ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>PATRICK SHARRY: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL TRY TO START IN ABOUT ONE MINUTE.
I'LL JUST GO AND ROUND UP PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE.
OKAY.
WE MIGHT KICK OFF.
WE'LL JUST LET THOSE LAST FEW PEOPLE COME THROUGH THE DOOR.
>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND, REALLY, WE'RE HERE TO PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT ON THE REVISED VERSION OF THE PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENT ON THE WEB SITE.
>> SHHH.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: SORRY TO BREAK UP THE PARTY.
THE WAY THAT WE THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD RUN THE SESSION THIS AFTERNOON IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A POSITION UP-FRONT FROM BARBARA, WHO WILL JUST TAKE US THROUGH THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
AND THEN WHAT WE WILL DO IS PROPOSE TO BREAK UP THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME MORE OR LESS INTO 20-MINUTE BLOCKS.
AND EACH OF THOSE 20-MINUTE BLOCKS WOULD COVER ONE OF THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES WITHIN THE PLAN.
AND DURING THAT TIME, WE'D LIKE PEOPLE TO COME UP AND MAKE COMMENT.
AND WE'VE GOT TWO MICROPHONES THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO USE FOR THAT. SO WE MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY GET A LITTLE BIT OF DIALOGUE AND CONVERSATION GOING ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT SEEM TO BE MOST IMPORTANT:
ARE WE ALL RIGHT OVER THERE, GUYS?
OKAY, BARBARA.
>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: OKAY.
WELCOME THIS AFTERNOON.
STEVE, IF I COULD HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE.
THE ORIGINAL STRATEGIC PLAN DRAFT WAS PUBLISHED IN NOVEMBER OF 2004.
AND IT WAS THE CULMINATION OF MANY MONTHS' EFFORT.
THE COMMENT PERIOD BEGAN SOON AFTER WE RELEASED THE PLAN AND WAS EXTENDED DUE TO REQUESTS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
NEXT SLIDE.
TRADITIONAL PUBLIC -- WE USED THE TRADITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS, THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUMS, AS OUR INITIAL POINT FOR GATHERING INPUT.
AND THEN WE DID SOME SIGNIFICANT OUTREACH TO CONSTITUENCIES AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
WE HAD CONFERENCE CALLS WITH MANY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.
THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION PROCESS, WHICH WAS MANAGED BY MANY OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES WAS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION DEDICATED TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
THE KEY OUTCOMES WERE AN INPUT TO THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN AND DIRECTION ON FUTURE STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESSES.
NEXT SLIDE.
THE ICANN STAFF GATHERED INPUT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES AND STAKEHOLDERS.
ALSO, WE USED A THIRD PARTY, PATRICK SHARRY, TO SUMMARIZE AND COLLATE THE EXTERNAL COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT WAS PUBLISHED AS A PAPER IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.
STAFF ALSO PROVIDED A SHORT RESPONSE TO THE INPUT GATHERED TO PATRICK'S PAPER AND INDICATED WHAT THE NEXT DRAFT WOULD CONTAIN.
NEXT.
THE KEY FEATURES OF THE REVISION INCLUDE A SEPARATION OF OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN FROM THE STRATEGIC ELEMENTS.
THE RESULT WAS A SHORTER PLAN, MORE FOCUSED ON THE STRATEGIC VISION RATHER THAN OPERATIONAL DETAIL.
WE SIMPLIFIED THE PLAN WITH MUCH OF THE FRONT MATTER, THE INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL, REMOVED OR SHORTENED.
AND THERE WAS CLARIFICATION ESPECIALLY IN SECTIONS RELATING TO RELATIONSHIPS WITH ROOT ZONE OPERATORS AND ADDRESSING ORGANIZATIONS.
WE ALSO DID CLARIFICATION OF THE LARGE-SCALE INITIATIVES IN KEY AREAS, IN SECURITY AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY INTERNET COMMUNITIES.
AND WE DID SIMPLE EDITING, WHICH WERE EDITORIAL FIXES.
AND AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO TURN THE MEETING OVER TO PATRICK TO COORDINATE.

>>PATRICK SHARRY: THANKS, BARBARA.
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
OKAY.
WE JUST HEARD FROM BARBARA.
AND AS I SAID EARLIER, WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE DOING IS BREAKING THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME INTO 20-MINUTE BLOCKS.
THE BLOCKS, AS YOU CAN SEE UP THERE, FOLLOW THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES IN THE PLAN.
AND WE'LL JUST INVITE COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR THROUGH THE MICROPHONES ON THOSE AREAS OF THE PLAN.
I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER COMMITTEES AND GROUPS THAT HAVE MET OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS HAVE PREPARED RESPONSES TO VARIOUS THINGS OR HAVE POINTS THEY'D LIKE TO RAISE.
AND, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT.
SO IF WE START WITH THE STABILITY AND SECURITY ISSUES.
YOU'LL RECALL THAT THE TWO PRIORITIES THERE IN THE PLAN WERE THOSE TWO THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, TO PROVIDE ROBUST CORE SERVICES, THE IANA FUNCTIONS, SUPPORT THE COORDINATION OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET'S SYSTEMS OF UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS, AND THEIR STABLE AND SECURE OPERATION, AND CONTINUE A STRONG AND APPROPRIATE ROLE IN SUPPORTING THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THOSE TWO PRIORITIES OR ON THE SECURITY AND STABILITY AREA GENERALLY?
>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY.
I'LL BE LIKE VINT AND FACE YOU.
HOW'S THAT.
MY NAME IS CHUCK GOMES.
I'M WITH VERISIGN.
AND WITH REGARD TO THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF SECURITY AND STABILITY, I HAVE TWO COMMENTS.
NUMBER ONE, IT'S REALLY A QUESTION.
IN READING SECTION 1.A.2 ABOUT THE L ROOT SERVER, I INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN THAT ICANN PLANS TO CREATE THEIR OWN OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN A NEW FACILITY TO OPERATE THE ROOT SERVER.
AND LET ME QUALIFY WHAT I AM SAYING.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ICANN OPERATING A ROOT SERVER.
MY QUESTION IS THIS: IS IT MOST COST-EFFECTIVE FOR ICANN TO OPERATE THE ROOT SERVER DIRECTLY?
WOULD IT BE BETTER, MORE COST-EFFECTIVE, TO OUTSOURCE THAT TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT ALREADY HAS OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAN CAPITALIZE THAT AND THE PERSONNEL THAT THEY HAVE IN A MUCH MORE COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER?
AND JUST SO THAT NO ONE THINKS THAT I'M SUGGESTING THAT THAT BE OUTSOURCED TO VERISIGN, I ABSOLUTELY AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT.
OKAY?
THAT WOULDN'T -- YOU KNOW, WE OPERATE TWO ROOT SERVERS.
IT SHOULD NOT BE US.
IT SHOULD BE SOMEONE ELSE.
BUT I THINK THE ISSUE AT LEAST OUGHT TO BE INVESTIGATED WHETHER IT'S MUCH MORE COST-EFFECTIVE TO CAPITALIZE ON THE RESOURCES OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT SPECIALIZES DAY-TO-DAY IN THAT KIND OF A FUNCTION.
AND, AGAIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ICANN MANNING THE CONTROL OF THE OVERSIGHT OF THAT ROOT SERVER, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATING.
AND IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME IN THE WORDING OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT.
MY SECOND POINT IS REALLY A QUESTION.
IN SECTION 1.B.3, THERE'S REFERENCE TO THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS ORGANIZATION.
IT'S IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THAT IS.
I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT IS.
THANK YOU.

>>PATRICK SHARRY: THANKS, CHUCK.
YEAH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND BRIEFLY, KURT.
HAVE WE GOT THIS MIKE?
>> OKAY, SORRY, KURT.

>>KURT PRITZ: HI, THIS IS KURT PRITZ WITH ICANN.
TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST OF -- TO THE FIRST OF YOUR QUESTIONS, CHUCK, I THINK IT'S A VALID POINT YOU RAISE.
JUST LIKE SO MANY THINGS, I THINK WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROBUST AND ECONOMICAL OPERATION OF L ROOT.
THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO SKIN THAT CAT.
AND GIVEN THE EQUIPMENT AND STAFFING THAT'S ON HAND, THAT ALL ADDS INTO THE EQUATION OF THE COST/BENEFIT OF WHETHER WE RETAIN THAT IN-HOUSE, OUTSOURCE IT, SOME COMBINATION OF THAT USING CONSULTANTS, BALANCING THE SECURITY CONCERNS.
AND I REALLY THINK ALL OF THAT IS A TACTIC, AND THE STRATEGIC NEEDS TO BE TO ENSURE THE ROBUST OPERATION OF IT IN THE FACE OF ATTACKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT CERTAINLY ICANN WOULD BE AN ECONOMICAL -- PERFORM THAT SORT OF ANALYSIS AS A TACTIC IN THE EXECUTION OF THAT STRATEGIC.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE FROM ICANN HAS A RESPONSE ON GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS, BUT AT LEAST I FELT COMPETENT TO ANSWER THAT PART OF THE QUESTION.
>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT THAT PARTICULAR SECTION IS TALKING ABOUT CREATING A ROBUST INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALL OF ICANN'S IT NEEDS, NOT JUST THE L ROOT.
AND IF THE L ROOT SITUATION IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REGARDED AS SEPARABLE FROM THE OTHER STRATEGIC GOAL OF PROVIDING GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ICANN'S I.T., I THINK THERE'S NO PROBLEM IN ACTUALLY TREATING IT THAT WAY.
YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO DISCUSS, THAT'S ONE THING.
BUT THE GENERAL GOAL WAS REALLY TO ENHANCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ICANN'S I.T. SERVICES.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.
CHRIS DISSPAIN, CHAIR OF THE CCNSO.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO MAKE THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH I WILL START WITH THE FIRST.
I'M MAKING MY COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CCNSO, WHO CONSIDERED THIS STRATEGIC PLAN THIS MORNING.
THE FIRST SECTION IS REGARDING ITEM 1B3, ESTABLISH STABLE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL NECESSARY AND RELEVANT -- IT IS A SECTION CALLED FORMALIZED RELATIONSHIPS WITH CCTLDS MANAGERS.
AND THE CCNSO IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH ALL OF THAT EXCEPT FOR ONE SMALL POINT, WHICH IS THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH SAYS, SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PAST YEAR, ET CETERA, AND RESPECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, THESE FRAMEWORKS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FEBRUARY 2000 GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRINCIPLES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF DELEGATION OF CCTLDS.
NO, THEY DON'T.
THE NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT, AND THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE BEING REPLACED IN ANY EVENT.
AND IF I UNDERSTAND IT, AFTER THIS MEETING.
IT SEEMS TO ME, THEREFORE, TO BE INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE IN A PLAN THAT IS GOING TO LAST THROUGH TO 2007 REFERENCE TO A DOCUMENT THAT WE ALL KNOW IS ABOUT TO BE REPLACED.
AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ISN'T ACTUALLY BEING FOLLOWED IN RESPECT TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS.
THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: HELLO.
MY NAME'S BRUCE TONKIN, AND I'M JUST REALLY COMMENTING ON BEHALF OF MELBOURNE IT RATHER THAN ANY FUNCTION THAT I HAVE.
ONE OF THE THINGS -- I GUESS I HAVE TWO GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE STABILITY AND SECURITY.
ONE OF THOSE IS THAT I'D LIKE A LOT MORE OF THESE OBJECTIVES TO BE MEASURABLE.
BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS KIND OF LIKE VERY HIGH LEVEL, YEAH, YOU KNOW, WE MUST HAVE A ROBUST SYSTEM. WHAT DOES "ROBUST" MEAN?
IF YOU COMPARE THIS WITH SORT OF THE DOT NET AGREEMENT OR THE DOT-COM AGREEMENT, THEY SPECIFY PERFORMANCE FIGURES, THEY SPECIFY RELIABILITY FIGURES, AND THERE'S A COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVING THOSE FIGURES MADE BY THE REGISTRY OPERATORS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVEN'T SORT OF SEEN AT THE ROOT LEVEL IS REALLY, ONE, WHAT SHOULD THOSE NUMBERS BE; AND, TWO, WHAT IS THE PERFORMANCE AGAINST THOSE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, IN CONTRAST TO THE REPORTING WE GET FROM THE GTLD OPERATORS.
SO I THINK IF ICANN IS GOING TO OPERATE THE L ROOT AND, YOU KNOW, NO ONE'S GOING TO DISAGREE THAT THE L ROOT SHOULD BE RELIABLE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW RELIABLE.
ARE WE TALKING 99.9 OR 99.99?
WHAT IS THE NUMBER?
AND WHAT -- IS THAT AN OBJECTIVE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THREE YEARS' TIME?
IT MIGHT BE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET FIVE 9'S RELIABILITY IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND THEN YOU SAY THIS YEAR WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 99.95, SO YOU BASICALLY HAVE GOT AN OBJECTIVE IN THE FUTURE, PLUS WHERE YOU ARE TODAY.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SORT OF MISSING FROM A STRATEGIC PLAN.
YOU SAY THIS IS WHERE WE ARE, THIS IS OUR BASELINE, AND THIS IS OUR OBJECTIVE IN THREE YEARS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SECURITY AND STABILITY OF PARTS OF THE SYSTEM.
