Workshop:  Strategic Plan
 ICANN Meeting - Cairo
 Wednesday, 8 November 2008
 
 >>PATRICK SHARRY: We're going to start our strategic planning session in a minute.  If that's not your intention, quickly move outside.
 Can I have some technical help, please.
 
 
 
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   So good afternoon, good evening.  Welcome to the session on strategic planning consultation, which is a regular feature in ICANN meetings.
 It's -- we're getting the technology here to work.  And welcome to people who are online or listening in on the audio streaming.
 We are -- this is a very important part of the -- ICANN's communities' process of accountability and management of the priorities for ourselves as an organization, and, in particular, the institution we have built, which is ICANN.  And we're going to actually spend some time this afternoon which is really about explaining the process and looking for feedback on the strategic plan.
 So -- and hopefully this actually works.
 There we go.
 So this slide says there will be an introduction.  I just did the introduction.
 So what do we want to do today?  We want to be sure we review with you the strategic planning road map and the timeline.  And seeing that I can see faces here that I've not necessarily met before, I'd like to take you through and remind you of what is the timetable and the process we follow for strategic planning.
 Secondly, then, we want to remind you what the key elements are in the draft plan before you.
 And thirdly, then, obviously, we're looking to solicit comment and feedback.  And that's comment and feedback here today, including, I think, online.  We can take feedback online for those who are participating remotely.  But also, then, looking for comment and feedback offline, if you like, or not at the meeting, in terms of ongoing opportunities for you to be able to respond and consider what you have seen.
 So ICANN has a rolling three-year strategic plan.  It's reviewed and updated annually.  That strategic plan then informs an operating plan that is a one-year operating plan.  The operating plan itself identifies priorities for the year which are turned into the budget, which is put forward for the community to approve.
 That budget is then reported, as I indicated on Monday, that budget is then reported back to the community in terms of and will certainly be in place at the end of December, active reporting on what the funds have been spent on, functional reporting on the budget in terms of what the funds are being allocated to, and reporting on the projects and work underway in terms of progress and for work that can be measured on a more real-time basis, our dashboard, actually, makes available your ability to go and see what's the output of various parts of the organization in terms of the work they do.
 So you can see that it's a virtual cycle, if you like.  The community sets the major priorities in terms of strategic planning.  It then place a major role in implementing an operational plan and improving a detailed budget.  And then the people responsible for spending that money have a process of reporting back publicly in a number of ways back to the community about what the money is being spent on and the outcomes being achieved, which obviously informs the cycle yet again.
 So I think I've just said all of that, which is on the slide.
 The key point is that the strategic planning cycle takes place between July and December, and we approve the strategic plan at the December meeting with the board.  So not at this meeting, but at the December meeting of the board is when the strategic plan is approved.  We then move to the operational planning cycle.  And the operational planning cycle, operational plan, is approved in June.
 And so you will have an opportunity both at the Mexico City meeting and then again at the meeting in the Asia-Pacific, to see the operational plan and approve it.  And then once that has been approved by the board in June, we're back in the strategic planning cycle again for the following three-year cycle.
 And in the operating plan, it also informs in detail the budget.  So the budget cycle also follows the January-to-June cycle.  So the operational plan comes out and the budget also follows with details of how the set of funds would be spent against those priorities.
 And if I can just be reminded, what languages do we release this in?
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   The draft plan, which is what we're discussing today, has been published in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.  And the final strategic plan will be published in the same languages.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   The operational plan?
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   The operational plan is done the same way.
 In fact, if you go to, you can see on the screen there, www.icann.org/planning, you'll find explanations and links to all of the documents in all of those languages.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   And perhaps this is an aside, dot BR often does some translation.  So looking at Vanda, I don't know whether dot BR actually translates this into Portuguese or not.  Maybe.  We may find out later.
 Okay.  So the basic approach is, for this year, is that we start with the current plan.  We do a bottom-up strategic planning exercise next year, which is to sort of start completely fresh.  But this year, what -- what --  We used to do each year a completely fresh strategic plan, which took a lot of effort.  And what feedback we got from the community was, please don't do that.  What we prefer you to do is update the strategic plan, because things might not have changed that much, and then just do a bottom -- a completely new strategic plan every two years or so.  So that's just a detail for those of you who follow the niceties of ICANN strategic planning history.
