Board Public Participation

 Wednesday, 4 March 2009

 Mexico City

 

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Dear colleagues, it's a quarter past 4:00,
and although this, I hope, does not totally reflect the interest in
public participation which was called for by various sectors of ICANN,
I suggest that we start now, because we have the intention of listening
to you very carefully.  Before that, of course, we do have a message to
convey to you about what we have done so far and what we think the
issues are for the future.

 So I suggest we start.

 Before coming to the content of our discussion, I would like each
member of this committee to present himself.

 I suggest we start at this end.  Dennis, could you care to present
yourself, please.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques.  Yes, I'm Dennis
Jennings, a member of the board, elected by the NomCom.

 I suppose I'm Irish as well, which adds to the confusion.

 Thank you.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Good morning.  I am Jean-Jacques.  I am a
member of the board.  And I chair this committee on public participation.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Hi, I'm Thomas Narten, I'm the IETF liaison to the
board and also a member of the working group.

 >>DAVE WODELET:   Hi, I'm Dave Wodelet, I come from the registries. 
And, yeah, there aren't a lot of people here.  But I guess you could
consider that a good thing.

 Not only your opinion really counts heavily now, or people aren't
really interested and think we're doing a great job.

 Is that better?

 I'm done now.

 >>KATIM TOURAY:   (No translation) (off microphone).

 There was a brief introduction in my language. 

 My name is Katim Touray.  I'm from Gambia, and I've been selected by
the NomCom, Nominating Committee, and I am on the Public Participation
Committee.

 Thank you.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Therefore, so this afternoon's meeting is
structured as follows.  First, we're going to address the topic of
public forums.  And it's Thomas Narten who will talk about that issue.

 And then about linguistic diversity, which will be -- which will be
addressed by Katim.  Then Dave Wodelet will talk about the documents,
then the board and you.

 And then we're going to have a debate, a discussion, between all of
us, I hope.

 And before I give the floor to the first speaker, I would wish -- I
would like to introduce the members of the organization who support us
in this effort, Kieren McCarthy, Nick Tomasso, and sometimes others.

 So I'm going to begin by presenting the general -- the general lines --

 >>JANIS KARKLINS:   -- agenda of the meeting.  I want to ask you
whether you intent to discuss meeting strategy itself.  Or that's not
for today's agenda?  Under which subject it will fall?

 Thank you.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   It will be under title 1, public forums. 
And, anyway, there's the question that I did not ask, and perhaps we
can put it in the order of presentations afterwards.

 So, to begin, I wanted to place this committee's work by telling you,
or by reminding you that this committee was created by a decision of
the board which was taken in Cairo last November.

 And since then, we've had four official meetings by phone.

 The committee members have introduced themselves, and the public
participation constitutes one of the fundamental missions of ICANN. 
And this consists in looking for the means of listening to the opinions
of the constituencies and communities and to encourage them to
participate more broadly and more effectively in developing ICANN's
policies.

 We are at a moment where Internet is changing and is becoming more
globalized.  And with this broadening of the infrastructure and its
usages, then, of course, we are facing new challenges.  So it's a
question of better representation in order to reflect more exactly the
global reality that is emerging.

 There are a lot of things that have taken place recently in the field
of public participation or in the area of public participation.

 As you know, I have the proof, the interpretation and translation
services have broadened and are more systematic in ICANN's
international meetings.  And we have equally established and we are
broadening remote participation.

 And we either have or are establishing different modes to encourage
and facilitate remote participation.

 One example is a more robust and effective public comment system, a
communications method that is instantaneous and electronic that is
called the online question box, and also chat rooms.  I don't know how
you say that in French.  And we are also doing -- or we are working so
that the documents for these meetings are ready on time.

 So I have to say that I am a bit disappointed that this wasn't really
the case when preparing for this Mexico meeting.

 Now I will switch over to English.

 This committee has been looking to other changes which we will
discuss partly today, I think.

 The committee has also decided to use the core values of the
International Association for Public Participation to guide its work. 
And I'd like to point out to you that Kieren has provided to you in
front of you or on the seat next to you this extract from the
International Association for Public Participation, core values of
public participation.

 It won't be only the staff and board aiding with public
participation.  ICANN also relies on innovation and ideas from the
community, from you.  The best example so far is the joint AC and SO
meeting which was held just recently during this international ICANN
meeting, where members of various SOs and ACs have devised their own
system for sharing ideas.  And, by the way, if you have a short comment
on that, I would be very glad to hear it.

 And at that session of the joint AC and SO meeting, a large part of
it was given over to increasing and improving participation, actually. 
I was listening carefully.  I was asked to say a few words at the end,
closing remarks.  And we really hope to add to that conversation and
discussion now here today with you.

 Thank you.

 Now I will ask Thomas Narten to take us through our thinking on
public forums.

 Now, just a word about the way this is organized.

 Rather than have thrust upon you a series of long exposés, each of us
gives his presentation and will take questions or comments from you
directly.

 And before we go over to the next stage or the next item, I will ask
Kieren to act also as a chronometer, to make sure we don't overshoot --
or not too much, at least -- the allotted time.

 The floor is yours, Thomas.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques.  And just to be clear,
I'm going to talk just briefly here and then we'll have an open
question and answer session on this particular session before we move
on; right?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   (off microphone).

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Okay.  So I've been told I have to speak close to
the microphone and consistently or there will be a breakup of my voice.

 All right.  So the -- this section is going to talk briefly about the
public forum itself.  And I think this has been restricted mostly to
what we normally think of as the sections of the meeting where we have
sort of an open microphone where people can talk about various topics.

 And if we sort of look back in history on what we've done, we've
actually -- ICANN has tried a number of different approaches to try to
make the public forum work better or differently based on, you know,
feedback that people have had or frustration with the way it seemed to
work.

 In the past, we've done things like had a single microphone in line
where people would line up and cycle through it.  We've also had
approaches where we've had multiple microphones or what they call
roaming microphones, so that instead of standing up in front of the
line, they would have somebody go around the room handing the
microphone to people who stay seated.  And the thinking there was to
try to get some of the -- some participation from people that don't
traditionally go up to stand in front of the microphone or somehow are
intimidated by the line and so on.

 We've often had an open microphone after presentations are done,
sometimes we have an open microphone sort of in between presentations
so you can talk specifically to the topic at hand.

 We've also had chat rooms available so you can type things into the
chat room or that even remote participants would be able to ask
questions and add commentary.

 Sometimes we've had small discussion groups, you know, that are sort
of -- the idea is to get the discussion group to talk about the issues
in a larger forum kind of question and answer and go over topics.

 We've also tried limited time per speaker to try to keep people from,
you know, sort of dominating the public forum.  And sometimes we've
allowed them to go on and on with unlimited times.  And that sometimes
is important depending what the topic is.  And other times you can
sense from the rest of the community that people want to move on.