TO DEFINE WHAT THAT IS FOR THAT PART OF THE SYSTEM, WHAT IT IS NOW, WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO BE IN THREE YEARS, AND THEN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN WILL THEN TALK ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ISSUES SUCH AS CONTINUING A ROLE IN SUPPORTING THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET, COORDINATE ONGOING SECURITY INITIATIVES, ESTABLISH SECURITY INITIATIVES PROGRAMS, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISH AGREEMENTS WITH RIRS, AND SO ON, ONE OF THE THINGS I SEE IS I DON'T REALLY SEE A MATCH BETWEEN ALL OF THESE OBJECTIVES AND THE SORT OF RESOURCES THAT I'VE SEEN IN THAT AREA IN ICANN.
AND AS A COMMENT I MADE YESTERDAY, AND I'LL JUST SORT OF MAKE IT AGAIN IN THIS FORUM IN THAT I THINK ICANN DOES NEED A SENIOR PERSON THAT IS FOCUSED ON SECURITY AND STABILITY AND IS PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT THE OUTGOING LIAISONS OF THE ORGANIZATION WITH THE OTHER SECURITY AND STABILITY GROUPS AND THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS AND SO ON AND REALLY BUILDS THAT TO BE A MAJOR FOCUS, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CURRENT TECHNICAL STAFF, I THINK, MORE FOCUSED ON JUST RUNNING THE OPERATION WITHIN ICANN AND NOT REALLY LIAISING, I GUESS, EFFECTIVELY WITH THE COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA.
>>KURT PRITZ: AND I'M ASKING THIS FOR CLARIFICATION'S SAKE.
BECAUSE WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN WHERE THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO IT'S MY THINKING THAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH LIMITED TO ROBUST OPERATION OF L ROOT, AND DETERMINING WHAT IS ROBUST, SUCH AS 99.9 OR CERTAIN PERFORMANCE FIGURES WOULD BE LEFT TO AN OPERATIONAL PLAN.
BECAUSE WHAT'S ROBUST MAY CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR LESS THAN THAT.
SO AS SOON AS YOU STARTED TALKING, I STARTED THINKING OPERATIONAL PLAN.
AND THEN LATER ON IN YOUR DISCUSSION, YOU CLARIFIED IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, I DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT.
I THINK A STRATEGY IS STILL MEASURABLE, OKAY.
IT DOESN'T MEAN -- A STRATEGY IS NOT -- YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A MISSION STATEMENT IN CORE PRINCIPLES.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY MEASURABLE.
OUR MISSION IS SECURITY AND STABILITY.
THAT'S THE MISSION.
A PLAN SAYS, IF I'M GOING TO -- IF I HAVE A PLAN 200 YEARS AGO FOR THIS PLACE, MY PLAN WOULD BE, I WANT TO PUT IN A HARBOR.
I WANT TO FILL THIS WHOLE WATERFRONT WITH HOTELS.
YOU KNOW, I'M BEING QUITE SPECIFIC ABOUT -- I WANT TEN HOTELS BY TEN YEARS AND ANOTHER 20 YEARS, I WANT 100 HOTELS.
IT'S QUITE SPECIFIC, MEASURABLE AMOUNTS.
I'M NOT GOING DOWN TO THE LEVEL THAT THE SHERATON WILL HAVE THIS SORT OF CARPET ON IT, ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THIS YEAR I'M GOING TO BUILD THIS HOTEL AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE THIS CARPET.
GETTING DOWN INTO THE DETAIL.
BUT AT A STRATEGY LEVEL, I WOULD BE SAYING, YES, IN TEN YEARS' TIME, I WANT TO HAVE TEN HOTELS ACROSS THIS WATERFRONT.
SO IN TEN YEARS' TIME, YOU'LL KNOW WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY ACHIEVED THAT STRATEGY OR NOT.
>>KURT PRITZ: OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO IF I IN TEN YEARS' TIME SAY ROBUST, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU DON'T REVISE IT EACH YEAR. SO TO PICK UP YOUR POINT, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ROBUST, I MIGHT SAY ROBUST FOR THIS YEAR IS 99.99, LET'S SAY.
AND NEXT YEAR, WE MIGHT SAY, ACTUALLY, OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE HIGHER.
WANT THAT TO BE THREE 9'S.
SO I'M JUST SAYING I'D LIKE TO SEE MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES IN THE PLAN.
>>KURT PRITZ: OKAY.
THANKS.

>>MARK MCFADDEN: MARK MCFADDEN.
THE FIRST THING IS TO -- FIRST -- I HAVE TWO COMMENTS. AND ONE OF THEM IS TO RESPOND TO BRUCE.
BECAUSE I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE ON THAT.
I'M VERY, VERY RELUCTANT TO PUT MEASURABLE QUANTITIES IN A STRATEGIC PLAN.
I ARGUED AGAINST THAT IN AMSTERDAM, AND I'LL ARGUE AGAINST THAT TONIGHT.
I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT DOING THAT.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE OPERATIONAL PLANS AND THE STRATEGIC PLANS.
BUT I THINK THE MOMENT THAT YOU START PUTTING NUMBERS AND DELIVERY DATES INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN, IT'S LESS ABOUT THE STRATEGIC AND MORE ABOUT THE WAY POINTS AND GETTING TO THE STRATEGY.
AND THAT'S THE SEPARATION THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE THERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BUT I'M NOT DEFINING WAY POINTS.
I'M MERELY SAYING WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE.
>>MARK MCFADDEN: WELL, AND I DON'T -- AND IT'S NOT REALLY SO MUCH TO -- I MEAN, WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
BUT I THINK IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WE WANT TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL.
THE MEASURABLE DELIVERABLES ARE AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
AND I THINK TO SOME EXTENT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT TIMETABLES.
I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WORDS THAT APPEAR IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN OVER AND OVER AGAIN, "THIS GOAL WILL BE ACHIEVED IN THE LIFETIME OF THE PLAN."
RIGHT, THOSE WORDS APPEAR IN MANY PLACES IN THE PLAN.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL TO END UP IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, WHERE NOW WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE GONE BACK AND PUT SO MANY TIME LINES AND SORT OF WAY POINTS INTO THE PLAN WHERE WE SAY WE CAN MEASURE AGAINST WHAT ARE TRULY VISIONARY ITEMS.
THEY'RE NOT "LET'S GET THE TENTH HOTEL BUILT," YOU KNOW. WHAT THEY ARE IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE HOTELS ON THIS BEACH IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
SO I THINK -- I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO HAVE A LOT OF THOSE MEASURABLE THINGS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
THAT MUCH SAID, THERE HAS TO BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DISTANCE OF THE YEAR-TO-YEAR PLAN AND THE OVERARCHING FIVE-YEAR PLAN THAT FOR SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO SAY -- FOR YOU AND ME TO READ A YEAR-TO-YEAR PLAN AND SAY, OH, THIS IS GETTING CLOSER TO OUR GOALS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A FEELING FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THOSE OUT YEARS. AND IF IT'S NECESSARY TO AT THOSE SORTS OF METRICS INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN SO THAT YOU AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT THOSE THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH AND FIFTH YEAR, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT.
BUT I WANT TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF FEWER STRICT TIME LINES AND FEWER DELIVERABLES AND WAY POINTS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET ME CLARIFY.
I DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT WAY POINTS.
I'M REALLY JUST SAYING A STRATEGIC PLAN IS SAYING WHERE IS THE ORGANIZATION GOING TO BE IN THREE YEARS AND HOW -- AND WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO MEASURE AT THAT POINT SO THERE'S SOME MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES.
SO JUST USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SECURITY AND STABILITY AND A LOT OF THE WORDS ARE SO GENERAL IT'S LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE ROBUST AND SECURE.
LET'S JUST SAY WHAT THAT MEANS IN THREE YEARS' TIME.
WHERE DO WE WANT TO GET TO.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE ACHIEVED THIS MONTH OR NEXT MONTH AND WHAT THE STEPS ARE.
THAT IS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
THE STRATEGY IS JUST IN SIMPLE TERMS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE SECURE AND STABLE IN THREE YEARS' TIME.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.
>>MARK MCFADDEN: OKAY.
AND I GUESS RATHER THAN DEBATE IT HERE, ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT MY POINT OF VIEW IS THAT WE MINIMIZE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE -- OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS IN -- LET ME GET RID OF SOMETHING HERE, SINCE MY ELECTRONIC COPY IS ABANDONING ME AT THE VERY MOMENT -- IS IN 1B2, WHICH IS THE ESTABLISH SECURITY INITIATIVES PROGRAM.
THIS IS A COMMENT AND SORT OF AN ATTEMPT TO GET INTO THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO REVISED THE FIRST STRATEGIC PLAN.
NOTICE THAT THIS SECTION PREVIOUSLY WAS TITLED "ESTABLISH A SPECIAL RESTRICTED FUND FOR SECURITY INITIATIVES."
AND NOW THOSE WORDS ARE ACTUALLY REMOVED.
AND WHAT'S ADDED TO THIS SECTION HERE IS INTRIGUING TO ME.
IN THE BULLETS THAT APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE JUST BEFORE 1B3, THE THIRD BULLET -- OR THE SECOND BULLET, I'M SORRY, IS ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF THE FUNDS DESIGNATED TO THIS BUDGET CATEGORY.
I THINK A DISCUSSION OF SEGREGATED FUNDING IS AN IMPORTANT STRATEGIC -- IMPORTANT STRATEGIC THING WE SHOULD DO.
IS SHOULD PART OF THE FUNDING THAT ICANN HAS BE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES?
THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE OUGHT TO HAVE IN THE CONTEXT OF A STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND IT SHOULDN'T DISAPPEAR INTO THESE WORDS "ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF THE FUNDS."
I THINK THAT WE, AS A COMMUNITY, SHOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION PUBLICLY, WHETHER WE THINK IN THIS STRATEGIC PLAN WE'VE GOT A GOOD IDEA ABOUT TWO POTENTIAL SEGREGATED ACTIVITIES THAT WE WANT TO FUND SPECIALLY.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR WHEN THE FLAVOR OF THE DAY -- THAT'S A BAD WAY TO SAY IT -- BUT THE FLAVOR OF THE DAY CHANGES AND NOW WE HAVE A THIRD AND A FOURTH SEGREGATED FUND?
I WORRY ABOUT THAT AS A BUDGETING AND PRIORITY-SETTING DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE RE-ELEVATED BACK INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN ABOUT WHETHER WE DO, AS AN ORGANIZATION, SEGREGATED FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
I'M GOING TO OPEN MY COMMENTS BY SAYING HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT, AND THAT I'LL RESERVE MOST OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT AN APPROPRIATE SETUP FOR EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION TO OUR DISCUSSION ON WEDNESDAY.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT I DO THINK THAT A CONSULTATION IS A MULTIPART CONVERSATION OF PEOPLE WHO SHARE INFORMATION, ARE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER.
AND SO BETWEEN THE KIND OF ROLE MODELING THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR, I FEEL VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THAT.
BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SO POSITIVE ABOUT THAT LAST NIGHT.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WHEN WE ASK QUESTIONS, THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE TAKEN VERY OPENLY AND THAT WE CAN HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT THEM.
BECAUSE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONSULTATION IS, I HOPE, IS TO CREATE A STRATEGIC PLAN THAT THE COMMUNITY FULLY EMBRACES AND SUPPORTS.
AND WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY ASK SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO GET THERE.
I THINK THAT WE ALL -- AND I CERTAINLY DO -- APPRECIATE THE EXTRA WORK THAT WENT INTO STREAMLINING THE PLAN AND PUTTING FORWARD A VERSION OF IT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND MAKE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON.
BUT IN A FEW AREAS, I WOULD AGREE WITH BRUCE THAT WE MAY NOT NOW HAVE ENOUGH DETAIL.
WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE ENOUGH DETAIL IN THE EARLIER VERSION AS WELL.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME OUTLINES OF ANSWERS IN ORDER TO GIVE SUPPORT FOR SOME OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS.
I'LL GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF AREAS WHERE I THINK THAT THERE IS MORE INFORMATION NEEDED, AND I MIGHT ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH MARK MCFADDEN'S EXAMPLE THAT HAS TO DO WITH RESTRICTED FUND OR WHATEVER THE METHOD OF FUNDING IS BY WHICH THE FUNDS ARE AGGREGATED.
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
HOW ARE THEY AGGREGATED?
HOW ARE THEY DISBURSED?
WHAT ARE THE MEASURABLE CRITERIA THAT TRACK THE PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THEY ARE DISBURSED?
I THINK ALL OF THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PLACES IN 1A2 WHERE ICANN SEEMS TO BE PROPOSING TO DO THINGS THEMSELVES THAT EVEN IN TODAY'S COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, THE AUTOMATIC FIRST THOUGHT WOULD BE TO OUTSOURCE AND TO MANAGE THE OUTSOURCE.
AND I MENTION THE TEST BED AS AN EXAMPLE.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE EARLIER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE L ROOT SERVER IS ONE THAT NEEDS TO HAVE MORE EXAMINATION.
THE BALANCE BETWEEN DOING THINGS YOURSELVES AND FACILITATING WORK AND AUGMENTING WORK THAT IS DONE BY OTHER EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS IS A, I THINK, STRATEGIC DECISION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AN OPERATIONAL DECISION.
I THINK IT'S A STRATEGIC DECISION.
AND THERE'S NOT NEARLY, TO ME, UNLESS THE DISCUSSION IS GOING ON SOMEPLACE WHERE I AM NOT -- COULD BE -- THERE'S NOT BEEN ENOUGH DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
AND I WOULD THINK THE BOARD WOULD BE PARTICULARLY ATTENTIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
IN 1A3, I REALLY APPLAUD THE IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO MEASUREMENTS AND TO REPORTS.
