ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, I think we might get started even though we have still got people joining and we expect people to join. Can I, first of all, say thank you very much to those of who are on the call and welcome to those who are listening to the streaming of this.

We have a number of mechanisms for direction today. One of those includes a public participation site, which is available to members of the public to actually participate in while listening to this telephone-based, if you'd like, town hall-type meeting.

That -- just to reiterate what the public participation site is -- it has been distributed fairly widely by Kieren McCarthy, the General Manager of the public participation -- that site is http://public.icann.org.

And on that particular site, when you pull it up, you will actually be able to see a link on the right-hand side to the President's Strategy Committee and that does allow people then to participate by making blog entries and others to be able to ask calls. That will be monitored throughout this town hall.

There has already been a series of -- a bit of a dialogue on that public participation site already and that comes to my next item, which is the agenda for this consultation is to focus on more feedback from the present draft paper that was released by the President's Strategy Committee last year with an aim towards the committee finalizing that paper for presentation at the Lisbon meeting.

And the draft recommendations were posted the end of November 2006. They have been available for some time for consultation. We took some feedback recommendations in the Sao Paulo meeting of ICANN and that we would like to take more public consultation before finalizing a paper for consideration by the board and community at Lisbon in March 2007.

So the purpose of today's call is to receive feedback on that draft. We will also take input on other issues which members of the public or members who are speaking may wish to put on an agenda for this committee to consider in the future. But we will just take those issues, I think, on note. We won't move to discussing them. I would like to keep the focus on the draft report.

And to that -- to that specific end, may I make the following comment already. Danny Younger has already made a posting on the public site drawing the committee's attention to a series of issues emerging, as he sees it, from the present difficulties with RegisterFly, a registrar that has got into difficulties.

As I have already indicated to Danny on that site, the committee will be not be speaking to the RegisterFly or the Registry Accreditation Agreement today. It is fine if people wish to put that on the agenda for the committee long-term, but I would make the following comment.

There is going to be a workshop on this issue at the ICANN Lisbon meeting and I expect to make a statement to the community about the RegisterFly situation and lessons learned and issues facing us during this week. And I've asked Danny, particularly, to make his input after that statement has been made and make opportunity for further contributions.

Certainly, all the issues around the RAA and RegisterFly experience need to be discussed fully by the ICANN community and there are some urgent things that need to be addressed there, but they are not specifically covered by the committee's report. So I would ask for the members of the community that are interested in that issue to take that up at another place, in particular, there will be opportunity on the ICANN blog and other places to respond to my statement during the week. And then we will have the specific workshop in Lisbon.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Paul, this is Steve here.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, Steve.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Rarely do we fly too far above the radar but in this week's new edition, U.S. edition of "Business Week," right near the end there is a whole page devoted to RegisterFly and you are actually quoted there.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: That's right. There is a general statement covering that.

Just to recap for the community, the members of this committee, myself and two co-chairs, Peter Dengate Thrush, a member of the board, is a co-chair; and until the recent Swedish elections, a co-chair was also Carl Bildt. Carl has been, after the elections, been appointed as the foreign minister for Sweden and has not participated in the committee's process since then, which is appropriate, I think.

Other members of the committee include Raimundo Beca, who is on this call from the board. Marilyn Cade is on the call. Vint Cerf is a member of the committee. His apologies, he is presently traveling. Art Coviello from RSA, Pierre Dandjinou, who I thought we were trying to get in contact with, Steve Goldstein, Janis Karklins, Adama Samassekou, who I think earlier also made some apologies about travel commitments today, and also Tom Niles, who has also been constrained by his agenda today. But nevertheless, those members of the committee who are not on the call at the moment will have the opportunity to and will be reviewing materials presented for finalization of the position.

There is a final introduction before we come to our first panel. I will indicate to the community at Lisbon the committee will both produce its report for consideration and will also be considering both amendments to the membership of the committee and also amendments to, if at all possible, looking at potential other topics that the community thinks would be valuable to consider -- the committee itself thinks would be valuable for itself to consider.

The committee's report at the last status of the report basically covered five main areas -- (Verizon interrupts) -- somebody is joining us, I think.

Can people sill hear me?

>> Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: There were some issues around the legal status of ICANN, its status and identity and its ability to be able to respond to a global environment. Also, some comments there about regional presence.

Also, there was some comments made about potential ways for looking at the issues of root zone management, in particular linkages to the United States government, some issues on capacity development and some observations about internal reviews, particularly on issues related to at-large but not limited to that.

We have today three panels who will be first giving us some responses as well as taking the comments. The first panel, which is scheduled for the next 45 minutes, was to consist of Chris Disspain, the chair of the ccNSO and the Chief Executive of auDA, the domain name administrator for dot au. Unfortunately, Chris is ill and will not be participating.

The second participant is to be Erika Mann from the European parliament, the European Internet Foundation. Erika, are you on the call?

>> MARC FRIEDMAN: Paul, it is Marc. They are dialing out to Erika right now. She was having difficulty getting through.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Marc.

And the third member of the panel is Margarita Valdes from the Chilean country code operator and also member of the executive and board of LACTLD.

The second panel which will then be, in UTC time, from 2:00 to 2:45 is --

>> THERESA SWINEHART: I'm sorry, Paul, if I can just interrupt briefly. Because of some additions at the last minute, Kurt Einzinger from Euro Ispa has also been put on the first panel.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Oh, good. Thanks for that.

>> THERESA SWINEHART: My apologies for not getting that to you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sorry, Kurt, I didn't mean to --

>>KURT EINZINGER: No problem.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: -- damn you not by faint praise but no praise at all. Euro Ispa - that's good.

Second panel will be Adiel Akplogan from AfriNIC, Pierre Ouedraogo from Francophonie, and Pierre is on the call, and Chuck Gomes from VeriSign, who is also on the call. That panel will go for 45 minutes.

And then for the final 45-minute panel, we are expecting Robert Guerra from Privaterra, Jovan Kurbalija -- Sorry, Jovan, I always mispronounce your surname -- from the DiploFoundation.

>>VERIZON: Excuse me, Erika Mann now joins.

>>ERIKA MANN: Hello. Erika Mann on the phone. Hi. Bye. Who is on the phone?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: It's Paul Twomey, Erika, and we have quite a few people here.

>>>>ERIKA MANN: Hi, Paul.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Who are on the call. We have quite a few people who are on the call. Let me just come to you for the sake of we are just finishing the agenda.

Can I just confirm, Theresa, is there anybody else on panel three?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Yes. There is Werner Staub from CORE, and Mark McFadden had confirmed late yesterday so we have put him on panel three. We are just waiting to get him the final dial-out information.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Was Jon Nevett participating on these panels?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Yes, he is on panel two.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: So it is Mark and who else on panel three?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: I'm sorry. Panel three is Robert, Jovan, Werner Staub and Mark McFadden. Panel two is Adiel, Jonathon Nevett and Chuck Gomes. And depending on how much panel one puts go over, we had put Erika Mann, Margarita Valdes, Pierre and Kurt and we will need to see if -- how long panel one goes, if we need to adjust somebody to the second panel.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I had Pierre in panel two. You say Pierre is in panel one?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Obviously, ladies and gentlemen, my agenda is one 24-hour plane trip out of date so my apologies for that.

Let us move forward. And, Erika, you’ve just come on so I might ask you to speak first.

Just to remind you, the purpose of the panels and discussion today is to get comment on a draft report that this committee has had out since November with a mind towards completing that piece of work for our meeting in Lisbon next week and also to get any views from people on the panels or in public participation about other issues that people think are important that this committee should be considering for future potential research and thought.

Erika, perhaps, then I will ask you to speak if you are ready.

>>ERIKA MANN: I'm happy to go ahead and start because as far as I understand what you want to do is to -- I mean, to identify and to be more clear about strategic plan, the strategic planning process and so the issues I like to talk about is -- Paul, are you still there?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, I am.

>>ERIKA MANN: Paul, are you still there?

What I would love to concentrate on more are the strategic issues because I think what is important is to understand the global character and the way ICANN operates. It is both connected to the global context and, of course, it is international by definition. But, of course, what is a lot of concern for some people and for a lot of debate and what I find in the draft of the President's Strategy Committee report as well is obviously questions, of course, how this can be connected and related to the legal identity.

And what I think is important, of course, may be to do some search and to understand how the future of a global structure is needed and on the other side how this can relate to a legal identity which is based in one country and, more specifically, like in the case of ICANN in California.

Now, I think personally this is not conflictual but it needs to be explained. What I would recommend is to do and to explain it in a much deeper way so it is better understood because whatever one will do in the future, whatever kind of legal entity one will choose or one will look for, there will always be a place needed.

There is always a connection to a specific nation state. That is the only way we are in the moment capable obviously of bridging the connection between a global institution, a global entity, even a private international organization. This is what you are referring in your document, still need a legal entity.

The other way which would be possible is to take it outside on to -- on a cruise, but I don't think this is something people would enjoy and are looking for. So this is, I think, the core of the question, and I think what one should do to make sure to make sure the structure which is related and the integrity of the Internet environment should be on one side connected to its global character and to the core issues which are related to the Internet and core values which are stability and security, international standards and openness.

But on the other side, it needs to be connected to the question of a legal identity which I personally would argue the place it is based at the moment in California should be -- this should be explained much better than how this is the ideal place to a large degree for the Internet environment. I hope this is understood what I said.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think that's very useful. Do members of the committee have any questions of Erika?

>>ERIKA MANN: Just to explain, I looked into some environments, how in the past those kind of those issues were solved and maybe one should look back in the history because it is not the first time we are discussing this, you know? How nation states fought in the past and the history about choosing a nation state, choosing a single place and at the same time making it as an international standard on international environment or however you want to call it. I'm sorry, I can't find the right notion for this.

I think maybe that's what one should do. And you need an international agreement, and you need to have a mission statement, which you already have, but a mission statement which is agreed by all the countries involved worldwide. And I think maybe this is something that one can -- it would be possible to accept --

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it is Marilyn.

>>ERIKA MANN: Hi, Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE: Hi, Erika. I do really appreciate the comments that you've made and particularly the need for what, I think, you were noting as education and awareness, not only to, first of all, make a deeper description that is understandable for the broader community as well as for governments about the proposed legal entity but then also to help to broaden the understanding of the recommendation and how it solves various questions, including the liability but also the accountability, et cetera.

I think those points are very helpful and informative to us to keep in mind.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, certainly. But, I mean, some of the concerns which I at least feel as a politician coming from the political and broader environment, it is obviously related to the concern, you know, that a single legal entity, you know, is involved. I always try to explain, look, this is not the first time in history that such kind of question was debated.

There are only two ways you can do. You either continue to regionalize and localize entities, which I'm against it, or you take a single entity -- legal entity and make it the focus, point of being, you know -- being regarded as like a kind of international legal entity. This isn't the first time one is doing this.

It is not easy, but I think those are only the two solutions probably which are available. And the rest is related to this. Because if there is no trust in the legal system, if there is no trust in the structure then, of course, many of the other questions which are related to it are, you know -- are coming up again and again and are debated again and again.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right.

>>ERIKA MANN: Clearly the security, stability, accountability, all those other concerns.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right.

>>ERIKA MANN: I'm not talking about the Department of Commerce at the moment. I am only talking about the legal place.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right, right.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: May I join? Janis Karklins here.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, Janis.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Erika, for your thoughts. I found them very interesting and very useful. Though we have discussed extensively this issue of legal entity, and we found out there are not that many examples to learn from because the nature of ICANN and the nature of Internet is such -- is different from any existing international structures and, therefore, we need to be creative and try to --

>>ERIKA MANN: Absolutely --

>>JANIS KARKLINS: -- discover completely new grounds.

>>ERIKA MANN: Absolutely.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: This is not always easy. And here we have to take into account that this is not just about governments or people involved. This is about multistakeholder corporations, and whatever decision we will try to adopt needs to be endorsed by all constituencies, not only governments, not only ICANN board but also ccNSO community, GNSO community.

