INSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENCE 04 MARCH, 2009 MEXICO CITY, MEXICO >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Marilyn. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Chairman. I will be speaking in French. As I said, I will be speaking in French, the recommendations regarding the globalization of Internet and the tasks that this implies for us we've made several recommendations whose objectives are already known to some. Others are more recent because they stem from recommendations in which some of you have provided us with input. 3.3 is a recommendation regarding -- to ensure our future assets needs in terms of translation and interpretation are filled. And there is a system in ICANN which needs to be reviewed and revised. 3.4 regards extending the outreach with users throughout the world and all over the world we believe that this is one of the top priorities bearing in mind -- (interruption in scribing) -- and provide us with certain advantages that we expect for the ICANN community. And it is only after this first fact-finding phase that we would be proposing and submitting to the board of ICANN to consider the possibility of implementing or having an additional -- offices in addition to the headquarters in the United States. Then I will pass review very quickly to all of the remaining items, all of this with a view to prepare the oncoming debate. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Before I ask Pierre to speak, I think I should mention there is an appendix to the recommendations and that appendix specifically is a legal memorandum that was submitted to the committee. And we might just back up the slide. This legal memorandum specifically it is entitled "The internationalization of ICANN, meeting the needs of the global Internet community of the future." This gives more details on a series of things we received in the consultation process. It's published in response to calls for more detailed information about the rationale about this circle step of internationalization. And the topics that are specifically directed towards some of the administrative challenges that this new form of international non- profit organization status may help us address. And some of those include immigration, employment, human resource challenges, some issues on impediments to our contracting abilities, summary of our -- some of the review of -- some of the review of some of the functions that might be better responded there. I will just make the observation before I pass on this topic that this is -- it was put forward to the committee for further investigation and that this new area of international non-profit organization, new body of law, is a relatively new one appearing in two jurisdictions after our extensive review. Those jurisdictions are Belgium and Switzerland. We can discuss that later. Moving now on to -- okay, just to note, of course, we now have scribing available. Moving on to now the next major recommendation which is ensuring financial and operational security. I will ask Pierre to address this. >> Thank you very much. I'm going to speak in French. Very briefly then I will be presenting to your consideration recommendations regarding the financial and operational security. I don't want to repeat. But as my colleague already said, there have been several consultations underway. And in order to continue being a stable entity in terms of the management of its finances, it was noted that strategic planning possibilities and assigning priorities and reinvestment policies call for functional and stable structures. It was also noted there were recommendations and an ad hoc risk assessment committee was appointed, which I think is an excellent initiative. And at the same time, there's been attention focused on the audit and keeping tabs of expenses and monitoring expenses which, I believe, should be continued as also using performance indicators and this assures us that we are on the right track. And the committee also believes that we should keep and even extend and enhance such procedures. We would like to underscore the confidence in an institution can only be assured in a secure financial environment and that this certainty be comprehensive in all areas. And, for example, the results should also be understandable for everybody. In summarizing these recommendations regarding ensuring the financial viability, several guidelines were proposed, on the firsthand, to continue and maintain the financial protection guidelines. And for this purpose, the recommendation was divided into two subrecommendations implementing financial management practices that include transparency and communicating the financial situation to the community and that the financial documents are available in a timely manner and enough information be available in order for the community to interact with ICANN. Another interesting aspect is -- regards increasing ICANN's financial resources. And with the development of the Internet in spite of the current financial crisis, it has been calculated that special attention should be focused on managing future ICANN resources and eventually, also bearing in mind, the status of our organization, a non-profit organization, and the mandate and the status as well as the core mission regarding the possible new ways for ICANN to deploy. We also must say that we strongly depend on the contributions made by registrars which could potentially be at risk. The PSC recommends that we should consider managing the future resources of ICANN bearing in mind our status, the mission and the mandate of our institution very briefly. Recommendations for 6.1 is to include public discussions and comments on our surplus -- budgetary surplus issues regarding operational plans for fiscal year 2010. Secondly, for 6.2, this is another recommendation to consult the community on the sources of revenue recognizing that the first of ICANN's missions is not to be reliant or dependent on a single sector of the society and to assure the stability and security of ICANN really is in keeping with the environment in which the institution operates in which freedom of expression is recognized, enhancing competition and the leadership of the private business sector. This is very briefly the recommendations we arrived at regarding the operational and financial security of ICANN. Thank you. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Pierre. I would like to ask Yrjo to take us through our last area of our recommendations, specifically deals with ensuring -- focus on the safety and stability of the Internet unique identifier system. >> YRJO LANSIPURO: Thank you, Paul. Last, but not least, the two groups of recommendations here, ICANN should be a discussion leader and awareness raiser on security and stability issues, and it also should pursue operational efficiency measures. On the first one, ICANN can further define and strengthen its role in relation to the security and stability of the identifiers of the Internet. And, second, its planning, both strategic and operational planning, should involve ICANN in interaction with other key organizations responsible for security and stability of the Internet and secure (inaudible) protocols and standards. The other thing, pursuing operational efficiency, we recommend that should be done under the IANA procurement agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce. And that's the end of the recommendations. I just want to say that actually the document itself, it also contains text which is not in the formal precise recommendations but it is very relevant to what we have been trying to say. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Yrjo. What I would like to do now is throw this report and its recommendations open to the floor for discussion. Just a preliminary reminder of the rules for discussion, can you please begin by stating your name and affiliation and allow just a brief moment for people who need to translate, interpretation to adjust. And then if you could try and please be concise with your questions and comments so we can get a chance to hear from everybody. One final point, there will be an opportunity again tomorrow in the public forum time willing to have further discussion. What I would like to do is move through sequentially from the recommendations and take comments in order in relation to the recommendations. If I could ask, Yrjo, perhaps you could keep track what recommendation we are up to and have that on the screen as well. Recommendation 1 is about safeguarding ICANN against capture. As you will recall, there is a discussion in the report about capture from a number of sources including -- another one of the risks of being at ICANN. So comments please from the floor in relation to any of the discussion points or the recommendations about capture and the safeguards that are proposed? Mark. >> MARK McFADDEN: Mark McFadden, BT. I have a meta question. I don't think I heard it addressed in the opening session. I'm sorry, it is not about this particular recommendation. Did either of you or Paul talk about the ongoing status of the President's Strategy Committee and what would happen after this report was issued and considered by the board? And you don't have to address that now. But I would like to have that addressed before the session ends so that we can perhaps react to that. Thanks. Sorry to interrupt your plan there. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: There was another question here. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Thank you, Peter. Steve DelBianco with NetChoice. With respect to capture, I wanted to applaud the point about doing all we can to strengthen government participation, especially in working groups. And that's a point I made at the IGF in Hyderabad to try to encourage governments that show up at the IGF that they ought to also show up at ICANN. And when they show up to be prepared to dive into a working group with mind-numbing detail like WHOIS. But I want to turn to something that didn't show up in the capture section, and it is the comment I submitted and made emphatically at the Improving Institutional Confidence briefings. It has to do with a somewhat creative way where I suggested that there is a risk of capture of ICANN in the sense -- I suggested that governments can literally capture the IDN, the internationalized domain name TLD space, by having it for several months before the gTLDs are available in IDN. And that's an accident of the fact that the gTLD guidebook and so on are going through an entire set of revisions that could put them months, months after it. I would look to ICANN. Perhaps you don't see this as a long-term improving institutional confidence, and I don't want it to be a one- off. In the long-term, we would look to ICANN as a general concern to try to get governments more engaged on the same sort of on-par basis with the private sector. I think Janis Karklins said yesterday at the GAC board meeting, he encourage the GAC to see that, quote, we can't gain respect of others by claiming we are special. That's a good point. We have to gain respect by performance. I couldn't agree more. I would say part of that performance is stepping up to the plate and implementing agreements to run ccTLDs, adhering to technical standards and paying a share of costs. We all know those are vital topics for this week. But I do think we will improve institutional confidence to a huge degree by having both governments in the private sector realize we are in this game together to serve the community of users. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Steve. There was one from Harald, and then we will come back to Lesley. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: I will ask a detailed question rather than an overarching one. Point 1.6.2, hold a scheduled meeting of -- a workshop of the board at least once a year in a city where there is most government representation. I don't get it. I have been to workshops. I go in. I go out. And the intent -- is the intent at this point to say that the board should have meetings with the governments? And if so, shouldn't it say so? >>PAUL TWOMEY: I think that's the intent. So if it is not clear, we should probably make it more clear. >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: I think you should. >>PAUL TWOMEY: The point has been made to us previously that -- by GAC, they very much value the interaction with the board. And that's at least for some members -- I'm going to say potentially it may well be a vision for people who are not attending the GAC as much now. Perhaps, it is more a reflection of people who have said that in the past coming down of the WSIS and some other environments, but some governments have put a lot of focus on direct interaction with the board. As an attempt to try to pick up on Steve's point, to try to engage more and more governments, the proposal was -- is, one, hold a meeting in a place where governments all have representatives, New York or Geneva were given as examples, Brussels and other cities. Geneva and New York were the two primary examples. And the second proposal was to have some interaction with the board, ideally with the whole community. But we are not talking about shifting the whole meeting to take place once a year in Geneva. We are not saying that. We thought maybe it was better for the board, but it is for comment. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Marilyn, you wanted to comment as well? >>MARILYN CADE: As the PSC members are considering your feedback, I would like to understand better. I think what we are trying to convey is that there needs -- we need to find enhanced ways for governments to meet with the ICANN community and, as a part of that, interact with the board. I think that's what we're trying to say. Does that fit better, Harald, with what -- the question you were asking? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: Saying that would be a much more actionable and useful item, yes. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Janis, who is chairman of the GAC, it is interesting to hear your views. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Janis Karklins, chairman of the GAC. I see the point but I don't see the mechanism of implementation. From my personal experience in Geneva and New York, you will not get in U.N. premise. And the only way how you can do that is organizing an event with the governments as a side event linked to some conference or whatever it is. So that's the only way. These organizations do not function in open manner, so that's why it is simply -- I think it is not feasible in the way as it is vetted. But, indeed, what is needed -- and this can be done through Geneva or New York -- is a briefing of governments on activities ICANN is doing. And here I can delve again from my personal experience together with UNESCO, we organized a briefing session for government representatives within UNESCO on IDN fast-track process. So UNESCO did its own presentation. I did one piece and Baher did ICANN piece -- presentation. And that was the way how to convey information on ICANN activities on things which are important for governments. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Would you also care to comment on recommendation 1.6.3, about the suggestion for travel support for members of the GAC. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Yeah, I think here also taking into account ICANN budget possibilities, we need value, what we can do and what we cannot do. And certainly the travel support for government representatives for developing countries is a very important element to bring them and an associate to work. Equally, we need to explore other things like possibilities of remote participation, which we tried for the first time this -- during this meeting. And we got two government representatives who could not travel, participated remotely in the meetings. That is another avenue to explore. On translations, again, I think that in those government representatives could travel here, they more or less speak English. But if we are trying to reach out, government representatives who cannot travel here, it would be useful to have interpretation. Here I cannot say which languages, French, Spanish, Arabic. This needs to be further thought through. So these would be my comments on that. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Just a quick response from Jean-Jacques and then we'll going back to Steve and then Bertrand. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: The points you have brought up, Janis, are going to be considered by the participation committee. Just a word in passing, the public participation -- (speaking French on audio). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can I apologize and come back to you? >>LESLEY COWLEY: I can work this. Yes. Lesley Cowley, Nominet and I'm also the chair of the ccNSO working group on participation, which has been quite successful. So I will make these comments with a participation hat on, and I'm very pleased to see 1.6 about greater GAC participation and 3.4 about improving participation generally through outreach. But I would like to see the first section really covering improved participation of all elements of the ICANN structure and in particular elements that are not currently active or not currently involved, maybe through issues-based involvement. Secondly, I would like to make a suggestion on participation in this whole process of the PSC. The next pages of what I read seem to involve independent experts and some staff research. And I think we are very aware that time is incredibly short, and we do feel some sense of urgency. But it is also incredibly important that the next stages have full-based community support. Early in the PSC's life, we had a series of conference calls which I, myself, participated in to assist with moving towards solutions and I would like to encourage that for the next stages of this development so that hopefully we can have something that we can all strongly support at Sydney. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's an excellent idea. Thank you for reminding us of that mechanism that we used in the first couple of years. Let's go to Bertrand and I will come back over here. Bertrand? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's an excellent idea. Thank you for reminding us of that mechanism that we used in the first couple of years. Let's go to Bertrand and then I'll come back over here. Bertrand? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Does that work? Yeah. Thank you. Just a first comment to continue briefly the question that was raised by Harald on the in New York or Geneva. I quite share the notion that it is a bit imprecise because it doesn't explain whether it is a meeting of the board with governmental representatives or in the presence of governmental representatives. Not to mention the articulation between the GAC representatives and the local representatives. I mean, we all know all the articulations between the different actors. But the problem I wanted to raise here, it may sound strange, is that it is reinforcing the notion that fundamentally in ICANN, the board is the fundamental decision-making body. That it is an interaction between the board and the actors and so on. I think it's going against the thrust that we need to reinforce, which is the participatory mechanisms. So I would encourage to use the approach that Janis has suggested, which is outreach presentation. A great effort has been made, for instance, using the IGF to explain what the ICANN is doing, to outreach with the GAC representatives in various countries on the occasion of events but not structure a formal intersection between governments and ICANN board as these were the two only actors that matter. The second point, on the 1.13.4, if my numbering here -- okay, which is a framework that allows cross-participation in supporting organization while prohibiting sanctions for voting in the same individual. I think this may be interesting but it's not addressing the real issue which is that one single individual is in several groups. It's the fact that the groups don't meet. Actually, the key point here is to push, in the processes, in accordance to what we were recommending, the fact that the process is as multistakeholder as possible from the onset. This was one of the topics of the SOAC actions, earlier and I would pick up on the word that was used, I think by Lesley, on the issue-based approach. ICANN would benefit from moving from a constituency-based structure to an issue-based approach. Quickly on a few other concrete points, the question on accountability and the board dismissal and so -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We haven't got to those yet. We'll come down to those. Paul, would you like to respond to the. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Oh, okay. There was no other -- not -- okay. No, then it's okay. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Peter. I think the points made by Harald and Janis and Bertrand are excellent, and I think Jean-Jacques and I were just talking. I think we probably need to clarify quickly. We obviously have no intention of weakening the GAC. Indeed, our intention to be to strengthen it. Our intention is to try to increase government interaction with the community as well as with the board and we're not trying to set the board up as a -- as a -- as some sort of supermodel. I suppose in getting more feedback, I think what we would like to receive is more -- we get a lot of feedback that there were countries who have got members who have got officials dedicated in certain cities in these topics. You know, Geneva has a lot of people with communications -- from communications ministries or communications responsibilities, and it's how do we harvest more broadly those people, and frankly also how do we ensure that they understand that they get an experience of it. I mean, we have a model now that people come from home capitals a lot, but for some people they don't have that. So we're looking perhaps not now, perhaps we'll have more feedback but I wanted to just clarify that some of the things you fear the paper saying is not what it's saying. We're just trying to address that issue. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: A couple of responses from members of the committee. Raimundo and then Yrjö. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: It seems to me that Bertrand is absolutely right in pointing out that the real issue here is the cross-participation and not the voting, but, in fact, if you read the recommendation in the text, it goes in the positive side and not in the negative side. It's the -- it's to develop a framework to increase cross-participation, and in doing that, we avoid cross-vote, but the real issue is cross- participation. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Yrjö? >> YRJÖ LÄNSIPURO: Yes, as I said before, all our input is not captured in those -- in those lines of recommendations, so for instance if you look at it in the text Point 1.1 and 1.2 but especially 1.1 says that the in-depth interaction between component parts of ICANN must be encouraged as early as possible. So that there is a lot of stuff here that is not put into those concrete recommendations. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. And now we get back to Manal. >>MANAL ISMAIL: Thank you. I would just like to echo what Janis said about remote participation as an important means for participation. I mean, with all due respect to fellowships, I see it more a mechanism for outreach because -- for fairness purposes, the same person won't be selected twice, and participation really needs continuity. I mean, probably not the same person will be selected more than once. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. I think Stefano is next. >>STEFANO TRUMPY: Okay. Thank you. So I would not like that all the discussion is polarized on potential capture by the governments, but I would like to add a simple thing. The detractors of the role of the GAC, apart from Mr. Toure, I mean, that the GAC inside ICANN is cosmetics, and others that say that we are actually more a technical body because we are following all these important technical issues inside ICANN and also someone says that in the average we are -- we have a lot of young representatives, not high in the hierarchy, but what we have to say is that perhaps we are the body representing governments that have an exceptional knowledge of what's happening here, and this is a value that we have to continue and to improve, and then the occasion to have other occasions where to involve higher level as possible in the business affairs also will improve the role and the importance of the internal GAC. And someone is talking about senior GAC or possible having two levels of meetings, policy meetings. My opinion is that this is not a good idea to have two different GACs with the same name, but having occasions where we try to speak and to involve ministries possible and then high-level representatives is very important. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks Stefano, that's an excellent concept that there is in the back such a lot -- such a repository of technical knowledge at a government level. Heather. >> Is it working? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to express some caution with regards briefing diplomats, those from foreign affairs ministries. It's certainly a partial solution, if you look at Geneva and New York, for example. But I would like to point out that the substance work is typically conducted by communications ministries. In the case of Canada, I come from Industry Canada, and where we do the substance and obviously we cover the ITU and representation at the GAC, so I would just urge you to bear that in mind when you're talking about these efforts. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that caution. I can tell from the reactions from the diplomats and former diplomats on the panel that they're very aware of some of that stuff that you cautioned us about. Can we just have one more intervention from Sebastien and then we'll move off Recommendation 1 and on to the next round? >>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I will speak English, if you will. I'm Sebastien Bachollet, vice president of ALAC, and I think that it is very important that here all structures of ICANN discussed together jointly all of these issues, and that is why I left the other meeting that is running in parallel to be here. I wanted to say that these topics are of great importance for individual end users, and that is why it was one of the five working groups that were devoted during the summit meeting to discussing and debating and presenting the opinions of individual users. And some of the issues that were dealt with were discussed in great depth, and are in a document that we are about to finish that summarizes the views of individual users at the summit here in Mexico, and I'm certain that there will be many comments that are interesting in the reports and also additional issues and questions that were raised, and I'm sure that this will continue being useful for all of our communities. Thank you. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: -- receiving that report. Let's move on to recommendation 2. This was the section addressed by Marilyn Cade about accountability. And with the recommendation concerning [inaudible] taking GAC advice. Yes, thank you. Becky. You just have to hold the red button, tuck the red button once. >>BECKY BURR: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I have two comments on this section. In section -- in the recommendation 2.2.1, GAC and ICANN mechanisms to review performance of the ICANN board's affirmation of responsibilities with respect to effective consideration of GAC advice on the public policy aspects of technical coordination, like Steve I was very glad to hear Janis' expression yesterday of the participation of the GAC and individual governments in this process, and I just wonder if you considered any form of community consultation with respect to what comes out of these -- what comes out of the reviews of how well you're doing on facilitating that, and any kind of mechanisms that might be set up to do that. And an unrelated comment on that is, in recommendation 2.7, with respect to seeking advice from a committee of independent experts on restructuring of the review mechanisms, to provide improved accountability, does that provision envision simply reworking the existing mechanisms or does it affirmatively leave room for the addition of new mechanisms? I -- I think as everybody knows -- feel that we do need a new mechanism and I think it would be appropriate to make that clear in this section. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Becky, let me answer the second question first, and the answer is yes. We're looking for contributions from experts on how to make this the best we can. And if that includes -- I would even say several new mechanisms. I guess we'd be interested in that. I didn't quite understand the first question. What -- community consultations on the results of reviews? Are you now talking about the structural improvement reviews analyzing the structure of the board and its performance, or -- something else? >>BECKY BURR: Well, there is a -- the provision says you're going to set up a joint mechanism to review performance of the ICANN board's commitment with respect to working with the Government Advisory Committee to review the GAC's role within ICANN, so as to facilitate effective consideration of GAC advice. And my only question is -- and I guess it's a suggestion -- that with respect to the GAC's role within ICANN, that is an area, I think, that it would be appropriate to seek community input on, to the extent that you are changing or, you know, adding new mechanisms or whatever it is. I mean, I think frankly it would be very -- it would be very helpful for the community and for GAC to -- for the community to discuss this with GAC directly, not just ICANN. And I guess that's my -- the thought, and I sort of took away from the meeting yesterday with the GAC meeting with the board that at least some members of the GAC were willing and open to that kind of interaction. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I think there's no problem at all with the concept of community consultation in that proposal. Janis, did you want to add to that? >>JANIS KARKLINS: Just a small note. GAC, since two meetings, are working completely with open doors. So everybody can come in and listen what we're doing, so that is also one of the elements of -- or a safeguard against capture of ICANN by the GAC, so we are not any more secret. >>BECKY BURR: And we appreciate that very much. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. Next. Ayesha. Sorry. You were first. And then -- >>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you. Just a brief comment. ICC members -- Ayesha Hassan from the International Chamber of Commerce. We've been actively watching the evolution -- [audio cutting in and out] -- and contributing to it and it is very important, the transition and improving institutional confidences, very important to our members. Many of my members are around the room and they know that I -- we have not developed comments in time for this discussion today, but we will be discussing what we can do to -- [audio cutting in and out] -- in the future. I would say that one of the items that I think could be detailed further in this section is how to put in place a predictable time line for the materials that are produced. I know that there's an enormous amount of work going on, fully appreciate all the different committees and the staff and the communities constraints in putting these documents out, but I think it -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Excuse me. Ayesha a. Just -- and this is a comment for everybody. Can you speak more directly into the microphone? There seems to have been a few of not -- they cut out, and then the translators, the interpreters get left behind. >>AYESHA HASSAN: Sorry. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>AYESHA HASSAN: I think in the Section 2.5, if perhaps in the next iteration we can think about some more structured time-oriented recommendations, that would be helpful to improving participation, and contributions, as well as accountability. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks for that. Bill. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks for that, Peter. Bill Graham, ISOC staff. ISOC's got an overarching interest in this process, I think, and I'd just like to bring that out explicitly here. We feel there needs to be a very high-level awareness that ICANN's management of the DNS is a stewardship over a global public resource in the public interest. And we feel that really an overwhelming obligation in future is to make sure that the direction of the organization is consistent with that. So my specific comment here sort of overlaps between the recommendations on capture and the recommendations on accountability. To be very frank, we hear from a number of our -- of people in our membership and from others during the ICANN meetings that there's a feeling that not all constituencies and not all parts of the organization have an equal amount of skin in the game, if I can put it that way, or have an equal influence over the decisions that are taken here. And to be even more specific, we feel that the registrar and registry communities are too strong in this organization when they stand to gain financially in a very dramatic and direct way from the decisions of ICANN. And I don't see that specific concern addressed particularly well in this document. We did raise this in a couple of previous written comments and orally in some of -- in one of the oral consultations that the PSC held, so I would just like to raise that again here because I do think that there's a significant part of the ICANN community that does feel work needs to be done there. So I just wanted to bring it forward. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bill, I take the point. I just can tell you there is a paragraph -- and I'm not -- I think YRJO may be looking for it, that talks about the risk of being -- of captured by -- thank you, YRJO. That's quite a different point I'll come to. There is a paragraph in terms of the risk of dependency on a single source of income and I think some of the discussion around that was about the purchase of influence point that I think you all -- that you're talking about. Now, let me -- Yrjo has referred to Paragraph 0.10 which is the PSC also recognizes the very clear message that ICANN needs to strengthen its relationships with all communities and constituencies that 10 years were still growing in their dependence. So I think we can -- you know, the discussion before that was recorded was a reference to the at-large community, for example, which we're only just now starting to see in reasonably sort of choate form and the summit is perhaps the highlight of that. And Paul you've got an additional point. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Sorry. Bill, I think the other thing that we were conscious of was the GNSO review and implementation process where other constituencies and the [inaudible] of other constituencies and the setting up of working groups was in a new -- going through a process now. So I think we did certainly listen to the ISOC proposals on this. They weren't ignored at all. But I think there were certainly discussion in the committee about whether those issues were being addressed or we needed to review how those issues were going to emerge out of the GNSO Council review. I think that's one of the reasons why it's explicitly it's written by a recommendation or one of the reasons it's explicitly written as a recommendation out of this committee. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: -- back and then we'll come to Steve. Bertrand, were you up? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: (Speaker is off microphone). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let's hear from mark. >>MARK McFADDEN: Okay. Very short. Mark McFadden again. This is on recommendation 2.5.1. One of the recommendations that we heard earlier in the week that I think was extremely valuable and should be reflected in this report deals with executive summaries. One of the barriers for participation for many people is the fact that English is not their first language, as it probably isn't in my case. And one of the things that would be very valuable for substantive documents is to have the executive summaries translated. This limits the cost to ICANN, and actually makes in policy development, in consideration of documents, much more available and transparent to the community, and lowers the cost to ICANN because you don't get into the business of having to translate entire large documents. When I think of, for instance, the WHOIS debate, translating that would have been a severe burden on ICANN. But if we can simply translate just the executive summaries, which I think the PSC -- I think this is a very good recommendation -- then what we do is we have the opportunity to engage a much larger community. So my recommendation to the PSC here in 2.5.1 is to keep this very good thought of having executive summaries, but also to use that as a vehicle to reach out into communities for whom English is not their first language. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mark. Let's come back to Steve and then Bertrand and then if we can move off this and we'll go on to the next recommendation. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Thank you. Steve DelBianco with Netchoice. Item 2.9 is the notion of an extraordinary mechanism, which is to fire the whole board. As much as you might like a vacation, I don't think that anybody sees this as a serious accountability mechanism at all. Most of us said so in the comments that were filed, so I was surprised to see that it's even in the PSC report. I mean, it takes up some space, but we shouldn't believe that it's actually adding weight to the report. We need to put in place of that to start to delineate some of the creative new ways we want to explore of creating these new accountability mechanisms, and I know Becky Burr mentioned this earlier in her comment but I would be anxious to know whether the PSC members had other ideas that just didn't make their way into the report and will there be an opportunity for those ideas then to bubble into the experts group or the staff work. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm going to push back on your suggestion that there are a large number of people who believe is that this is an important mechanism and -- (interruption in scribing) >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We were talking about the future of ICANN and the Chairman of that constituency summed up as the most important point in his view that need to be done was the mechanism for removing the board. So there are serious people out there who seriously think that a mechanism -- as extraordinary as it has to be, needs to be part of the mechanisms. That is not to say they don't support the other mechanisms. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: I'm wondering if we slighted the community in not noting our recognition of the risk that undertaking such an extraordinary mechanism would create if we didn't have a fail-safe set of stakeholders while we reconstituted the board. And if we perhaps -- perhaps that's one of the areas, Peter, that didn't come across to our readers. It was part of our discussion and so I would just want to note that -- believe me, as a PSC member and someone who has been in the commercial sector and the non-governmental sector, I did wonder when we first started talking about this, about who was going to pay the light bill if we let the board go home. But maybe the feedback that we need to hear from you since you called it "extraordinary," what are your extraordinary mechanisms to run the organization while you are replacing the board? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, I don't want to take up much time on this. But the committee discussed a number of solutions, for example, such as having -- saving an executive committee or saving a life-boat- kind-of committee that would, in fact, not be sacked but whose powers during the term of the interregnum were severely proscribed so that all they had to do was to keep the ship afloat and their first priority would be, then, to conduct elections to reinstate the board. There are a number of ways of thinking about this so that we would get through what obviously would be a very difficult process. I think it is quite clear that everyone thinks this is going to be the absolute ultimate atom bomb at the very end of having everything else fail, including votes of no confidence and applications to remove and various other things. If everything else failed, there ought to be this other mechanism. Nobody thinks it will be easily invoked or frequently used. Yes. We obviously talked about -- we took 15 minutes to get ourselves going with the technical difficulties. We don't have to get out of this room for another half-hour. So my suggestion, if you have the time, would be that we continue running for a further 20 minutes and that would leave us time to remove ourselves and be ready for the next meeting in which, Jean-Jacques, you might be involved in. We will carry on until ten to. Any further comments with these set of recommendations? Bertrand? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: First thing is the prevention of capture and the accountability and transparency are incredibly closely linked, and they are incredibly closely linked with one fundamental element, which is the working methods. And, fundamentally, the policy development process is one of the major components. So I would strongly encourage that whenever we address the measures in the future, those two parts, the one and the -- if I remember, (inaudible), the correct naming -- sorry -- are considered together. Second point, in respect to what Raimundo was saying, the term "cross- participation" is a bit fuzzy and it is still in this notion of PDP. I would suggest that you could use the expression community-wide issue- based interaction in general because this is very positive. Very concretely on 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.5, rather than "summary" have "progress reports." Something that says, as I mentioned in the SIC session, four parts, what was the status at the previous stage? What is the progress that has been made at the current stage? What are the three or four issues carefully worded that are to be addressed in the next stage? And, four, what is the next step of the process? And this would go along the notion that only this could be formally translated -- (inaudible) -- so people can quickly get into it. 2.8, board reconsideration decision, it is fine. It should be taken into account at every step of the process. Appeals mechanisms are required in the course of the PDP more generally, not only the board. This applies, of course, to the notion that the (inaudible) option is not the only option. Finally, I would highlight the importance of articulating the work you're doing with the other current ongoing processes: The PDP reform within the PPSC group of the GNSO reform; the two board committees that you have, the one on participation and the one on structural modifications. All these elements are actually interacting with one another. So articulating them is important. And just to finish on the New York-Geneva because I didn't have the (inaudible), I would strongly recommend at least one thing. The board, one or two board members present at every IGF consultations in Geneva to set up maybe just a side presentation to explain where you are and what is the current status. By the way, it would increase awareness of the upcoming ICANN meetings and bring new people. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Merci, Bertrand, for all those useful suggestions. I would like to move on unless someone has a burning urge to contribute on this one to the next set which was the internationalization round introduced by Jean-Jacques. This is calling for review of translation and interpretation policies and expenditure, improving participation by extending outreach, maintaining headquarters in the United States and beginning to investigate the creation of an international body having regard to the development of this new area of the law that's starting to recognize international not-for-profits. Becky? >>BECKY BURR: Thanks. I want to say, first of all, I think that this draft of the recommendations is a significant improvement over previous drafts, and I thank you for that. I understand the interest in exploring international non-U.S.-based alternatives for those situations where you have a need for contracting or something like that. My one question is it seems to me that there is a significant risk of having the same kinds of contracts subject to two different kinds of law and particularly in the registry and registrar area but in other areas. I have a great deal of concern, and I would certainly say that setting up two separate bodies of applicable law should be something that you resort to in the last -- the response of last resort. Otherwise, the risk of creating very unanticipated differences in the way policies are enforced seems to me to be almost inevitable. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: A quick reply from Paul, and then we'll come to Janis. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Becky. I think your point is very well made. Two observations, these are the sort of the reasons where we do actually have to explore. That's why the recommendation is only just to explore and then come back and learn. And we are very conscious of that risk that you point out. I would make the observation that we already have a number -- the vast majority of our contracts are actually under Californian law, but we have a number of registry contracts that are not. I should take that back. We have a number of agreements that are not -- not registry contracts but a number of agreements that are not. But we've been confronted with this problem in the past. We are very conscious of this issue, and we have to explore it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Becky, just to add the obvious, what we have to work through is where does the policy get -- we are talking about ICANN policy being made and then transferred into this new organization. Is it going to be binding in the same way? Is there going to be forum shopping between participants who might be able to avail themselves of the different legal systems? We are live to these problems, and that's why the recommendation is let's have a look at this. >>BECKY BURR: I think that's great. (inaudible) -- in the final report that those issues are of concern and on the table so that in the passage of time, we won't take this as an endorsement of moving without thinking. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And, Janis, and then we will come down the table. Janis? >>JANIS KARKLINS: The things I will say now are completely out of -- (inaudible). (Non-English language on audio). And it is just a reality there will be opening of IDNs. We may expect IDNs -- registries in China, India, everywhere. And operations will become really global. There is a well-established model of global operations in for-profits -- for-profit corporations. And I don't know whether the experience may be drawn from for-profit multinational corporations, their operational model where they set subsidiary in country. They operate through its subsidiary under the law of that country where subsidiary is set and so on. Again, I don't know if that is relevant to this. But I think that model exists, and it works. And we need just to look how that could be applied to ICANN activities. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Janis. Can I use that as a segue to reinforce why we've suggested we should explore this particular type of law. For-profit -- lawyers in the room will forgive me, but the law generally tends to lag behind social, political, economic cutting-edge reality. When it comes to for-profits organizations that are multinationals, they have been well-established now for several hundred years. And the legal systems have well adapted to allow both the labor law issues, very importantly the subsidiary issues, and the issues of how you do taxation, all those issues have been worked out very well for multinationals in for-profits. When you look at not-for-profit law, it has not followed that model. It still tends to follow an expectation that a not-for-profit is a domestically focused entity. When we reviewed the law in 18 countries, was part of the earlier work. What you found is if you are in France, you have to have a foundation. You have to have members in the foundation. You have got to nominate who the particular councillors are. If you are in the United Kingdom, you have to have a trust. In the United States, you have this not-for-profit public benefit corporation. So it is all different. That's one of the reasons why we do have presences in Australia and in Belgium which do allow registration of foreign corporation, which is exactly the same thing as a subsidiary. It is a registered foreign corporation. That's how we are actually able to operate in those two places. But when we did the review, this is where we uncovered this international not-for-profit emerging for the first time in these two countries in the last two years. So your point is well-made. We have done an extensive review of that, and I'm just reporting that not-for- profits don't have the same length of experience to achieve that sort of outcome. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We didn't seriously consider recommending converting ICANN into a for-profit corporation to take advantage of that law. I've got somebody down the middle here. I'm sorry. I don't know your name. >> Hi, Chris Martin with the U.S. Council for International Business. I would just like to echo Becky Burr's -- both her comments on the helpfulness of the details provided here as well as expand on some of the concerns that I saw from initially looking over it. She mentioned the legal accountability aspects which, I think, are very real and it is great to hear that these things are on the plate to be looked at further in this review. Some of the other threats that I -- risks that I saw from this included not just legal accountability but also accountability to stakeholders. There's discussion about this creation of a separate board within a foundational structure in either Belgium or Switzerland. So how would that board be -- or that board be accountable to stakeholders within the ICANN community? A second threat was -- it kind of builds on that -- there is discussion about regional policy development. So how would that impact the global PDP process that we've worked so hard and continue to work so hard to improve here? And then, lastly, I saw the threat -- the potential threat from some of the very general language around establishment of discussions and forming direct relationships with intergovernmental organizations. I imagine that the sentiments of a number of my members will be, "What does that mean exactly"? And perhaps be more explicit about what that means in writing would be helpful. And I think there's some concern that this may lead as a back doorway to opening up new types of relationships with other international governmental organizations such as the ITU or the U.N. or what types of -- what does this really mean? That type of clarity would be really helpful. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Certainly not our intention of having regional policies on matters relating to anything where there are -- what we think of as ordinary ICANN policy. Can you take me to the place in the report -- maybe not immediately but come back to you. I'm sure you will find they're very different policies. Then I had Ron Andruff and then back to Becky. >> Thank you, Chairman. Ron Andruff, RNA Partners, member of the business constituency but speaking on a personal capacity. It was a good lead-in that just came from the last speaker with regard to policy development. I just wondered what would that policy be and why would we need to develop policy outside of ICANN in another legal entity? First question. Second question is registry agreements and so forth, why would we need to sign those outside of the -- in another ICANN entity? What benefits would that bring? Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Again, Ron, we haven't clarified that. And that's part of "let's explore how this would work." But the general understanding that we had was that we would be continuing the existing policy creation mechanism and then transferring that to the new corporation, not duplicating the policy development process. But that's what we need to explore. >>RON ANDRUFF: The benefit of taking it to another place, there must be some logic behind that -- kind of exploring even that. What would be the benefit of taking it -- developing policy and putting it in another place? What's the benefit of that? That what I'm trying to understand. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: There may be none, and we would come back and report that. But just take, for example, the discussion we had in the GAC yesterday in relation to contracts in relation to IDN ccTLDs. Let's assume that we require contracts. But let's assume that there are, as there are, countries outside who will not sign contracts with U.S. corporation -- with California corporations. Now, if we create the policy, create the contract and then transfer that to the ICANN in the other country, that foreign country could then sign an identical contract with a corporation that it's happy with. There is a suggestion about a possible benefit that we think makes that worth exploring. Becky and then Stefano. >>BECKY BURR: I think the discussion that we were having yesterday with respect to the ccIDNs and another discussion with respect to the UPUs contractually come to mind. Janis is absolutely correct that the multinational corporate model is perfectly -- makes sense when you are talking about internal corporate issues, employees, H.R. policies, all of those things. And you are correct that there are some jurisdictions that will not permit ICANN -- one jurisdiction that would make it difficult for ICANN to sign contracts and jurisdictions that make it difficult for them to sign contracts with U.S. Those all make sense to me, but the point I would like to make is before we get too far down the road, let's not forget what kind of tools are already available to us. And I think that the conversation that I had -- number of conversations that I had around the UPU situation is a really important lesson to take away from this. The UPU was making a perfectly valid point that they can't be expected to sign up to a contract that imposes on them the obligation to violate the laws to which they are subject. I think that's true of any entity, by the way, but in our case, public international law, treaties under which they operate, all of those things. As it happens, there is a fix that has been used in ICANN registry agreements, which is a provision that says nothing in this contract shall be construed to require you to violate the laws of the jurisdiction under which you operate, and that can be expanded for the appropriate situation. That will not solve all of the problems. But to the extent that we have simple tools, let's make an inventory of them and try to use those first. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I think that's a very good point. Just for the record I say, I think we should be careful using the UPU example and make the point there has been six or seven offers of different types of ways of approaching the problem in the negotiations. We won't go through details now, but just don't use the UPU example necessarily, I think. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can we move to Stefano and then we will shift to the next set of recommendations. >>STEFANO TRUMPY: This 3.9 is international intent. That has enormous political importance for the future of ICANN and for the acceptance of the national scene. And then we have intention to further elaborate on this point. I would like to say something about what do you want to achieve, let's say, before incidents start from this -- the first question is what means, really, "second legal presence." What if one wants to sue ICANN? Who is responsible for that? And this is very important question. So I would like to know how you want to proceed. And we would be curious to see if there will be some specific presence. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Stefano, they're excellent questions. It's more than what the summary is. If you read the recommendations, it says quite clearly, it is to undertake fact-finding after discussions with the authorities. Thank you, Jean-Jacques. The purpose of information-gathering, hold initial discussions with authorities in the selected jurisdictions, and determine whether such jurisdictions would offer status that would confer the advantages described above and then only after such fact-gathering is completed should ICANN consider establishing this proposal. And that should be done with full public consultation. The first person who -- first of all, harvest as many of the questions as you have, as well as we have internal questions. And then it will be a starter discussion. Just so we find facts and report back what we've learned from the two jurisdictions as to how we're meeting those. The aim would be to try to have some of that reported back well before the Sydney meeting, certainly the facts, report back on the facts that we have found from the discussions. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bertrand, last, very quickly on this, please. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Actually, I promise I won't address the other issues. This is the last comment. The current formulation very nicely -- and especially the annex, which I am very grateful for -- addresses the limitations of the current system and proposed something that could remedy the situation. I think it is lacking the other dimension, which is the benefits of developing and expanding regional presences to serve the different community. It can be technical at first, and then grow into more support and more activities to serve the script communities. I think -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bertrand, I'm going to interrupt, because that's all -- there's a full program for developing regional offices and presences in the strategic plan and the operational -- >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: What I mean is that it would be good, because the title is "serving the needs of the global Internet community of the future," to have the two dimensions. Because the solution that is being explored here addresses a few issues, but it's not -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: You don't understand my point. This report is talking about things that are different. This isn't intended to encapture all the other things that ICANN is already doing in its strategic and other plans. Have a look at the strategic and other plans, though. That. We're not -- we (inaudible) five other regional presences. You and I can carry on with that, Bertrand. Is there anything about -- I suspect that the recommendations about being financially and operationally secure are probably less contentious or require less questioning. Excuse me Lesley. >>LESLEY COWLEY: Wouldn't wish to disappoint, because I have a financial hat, of course. I'd just like to pick up on section 4.6, which is about discussion of revenue growth and services. And as you just referred, actually, that also links, of course, to strat plan and ops plan. But we'd like to suggest that that could also usefully include discussion about prudent levels of reserves and emergency funds. Together with financial principles, I don't feel we've had a great deal of discussion about financial principles within ICANN, and that maybe the community would now be ready for that, particularly, for example, about best practice principles in terms of cost recovery. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I think it was probably, again, the same response I was making to Bertrand, that that -- I think the committee probably thought that was being sufficiently dealt with in terms of the strategic planning cycle and the preparation of the budget. And the finance committee itself has gone through a comprehensive proposal and reported back on the reserves policy, et cetera. So maybe it's a develop of what is making what is already going on visible. But we take your point and somewhere along the system, we'll make sure there is that discussion. >>PAUL TWOMEY: We're happy to take the feedback and pass it on to the relevant areas if we don't think it's firmly within the remit of the committee. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can we come, then, to the last one, we really must wrap up. The safe and stable operations relating to the unique identifiers. The recommendation's quite simple. Nothing on those? Excellent. If we'll -- Marilyn, thank you. Fancy having recommendations with no comments. >>MARILYN CADE: I'm just (off microphone). I'm just so disappointed that we haven't heard the following question, because some of you have asked us this question before. We have in the PSC suggested that ICANN should further define and strengthen its role in relation to security and stability, and some of you have said to us, "Tell us what that means." And I -- I would just say that, you know, I think that's something that we have talked about in the PSC, that we do think we probably need to be a little more detailed on. And I know that's an outstanding comment, Peter, that has come from some of the comments we've received before. So not hearing it from people, I'm surprised -- you know, I think we intended to say there would be more detail under this in the future. And maybe, Paul -- >>PAUL TWOMEY: That's a very good point, Marilyn. To share discussions that took place in the committee, the committee are aware of this, but to be clearer, some quite extensive documentation on ICANN's view and plan around security and stability and resiliency has been worked through. Greg Rattray has been leading that. He's been doing a lot of one-on-one consultation on an emerging plan with key parts of the community, and with board members. But that we expect that to be actually publicly released for public consultation between now and Sydney. So I suppose the committee was aware of that but we haven't made that clear. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you all for your attendance. We appreciate it greatly. The next step in this -- we're going to have to close it down. We'll have the usual facilities. I just want to answer -- perhaps, Paul, you want to just come back and close by dealing with Mark's question about what happens to the PSC in a few words. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Mark. This was a task piece of work of the President's Strategy Committee. The committee itself was set up actually in Vancouver, in the meeting in Vancouver, and has had -- it has had a purpose over a period of time. It's first purpose for the first two years was, essentially, to help address and be seen to be addressing some of the concerns that emerged in the World Summit on the Information Society from people who were outside ICANN and who were -- who had concerns. And if you'll remember, two of the key members of the committee were the two chairs of the -- Janis can remember, because Janis is one of them. The chairs -- what was your actual title? Chairs of the preparatory committee. So Adama Samassékou for the first one and Janis for the second. And that was sort of an international community consensus about ICANN. We've worked through that. Then we've had this more specific task. We've got a committee membership that has been working on that. We're not looking to change committee membership at the moment, but it doesn't mean that the committee just keeps working full time as a sort of standing -- It's going to be more tasked around specific themes that emerge where it's useful to have a harvesting of sort of an outside perspective. So that's the sort of intent. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The next step is this is going to the board and the board and I are going to take ownership of it. There will be some staff work started. Whether the board will ask the PSC to play any further role is really now up to the board. I'm sorry we haven't had time with those last couple of questions. There will be further opportunities. But we have to close the session so that the next session can start. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I think we should also say, Peter, that in the consultation -- and I think this idea of telephone consultations is very useful. During the consultation process, the committee itself was still paying attention to that consultation process. And I would think that in the consultation process, there will certainly be opportunity for potential -- we'll have to think about how do we handle potential amendment of recommendations. So we're actually -- you did mention this time issue here -- there's also another important issue. Some of the things that we're being asked, we're suggesting that need to happen, particularly these certain types of discussions we've pointed out, need to have board remit. This committee does not have the power to tell staff to go and do certain things. And although I can do it in terms of staff support for the committee, it is important -- it's an important governance issue for us. One of the reasons why it is coming to the board on Friday is, if we are -- if we are going to allocate staff and other resources for some exploration of issues, that really does have to have board buyoff and that's why we're in a little bit of a two-part each way. Thank you, members of the committee, for an excellent job. And thank you, people, for participating. I declare this meeting closed. [ Applause ]