 So where are we now?  We have, I think, for this meeting, mostly a
single microphone for questions.  We also have some roaming microphones
for comments.  We've got an online question box, you know, part of the
meeting, it's been available also in the back of the room where you can
submit questions anytime and they will get read out during the public
sessions.  We also have a dedicated open microphone session.

 So the real question is, where do we want to go with this.  What is
sort of working and what's the best format?  What do we want to do?  We
want to try different formats.  What does the community really want out
of the public forum?  Do we want to have -- is it beneficial to have a
three-hour public forum session every meeting when it seems that at
least in some cases, what you find is you'll get a number of people
that sort of go up and you can sort of predict what they're going to
say because they've been up and said similar things before?  Is that
really something that helps the process?  Is that something that helps
the community?  Or do we want to somehow limit that or change how that
works?

 And then a relevant question is sort of what do staff and the board --
what is our goal in having the public forums?  What is it we're trying
to get out of that?

 And with that, I'll sort of open it up for general discussion, if
anybody wants to say something.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Please.  Sébastien.

 >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET:   Thank you.

 To talk about public participation is also -- also has to do with
knowing about -- or knowing who is going to participate.  And globally,
that means trying to get the largest amount of constituencies to come. 
And from that point of view, it's important to remember that here in
Mexico, there were 100 people here from the at-large this time that
were financed by the organization.

 And there were a lot of very -- totally new people in the
organization who actively participated.

 And it's indispensable that these new members be able to express
themselves so that they want to continue participating, so we cannot
leave them outside the game.

 So we need to be able to allow them to speak and express themselves
in different languages.

 And the second thing is to ask and perhaps take measures so that
those who are habitual attendees aren't the first to take the floor,
which is what we did -- what we did at the ALAC revision meeting, where
we asked that those who spoke are -- weren't the same ones that we've
always been listening to for many years, like me, for instance.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thank you, Sébastien. 

 And I will note that you are one of the first who talks at an ICANN
meeting.  And thank you for those very useful comments.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Go ahead.

 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you.  I'm Ayesha Hassan, from the
International Chamber of Commerce.  

 I'd like to build on what Sébastien was suggesting.  One thing that
would help is a bit more detail on the Web site earlier about the
public forum, what it is, but also perhaps listing some of the issues
that might come up.  

 Chris Martin and I worked hard with our ICC Mexico national committee
to bring new people, and really, we started outreach a month before in
earnest in helping them get ready for their meetings, to talk to their
members, et cetera.

 Having that kind of material up there, because we basically know what
the public forum topics may be.  A little bit more on substance in the
description would be helpful.

 A couple of the comments that I have heard from people who are
newcomers is, in the public forum, often, the regulars talk in a lot of
acronyms and that becomes something that's a barrier.  As much of the
alphabet soup as we can diminish or somehow find a way to explain
better would be helpful.

 And then I just want to compliment you, because we walked into this
meeting, and this little document that we very quickly looked at made
it very easy to know what we were going to do at every step of the
meeting.

 So thank you.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Go ahead, Marilyn.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I'd like to comment on the approach that we use now
in trying to go increasingly, I support what Ayesha just said but we're
increasingly going on reliance on projecting things on screens.  We're
in larger and larger rooms, the transcription is a fantastic support. 
But much of the material that we want the audience in a very large room
to be able to see is on a screen at the front of the room and we can't
actually make it large enough for people in the back of the room to
see.  I'm very familiar with international meetings where there are
staged screens on both sides in the very large meetings so that people
who are in the back of the room can actually see.  And I'm just
suggesting, it seems like a small thing, but perhaps it's an easy thing
to add to increase the availability of the information we're trying to
convey.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Kieren, do you want to say something quickly here?

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Yes, I agree.  So I hope you'll note that you
have a piece of paper outlining everything in this meeting.  I also
think that it's my fault that I've chosen very bad colors for that
slide.  So that's noted.  

 But also I'd draw your attention to the Adobe -- we've currently
gotten the ccNSO (Speaker off microphone) --

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Closer.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   That will provide you with the video -- I'm
going to turn so I can talk and look -- with video and with a scribe
feed and with the presentations on your computer screen.  So I hope we
get to a position soon, as everyone has their laptops open anyway, that
you'll have all that information on your screen and/or just have one
large screen or several screens to get all the information (speaker off
microphone).

 >>MARILYN CADE:   If I might, I have a follow-up about that.  As
someone who myself is guilty of looking at my screen and not paying
attention to the meeting or looking at my screen to look at the content
and being diverted by e-mail or looking at the screen in a room I need
to be participating in, I don't know if asking people to have a laptop
open on their lap is necessary -- I'm just saying maybe we could
consider all options.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   If I may, Thomas, interject here just to
say that I'm not giving myself as an example but simply I thought that
especially this session I would come without my computer, actually it's
under my feet just here.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   So you're saying it makes a good foot rest.  I
have Janis and Cheryl.  Does anyone else want to speak?  Janis.

 >>JANIS KARKLINS:   Thank you, Janis Karklins, chair of the GAC, but
I will not speak on behalf of the GAC.  Very -- very personal remark,
one personal remark.  I think that on Monday, during the joint session,
colored cards worked very well.  And you asked to do and what to
experiment.  Maybe one open mic session would take place with the cards
where after intervention people can react waving different colored
cards showing whether they agree or disagree with the speaker.

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:   Thank you for that, Thomas.  One thing, and
this is.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Closer.

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:   Close ever?  Okay.  And this is me very much
not speaking on behalf of the ALAC, I want to make this clear, this is
in my work on accessibility and consumer movement within country, all
right and the use of the screens staged up through rooms even quite
small rooms, we find is an accessibility advantage which helps people
with non-English speaking backgrounds who have an advantage to being
closer or to large text, we have TTY, you know, teletype going on, what
we don't do is have all the same screens showing something, we actually
cluster needs groups around the screen so there are in effect many ways
to do this sort of smart and not harder and you find if you're like me,
you don't want to be, you know, too far away from a screen because it's
hard to read, you position yourself near a screen that's going to be
showing that, if you have another need and another screen's meeting so
I think flexibility and food for purpose are the things I'd like to
interject on this part here, thank you.  

 >> CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON: Christopher Wilkinson, I'm an ALS delegate.
Having been aware of this organization for many years, I just have to
say that online participation has improved radically.  I know it can
always be improved further and I think that's the official position of
ALAC that ICANN should always improve.  But my comment is very banal
but very concrete.  When you build these online participation
facilities, keep an eye on the band width.  Increasing numbers of the
people that you want to get on to the participation around the globe
are probably still on dialup telephone teleconnections, even on a
Belgium ADSL which says it's 11 bits a second but, actually, it's
usually four, there are limitations.  So I don't know what the
technical parameters are, but I think as a matter of policy, keep the
band width requirements for your online participation down to something
reasonable that -- and cheap that limits somebody on a mobile phone or -
- or a dialup connection.