 The key thing is to consider changes in the environment in which ICANN operates, and then to consider the organizational opportunities and challenges that that environment presents to the organization and to the community, and then develop strategic priorities based on these inputs.
 And if I can share a little history here, when we first started strategic planning, when I was in my first year as the president, I -- my previous career was, I was the management consulting firm McKinsey & Company, so I was pretty used to doing strategic planning work.  And I sat down with staff and others and pretty much did a very -- fairly detailed strategic plan and then presented it to the community and board thinking I was doing the right thing.  I thought, this is what you're supposed to do.  Here's the presentation.  Well, I was howled down.  People screamed and shouted from the rooftops about what a terrible thing this was, because it didn't fit the culture of our community.  And I had to learn that very quickly, in that we changed the cycle very much, the point on the right.  This is feedback from you up, not from leadership down.  And so although this is draft language and it's trying to incorporate your -- the wording you're going to see today and the inputs have all come from sessions like this and from online -- online inputs.  And we're looking for it again.  This is the way we do it.  We do it listening to you and inputs, you make the strategic plan.  It's not something that I go away and, you know, with the head of strategy, which we don't have, and write up the strategic plan and present it to the community.  So it's a very important point.  It's a thing we have learnt over the last five years or so as to how to do well.  But we're looking for your input.
 So what are the key environmental challenges?
 Well, one is clearly that we've got an Internet that's growing -- this is what we think.  And we're interested to hear feedback on these environmental challenges.  But we think the key environmental challenges facing us are that the Internet is growing at a global scope and it meets the needs of a truly global stakeholder base.  So if you were to go back ten years ago when ICANN was formed, the Internet was global but it was really meeting the needs of an OECD-plus community.  Now it's meeting the needs of a truly global stakeholder base.
 There is another environmental challenge, which is to ensure security and stability of the identifier system in an environment of increased threats.  Clearly, we are facing increased threats, multiple types of threats to the DNS and I.P. addressing and other unique identifier systems.  And how do we actually respond to that and ensure stability and security?  And I will add a word to that, Patrick, that the word "resiliency" is key that we need to ensure the resiliency.  It's not just security.  Indeed, I think that's a word we should be careful about.  It's about resiliency, the need to recover.
 There's an increasing importance of DNS for commercial and communication applications.  There's a number we repeat.  I can't tell you the source of it.  But there is a number which says that the amount of e-commerce in particularly financial transactions supported by the root zone is something like 2.8 trillion U.S. dollars.  That's a very different number than what it was ten years ago.
 Now, unfortunately, I can't give you the true source for that.  I'm certain it's Google, actually.  But that's -- when ICANN was formed, there were about 100 million users of the Internet.  There's about 1.5 billion now.  That's a fairly big increase over a ten-year period.  It gives you some idea of the importance for commercial and communications applications.
 Of course, for communications applications, many of you realize that all sorts of communications applications are now moving to having DNS and the public Internet as the base transit layer for things that they're developing.
 We're managing a wide range of abusive behaviors that may be placed at ICANN's doorstep, though they're not ICANN's remit.  They're not in ICANN's mandate.  If I can exaggerate to make the point, this is not accusing the group at all, but you can say, for instance, that people who are concerned with antiphishing work and protection against fraud often demand ICANN to do this or demand ICANN to ensure registrars do that or what have you.  And sometimes they're related to issues which are simply not in our accountability.
 Similarly, there may well be vulnerabilities at an application layer, which, again, are not in ICANN's vulnerability.  It's all very well and good to say that.  But the environment is such that people call for it on a regular basis.  And there's an expectation from people who are not as informed about ICANN as they could be about that.  It's one of the environmental issues we're facing.
 There's the need to maintain stability, given an increased use of devices and users.  I think this is very important, too.
 The model, which, essentially, frankly, is a North American model, that that's the thing that connects to the Internet, as we all know, that's increasingly not true.  And I've just managed to screw up that model, anyway.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   See, that's the vulnerability of it.
