Joint AC/SO 

 Monday 2 March 2009

 ICANN Meeting

 Mexico City

 

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  We'll
start in about one minute.  This is the joint meeting of the advisory
committees and supporting organizations.  As you can see, in a new
experimental format.

 For this afternoon's session, you'll actually need to get yourself a
headset, because we will have a number of people around the table who
will be speaking at various stages French or Spanish, and you'll need
these for the interpretation.

 Can I ask....

 Nancy.

 The headsets are on their way.  Headsets are on their way, so....

 Good afternoon, everybody.  My name is Patrick Sharry, and I'm
facilitating this afternoon's session.  It's the joint meeting, as we
said a moment ago, of the supporting organizations and advisory
committees, in a new experimental format.

 This is actually the second meeting of the supporting organizations
and advisory committees.  And the first one was held in Cairo, just
only several months ago.

 This meeting was brought together at the request of the chairs of the
supporting organizations and advisory committees, who have wanted the
chance in the ICANN meeting agenda to bring the various supporting
organizations and advisory committees together to talk about issues
where they had a common interest.

 So this is a meeting brought about by the desires of the supporting
organizations and advisory committees.

 They felt that it was important that we did this at the beginning of
the week, hence, we are here on Monday.  And the reason for that is
that we're hoping, through the exchange of ideas that we'll have this
afternoon that we might be able to enrich the conversations in the
individual supporting organizations and advisory committees over the
course of the week.

 We have here representatives from the ALAC, from the ASO, from the
GNSO, from the ccNSO, and also from the GAC.

 We also have an enormous variety of experience around the table, from
people like Steve Crocker, who has been around a little while, to
people for whom it is their first ICANN meeting.

 And so that will be a factor in our conversation this afternoon.

 We're here today for a discussion, a conversation.  And that's why
we've set things up in this format that we have here.  It's a little
bit like theater in the round, if you like, so that people on all sides
will be able to see what's happening and will be watching the
conversation that's happening around this table here.

 A couple of things about the group that we have here today.  Quite
importantly, the group that we have here today is not a decision-making
body.  So there'll be no decisions made today.  This is a group for
discussion, not to make decisions.

 The people, when they're speaking, will be speaking as individuals. 
So even though there are people from, for example, the ccNSO, when they
speak, they'll be giving their own personal perspective on things. 
They won't be speaking on behalf of the ccNSO.

 So we're hoping by working in that way that we can have a fairly
frank and honest discussion of how things -- of people's views on things.

 Unless they specifically nominate otherwise, we should assume that
they're speaking as individuals.

 And could I ask that if you're someone in the audience today who
might be reporting on this or blogging on this or something similar,
that you not misrepresent personal views around the table with any
official ICANN or SO or AC position.  This really is the conversation
of individuals.

 Yes, or your -- your -- Alan's reminding me, not necessarily your
employer, either.  This really is people speaking as individuals,
unless they let us know otherwise.

 Now, how do we want to involve you in the session this afternoon?

 You'll notice on your chair there are some colored cards or pieces of
paper.

 There should be, in addition to a little bit of a description of
what's going to happen this afternoon, a red piece of paper, a green
piece of paper, and a white piece of paper.  As part of our experiment
this afternoon, we're hoping to use them at various times not to vote,
but, rather, to judge, if you like, the temperature of the room, to get
a feeling of what the people who are sitting out there think of what we
are talking about.

 So there we go.  Amadeu is already in disagreement with that.

 So, as Amadeu has so ably illustrated, if you're in serious
disagreement with something, or disagreement with something, the red
piece of paper.

 If you are in agreement with something, the green piece of paper. 
Amadeu, can you demonstrate that for us again.

 There it is.  There it is.  The green piece of paper.

 The white piece of paper is if you're really not following what the
conversation is about.  Because one of the things that we're attempting
to do this afternoon -- there we go.  Thank you, Amadeu.  Brilliantly
done.

 Ah, excellent, it's catching on.

 One of the things that we're hoping to do this afternoon is actually
to educate each other about some of the issues that are current issues,
and, therefore, if I -- as I look around, I see a whole lot of white
pieces of paper up, I know that we need a bit more of an explanation. 
We need to drill into it a little bit more, we need to go back to the
basics a little bit perhaps.  And so we'll use the white pieces of
paper in that way.