>>ERIKA MANN: Certainly, yes. You want all of the communities, you want them all involved, yes. And on top of it, of course, there are the difficulties for government to understand and then to feel responsible to a large degree as well because quite often, I mean, legislation is related to decisions which need to be taken by governments so you want them to be involved as well and you want them to understand the international character of the Internet.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: And also government officials are trained on the basis of existing international law which --

>>ERIKA MANN: Definitely. Yes, and they think --

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Which provides sovereignty as absolute feature of the government.

>>ERIKA MANN: I do agree with you. They think, of course -- I know, of course, in national law and regional territories, certainly, yes.

Yes, this is the difficulty. But I think -- I mean, if you go back into the history of how the Internet developed and how it developed and it is now nearly a global -- it is a global tool that is used by everyone, I think you can always catch, of course, the understanding by the various community why on one side you want to have a single core philosophy of values. And on the other side you want to serve the various communities. I think the only question is how to make sure that those goals are met.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Paul, I need to apologize. I need to drop out now. I hope to join in 45 minutes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Janis. We appreciate that.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Are there other questions?

>>ERIKA MANN: Hello?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: Paul, is it you?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: It is. It's Paul, yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: Okay.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I just wanted to see if other members of the committee had further questions.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: Hello?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: This is Margarita from Chile – from LACTLD - I want to say something about the conversation we have. I think the challenge that we are trying to -- the goal that we are trying to achieve is how to reproduce in an organization something like the IGF. The IGF, the experience of the Internet Governance Forum was quite interesting from the point of view that you could see in that place and meeting how these communities are commonly -- work separately like the governments from inside and the other organizations from the other side but how they could understand what is the interests of the objectives of the communities and from the government; that we could show it is possible to work together and how to have the same point -- starting point to work everybody together.

I don't know -- I think -- my feeling is that maybe the international organization, a kind of NDO but international could be the solution. But my feeling is that this kind of work shows that it is possible to work together and it is possible to change the way of the governments, do the things and deal with the things and have a good communication with (inaudible). That's my point.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks.

>>ERIKA MANN: Paul, it is hard to understand, yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think Margarita was making the point that the Internet Governance Forum, you have many of the same -- or again multi-stakeholder grouping, that it operates in sort of an international context which, if I am right here, what you are saying, Margarita, it had some ways of making the model more acceptable. I didn't fully understand the ways you thought that was the case.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: Yeah, yeah, that's the idea. I don't know from the point of view of the law what kind of organization we need to have in the future. But the first show -- the first opportunity that I saw government and another organizations were together or discussing together was in the IGF. Our model that we like, in our case, my organization and dot cl likes is multi- stakeholder. How can we have an organization with this model?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I suppose the question, Margarita, is in what way do you think the present model does not have that?

>>ERIKA MANN: Look, I'm looking into it from a different point of view because I'm not so much concerned about the capabilities of government to understand. I mean, I think governments are quite capable of understanding it. On one side, they are facing difficulties, of course, because they operate in a national entity. I mean, they themselves have to make sure that whatever kind of legislation or whatever they are connecting to, it is based on their treaty environment -- on the national treaty environment.

On the other side, governments are used to operate in international environments. The question, of course, is -- and difficulty for the Internet and for ICANN is that there are governments and governments. There is not just a government with all the same understanding and working in the same legal framework or with the same core values. This is the difficulty we are facing.

But it's not for the Internet or for ICANN alone. It is for everyone who is operating on a global scale in a moment. Always the same difficulties with the governments.

Of course, with different philosophies, with different values, with different legal values involved and different treaty backgrounds, this is the difficulty.

So what I think one should do in the long-term, one should look back in history a little bit. I know this is boring sometimes, but it can be helpful and see how in the past we solved similar difficulties. Of course, it was different time in the past but I looked a little bit and saw the debate and discussion about what is called the coordinated universal time. There was a huge debate in history about it. How can one accept internationally a coordinated universal time?

What we are used to now was not the case in the past, and it was a difficult historical process. So why not learn from that experience?

There is -- in this case, you have a single place where, you know, time is given internationally and then accepted. And, of course, there are different communities involved. Less than is the case and less diverse is the case in the Internet environment but still...

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, that's a good point.

>>ERIKA MANN: There are many others. Measurements, I mean, look back. They were fighting like hell about it before they find internationally a solution. Again, an international community accept in the past a place which was not given -- I'm pretty sure scientists can argue against it. Once you agree on a place -- like in the case of -- I mean, California, why can California not become, let's say, the legal entity for the world on this issue? Why not? Why making things sometimes too complicated and looking for too diverse a pattern?

On the same side, of course, you want to have the Internet communities involved. Of course, you want to have the regional structures involved. Of course, you want to have all the nation states worldwide involved, but you want to have commitment to core values which are the core values like in time zones or in measurements which are somehow objective, which are reliable, which everybody can trust and which are -- give some security and stability for the Internet.

Too complicated?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: No, good.

>>ERIKA MANN: Paul.

[ Laughter ]

>>MARILYN CADE: This is Marilyn. I am quite enthused by the perspective you're laying out because I think, you know, part of what you're saying to us is start from our core values and assume we can get agreement and bring governments and other stakeholders into supporting where ICANN is but also what ICANN is.

>>ERIKA MANN: Exactly. Exactly. That is what I think would be important. And remember governments, it is not the first time one is fighting. Of course, times are changing but still it is not the first time one is fighting about a relevant issue internationally.

I mean, the new meridian, I look back into the history which was only accepted 1884. I mean, if you read the documents, it was an endless fight.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'm sorry, on what?

>>ERIKA MANN: The meridian.

>>MARILYN CADE: Ah, yes, right, uh-huh.

>>ERIKA MANN: That's another example like the universal time zone, just another example.

Yes, I think this is probably the -- it maybe not make easier, but I think it can somehow turn maybe the debate of finding a -- what I'm afraid of, you know, is to be -- that the structure and the solutions we are looking for are becoming too diverse.

What you want -- I think what the Internet community wants is to have on the Internet some kind of coherence, and coherence should be embedded in the value structures.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: When you say -- when you say the things are becoming too diverse, can you just illustrate that, illuminate that for me more?

>>ERIKA MANN: Paul, sorry?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sorry.

>>ERIKA MANN: Sometimes it is completely -- I can't hear a word.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: When you talked about things becoming more diverse, could you illustrate that more, illuminate that more for me? You said the risk of things becoming too diverse.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes. I mean, coming from a political environment, I mean, I'm afraid that sometimes some governments are expecting, you know, or are looking in setting either their own values which are related to the Internet or they are even their own -- even some of them are even looking in setting up their own systems. So what you then will have, if you imagine the future of the Internet 50 or 100 years ahead, I mean, if governments go such kind of route in creating something like an Internet environment which is connected to their national -- or to their nation state philosophy which is sometimes not even the -- community from a nation state as a whole or the society as a whole but sometimes maybe only a single government which is expressing this view.

Then I think what we will see -- we will not have the inclusiveness we find in the moment to a certain degree in the internet world. But it will be a fragmented world. I think this is not how the Internet can work and can function.

Then, of course, if you connect such a kind of Internet environment back to the role of ICANN, then, of course, probably -- I mean, it will be many competing ICANNs which, you know -- which we would then would see. This is certainly not helpful for the development of a secure and stable environment.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: So am I right in taking away from what you're saying is that one of the challenges that we -- that ICANN needs to ensure to address is to ensure that those core values and the way in which various stakeholders are engaged is done in a way which makes as much as possible globally accepted?

>>ERIKA MANN: Certainly. This is what I would see, yes, yes. I mean, practically it is expressed in all the aspects already pointed out in the document. I mean, much of it one can find in there.

I mean, you talk about the stability and the security and I would add the international character and the openness and this you need to translate into values, into a kind of mission statement. And then the question how this -- you know, ICANN should be framed if it should become a private international organization model or whatever kind of model it will be.

As long as it is connected to the values, those values coming from the core architecture what you need to have in place, I think as long as you connect is right, then you will serve the various communities as well because they will feel the trust being built up. That's the question at the moment. Do the various communities, do they have enough trust in the system?

But as long as -- as soon as you have the values established and the values are part of the architecture, then, of course, it can work.

If then you go -- I mean, for the values model, you are talking about -- arguing for an international arbitration panel or not, fine. As long as the core values and the core architecture overlap, I think this should be somehow a kind of automatic response which then should come.

>>KURT EINZINGER: Could I ask something? This is Kurt Einzinger speaking from EuroISPA.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Kurt, please, if you want to ask something as a member of the panel or if you want to make a further statement, please feel free to do so.

>>KURT EINZINGER: I can't contribute very much to the question of legal identity of the private international organization, but I would like to add about what Mrs. Mann said is also what is in discussion in Europe nowadays.

The Internet is more and more seen as a critical infrastructure, especially also under the light of the 9/11 and following terrorist attacks in Europe. We have a lot of discussion with policymakers and also on the European level about how to protect this kind of critical infrastructure.

And I'm afraid that this discussion will go on and will get stronger in the future and that governments will try to – what they think to make the Internet more secure, to get more involved in the administration of the Internet as well.

>>ERIKA MANN: That's certainly true. This is what I hear as well. Again, I would warn against it because, I mean, if you look at the attack on the 6th of February, 2007, the root server attack which was quite severe -- I am not certain if individual governments will be capable of preventing those kind of attacks because I think you need the international community to prevent this, which are already operating and which is already in place.

Certainly, much more needs to be done. I mean, this is more for experts to decide. But, of course, what would be helpful -- and I hope this is going on, that, of course, based on this attack, I mean, ICANN comes out and explains to government what the real issue is, where real attackers are obviously operating from, what is the purpose of the attack, who is behind it and finally what can be done against it.

But, again, I think if governments feel the trust related to ICANN, I think then they should respond probably in better fashion than some of them maybe are doing in the moment because it is not just -- I mean, it affects the whole of our society. It affects the whole of our economies if there is a breakdown. There should be some kind of, you know, positive response to it.

I don't know how it functions in the moment. I look through all the documents, so I don't know how the connection is. You are absolutely right.

But it is hard for me to in the moment see how the connection is between individual governments and things which need to be done to make sure the root servers are functioning. They are functioning within their own system at the moment. I am pretty sure governments can do something to prevent -- to be helpful once it's identified from where the attack is coming to go after the people which are finally causing the attack.

>>KURT EINZINGER: I completely agree with you. I just wanted to say we should be aware of what we are up to and how the discussion is going. If you look at the green book for critical infrastructure protection --

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes.

>>KURT EINZINGER: -- it is more and more -- the Internet and the information infrastructure will be taken into and governments have a tendency to always think that it is more secure if they have control, not if somebody else does.

>>ERIKA MANN: Certainly.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: This is Steve Goldstein. I'm doing my best to keep quiet because I am so new. I think there is a terrible danger of governments becoming too protective, and I think we know of at least one very large country in the world that is very, very protective of its Internet and I think much to the loss of its citizens.

>>MARILYN CADE: It is Marilyn. I just want to say, Kurt, I see exactly what you and Erika are seeing in governments, asking themselves the question of are they doing enough, should they do more in helping to what I might call hardening the Internet's infrastructure.

There is the question of can governments just be made aware of what the private sector is doing, both ICANN in its leadership ,in the role it plays but more broadly the tier ones, the ISPs, et cetera ,and can that develop a comfort zone but also the kind of public/private sharing of information that helps us all cooperate effectively and naturally when there is a threat to the infrastructure.

I think most of us are reluctant to think that it needs to be mandated by governments, but I do think that there is something about the information sharing, Erika --

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, certainly.

>>MARILYN CADE: But there is also question that we all face of what information do we provide, when do we provide it so that it doesn't help the bad guys but does help to improve the protection.

>>ERIKA MANN: Absolutely.

>>MARILYN CADE: Yeah.