 So the model now, of course, we know is increasingly mobile devices, you know, refrigerators, all manner of things that will be connecting, and all types of users.  Now -- the now mythic Kerela fishermen from South India who's out using the Internet connection with a mobile phone to fish.  How true this is, how many times it gets referred to, I'm not certain, as opposed to simply making a mobile phone call.  But, nevertheless, we're clearly looking at this issue increasingly of different types of users.  And in my part of the world, in the western Pacific, northeast Asia, in particular, an Internet that's about mobility and on a small-factor screen is much more common than necessarily the sort of model of being on a computer.  We've all seen that.  So that's an increasing issue.
 And the issue for us is not those form factors, per se.  The issue for us is the stability, that the unique identifiers -- unique identifier system continues to offer stability to that degree of innovation.
 Related to that, a very big issue for us is the process of depletion of Internet Protocol version 4 and of the uptake of an 11-year-old technology, Internet Protocol version 6.  And this is a high-priority environmental issue for us.  
 We need to manage the continuous evolution of commercial applications and business models that use the Internet.
 Now, I'm not saying we need to manage that.  But we're confronted with an increasing evolution of commercial applications and business models and how -- what strains they put on us in terms of environment.
 And a key environmental challenge, it underlies nearly everything I've said, is avoiding the possible fracturing of the DNS.
 The genius, I think, of that which we serve is that it is global, it does not recognize boundaries, and it -- I like to say often, and I firmly believe this, that when the widow on lake Victoria sets up her bed and breakfast, backpackers from Norway to New Zealand can see that, can access that, can interact with that seamlessly.  I just think we should think about that just very carefully.  This is phenomenal.  There is no other mechanism we have for empowering, in a global way, all sorts of business and social interactions.  
 And so the --  avoiding the possible fracturing of the DNS is effectively, if I can put it in nontechnical terms, avoiding the raising of all sorts of tariff and nontariff barriers for people interacting with each other.  People understand that in the physical world.  It's the same thing in the online world.
 One of our environmental challenges in taking an appropriate role in the broad group of international entities involved in Internet functions. ISOC, the Regional Internet Registries, the NRO, the ITU, (inaudible) Interpol, OECD.  There's a whole range of bodies that play various roles in terms of the broadly defined Internet governance and we should take our role in that.
 And the final one, which is now very clear, is an uncertain economic and financial environment.
 And I think that is a very true environmental challenge.  And I think as we think of it, both in terms of the strategic plan and also the operational plan, it has very clear uncertainties.  At the moment, for instance, for things like the new gTLD program.
 So even with all the work that's been done on new gTLDs and the delivery of guidelines think meeting, there are assumptions probably sitting behind all of that work including, which did not include that the stock market would collapse 35% and the world would enter into a recession for the next two years.  So those are examples of uncertainty that can effect upon our strategic plan.
 Patrick is later going to look for more feedback and thoughts and discussion and see whether you would agree with these or whether you would add to these.
 So, the organizational challenges as they seem to be in response to this.  And this is, again, building on last year, is that we need to maintain an appropriate organizational entity.  Is this the entity that's appropriate in its application to these challenges.
 We need to have an ongoing commitment to reviews.  That's a key part of our Internet bylaws, it's what we do at the GNSO reviews, the ALAC reviews, just all the stuff you just heard about is part of our DNA, if you like, of how to keep ensuring relevancy for the organization and it keeps evolving.
 We need the I.T. systems and tools for a multilingual, largely volunteer organization.
 That's one of our challenges.
 We have to ensure an obligation to review process and performance to be effective.
 We have to maintain very high standards of accountability and transparency.  Indeed, I think also world leading standards of accountability and transparency.
 Significant increases in the volume of work. 
 I can attest to that.  The volume of work continues to increase.
 That we can very many policy in a timely way.  Maintain effective communication with a global audience, and effectively manage a global staff.  And all of that is from the draft 2009-2012 plan.
 So those are again challenges we can talk more to.
 So the strategic objectives that have been put forward in this draft again, as a consequence are -- so let me take you back again.
 The draft says here are environmental challenges.  We have talked to a lot of people.  We think these are the environmental challenges facing us as a community.
 The next stage is here are the organizational challenges.  Here is the challenges we see the organization facing just to do its work.
 As a consequence, therefore, what are our priorities?