 Now, the pieces of paper themselves we'll use in two ways.  At
various times during the afternoon, I'll actually ask for a show of
colors.  So we might reach a point in the conversation where we've
heard both sides of an argument.  I'll put a proposition, and I'll ask
people to disagree or agree or ask for further explanation.

 The other way that we want to use the cards today is a sort of on-the-
run temperature check.

 So if, as the conversation goes, you're hearing things that you are
really strongly in agreement with, feel free at any stage to hold up
your green piece of paper.

 Similarly, if at any stage you hear things that you are in violent
disagreement with, please feel free to hold up the red piece of paper. 
And if none of it's making any sense, that's what the white piece of
paper is for.

 So we'll use them in those two ways.

 The second way of involving you as an audience in today's activity
will be not in the usual public forum style of an open microphone in
the first parts of these sessions.  So the session until 3:30, and then
again from 4:00 until 5:30 will be a conversation around this table. 
And then, at 5:30, we'll open a mike for anybody else in the audience
who wants to make a comment about any of the issues that we've covered
over the course of this conversation.

 So this is not in the first instance a public forum, but, rather, is
a chance to hear from the supporting organization and advisory
committee members who are here on the topics that we want to discuss.

 There will also be the opportunity for you to raise issues that you
hear today in your own supporting organization or advisory committee
over the course of the week, because the issues that we will be
discussing today are issues that are relevant to almost all of the SOs
and ACs, and therefore there will be chances during the week to
contribute in your SO or AC to those conversations.

 There will also be a public forum later in the week.

 So if you don't get a chance this afternoon, there will be a chance
in the public forum later in the week to actually talk about these
issues again.  So we'd like to involve you, but in those ways.

 Since I see no red cards, I'll proceed.

 The next thing I'd like to do is to very quickly go around the table
and just get the people who are seated to very quickly introduce
themselves.  We don't need long biographies about a name and where
you're from, and then we'll move on to the agenda itself.

 >> Thank you, Patrick.  

 I'm Victor Hansen, Brazilian representative to the Governmental
Advisory Committee.

 >> Young Eum Lee, dot KR representative, ccNSO.

 >> I'm Roelof Meijer, the CEO of SIDN, the registry for dot NL.

 >> Alan Greenberg, I'm a NomCom appointee to the ALAC and also the
ALAC liaison to the GNSO.  And I'm here on behalf of the ALAC.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   Kristina Rosette, intellectual property
constituency for North America to the GNSO Council.

 >> I'll introduce myself in Spanish.

 My name is Victoria Fava.  I'm from Argentina, and I represent the
Hensi agency.

 (No audio).

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   Manal Ismail, Egyptian representative to the GAC.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   Steve Crocker, Security and Stability Advisory
Committee, and I'm on the ICANN board.

 >> Hi.  I'm Louie Lee.  I'm the chair of the ASO Address Council.

 >> Good afternoon.  My name is Andrei Kolesnikov.  I am from Russia
as Andrei Kolesnikov, but I am here also from ccTLD.RU, Russian
Federation.

 >> Schombe Baudouin.  I'm an at-large member from Kinshasa.

 >> (Off microphone) Dot MX, representing the ccNSO.

 >> Hello.  I'm Stephane Van Gelder, and I'm European representative
for the registrars constituency to the GNSO Council.

 >> (off microphone).

 (No audio).

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   The way that we'll manage the conversation this
afternoon around the table is with those three microphones.

 And because we're experimenting, we are hopeful that three will be
the right number.  But at one stage, we may need to call in some
reinforcements.  But we'll start off with the three and we'll hand them
around and I'll try to keep control of that one way or another.

 Our agenda for this afternoon is in two parts.  Between now and 3:30,
we'll be talking about issues to do with expanding the name space.  And
then from 4:00 until 5:30, we'll be talking about how we might improve
the policy development process within ICANN.

 On your chair, masquerading as a white piece of paper in some places
and, I think, as a blue piece of paper in others, you'll find an
explanation of the main topics that we want to cover there.  I'll just
read through them very quickly N this session, expanding the name space
we want to address what is the market impact of new gTLDs and the IDN
fast-track process.  On the market structure of the domain name space,
and ICANN's processes.

 Second, how should geographic names be handled and is there a
blurring of CC and G space?