>>ERIKA MANN: Absolutely. I couldn't agree more with you. But I think what is -- I mean, it is so hard for me to judge, you know, because I mean, following the debate in many member states in the European Union and in Europe, in Asia as well ,and looking into the debate of the various Internet communities, I think the overriding issue, as you know, again and again, is there enough trust in the management of ICANN?

And I think what we need to make sure -- what we obviously need to do again and again is to build the trust which is needed and the governments and politicians and all the communities to understand what ICANN is about and what can ICANN can deliver and what is the purpose.

Are you still there?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: Sometimes I don't hear. I'm sorry for asking.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Erika, it is Paul here.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, Paul.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Just to respond to what you said and also to what Kurt said, in my own case in the last two weeks, I have been heavily involved in discussion about Internet security with officials from two countries. It has taken very senior officials to where the whole debate, as Kurt pointed out, was sort of a command and control type of approach but where I think gradually there was an sort of an acceptance that there had to be -- if the Internet is more like a biological system, that you had to have the diversity of the biological defenses.

>>ERIKA MANN: I have to agree with you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Not just one type of defense. One of the things potentially this committee should consider, maybe even consider in its report, is, I think, from those conversations and from the things you're saying, one of the things that ICANN should be aware of is -- even within its own mandate or within its community, that there is certainly, I think, outside a growing expectation that there has to be a focus on a proactive focus on security.

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, if I might. It's Marilyn. As you know, I'm a big proponent -- I think there is the question of educating of people about what ICANN's role is but, also, perhaps helping to educate other parties in the value chain who depend on the DNS about how they may be contributing to -- or can contribute to improving the security of the Internet's unique identifiers, such as the members of EuroISPA and associated parties, Kurt.

>>ERIKA MANN: I think that's an excellent idea.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Potentially it might be -- perhaps we ought to just -- taking this conversation, maybe the members of the committee ought to further consider for the final report that we ought to have some reference there both to the sort of increased expectation of a modest stakeholder body. If we need a diverse approach to security, then at least for the (NITS ?) mandate, it will have to keep focusing on being creative about security concerns.

And then also part of that is that it can play a role in engaging others in the value chain about what they can do in terms of trying to help improve the security.

>>MARILYN CADE: I won't speak for Margarita but she might speak. Obviously, the ccTLDs and the ISPs and the tier ones are all critical players.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: May I pose a question to Erika, please? This is Steve.

>>ERIKA MANN: Hi, Steve.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: I have been listening very carefully to what you say. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. It is a very good message to transmit to ICANN at large. But my question really is when you talk about trust in ICANN and so forth, there may -- we can look at process, predictability and concreteness of process and then we can look at outcomes. In other words, decisions that are made.

Sometimes those are two different things. Sometimes they are separable; sometimes they're not. But we are on the board considering a couple very knotty difficulties. Some things that are confronting us are process, consistency of process versus the values that might be involved in making the decisions.

So if you're preparing any report, I would appreciate if you could talk about both of those issues in terms of trust. In other words, we may follow a process, the same process time after time after time and people can trust in the process and the predictability of the process.

Yet, by following that process, we may wind up making decisions which could be very unpopular and, therefore, strain the trust that would be placed in us. That's a very real issue now. So if you could give us some wisdom.

>>ERIKA MANN: That's a very interesting point. That's a fascinating point. Yes, I think you -- some of the conclusions you will have to take throughout the process, I mean, if you want to have a secure environment, it will probably be unpopular. But I think as long -- but that is a very naive point of view maybe looking at it.

As long as you can ensure that the whole architecture, the way you ensure that the system functions and what you are responsible for are done with certain values in mind.

The principal idea of keeping the Internet, you know, open and free and all the issues, you know, which we – the way we established the Internet which are still true, I think as long as you can explain this, I think the important communities will follow. It is hard to argue if everyone will follow and all the governments will follow. Certainly maybe not.

But as long as you can take the -- I mean, the important communities –

(beeping) VERIZON interrupts.

>>ERIKA MANN: Hello?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think there was an attempt to dial somebody else out so you can keep going, Erika.

>>ERIKA MANN: Okay.

This is the point where I think it is so important and maybe I am insisting too much, but I think it is important to explain that the legal entity, which is California, is a kind of focal and international -- or should become a kind of international core point. It is hard for me to express like it was done in the -- like it was done in the past with the time zone and with other zones, the meridian which was the same -- pretty much the same debate.

And nobody is in the moment questioning anymore Greenwich. They pretty much accept it. You know what I mean?

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Sure. Right now the board is faced with a couple of issues, right now at this very moment, in which process and values seem to suggest two different ways of coming -- two different decisions.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, I looked into this.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: This is a problem we are dealing with right now. I am just asking for any guidance that you may care to offer us along those lines, would be very helpful.

>>ERIKA MANN: If you could give me some time to think about it and to look through all the papers and documents again, I'm happy to do this.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Sure. All you need do is look at the things before the board right now which are public, and I think you will understand the dilemmas that we're facing.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yeah. I looked through all the documents which I can find on the Internet. If there is something else I should look at -- I think all the papers are published on the Internet.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: We can make certain to follow up on that, Erika. Just for managing of time --

>>VERIZON interrupts. Excuse me Mr. Friedman. I do apologize for the interruption, this is the operator. I did try to call Adiel. It is going through to voice mail currently.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you for that.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder -- if that's the case, we might ask Pierre if he minds being in the next panel.

But just to finalize this discussion, Kurt, I wonder if you have any further comments that you would like to make.

>>KURT EINZINGER: Not really actually. I am fairly new to the discussion so I'm afraid I can't contribute too much of it. We are a European body of ISP so we look very much on the whole discussion of the political and economic side.

And that's what I expressed before is we get the feeling that there will come more pressure from the political side on Internet governance because of the issues of critical infrastructure or services of general economic interest, different code names for it already.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. Can I ask Margarita, do you have further comments or anything else you want to say?

>>MARGARITA VALDES: Not really, Paul. Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Then, if I might thank the first panel, Erika Mann, Margarita Valdes and Kurt Einzinger, I think that was a very useful dialogue. I think there is additional things that we will take away for the report.

We might now move to the second panel. We are having difficulties contacting Adiel from AfriNIC. So while we continue that, I might ask Pierre Ouedraogo from Francophonie, if he may wish to speak first, and then after that will be Jonathon Nevett from Network Solutions and then Chuck Gomes from VeriSign.

Pierre, are you on line?

>>PIERRE OUEDRAOGO: Hello, Paul. I hope you hear me. I am in Bordeaux. I think the communication should be fine. I think I have two main points.

The first one will come under the umbrella of international organization of ICANN. I think this is something that is known as a problem that has been many times on the table -- on the different tables, during the WSIS and during also some organizations dealing with ICC. And it is important that in the document there has been two points of legal status and regional presence. And the two, I think, are tied together.

Because if you don't have the legal status that will help the government to trust in the entity as being fair to all the parties, it will be very difficult for them to accept and come back on wherever ICANN (beeping) (inaudible) that is competent to manage the Internet.

And on this point, I think that the work of Ambassador Corell is very important, and I think we have many solution. And I think the most simple would be to try to have a status that is close to some organization that already this status inside the United States, trying to look -- that we are going to find another headquarter for ICANN. I think this is going to be more complicated. I think it should solve with frame of solution. We need to have deeper exploration of the work done by Ambassador Corell.

And also to look at international, it is important for ICANN to be just like other international organizations (multiple speakers) (inaudible) because regional presence is becoming more and more important as a continuum. People are getting together to regional organization.

If we don't move regional, we will not have impact on the regional (inaudible). For example, in Africa now, you know that African Union Commission is basing its work on the five regions here. If you don't have some -- a body that can talk

>>VERIZON interrupts: (beeping)

(inaudible), you are missing something for the visibility for the presence, for bringing all of the input.

And for that, the steps that have been taken is very important. And, also, what you are doing for the Africa region.

The second point will be the capacity building. I feel that it has been motioned many times that Internet governance should be development oriented through most of the international meetings, which is at the IGF also. And capacity building is something that is very important for the least-developed countries and emphasis be done.

And I think ICANN is in good position to coordinate it as mentioned in the document, and this is something that will help increase participation and help some bad information that is circulating between the governments maybe in Africa where people know nothing and what they heard first is what they think.

And if there is a good capacity building program that will help them catch up and be active. This will be very important. And this goes also with regional presence because through regional presence, you can be aware of the events of the workshop, everything that is moving in the region and be timely where you should be to bring information to add some project for discussion.

For example, in Africa, we have what we call the African Network of (inaudible) that meet regularly every year. I remember that what I do in 2004 have been requested by ITU to present (inaudible) Internet Governance. Through this meeting, I had people from ICANN. I remember that Theresa and Anne-Rachel were there, and I think their presence was very important.

That meetings like that (inaudible) everywhere and ICANN should be present at all these areas because as somebody had mentioned before, the Internet is being seen by the government as critical and it will be more and more like that in the next coming years and it is important for ICANN to be present everywhere so it needs to have a developed presence.

That's, I think, the most important thing I wanted to say. Maybe I can take back the floor if there is any empty place to add more things.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Pierre. I would also like to welcome Adiel who has been contacted through the phone.

Before we come to Adiel, Pierre, may I just ask a simple question. You mentioned that the African Union has -- you talked about five regions. Could you just expand that further for us?

>>PIERRE OUEDRAOGO: Yes, in fact the African Union Commission is working with the five regional AfriNIC commissions. For example, for the ICT sector, the regulation for the telecommunication and the organization of all of legal framework around the ICTUs are made in the regional framework so it is very important to have somebody who can follow exactly what is going on.

Because in submitting, some of that information may be brought to people and help them to make the wrong decision. It is just because the right people were not at the right place.

Is it what you were expecting, the answer?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, that's good. Thank you for that.

>>PIERRE OUEDRAOGO: Okay.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Are there any questions from members of the committee for Pierre?

I wonder if we might ask Adiel, are you on the line?

Is Adiel there?

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Yes.

PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Adiel. Thank you.

The -- we have been -- Just to give you some introduction, this is an online town hall meeting that the committee is having, focusing particularly on its present draft report, which I think you've seen.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Yeah.

PAUL TWOMEY: And we're looking to receive feedback from people like yourself on particular items that are in that report or to hear from you any other priorities you think the committee should look at, potentially in this report or for future reports or future work. And we've just added a second panel.

Our first panel included Erika Mann from the European Parliament, Margarita Valdes from the Latin American country code top-level domain grouping, and Kurt Einzinger from the EuroISPA, the European ISP association.

The second panel of which you are a part includes Pierre Ouedraogo, who you know well, obviously, from Francophonie, who just spoke to us from Bordeaux; yourself; Jon Nevett from Network Solutions; and Chuck Gomes from VeriSign.

So we would be interested to hear your -- Adiel, are you coming in from South Africa?

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: No, I'm in Mauritius right now.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Oh, you are in Mauritius. Thank you.

We would be interested to hear your perspectives of things you think this committee should consider.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: I had several points to add, but my main -- not concern, but direction will be to look at the proximity. I mean to increase ICANN relationship with the community to have more -- more contact, to develop -- to deploy more relationship with local organization, and a different level. I mean, governmental, civil society, et cetera.

But that will allow to raise awareness, but to also have people feel part of the process.

So most of my comments will be around that.

I haven't heard the previous presentation from Pierre, but maybe I will say more later.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Perhaps you might, just you said talking about greater proximity to the community and more relationships, perhaps one thing I would be interested in hearing from you is, there has been in the past something of a view which says there are already existing regional organizations for country code operators, for Regional Internet Registries. There's no need for ICANN to be in that space because the existing regional organizations exist.

There are others who have said there is a, indeed, to have at least representation that can interact with those groups and others.

How do you, and perhaps if Margarita is still on the call, she might have a perspective on this as well, but how do you see that?

