when it's working best, is about a marketplace of ideas, tends to have no connection or little connection to geography. When people are discussing the issues that tend to be relevant here, you know -- freedom of speech or censorship or WHOIS or new gTLDs -- these things have very, very little nexus to geography, and what that means is that somebody who wants to participate around those issues does have to wear some geographical cloak, almost, to get involved. That's a bit of overhead that I think is inappropriate. But at the end of the day, the most important thing that jumped out to me from Wolfgang's comments and is something that I want to talk about is that it is so much more important for everybody involved with at-large, with -- with a great interest in seeing users better represented inside of ICANN, to focus inside of ideas, and to focus with ideas as opposed to existential discussions around vote or structure as what's important. You know, we've been -- we, Tucows, have been involved very actively inside of ICANN, much more actively than most registrars, really since its inception, and the places where we have been able to have the most influence -- and I use the word "influence" to speak to where we have had ideas that have most been listened to, are when we worked outside of every existing structure. We didn't do it through the registrars constituency, we didn't do it through our GNSO representatives. We did it by doing things like posting on blogs or putting out white papers for people to comment. We had the great, you know, luxury and honor, maybe, of putting out a document that ended up having a huge amount of ideas that flowed into the last reform process. It has been an existence proof, from my perspective, that if people want to influence ICANN and the work that gets done here, they can do that through a RALO, through the ALAC, or not. But they have to do it by putting their ideas out there in a very active way. And what will give the ALAC the most credibility is to hold individuals that do that. And the last point, and I think it's a very important one, is the relationship of NomCom to ALAC. Specifically, I think it is one of the great elements of the structure that is lost on people, is that ALAC today has more power -- and I mean "power" in a positive sense -- inside of the Nominating Committee than any other group inside of ICANN. And as somebody who has participated in two nominating committees and hopes to participate in future ones, I have witnessed that power. I have witnessed it have great influence in the process, and invariably great influence for positive effect. So I think that that should be very much a part of the thinking of the relationship between the two. Thanks. [Applause] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Elliot. I know that we've got a comment from Izumi and also from Cheryl and if we -- and then a few more points from Annette. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Patrick. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I'm just conscious we're running out of time also. >>TRICIA DRAKES: I was also just saying, Patrick, we need to finish perhaps 10 tell and I know some of the working group will -- at the latest, so some of the working group may have some comments. >>PATRICK SHARRY: That's fine so let's quickly take a few more comments and then leave it to you to close in that way, Tricia. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Okay. >>IZUMI AIZU: I feel very disadvantaged after speaking with the very most eloquent speaker, Elliot. But I think what is at stake is sustainability of at-large, including ALAC, ALS, RALO, or effectiveness and utility. The fact is it took four years to create RALO. Actually, what happened is in the last sort of six months of the four years, ICANN started to fund outreach after all. I won't go into too many details with background, but certainly the WSIS, the external pressure made our community to think differently. Some of the reforms or -- well, or the designs from, as I said, the MAC, the first one, which took one year to set global election, which took two years to implement, and then two years of reform, there came the interim at-large which took four years to produce what Westlake called interim at-large or ALAC 1.0. I would say 2.0. But now most of these changes or design changes were a direct reflection of the just previous stage or problem of failure of, but didn't really take account of the long-term sustainability or usefulness, including the financial. Today, the RALO is there. It costs a lot of money to be -- make sustainable. Originally, we hoped to have a more bottom-up financial support from the grass roots, but in reality, very few interests were there, so ICANN had to fund. If we continue this, it will cost more money, and as I agree quite with Elliot that the putting five regional structures or RALOs bodies may not always necessarily be the best answer, or most cost-effective, perhaps, yes, we need regional element -- as I said, African folks or many Asians have difficulty, you know, coming up on the podium unless you have something closer to you. So we thought our Ii model or TLDs might be a good idea to associate with in the grass roots or closer. But, again, if you do it too reactive to just the ones who expose problems only, then we may fail some long-term wisdom, so that's why I have some difficulty in accepting the report which didn't really mention about history. I don't care about the history that much, but we need to distill the lessons or principles, all these learnings, by -- collectively, and missing that by may lead to yet another short of short-term fix which may not be sustainable. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Izumi. >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: Thank you, Izumi. I think that you pointed out a lot of important issues there. I want to say in a whole, you can say if there is no commitment by ICANN, meaning ourselves, meaning the board, meaning the constituencies, that the users' voice get heard, and this also includes staff making it possible, supporting that the users' voice gets heard, it won't get heard. Except we are going outside of ICANN and, you know, trying to get it heard there, so we have to look at these layers of indirectness which have been mentioned by Alan and other people before on the organizational level, on the structural level of individual user, ALS, RALO, ALAC, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, nonvoting rights, where is the impact, and in the end there is no mechanism there. The other layers of indirectness is staff. There is more and more staff there, but it's all -- always getting more layers of indirectness concerning responsibility and we have been discussing here and also we have to talk about finance. A little budget of even something really little on a regional level can be so helpful if you -- and of course in line with ICANN rules and all this, if people can