 So the next stage here is to say okay, let's look at the priorities.  And these have some objectives for 2009-2012.  They build on the objectives in last year's strategic plan.  And frankly, if what we put down last year had almost no overlap with what we have done this year, you would have to ask whether that was strategic.
 It would be like the tactical objectives, wouldn't they.
 So it's not surprising that what's down now for the next three years builds on last year's.  But let's look what they are.
 Implement IDNs and new gTLDs.  And particularly, IDN and IDN ccTLDs and new gTLDs.
 Surprise, surprise, that was on the list last year.  And it's still very much on the list this year.
 Ensure security, stability, and my favorite word there, resiliency.  Ensure disability, stability and resiliency in the Internet's unique identifiers.  A very high strategic objective.
 Monitor the completion of IPv4 address space and provide leadership towards IPv6 adoption.  Very interesting issue.  I would like to hear the feedback and thoughts of some of the people in the room.  There are some people in the room who are quite expert in this arena I can see, and that's a key area that we would like to -- especially some people in the back seat who are doing e-mails.
 I hope they will engage in that v4-v6 discussion in terms of objectives.
 Strive for excellence in core operations.  Improve confidence in the gTLD marketplace.  This is a lot of issues around compliance and ensuring people feel that there's confidence that this is operating well as a market.
 Strengthen processes for developing policy.  I think that's been in every strategic plan that, we keep working on the needs to strengthening and improving the policy development processes.
 Strengthen the multistakeholder model to manage increasing demands and changing needs.
 Globalize our operations.  Strengthen accountability and governance, which I think has been the case in every strategic plan.  And certainly what's in every strategic plan is ensure financial accountability, stability and responsibility.
 There are the overall strategic objectives as they have been put forward in draft.  This is after a series of consultations.  It's built on last year but the objective now is for you to talk those, engage about those, talk about them now, between now and December, and have others engage in that and give us feedback.
 The timetable.  There was a board workshop on the strategic plan in September.  So the board had input.
 There's been input from senior executives at ICANN also about the same time frame.
 There was a draft priorities document which was released in October.
 There were consultations now, then going through to November. Patrick can give us more detail on this.  Then we're going to redraft what we've heard in November, and submit this draft plan for review.  There will be a further comment period, I think, on that.  And then we'll go to board approval in December.
 So it follows a quite common model of ICANN of initial input, first draft, further input, consultation, final draft, and then after comment, through to the board.
 And we will look forward to you being involved and participating in that.
 So we are now sort of going to change, if you like, and move to comments on the draft plan.
 But before we move to comments, are there any questions or observations around the process?  About the dynamics of how we do this planning?  Has anybody got any questions or observations?
 Including anybody online or following remotely.
 Have we got microphones?
 So we have a question from one Dennis Jennings, a man with a brilliant golden tie.
 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you for the comment on my sartorial elegance.
 My question on the process is, how do you feel this worked last year?  And I preface that by saying as a board member, I felt it worked very well.  But how do you feel?  And perhaps how does the community feel it worked last year?
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   I am respond as to how I feel as president it worked last year.  I'll let anybody else respond, perhaps Patrick who has a history with this, could be a proxy for feedback.
 I thought last year didn't work as well as it might work this year.  In one particular arena, I don't think -- I'm not saying this because I am the president and you are the board member.  I don't think we got -- we didn't go and get more actively board input early enough.
 The board input last year tended to come towards the end of the process, where it was a bit more here's the document.  What do you think?
 This year, we have tried much more to get board -- This is a very interesting point.  I will flesh this out.  Thanks for the question.
 What we're trying to do this year is to get the thinking of the board about what the strategic issues are.  It's an interesting piece of corporate governance that in ICANN, it's the community that has a large input bottom-up on setting strategies.  In most companies, that's very clearly the board role.  The board is there to set strategy.  And we have this tension in the board of people talking about I am here because I am a person to set strategy, and yet we are a bottom-up organization that does strategic planning bottom-up.  And it is an interesting challenge.
 So this year we have tried to address that a little bit by saying to the board members let's consult you early and get your thoughts, strategic thoughts, and try to include that into the drafting.
 Patrick, do you want to talk a bit?