You sound like you are calling for more interaction, not less.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: I mean, we cannot (inaudible) that in several ways, but one of them will be to be kind of more inclusive by, one, facilitating the balance between the ccTLD community and the local policymaker. I mean, government, regulatory authority, and all of those. And try to play a facilitator role.

The dialogue is not always very easy and not straightforward in many countries in Africa.

So we -- We need to find the mechanisms to -- I mean, Internet Governance organizations like ICANN, and AfriNIC or others, to play a facilitator leading role in putting those people together.

And they have to see from our side a willingness to create that balance. To be close to them. To hear, to understand, the need to understand the specificity to have them build solution and build trusts among themselves.

And it's a role, I think, an organization like ICANN can and should be playing, helping people to talk to each other. Because that's the main issue. They have to talk to each other. They have to build that environment.

So I -- I will say doing more than having a meeting, but being more involved in bringing people together and having like roundtable or something like that around them, the specific issue.

And the issue may be different from region to region or country to country. So we need to identify the key issue and organize around it.

>>MARILYN CADE: And Paul, it's Marilyn. After Margarita speaks, I would like to ask Adiel a question.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Margarita, do you have any comments on that?

>>MARGARITA VALDES: No. Well, my idea was the same thing that my colleague understands. And not on this point.

I need many comments -- not many, some comments on the other points.

So I'm waiting for the point.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. Well, why don't I ask Marilyn to ask her question of Adiel. But if you've got any other observations that you want to make, why don't we give you that chance after Marilyn's question.

>>MARILYN CADE: And Margarita may want to comment on what I'm going to ask Adiel as well.

Adiel, it sounds like what you're encouraging is for the committee to think about how ICANN can play a strengthening, supporting, augmenting role to take the contacts that exist, perhaps, in a region or even in a country and bring them together and help to enable interaction around a topic.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Yes. I think it's for me, the first, the very first step toward I mean, any kind of fuller participation or building anything. Because my experience here shows that the main issue is because people don't either talk to the right person or either see ICANN as a very proud organization which is not very close to their need, close to their reality, or willing to help or to understand what is going on.

So I think we need to revert that image by playing a kind of facilitator role.

>>MARILYN CADE: But I am also hearing inherent in what you said, and I'd be interested both from you and both -- well, from you, Pierre, and from Margarita, it sounds like, though, that if I might say this, that there are some critical ingredients, so to speak, in regions already, such as the regional registries or the ISPs or the CCs that all need to be reached out to and brought into this, as well as reaching out to other parties who aren't yet involved and then trying to sustain the interaction. Would that be right?

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Yeah, that is right.

I mean, again, those institutions and those different parties already exist. But are they talking to each other?

>>MARILYN CADE: Right.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Are they interacting with the right people? That is the key issue.

And if you look at the history of the Internet in Africa, the Internet has been developed by private sector, by small company, by ISP which are not -- I mean, the telecom in many countries. And the dialogue between the policymaker and those company does not exist in most of the cases.

So we need to take them into account, but bringing them in kind of balance with the other.

More focus should be put on talking to each other, understanding each other's needs and each other's issues and try to work together toward a common and consensual solution and goal.

Because most of the party won't work together. They want to find a solution, but in most of the case, they don't have the environment or the platform which will allow them to talk together.

>>MARILYN CADE: Mm-hmm.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: I don't know if -- So we have to use the already-existing channel, like local ccTLD, the AFTLD, AfriNIC or any other local institution and use that channel to -- yeah, to create the link.

>>MARILYN CADE: Mm-hmm.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: And if you talk about the ccTLD locally, that's where a lot of job need to be done in collaboration with the AFTLD.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: Marilyn, in LACTLD we are thinking about how to have more presence of our respective governments from the ccTLDs in GAC meetings, for example. We're trying to connect them. We're trying to find the correct person to invite them. Probably we will not be able to or not the best connection with the government to do this kind of invitation.

But we're trying to find the correct governmental person to invite. And maybe in the future when we have the survey finished, we will need any kind of help to connect them and formally do an invitation for them and try to involve them in this process.

>>MARILYN CADE: Mm-hmm. Thank you, Margarita. That's -- I hear that sometimes myself when I talk to governments, that some of them are not sure which government agency should be involved.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: That's the point, right.

So we're trying to, from the point of view that my colleagues in LACTLD or with our connections in many governments that we have met in the ICANN meetings, for example, or, in my case, the excellent relationship that I have with my colleague (saying name) from the government, try to invite by him, try to find who is the person in charge of these issues in the respective governments and then try to have an approach with these people.

>>MARILYN CADE: Mm-hmm.

>>ERIKA MANN: There's maybe something else you should keep in mind. When I talk to people which are working with U.N. which are from the government, quite often, they are coming just from one department.

So the knowledge is not really, you know, part of the real government structures in various departments, but usually it's connected to one single department. And I think this you want to broaden as well, the knowledge.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: Yes, yes. But sometimes the policymaker, sometimes the technical department in the undersecretary of telecommunications or --

>>ERIKA MANN: Certainly.

>>MARGARITA VALDES: -- or whatever. Yes, yes.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: I'd like to just add to this, in the history of Internet development, it often occurred, and I imagine it still occurs, that if you are talking about a scarce resource or a revenue generator, there will be fights among all parties of government to see who can be the one to regulate it.

[ Laughter ]

>> Yes, absolutely

>> Yep, yep.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder if I might, just as the chair, see if we a might now move to -- we've had sort of an interesting, I think interesting, conversation around potentially developing country issues there. I'm wondering now if we might talk to Jon and Chuck, perhaps starting with Jon, if you've got any observations or comments that you would like to share.

Jon, are you there? Are you on mute?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Jon, it's Marc. Yeah, Jon has his phone on mute.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Jon, if you are hearing this, if you hit *6, it will come off mute. And if you are away getting a coffee, we'll turn to Chuck.

Chuck, are you there?

>>CHUCK GOMES: I am here, Paul.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I knew you were on *6 earlier.

Why don't we get you to lead off.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I would be happy to, and I've appreciated the discussion so far.

I think I would like --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Chuck, sorry, one question I have got before you start Chuck. You might want to say what hat you're wearing.

>>CHUCK GOMES: What hat I'm wearing. What hat do you want me to wear?

[ Laughter ]

>>PAUL TWOMEY: You only have the one VeriSign hat.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I think as ultrasound tell by my comments, I think it's probably a VeriSign hat and a registry hat, but some of my comments I think really are helpful in just personal observations over the years as I have been involved in this.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Oh, good.

>>CHUCK GOMES: So maybe multiple hats. Certainly if you want to ask that question again as I share some comments, please feel free.

Now, I will qualify that I have not had time, because of the short notice, to consult with the registry constituency on this. At the same time, I think the constituency has been really good about establishing some basic principles that registries as a whole support.

So it's pretty easy to communicate those.

First of all, with regard to the legal status and identity, I first of all want to say that I fully support the recommendation of the group for a private organization. I think that's really critical. And I believe that's very consistent with all of the gTLD registries in this, that that's very important going forward.

As ICANN explores that further as recommended in the report, it's really critical that we keep in mind the concern about impact on existing contracted parties. And that means registries and registrars and others who have contracts with ICANN and the idea of an international organization, that whole concept. And I know that's exploratory at this stage, but the predictability that is so critical for stability in the Internet, that needs to be kept in mind as models of organization are explored.

And I think that also ties in to the security issues that were talked about on the first panel.

So my suggestion there is just to keep in mind the impact in terms of contracted parties, because in many cases, the stability and even security of the Internet, which are certainly strategic goals, could be impacted depending on how existing contracts are impacted.

The second point I wanted to make is with regard to root zone management and transparency.

This is more of an observation, but having been involved when the relationship with Department of Commerce was first established with regard to the root zone, shortly after I think Department of Commerce took over from the National Science Foundation, when I read the following statement from the committee's report, talking about discontinuing auditing authorization for simple changes to the zone file, I couldn't help but smile and think back.

We actually recommended that. I say "we." At that time it was Network Solutions. And we actually recommended that for some of the changes in the root zone file that it need not go through the comprehensive approval process that is needed for more significant things like a change of delegee and so forth.

So I think that you're right on target there.

And just one -- To throw in one compliment here. With regard to the e-IANA and the IANA changes that you make at the end of that section of your report, in my personal opinion, I think we're in the area where in the last year to year and a half there have been remarkable and very commendable improvements in the IANA function and I know they are exploring the e-IANA function as well.

So I just -- I have -- I want to throw that compliment out.

I think the committee's recommendation is very sound there, and that this is one that acute progress has been made recently.

With regard to the capacity development, the committee's report says that we need better understanding of ICANN. And I'd just like to comment on that.

First of all, let me say that I think you're right on target, and I think it's definitely strategic and it's definitely probably going to go on forever, as new people get involved with the Internet and so forth.

It's very critical that that be a top focus of ICANN in its outreach around the world, and to discover new ways of doing that as new audiences come on board, et cetera.

In my opinion, too many stakeholders don't understand what ICANN's role and mission are, and consequently, they expect ICANN to be something that it was never intended to be. And also something that it may never be able to accomplish.

And so understanding ICANN's role will be a continuing challenge. And so I think the committee is on target in that regard.

Lastly, with regard to participation and role of stakeholders, the report calls attention to the LSE report and notes that the LSE spends considerable focus on representativeness of stakeholders.

And having been through the original development of the domain name Supporting Organization, through the GNSO and so forth, I personally believe that the committee -- that the LSE, excuse me, was right on target in identifying the issue of representativeness as a critical issue for ICANN going forward.

And that importance I don't think only app place to the GNSO in the case of the LSE report, but more broadly with all ICANN Supporting Organizations as well as the advisory committees.

So it's strategic in that regard.

And the committee makes a statement in that section that encourages the board to initiate and conclude the foreseen reviews of its Supporting Organizations.

My comment there, and I really suspect that the committee didn't use an overly restrictive definition of "reviews" but I think it's important to note it's not enough to complete reviews, if that's all that is meant by completing reviews.

If follow-up action in terms of implementing changes and improvements to the reviews are not done, then we haven't accomplished anything.

So I think it might be helpful if the committee made clear -- and I suspect that was your intent anyway -- that it's not enough to just review the Supporting Organizations and the advisory committee, but to then follow up with implementation plans to make improvements that will make the whole system better in the long run.

And a final comment in regard to this area is with regard to the Governmental Advisory Committee.

One of the advisory committees that ICANN has, and this, I am fully aware that the GAC is conscious of this issue and is working on it, and I encourage them in that regard. But I think a real issue of strategic importance, and as well, tactical importance, with regard to the Governmental Advisory Committee is the issue of timeliness of contributions to policy development processes that occur in the various Supporting Organizations.

The Internet is a dynamic medium, as we all know. It moves very fast, faster than most of us can keep up. And so it's very important going forward that the contributions, the advice of the GAC be synchronized with the fast-moving Internet, and in particular, the policy development processes within ICANN that are so critical to what we do.

And again, I know the GAC is working on this, but I think this is -- has strategic implications going forward. And so I encourage more work on this, and certainly will contribute however I can to come up with ways that we deal with the responsiveness of the GAC so that we can keep up with the Internet.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Chuck.

>>CHUCK GOMES: And that's all I have, Paul.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: That's good. Thanks for that.

That was good input.

I wonder if there are other members of the committee who have questions for Chuck before -- I understand that Jon Nevett is now back off mute, so before we go to Jon, I wonder if there are any other questions from what Chuck put forth.

>>MARILYN CADE: I just have one, Paul, and it references -- Chuck, I'm referencing the comment you made about representation, but I want to note that that section is actually participation and role of stakeholders and addresses representation and broad participation.

And I wanted to ask you a question about that, because you recently chaired a working group in the GNSO council. And of course one of the questions I think we're always trying to struggle with is how to have both, how to have representation, but also how to continue to broaden and deepen participation.

And that's been a good amount of conversation we've had earlier, broadening participation from other groups, from other regions, from other countries, different categories.