AND MY ONLY COMMENT -- AND THIS MAY BE JUST ME, BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY PLACE TO PUT IT -- IS THAT WE HAVE A MIX OF REPORTS ABOUT THE SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE SIDE OF ICANN AND THE POLICY SIDE OF ICANN.
SO IF THIS IS ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO SUPPORT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT, GREAT.
I'M NOT OBJECTING AT ALL AND, IN FACT, APPLAUD THE IDEA OF REPORTS.
BUT I THINK ON THE POLICY SIDE, WE MAY NEED TO LOOK ELSEWHERE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER WORK THAT EITHER FEEDS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OR GUIDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM THAT RELATES TO POLICY.
I SAW STREAMLINING BETWEEN THE FIRST VERSION OF THE PLAN AND THIS VERSION ON HOW PERVASIVE ICANN'S ROLE IS IN THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET PER SE.
BUT I'M NOT SURE IT'S YET REALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT ICANN IS PUTTING FORWARD A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE KINDS OF -- OF ITS ROLE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER ENTITIES THAT IT HAS A STRONG LINKAGE WITH AND SHOULD BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH.
SOME OF THOSE DECISIONS -- PERHAPS THEY'RE NOT STRATEGIC, PERHAPS THEY'RE MORE OPERATIONAL -- BUT THEY SHOULD NOT CHANGE ON A YEAR-BY-YEAR BASIS.
MANY INITIATIVES THAT WE LAUNCH WILL HAVE TO HAVE A MULTI-YEAR FOCUS TO THEM.
SO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO LAUNCH AN INITIATIVE TO OUTREACH TO OTHER SECURITY ORGANIZATIONS IN AN OPERATIONAL PLAN, DROP IT BEFORE THE END OF THE NEXT YEAR, NOT GET IT INTO THE BUDGETING CYCLE, AND HAVE CREATED EXPECTATIONS AND NOT BE ABLE TO CARRY THROUGH.
I WOULD ALSO JUST NOTE THAT ICANN MAKES STATEMENTS IN ITS DOCUMENT ON PAGE 12 IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER 1B2 THAT ICANN IS PARTICULARLY WELL SITUATED TO ENABLE THOSE FROM DEVELOPING NATION INTERNET COMMUNITIES TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN SECURITY INITIATIVES.
I QUESTIONED THAT YESTERDAY IN THE STRATEGIC -- IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
I QUESTION IT TODAY.
I THINK THAT ICANN IS PARTICULARLY WELL SUITED TO COOPERATE WITH OTHERS, BUT I'M REALLY NOT CLEAR OR COMFORTABLE OR HAVE NOT SEEN THE EXPERTISE THAT I WOULD LOOK FOR THAT PUTS ICANN IN THE CENTER OF DOING ALL OF THAT ITSELF.
AGAIN, IT MAY BE A QUESTION OF WORKING THROUGH OTHERS, AND THAT'S JUST NOT FULLY REFLECTED YET IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
I THINK IN LOOKING AT THIS, I WOULD HAVE ONLY ONE FINAL QUESTION, WHICH WILL BE A QUESTION AT EVERY SECTION SO IT'S BETTER TO ASK IT NOW.
WE'RE PROVIDING CONSULTATION. YOU'RE TAKING INPUT.
IT'S EASY TO NOTE, BECAUSE WE JUST SAW AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE ONE POINT OF VIEW, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW.
I WOULD REGRET SEEING THAT WE GET A NEXT VERSION OF THE PLAN WHERE THE STAFF IS UNFORTUNATELY PUT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO PICK ONE OF THOSE BECAUSE THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE DIALOGUE NECESSARY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING. IN SOME CASES, BRUCE AND I MAY BE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT IF WE HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT OUR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. RIGHT NOW, I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION I'M GOING TO SEE A STRATEGIC PLAN SENT TO THE BOARD FOR VOTE, AND I'M UNCLEAR ON WHEN I'M GOING TO SEE A REVISED STRATEGIC PLAN.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT?
>>KURT PRITZ: I THINK -- I THINK THERE'S -- TO GO DOWN A COUPLE COMMENTS, SOME ARE VERY SPECIFIC, SO WITH REGARD TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEST BED, IT'S FULLY -- IN THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP MEETING I JUST LEFT --
YOU ASKED ME TO COME UP HERE.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: I DID, BUT I'M SAYING MARILYN'S LAST QUESTION.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>KURT PRITZ: WHO ARE YOU APPLAUDING?
>>MARILYN CADE:WAIT A MINUTE. SO PATRICK SAYS MARILYN HAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS BUT STAFF ONLY HAS TO ANSWER THE LAST ONE.
>>KURT PRITZ: IT'S IN ICANN'S CONTEMPLATION. ICANN HAS ZERO DOLLARS IN ITS BUDGET FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEST BED BUT PLANS TO USE OTHERS AND HAS HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE -- GO WITH THE LAST ONE.
>>KURT PRITZ: WELL, I THINK CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MIGHT BE STRATEGIC, FOR INSTANCE N OUTREACH WHERE WE AFFIRMATIVELY SAY AS A STRATEGY WE WANT TO EMPLOY OTHERS WHO ARE REGIONALLY LOCATED ALREADY TO IMPLEMENT THAT STRATEGY. IN MANY OTHER INSTANCES, "MADE BY" IS A TACTIC AND IT MAY CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND HOW WE PROSECUTE PROJECTS COULD CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR, EVEN AFTER SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE. TAKE THE SUPER (INAUDIBLE) IN TEXAS THAT WAS ABANDONED.
I THINK SOME THINGS ARE PROBABLY LEFT UNSAID.
FUNDING THROUGH OTHERS IS ALSO -- IS OFTEN JOINT FUNDING. ICANN IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF FUNDING OF SOME OF THESE INITIATIVES.
I THINK I'M CONCERNED WITH CARRYING ON THIS PROCESS BEYOND THIS TIME. WE'VE HAD CONSULTATION ON THE PROCESS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY, SO THERE'S BEEN SOME MONTHS FOR THE CONSULTATION PROCESS TO GO ON.
SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD SO FAR ALREADY APPLY TO THE REVISED VERSION OF THE PLAN. SOME OF THE COMMENTS HAVE APPLIED TO THE PLAN AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE. SO SOMEHOW WE HAVE GOT TO GET TO THE END GAME HERE.
ICANN CERTAINLY PLEDGES TO TAKE ALL THE INPUT HERE AND CONTINUE TO INCORPORATE AND UPDATE THE PLAN. NEXT YEAR'S PLAN CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT. BUT IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, MANNER OR FORM, WE'RE GOING TO CARRY THROUGH WITH OUR BUDGETING AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS.
WE EITHER USE THIS PLAN AS A GUIDE TO GUIDE THAT PROCESS OR WE'LL HAVE TO USE SOMETHING PROBABLY LESS THAN THIS PLAN.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PETER DENGATE THRUSH. TONIGHT WEARING MY NEW BOARD HAT, (INAUDIBLE) FOR THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU TELL ME PRIORITIES. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PRIORITIES, SO IF YOU COULD GIVE ANSWERS AS YOU RAISE QUESTIONS ON EACH OF THESE FOLLOWING TOPICS I WOULD APPRECIATE IF THERE ARE ANY PRIORITY ISSUES, IF YOU COULD INDICATE AS FAR AS YOU CAN WHAT SENSE OF PRIORITY YOU HAVE ABOUT THESE THINGS. OBVIOUSLY IN AN IDEAL WORLD WE DO EVERYTHING, BUT IN A LESS THAN IDEAL WORLD, OUR RESOURCES DON'T EXTEND FAR ENOUGH. WE MAY HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT GOES IN AND WHAT GOES OUT. SO IT WOULD HELP ME IF YOU SAID WHICH OF THESE THINGS YOU THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT.
>>CHUCK GOMES: I'LL DO IT QUICKLY. I WAS GOING TO SAVE THIS UNTIL THE LAST COMMENT SESSION BUT IT CAME UP.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALISTIC AND PRACTICAL. THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE IN APRIL, AND THE -- ICANN HAS TO PRODUCE AN OPERATIONAL PLAN AND BUDGET AND GET IT POSTED AND GET PLENTY OF FEEDBACK.
I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH A LOT OF THE COMMENTS BUT I DON'T THINK MANY OF THEM ARE REALISTIC TO GET INTO THIS VERSION OF THE PLAN AND STILL ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVES. THAT'S MY OPINION.
BUT, I THINK ALL OF THIS VERY VALUABLE FOR GOING FORWARD IN THE NEXT YEAR'S PLAN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WHEN I SAID WHEN AM I GOING TO SEE THE NEXT VERSION, I MEANT HERE. I THOUGHT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SEE AS A RESULT OF THE CONSULTATION WAS, OKAY, THE VERSION THAT'S GOING TO THE BOARD, AND I WOULD SEE -- SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST CLARIFY THAT.
AND IT MAY BE THAT, IN FACT, NO, THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONSULTATION IS NOT TO TAKE ANYTHING FROM WHAT WE SAY. IT'S BETTER IF WE CLARIFY THAT EXPECTATION BEFORE THE COMMUNITY SITS HERE FOR TWO HOURS AND COMES AWAY WITH A DIFFERENT EXPECTATION. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE POINT.
THE OTHER POINT IS THAT WHEN YOU PROVIDE A STRATEGIC PLAN THAT HAS THREE YEARS, HAVING WRITTEN THEM, IMPLICATIONS ARE THAT DECISIONS YOU MAKE IN YEAR -- WHEN YOU LAUNCH THE STRATEGIC PLAN, YOU'LL MAKE INVESTMENTS AND DECISIONS THAT HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR YEAR TWO AND THREE.
SO LET'S JUST GET THAT OUT ON THE TABLE AND BE REALISTIC ABOUT IT. IF I'M GOING TO QUOTE-UNQUOTE, OPEN REGIONAL OFFICES AND I RENT A SPACE IN 20 CITIES FOR FIVE TO TEN-YEAR LEASES, THEN I'M HARDLY GOING TO CANCEL THOSE IN YEAR TWO OR THREE. I'M JUST SAYING THOSE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD BE HONEST ABOUT.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT CHANGES THAT ARE LIKELY TO COME AS A RESULT OF THIS CONSULTATION? MIGHT BE YOU AGAIN, I THINK.
>>KURT PRITZ: I'M GOING TO STAND UP HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME....
>>MARILYN CADE: WHY DON'T WE JUST GIVE THE MAN A MIKE.
>>KURT PRITZ: YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY IT'S OUR COMMITMENT TO WRITE THESE DOWN AND INCORPORATE THEM IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN RIGHT AWAY. OUR CONCERN IS THAT -- AND IT'S THE POINT YOU BROUGHT UP, MARILYN, WE'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF VARYING VIEWPOINTS. SO JUST AS IN THE AMSTERDAM DISCUSSION, SOME JUDGMENT IS GOING TO BE APPLIED. SO THE UPDATED PLAN, THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WE CAN MAKE RIGHT AWAY, WON'T MEET EVERYBODY'S EXPECTATIONS SO THAT PRODUCT WON'T BE SPOT ON WITH EVERYBODY'S EXPECTATION BUT IT WILL BE DONE RIGHT AWAY.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: OKAY. IS THAT 20 MINUTES TOOK US ALMOST 30. SO WE'LL NEED TO MAKE SURE WE WORK QUICKLY THROUGH THE REST OF IT.
CAN WE GET THE NEXT SLIDE.
COMPETITION AND CHOICE. THEY WERE THE TWO BIG TICKET ITEMS.
COMMENTS. CHRIS? CHUCK?
>>CHUCK GOMES: REALLY JUST TWO SUGGESTIONS IN THIS SECTION THAT I CAME UP WITH. 2B -- OR EXCUSE ME, 2A-I, THE LAST BULLET SAYS IMPROVING GTLD CONSUMER PROTECTION. FOR THOSE OF YOU HERE YESTERDAY, I BROUGHT THIS UP, AND KURT GAVE A VERY GOOD RESPONSE TO CLARIFY WHAT ICANN STRATEGY REALLY WAS WITH REGARD TO CONSUMER PROTECTION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SO FORTH.
I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY GOOD IF THAT -- A PARAGRAPH IS ADDED TO CLARIFY THAT INTENTION AND STRATEGY AS WAS STATED -- AS YOU STATED YESTERDAY, KURT.
THE SECOND ITEM IS 2B-I, WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT COMPLETING A STRATEGY FOR SELECTING NEW TLDS. IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN IT KIND OF LEFT ME HANGING IN TERMS OF WHAT THE STRATEGY REALLY WAS.
ACTUALLY, BECAUSE I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES SESSION AND IN THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP TODAY, I GOT A LOT MORE CLARITY ON THAT. I THINK A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON THAT PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE WOULD BE VALUABLE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
>>MARILYN CADE:I WANT TO FIRST ASK WHAT OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE SESSION?
>>CHUCK GOMES: YESTERDAY.
>>MARILYN CADE: YOU MEAN LAST NIGHT'S SESSION. SORRY. OKAY.
I WAS LIKE, GOD, I'M MISSING A DOCUMENT.
I WAS PROBABLY DOING THE WSIS.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS IN HERE THAT I, -- IN COMPETITION AND CHOICE I WANT TO POINT OUT AND ONE I THINK IS A VERY BIG DEAL. AND PERHAPS IT'S HIDDEN UNDER TOO BROAD A PHRASE. BUT THERE IS NO REFERENCE IN THIS SECTION THAT I DETECTED OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IDNS AS A FORM OF COMPETITION AND CHOICE.