 And thirdly, what should be the cost and pricing structure for new
TLDs, both application fees and ongoing fees?

 And as I said, in the afternoon, we'll look at improving policy
development, and I'll read through the breakdown of that at that time.

 We met this morning as a group and had a -- not quite a rehearsal,
but a little bit of a briefing.  And we've organized there to have a
few people who will start our conversation off this afternoon.  And
then our experience this morning -- and I'm quite certain it will be
our experience this afternoon -- is that the conversation will then
build some momentum, and it will flow.  We will try to steer that as we
can to try to cover those three topics.

 So, as a question on notice, because Alan received the question this
morning, you might like to kick us off, Alan, talking about the
expanding the name space and some of the issues that you might see.

 >> I'm disappointed we don't have colored cards to hold up also.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I'll see if I can organize some for you, Alan.

 >> Especially the white ones.

 I thought I'd get the blood flowing a little bit in here.

 I don't think there's anyone who doesn't agree that we need more top-
level domains, if only for IDN domains.

 The processes we're going through now are likely to open the
floodgates a little bit more than for a few domains.  The low estimates
are a few thousand in a couple of rounds of gTLD and ccTLD.  The higher
estimates are tens of thousands.

 My question is, and I'd like Patrick to hold a little poll, is, does
the -- do we want, do consumers want, another 20,000 top-level domains?

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Alan, I'll take that this time as a question on
notice.  Because we'll get some views around the table here, and then
we might do that in a little while.

 So, Olga.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Patrick.  And knowing that we have
simultaneous translation, I'll use my mother tongue, which is Spanish.

 Alan, I think that we still don't know how many new gTLDs we will
have, nor do we know how many new IDNs, ccTLDs, IDNs.

 I think that the more options we have, the better.  And it's better
for users, for those who are registering, for companies, it's better
for the organizations to have more options, especially taking into
account that they're going to have characters that are different than
those used to write in English.

 And this will bring new users and more users, especially from
developing countries.  And we hope that the next billion users will
come from developing countries.

 And the more, I believe the better.  But we don't know how many there
are going to be.  So I think there should be options for users,
companies, and industries.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   Thank you.  I think it's very important to respond
to market demands.  But I also think it's equally important to have a
plan for the expansion.

 I mean, it's not enough to know where we're stepping today, but also
where we're ending, and how we would end maybe ten years from now, how
would the domain name tree look like.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Manal.  Andrei.

 >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  Is it on?

 Yeah.  Okay.

 Well, I think this question about how many domains, well, as many
domains as possible, all good for the market, especially in the crisis
times.  And it's just a good opportunity to expand the name space.

 However, I think even this is just intermediate step, because DNS, by
its nature, was developed as a transcript between the strange numbers
and human-readable words.

 So I think 10,000 new domains, of new TLDs, is not the number.  I
think it will all shift to some kind of other ways of addressing, like
viewers or something like that.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I've got (saying name), and then we'll come back
to (saying name).

 >> I would like to add to this idea that we should not only focus on
market reasons for the expansion of the root.  I would mention that,
today, I think it's important that we recognize some virtues in the
current structure of the root and that we work in a way that we
guarantee that some of these virtues are preserved during the expansion.

 I'm referring to the fact that there -- I see two sorts of legitimacy
behind a TLD.  The first one is this one that has been mentioned here,
the market reasons for TLDs.

 And gTLDs are currently the way how market expresses itself in the
root.

 Now, there is a second sort of TLD, which is backed by a very
different sort of legitimacy, by different criteria of legitimacy that
are ccTLDs today that represent regions, that represent countries, at
least they are intended to represent countries.

 Of course, there are some regions of the globe that aren't currently
represented in gTLDs.  We could mention dot Asia for example.

 But my point is, it's very important that in a transition to this new
model, we guarantee that both the market approach and the cultural,
social, and country and regional approaches are preserved.  And more
than that, that the groups behind regional TLDs are really legitimate
holders of these TLDs they are expected to run.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Victor.

 (saying name).

 >> Yeah.  I would like to break down Alan's question into two parts,
whether we require gTLDs and whether we require IDN.

 I guess answer to the first one should be maybe.  But answer to the
second one is, we are already late.  We should have done it.  I agree
with Olga on that.