 >> Hi, my name is Marcus (saying name), I'm from (inaudible), the
Dutch ccTLD registry.  This is my second ICANN meeting.  And I would
like to share with you an experience, at the first ICANN meeting, I was
really guided by one of the veterans of our organization.  So he showed
me around in the meetings, explaining who was who and what was what and
what they were talking about.  And I think it would be really nice if
you could subscribe as a first-comer to the meetings, saying to ICANN
that you're a new-comer and that there's volunteers form -- you know,
veterans, ICANN veterans that show I'm -- I'm available on the web
already before you go to the ICANN meeting, so you can get something
like a buddy who is helping you around.  That would be really helpful. 
I think for me it's much easier now to participate when I got that. 

 And second, I would like also to agree with Mr. Karklins on the green
and red sheets because I think -- I definitely think that if somebody
is taking too long time and everybody disagrees and he has all a sea of
red cards around him he will stop talking anyway that's my opinion.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Are you suggesting that might be good to have on --
for the public forum tomorrow?

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:   And see, I'd have my green one up now for the
last two speakers, so you wouldn't have to have me interjecting to see
I'd agree, you'd see I agree.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Just one other comment and then I want to ask
another question.  Go ahead, Bertrand.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   I also support very much this notion of
"parents" and a good guide.  Second point, I love the format of the
"where have we come, now where are we, now where are we heading." 
That's exactly what I was mentioning for the summaries.  

 Now, quickly, public forum is basically about community-wide
interaction, that's the substance, is when everybody is together
instead of being in the different rooms.  We shouldn't limit our
understanding of the notion of public forum to what is now called
public forum.  I would lump into this discussion the SO/AC experiment
and a few other things.  It's basically any kind of issue-based
discussion that is in the large room where everybody is in.  I would
suggest four formats.  One is the current open mic, any ID -- idea that
is raised, it can be at the end of the meeting for residual things,
comments, issues to be proposed, and so on, it's pure open mic, no
specific theme.

 Second format is a thematic public forum which is open mic as well
but on a specific issue.  It can last one hour, two hours, it can be
short, long, one issue.

 Third format is basically what we tried with the SO/AC but instead of
having two panels and only a half an hour in the end it would be for
instance either two hours or three hours, half of the time within this
15-people panel interaction on substance, and then open questions and
discussions afterwards.  So three hours or two hours.  And the last
format could be when there are working groups as we will have working
groups in the PDP reform and so on, it's a public session of a working
group that is basically reporting on what it does, continues its
interaction with a limited interaction time in the end.  But the
concept is anything that is with everybody in the room and it should be
enhanced as much as we can, just a fine point, the different formats
should be adapted depending on what is the expected outcome, and the
rightness of the issue.  Some issues are just for broad discussion,
others are already addressed and we're just really in progress.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Let me interject, Marilyn and Chuck.  I actually,
personally think those are great suggestions.  One thing I wanted to
say here is I think it's worth remembering -- I mean, you can take a
pretty narrow definition of public forum, and traditionally we've had
sort of a public forum which is sort of like where everybody's in the
room and it's where you have your last chance to say something or you
serve it to the entire community.  From my background in ITF, I think
open forum are valuable, but you really want to have the spirit of the
open forum pretty much across the board and that you don't really --
you don't necessarily want to have every issue surfaced in the public
forum.  A lot of times it's more appropriate to serve it at the working
group level first or in some other place and then later on, if you
still have an issue and it's not being addressed, that's when you'd
raise it at the public forum.  

 So I think it's useful to try to have different kinds of public
forums and scope it appropriately, make it clear to people where they
should be and what's appropriate.  Marilyn, then Chuck.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I think that's actually, Thomas, a perfect segue
for a point I was going to make.  I actually thought -- I think I had a
different -- perhaps a different initial conception of what the purpose
of discussing public participation would be about.  And because I think
of the organization as a bottomup consensus-based organization in which
the role of public participation using that term in a variety of
mechanisms helps to inform and influence the decisions made, right?  So
we're talking here about public participation when we come together at
the public meeting.  We then go on, we're going to talk about document
deadlines, but I just would raise, and maybe not to change in any way
the purpose of this meeting to our chair, but it seems to me that the
point that Thomas was making is it's the spirit of public participation
and interaction in all mechanisms throughout the way the organization
works which is what we're really trying to address.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Just to respond briefly to that.  This particular
meeting and this section here is focused relatively narrowly on the
public forum as we traditionally have it.  I think it's pretty clear
from the charter and our chair here has made it very clear that he
takes a fairly broad view on what public participation is about.  Chuck?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Yes, I just want to some kind of go along with
several comments that have just been made in particular what you
followed up from Bertrand, I thought Bertrand's ideas could be very
helpful.  My general comment is, is that while recognizing that there's
a place where just kind of an open comment to cover things where there
was no opportunity like you said, Thomas, oftentimes it would really
help if the public forum was more focused, not on several topics at
once, but on one and allowing some back and forth.  Now, the problem
with that, I fully understand the complexities, it takes a little more
time.  But oftentimes that kind of interaction is helpful.  Now, I
don't have any magic formulas as to how you make that happen in a time-
efficient way but I think we get a lot more out of it when that
happens, you know, and not only interaction with the board, but
sometimes there are differing points of view from participants from the
audience.  So I just suggest that at least some of the public forum and
Bertrand's suggestions included some like that, would be helpful if
it's -- it's fairly focused, sometimes even starting with questions
that direct the focus to get response, and we've done that a few times,
that can be very helpful, especially if the questions are well
articulated.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Yeah, so we're out of time really on this topic. 
I want to move on but I want to respond just briefly the idea of having
like two microphones where you have one for new topics and one for
follow-ups is sort of an attempt to do that kind of thing where you
have a bit of back and forth, once the topic is raised you stay on it
for a while and then you say enough on this let's move on, do you have
a brief comment, of course.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Adam Peake, I'm an ALAC member, and, of course --
which is the -- this one, okay.

 Adam Peake, I'm an ALAC member, and, of course, speaking on my own
behalf.

 In the IGF format, when people -- thinking about following on what
Chuck has just said, there's a process of taking comments on paper or
the desire on paper from the audience saying, "I wish to make a comment
on issue 'X'."  So that would be one way to sort a series of comments
into issue blocks.  And what that would also do is you could sort your
first point, which you could say, this is a regular commentator or this
is a new person or you could start balancing even regional inputs or
inputs from different parts of the community by taking, you know, "I
wish to speak on this particular issue.  I'm an ALAC member.  You've
heard of me a lot."  And then you balance those types of interests and
someone brings them into the discussion in that way.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Thank you.

 Jean-Jacques.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thank you for these suggestions.

 I'm aware that there were other opinions to be expressed.  But for
the sake of time, we do have constraints.

 So I suggest we move along.