Are there any thoughts you might have about this issue of broadening and deepening participation?

>>CHUCK GOMES: Sure, Marilyn.

First of all, let me start with a qualifying statement. We're never going to fully achieve the ideal broad level of participation that we want, but we should continue to keep trying and exploring new ways of doing that.

But even when we don't succeed at getting the broadest level of participation that we would like, or maybe not getting input from particular stakeholder groups, it's important that we're at least clear in terms of the groups that are represented so that we know how representative or how unrepresentative they are. Not because their input is not important, but rather so that we can properly evaluate the level of support from the broader community that is there.

In the committee that you mentioned that I just chaired regarding reserve names that is needed for the new TLD process, we actually had a lot of new people participating. And I think that was really commendable.

Now, I have seen criticism from the outside that there were particular interests that were overly represented. Personally, I was not bothered by that fact as long as we're clear who they are representing, what their interests are so we know where they are coming from, and ultimately, then, we put forward the work that's done to the broader community for comment and so forth.

So I think that we can.

And one last comment in response to your question, Marilyn.

I think that we came across a method, at least for this working group, that may be extendible to other working groups throughout ICANN, and that is to divide the work up into smaller groups that allow greater participation by individuals where they feel more comfortable.

I suspect that that may be a way that we can get broader participation. As those that have been involved for a while, working groups are dominated by a few people because we are trying to do it all together.

And that may be a technique that will help us encourage more people to get more actively involved in processes if we use techniques like that.

You were on that group. What do you think about that?

>>MARILYN CADE: I think that's right.

I think, also, that that group and the IDN working group have offered the opportunity to, in particular, reach out to CCs and to people from other cultures and communities and make extra efforts to bring in people.

And I would be interested in Adiel and Margarita's comments about what it may take from ICANN and from all of us to make it easier. Maybe we can't spend a lot of time on that today, but I do think one of the things the committee has spoken about is that -- and ICANN is working really hard on this -- is making our materials less dense and easier to understand and putting them in layman's language so that as Adiel and Margarita and Pierre and others are helping to identify the opportunities to participate, there's also easy-to-use and understand information for people.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder if I might pick up there, Marilyn, and make the observation for the record that, for the members of the committee and also for those who are participating, that the One World Trust organization will be delivering a report at Lisbon or for Lisbon of their review of transparency, ICANN's transparency, I think with both a review and some recommendations for further amendment.

We will also see in Lisbon some presentation on changes to the ICANN Web site.

So I wanted to put that on the record, that work on transparency, we'll see more of that next week at Lisbon.

Can I make also an observation to what Chuck said earlier about critical to keep in mind the impact on contracted parties if there was any change in organizational or legal structure.

I might say, Chuck, I think even in the conversations last year by members of the committee, that was absolutely considered to be essential, and even to go one step further, it was also considered essential if there was a change --

>> Excuse me, Mark McFadden joins.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you. Is that there needs to be some form of -- also some form -- that there would be a mechanism also for third-party -- for those third parties who are hurt or feel they are going to be hurt by an action of ICANN to also have recourse.

So it's not just a question of stability of contracts and accountability mechanisms for those contracts, but also accountability mechanisms for third parties who might feel they have been affected by an action of ICANN.

Again, just as a personal observation, I have noted that other organizations sometimes deal with both the primary issue through arbitration and, as you know, that's where ICANN's contracts have also been moving. But secondly, also providing for some form of specialized arbitration body for it to look after those sort of third-party (inaudible) predominence.

Just to put that on the record.

>>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you.

VINT CERF: Are there other questions from members of the committee?

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Janis here. I'm back to the call and I wanted to thank Chuck for encouraging words towards GAC's efforts.

Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES: You're welcome.

I know you have a challenging task there.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder, then, if Jon is on the call.

>>JON NEVETT: I am, Paul. Can you hear me?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I can. Mark, you just joined us?

>>MARK McFADDEN: Yes, I'm here.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: For Mark McFadden, we're just finishing up a second panel, and we will be moving to the panel that of your part I would say in the next ten minutes.

>>MARK McFADDEN: Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: The other person saying hello is?

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: It's Adiel. I have maybe one comment or question?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sure.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Regarding the (inaudible) and especially the ongoing contingency planning.

I just want to know if there is or there will be any more public, maybe even if it's a very restricted consultation on the contingency planning. I mean, to involve some people from the technical community into the contingency planning.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think, Adiel, in discussions with the Regional Internet Registries, there has been some undertaking to talk to them about the community planning process. So I think that's an ongoing process at the moment.

So I think in that particular case, the answer is yes.

The contingency planning has not effectively been part of the committee's report but I think what you are talking about is ICANN's existing contingency plans. And potentially, I think there is some discussion, perhaps in the court, about contingencies being an issue to consider in any further transition. I think certainly it's an issue that would occur -- which would be an issue for any final transition from the Joint Partnership Agreement.

The -- But on the particular issue of technical input to the contingency, I know that we have been having one-on-one discussion -- discussions with the NRO and the RIR. There have been discussions with them on the specific contingency.

Is that --

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Okay. Because it's something that we interested in and also concerned about, about how we can contribute to the contingency plan. And there's some part of it which are directly linked to our activity, and we want to be involved in it.

So yeah, it will be (inaudible).

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you for that.

Jon Nevett, are you ready to --

>>JON NEVETT: Sure. And thanks for inviting me to join the panel.

I'm coming from a perspective, and this is again, Jon Nevett from Network Solutions, I'm coming from a perspective that the goals of the committee and the goals of us who are committed to the public/private partnership model that ICANN has successfully begun, the goals include strengthening --

>> Excuse me, Jovan Kurbalija now joins.

>>JON NEVETT: Strengthening ICANN's operations and strengthening ICANN's ability to reach full privatization as called for in the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Commerce and now the joint project agreement with the Department of Commerce.

So that's my perspective.

And the committee's report provides helpful comments on a number of issues. I am going to focus my comments on --

>> Hello?

>> Yes?

>> Hello.

>> Hello.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Is that Roberto?

>> Fine. Go ahead.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sorry, Jon Nevett. Please continue.

>>JON NEVETT: Thank you, Paul.

I am going to focus my comments on two of the areas that are addressed in the report.

First, the legal status of ICANN, and second, the internal review -- I guess three areas, participation, role of stakeholders.

As far as the legal status of ICANN goes, I'm intrigued by the concept and I'm happy to work with ICANN on examining other forms of corporate status, international status. And I think that's an intriguing concept.

I think there will be some unease, however, and some concern in the United States with that kind of change. And that's obviously understandable.

But through education and through discussions, perhaps that unease will be addressed by the process.

The other aspect that would ease the -- any concern would be some kind of addressing of the issues laid out in the most recent joint project agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce. And if you look at that agreement, the first item of concern relates to transparency and accountability.

And then if you look at the ICANN board's affirmation of responsibilities other than security and stability, the other two issues relate to transparency and accountability.

So I would also like to address what's not in the draft report from the committee. And that's any issue related to accountability and, for the most part, transparency.

Now, I would like to give credit to ICANN. In the last six months there has been a marked improvement in transparency that I have noticed, and so that's -- we're certainly on our way.

We have some more ground to make up, but I think we're on our way on transparency. And I know Paul is committed to that.

As far as accountability goes -- and I think it should work hand in hand with this change in legal status, there's got to be some change in the corporate accountability measures of ICANN.

Essentially, the ICANN board, in my opinion, lacks accountability to any entity. Essentially, if you look at the public participation site, there's an org chart of ICANN located on that site, and everything is pointing in to the board.

The ICANN board needs some kind of accountability measures. There's no right to appeal to shareholders like there are in U.S. corporate governance, for U.S. for-profit corporations. There's no right to appeal to members.

Essentially, a board decision cannot be appealed other than two mechanisms that are currently in existence. One is reconsideration, which is a reconsideration of the board being decided by the same board. And independent review, which is an independent review of a board action, which is only advisory and it's an advisory opinion directly to the same board that made the decision in the first place.

So I think there's got to be some corporate change to improve these accountability measures. Perhaps supermajority votes on issues or supermajority votes of some other third party to help improve the accountability and the perceived accountability of the board.

The other issue is obviously, from my perspective, is related to financial oversight and the lack of accountability in the current structure related to the ICANN budget.

Essentially, through the various contracts with registries and registrars, ICANN has pretty much a set level of funding coming in now, which there's definitely some positive -- positive impacts on ICANN.

The budget, as you know, has gone up from $8 million three or so years ago to over $30 million. In the same time frame, there's a Budget Advisory Group that hasn't met in 18 to 24 months.

So it's important to provide more accountability mechanisms for the ICANN budget and make sure that stakeholders participate in that budget oversight.

And again, as far as transparency, great strides in the last six or so months, and hopefully we'll continue on that road.

As far as some specific comments on transparency and as it relates to participation and role of stakeholders, the comments in the draft report seem to relate -- and also on the internal review, all relate to the review of Supporting Organizations and advisory committees.

But again, it's got to roll up to the board level as well, and we need to have a view of the board and its processes and effective involvement of all Internet stakeholders requires not only that comments be solicited but also that ICANN consider those comments as part of a transparent decision-making process.

So it's important to implement and comply with certain basic decision-making procedures and explain how and why decisions are made.

And we saw that, to some extent, in the dot com decision. There was a board statement that came with that, and we welcome more of that kind of activity.

And with that, I'll finish my comments. Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Jon. That's very good.

I wonder if I might lead off in the questions. Because I want to tease out some of the things that you have put forward.

Particularly, let's just start particularly on the accountability issue.

You talk about no right of appeal to shareholders or that sort of option available for U.S. corporates who are actually stockhold -- stock corporations held by shareholders.

There is a moment, of course, under the California companies code, a line of accountability to the California lieutenant general that legally ICANN, as a not for profit, as a not for profit public benefit corporation, is bound by.

But I suppose that area you have talked about is certainly an interesting one about accountability, and how does that -- it's an interesting issue of how does the accountability question issue then link with fiduciary obligations. And that's -- I think that this is a very interesting area that would need to be further explored in any sort of further exploration going forward.

I don't think the committee itself will get a chance, but sort of this overlap issue between fiduciary obligations of the board, methods of accountability to the community, as you put it, and then other methods of accountability that presently apply, at least, under, say, California legislation.

Similarly, when you talk about the two review mechanisms, reconsideration and independent review of the board, the latter one was not been utilized to date, in part because what tends to happen is players have gone to the courts. And so there's been this process where people have either been getting decisions of the board reviewed by the independent review of the board have tended to actually take court action.

And I suppose potentially, one of the things that the committee -- members of the committee have heard over a long period of time has been the actual moving to the courts at the time has been part of that pressure of whether that was an appropriate outcome for a stable international function.

So I think there is an interesting question there as well as are there other ways of bolstering those -- are there ways of bolstering the arbitration opportunities, both for the review of the board decisions but also this third-party one that we talked earlier.

>>JON NEVETT: If I may, Paul, on independent review, just to -- One thing you may want to address is the standard for independent review.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Right.

>>JON NEVETT: Because it's a very high bar right now. You have to show that ICANN actually violated its bylaws in its decision. So as someone, for example, who joined a number of folks who were opposed to the approval of the dot com agreement, we did not choose independent review, nor did we file suit for that matter.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: That's true.

>>JON NEVETT: We did not choose independent review because we didn't think ICANN violated its bylaws. We think it was a wrong decision on policy grounds, and a number of grounds. But it didn't violate its bylaws.

So we filed for reconsideration, as you know, but did not go the independent review road.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Can I ask another question, then.

Presently, the mix of the -- the mix of the ICANN board is -- I think I'll get this right -- six directly elected, one indirectly elected -- that is the president -- and then eight that are appointed by the NomCom.

If there was a change in that mix so that the majority of board members were elected by the community, would that -- would that address -- would that address your sort of concern about accountability of the board to the membership?

And for a whole series of complex reasons, including antitrust reasons, ICANN is not a membership organization. But -- you know, to the community.