 But gTLD has a different problem.  I'm a lawyer.  And as I see it,
there might be trademark issues which might creep up, and there would
be a lot of UDRP dispute resolutions going around the world:  We need
to check that out.  As far as IDN is concerned, it is premature to ask,
and let us see what happens.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you (saying name).

 I'll go to Kristina next and then come back to (saying name).

 >> I started off with the premise that there is no question that IDNs
are necessary.  That wasn't part of the question.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Alan.

 Kristina.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   That took care of the easy part of my answer,
which is, with regard to IDN gTLDs, absolutely, I think they're needed.
I think they're wanted.  And we're talking about ASCII gTLDs, I think
you really have to talk about what you mean by "need" and what you mean
by "want."  Want, sure, I think it's clear from this meeting, it's been
clear for several meetings that there are significant number of people
who -- entrepreneurs -- who see these as opportunities for business
expansion.

 I also think that we have seen recently an increasing number of
organizations and individuals that, at least from my understanding of
their goals, would be people and organizations that would be applying
for what is referred to in the DAG as community-based TLDs, languages,
people's cultures, et cetera.

 If, however, I think -- and, again, speaking personally -- if I think
we're looking at do we need new gTLDs and we're using "need" as if
we're looking at the existing dispersion of names across existing gTLDs
as an indicator of whether or not we need them, I don't think you
really do.  I mean, I think to this day, you still have COM, net, and
org as 80%, plus, of existing gTLD registrations.  And if you look at
some of the more newly launched TLDs, the numbers -- I mean, look at
the numbers.  The numbers don't lie.  And if you look at the more
recently launched ones, taking into account launch time, you really
don't see that much difference.

 And I think particularly in the environment that I operate in, to the
extent that people have multiple domain names across gTLDs, in
virtually every case, they simply default to the dot com.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   There's been a recent shows of colors. 
Kristina's hypothesis was that, really, we don't need much more than
that we have now with the exception of IDNs and community TLDs.  Is
that right?

 So that's the hypothesis.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   Community in the true sense of the word, not
trying to kind of fix the round peg into the square --

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's all right.  We're not going into
legislation just yet.  I think we understand the issue.

 So the hypothesis is that we don't need much more than what we've got
now, apart from IDNs and some community stuff.

 Can we just see what the colors are on that.

 Interesting, interesting.

 That's -- I would think close to fifty-fifty.  Close to fifty-fifty. 
So this is something that we need to explore a little bit more.  Well
done.  Thank you.

 And let's go to SATURU.  Isn't this wonderful.  We now have almost
everyone on the speaking order.

 >> Thank you.  I'd like to speak about the Japanese situation.  Some
prefectures and cities in Japan are interested in introducing their
name in gTLD space.  The TLDs fit to the strategy for local
governments' brand image.  And local government expects to use gTLDs
for promotional (inaudible), et cetera.  Therefore, the geographical
gTLDs, especially IDN, will have higher values than user TLDs and there
will be some impact on such markets.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Satoru.

 I'm going to go to Victoria there, and then I'm going to come back to
some people down this side of the table.  And, Roelof, I haven't
forgotten you, and Young Eum, either.

 And everyone agrees that you should be on the speaking order, Roelof.
I saw green paper.  So don't worry.

 >>VICTORIA FAVA:  Thank you, Patrick.

 I may be repeating a comment that was already made it's from an
Andrei.  Although I think it would expand the market which is now in
crisis, I do feel that that's a very partial assertion, because not all
of the agents in global communities have $185,000 to be able to
purchase a new gTLD.

 So we have to think of that also as an agent, well, I don't know, to
improve the world crisis situation.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 There's a lot of green paper around there.  Can we just check that
again.

 Interesting.  Interesting.  Good.  Thank you very much.

 I'm going to go to (saying name) next.  And then I'll come back to
Roelof after that.  And then that side.

 >> Thanks, Patrick.  I'm wondering if after three or four years of
discussing this, we should still be wondering if there's a need for new
gTLDs.  Certainly, there have been projects coming out.

 [ Applause ]

 >> And, you know, it's interesting to see that one of the most
dynamic categories, the so-called geoTLD, or the city TLDs.  And if we
look at those as public service efforts, we can get away from the pure
business side of things and we can see that cities around the world
seem to think that there's some value in providing a localized public
service on the Internet.