AND SINCE I THINK THAT, IN FACT, I'VE HEARD ENOUGH STATEMENTS OF COMMITMENT TO IDNS AS ANOTHER FORM OF GTLD, I'M SURPRISED NOT TO SEE IT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED AND POINTED OUT IN HERE, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTING, AND PERHAPS MORE THAN THAT, PROBLEMATIC, TO MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
THEN I'LL JUST SAY A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. IN SOME CASES WE'RE WRITING PRINCIPLES BY STRATEGIC PLAN AND WE'RE DEFINING ICANN'S WORK BY ADDING IN EXTENSIONS OF WORDS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE AND THE FIRST TIME WE SEE THEM, OR PHRASES, THE FIRST TIME WE SEE THEM AS A COMMUNITY AS THEY'RE WRITTEN IN AS AN EXPANSION OF A BULLET THAT HAS OTHERWISE BEEN PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT INTO.
SO GROWTH IN THE REGISTRATION OF INTERNET RESOURCES, I THINK THAT EVERYBODY SORT OF UNDERSTANDS THAT GROWTH IN REGISTRATION RESOURCES IS ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS THAT ICANN IS GOING IN, AND PROBABLY FULLY SUPPORT THAT, BUT WE ARE CONTINUING TO SORT OF REVISE OUR WORK TOGETHER AS WE WRITE SOME OF THESE PHRASES.
>>KURT PRITZ: WHERE IS THAT?
>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S IN THE FIRST BULLET AND IT'S JUST SHOWN AS A WAY, UNDER COMPETITION AND CHOICE, FOSTERING INNOVATION, COMPETITION, AGREEMENT, COMPLIANCE, AND GROWTH IN THE REGISTRATION OF INTERNET RESOURCES.
I'M NOT OBJECTING TO IT. I THINK SOME OF THE WORDS THAT COMES WITH THESE -- BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORK WE'RE DOING MAY NOT BE AS CLEAR TO ALL OF US AS YOU MIGHT LIKE IT TO BE.
AGAIN, I'LL MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT OUTSOURCING WHERE POSSIBLE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE WHERE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE. I WOULD NOTE THE DATA ESCROW COORDINATION AND SERVICES. I WOULD THEN ALSO SAY THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, ON PAGE 16, AND WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT HERE, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT ICANN MEANS WHEN IT SAYS IT WILL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN TO RESPOND MORE EFFECTIVELY TO REGISTRANT NEEDS THAT RELATE TO ICANN'S MISSION.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
UNDER THE NEXT SECTION, ICANN PROPOSES TO EDUCATE GTLD CONSUMERS FOR.... CONSUMER PROTECTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. THIS IS AN AREA THAT I DON'T BELIEVE MY COMMUNITY -- MY CONSTITUENCY IS FULLY COMFORTABLE WITH.
SORRY, 2A-2.
AND WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ROLE ICANN PLANS TO PLAY, IF A CONSUMER HAS A COMPLAINT, THEY'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH A REGISTRAR, THEY'RE NOW BEING REFERRED TO A CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY IN THEIR COUNTRY, I THINK WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE WORK IS THAT ICANN WOULD GO IN IN THAT WAY.
ON PAGE 28, WHICH IS UNDER 2A-2, RIGHT BEFORE -- WHOOPS, I THINK I MAY HAVE MY PAGES OUT OF ORDER. I DO. NEVER MIND. I'LL SAVE THIS COMMENT.
>>MARK MCFADDEN: MY COMMENTS ARE ABOUT 2A-2 AND 2A-3. ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT GOT MADE IN THIS DRAFT IS IN THE TITLE, AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, AND I WANT TO ACTUALLY THANK THE AUTHORS FOR ACTUALLY MAKING THIS CHANGE. IT NOW SAYS DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN APPROPRIATE PLAN FOR RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF GTLD DOMAIN NAME AND IP NUMBER RESOURCE -- IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T SAY THAT. IT SAYS REGISTRANTS.
I LIKE THE ADDITION OF IP NUMBER RESOURCE REGISTRANTS, AND MY CONSTITUENCY THINKS THAT ADDRESSING IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART OF HOW THE REGISTRY OPERATES SO I'M VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT SECTION.
I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF NOW, THE BULLET ITEMS IN 2A-2 ONLY SPEAK TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF MANAGING IP ALLOCATIONS TO THE RIRS. I THINK -- I THINK THAT RIRS ARE THE END NUMBER RESOURCE REGISTRANTS THAT ARE MEANT HERE AND I'M HOPING AN ADDITIONAL BULLET CAN BE CRAFTED THAT REFLECTS THAT FAIRNESS AND EQUITY HAVE TO BE ENFORCED FROM THE RIRS DOWN TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
IN THAT REGARD, ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE IN 2A-3, THERE IS A SECTION IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT STARTS WHILE THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ICANN AND THE REGISTRAR AND GTLD NAME REGISTRY COMMUNITIES HAVE PROVIDED AN EFFECTIVE AND FORMAL BASIS FOR COMPLIANCE, AND THEN IT GOES ON.
ONE OF THE GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT'S ACTUALLY DELETED FROM THAT PARAGRAPH ARE THE NUMBER REGISTRY COMMUNITY. AND I WANT TO SEE THAT ADDED BACK IN.
I THINK WHILE THERE ARE ITEMS IN THE NRO ICANN MOU THAT EFFECTIVELY GOVERN COMPLIANCE, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE ALL ENCOMPASSING SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THAT RETURNED IN A BULLET ITEM AND THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ADDED THAT SIMPLY SUGGESTS THAT ICANN DOES HAVE A ROLE IN ADDRESSING, AND PART OF THAT ROLE IS ENSURING THAT THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOU DOCUMENT BETWEEN THE NRO AND ICANN.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: LET'S GO TO THIS GENTLEMAN HERE, AND THEN THESE TWO HERE.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY, VITTORIO BERTOLA FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND I WILL JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS ON THE COMPETITION AND CHOICE PART OF THE REPORT OF THE PLAN.
OKAY. SO FIRST OF ALL, WE WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT BASICALLY MANY OF THE IDEAS THAT ARE IN THIS SECTION OF THE PLAN, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE REINFORCING THE RIGHTS OF THE REGISTRANTS. AND ACTUALLY FINDING A WAY TO ENFORCING THEM. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS FOR REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, AND ALSO POSSIBLY COMPLIANT MECHANISMS SO THAT INDEED WHILE REGISTRANTS CANNOT GET PROMPT RESPONSE FROM THEIR REGISTRARS MAY HAVE A WAY TO WARN ICANN WHAT'S HAPPENING AND MAYBE IN A CASE WHERE THIS BECOMES A PROBLEM WITH MANY REGISTRANTS INVOLVED, ICANN WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT PRIORITY 2B OF THE ADDITIONAL -- THE PROCESS FOR THE ADDITIONAL NEW TLDS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AT THE SAME TIME, IS REMAINING ON PAPER SINCE MANY YEARS AGO. SO I REALLY HOPE THAT THIS IS REALLY THE TIME WHERE IT BECOMES PRACTICE. I WOULD SAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, REALLY, A PROCESS FOR THE NEW TLDS, SO ANY NEW TLD, INCLUDING MAYBE NONBUSINESS ONES, CAN BE ADDED ON THAT BASIS THAT IF IT DOESN'T HARM THE INTERNET, WE SHOULD ADD IT.
AND FINALLY, I THINK CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN IN STRENGTHEN THE CONTRACTUAL MECHANISMS WITH REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES TO ENSURE THAT THEY CANNOT -- I MEAN, REPEAT SOME OF THE ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
THANK YOU.
>>PAUL KANE: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PAUL KANE. I'M HERE PROBABLY AS CENTR, BUT ALSO IN MY PRIVATE CAPACITY.
MY ISSUE IS MORE OF A GENERIC IN NATURE. I ATTENDED THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND I CAME AWAY WITH A VIEW THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK YET TO BE DONE ON FOCUSING ICANN'S MISSION, FOCUSING THE PLAN TO CORE PRINCIPLES THAT WE WANT FROM ICANN.
THE FEAR I HAVE WITH THE CURRENT DRAFT, AND EVEN THE REVISED DRAFT, IS THERE IS A PHENOMENAL AMOUNT OF AMBIGUITY IN THE PLAN. UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE JUST WALKED IN, AND HAVE BEEN AT MEETINGS ALL AFTERNOON, AND I DID RECEIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT FOR THIS VERSION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, THERE WILL BE REVISIONS AT THE NEXT VERSION NEXT YEAR.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS VERSION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN STILL NEEDS TO BE WORKED ON AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR ADOPTION. I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT A STRATEGIC PLAN.
I DID ACTUALLY SEE THE PREVIOUS SLIDE APOLOGIZE FOR GOING BACK ON THAT.
CERTAINLY THE CENTR COMMUNITY AND MANY CCTLDS OUTSIDE THE CENTR COMMUNITY WANT TO SEE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE IANA PERFORMANCE. WE HAVE OFFERED MONEY, WE HAVE OFFERED FUNDING, WE HAVE OFFERED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT, WE HAVE OFFERED TRAINING, WE HAVE OFFERED EXPERTISE, AND I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT KURT DID RECOGNIZE THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO USE THE BENEFIT OF EXPERIENCE WITHIN THE IANA TO ACTUALLY UNDERTAKE THESE THINGS. AND WE WELCOME AND ENDORSE THAT APPROACH AND WE REMAIN WILLING TO HELP.

HAVING DETAILED BUDGETS, DETAILED BUDGETS. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT ANY ELEMENT THAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN WANTS TO UNDERTAKE HAS BEEN WELL THOUGHT THROUGH WITH FUNDING MODELS AND ALSO EXPECTATIONS OF NOT MEETING THE ANTICIPATED FUNDING LEVELS.
THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE DIFFERENT PRIORITIES SET FOR DIFFERENT BUDGETARY SCENARIOS, AND THAT IS IMPORTANT AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN SIDE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WITH MILESTONES AND TIME LINES.
SO I WELCOME THIS INITIATIVE BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT PREMATURE TO RECOMMEND TO THE ICANN BOARD THAT THEY ADOPT THE STRATEGIC PLAN AS PRESENTED BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT HOLES, IN MY OPINION.
THANK YOU.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, IT'S PHILIP SHEPPARD.
WE ALL KNOW COMPETITION AND CHOICE IS ONE OF THE ICANN CORE VALUES, AND I'M NOT AWARE THAT THE 11 CORE VALUES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER OF PRIORITY. SO MY QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT PHRASING AND EMPHASIS THAT WE SEE IN THE PLAN.
WE SEE EARLIER ON UNDER THE SHORT PARAGRAPH UNDER COMPETITION AND CHOICE WHAT IS MENTIONED IS THINGS LIKE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS AND FOSTERING COMPETITION AT REGISTRARS. AND (INAUDIBLE) I WONDER IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES THERE. IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THEY SHOULD BE MENTIONED AND EXPLAINED.
AND ELSEWHERE WE ALSO SEE PHRASES NOW IN THE -- UNDER STRATEGIC PRIORITY 2, COMPETITION AND CHOICE, WE DO SEE PHRASE IN INTRODUCTION WHICH SEEM TO BE FROM THE VERY START QUALIFYING COMPETITION AND CHOICE SLIGHTLY. OR SUGGESTING THERE MAY BE A TRADEOFF OR OTHER THINGS THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN THE TITLE AS WE SEE DEVELOP (INAUDIBLE) INITIATIVES (INAUDIBLE) CONSUMER CHOICE (INAUDIBLE) EXISTING POLICIES AND CONTRACTS. THAT'S PROBABLY ALL OKAY BUT IS THERE A SUGGESTION THERE THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT? AND WE SEE ALSO DIRECTLY UNDER THAT TO CONTINUE FOSTERING THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION WITHIN THE GLOBAL DNS WITHOUT RISKING ITS STABILITY AND SECURITY.
THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE BUT AGAIN IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A TRADEOFF SOMEHOW BETWEEN THE TWO. THERE'S NO SUGGESTION THAT PERHAPS ELEMENTS OF COMPETITION CAN ENHANCE SECURITY AND STABILITY IN SOME ASPECTS.
SO I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEY HAVE COMPETITION AND CHOICE IF THEY DO HAVE SPECIFIC MEANINGS AND IMPLICATIONS IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO SEE THAT SPELLED OUT SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THERE AND BEING SUGGESTED IN TERMS OF THESE SUBTLETIES THAT ARE BEING THOUGHT ABOUT.

>>KURT PRITZ: I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD POINTS, AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR.
AS FAR AS INTRODUCING COMPETITION WITH REGISTRIES, THERE'S THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, THERE'S THE STREAMLINED EVALUATION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES AND A MECHANISM FOR THAT, THERE'S THE INTRODUCTION OF IDNS, AS MARILYN POINTS OUT, BELONGS IN ENHANCING COMPETITION AS WELL AS -- AS WELL AS THE STABILITY ISSUE.
I THINK THERE'S -- AND I DON'T HAVE MY COMPUTER WITH ME, SO I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY BUT I KNOW THERE'S AUTHORITY IN THE ICANN DOCUMENTS, THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, I THINK, THAT SAYS COMPETITION SHOULD BE ENHANCED SO LONG AS WE PAY ATTENTION TO THE PRIMARY MISSION OF SECURITY AND STABILITY. AND I'LL FIND THOSE EXACT WORDS AND THEIR SOURCE SO WE HAVE SORT OF A BIBLIOGRAPHY THERE OR AUTHORITY FOR THAT.
>>VINT CERF: ACTUALLY, THANK, PHILIP, FOR MENTIONING THIS POTENTIAL DISTINCTION AMONG DIFFERENT KINDS OF -- DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE COULD STIMULATE COMPETITION.