 This is only the beginning of this kind of dialogue to improve our
common tool for public participation.

 So with that, Katim, the floor is yours.

 I had said in French "diversite linguistique."

 >>KATIM TOURAY:   Good afternoon, everybody.  And I think I'd like to
set the stage here by telling a very short story which I think will be
particularly interesting and I feel reassuring to those of us that are
from Australia.

 This was at a time when I was going to school at the art school in
Montana state.  And we had a visiting Australian scientist come to give
a seminar at the university there.  And he was introduced by one of our
professors who actually also happened to have made a trip to Australia.

 And so he also, as this academicians do, was going to give a talk in
Australia.  And then somebody pulled him aside and said, "You are from
the United States."  And the guy said, "Yes, I am."  And then, of
course, this was an Australian asking this question.  And the
Australian said, "No wonder you have an accent," you know, because we
all know, usually, everybody says that it's Australians that have the
accent and not the Americans.

 The point here is that the language you speak and how you speak it
frequently has a lot of weight in terms of how people judge you, in
terms of how you're able to get around your daily life, to how you're
able to function and be effective, especially in a multicultural and a
multinational organization and environment like ICANN.

 So it is for this reason that we think in the Public Participation
Committee -- and we think you will agree with us on this -- that the
issue of language and how we Tuesday, in other words, the whichs and
the whats of the use of language in ICANN are of pertinent and profound
importance in our quest for effecting or achieving greater public
participation in the business of ICANN.

 In particular here, as somebody had just mentioned, one of the
biggest challenges that newcomers face when they first get engaged with
ICANN is just the task of just making sense of the alphabet stew that
is thrown at them, something like DNSsec, SSAC, ccNSO, DNS- -- and by
the time you're done, your head is totally spinning out of -- it's just
-- even for myself, having been -- just recently been slated to be on
the board, it actually adds to the learning curve that people have to
climb to really get involved and get in the affairs of ICANN.

 And, of course, the issue, the other issue, is the predominant use of
English in the affairs of the organization.

 Now, we all know that we all are having -- experiencing an increasing
globalization, especially on the Internet, with most of the -- you
know, the main language, the dominant language, rather, in the Internet
that's used is the English language.

 But that doesn't mean that we should not pay heed to the fact that
there are a lot of people who are also everyday users of the Internet
that also would not have the requisite command of English language as
maybe some of us do.

 So for that reason, the whole issue of the matter of the use of
English language and the use of other languages and also the use of
jargons are critical issues that we think we should be taking a look at
as we move forward.

 In terms of what has actually been done where we are coming from,
we're talking about key -- three key issues.

 One is that we used to have a situation where almost all the
documents, if not all of them, were actually in English.  And there
hardly were any documents that were published or available in other
languages.

 We also had a situation where completed documents were just put out
to the public there for you to peruse and comment on without even prior
consultation with people before they are basically put out there.

 So -- and, of course, you didn't have any explanatory notes that came
with the documents.  It was just basically take it or leave it kind of
a situation.

 We also had a situation where, in meetings, there were hardly --
there was hardly any interpretation or simultaneous translations of the
meetings, which, of course, meant that if you didn't understand English
and had a reasonable understanding of the language, you pretty much
were left high and dry and effectively unable to participate in the
deliberations that you were a part of.

 And so after addressing these issues, some of these problems, the
question is, where are we now?

 I am glad to report, as a lot of you would testify, that we have made
some very significant progress, even though, of course, we are just not
about to rest on our laurels.

 In the first place, we now have translations and interpretations into
English, French, and Spanish in the ALAC, in the GAC, in the main room,
and other rooms, something that pretty much was unheard of in the past
couple of meetings of ICANN.

 We also do provide now advanced notice of documents and summaries of
documents prior to their publication and availability to the public. 
And, of course, they are also accompanied by clear written
announcements effectively to engage people and, of course, make it
easier for them to make sense of the voluminous amount of documentation
that comes their way from ICANN.

 We also have translation of most of the main documents into Arabic,
Chinese, French, Spanish, and Russian.  And I daresay, for Mexico City
meeting, this meeting, some 66 documents were translated into -- we
translated into five -- were translated specifically 38 of the 66
documents, over half of them, were translated into the five U.N.
languages, you know, leading to -- just amounting to a total of some
1.5 million words of translation.  That's quite a feat, especially
given the fact that, you know, we had quite a crunch in terms of
preparations leading to the meeting here in Mexico City.

 You -- I believe most of you, if not all of you, have seen the
meeting guide that was published for the Mexico City meeting.  It's a
beautiful guide, and, in fact, beyond that, it's also available both in
English and Spanish, I think something that is a first and to be
welcomed.  And, of course, we expect that we will continue similar
efforts in the future.

 We also are talking about the introductory sessions in local
languages.  In Cairo, for instance, this was where it was started, when
the introductory sessions on the Internationalized Domain Names, the
IDNs, in Cairo, actually was done in Arabic.  And here, in Mexico City,
it's being done in Spanish.

 This, I think, is a huge, huge accomplishment and we would expect to
make even greater strides in these directions.

 In terms of the way forward -- this is why we're here to solicit
opinions from you -- but just to throw some ideas to you.  Should we
have more translations and interpretations?  And, second, should we
also be looking at doing more educational documents, especially, as
somebody pointed out, for the novices, or the people that are coming
newly into ICANN?  And also, should we also look at the -- the lead
time that we give people to make sure that they are submitting
documents in time for translation for publication.

 Thanks for running a little bit over.  But I'm looking forward to
your ideas and suggestions.

 Thanks, Jean-Jacques.  And I give the chair back to you.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Actually, I was going to give it back to
you.  Because I think that's part of our educational process for
ourselves.  But that's not the most important.  It's all of us together.

 So I suggest that you lead this part of the discussion, giving the
floor to various people who ask for it.

 And you have for the whole exercise about 11 minutes.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Paul.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you, Katim.

 This is probably unforgivable to my other staff colleagues, but I'm
going to share an idea that's just come into my head.

 The -- and that happens rarely.

 [ Laughter ]

 [ Applause ]

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Most ideas in my head are placed there by other
people.

 One of the things we've seen on the Web site has been that video has
really taken off in terms of the number of hits that video
announcements get vis-à-vis text announcements.

 And another thing that strikes me is that when you -- when we do
text, the various stresses of trying to make certain that, frankly, we
don't upset any particular part of the community ends up with such
committee drafting that I know some of my colleagues here would
completely agree that we -- it's an enormous amount of time that -- the
production of text can take an enormous amount of time.  So I'm not
saying text is bad.  But for the sort of thing that you're talking
about in terms of the introduction for people who are coming in, I
wonder whether or not we should actually just focus on the
identification of individuals in the community who have been involved,
quick video, tell us the quick story, rather than setting an
expectation that we're going to have to write a lot of material.  I
think rather than having to do a whole lot of editorial on text, if
we're wanting some of the stuff that's -- some of the stuff that's done
we can do on video.  And I would just note that we do have a video
supplier, a good supporter of ICANN, who offers translation in the
video translation.