 So that's one reason, maybe, for pursuing this and persevering with
the fact that we want to launch these new gTLDs.

 Apart from that, I think after so many years of discussing this, we
should really be moving on from the question of whether we need them
and trying to address the question of how we bring these TLDs to market
in a reasonable time and manner so that people have already invested
time and effort into the premise that ICANN has given them that they
would be allowed to launch new gTLDs, should be able to do so in a
reasonable amount of time.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Okay.  Let's just have a look at the colors
around the room on that one.

 That's, I think, about 80/20 to the greens on that one.

 Thank you.

 Oscar, I'll go to and you then come back to Roelof next.

 >> Thank you, Patrick.  I will speak in Spanish.

 I think that, definitely, the option or the situation of more options
is better, not just in principle, as a market principle, but because it
will enable us to improve services to the end users and to make
possible the adequate development of the entire chain in terms of
domain name service.  We also have to be aware that when someone thinks
that it's -- that more domains are not necessary, what they're thinking
about is of the 16% that today are connected, of the users that are
connected.  But there are more than 80% that still have to be connected
and who will need their identity or would like to get their identity.

 We can't only think about those who today are identified on the
Internet.  That's one part.

 And, in addition, in regard to the technical situation, I don't think
we should be worried about the technical situation.  There are things
within -- there are bodies within ICANN who determine how many of these
are necessary or to keep the Internet stable.  So -- and Steve can
maybe talk about this.

 Nonetheless, -- and we always have to be aware -- the rules as they
are defined today are not allowing for innovation.  And they are not
allowing for new ideas, for them to be implemented in DNS.  And I think
we would be very optimistic if we were to able to get a few hundred
applications.  And these rules do not allow or don't have the space for
thousands of them.

 And as --  Which is what Victoria was saying.  We don't have space
for innovation.  We're asking for copies of dot com.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Oscar.

 Roelof.  Steve, can I put you on notice that I'll come to you for a
technical perspective in a moment.

 >> Yeah, I think there's definitely room for more.  And I truly hope
that in the coming years we will see some very interesting case of new
top levels.

 I don't believe that we're going to have tens of thousands of gTLDs,
be it only because if you look at the pace that this whole process is
taking, I'm sure there will be an alternative to the DNS before we
reach the first 10,000.

 [ Laughter ]

 [ Applause ]

 >> It would be interesting, though.  Because 10,000 times 185,000
would make ICANN a new World Bank, I think.

 I think it's very illustrative for the whole process that we are
still discussing do we need them, and do we want them after I don't
know how many years of discussion and you can see from the colors in
the room that we are about even on both.

 Which makes me conclude that we don't know what we need and we don't
know what we want.

 And I think that we're very much a push to a customer.  And not based
on the real demand.  And that's very often when things fail.

 You can have a very good idea, you spend a lot of money realizing it,
and then nobody buys it.  And I'm a bit afraid that we're going to be
seeing a lot of those as well.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank Roelof.

 Baudouin. 

 >>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN:  I have a completely different reading of what he
is saying, because when we talk about new TLDs, wouldn't it be
desirable that when we talk about extensions that we take up the
statistics of existing TLDs so that we can realize what the demand is
on the market.  And as far as the new TLDs are concerned, in developing
countries, and especially in Africa, I think the market is still very
large.

 And the TLD hasn't been completely exploited or tapped into.

 And the ccTLDs, would it be possible there to make there extensions? 
We're very concerned about this.  And there are the technical aspects
that need to be seen too but also the social needs that arise and also
financial needs and also the cultural needs.

 So I think that if we take up all these points and we take the --
when we are talking about the new TLDs, we can't just look at the
existing ones and we have to address all of these different concerns.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I'm going to go to Young Eum, who has been very
patient over here, and then Steve for a technical perspective.

 >>YOUNG EUM LEE:   I'd like to add to what Victor had said about
there being a distinction between the market needs and the cultural and
other social needs.

 I think he is talking about the difference between a gTLD and a
ccTLD.  And I'd also like to make another distinction between an ASCII
TLD and an IDN TLD.

 So we have a two-by-two matrix of ASCII gTLD, IDN gTLD, ASCII CC and
IDN CC.

 And when we are talking about markets, I think we are specifically
mentioning the G world, not the CC world.