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   If I can answer a slightly different question, Dennis, which is not so much how we have changed in the last 12 months but what's the journey we are on overall.
 I find this a very exciting process to be involved in.  As Paul mentioned, somewhat to his embarrassment before, the first time we did this, the staff wrote the plan --
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   (Inaudible.)
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:    That's right, that's right.  And the response from the community was very much, no, it's our plan. And we have learned from doing that.
 And I think we have got a quite unique process of involving all of the stakeholders in planning.
 One of the things we have is that an important stakeholder is the board.  And therefore, as Paul just said, a great step forward we have taken this year is to get the board input earlier, not as a substitute for community comment, but as an important, and, as Paul said from a governance perspective, quite critical stakeholder in the process.
 Moving forward, I see next year will be different again.  In this very room on these very seats an hour or so ago the people from ALAC were talking about their own planning process, and we were coming to the realization that that needs to be tied into this broader strategic planning process, because the at-large is ICANN.
 And I think what I would hope we will see, Dennis, over the next two or three years is even more of that.
 I think we have a challenge with the word "ICANN" because ICANN can mean the staff, ICANN can mean the staff and the board, ICANN can mean the staff and the board and community, ICANN can mean anyone who has ever turned on a computer, and we are not very clear on that.  But I think in our strategic planning process, where we have got to is that this needs to be a plan for the community, not just for the staff.
 And I think what we were seeing with the ALAC today was a wonderful outworking of that.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you.
 Do we have any questions online?
 Okay.  Well, let's....
 >>KATIM TOURAY:  Yeah, thanks a lot, Paul.
 My name is Katim.  I just have one very brief question.  I want to go back to the slide on organizational challenges.
 Yeah.
 By my notes here, I don't see any explicit reference to the issue of managing the input of the constituents into the organization's affairs.  Specifically, things like policy development and, you know, the various communities and activities and things like that.
 And I am just wondering whether this is like an oversight or whether it's not really an organizational challenge or it's actually meant to be subsumed in this organizational challenges that you have defined.
 But I think my sense is that given what has transpired, what I have seen, the atmosphere that I have sensed here, my feeling is that perhaps we ought to pay a little bit more attention to, really, how do we manage the process of getting people to actively participate as a grass-roots driven organization in the affairs of the organization, get them involved.  And also manage the whole entire process of getting the feedback and what happens to it and all of that stuff.
 I hope that made sense.  Thanks.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's an excellent question.  And if I can make two responses, Katim.
 One is at this level here, it is almost taken as given.  And a lot of what you are seeing there as organizational challenges, some of them are, in fact, the organizational challenges that we face because we place such great value in getting our stakeholders to be involved.
 The second part of the response, which we haven't seen on the slides up there yet, is the section, the priority about improving the multistakeholder model.  A really critical part of that is improving participation.
 And so in the next level of detail down, if you like, that exact issue that you have raised is made explicit.
 So I agree very much that that's very important.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Having said that, and at the risk of speaking over your position, Patrick, there is something, I think, Katim, in what you are saying in that we do make assumptions.  And we have had a few of these instances in the last 24 hours where there are assumptions, but it's probably worth making it explicit.
 If you are asking that question, then we should think about whether the communication is effective.
 So I may be looking at this organizational challenge and thinking maybe the phrasing should be developing policy in a timely and responsive way.
 Maybe there's some wording we should think about, that feedback loop you are referring to.
 And you were talking about broadening, broadening participation.
 Maybe also there's some wording here.
 We could put that in as a separate point.  That's a good point.
 I will leave that in your capable hands.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY: Absolutely.
 Just for those who are not familiar with the process, in case it looks like we're not taking notes and therefore not taking notice, one of the wonderful things that happens here is our scribes.  So everything is captured verbatim, and I will take that transcript and work with it afterwards.  So don't feel that because I am not writing it down at the moment, we don't care.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.
 >> (inaudible).
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I'm flattered, but you would be wrong AH, the gentle voice of sarcasm.
 Are there other questions or observations?
 Adam.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Hello, thank you.  Adam Peake.  
 Something I mentioned before, about joining up the policies of ICANN.  You just mentioned improving and broadening participation.  Following on from Patrick talking about the ALAC and its own strategic planning role, and then there's, I believe, going to be a board committee perhaps being established on participation.