 >>KATIM TOURAY:  Yes.  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   You know, I think all of us sometimes have ideas
that come into our heads.  There's an analogy to a well-known
Congressman in the United States, not well known anywhere else, who,
after someone kept complimenting him for how brilliant he was and how
astute he was and how he kept coming up with all these bright ideas,
the Congressman said, "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now
and then.  However, acorns don't feed everybody."

 So I noticed a lot of heads nodding when Paul was suggesting video. 
And I'm just going to be extremely cautious about something, coming
from the business community.

 A video might be promotional, it might create awareness.  It doesn't
inform.  And I hope we're not going to give up on some of the written
materials that are sustainable and are downloadable and don't take up
bandwidth.  I'm not suggesting we not do video.  I'm not suggesting
that video that's translated is not a great way to give the highlights.

 But I am noting that, from the business community that I come from,
they are clear, at least the ones I talk to, and others here have
broader communities of contact than I do.  They still really need and
will demand well-done written materials.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   If I may interject here.

 Paul, a very quick reaction.  Because we have to get along.  Then
Bertrand, and then Cheryl, if I may.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thanks, Jean-Jacques.  I completely agree with
Marilyn.  My comments are directed to Katim's comment about briefing
materials for new people.  I was specifically focusing on that.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Two quick comments.  First thing is, in
the ALAC summit, very interestingly, there was a series of
presentations at first by the different constituencies.  And it has
probably been recorded on video, I suppose.

 So if any of this material is usable, it would be -- it would be great.

 I had a second idea that absolutely has --

 >>KATIM TOURAY:   Forgotten the second idea.  It will come back. 
Don't worry.

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:   Again, I'm going back to the fit for purpose
or developing of a toolbox of things that we need to use.  Sorry.

 A fit for purpose -- fit for purpose or developing of a toolbox of
things that need to be used.  And there are bodies of work on what
particular tool works best for which purpose.

 I think what's important is to make it fit the need.

 And also, don't duplicate unnecessarily.

 So, indeed, we've got great one-on-one sessions, let's use them
widely rather than recreate all the time.

 But there's an enormous advantage in that being a group decision on
what is fit for purpose and what is the right tool for the job.

 >>KATIM TOURAY:   Thanks.

 Janis.

 >>JANIS KARKLINS:   Thank you, Katim.  Very important questions,
because this is a part of outreach.

 But a note of caution.

 Translation and interpretation costs money.  And as we know, in, for
instance, the European Union, that is one of the biggest budget
positions.

 We need to evaluate how much money we can spend for this service and
how much value the service adds to our conversations.

 So that's one.

 For translations of documents, only executive summaries, not all
background documents.  Only executive summaries.  

 When it comes to interpretation of the meetings, need to be very
careful, see whether we are reaching out correct languages and whether -
- so, again, we need simply to analyze who is in the room, whether --
which languages we need to use.  Because it is also not good vis-à-vis
interpreters if nobody listens to interpretation in the language or
translation language which they are doing.

 Thank you.

 >>KATIM TOURAY:   Okay.  Thanks, Janis.

 >>YRJO LANSIPURO:   Yeah, thank you.  Actually, Janis mentioned
executive summaries should be translated, not necessarily the whole
document.  That was also said by me.

 The other thing is that, actually, if the aim, the objective is
actually understanding in whatever language, then I think that the
audio arrangements at meetings -- I mean, there are very important
technical details.  And also, the microphone techniques.  Perhaps at
the beginning of every meeting, there should be a small tutorial on the
qualities of various types of microphones and how do you speak through
them.

 Thank you.

 >>KATIM TOURAY:   Okay.  Thank you.  I think that's about -- that
about wraps it up.

 I think we are at time.

 Oh, Bertrand.  But, hopefully, maybe we can continue dialogue online.
I think it's a great start.  Again, thank you very much.

 Jean-Jacques.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thank you, Katim, well done.  If I may now
ask Dave Wodelet to talk about document deadlines.  And the whole
exercise in David's sector will be 15 minutes.

 So it depends how much he uses of that for his presentation.  But the
total unit will be 15 minutes.

 >>DAVE WODELET:   Okay.  Thanks, Jean-Jacques.  I'll try to speed
this up, because I'm more interested to hear what you have to say than,
really, what I have to say.  I know what I'm going to say already.

 Meetings tend to focus around recently published documents.  I don't
think there's any question about that.  And I think we'd all agree that
we certainly need time, lead time, to all of the community to read and
digest them as well as whether they want to come to the ICANN meeting. 
However, I cannot imagine everyone not wanting to come to an ICANN
meeting, since they're so much fun, especially when the sleep
deprivation sets in.

 There's lots of types of documents that we can talk about.  We've
narrowed our focus to four to look at initially.  We're talking about
the major reports or documents, those produced by ICANN.  We're talking
the schedules for the meeting.  That's a type of document.  We're
talking the agendas.  And then we're talking the presentations.

 The agendas being what's going to happen in the meeting.  The
presentations are actually the detail about one particular agenda item.

 So with regards to the major documents reports, I think we'll all
agree that we probably haven't done a great job of that in the past. 
Even as short ago as Paris, there were probably a handful of documents
that were published, actually, during -- like fairly major documents
published during the actually meeting.

 This didn't happen as much in Cairo.  You know, for the most part, we
tried to hold the seven-day lead time.  And for Mexico, a lot more
documents were actually published in a seven- to 14-day lead time.

 Our goal there is to look at something like 14 days for document
publishing.

 Just give me a second here.

 So, you know, that's for documents.

 You know, there's certainly a tradeoff of having current documents
and getting advanced reading material out.  But, you know, it's -- it's
a tradeoff, you know, we have to make at some point.

 So with regards to session schedules, you know, in the past, a lot
used to be changed just prior to the meeting, which certainly led to
conflicts and meeting room changes and a bit of a mess.

 For Mexico, I believe we have set a first in more or less a final
schedule being published three weeks in advance.

 Our goal there is to look at seeing if we can get the schedule
published six weeks in advance.  You know, it seems to me that for some
of the sessions that are held on a regular basis, it may be even
feasible to create a tentative schedule at the prior meeting, you know,
and go from there.

 So that's for session schedules.

 For session agendas and presentations, we see that few agendas and
presentations are published early.

 I don't think we're really doing a very good job on this, even in
Mexico.

 Is it reasonable to expect a better job of this?  I think so.

 You know, there can be a base agenda.  And I think that can be fixed.

 Certainly new or current items can always be added, you know, at the
beginning of the meeting.  But to hold up everything to wait until you
think it's complete, when I, you know, practically may never be
complete.  But I think the first 80% or 90% can be dealt with
initially.  And maybe we just need to publish that.  That will be a lot
better than having nothing.