I THINK IT'S VERY CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE COMPETITION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO CREATE BETWEEN REGISTRARS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPETITION WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CREATE AMONG REGISTRIES. AND, INDEED, THE BUSINESSES MAY NOT BE THE SAME.
SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO BE -- TRYING TO REFINE OUR CONCEPT OF COMPETITION.
THE CORE DOCUMENT MAY SAY COMPETITION IS GOOD, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY, I THINK PHILIP'S POINT IS OUR STRATEGY HAS TO BE MORE REFINED SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IT, WHAT IS THE COMPETITION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE AND IN WHICH DOMAINS, NO PUN INTENDED, AND HOW WOULD WE SEE THAT UNFOLDING.
SO THANK YOU. GOOD POINT.
>>BRET FAUSETT: BRET FAUSETT, I'M THE ALAC REPRESENTATIVE TO GNSO.
AND JUST TO FOLLOW ON THE LAST COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND EVEN THE COMMENT THAT DR. CERF JUST MADE.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN AND WHETHER IT IS EMBODYING POLICY CHOICES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND THAT WE'RE MAKING IN THE ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN OR WHETHER THE LANGUAGE IS SIMPLY TO GIVE A GUIDE FOR STAFF ON WHAT TO DO.
I'LL GIVE YOU MY VIEW.
AND THAT IS THAT THIS IS SIMPLY A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON OVER THE COMING YEAR; THAT POLICY CHOICES WILL BE MADE BY THE GNSO.
CERTAINLY THE GNSO, I BELIEVE, IS GOING TO FOCUS ON COMPETITION OF CHOICE, LOOK AT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE GNSO GIVES GUIDANCE TO STAFF AND THE BOARD, THAT THAT GUIDANCE ON THESE PRINCIPLES WILL TRUMP WHATEVER IS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
IS THAT SORT OF A CORRECT STATEMENT?
>>KURT PRITZ: YES.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>KURT PRITZ: ICANN DOES NOT MAKE POLICY.
IT SUPPORTS THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
THE STRATEGIC PLAN'S INTENDED TO BE THE EXECUTION OF THE POLICY THROUGH OPERATIONS.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: CAN I GET AN INDICATION, IS ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN THE MIKE FOR THIS SECTION?
MARILYN.
GREAT.
JORDYN, YOU'VE GOT IT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: JORDYN BUCHANAN, REGISTER.COM.
JUST TO ENHANCE, PERHAPS, PHILIP AND VINT'S COMMENTS, I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE COULD, IN FACT, ENHANCE COMPETITION BETWEEN REGISTRIES. AND IT PROBABLY STARTS WITH USER EDUCATION TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TLDS THEY USE TODAY.
THEY WORK JUST AS WELL, PERHAPS.
AND PERHAPS THERE'S ALSO A ROLE WITHIN ICANN IN WORKING TO MAKE SURE THEY DO, IN FACT, WORK JUST AS WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HEARD COMPLAINTS FROM SOME GTLDS THAT THEY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN SERVICE PROVIDERS PERHAPS FILTERING THE TLDS AND SO ON.
AND I THINK THERE IS A ROLE FOR ICANN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE GTLD IS JUST AS GOOD AS ANOTHER FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE USER COMMUNITY.
AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP ENCOURAGE COMPETITION AND MIGRATION BETWEEN GTLD REGISTRIES.

>>PATRICK SHARRY: BARBARA, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
ARE YOU RESPONDING?
>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: IT WAS JUST TO KURT'S POINT.
I THINK WHAT KURT MEANT TO SAY WAS THAT ICANN STAFF DOES NOT MAKE POLICY, NOT THAT ICANN AS A WHOLE DOES NOT MAKE POLICY.
IT'S A -- I THINK HE JUST LEFT OUT THE WORD "STAFF" THERE.
AM I CORRECT?
THANK YOU.

>>MARILYN CADE: FIRST OF ALL, I'LL QUICKLY ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE COMMENT JORDYN JUST MADE AND SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO REFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY COMPETITION.
BECAUSE IF USERS ARE UNAWARE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER AND THAT THE GTLDS THAT ARE THERE ARE ALL JUST AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER, IF THEY ARE THE KIND OF NAME THAT THEY WANT TO REGISTER IN, 'CAUSE SPONSORED NAMES MAY BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, SO THAT WORK EFFORT THAT WAS SUGGESTED BY VINT EARLIER MIGHT BE A FUTURE WORK EFFORT THAT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE.
BUT WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO COMMENT ON WAS ACTUALLY TO ASK BRET A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION.
BECAUSE I HAD A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT BRET'S QUESTION WAS.
AND IN THAT CASE, I AGREE WITH KURT'S ANSWER, BUT I DIDN'T THINK IT FULLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
>> (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: MAYBE. I THOUGHT WHAT BRET WAS ASKING WAS, IN THE -- THE STRATEGIC PLAN LAYS OUT PRIORITIES. AND THERE ARE SOME POLICY IMPLICATIONS IN THE STRATEGY.
BUT THIS IS NOT ONLY ABOUT POLICY.
AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF BRET WAS ASKING THE NARROW QUESTION, WHEN IT IS ABOUT POLICY, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT, OF COURSE, THE GNSO, IF IT'S GNSO POLICY, OF COURSE.
BUT IF THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE GNSO GIVE THE -- AS A SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, GIVE THE BOARD A PIECE OF ADVICE WHICH IS IN CONTRADICTION TO A STRATEGY WHICH WOULD TRUMP, THEN I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE HE MEANT.
BUT I KIND OF LIKE THE LARGER QUESTION, TOO.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE A GREAT JOB THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE STAFF FOR ISSUING THIS DOCUMENT.
AND I THINK THAT WE -- IT'S VERY HARD TO RUN AN OPERATION AND AT THE SAME TIME TRY TO WORK ON A STRATEGIC PLAN, ON THE VISION THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS TO DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE.
AND I CAN SAY ALSO -- I DON'T KNOW IN WHICH FOOT I HAVE TO BE TO SPEAK LIKE THIS, BECAUSE I AM AN ICANN BOARD DIRECTOR, BUT I JUST SPEAK AS AN INTERNET USER AND AS SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE ORGANIZATION.
AND I JUST WANT EVERYBODY HERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE STAFF IN ORDER TO ENABLE US TO GET A DOCUMENT IN WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP A VISION OF ICANN FOR THE NEXT FUTURE.
SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE TWO THINGS.
THE FIRST ONE IS, I THINK THAT THE EXERCISE IS VERY HEAVY AT THE TOP LEVEL.
AND MY IDEA AND MY SUGGESTION IS, WHAT WE DEVELOP NOW IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AT THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION LEVEL.
I KNOW THAT IT'S VERY HARD AT THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO LEVEL TO SPEND TIME TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE FUTURE WE'RE TRYING TO ENABLE.
BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT IF DURING THE NEXT ICANN MEETING WE CAN THINK ABOUT A FORMAT IN WHICH THE CCNSO AND THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESSING SUPPORT ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS THE AT LARGE WILL COME UP WITH THE SAME FORMAT AND DISCUSS AMONG THEMSELVES ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK WILL BE THE NEXT FUTURE FOR -- I MEAN TO EXCHANGE, REALLY, IN A VERY OPEN MANNER IN ORDER TO GET THIS TYPE OF VALUABLE EXCHANGE.
BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD AT A HIGH LEVEL, AS WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT HERE, ALL THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS COMING TOGETHER AND TRYING TO POINT OUT ITEM BY ITEM.
SO I THINK THAT IT'S AN EXERCISE THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY HARD FOR US.
THE SECOND THING IS, I THINK THAT WHILE WE -- THE FIRST TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TLD COMPETITION, I THINK -- I REMEMBER SOMEBODY WAS TREATING ME AS A FOOLISH GUY, BECAUSE WE CANNOT AVOID, AS ICANN MEMBERS, I MEAN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR WHAT WILL BE THE CONCEPT WE WILL TRY TO ENABLE IN THE FUTURE FOR THE COMPETITION AMONG REGISTRIES.
SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE'LL GET AN ANSWER TODAY.
BUT I THINK THAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPT THAT WE THINK THAT WE WANT TO GO TO THAT POINT.
THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE IT IS ANOTHER THING.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS ABOUT IT.
BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE'VE GOT THIS.
AND THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR THE GOOD JOB.

>>PATRICK SHARRY: OKAY.
WE MIGHT MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, STEVE.
BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS AND STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION, WHICH ARE PRIORITIES 3 AND 4 BUNDLED TOGETHER.
AND, AGAIN, YOU CAN READ THOSE THINGS UP THERE.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THE LITTLE ANNOTATION FOR THOSE DOT POINTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO MOU UNDERTAKINGS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM THERE.
CHRIS.
>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN, CCNSO.
THERE WAS A CONVERSATION YESTERDAY AFTERNOON IN THIS ROOM IN THE PUBLIC FORUM DISCUSSIONS IN WHICH VINT REMOVED HIS COAT AND THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT REGIONAL OFFICES.
AND I'M LOATHE TO GO THERE AGAIN.
BUT I'M AFRAID I HAVE TO.
BUT HOPEFULLY JUST TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.
THE FIRST IS THAT ITEM 3C ON THAT LIST THERE, WHICH IS THE ONE ABOUT REGIONAL PRESENCES, IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN MOU SYMBOL BESIDE IT.
SO FROM THAT, WE CAN TAKE IT THAT IT'S NOT A MATTER THAT COMES UP UNDER THE MOU.
I NEED TO SAY BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING ELSE, I AM NOT AGAINST REGIONAL OFFICES.
JUST WANT TO SAY THAT.
THE NEXT POINT ON FROM THERE, THEN, IS IF YOU ACTUALLY GO TO THE REGIONAL PRESENCE SECTION ON PAGE 22, 3-4C, IN FACT, ON PAGE 23, AND THERE IS A PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS IT STARTS ADDRESSING THESE CONCERNS, ESTABLISHING PRESENCES, ET CETERA IN THE PARAGRAPH IT SAYS OUTREACH OR LIAISON WOULD COMPLEMENT THE HOME OFFICES KEEPING IN MIND THAT ALL ICANN LOCATIONS MUST BE ABLE TO ASSIST COUNTRIES AND STAKEHOLDERS IN IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE SUPPORT.
THIS INCLUDES ISSUES ARISING IN REGIONAL OFFICES, BUT ALSO IANA, CCTLDS, AT LARGE, ET CETERA.
IT SAYS ICANN RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO ASSIST IN THE PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL FORUMS FROM CCTLDS.
ALL WE ARE ASKING THE CCNSO -- WE HAD A QUICK LOOK AROUND THE ROOM THIS MORNING IN OUR MEETING AND ASKED IF ANY OF US HAD ACTUALLY CONTACTED ICANN OR SPOKEN TO ICANN ABOUT OPENING UP A REGIONAL OFFICE.
AND NONE OF -- NO ONE SAID THEY HAD DONE THAT.
NOW, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T.
I'M SURE PEOPLE HAVE.
BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REQUEST THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW WHERE THE REQUESTS ARE COMING FROM.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT THIS SAYS, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, ICANN RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO ASSIST IN THE PROMOTION OF FORUMS FOR TECHNICAL PEOPLE FROM CCTLDS.
YES, ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
MAY WE SUGGEST THAT ICANN CONTACT -- TALKS TO THE CCNSO AND THROUGH US TO THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, TO ASSIST YOU WITH THAT.
IT MAY BE THAT THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE ACTUALLY THE BEST PLACES FOR YOU TO DO THAT.
AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU WHEN THE TIME COMES.
THANK YOU.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY.
I HAVE A LOT OF STUFF HERE.
SO I WILL TRY TO SHORTEN IT UP AND WE WILL BE HEARING A FULL STATEMENT ANYWAY.
SO, FIRST OF ALL, ABOUT -- THERE IS A SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH IN THE PLAN THAT REGARDS THE ROLE OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WE ARE VERY GLAD ABOUT THAT, AND ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE BEING PROMISED MORE SUPPORT.
AND I WOULD EXPLICITLY MAKE THE POINT THAT WE THINK WE NEED THE PROPER SECRETARIAT.
SO I THINK WE NEED THIS STATED AS A PRIORITY.
THE GNSO HAS A SECRETARIAT, THE CCNSO HAS A SECRETARIAT.
AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE ONE FULL-TIME PERSON WHICH, IN FACT, IS NOT REALLY FULL TIME BECAUSE SHE IS DOING A LOT OF OTHER STUFF.
SO WE ACTUALLY NEED THAT KIND OF SUPPORT.
ABOUT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PART, SO THAT WAS 3A.3, I THINK THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS IN THE WAY THE PDP WORKS.
SO I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ESCALATION MECHANISM FOR CASES IN WHICH THE PDP DOESN'T GO THROUGH AND THINGS GET STUCK. AND THAT'S THE CASE OF WHOIS.
AND -- OR CASES IN WHICH APPARENTLY THERE CAN BE NO AGREEMENT OR THERE ARE CONSTITUENCIES TRYING TO STOP THE PROCESS OR HIJACK IT OR DISRUPT IT IN ANY WAY.
AND THE PLAN STATES THAT THERE WILL BE AN INTERNAL REVIEW ACCORDING TO THE BYLAWS BY 2007.
BUT I THINK 2007 IS TOO LATE A DATE FOR THAT.
IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY, OF COURSE, WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
WE THINK THAT THE PARAGRAPH, IT'S 34A.4.
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A BIT STRENGTHENED AND FLESHED OUT.
FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THERE MUST BE MUCH MORE CARE TO PUBLISH DOCUMENTS PROMPTLY, HAVE ONLINE DISCUSSIONS OR POSSIBLY PUBLISH THE BOARD MINUTES NOT ONE AND A HALF YEAR LATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND ALSO WE WANT TO SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND THE IDEA OF HAVING A NEW BETTER WEB SITE TARGETED TO REGISTRANTS OR TO INFORMATION FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
ALSO, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS, YES, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS POSSIBLY AROUND THE WORLD.
BUT WE SHOULD ALSO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ACCESSIBLE.
SO I THINK THAT ICANN HAS BEEN GROWING AND GROWING AND GROWING IN NUMBERS IN TERMS OF ACTIVITIES.
AND NOW IT'S REALLY CHAOTIC AND ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR A NEWCOMER TO COME TO ONE OF THESE MEETINGS AND REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE GOOD EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, THE ORIENTATION MEETINGS AND SO ON, PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO RETHINK THE WAY THESE MEETINGS WORK.
BECAUSE IT'S -- I GUESS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACT THAT AT ICANN MEETINGS, THINGS CONTINUOUSLY CHANGE AND TIME CHANGES AND PLACE CHANGE, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACK.
AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING FOR THAT.
AND THEN ON THE REGIONAL PRESENCE.
OKAY, WE ARE, OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF THAT.
WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION REALLY IS INTERNATIONAL.
AND IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF OFFICES; IT IS A MATTER OF INTERNAL DIVERSITY.
ALSO DIVERSITY NOT JUST IN THE STAFF BUT IN THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESSES.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY WE HAVE AN OPEN DOOR; YOU CAN SHOW UP.
YOU HAVE TO PROACTIVELY GO AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS ACTUALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED, THAT THESE PEOPLE WILL NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE, BUT THEY WILL START TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE, EVEN IF THIS IS NOT TRUE.
BUT THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.
AND ALSO, WELL, THIS IS, I KNOW, A DIFFICULT POINT, BUT IT'S A BIT STRANGE TO SEE AN ENTIRE STRATEGIC PLAN NOT IN TRUTH MENTIONING WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WILL END.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR THESE OTHER PROCESSES, THE WSIS, THE WGIG, SO ON, TO PRODUCE SOME RESULTS.
AND YET I THINK THAT THERE IS THE NEED TO START, MAYBE NOT NOW, BUT CERTAINLY THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, TO HAVE SOME PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THAT.
SO NOT JUST THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO THINK TOGETHER WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO AND DO WE WANT TO MAKE PROPOSALS ON THAT.
WELL, OF COURSE, WE WANT TO COMMEND THE IDEA OF FINDING PARTICIPATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
INCLUDING PARTICIPATION OF USERS IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, WHICH IS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT THAN PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENTS.
AND, FINALLY, WELL, MY FINAL POINT IS MULTILINGUALISM.
AND I WAS, OF COURSE, VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT IN THE PLAN.
YET I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT MULTILINGUALISM IS NOT JUST TRANSLATING LEAFLETS OR THE WEB SITE.
SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF COMMUNICATION.
IF YOU READ THE PLAN, IT'S MOSTLY MENTIONED IN THE COMMUNICATION PART.
WELL, IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF MAKING ALL INTERNAL PROCESSES MULTILINGUAL.
SO IT IS A HUGE EFFORT, OF COURSE.
IT IS A COST.
BUT I THINK IT'S PART OF THE GAME.
YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEETING OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ROOMS AND YOU CANNOT HAVE THEM WITHOUT TRANSLATIONS.
SO, I MEAN, IT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED PROMPTLY TO MAKE THIS A TRULY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION VIABLE FOR PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.
AND, YES, I THINK THAT'S ALL.
THANK YOU.

>>SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA: HI.
I'M SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA FROM THE ADDRESS COUNCIL.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A -- JUST A SMALL CLARIFICATION REGARDING YESTERDAY'S STATEMENT FROM PETER DENGATE THRUSH.
YESTERDAY, PETER SAID THAT HE WAS IN THE THINKING THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL MADE A STATEMENT, A CRITICAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE REGIONAL OFFICES.
AND WE DID NOT.
WE JUST SAID THAT THE -- IN THE CASE OF SETTING REGIONAL OFFICES, ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES HAS TO BE CONSULTED IN A PREVIOUS MANNER.
AND THE LOCAL OFFICE ISSUE, IT'S IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED REGARDING THE -- IF YOU ACCEPT SOME LOCAL OFFICE, YOU MAY NOT BE SAFEGUARDING YOUR OWN INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF WILL. AND THAT WILL BE IT.
THANK YOU.

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU.
IZUMI AIZU, ANOTHER AT LARGE MEMBER.
AND ON THE AREAS OF AT LARGE, I'M TRYING TO FIND MY NOTES.
I'M SORRY.
OKAY.
THERE'S ONE MINOR CLARIFICATION THAT I WANT TO MAKE FIRST ABOUT -- NOT ABOUT THE REPORT ITSELF, BUT THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT REPORT WHICH SUMMARIZED, WHICH INCLUDED SOME MISUNDERSTANDING, PERHAPS, I WOULD SAY, TO THE -- I DON'T REMEMBER THE LANGUAGE EXACTLY, BUT IT SAID THAT SOMETHING LIKE EVEN THE AT-LARGE ALAC QUESTIONED ITS OWN NECESSITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHICH WAS NOT REALLY THE INTENTION OF THE COMMENT THAT MEMBERS OF ALAC -- IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE ALAC, BUT GIVEN A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME AND VARIOUS REASONS, SOME MEMBERS ASSEMBLED OUR DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WE -- YES, WE QUESTION THE IMPORTANCE OF AT LARGE TO YOU GUYS.
WE DIDN'T REALLY QUESTION OURSELVES.
WE AFFIRMED THAT WE ARE STRONGLY BELIEVING IN THE IMPORTANCE AND IN THE WORK, OUR ROLE OF AT-LARGE.
BUT SOMEHOW, THE REPORT JUST CUT THE FIRST QUESTION, SORT OF RHETORICAL QUESTION, AND PUT IT AS IF THAT IS OUR CONCLUSION.
THAT IS ENTIRELY MISUNDERSTANDING OR MISLEADING.
WE LATER COMMUNICATED WITH THE GUY WHO DRAFTED THE CONSULTANT REPORT AND WE GOT SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL BE FIXED.
SO I HOPE THIS KIND OF SOME UNFORTUNATE MISUNDERSTANDINGS WILL NOT HAPPEN AND WE WILL BE VERY CAREFUL IN WRITING OUR SENTENCES.
BUT IT'S PRETTY HARD FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.
ASIDE FROM THAT, THERE'S SOME VERY MINOR POINT IN, I BELIEVE, PAGE 5 ALSO THAT THERE'S SOME MENTION ABOUT MULTISTAKEHOLDER END USERS.
I'M A BIT PUZZLED.
ARE THE USERS OF THE INTERNET INSIDE STAKEHOLDERS OR OUTSIDE.
MAYBE IT COULD BE ANOTHER SORT OF RHETORICAL EXPRESSION.
BUT I THINK WE HOPE THAT THE USERS ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS OF ICANN AND NOT NECESSARILY BE SPRAYED BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND USERS.
AND ON THE MORE SPECIFICS TO THE AT-LARGE IN THE STRATEGIC PAPERS, THIS SECTION, I'M NOT TOO CLEAR HOW ICANN WILL SORT OF SUPPORT AT-LARGE IN -- STRATEGICALLY IN THE OPERATIONAL WAYS.
THERE USED TO BE MANAGER FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
HE WAS IN CHARGE AT THE STAFF LEVEL.
BEFORE OR AFTER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY IS -- PAUL VERHOEF, WHEN YOU CAME IN, PERHAPS, YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF THE OUTREACH OR -- INCLUDING REGIONAL PRESENCE.
WE THOUGHT YOU WERE AT LEAST PARTIALLY IN CHARGE OF AT-LARGE AS WELL.
BUT OTHER THAN DENISE, WHO HAS BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK FOR US, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CONSTANT CHANNEL TO THE EXECUTIVES OF ICANN.
WHO IF WE HAVE SOMETHING MORE THAN DENISE CAN HANDLE, WHO SHOULD WE TALK TO?
AND WE DON'T REALLY KNOW ON A CONSTANT BASIS.
MAYBE EQUAL, SIMILAR THING COULD BE SAID ABOUT THE BOARD, THAT BOARD HAS SIMILAR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THUS DIVIDING THEIR JOB INTO SEPARATE COMMITTEES, COMMITTEE OF THIS OR THAT.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW BOARD SORT OF DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF AT-LARGE, IN WHICH WAY.
IT MIGHT BE NICE IF YOU CAN APPOINT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM WITHIN THE BOARD WHO WILL BE TAKING CARE OF -- ON A MORE CONSTANT BASIS THAN JUST HOPPING AROUND TO FIND SOME BOARD MEMBERS TO LOBBY OR TO COMMUNICATE OR TO UNDERSTAND, THAN TO HAVE SOME MORE STABLE CHANNEL THAT WILL SHOW YOUR SERIOUSNESS OF SUPPORTING THE AT-LARGE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MARILYN CADE: MY FIRST COMMENT IS A QUESTION OF LANGUAGE.
I NOTICE THAT SOMEHOW IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION, ICANN HAS SOMEHOW ADOPTED THE PHRASE "CIVIL SOCIETY," WHICH I GUESS SINCE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO INCLUDE THE BUSINESS GUYS, IMPLIES WE'RE NON-CIVIL SOCIETY?
UNCIVIL SOCIETY.
MY ONLY POINT WOULD BE, WE PICKED IT UP IN THIS SECTION AND NOT IN OTHERS.
AND, REALLY, THIS IS ACTUALLY A BIG CHANGE IN WHAT WE -- I'M LOOKING AT 3B.
IT'S REFLECTED IN ONE OTHER PLACE.
IT'S ACTUALLY A BIGGER CHANGE THAN MAYBE IT LOOKS LIKE.
SO IF -- WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO USE THE CONSISTENT LANGUAGE THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY IS USED TO UNLESS WE WANT TO EXAMINE WHAT SUCH A SHIFT MIGHT BE.
I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING JUST VERY SHORT HERE ABOUT 3C.
I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK YET THAT I SEE BROAD COMMUNITY BUY-IN TO HOW TO INCREASE REGIONAL PARTICIPATION OR REGIONAL PRESENCE.
BUT I SEE, I THINK, A LOT OF SYMPATHY TO INCREASING THE PARTICIPATION AND VISIBILITY, ET CETERA.
I HAVE A CONCERN, HOWEVER, ABOUT REGIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT LINKED BACK TO THE GLOBAL ACTIVITIES OF ICANN.
AND I WITNESS, IN MY PERSPECTIVE AS BUSINESS IN SOME ORBIT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, THE REGIONAL FORUMS THAT TAKE PLACE THAT EXCLUDE SOME OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDERS.
AND SO PEOPLE GET TOGETHER IN THE REGION.
THERE'S NOT A STRONG LINK BACK TO THE REST OF THE PARTICIPANTS.
AND SOME GAPS BEGIN TO DEVELOP THAT ARE UNNECESSARY.
IF WE GO TO A REGIONAL APPROACH FOR WORKSHOPS, ET CETERA, THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE NECESSARILY -- I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK REAL HARD TO HAVE A BROAD MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY AND SAY HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS AND EXAMINE THE RISK AND NOT JUST THINK THAT MEETING REGIONALLY IS THE SOLUTION.
ON -- UNDER 3-4A, THERE'S A REFERENCE IN THE LAST SENTENCE THAT SAYS "ICANN WILL WORK WITH EACH OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ON ITS OWN LIAISON AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS."
THERE'S SEVERAL PLACES THROUGHOUT THIS THAT -- WHERE THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT ICANN DOING THINGS FOR THE SOS OR TO THE SOS.
AND IT COMES ACROSS TO ME IN A LITTLE BIT MORE TOP-DOWN FASHION THAN YOU INTEND.
AND I THINK THE GOAL IS PROBABLY TO MEET WITH THE SOS, CONSULT WITH THE SOS.
THAT CLEARLY HASN'T HAPPENED YET. AND THEN TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS WHAT WILL PROBABLY BE A MUTUAL GOAL STATEMENT.
UNDER 3-4A.1, I WOULD SAY IN THE LAST BULLET POINT, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A CHANGE THAT I SEE HAPPENING GLOBALLY.
AND THAT IS THAT, IN FACT, WITH THE CONVERGENCE OF INDUSTRY, WITH DOWNSIZING IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY, WITH OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE GOING ON ECONOMICALLY, MANY OF THE SENIOR TECHNICAL STAFF ARE MOVING INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE NOT BEING OR WILL NOT BE FUNDED BY MAJOR CORPORATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN MORE STRATEGIC TYPE EFFORTS, INCLUDING POTENTIALLY TO TRAVEL TO PROVIDE EXPERT ADVICE.
I WOULD ASK THAT THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PERHAPS LOOK AT DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT MODEL TO ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH SENIOR EXPERTS?
IS MORE FUNDING NEEDED?
DOES A DIFFERENT LOOK NEED TO BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT RESOURCE REMAINS AVAILABLE?
ON 3-4A.3, THE SUGGESTION IS THAT THE PDP PROCESS -- KIND OF THE MIDDLE OF THE PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS "KEEP THE PDP FRAMEWORK EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT.
ICANN STAFF WILL REVIEW AND ANALYZE THE PROCESSES WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE END OF EACH PDP REPORT TO THE BOARD."
OH, RIGHT. AND THEN GET AROUND TO THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
I'M BEING A LITTLE BIT FACETIOUS.
BUT, REALLY, THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE THE FOLKS THAT THE STAFF ARE WORKING WITH.