 So we're sort of seeing this circular thing again of committee and then ALAC and a board committee and then there's reviews going on, and all kinds of different things happening in the organization, which impact each other very much.
 And I wonder if there's a place for consideration of that in the strategic plan, as something as -- I don't know if perhaps that's not something that fits in strategic planning, but just this control over multiple processes addressing similar or the same issues, being extremely complex that ICANN is.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Can I suggest that we could amend the point which starts significant increases in the volume of work, and include in that policy support, institutional improvement, operations, and more.  So to pick up your point that there is this increase.
 I think we're going through a bit of a -- the pig going through the boa constrictor problem at the moment because there are some delays in some of those reviews.  But I think your general point is a good one.
 Four questions.  Wow!  We are on a roll.
 >>OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND:  Hi.  Olivier Crepin-Leblond from the English chapter of the Internet Society.
 I have got a question with regard to your point number 3 in the consultation, the depletion of v4 addressing and the leadership towards v6.
 I am particularly concerned, because I do not think that, at the moment, ICANN is spending enough time trying to promote IPv6 in one way or another.  I have spoken to several stakeholders, I have spoken to members of the board.
 I don't want to get into arguments whether its coexistence or migration between one or the other, because I know there are two streams and we don't want to get into that.  However, ICANN stands for names and numbers.  And I would like to see a little bit more numbers being dealt with and not only names.
 I know the process on names is very good.  It's moving forward.  But the numbers side of things seems to be the poor child at the moment.  And I'm a little concerned that this gets taken against ICANN several years from now, because we all know what might happen.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   That's a great point.  And I think when we get to the next stage, Patrick has put a slide up, when we get to the next stage there will be discussion of active points there.  Let's see whether there is sufficiency in the proposals here or not.
 >> If I could just add, in Paris there were several sessions on v6.  In Cairo, I haven't seen any.  In fact, there have been no sessions on ASO at all.  And that's a concern.  So if at the next ICANN meeting there could be something, it would certainly be a good point, a step in the right direction.  Thanks.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Very good.
 Harald.
 >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND:   Taking off from that, I'm Harald Alverstrand, board member.
 I couldn't find any mention.  In the last year, there has been clear development towards the probably coming into existence IPv4 address marketplace.
 I couldn't find anyplace in the strategic plan where ICANN's relationship to that development fit.  I mean, our strategy could be "just say no," run away screaming, participate actively, or say that we own it, but we ought to have plan.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Well, can I suggest that's an active thing we should think about again under this heading.
 I think the idea of saying take a leadership on v4-v6 is a coverall phrase, and the thing you were talking about I think is a specific issue within that phrase.
 So let's go to the next stage, make certain that point gets picked up in the detail.
 Dennis.  We will have to finish this soon or else we won't get on to the next stage which is where I think we really want to be in.
 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Yes, Dennis Jennings again, just very briefly.
 I wonder whether taking leadership is the right phrase or whether participating in the leadership is the right phrase.
 Because I'm not sure that -- exactly what ICANN's role in leadership in areas that are not specifically within our mission and brief.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Well, I would say it's quite specifically within our mission and brief in that -- it's in the mission statement.  It's in Article 1.  Bylaws.  And we do allocate it out.
 But the point , I think, you are making is that there are other players in this environment as well.  So that's a good use.
 Last question, or else we won't get to the next step.
 >>DON HOLLANDER:  This one is actually on my list.  The IPv6.  Don Hollander from Book Haven and a small user in New Zealand.
 And my view is I think the high-level statement there should be far more forceful, far stronger than what you have, just monitoring the -- Just it seems weaker than the opportunities that I think ICANN has available to it.
 Thank you.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Okay.
 So I'll leave that in your hands to flesh out the sense of we should do more but no, I am not going to tell you what it is challenge, Patrick.
 So we're going to comments on the draft plan.  I am now going to play tag and pass the microphone to Patrick.
 You might want to explain how it happened they have done this in the past in this context and then let's try to harvest more.  And unfortunately, I have to open another meeting so I am going to beg your indulgences and leave.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Paul.
 What I propose to do given that we don't have a whole a lot of time is move quickly through each of the strategic priorities and look for comments from the floor on those.