 The actual presentations that are done, those aren't really done by
ICANN staff.  I understand a majority of those, something line 75%, are
submitted by the community.  That can be problematic getting those in
time so everyone has a chance to review those before the actual meeting.

 So that's basically it, where we were at.  Where we're heading to, as
I said, I'm more interested to hear what you have to say than what I
have to say.  I just want to know whether you think that we're heading
the right direction here.  As I mentioned earlier, there are certainly
tradeoffs between keeping it current and, you know, getting enough lead
time.

 You know, one thing I really think we need to do here is start
collecting some metrics to see how well we're doing.  Because what we
have right now is pretty anecdotal.  And that way, we can see whether
we can hit those goals of having those early things published.

 So that's it for me.  So I'm -- I'd just like to open it up to the
floor.

 Chuck, I saw you first.

 Jean-Jacques, if I could just impose on you as chair to keep track of
who is in the speaking order so I can concentrate on the speakers, that
would be awesome.

 Chuck was first, I believe.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   David, I think you're right on target on all points.

 But I just want to point out a complication with regard to the goals.

 Are those targets just for English versions?  Or are they for the
translated versions?  That makes it even harder.  And I know it's
already hard enough.  But I just raise that as an added complication.

 The goals are really valid.  But they apply to the translated
versions as well.

 >>DAVE WODELET:   Chuck, I hear what you're saying there.  I'm a
believer in getting better over time.  I think we have to start with
English ones and seeing how better we can get after that.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Just to remind you of the speaking order,
I have here on behalf of Dave Ayesha and then Marilyn, and then Thomas,
and then Paul.

 >>DAVE WODELET:   Ayesha.

 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you, David.  I think these are very
appropriate questions.  And it's going in the right direction.

 It strikes me that the seven- to 14-day lead time is really not
enough.  I realize that this exercise of setting timelines is also
linked to all the substantive processes in place and how you're
managing all of that.  And I've made this comment in a couple of other
places this week.

 I think that an overall holistic, disciplined approach to figuring
out how all of this works together will really be beneficial.

 I know from my perspective, I come empty handed when I have not been
able to consult with my members.  My members come empty handed in terms
of really substantive contributions if they haven't had time to go
through the processes and the evaluation that they need.

 So this is going to really be helpful if we can get the whole thing
working together.

 I agree with Chuck that attention to the translation documents, often
in certain processes that we're involved in, the English does come out
first.  But then there's a promised deadline for the translations.  And
that's helpful.  I think that people who need the translation do need
lead time.  And so, again, I would say more in the order of, you know,
four weeks for substantive items.

 On agendas and schedules, I think agendas for meetings are very
important.  They help people figure out where they're going to go in
the schedule.  The earlier, the better.  People can use that to also
justify why they're coming, 'cause they understand who's going to be
speaking, what the subject matter is, what they need to prepare in
order to come and do a good job in contributing.

 Schedules, you know, four to three weeks out.  But, really, with some
detail.

 That will be very helpful.  We've heard that from a lot of people,
that the schedule isn't up and it makes it hard for them to participate.

 Thanks.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Dave, if you don't mind, I'd just like to
make a very short remark.

 Kieren was reminding me that because of the rhythm of three
international meetings of ICANN a year, I mean, it's really difficult,
I can imagine, for the staff, also for the board, but never mind all
the constituencies.  So we have to keep that in our mind.

 My message to you on this is, we're also looking at the frequency of
meetings overall.  Of course, that will be subject to board decision.

 But it is our duty to take up that point also.

 So the next speaker was Marilyn, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I won't repeat the -- it's Marilyn Cade speaking. 
I won't repeat the things that Ayesha said, which I would tend to agree
with.  But I will make a couple of comments.

 I think, actually, while the board may be undertaking a review of the
number of meetings, I'm not clear that the community can give up its
public participation time with itself and its public participation time
with the board and the staff by going to two meetings a year.

 That would be one comment I can make.

 I'm going to really reinforce the importance of changing how we plan
our meetings.

 We need a program committee.

 Gee, how many international groups am I a part of, have been a part
of, that have program committees?  And they're not four people.  They
often have 20 or more.  Sometimes they're more than that.  And they are
able to understand and represent both the interest and the timing.  So
when you think about public participation, if you think that the
meetings also are a part of the interaction, then think about resources
like that that give you more information as you worry about the
schedules, the conflicts of meetings, et cetera.  That would be one
point.

 The second point is, I cannot reinforce enough the fact that, you
know, we're doing a better job.  The staff is doing a better job.  They
have more resources.  They're summarizing things more.  They're doing
side by sides, all those kinds of things.

 Those tools are fantastic resources.  They do bulk up the amount of
material you have to download.

 So when you think you're giving us seven- to 14 days, adding two days
for travel and one day for downloading documents.  Just a joke,but a
real one.

 And factor into that, maybe we need some other interesting ideas
about how to zip files or, you know, some other mechanisms we're all
used to in some of the other international groups of getting documents
out.

 And, finally, I would just say, let's get better about something the
President's Strategy Committee said we would do.  And that is, figure
out how documents are tied to each other and how they're easily
identified in their interrelationship to each other.

 So if you have to send tranche one, when you get tranche two, you
actually know what it relates to.

 >>DAVE WODELET:   Thanks, Marilyn.  How are we doing for.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Very badly now.

 I suggest we give Thomas a quick mark and then Paul Twomey.  I ask
Bertrand to skip his turn, because Jamil has not had a chance to speak
at all.  Bertrand has spoken, I think, more than once, and very ably.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Chairman --

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   My mistake.  It was Thomas.  Sorry.

 >>THOMAS NARTEN:   Just a couple of brief comments.

 Chuck, in response to your question about translation, my
understanding is that we have a -- ICANN now has a full-time person
doing the translation or in charge of it.  What we have been told, I
believe, is that it's seven to ten days they can get the translation
time down.  As we get more experience, I think we actually will be able
to do translations pretty quickly.

 The other point, on the deadlines, keep in mind that this is a
community problem as well as a staff problem.  Because a lot of the
documents that get produced are produced by the community.  So they're
going to have to work on getting their deadline also aligned.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Paul.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques.

 I think, as president, I'm -- I am quite comfortable with the
committee recommending to the board to set a formal board set deadline
for documentation presentation for the board -- for the meetings.  We
have one for board meetings.  And if you want to move to that stage, I
think you should certainly consider it.

 But in doing so, Thomas's position is exactly right.  We have to make
certain that's communicated out to all of the supporting organizations
and ACs.  Because a lot of the staff work is dependent upon their
timetable.

 And I think that would be very important.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thanks.  That is noted.

 Jamil, and then, madam, if it's really a very short comment, both of
you.  And we have to stop this part of the comment.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:   I'm known for talking fast.  So I'm going to try to
go slow.