>>JON NEVETT: Right. And that's an interesting idea to look at.

But I think the composition of the board is one issue. Board accountability -- and it doesn't necessarily have to be to a community. It doesn't have to necessarily be to shareholders. It has to be -- you would think and I would think that the board needs to be accountable to something or someone. And if you are looking hand in hand with moving the place of incorporation from California to somewhere else and not having ICANN accountable -- the ICANN board accountable to some entity or some group of entities, then there's certainly some unease with that development.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: But surely, let me just push back on that, surely a private company in the United States, the board members are accountable to the shareholders.

>>JON NEVETT: Correct.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: And to -- and to the law.

>>JON NEVETT: Correct.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Would you expect a higher standard than that for the ICANN board?

>>JON NEVETT: You can look at ICANN and compare it to -- and I think one of the other speakers mentioned how it's a relatively unique organization. So you are giving examples which are helpful, but not all apply 100 percent.

But if you look at non-profits in the United States, many are accountable -- the boards will be accountable to not only legal structures but also the memberships for those non-profits that have members.

And as you stated, that ICANN isn't a membership organization. But I think my point is, and I'm very flexible as to what that accountability measure -- how it would look like, and I'm eager to talk about it with the committee and others, but there should be some accountability, be it to shareholders, be it to some other third-party entity.

So I think that's -- it's just a call for discussion more than a specific recommendation at this point.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Right.

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn, I have a question for -- I have a question for Jon and maybe a comment for us as the committee.

Looking at page 1 of our report, we do make reference to several things that we tried to originally address. And that related to the legal framework, the policy-making process, administrative operations, transparency and accountability, and the continued stable growth and operation of the domain name system.

I'm just looking, then, through our report again, and I see that I had written a note to myself in my -- in the margin with sort of a placeholder for more discussion about both transparency and accountability.

And you've already made reference about the upcoming report that will be coming from the -- pardon me -- the One World Trust organization.

But perhaps what really is a question for all of us is if we assume that we are going to move to a private international organization based in California, is there still a set of questions related to what, then, are feasible accountability mechanisms that relate to and support the move to a private international organization model?

Since we haven't fleshed out that concept completely, and that's one of the things we talked about earlier, maybe one of the further work items that would be appropriate would be further dialogue about what would be effective accountability mechanisms related to such an entity.

>>ERIKA MANN: Can I make a comment?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: I think it will be -- the main difficulty you will find as we get to accountability and transparency is really involving the communities specifically, including governments. Because the main resistance or some of the main resistance concerning the model you are talking about is coming from some government.

So I think what you want to make sure is that accountability and transparency is specifically targeting governments.

Because those are the -- at least that's what I experience. That's where government and parliament, where some kind of resistance it's coming from, or a large degree of resistance. And I think because it's not well understood what ICANN is about.

>>MARILYN CADE: Erika, I'm sorry, it's Marilyn. meaning that the mechanisms also need to be understood and accepted or respected by governments, yeah?

>>ERIKA MANN: Respected, I would be careful. Certainly, yes, hopefully yes. But at least you want to make sure it's understood.

>>MARILYN CADE: Yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: And you are targeting them. I mean not in a military sense targeting but --

>>MARILYN CADE: Right. But I also think very much to Jon's point, I think targeting the other ICANN stakeholders who also have to buy into and support.

>>ERIKA MANN: Exactly.

>>MARILYN CADE: Yeah.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks for that.

I think, Jonathan, it's a very key point that you have raised, and I think you're right, that it's an area that we need further discussion.

It is a complex area, because there are balances, particularly balances as I said concerning fiduciary obligations, which I think are very important. Particularly for an ICANN board that turns over cyclically.

And secondly, I think there's a pretty important issue, then, also about the need to ensure there's no capture {?}, directly or indirectly, and I think that's one thing we have to be careful in any sort of accountable to members type issue, is indirect or direct capture problems.

But I'm not -- I'm not putting those words in your mouth. You are not arguing for that. But I think it's a good thing that needs to be further discussed.

Could I just make the observation, you talked about the reviews. The ICANN board at it's Sao Paulo meeting did actually bring out a review timetable which did include a review of the board itself.

So you had a criticism earlier that there needed to be review of more than just the SOs and the advisory committees. There is in the timetable, they are supposed to be starting very shortly review of the board itself.

>>JON NEVETT: Yes, that will be very welcome. Thanks.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: This is Adiel. Could I have a comment?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, Adiel.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: I saw in the discussion of the legal aspect in the legal stature and identity, there was a big emphasis on the ICANN board to explore the possibility of changing the stature of ICANN to an international private organization.

I will say it will be interesting also to look at the possibility of incorporating even outside the United States. I mean, this is a very political point here.

There is no versions of that in the commendation here, and I'm just curious why that approach is not taken.

And I think that having an organization, an international organization was just incorporated outside the United, it can keep inside the United States, kind of location or something like that, but having it incorporated outside America will cause several concern or several discussion about the status. And I'm wondering why that is not taken in the recommendation here and if there is something that you are investigating or possible or....

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn. I'm going to have to drop off in a few minutes.

Might I just make a comment about this topic before I drop off, and then --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sure.

>>MARILYN CADE: -- I'll catch up with others.

Adiel, I'll just give my personal opinion as a member of the committee, but as someone who is -- was helpful involved, as I think you know, in helping to create the structures and support in the U.S. that led to launching ICANN.

Jon may be able or Chuck may be able to make other commence, and Paul of course will and others will as well.

Building support for a change of that kind with the United States Congress is an extremely difficult task that I do not see possible at this time for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there's a historical issue, underpinning how many members of the U.S. Congress feel about the launch of the organization. That is, a sense of sponsorship or perhaps even proprietary interest or something of that nature.

But it just happens to be a reality that I don't see at this time really feasible to consider incorporating outside of the United States. Just from a political perspective.

>>ERIKA MANN: I would like to make a comment on this, if I can.

I don't want to go into details, but I would fully support this, and I think it's a pity that, from the European parliament point of view, we quite often have extensive discussions with our colleagues from Congress. But ICANN is always a quite sensitive issue and I wish one day it would be much easier to discuss it.

And so I hope you can (inaudible), with participating in the moment, you can make some progress on this issue because I think it would be more than helpful and good if you can have more common understanding there.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: It's Paul here. I think -- I think the various people talking here are reflect being the realities that ICANN is facing both inside the United States and outside the United States.

And the reality -- Those realities are a challenge to the sort of things that Erika said to us earlier about the ability to actually build international -- sort of full sort of support for the values and for the sort of international multistakeholder approach to managing these items.

I think -- The committee has in its report, and maybe we should think further (inaudible) this report, has put forward the need. It has referred to things as instances or options or possibilities. It's not put forward them as recommendations. And I think that's one of the things that we'll probably need to do some more work on, is options.

I think the trick will be, then, after that is to think what is going to be feasible, which also relates, I think, to the point Jon raised about accountability.

I do agree with Marilyn that I think the political realities are that there's an emphasis upon U.S. base. But I do think also we actually do need to think about -- probably a little less about specifically where people are incorporated and more what is important in the legal structure and accountabilities.

>> Yes, yeah.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think that has to be the focus. It's what we are trying to achieve. It's not the -- It's what we're trying to achieve, not the how, that's probably more significant.

Could I just raise one other thing, Jon?

You raised the issue of Budget Advisory Group, and I thought it specifically important for the accountability and funding. There has been a bottom-up operational plan process which built the budget in the last 12 months. And that crisis has gone through each one of the constituencies.

One could make the argument that that has it had a more participatory process than the Budget Advisory Group had previously. And certainly that process has been very open and transparent, with multiple opportunities for comments.

I think what you have been indicating is some comment upon the thing as a whole as opposed to the inputs from the various parts. Is that what you are saying?

>>JON NEVETT: Yeah, that's right, Paul.

You know, there's got to be some kind of partnership with the community stakeholders in providing budgetary oversight. Maybe it's working with the board finance committee and having other members join that or something like that, you know. And we can talk about other models.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: This is Steve Goldstein here.

I am a member of the board finance committee, and since I've joined the board, we've had about three meetings that I have been involved in.

We've also hired a new chief operations officer, Doug Brent, who seems to be exceedingly competent.

I've asked a number of questions of the budget preparers. For example, can we tie budget to the operational plan? Can we take a sector of the operational plan, like one of the goal areas, and say how much of our budget is actually being spent on that versus another thing versus another thing.

And the budgeting process is not yet in shape to be able to do that, regrettably. And they regret it.

I have another question I'd like to ask them. For example, how much of our budget is being spent on what you might call multistakeholderism as opposed to just core operations? For example, if we were just basically a mechanistic shop that did things mechanically with little care of multistakeholder input, and if you considered that just to be a core operation, how much would that cost? What would the budget for that be? And then how much more does it cost us to be able to operate in a multistakeholder environment?

I'm not making judgments here. Just trying to look at the numbers.

And again, unfortunately, the way that our budgeting is set up or has been set up in the past does not permit even addressing those questions. But our chief financial -- acting chief financial officer, Henrietta Bertlesman and Doug claim to be working furiously to be able to produce those figures, but it may take another three to six months before they can do it.

And I can assure you we on the board finance committee are every bit as anxious to be able to ask those questions as you might be.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Steve, it's Paul. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to respond to that. It may be because Doug is new, but the first point you talked about, projects, allocated operational planning versus business as usual, there's very clear data available in the operational plan documents on the Web site which allocate exactly how much money goes to that. It's, if memory serves me, $78.2 million. But I can certainly get you that data .I'm a bit surprised you got that feedback because that data has been posted for 12 months.

On the second item I can't make comment, although I would have thought the allocation would have been a question of going through each business unit's budget allocation and allocating what proportion of that is towards multistakeholder and towards operations. I would have thought that would be an easy task, to be truthful.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: I appreciate the response. It may be we are asking two different questions here. And the first part is, yes, I see that in the operational plan. We've got staff effort and travel and all the other expense which has been budgeted. It may be he was talking actual expenditures versus budget.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. I think what you are referring to is we have an historical top-level budget reporting description, which is not broken down the way you are saying.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: But there is further breakdown in other -- So I can sort of understand what you are saying because there has historically been since the beginning of ICANN a top-level budget reporting.

But if you -- which doesn't break it down the way you are saying. But there certainly has been reported the numbers of the things you are asking for.

So as I said, if you go to the operational plan on the Web site for the last year and you actually look to the bottom of that, you'll get a summation of the total cost of the operational plan projects.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. I appreciate that. Anyway, let's go on with other stuff.

>> Paul?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, sorry, is somebody speaking.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: This is Raimundo.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, Raimundo.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: As the chair of the finance committee, I have to add something to your comment.

The fact is that according to our bylaws, each May we have to present to the public the budget for the next fiscal year. And in this year, what we are trying to match at the finance committee is the budget presented on the 15th of May will be absolutely matched with the operational plan which will be discussed at Lisbon.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks for that. I wonder if we might move on to panel number three. We are a little late on that. Is Robert on the line?

>>ROBERT GUERRA: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: We have Robert here and Mark McFadden. So Robert, I wonder if we might ask, Robert, perhaps, you want to start.

>>ROBERT GUERRA: First, it's a good opportunity to speak with everyone and having listened to this from the beginning. I think my perspective will try to address a couple points that haven't been touched on, or as much, which were the ones on participation and capacity building. Those are two areas I'm kind of more engaged in. And picking up on a couple of the comments that have been mentioned earlier in regards to other organizations or structures like the IGF or the world summit, and how that could feed into this discussion.

So I'll try to be brief and make the points that I hope will lead into a discussion afterwards.

A couple speakers before have mentioned organizational structure and a couple of changes. And I think for anything, if there's a change or there's a revision to the structure, I think there's a couple key questions that I think should be asked. Do the existing structures in ICANN work for all the stakeholders? And how do they compare? Not only in the past, but for example, having been involved in the world summit process, there were kind of three main stakeholder groups: Business, governmental sectors, and basically everyone else that is not a governmental organization.