 I will ask when you can if you make them as brief as possible and that way we can get as far through the plan as we can.
 The first item in the strategic plan, the first priority is implementing IDNs and new gTLDs.
 Just by way of explanation, it's a little bit obvious here, but will become clearer on the next few slides, that places where we have changed from the previous plan, I have marked there in yellow text.
 So what you see there marked -- which in this case is actually a few date changes, are the changes between the current plan and this proposed plan that we are discussing here.
 So are there any comments about this IDN new gTLD priority?
 I'll move quickly through these.
 This one, while you may not even be able to read through all the detail, you will notice there's a lot more yellow text than white techs.
 This is a place where, because of what was in the strategic plan last year, ICANN has now deployed a security expert, Greg Rattray, and thankfully Greg has done his job and therefore we have a much more well articulated vision for what we should be doing.  And therefore, we have in the plan a lot more of the detail that wasn't included in the plan last year.
 I will happily take comments on that security one.  Don, was that a question there?
 >>DON HOLLANDER:   Yes.  Thank you very much.  Don Hollander from Book Haven.
 Just, do you envision that also including those who manage the unique identifier so the RIRs and the registries and the ccTLDs?
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Include them in what sense, Don?
 >>DON HOLLANDER:   In terms of enhancing the security and stability.  It's making sure that the organizations that manage those are resilient and robust.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's definitely part of the intention here.  And the language is often, as we were discussing before, the concept of working with partners to get this to happen.
 Not everything will be actually Karen's to solve or ICANN's to train or ICANN's to build.  But rather to work with appropriate partners to bring that about in those sort of environments.
 >>DON HOLLANDER:   (inaudible).
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Don.
 Any other questions on that security item?
 The next one is the IPv4-IPv6 point.  I think we had a little discussion about that before.  We have those relevant points.  So unless there is another quick addition, I am move on to the next one.
 Improving confidence in the gTLD marketplace.
 Again, you can see just from the colors, it's very similar to last year's.  And the important point which actually belongs in the board meeting to -- a point made by Dennis, which is the first one there, encourage discussion in the community to clarify ICANN's role in relation to consumer protection and develop a clear consensus position around this.  There was a lot of discussion at the board meeting around that sort of issue based on initial comments from Dennis.
 Katim.
 >>KATIM TOURAY:   Thank you.  I see a lot of during the life of this plan in the -- and I'm sure this is draft.  But I think in the final version, you know, certain phrases should really be struck out.  Because it's implicit that what you're talking about is the time frame of the plan, actually.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.  Thank you.
 Any other comments on that confidence in the gTLD marketplace issue?
 Striving for excellence in core operations.
 This one has been reworked in detail, although the flavor of what's there is very similar to what was in the current plan.
 The very significant development here is, actually, the second line, which is:
 "Developing a process framework and robust systems for the delivery of e-service," which would include registry and registrar data and would tie into the IANA point, which is the first point there as well.
 So there's a recognition that because of changes that are happening in the environment, not least to do with new gTLDs, we're going to need better ways of dealing with the work in order to be able to keep up with the workload, and doing things in an e-services framework would be the way that we would propose to do that
 Are there any questions or comments on that one?
 Now, this one appears all in yellow.  Paul managed to contradict me before, and I'll just very politely contradict him at this point in time, but in a small and quite insignificant way
 I think one of the mistakes we made in last year's plan was actually not to have policy as a top-level priority.  We took the policy points and put them into other sections.  And in talking to the community, in talking to the policy staff, and particularly in talking to the board, there was a very strong opinion that policy's so critical to what ICANN, the broad ICANN, does as an organization, that it must be a strategic priority to improve that wherever and however we can
 And so most of those points are related to things that we've had in plans in the past, but it's all in yellow to mark the fact that I think -- personally, I think very appropriately, that we've raised the policy issue back up to that top level as a true strategic priority
 Any questions on that policy issue?
 Raimundo.
 >>RAIMUNDO BECA:   Only one comment.
 In my opinion, we should put the -- not the policy development process, but processes, because they are very different for the country codes, for the gTLDs, and for the addressing.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Raimundo.  Any other comments on that item?