 And I'd like to point that out specifically, because the CCs and the
Gs cater to a different type of community.

 Because they cater to a different type of community, their purposes
are different.

 And that usually has a strong influence on how they operate as well.

 And so there is a very different type of worlds and there is a very
big difference between a G and a CC.

 And with the introduction of IDNs, what the CC world is trying to
maintain is that specific distinction between a G world and a CC world.

 And I would also like to point out that the mechanism for the
introduction of new gTLDs was discussed within and by and basically
decided in the GNSO, not the ccNSO.

 And I think that basically signifies that the market and new TLDs
generally have to do with the gTLDs, and I'm not an advocate of market
regulations, so if the market wants more gTLDs, I think they should get
it.

 But I would also like to see that the CC world in the IDN space is
maintained.  And I'd like to make sure that we come up with some kind
of mechanisms for ensuring that.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Young Eum.

 I am going to go to Steve for a bit of a technical perspective, and
then I would be interested in exploring a little bit more the issue
that Young Eum has raised there, which is whether the CC world and the
G world are really very different and do cater for different
communities, or whether, in fact, with the changes that we're
discussing at this meeting today we're actually seeing a blurring of
those two things.

 Steve, to you first.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:  Well, I'm going to speak to the blurring, and the
first blurring is that I am not going to stay within the bounds of the
technical.

 But with respect to technical, the natural question is what are the
stresses, what are the technical issues with respect to adding new
things to the space.

 And the short answer is we can do it.  And the long answer is there
are a lot of issues, depending upon how big it gets to be and various
other complexities.

 And I don't think that there is really deep and useful things to say
in this forum in that way except that some attention is needed.

 With respect to what the needs are, I think that as we have said in,
already -- and has been said many, many times before, it is very clear
that IDN-based TLDs, whether they are CC or G, are essential in order
to broaden the access to a much larger set of people.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I am going to put you on pause there.  Steve's
hypothesis that IDN ccTLDs are absolutely essential --

 >>STEPHEN CROCKER:   I didn't say that.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I'm sorry, IDN TLDs are absolutely essential
moving forward?  Terrific.

 I think that's all green.

 >>STEPHEN CROCKER:   All green.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Everyone agrees with you, Steve.  Keep going.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   If I were smart, I would stop while I am ahead;
right?

 [ Laughter ]

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   I think that's the end of the clean, crisp
statements that....

 The creation of ccTLDs versus gTLDs goes back a long time ago, and it
was a way of getting things started.

 And, in fact, in the gTLD space, there was an attempt at very crisp
distinctions between com and net and org which were intended to be
different and which have all tended to blur.

 And so the distinctions between them are much less than existed. 
There are still some distinctions, but far less.

 If you make a list, if you do the exercise, what is the distinction
between a ccTLD and a gTLD, different people will fasten on different
aspects.

 For example, a ccTLD is two letters.  That's some people's
description of what a ccTLD is.

 Others is that it is assigned to a recognized country as listed in
the U.N.-sponsored codes.

 Another -- and so forth.

 Another is the distinction between a ccTLD and a gTLD is ccTLDs don't
pay any money to ICANN and gTLDs do.  And that's the important
distinction as seen by other people.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>STEPHEN CROCKER:   When we move into --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   When we move into -- when we move into IDN-based
TLDs, and I have not said CC or G, and then we ask how do we assign
those across the CC versus G boundary, things get to be extremely murky.

 And I think that we are undecided about how to do this.

 It's very clear that there is vested interest.  And so the CC
community says well, we like all the aspects of CC, but they don't mean
they don't like all the aspects.  They don't like the two-letter code,
for example, because that would lock them out of IDNs altogether.  So
that's not the part that's important.  What's important is that they
don't pay.  What's important is they have sovereign control and so forth.

 And, on the other hand, when there is no visible difference as there
is, psychologically, very simple between two characters and non-two
characters in ASCII, then from a user perspective, I think we are
headed into a territory that is going to have an inherent lack of clean
definition between CC IDN TLDs -- or maybe I should say the IDN ccTLDs,
versus IDN gTLDs.

 I think that is going to be a unsustainable distinction from the user
perspective without a great deal of work being put into advertising or
supporting communications, but it is not ingrained in the names as it
has been.

 So I think we are going to inherently see some blurring there,
despite whatever dialectic we try to agree to internally.