WE SHOULD BE REVISING THE PDP PROCESS OURSELVES.
AND, OF COURSE, INFORMING THE BOARD AND ADVISING THE BOARD AS NEEDED.
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THERE ACTUALLY GIVES ME MORE PAUSE, BECAUSE IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE NEED TO REFORM THE PDP BUT SUGGESTS WE'LL DO IT BY 2007.
THIS IS MERELY ONE COUNCILLOR'S POINT OF VIEW.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE PDP NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED THIS YEAR FOR ANY ESSENTIAL CHANGES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN, PARTICULARLY IN ESTABLISHING MORE REALISTIC TIME LINES.
AND THEN IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A LONGER EVALUATION PROCESS, WE OUGHT TO DO A LITTLE TRIAGE NOW AND THEN DEVELOP THE LONGER PROCESS.
BUT WAITING UNTIL 2007 I THINK IS ACTUALLY TOO LONG.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WOULD ONCE AGAIN SAY, REALLY, THE SO NEEDS TO TAKE THE LEAD IN THIS, WORKING WITH THE STAFF.
I MADE MY COMMENTS ALREADY ABOUT THE CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT ESTABLISHING REGIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT A CLEAR LINK BACK TO THE GLOBAL ENTITY AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS PARTICIPATION.
I HAVE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE REGIONAL OFFICES.
I WILL THINK -- I WILL SAY THAT UNDER 3.4.D, THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES INTERNET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, THIS IS A MAJOR SHIFT FOR ICANN.
MAJOR.
IT MAKES ICANN BEGIN TO LOOK A BIT MORE LIKE A U.N. ORGANIZATION.
AND THAT HAS REAL IMPLICATIONS.
AND I THINK THAT MY STRONG RECOMMENDATION IS WHILE MANY THINGS NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE FIRST STAGE OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR INITIATIVE HAS HAD ADEQUATE CONSULTATION, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT RATHER THAN JUST STARTING AN ICANN BOARD EFFORT TO IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH THE OVERSIGHT OF FUNDING ISSUES, I THINK THAT ANY COMMITTEE THAT ADDRESSES THIS HAS TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVE INPUT FROM THE THREE SOS AS WELL AS BOARD MEMBERS.

>>PATRICK SHARRY: HANG ON.
YEP. AND, VINT, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A RESPONSE FIRST?
>>VINT CERF: NOT A RESPONSE.
A QUESTION.
FOR MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: WAIT A MINUTE.
>>VINT CERF: OH, YOU HAVEN'T MANAGED TO GET ME TO THAT STATE YET.
BUT IF YOU KEEP PICKING AWAY AT IT, YOU MAY GET THERE.
THE THING I WASN'T CERTAIN ABOUT WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES QUESTION, THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN IN THAT -- YOU KNOW, UNDER THAT RUBRIC.
ONE OF THEM, OBVIOUSLY, IS THIS HUGE EFFORT THAT'S GOING ON IN THE WSIS AND ELSEWHERE, UNVP, TO ACTUALLY HELP THOSE COUNTRIES TO DEVELOP RESOURCES TO BE ON THE NET.
BUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING ALSO IN THE COURSE OF WSIS DISCUSSIONS AND THE WGIG AND OTHER THINGS SURROUNDING THAT, PREPCOMS, AND THE LIKE, IS THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SOME OF THEM, ARE NOT FEELING AS IF THEY ARE PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS.
AND SO I WASN'T SURE WHETHER YOU INTERPRETED THAT ELEMENT AS A KIND OF UNDP PROGRAM OR AN EFFORT BY ICANN TO HELP THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE MORE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ICANN PROCESSES, THE GAC THINGS AND SO ON.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO HIM. IS THAT OKAY?I THINK WOULD I GO BACK TO MY STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD ENOUGH DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND HOW TO GETS DONE, HOW WE MAKE SURE IT ACHIEVES ITS OBJECTIVES AND DOESN'T GAIN SOME OF THE BURDENS, PERHAPS, THAT SOME OF THE OTHER EXISTING PROGRAMS HAVE GAINED.
THERE ARE WONDERFUL UNDP PROGRAMS, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS.
THERE ARE SOME INITIATIVES THAT PERHAPS COULD BE TAPPED TO FACILITATE BRINGING PEOPLE FROM THE REGION INTO ICANN MEETINGS.
THERE MAY BE OTHER INITIATIVES THAT COULD BE CREATED.
BUT WHEN YOU ACCEPT MONEY FROM ANOTHER ORGANIZATION, WHETHER IT IS AN INDUSTRY FOUNDATION, USED TO ADVISE THE AT&T FOUNDATION, A LOT OF THOSE MONIES HAVE SOME KIND OF ENCUMBRANCES OR EXPECTATIONS TO THEM.
MAY FIT ENTIRELY INTO ICANN'S BROAD AGENDA.
BUT THEY DO SOMETIMES HAVE THORNS WITH THE ROSES THAT YOU JUST NEED TO EXAMINE BEFORE YOU LAUNCH THE PROGRAM.
I THINK THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF CONCERN ON THE PART OF MANY COUNTRIES ABOUT SHORT-TERM EFFORTS.
SO SUSTAINABILITY AND CONTINUITY IF A PROGRAM IS LAUNCHED IS A VALID ISSUE TO LOOK AT.
DOES THAT SEEM FAIR?
OH, GOD, THE JACKET COMES OFF NOW.

>>VINT CERF: NO.
I THINK WHAT I'M STILL NOT QUITE -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS PROGRAM, UNLESS KURT OR ONE OF THE OTHER STAFF SAY DIFFERENTLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN THE SENSE OF UNDP.
I THOUGHT IT WAS DELIBERATELY AN EFFORT TO TRY TO HELP THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHO HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE PART OF THE PROCESS TO BE A PART OF THE PROCESS.
I HOPE YOU'RE NOT SAYING YOU DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE OUR -- AN OBJECTIVE, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD NOT BE AN OBJECTIVE TO HELP THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROCESS, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK I SAID I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW.
AND I DON'T FEEL THAT MY QUESTION ABOUT HOW HAS BEEN ANSWERED.
AND I'LL JUST SAY, WHEN YOU ASK A QUESTION ABOUT HOW, YOU'RE PROBABLY STEPPING PAST THE ANSWER OF SHOULD WE.
>>VINT CERF: SO, NOW, LET'S SAY TEASE APART A GOAL.
AND NOW WE'LL ASK WHETHER THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS CLEAR OR NOT ABOUT HOW ONE WOULD GO ABOUT DOING THAT.
WE'RE NOT DOWN AT THE LEVEL OF WHAT IS THE DETAILED PLAN AND BUDGET AND SO ON.
BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE SAYING WHAT KIND OF THINGS WOULD WE DO.
WOULD WE, FOR EXAMPLE -- I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE SHOULD DO THIS OR EVEN THAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED.
I'M JUST GIVING SOME EXAMPLES OF THE WAY IN WHICH YOU COULD MAKE THIS MORE PRECISE.
WE COULD BE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO FIND MONEY IN ORDER TO HELP PEOPLE TRAVEL.
WE COULD BE SAYING LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THE RIGHT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE MEETINGS AND THE GAC AND SO ON, PURELY AN EDUCATIONAL EFFORT.
WE COULD BE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO HELP THESE PEOPLE FIND OTHER SOURCES OF SUPPORT FROM THIRD PARTIES.
THAT WOULD BE A WAY OF DESCRIBING IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN WHAT THE STRATEGY IS FOR ACHIEVING THE GOAL. IS THAT CLOSER TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GET?
>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S BEGINNING TO GET THERE.
I DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH.
BUT I THINK IT IS BEGINNING TO GET THERE.
>>VINT CERF: WELL, I DON'T HAVE TIME IN THIS BRIEF EXCHANGES.
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
BUT I DO THINK -- YOU KNOW, I DO THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO DRAW IN REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SOS.
BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM AT LEAST TWO OF THE SOS HERE, AND WE'VE ALL HEARD THIS, THEY, TOO, HAVE REGIONAL PRESENCES.
THEY, TOO, DO THINGS. AND IT MAY BE -- AND SO I SUGGESTED THERE BE --
>>VINT CERF: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
HOW DID WE GET INTO REGIONAL PRESENCE.
I WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT HELPING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE IN THE ICANN PROCESS.
>>MARILYN CADE: WELL, YOU USED THE THOUGHT REGIONAL PRESENCE TO ALSO MEAN DOING WORKSHOPS, WHICH -- REGIONAL FORUMS, WHICH IS WHAT'S MENTIONED HERE.
>>VINT CERF: I DIDN'T MEAN TO DRAG THAT INTO THIS DEBATE.
I'M ONLY SUGGESTING THAT AS A GOAL, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO HELP THOSE FOLKS PARTICIPATE.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE A ALMOST MORE GRANULAR.
PARTICIPATE IN WHAT AND WHAT ARE THE TOPICS.
AND LOOKING AT THE OTHER COMMENT THAT I MADE WAS THAT --
>>VINT CERF: WAIT A MINUTE.
WHAT ARE THE TOPICS?
THIS IS A STRATEGIC PLAN.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD PUT THE AGENDAS FOR EVERY SINGLE MEETING IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THESE PEOPLE TO ATTEND.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M HARDLY SUGGESTING WE DEVELOP THE AGENDA.
>>VINT CERF: THE AGENDAS FOR WHAT?
FOR THE MEETINGS?
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY.
PERHAPS YOU DIDN'T HEAR.
>>VINT CERF: I THINK WE'RE GOING LIKE THIS.
>>MARILYN CADE: WELL, ONE OF US OBVIOUSLY IS.
AND IT MUST BE ME.
I'M HARDLY SUGGESTING WE DEVELOP THE AGENDAS OF THE MEETINGS.
BUT --
>>VINT CERF: BUT YOU DON'T -- OH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT MIGHT BE A PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN?
LET'S STOP.
WE'LL TAKE IT OFFLINE.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: I THINK IT'S TIME TO TAKE IT OFFLINE.
>>ERICK IRIARTE: HI, I'M ERICK IRIARTE FROM ALAC.
I HAVE A SPECIFIC COMMENT FOR 3E.
HOW IS POSSIBLE IF WE WANT TO INVOLVE PEOPLE, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY THE SPIRIT OF THIS POINT, IF ONLY HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN ENGLISH?
I MAKE THE SAME COMMENT THREE MONTHS AGO, AND NEVER TRANSLATE THE DOCUMENT TO ANOTHER LANGUAGE, POSSIBLE TO TRY TO KEEP TOGETHER TO HAVE MULTILINGUALISM CONCEPT TO HAVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER CONCEPT WHEN WE ONLY CAN DISCUSS IN ENGLISH NOW HERE IN LATIN AMERICA, WE DON'T HAVE NOW TRANSLATION.
BUT IF -- WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?
I CAN'T PARTICIPATE?
NOW THE DIALOGUE IS ABOUT HOW THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CAN PARTICIPATE.
MAYBE IF WE CAN MAKE THE FORCE TO INVOLVE THESE PEOPLE WITH THEIR MOTHER LANGUAGE, CAN HELP TO THE PROCESS IN ALL ASPECTS.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU. JUST A WORD ABOUT MULTILINGUALISM. AND LET ME SAY I SUPPORT THE ASPIRATION OF MULTILINGUALISM, CERTAINLY, AS A PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATOR, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT ARE REALLY A WATCH-OUT, A AN EXAMPLE, AND A WARNING AND LASTLY TO END ON A POSITIVE SUGGESTION.
THE WATCH-OUT IS BASED ON MY DAY JOB, WHICH IS WORKING AS A PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER WHERE WE NOW ENJOY HAVING 15 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES.
THE MAJORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IS DEDICATED TOWARDS TRANSLATIONS AND INTERPRETATION. THIS MAY NOT BE THE DIRECTION WE WISH TO GO AT ICANN.
WE HEARD ALSO YESTERDAY ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES OF SOME TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS. I THINK IN THAT CASE, THE .EU WAS MENTIONED. CERTAINLY I ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT MOST OF MY FINNISH FRIENDS IN SAID THEY ALMOST NEVER READ A .EU DOCUMENT IN FINNISH BECAUSE THE TRANSLATION IS SO BAD THEY ALMOST ALWAYS USE THE ENGLISH OR ANOTHER LANGUAGE BECAUSE OF AGAIN THE COMPLEXITIES OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGES THERE.
AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY SUCCESSFUL AND ALTER ORGANIZATIONS WHICH SURVIVE ON ONE OR TWO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES. SO LET US NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT THE U.N. MODEL OR ANY OTHER MODEL IS A VITAL ONE. WE MAY NEED TO FIND ONE THAT IS A BETTER MATCH AND FIT FOR THE NATURE OF ICANN.
AND ADVICE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS RATHER GOOD WORK UNDERWAY WITHIN ICANN ITSELF IN TERMS OF A VOIP AND TEXT-BASED CONFERENCING FACILITY. THIS, I THINK, ACTUALLY GOES A LONG WAY IN HELPING CERTAINLY THE WORKING GROUPS OF ICANN DO THEIR CONFERENCING WORK BETTER WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE TEXT DURING A CONFERENCE AND THAT'S HIGHLY VALUABLE AND MAY BE SOMETHING USEFUL SEEING SPELLED OUT IN PERHAPS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN RATHER THAN STRATEGIC.
THE WARNING, I THINK I SEE A PHRASE, WHILE MULTILINGUAL STAFF CAN ASSIST WITH TRANSLATIONS THEY CANNOT DEDICATE ALL THEIR TIME TO THE TRANSLATION OF MATERIALS AND COMMUNICATIONS.