 Terrific
 As we were mentioning before, Katim, we have this item here about strengthening ICANN's multistakeholder model, and the first part of that is actually directly targeted at participation.  You can see there's a few changes there.  The second point is a bit more of an elaboration -- sorry -- on what we mean by participating in IGF and related forums
 And the third one is, again, tied very tightly to that participation idea, that we need to be doing outreach and education and awareness activities in that same partnership model that we do much of what we do, but because that is so important for improving participation in the ICANN process.
 Any comments about that multistakeholder model item?
 Raimundo, I'll come to you.
 >>RAIMUNDO BECA:   It seems to me that we should also strengthen the legitimacy, not only the model, but the legitimacy of ICANN being the manager of that model, because we are too dependent in our legitimacy on the IANA contract.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Raimundo.
 Any other comments there?
 Globalizing ICANN's operations.  In a similar way to what I was speaking about with the policy issues before, what we've done this year, because the community and the board told us it was so important, is actually raised this point of globalizing ICANN's operations to a top-level strategic priority
 So you can see there that some of the introductory text, all of the introductory text, is new, but the points are ones that were buried in other parts of the plan.  And we brought them together to recognize how important this item is for ICANN in its future
 Are there other -- any questions about this item?  Comments?  Observations?
 >> My name is Eberhard Blocker, from Germany.  
 I understand what is written there, and I think it might be a good point.  But when I first heard Paul Twomey mention this, I was really surprised, because, I mean, ICANN has always been global.  So why does ICANN need to be globalized?  It's a funny point, basically, to me.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I think you're right to pick up the -- almost the paradox in that, Eberhard.
 I think what it's trying to pick up is, ICANN is learning, while it has always had a global base, that its operations need to be more attuned to that global audience.  And what you're seeing there is very much from the business and operations perspective, not from the participating community perspective.
 Don, another comment?
 >>DON HOLLANDER:   Don Hollander.  I would like to see this tied in closely to your previous key point of being very good operationally.  And I would like to hope that ICANN will focus on being very efficient and very miserly with your staff count and use both of those to look to outsource outsourcable functions around the globe.
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I think that's a very good point, Don.  Thank you.
 Any other comments on that item there?
 If my memory's correct, we have only two to go.  So definitely the home stretch.
 Strengthening accountability and governance.
 Very similar to last year's.  The main change is the second point there, which makes explicit the assumption in last year's plan that the vehicle for doing this is through the President's Strategy Committee.  And an important task over the next three years will be implementing the recommendations of the President's Strategy Committee
 any other comments on strengthening accountability and governance?
 And the last one is to do with the finances.
 Ensure financial accountability, stability, and responsibility.
 The first and last points there very similar to those in the current plan.  And the middle one is actually picking up something that was a small item in last year's plan and making it much more significant.  And that's to do with understanding better the financial impact of new gTLDs, IDN ccTLDs, and how that impacts how we should think about our -- the way we structure our finances going forward, separating out project items from ongoing budget and so forth.
 Any comments on that last item there?
 Great.
 We'll draw this session to a close.  But -- sorry, Dennis, I'll give you the microphone before I close off.
 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Dennis Jennings again, board member.
 Sorry to hold you at the end of this meeting.
 A comment I made last year and I'll make again this year.  There are a lot of relative generic words in the strategic plan, gerunds like verbs that have an "ing."  When you use those in the strategic plan, I'd like to see strengthen to the point there where there is a strategic outcome in the point.  Supposing we take IPv6, participate in promoting IPv6.  That's an ongoing thing unless, within this time year frame, we have some strategic goal.  And I think the strategic plan is missing those strategic goals
 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Dennis.
 Now, if -- I'll just flip back a few slides to remind you again of the e-mail address -- sorry, the Web address where you can further contribute to this process.
 So there it is again, the bottom on the left-hand side, www.icann.org/planning.  Fairly logical and straightforward.
 And I'd encourage you to put any further comments that you might have in through that forum.
 We really welcome those comments.  There will be a summary of comments produced, and that will influence the next version of this plan.
 Thank you very much for your time today.  And thank you to our interpreters and thank you to our now, I'm sure, very weary scribes, who have done a magnificent job today.  Thank you all very much.
 [ Applause ]