And to what extent could ICANN learn from that process and perhaps incorporate some of the mechanisms it had for engagement. I think maybe that would be a useful exercise.

Right now, anyone who wants to participate in ICANN pretty well can, except from a GAC perspective. And would there be a need for some sort of accreditation process is; if anything, just to know who is involved. Just to get some basic contact information.

I think something that's very important, I think from a nongovernmental or a civil society point of view is that it is very important for ICANN to define what it expects of the different stakeholders. And I think this is going on now with GAC, but I think some of the other groups may not have it clear. They may have certain expectations as to what they might be able to do, but the ICANN board or the others may have a different opinion.

So laying out what are some roles and responsibilities -- again, very much from the world summit or the IGF contacts -- I think would be very important. How do these different stakeholders engage, and how can trust be built?

There's a lot of comment in the different civil society or non-profits that are involved in ICANN. Some believe that the organization is going through a change for the better, and that's my opinion, but some believe that, you know, trust is a big issue. And so specific time lines or specific deliverables need to be reinforced. The role that some of the new hires, like public participation, are helping, but I think more needs to be done to help, I think, build the trust, and so there's a focused discussion.

And I think another key point that came up as well, and it's come up in many other fora as well, is that a lot of the actors that are involved in the ICANN discussions stay there for a while, but then leave. And so how does one's knowledge -- or how does one manage all the knowledge. And is there a way through the capacity building role through the document that that information can be easily accessible or easily be made available, for example, to the new GAC members.

So if there are prior discussions, that there can be some sort of sessions at a regional level where GAC members can go to, or prior to the ICANN meetings themselves, so one can get caught up to speed and play a more active and productive role.

So those are some kind of key comments. And I look forward to some of the other points being raised, being made by some of my other colleagues on the call as well.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks for that, Robert.

I wonder if we can move on to Jovan before we open up for discussion.

Jovan, are you there?

>> Just hold the line, please.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Hello? Hi, Paul. Hello?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: It's your turn.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Okay. I was in a prior meeting discussing similar meetings that you do. I was in a board meeting of Diplo discussing question of decision-making, accountability and similar issues. Therefore, I have good preparation. It has been going on for the last six hours.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Good.

I hope you have some insight for us.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: There are a few possible parallels, and one is we have offices in Malta, Geneva and various places.

But I'll try to reflect on a few points, and thank you for inviting me to participate. I'm very honored and pleased to be today with you. And I'll try to just respect on a few points where I think I can say something sensible, and (inaudible) how you participate anticipation. Would you like to guide me to any particular issues?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: No, no. Please feel free to make your observations.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Okay. First, the question on the legal status and the identity of ICANN, and I know it's an issue that has been for quite a long time on the ICANN agenda. I have to say I have kind of a professional academic agenda which is linked to the issue, and this is the question of creating some sort of new type of international private, you can call it, organization which could be a good example for managing similar issues in other fields, technical fields. And that basically it was clear after the WSIS process that ICANN approach and what ICANN has developed provides the most solid basis for developing some new types, new generation international organization which can reflect rechanges that have happened in the world since -- in the last ten or 15 years, and which cannot be dealt clearly -- or properly by existing interstate international order, because simply the issues are broader, they are more complex, and they involve a different setup.

And I can tell you one of the -- my fascination, negative fascination during the WSIS was basically we were discussing Internet and ICT but there were no major players, and major players are basically private sector companies: Microsoft, Google, new Internet sectors. It was a bit, bit strange situation in which you are making some grand design about information society, and you don't have those who are building that general feeling about the WSIS.

And my view is probably sometimes that we should be less ambitious and do something, but do it in proper way involving people who can contribute, who can put their effort, their money, their commitment behind their words. Otherwise, we have a lot of rhetoric and ultimately a waste of resources.

In this context, ICANN has the potential to be developed as this different and special international framework which could be also a sign of the new type of international organization. And I'm obviously careful about this question of treaty making organization. It has to be definitely different organization.

And a few ideas which are coming, a few concrete ideas, is that I think the closest analogy is International Red Cross Organization, which was a private law organization established under Swiss law. But then it got a certain element of the international public law to the Geneva convention and (inaudible) instrument. That could be, I think, an example and model that should be carefully studied for ICANN, with analogy, historical reasons are to have it in the United States, and it is established already under the U.S. law. But some elements of the public, let's say GAC-plus elements, could be built to some sort of a public -- international public framework.

Now, it leads me to another aspect of this institutional architecture. It is the principle of the variable geometry which has sometimes been completely forgotten. ICANN has been developing it. Even in the context of the WSIS, it was developed.

This is, when you ever international organizations and (inaudible), you think about equal sovereign equality, one state, one vote, general assembly of the U.N. But when you carefully analyze the international order you can see there's various geometry in many organizations, starting from Security Council with veto power and then more concretely in the IMF and the world bank. But then you have the timber organization where Brazil has enormous power, many commodity organizations. And in many of those fields, the institutional architecture were drafted in order to accommodate the real interest of the key players. Therefore, in some sort of future ICANN variable geometry, key players could be accommodated according to their interest and position. Private sector cannot have the equal status in the U.N., but it can have a proportion of status in some sort of ICANN architecture.

And I think that that could be a real challenge, a real organizational and administrative challenge. In that way, one may be able to sort of touch all bases, which are quite demanding. And I usually admire (inaudible) all the time, admire their efforts to bring all those loose ends and various interests on the same board. But that could be approach. And it is nothing new. You fact developing all over the Internet with GAC, with Supporting Organization, and there are seats for that huge development.

Well, that's on institutional framework.

Capacity building, well, it's probably the field we are on our train at Diplo. In brief, capacity building became one of the cliches, unfortunately, and one of the words which were inflated and devaluated during the WSIS was capacity building because everybody was using capacity building. And like any inflation, when a word is overused, it's loses its (inaudible).

We've trying to fill that increasingly empty concept with some meaning, and currently we are running the course with 135 young people from the developing countries.

There is enormous role and enormous need for learning about ICANN Internet governance. And one positive aspect of the WSIS, extremely positive aspect, was it was an enormous learning exercise. So it was rather expensive learning, but it was enormous learning exercise.

And the more time I spent working between these different professional cultures, diplomatic, ICT, human rights and various subcultures, the more I see there is a, indeed, to invest a lot in bringing those different cultures on some sort of normal communication level.

And that, ICANN can play, I think, an enormous role in capacity building, in capacity building for decision-makers but also capacity building for ICT communities.

I'll tell you just one point. We opened the second (inaudible) ten days ago, and we have Internet governance village. And we have people from the second life community. And I did some kind of intro speech and they said this is a big brother exercise, Internet governance. And I said, well, there is a concern it could be a big brother exercise, but then I explained what is it all about, what is the relevance. And gradually, community, second life community which is very specific, managed to brought them into a relatively reasonable discussion on issues they are concerned with: privacy, security, identity and other IG issues.

This is just one example, but I am facing a similar miscommunication, and not intercultural, like Chinese, Indian, Europeans, American, Latin American, African, but in interprofession which is a huge challenge. And I think ICANN definitely has a role to play in bridging the interprofessional bridges, which cause a lot of tensions, misunderstanding, a waste of time, energy.

Practically speaking, it could be done through one approach which we call one hour, one day, one month.

If one day for extremely busy decision-makers, that's ministers, CEOs of private company, they should grasp in one hour what it is all about. One day for high officials, from the ministries of foreign affairs to the private companies. And one day for academics and people who have time to study IG issues in more detail.

Well, I took quite a bit of your time, but those are more or less the (inaudible).

Over.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks for that.

Can I just can you one question.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Okay.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: With the international committee of the Red Cross, which is not the same thing as the chapters or the --

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: -- it's not exactly a very transparent organization, are you aware of how they handle sort of legal risk in Switzerland?

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Legal risk?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Are they just open? Do they have any special status when it comes to lawsuits or the way they handle lawsuits or....

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Well, I know the evolution. They were established by the Swiss local code. And they have still status around that. I think Switzerland gave them favorable status and they have (inaudible) and similar immunity to international organization based in Geneva. Therefore, they have a high level of immunity. But I can check the exact details on it.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I should make the point, I'm not necessarily calling for an ICANN that's not accountable, so I don't want to give you the wrong impression by the question. I just want to make sure we have clarity around that point when you gave that example.

>> Can I make a comment on this.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Go ahead.

>> Is there enough time?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, please.

>> I think there are two ways of looking into it, how you internationalize something. And I think the crucial point with regard to the Internet and ICANN is that ICANN, per se, and the Internet per se already is international. So what you are looking for is an architecture on the various communities and the nation states, the governments feel comfortable operating with.

So it's usually the other way around, then it usually happens. I work quite closely with the WIPO {?} which is a member state driven, member driven organization. And I think whatever kind of solution you will choose, you will end up in pretty much the same context and the same difficulties. Because you have all the communities that are not necessarily comfortable with decisions the way they are taken on an international level.

So I don't think one should not look for the perfect solution but the best optimal solution. And this is what I like about your idea, what you pointed out, which I like very much, actually to take it as a private international model. I think it's probably the best, so you are in new (inaudible), but that's why I pointed out you can learn from the past that there was already a time when agreement was found on the international level. So it's not the first time. Of course the case is a different one and it's more complex. And it involves more of the whole world. So it is difficult.

But I think, still, one can learn from the past to a certain degree.

And to my question, everything boils down to the questions, you know, will there be enough trust which will be given, you know, for this private international model. Will there be enough trust?

And I think this is the way you have to build the architecture around. Because if you take the models which exist, I don't know the Red Cross, maybe that's a good idea to look at, but I mean all the other international organizations, I think they are all states driven. And this is I don't think the ideal solution for ICANN.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Exactly. It's not an ideal situation. And you basically pointed to the key point, key element and key difference, is that it is bottom-up built and it has its own dynamics from 1998 and even before. And what we have to do is use the best of those dynamics, which there are a lot of positive elements, and through variable geometry, therefore, it shouldn't use the solution that one solution fits all problems and is useful in solving all problems. But with variable geometry, we bring this element of national/international concern and interest of the other governments. Probably to advance GAC or something like this.

>> Yeah.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: But variable geometry basically is the best solution and it can be used in this case.

But my sort of -- What I would like to see is that ICANN becomes some sort of a new type of international private organization, a new type of international private organization that could be used as a solution for other similar problems. And I'm sure that there will be more and more situations where we need this type of situation, not typical international organization.

>> I agree.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: If I can summarize what we heard there before we give it on to the last part to speak, if that would be okay.

We're getting interference.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Hello.

>> Can't hear you.

>> Is Paul there?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: There we go. It's fixed. If I can summarize what we just heard there and then we can move on to Mark McFadden.

What we heard there is a very interesting dialogue about that the essential thing here is how to build further trust in the ICANN model going forward. I think that's an issue that both John Nevett raised and also Erika and Jovan. And for that matter, Robert.

And I think it's almost a three-dimensional problem. It has to be an international problem. It has to be a layered sort of stakeholders, not just one stakeholder. And it has to have a recognition of its origin and the significance of the United States as the origin of the Internet and of the actual -- these actual functions.

And I think it's the marriage of those three which is going to be sort of the ideal. I don't think the committee itself can, per se, say here's the answer, but I think it potentially can say that's where further discussion, further thinking needs to keep going.

Mark, I wonder whether we might ask just for time purposes, whether we might ask whether you would like to make some comments.

>>MARK McFADDEN: Paul, can you hear me?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I can.

We'll take some comments from you and then we will ask committee members if they have any further questions of the members of this panel. And then we'll move to just check to see what input we have on the chat room, any questions that might be on the chat room.

So please proceed, Mark.

We also have, Werner Staub is also another speaker as well.

So, Mark, are you okay?

>> Paul, we've lot Mark McFadden. I am going to tie to get him back.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you.