I FIND THAT PHRASE HIGHLY ALARMING BECAUSE AS THE MANAGER OF MULTILINGUAL STAFF THE LAST THING I WANT THEM TO DO IS WASTE THEIR EXPERTISE AND TIME IN DOING TRANSLATIONS. THEY MAY USE MULTILINGUALISM IN TERMS OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND TALKING, BUT WHERE TRANSLATIONS ARE NEEDED I THINK YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL TRANSLATORS.
AND FINALLY AS I SAID TO END ON A POSITIVE SUGGESTION, IT MAY BE WHAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IS THE TRANSLATION INTO APPROPRIATE SETS OF LANGUAGES OF FINAL DOCUMENTS SO THAT THE REFERENCE MATERIAL IS THERE, BUT IN TERMS OF MULTILINGUALISM FOR THE PROCESS GETTING TOWARDS THAT, I THINK YOU'LL FIND THERE THE BUDGET SIZE WOULD NECESSARILY BE RATHER PROHIBITIVE.
THANK YOU.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: WE HAD QUITE A LENGTHY DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT TRANSLATION, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE TODAY.
A QUICK COMMENT, BUT NOT ANOTHER LONG DISCUSSION.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: JUST A QUICK COMMENT, AND IT'S NOT GENERALLY ON THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM, EVEN IF I'M WELL-KNOWN FOR MAKING ALWAYS INTERVENTION ABOUT MULTILINGUALISM.
BUT IT'S REALLY RELATED TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STRATEGY AND THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION. AND I THINK THAT IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE STATEMENT THAT ICANN WILL DO ANY REASONABLE EFFORT TO FAVOR MULTILINGUALISM.
THEN THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IS RELATED TO THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS. AND THEN THE BUDGETARY IMPLICATION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT I WOULD NOT DROP OUT FROM THE STRATEGIC PLAN THIS KIND OF STATEMENT.
IN PRACTICAL TERMS, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT PHILIP MADE. I MYSELF, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, GO INTO THE ORIGINAL OF A DOCUMENT IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT ICANN HAS TO ADDRESS ALSO THE NEED OF THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES; THAT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND THAT'S IT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT DOMAIN HIJACKING SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE QUICK.
FIRST I WANT TO AGREE WITH MARILYN THAT AMENDING THE PDP SOMETIME PRIOR TO 2007 IS FAR TOO LATE. I'VE CHAIRED OR CO-CHAIRED TWO TASK FORCES UNDER THE CURRENT PDP, AND THERE ARE PROBLEMS.
SECOND, IN CONSIDERING THE DISCUSSION OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES, AND I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS FAIRLY BRIEF AND UNCONTENTIOUS, MOST OF THE REASONS I'VE HEARD AS TO WHY THE REGIONAL OFFICES ARE A GOOD IDEA SEEM TO REFLECT OTHER VALUES OR OTHER GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT MIGHT BE A PERFECTLY REASONABLE THING TO DO TO ELIMINATE 3C AND BUILD THEM ANYWAY, BECAUSE IN DOING SO WE WOULD FULFILL THE GOALS.
NOW, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY DO THAT, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON BOTH SIDES THAT IS STILL TAKING PLACE AS TO THE VALUE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES. AND I THINK IF WE TOOK OUT 3C A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY VIEW THAT AS SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. AND IF -- I THINK IF THE BOARD WERE -- OR IF THE STAFF OR THE BOARD WOULD TAKE MY SUGGESTION AND DO IT ANYWAY, THEY MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE AT A MICROPHONE AT A FUTURE ICANN MEETING. SO INSTEAD I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WE MIGHT CHANGE THE GOAL TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING REGIONAL OFFICES IF DOING SO SUPPORTS THE REST OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. ALLOW THIS DIALOGUE TO CONTINUE AND ALLOW THE STAFF AND THE BOARD TO FURTHER CONSIDER THE ISSUE AS TIME GOES BY, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE'RE NOT QUITE SETTLED YET AS TO WHETHER IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
>>CHUCK GOMES: JUST TWO QUICK SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. IN 3-4B IN DISCUSSING SUBREGIONAL MEETINGS, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA IN MY OPINION TO ADD A LITTLE LANGUAGE TO MAKE A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE, TO MAKE THOSE MEETINGS VERY EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, AND THAT CAN INCLUDE A LOT OF THINGS. SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED; FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT TLDS ARE AVAILABLE, WHAT ARE THEIR MEANINGS AND SO FORTH. BUT ALSO, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, AS THEY'RE EDUCATED, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ICANN'S MISSION IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT. OTHERWISE, THEY WILL HAVE EXPECTATIONS THAT WILL BE UNREALISTIC.
SECONDLY, IN SECTION 3-4E-2, ON REGIONAL -- ON COMMUNICATIONS, A THOUGHT FOR CONSIDERATION IS I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR ICANN NOT ONLY TO HAVE BROAD COMMUNICATIONS BUT OFTEN REGIONALLY FOCUSED COMMUNICATIONS THAT WOULD BE ORIENTED TO A PARTICULAR AREA.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: I ASSUME THAT'S ALL FOR 3 AND 4.
THE LAST AREA IS -- NEXT SLIDE, STEVE.
ORGANIZATIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND FUNDING STRUCTURE. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WANTING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT?

OKAY. THANK YOU.
THAT DRAWS THIS ALMOST TO A CLOSE, UNLESS --
>>CHUCK GOMES: I HAVE A GENERAL COMMENT.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: I WAS GOING TO SAY UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT. AND CHUCK, YOU'RE UP.
>>CHUCK GOMES: AND THESE COMMENTS ARE REALLY FORMAT RELATED AND THEY WILL BE BRIEF. BUT I THINK, IN MY MIND, THE STRATEGIC PLAN TO BE VALUABLE AND USEFUL GOING FORWARD, FIRST OF ALL IT NEEDS TO BE EASY TO REFERENCE PORTIONS OF THE PLAN FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, FOR TRACKING, ET CETERA. IT NEEDS TO BE VERY EASY TO CORRELATE THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THE BUDGET TO THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
IT NEEDS TO BE EASY TO TRACK SUCCESS, TO MEASURE SUCCESS, AND IT SHOULD BE EASY TO REVISE THE PLAN FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
IN LIGHT OF THOSE GOALS, SOME FORMAT SUGGESTIONS. AND LET ME SAY THAT I THOUGHT THAT THE DOCUMENT FORMAT IN THIS VERSION WAS GREATLY IMPROVED, AND THE NUMBERING WAS VERY HELPFUL. YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS DISCUSSION THE ABILITY TO REFERENCE A SPECIFIC NUMBER REALLY FACILITATED THE USEFULNESS OF THIS DISCUSSION.
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IN THAT REGARD IS THAT THAT NUMBERING SCHEME BE CARRIED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THERE'S QUITE A FEW PLACES WHERE THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT WERE JUST LISTED AS BULLETS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT A NUMBERING SCHEME FLOW DOWN THAT, DOWN TO THAT LEVEL WHEN IT'S A SPECIFIC PROJECT SO THAT, AGAIN, IT MAKES IT EASY FOR US TO INTERACT, TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAN GOING FORWARD, TO IMPROVE IT.
I WOULD, IN EACH CASE WHERE THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROJECTS LISTED, AND THIS HAPPENED IN MOST CASES, I WOULD ITEMIZE THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT ARE ENVISIONED FOR THAT AND AVOID USING BULLETS IN THOSE CASES AS WELL.
FINALLY, FOR EACH SPECIFIC GOAL AND PROJECT, I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING MEASURABLE NEEDS TO BE THERE. IT'S GOT TO STAY AT A STRATEGIC LEVEL. FOR EXAMPLE, IT MIGHT JUST BE A FISCAL YEAR AS A TARGET. IT SHOULDN'T BE AT AN OPERATIONAL LEVEL, AT A VERY DETAILED LEVEL. THERE SHOULD BE SOME SPECIFIC DELIVERABLE SO WE KNOW WHETHER THE GOAL HAS BEEN MET; AGAIN, NOT GETTING DOWN TO AN OPERATIONAL LEVEL. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.
FINALLY, LET ME SHARE A COMPLIMENT AS WELL. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS AN OUTSTANDING EFFORT DONE BY STAFF TO REVISE THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH VARIOUS FORA.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF KEEPING THE STRATEGIC PLAN AT A STRATEGIC LEVEL AND SEPARATING OUT THE OPERATIONAL DETAILS.
THANK YOU.
>>IZUMI AIZU: I DON'T WANT TO DEMAND ANY TRANSLATION OF ANY DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THE FUTURE VERSION. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, MY QUESTION IS, SO WHAT? MEANING, SO NOW WE HAVE THIS PUBLIC DISCUSSION OR FORUM, AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW YOU HANDLE THIS, BY WHEN.
ARE YOU GOING TO DISCUSS AT THE BOARD AND DECIDE OR NOT?
AND THESE ARE NOT REALLY INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT AS TO WHAT'S THE PROCESS NEXT.
THE REASON WHY I'M SAYING THIS IS THAT I COULDN'T ATTEND THE AMSTERDAM MEETING. WE TRIED TO GIVE THE COMMENT TO THE PREVIOUS VERSION. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BETWEEN AMSTERDAM MEETING, OR THAT TIME AND THIS TIME.
I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THAT THE STAFF DID REVISE THAT, AND WE NOTICED AT THE VERY, VERY RECENT, JUST MONDAY BEFORE COMING HERE SO I WAS ABLE TO PRINT IT AND READ IT ON THE PLANE.
THERE'S SOME OTHER FORA LIKE WGIG, THERE'S A SIMPLE ANNOUNCEMENT, AT LEAST. THE MOMENT THEY PUBLISH ANY PAPER YOU RECEIVE THE E-MAIL ANNOUNCED, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE WEB SITE AND READ.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT PREDICTABLE, YOU CAN SAY VERY RELAXED AND THEN YOU GET IN TIME.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY HELPFUL FOR THESE NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE. IF YOU KEEP VERY GOOD PREDICTABLE COMMUNICATION WITH ALL, THEN IT'S MUCH EASIER. LIKEWISE, IF WE KNOW WHAT'S THE NEXT PHASE, JUST BY READING THE DOCUMENT, YOUR DOCUMENT PAGE 2 HAS SOME INTERNAL FORM OF OWNERSHIP OF THIS AND THAT, WHICH IS NOT QUITE RELEVANT TO US. I'D RATHER LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE -- HOW YOU DEAL WITH THIS DOCUMENT FOR NEXT. THEN IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT EXTENT WE SHOULD REALLY DO THIS, BY WHAT TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>MARK MCFADDEN: I'D LIKE TO TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF SO WHAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
AND FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ONE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN A PART OF THE PROCESS, WHAT MY EXPECTATIONS ARE NOW IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN IS A MEETING TOMORROW AFTERNOON TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. SO -- IN THE FUTURE.
WE'VE SEEN THIS WEEK THAT WE'VE GOT A VERY QUICKLY DEVELOPED AND VERY, SORT OF, ON SHORT NOTICE ORGANIZED MEETING ON OPERATIONAL THINGS FOR THE NEXT YEAR. WE HAVE THIS MEETING ON THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN. BUT WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO US, I THINK, IS A REPEATABLE, RELIABLE PROCESS THAT ALL OF THE COMMUNITY CAN PARTICIPATE IN, THAT HAS TIME LINES THAT ENSURE THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT IZUMI POINTED OUT DON'T HAPPEN TO US AGAIN.
I THINK MANY PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESS TO TALK ABOUT THIS STRATEGIC PLAN RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROCESS WAS FLAWED. CERTAINLY THAT WAS INPUT THAT ICANN RECEIVED IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CERTAINLY IT WAS INPUT THAT ICANN RECEIVED IN AMSTERDAM. IT'S INPUT THAT ICANN RECEIVED IN THE PUBLIC FORUM PROCESS.
WHAT WE HAVE TO FIX NOW IS NOT SO MUCH THE DETAILS OF THE CURRENT PLAN BUT THE PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT BOTH FUTURE OPERATIONAL PLANS AND FUTURE STRATEGIC PLANS ARE IMPROVED, ARE BETTER, AND THAT THOSE PROCESSES SUPPORT COMMUNITY INPUT.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT MEETING TOMORROW AFTERNOON IS SO IMPORTANT.
MY EXPECTATION IS -- AND MY EXPECTATION IS DIFFERENT FROM MARILYN'S -- MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS FREE TO GO WITH SOME, PERHAPS, MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOARD WITH THE IDEA THAT IN THE NEXT YEAR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ARE THE OPERATIONAL THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, AND THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE NEXT ROUND.
I THINK THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I THINK THAT IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S HAPPENED TO US IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS.
I JOIN WITH CHUCK IN SAYING THAT STAFF DID A WONDERFUL JOB IN THE SHORT TIME FRAMES. THERE'S -- THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE FLAW THAT IS WE FOUND IN THE PROCESS. IT BEHOOVES US ALL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THAT PROCESS.
AND AS ONE PARTICIPANT IN THE PROCESS, THAT'S PART OF MY COMMITMENT.
>>PATRICK SHARRY: WELL, FOLKS, I THINK THAT'S THE END OF THIS PHASE OF THE CONVERSATION. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE TALKED ABOUT MORE, AND THAT WILL HAPPEN IN VARIOUS FORUMS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT TODAY. I'M CONSCIOUS THAT WE NEED TO KEEP MOVING SO THAT THE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKERS DON'T FEEL THEY'VE BEEN HIJACKED BY US TOO MUCH.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON.
(APPLAUSE.)
(6:45 P.M.)