 I'm going to take an offline discussion online here which we had
about the possibility of me agreeing with what Marilyn is saying, it's
very important to have the three meetings which are face to face.  What
I would suggest is we have two in the same location where we can
actually negotiate good rates, and have one which is rotated, which is
annually rotated in different regions, et cetera.

 And this would have a direct impact, I would believe, at least, on
the costs of having an ICANN meeting, and automatically relieve a
certain amount of money for travel support.

 'Cause we've been talking about that and it's been a very challenging
conversation we've been having on travel support.  So I think this may
also have a benefit there.

 Lastly, very quickly, I have an obligation to my friend whose time
I've taken.  Size of documents, if you could reduce it, number one. 
Number two -- do you want to say it?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Go ahead.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:   Timing of availability of the document, depending on
the size of the document.  I think that's a good idea, if it's a 90-
page --

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   You won't get away with this, Bertrand.

 But good try.

 Thank you, Jamil.  Thank you.  Madam.

 >> Hi.  (saying name).  Mine is very quick and maybe just -- it just
shows my ignorance.  I'm fairly new.

 Is there any good -- probably you do.  Is there any reason why you
are having three big-scale meetings a year?

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Right.  We will not give this now, because
it's rather complex.

 The overall question is mostly "yes."

 So, Paul, do you want to answer that, why there are three major
meetings a year?  No.

 I think that for the sake of this meeting, which we have to carry on,
madam, we will come back to you.  Madam, I will come back to you after
this meeting.  One of the team will explain that to you and will
solicit your views as well.  

 So, unfortunately, I have to call this part of the meeting to a
close.  Dave, I'm sorry about this, and ask Dennis, who has been
waiting patiently, about board visibility, if that's the right title.

 I'm sure you'll start with a wonderful Irish proverb to get us going.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques.  I can't think of an
Irish pro verge at the moment, but if I do, I'll let you know.

 One of the most important things I find in international meetings is
to speak slowly and clearly.  And I would urge all contributors at
these meetings, both presenters and questioners -- and at this table --
to take your time when trying to communicate.  A few words understood
is an awful lot better than a lot that are just not heard.

 So having said that, let me go on to the board visibility question,
not that we're invisible, of course, technically, but at these meetings
the board members tend to be tied up in meetings of one sort or
another.  And it's very difficult for board members to meet people and
it's very difficult for people to meet the board members.  Maybe that's
a good thing.  Maybe it's a bad thing.  One of the things we have done
is to have much better defined breaks and longer breaks.  But I found
myself rushing between meetings and tied up talking to people in
meetings and haven't spent the sort of time I would like out in the
coffee area being approachable assuming that anybody would want to
approach me.

 So the question is what should what should we do about the visibility
and accessibility of board members small you can read the notes as well
as I can read them so I'll assume that you've ready the notes on the
agenda and I look forward to your comments, thank you.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Dennis, that is a model of brevity and
clarity and speaking one's mind with clarity is actually an exercise in
communication and you have brought the proof of that, wonderful.

 So Dennis, as for our colleagues, may I ask you to lead this part of
the discussion?

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   So, questions, and Jean-Jacques, would you keep
the running order in case I miss people, anybody like to make a
comment, suggestion or question?

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  We often hear that the board is extremely busy and, of
course, it is, we always hear that the board is extremely busy.  But I
wonder could we see your agenda of meetings which I don't think we do
at the moment.  So we get an idea of where you're going to be at
various times.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Good idea.  Thank you.  Ms. Cade?

 >>MARILYN CADE:   So when Ayesha and I worked together to bring
together a wide number of business folks in Paris and in other settings
including here to the ICANN meeting we gave them a very simple tool
that was greatly appreciated.  And I'm not going to refer to it as the
mug shots of the board members and the senior staff but, in fact, it
was really appreciated, that we could give them a document which had
the pictures of the board members and some of the senior staff and a
brief boo.  And so maybe you should think about that as a standard
handout, that new -- that attendees can pick up and it can be shorter
than what's on the Web site and, of course, we can say people can go to
the Web site but if they -- you know, that really will make it seem
friendlier in terms of board and senior staff accessibility if they've
got a little cheat sheet that says, you know -- and here's Denise
Michel, the vice president of policy, and here's Paul Evans, and here's
what he does, and here's blah, blah, blah -- oh, I'm sorry, Dennis
Jennings, Dennis Jennings, board member.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you merrily.  I understand that much of
that is actually published in the meeting guide.  And I'm surprised, I
didn't actually go to the registration because as a board member we get
our board pack in a separate room.  But I'm surprised how few people
I've seen walking around with the program guide.  So how many people
here have to hand the program guide?

 >> Thank you.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Yes, please.

 >> Great, that's great.

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:   That's the summit one but there is a larger
one.

 >> I think it's very good that we have on our badges different colors
seeing whether you're a participant or ICANN staff, but ICANN staff and
ICANN board are both dark blue, so from a far distance it's difficult
to distinguish.  So perhaps you should use a different color for board
members so I can just see on the color that you're a board member.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you.  Now, there was somebody down here.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   The gentleman with glasses.

 >>LUTZ DONNERHACKE:   Finished.

 >>JOUNG IM KIM:  I don't think what I'm going to say has anything
with board visibility, but since we're talking about the pamphlet, for
next meetings would you please improve the schedule, the physical look
of schedule?  'Cause it's hard 20 read.  It's --

 >> It changes all the time.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   I'm sorry I'm not sure I understood. 
Could you repeat that --

 >> For the next meetings, could you improve the physical presentation
of this schedule?  'Cause it's just very hard.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Okay, I think that point is well made and well
taken.  Paul, did you want to comment?  Ayesha.

 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Very briefly I would just reiterate that I think
the community members really appreciate the time that they get to
interact with the board and so continued attention to that, I think the
idea of the breaks as much as there can be board breaks as well so that
they are able to have the time to breathe and interact with the
community would be good and maybe, you know, if there's a way to create
even more space in your schedule, I can't judge how that could possibly
be done because I know you have a lot to do but the more you can create
interactive opportunities with the community people really appreciate
it.  Thanks.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Chuck?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Just a really brief comment.  The program really
needs to be in the packet of information you get at the beginning.  I
searched through all of the flyers and everything else two times,
'cause usually it is there, and didn't find it.  And because of my busy
schedule starting on Saturday morning I never did, I guess, get to the
booth where they were available.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you for that.  Christopher.

 >>CHISTOPHER WILKINSON:   Thank you.  Just to follow up on a couple
of points.  Yes, by all means, (Speaker off microphone), yes, by all
means publish your board agendas if it's not too sensitive.  But I
think if you need to spend time among yourselves, you are actually free
to have a board retreat at any occasion before or after an ICANN
meeting or internationally.  Here, mix with the crowd.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you, Christopher.  Another question I may
put because as we run out of time, this is the first meeting of the
public participation committee in a public participation forum.  Do
people want more of that?  Would they like similar sessions with board
finance committee or other committees?  Sébastien?