Mark, are you back on?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Paul, it's Marc Friedman. They are call Mark McFadden right now.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay.

Werner, are you on the line?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Paul, Werner is not.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay.

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: And they are having trouble getting Mark.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: While we're waiting, why don't we look at the chat room and see if there are any particular questions that have come through on the chat room.

>> Paul, I think one of the questions, maybe was a little bit of clarification around the geometry question that Jovan might raise. I think that might be a topic --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Perhaps we might ask him to move from academic speak to "we poor folks" speak.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Shall I clarify it now?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, please.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Essentially that the decision -- that decision-making process is designed in order to facilitate interest, position and role of those who are involved and the most concerned with particular decisions.

In IMF, in World Bank, it is sort of the financial quarter. In the commodity organization, Brazil has a strong say because they export the most of the timber from the Amazonia. And in this case if you discuss question related to Internet service providers, they should basically be involved and concerned and they should have power and a say in the decision-making process.

Obviously, there are gray zones, especially when it comes to the cross -- impact on the other field of public policy issue, but I think that could be arranged.

But the key element should be to address decision-making process to those who are the most concerned in making -- in the outcome of that process.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Good. Thanks for that.

One of the dialogues that's been on the chat room has been from Danny Younger who has been asking questions. He asked the first question, which was is there a way for ICANN to have members while avoiding the risk of derivative member lawsuits.

I responded on the chat room to say, Danny, that was a matter for intense discussion at the founding of ICANN, especially from the antitrust lawyers. The answer to us was to be open to all comers at all time and not to follow the membership model. He follows on and says, Paul, I recall that the VeriSign settlement agreement had a clause prohibiting participation activities that undermine ICANN. Couldn't such a clause be written to a membership agreement to thereby eliminate the derivative member lawsuit risk?

That might be the case, but I think it's still not coming to -- the risk is actually not derivative member lawsuit, but I think it was the issue that the antitrust lawyers were particularly concerned about. It is to ensure that at no stage could ICANN be accused of being sort of a grouping that was basically a cartel. And as a consequence, it was a very firm point of ICANN's whole structure is it is fully open to all to participate. And I think that's sort of something that would be a very difficult thing to move away from, really, in both in terms of culture but also in terms of advice from general -- from our outside counsel.

But I appreciate Danny's questions.

He also asked a question, he said, will the future budget advisory groups be open to non-supplier constituencies. And I think that's actually a pretty important question, particularly coming to Jon Nevett's question earlier.

There was criticisms of the budget advisory group as it was constituated earlier in that it mostly represented people who were making contributions to the budget from people who were very concerned about how -- what was the needs of the organization. And that is was one of the reasons that the operational planning process has evolved as it has.

So if there is to be any consideration of a sort of accountability for the budget as a whole question that Jon raises, it does strike me that non-supplier constituencies will be a key part of that sort of decision-making.

Let's see, now. Those seemed to be the main questions that I can see in the chat room. And I appreciate those.

Could I just see if we've got Mark McFadden back on?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: No, Paul. We can't seem to reach him, so I'm going to try to reach him separately again. Just give me one second.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Then while we're doing that, I'll ask any members of the people who are on the call, and particularly members of the committee, if they've got questions of Robert and the other....

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Janis here.

I really appreciate Jovan's thoughts, though I must say that I do not necessarily agree with them. Particularly in your, Paul, summary, you said very wisely that we should take into account not -- interests of not only one group but all groups. And I would like to endorse this very strongly. And as I mentioned earlier, that in my view, no institutional decision should be taken without firm approval of all ICANN's constituencies. Because this is not about neither governments nor others, but this is about everybody. Everybody should feel comfortable, whatever we do.

Another thought which crossed my mind was concerning the institutional arrangement, that -- it was earlier. Moving out from United States, I think the challenging task will be to convince people in the United States that changing the legal status from California-based not-for-profit corporation to the international private organization based in the United States. That already be will be an extremely challenging task, not to say to propose to move it outside the United States. That will be completely unrealistic and, in my view, that would undermine the whole exercise. That would play into the hands of those who want to keep status quo and no change at all.

So these would be my comments. And I really enjoyed this conversation.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Theresa, do you have any comment, more to tell?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: I'm sorry?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Have you had any luck with Mark?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: No, I've had no luck. The circuits are busy. So let me keep pounding the circuits for a second here.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I do think, just picking up on what Janis has just said, that this is going to -- the meeting of those three dimensions I mentioned earlier will take a lot of creativity, and will also very much be constrained, as he points out, by the political environments I think in Washington, which with the present timing is probably more complicated than has been in the past.

I do think potentially that there might also be ways of building that trust and building those sort of linkages in a multi-polar sort of way. And that potentially, that might be something that also may need to be considered, is several of the sorts of the international private organizations that we have referred to before, I think, that Ambassador Corell mentioned to us actually have multi-polar, multi-country type recognitions or positions or agreements. And it does strike me that potentially, going forward, that's going to be something people will raise. I am not necessarily arguing for it but I think that's something people will also raise is a variety of those sorts of recognitions.

(Busy tone).

>>PAUL TWOMEY: We just lost somebody.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: We'll look into that.

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Let me see who that is. If it's Mark, I'm working on it.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Marc.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Paul, we can't get Mark. It seems there's a circuit problem or something.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: That's strange.

Okay, well, let me then -- the people that are on the call, some people have hung on for some time, I wonder if anybody would like to make any closing comments or closing observations Erika or Margarita or Kurt if you are still on the calls.

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Paul, Margarita had to go. So Margarita Valdes is gone. And Kurt is gone as well. And who was the third name? I'm sorry.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Erika.

>>ERIKA MANN: I'm still on but I have to go in a few minutes. I have to go back to the committee.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sure. We very much appreciate all the time you put in, Erika. We very much appreciate that.

>>ERIKA MANN: Thank you so much. I very much enjoyed it. Thank you so much.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Is there anything else you would like to say? Please feel free.

Okay. I think that's good.

Adiel or Pierre, either of you still on or want to make any further comments?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Paul, we have lost Adiel, and Pierre should be with us.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: He is not responding.

Chuck and Jon, are either of you --

>>CHUCK GOMES: This is Chuck, and I want to thank you for the invitation and certainly if I can be of further assistance to the committee, I am more than happy to do so.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chuck. I appreciate that.

>>JON NEVETT: This is Jon and I echo Chuck's comments.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Jon. And it's been very useful to have issues put on the table with an indication we have to talk about them and think about them not with sort of solidified positions, which I think is very useful.

(Inaudible), have you got any further observations?

>>ROBERT GUERRA: I have a quick comment, I think something that was raised earlier, in regard to capacity building but also participation. It's important to take note of the cyclical turnover participants and ways that the knowledge or some of the discussions can be more easily accessed because having participated in other fora, sometimes with new actors coming in, there's always a learning process. And something that takes that into consideration I think could be useful for all the stakeholders. But also, echoing what others have said, I do thank you for inviting me to participate and would be open for any other comments that I might be able to send as well.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks for that.

>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: Okay, just quick comment on the ICANN composition multistakeholderism.

It may be planned to organize during the ICT event in Geneva in that discussion at the graduate institute international studies on real concrete issues and multistakeholders. And because the concept is now adopted more or less in the international arena and I would have to see how to give it more meaning. I think the experience that ICANN has could really be a great contribution to this discussion.

It will be sometime in mid May in Geneva. I can send more info.

Thank you for inviting me. I'm sorry I couldn't participate in the overall discussion, but thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you.

I think we might -- we might -- I think we can wrap it up now. It's a pity we missed Mark and Werner, but they will have an opportunity to make further input.

I would just like to remind everyone that comments can still be provided until Wednesday, that the audio stream from this particular consultation will be transcribed, and there will be a presentation of the final report in Lisbon and that is scheduled for Wednesday at the meeting in Lisbon.

Thanks very much to everybody that's participated. That's been very useful. We appreciate that very much. And we look forward to seeing some of you, at least, in our meeting in Lisbon.

>> Thanks so much, bye-bye.

>> Thank you, bye.

Subsequent to the teleconference, these comments were received via email from Mark McFadden:

Ah, the miracle of technology! Just as Paul turned to me on the call, my phone went dead here in Prague. I apologize and hope that a few short notes via email could be sent to the members of my committee in lieu of the comments I had prepared for the call. May I ask that, if you deem it fitting, these notes be shared with the committee and panel participants as a view of what I would have said were I still on the call?

I'm afraid that I would have been amongst the chorus singing many of the same songs about transparency and openness in ICANN. Part of building and improving the trust model for ICANN is clearly related to the perception that more than is necessary happens within ICANN in opaque ways.

That much said, the committee's report requires an important component in my view - the need to clearly establish well defined problem statements when addressing structural changes to the organization. Having been a part of the organization from the beginning and a sometime willing participant in the early reform processes, one of the things that is evident is that, when there are no clearly established goals for structural changes, there can be no metrics for deciding if those changes were effective. Making changes to the structural organization of ICANN should only be done in the context of clear and well-articulated statements of intent. Those statements need to be able to be quantified in meaningful way, so that the CED, board and broad community can judge the relative success of structural change.

In any recommendation that the committee makes, I hope that a clear statement of what the changes are intended to achieve is presented. I also hope that the committee makes clear statements on the weaknesses that the changes are intended to address.

I would also hope that the committee were more concrete in its recommendations. Rather than a set of options under broad headings, I would hope that the committee could prepare a white paper with actual recommendations that could be shared for comment with the community. Such a white paper might provide background on the problems the committee considered, the options they thought about to address them, and the rationale for the recommendations they have been made. While I know this might stretch the committee a bit, it also makes the committee's work transparent in an important way.

While I was on the call I heard no comments regarding Root Zone Transparency. As an ISP and an individual in the connectivity industry I can only say that the public face of IANA's work in this area has improved dramatically. In fact, I would say to the committee that the transformation and success of IANA in the last 12 months is one of the great recent success stories in ICANN. At the current point, the problems with Root Zone Transparency are primarily political and not technical. It would not shock any of the committee if I said that politics and technical coordination are not and cannot be separated - even in IANA. With that in mind, I ask the committee to carefully consider its statement about simple changes within the IANA. Recent experience suggests that even minor administrative changes may have substantial political import. To suggest that the eIANA would further transform the root zone landscape may be optimistic. Politics may always be a part of even the most trivial changes in the root zone - we need to ask ourselves how best to live with that situation, not how to change it.

I welcome the news that the Board has a timetable for reviews, but I believe that the committee should suggest prioritization of those reviews in a manner that is consistent with the by-laws. No person would suggest that the reviews of all parts of ICANN are essential to its ongoing improvement and transparency. However, it is also clear that some parts of the organization would benefit from review - and natural improvement - sooner than others. I think the committee should consider this prioritization as part of its commitment to ongoing accountability: a way to respond to clearly identified changes in scope, mission or organization of specific parts of ICANN's many supporting organizations and committees.

The committee also suggests that work should move forward on establishing a clear typology of participants in ICANN. This may be a dangerous process if not entered into with understanding. Many people play a variety of roles in ICANN - at the same time. I'd suggest that many members of the committee are in this category. If asked to name only one role that that played in ICANN, I'm sure that several committee members would openly revolt!

Instead, we need to recognize that participation is diverse and that people and organizations who use the Internet have diverse needs and interests. It is hardly likely that participation in ICANN can be divided into a taxonomy and it is not clear what problem would be solved if it could. I strongly suggest the committee reconsider the language of this part of its draft.

I'd like to support the concept of improving the accountability of the board by having a larger number of the board member elected rather than appointed.

I've been on both sides: the NomCom and in the gNSO and ASO. While the process is uniformly messy and ungainly, the results appear to have been better when the messy process of public discussion and transparent participation is used.

Again, my thanks for including me and my apologies for having technology desert me at the very moment Paul asked me to speak. I hope these notes assist the committee in some small way as it moves forward.

Mark McFadden