 And now I will stop.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Steve.  I will go to Stephane.

 >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER:   Thank you.

 I want to go back, before we start blurring things, to what the
gentleman here said earlier on, because I think you raise an important
point about the differences around the world in the way people can
access these programs.  We have to recognize that there has been
terrific work done by ICANN on the draft applicant guidebooks but one
the things I found mildly disappointing about the second version was
that it made -- that there is no difference compared to the first
version about the different classes of TLDs you could have.  And I was
expecting to see from the comments we had after the first draft
applicant guidebook differences in certain types of maybe localized
TLDs that might fit certain models better than others and differences
in the way these people would be treated, including costs.  Because you
can't expect people from Africa or developing countries maybe to go
into this in the same way that big corporations would in Europe.

 So I would like to see movement on this.  And I would like to see
different categories, more categories of TLDs being proposed so that we
can fit different people into this model.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Can we just see the colors on that one?  Greater
variety of models on TLDs?  That's interesting.  That's about, rough
guess, 90/10 on the green.

 Good, thank you, Stephane.  Excellent.

 And Steve is confused, so we will come back to you in a minute.

 I would like to go Young Eum and then across to Andrei and then down
this side of the table here.

 >>YOUNG EUM LEE:   I just would like to clarify the distinction
between the CCs and the Gs a little more.

 Another aspect that really differentiates the CCs and the Gs is who
they answer to.  The CCs answer to their local Internet community which
includes not only their users and their operators, but also their local
government.  And partially, I questions, to ICANN.

 Well, jeez, I guess the answer to ICANN, which answers to the doc. 
And I don't think any government in the world is willing to accept the
fact that they should answer solely to ICANN.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Young Eum.  Andrei.

 >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:   Yes, just a figures about the difference
between the CC and gTLDs.

 I don't know, maybe dot coms do a bad job in the territory of  Russia
but there is no such thing as dot coms.  I mean, just a few.  All the
domains are dot RU in Russia.  And we expect, with the introduction dot
RF, there will a (inaudible).

 It's a big difference.  It's a mentality, it's a cultural, people use
it, it's all user based.  It's not like somebody inventing something
artificial.  With the new introduction of the IDN domain, we believe
that we will have at least a doubled number of domains within one year.

 And there will be no -- it will be not gTLDs.  It will be all be
based on (inaudible) because it's natural.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Andrei.

 Let's go across to Kristina.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   I will yield to Olga.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:   Speak in Spanish.  I would like to take up the
comment made by Victoria, Stephane and Oscar.  In developing countries,
much of the economy works through the small and medium-size businesses.

 I agree that we should have more GMCs, gTLDs.  I don't find any
difference between one and the other.  However I think it's very
difficult for a company, particularly if it is a large company, but for
smaller businesses, even the medium-sized businesses in a country like
Argentina, to go through the process of applying for a new gTLD or one
of these processes, it is very complicated, at least for economies
which are developing economies.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Olga.

 What's the colors on that.

 Lots of green, but not vociferous support.

 Good.  Thank you.

 And needing more clarification in a few places so we will come back
to that one.

 Can I go to Alan next, please, and then Nirmol.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:   I live in Canada but in my real non-ICANN life I
work on use of technology in developing countries.  And when I'm
somewhere in Africa, you rarely see local companies registering a dot
com.  The country codes are what you see, just as Andrei said in Russia.

 What that says is if there is an identity issue that people can
identify with, they will use it.  And hopefully with IDN ccTLDs and
with some community-based gTLDs, I think that is going to be very much
the case.

 Stephane's point, however, becomes the crucial one of having new TLDs
which serve real purposes which people can't afford to get is not going
to help anyone.

 And although I understand all of the reasons why ICANN was reluctant
do differential pricing because of the possibility of gaming and the
complexity of identifying who is who, I really think it's a shame that
it's not there.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thank you, Alan.  And some support and
some disagreement.

 Good.  Thank you.

 Nirmol.

 >>NIRMOL AGARWAL:   My question is to Steve.  What is delaying the
implementation of IDN?  Is it the technical issues or the political
issues?

 >>STEVE CROCKER:    So the ground rules were that we're speaking as
individuals so I will tell you I am not delaying them.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>STEVE CROCKER:  

 The -- And in truth, there is such an enormous amount of work going
into it that I have tended to play position, as they say in sports, and
stay out of the way.