 >>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET:   The meetings like this are very interesting.
At the same time, the general program should try to make it so that
there's the least amount of competition.  I think that in this meeting
and perhaps because there was the ALS summit, there were meetings all
at the same time and different hotels.  There were -- it was
complicated.  And I'd like to add, as far as the visibility of board
members, one of the things that seems to me is essential is that we can
meet with you three times a year and that's one of the reasons why
there should be these three meetings because I would be very happy to
meet along three times a year.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   (Speaker off microphone).

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Dennis, a quick word, thanks.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I wanted to enforce what was just said. 
Regrettably -- I do think these are very important and I think,
actually, they may even be the kind of public participation session
that needs to be scheduled in a -- at a time to repeat what I think my
colleague just said when a broader set of the community can come.  You
may not realize this, but the public participation that you're counting
on in the board review session, in the public participation session, in
the operational plan session, they're not happening, because people
cannot get to them.

 So you, actually, are shortchanging the public participation process
that you so much want because of the time complex.  The operational
plan session is at 8:00 a.m. in the morning and it is against -- it
takes place against the opening session on the at-large summit.  I
could go on with a list of those.

 So the answer is yes, but please put them at a time when we can come.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you,, Marilyn, that was a nice, quick
note.  Jean-Jacques.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Well, thank you, Dennis, for a very neat
session, or a session within the session.

 I'd like, if you have a few minutes left, I'd like to ask Kieren to
show you some of the tools which are already in use and to those which
can be perfected but I want you to get a sense of some of the
electronic tools which can be enlarged.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   I thought since it was a public participation
session I'd actually get all of you to participate.  So if you have a
mobile phone, or you have a laptop and I can't imagine there's anyone
in this room that doesn't have either a mobile phone or a laptop, you
can actually participate and tell us what you thought of this meeting
right now.  So I'll show you on the big screen, if you want, how you
can find -- you can either vote online or you can vote using your
phone.  If you have a look on the back of the piece of paper, there's
various text message numbers you can text to and I'll show you how that
work in a second but if you go to the Mexico City site, you click on
schedule.  Scroll down to where our meeting is here in the yellow, you
can see it at the bottom.  We have interactive feedback here.  If you
click any of these you'll bring up a web voting browser, if you don't
want to do that you can vote using your mobile phone using the numbers
in the back.  Well, if you click how useful did you find this session,
click to vote, you'll go to this voting screen.  We have the Internet
working.  So here is the first poll.  You can text to that number,
that's for U.S. phones.  We also have Latin American phones, European
phones, et cetera, or vote online.  I know there's more than two people
in this room.  I don't know why Paul Evans isn't voting.  No, you're --
click on it and vote.  If you text either the word very or the word
useful or the word not it will come up in real time.  I have three of
these.  Can we try that?  There's three votes there and I count at
least 25 people here.  You can either text those numbers to that number
on the back of the sheet.  Or you can click through at the bottom of
the webpage of this meeting and click it and you can vote.  You can see
it in real time as the results come up.  I'll also be -- I'll also post
those results on that same web page so you'll be able to see it after
the meeting's over.  So, okay, so, yes, Jean-Jacques' asked me about
other tours but, yes, I'll get through these quickly so we have a very
useful 38%, useful 50%, not useful 13%, so I would say that's coming
out as in between -- oh, there's very -- there's Bertrand's vote,
beautiful.  Thank you, Bertrand.  50% saying very useful, et cetera. 
I'll go on to --

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  Kieren, and I just tested the system and you
can't double vote so that's good.  

 >>MARILYN CADE: Kieren, I have a threshold question about these tools.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Marilyn, it's just a bit of fun, it's for the
end of this meeting.  We'll discuss in a second whether it's actually
useful or whether we could use them in other meetings, I'm sure they
have a very limited use but I thought I'd try to get people, dozing at
the end of Wednesday, to at least interact slightly.  

 We have another one, do you think we should run a similar session in
Sydney?  People are ahead of me here.  If so, please vote Sydney, no
Sydney or uncertain.  That's a pretty definitive yes, it's worth doing.
I'll move on to the third -- the third question.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   (Speaker off microphone).

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Just a demonstration.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Just a demonstration.  And I have one more which
is in terms of the topics that we've covered, some of you already voted
online I see.  What was of most interest to you during this meeting. 
Was it the discussion of public forums, was it the discussion of
language, or was it the discussion of deadlines, was it the discussion
of the board visibility, or none of the above and I see we've got quite
a few votes there.  So if anyone has any questions on that please raise
them now.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Mr. Wilkinson.

 >>CHISTOPHER WILKINSON:   I've just sent you a yes.  It is a -- it
was on?  I've just sent you a yes but, actually, I don't know which
question I was answering and incidentally, incidentally, it's a roaming
call from a Belgian service to a Mexican service back to a U.K.
service.  I'll send you an e-mail with the bill.

 >>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Oh, so that's why you can text and vote and roam
on the web.  So if you feel Rich, you can roam.  If you are willing to
put out 425 cents, you can text.  And if you want to do it for free,
you can go on the web.  That's sort of one of the advantages of these
tours.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Well, thank you, very much.  As you
realize, this latter part, which was proposed by Kieren at my behest
was just a demonstration of possible tools.  Some of them already in
use.  They need to be refined so don't pass judgment on this as a
definitive set of tools.  I would like to make a brief summing-up and a
few indications of the way forward.

 One of the goals of public participation is obviously to get more
people participating in ICANN's policy processes.  One reminder, if I
may.  At the moment, only 200 to 300 people are regularly involved. 
And, of course, the purpose of public participation committee is to
find the means to enhance that participation, but also the content. 
That means the contribution of that public participation to the policy
development.  While at the same time making sure that we have the
widest diversity possible, geographic and linguistic diversity.

 We want to analyze that we, ICANN, that means you, are doing, and to
see if we can make changes to increase participation.  We want to know
how to improve the model.  And in this afternoon's public session
several of you have given very good ideas.  I would like, on behalf of
this committee, to thank you very warmly and to ensure you that note
has been taken of each and every suggestion.  We will work this through
in the committee and come back in one form or another to the public.

 The questions really in functional terms are why do we meet?  Who do
we meet?  Where do we meet?  And how much does this cost?  So we don't
have a quick answer to that, Sébastien, we don't have a quick answer to
that, but be -- rest assured that we take this very seriously and that
these are the big problems which overarch the smaller problems which we
have sometimes discussed with you today.  Of course public
participation is not just another open checkbook.  We want to get the
most participation we can in the most cost effective way.  So with
that, I would like to thank all the participants and the members of
this committee and hope that we will have many other opportunities to
do the same, but perhaps in even more efficient ways.  Thank you very
much.

 [ Applause ]