just say, "Okay, yeah, now we -- this is really important now. We want to do this. This is useful." We don't need millions and staff and I don't know what. We just need the competence and possibility to start projects. And talking about staff, we -- I think this is an important issue for the review. Is it a bottleneck where the voice is either shut down or supported or not? If we don't look at this closely, we will never, ever get anywhere. We have been offering -- there had been the questions in the last days, where is this book "Internet for dummies"? Where is this? Where is that? We already had people writing it. We already had people offering their service, and this all got, well, somehow killed. I don't know. I really want to be clear and I think I spent too much time being diplomatic and that is actually -- if I look back for being in ALAC, no, seriously, this is really an important issue to me. I have been an ALAC member. I have been ALAC chair. And I thought talking to people directly would help, being diplomatic would help. It does not help. This is why I want to be -- actually, I'm still diplomatic now. [ applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Annette. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you, Patrick. Hello, I'm Cheryl Langdon-Orr. I am the chair of ALAC 1.0. And this will be very brief, so don't panic. What I firstly wanted to do was thank the work Westlake has done. We recognize you have worked very fast, very hard and much of what you have said is highly complimentary. Thank you for the work. You know you have had my personal views. You've had many other people's personal views. Specifically, I want to thank the enormous amount of work that your committee has done, Tricia. I think it is an awesome job done so far but, wow, I'm glad I'm not you guys. You really have a great complexity to navigate your way through. What I wanted to say is what is going to happen now. We have to work with whatever structure we have right now. Right now we are working in a given field. We will work in the next field just as effectively, just as noisily and possibly just as diversively. What we have heard in all of these meetings is our individual views and, in the case of at least NARALO, a RALO view. The ALAC, however, will now build a consensus view and we will input this as we take our first steps on the next stage of this journey. So ALAC will now build a consensus view, and you will get our unified voice as well as, I'm sure, individual voices, RALO voices and the voices of the ALS is heard. Thank you very much. >>TRISHA DRAKES: Thank you very much, Cheryl. [ applause ] And I appreciate that. I appreciate that very, very much. We all have the same objective in mind, which is to empower and to deliver and to hear the voice of the individual user. Before wrapping up -- because I'm mindful that there is the important public forum and I don't want to be delaying for that -- which Jean-Jacques, what time are we now? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Ten to. >>TRISHA DRAKES: I was going to invite all of the members of the working group up, everybody who is here. But perhaps I could say thank all of those of you who are here. For those of you that have not given input -- I realize we have experimented. If you try and fail, that's a good thing. And if you try and half succeed, that's another good thing. I'm sure we'll refine for the meeting in Cairo. But we do want your comments. Listed up there is how -- you can send it any which way you would like to. I understand the translations will be ready later. Jean-Jacques, if you forgive me for doing a Patrick, I don't think we have heard you speak yet. I wonder whether you might like to say a few words in helping closing on behalf of the working group. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Yes, especially if you would give me permission to express some personal views, I would like that, Tricia. If I may, a brief anecdote and then two brief suggestions. When I was told that I was asked to enter this working group to review ALAC, I had somehow suggested that perhaps, it was an occasion, an opportunity to review actually the whole question of at-large representation, task, mission, et cetera; that I was very quickly made to understand that that's because I was so new and foolish, at least uninformed, about what all this is about. So I still believe -- and there has been ample proof amongst the participants today that we have to keep that in mind. Even if the remit or the mandate of the working group is what it is, I accept that as a member of the group. However, I would like us to keep in mind the larger picture. Now, my two suggestions would be that both we, the working group, and Westlake, of course, but also all you, the representatives of the at-large structures, give us the type of input which I feel is not perhaps completely represented here today. Those of you who are here are probably people who have their travel expenses at least paid by some organization. I think that's a fine system, but it doesn't represent maybe what Nii very aptly called the billion others. I would suggest -- that's my second point -- most specifically to Westlake that you consider this an essential element. I don't mean you have to leave out voting rights and is NomCom interesting or not. Of course, you have to address that. Please do not neglect looking at what the larger public requires. Listening to all this debate today, I put myself in the position of someone who is perhaps in Peru, in Tibet, in Laos, in Yemen and trying to follow this either auditively or on the scroll, I wondered how relevant it was to me. It was mostly about structure and it might have given me, unfortunately, the impression that it was about people who have been representing at-large for some time and to want to make sure in a way it doesn't change too much. So I may be completely wrong, in which case I wish to apologize, especially to Elliot because I'm becoming -- I'm flexing existentialists. But I think you must take care of the real needs and working back up from that talk about structures. Thanks. >>TRISHA DRAKES: Thanks very much, Jean-Jacques. In the interest of concluding, I think we should conclude here. There is one further informal working hour session tomorrow morning, which I believe is between 9:00 and 11:00. And it's going to be outside in the open area, the furthest area away from the meeting room. If we look for Karl who is going to be there with a shining light -- we all will be there -- that will again give another opportunity of giving input. If I can thank you for coming. We really do want to hear what you have to say. Thank the working group who are working amazingly hard in a very open way to deliver a good outcome, to thank you, Patrick, and also as always to thank the scribes and the translators who we probably have given a little bit of a challenge today. So thank you everyone, and we move forward. Thank you. [ applause ]