 So I'm not even sure that I have an accurate answer.  But the general
picture I have is that it's moving along, but it's guided by these
questions that are essentially political and economic questions as to
under what ground rules are we going to bring these out.

 And so now we're -- I don't see that there is any specific technical
impediment.

 We have done technical testing and it is pretty straightforward.

 There is a bit of technical work -- well, more than a bit, of trying
to clean up the IDNA protocol, particularly for some of the hard cases.
And so there's quite intensive technical work going on in the background.

 I'm not exactly sure whether that is a pacing item or whether that's
just happening in parallel with the pace for getting IDNs out.

 I think the political and governance issues and all of that are still
being sorted out.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Steve.

 Victor.

 >>VICTOR HANSEN:  Thank you.  I would like to come back to the
distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs.

 I cannot agree with this idea that the frontier is blurred between
both things, and I would like to present a very clear example.

 80% of Brazilian registrants go dot BR.  What does it mean?  Well, it
means that Brazilians are not only interested in low prices, are not
interested only in best price for registrations, but they do want to
show that they are Brazilian Internet.  And since the Brazilian
Internet steering committee does a good job in preserving the being
faithful to the Brazilian culture values, and so in having a
registration policy that meets the targets and expectations of our
registrants, then people are faithful to this label, dot BR.

 So I think choice has more -- is not only -- is not only linked to
market value, linked not only to pricing but is linked also to the sort
of image you want to get your domain name associated with.

 So I would like to talk of how does this distinction between gTLDs
and ccTLDs translate in the expansion of the root.

 We are just talking about new gTLDs now, so as to understand of
course we will have new IDN ccTLDs.  But I would say that geographic
TLDs, and now I move to the second point here in the list, shall have
much more to do with ccTLDs in terms of the values that are embedded in
their management than to gTLDs, generic names.

 They are more linked to geographic values, country values or regional
values than to market value.  And I think in the PDP, this distinction
should be reflected.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Victor.

 I am going to go to Manal.  And then I will come back to Baudouin,
and then I will come to you, Steve.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   Thank you.

 There is no doubt that there are some wants and some needs, if I may
borrow Kristina's words.  And we have to make sure we are addressing
the right needs, and not just event driven.

 We have to make sure we are addressing the right -- I mean, we are
addressing the IDN communities, we are giving them the opportunity to
participate as registries and registrars, and serve their own
communities.

 This is one thing.

 The other thing on the CC -- the CC and the G domains, now we're
observing some blurring.  Are we fine with this blurring?  Do we want
to keep the distinction?  Should we introduce new categories or we're
fine with this blurring?

 I mean, there is so many questions that need to be addressed.

 And is the domain defined by the meaning of the string or the target
market it's addressing or maybe the registry who is operating?

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Manal.  Baudouin.

 >>BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE:   I'd like to ask a question that perhaps is a
bit trivial.

 For me, living in Africa, in Congo, is it possible for me to make an
extension with the dot FR that means CC, ccTLD?  And I would rather
have a TLD in my country.

 Everybody can have the FR.

 Why do I ask this?  Because we want to speak about new things, that's
right.  But according to what root?  What is the root?

 Some of them are not well managed, and then we have a problem with
the extensions.

 How can this problem be solved?

 How is it -- What are we thinking about when we try to solve this
problem?

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.  I will just go quickly to Stephane
because I think you are going to reply directly to that.  Is that right?

 >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER:   Not directly but it's the point following on
from that.  I am just wondering from what's being said about the
difference between ccTLDs and gTLDs if -- seeing that certain -- I
mean, one of the definitions that was given for ccTLDs were that they
answer to their national community.  So we can consider that they are a
kind of national resource.

 And gTLDs have contracts with ICANN, so they are not in that kind of
category.

 Is it -- I would put the question to the ccTLD people here.

 Can we envisage a situation where a city, for example, or a region
would prefer to be a gTLD because they wouldn't want to go through
their national government to establish their presence on the Internet? 
Because that would afford them greater freedom do what they want to do.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I'll come back to that issue of geographic names
and city names and so forth in a moment.

 I just want to head back to Steve who had his red and white paper up
a moment ago.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   I did, thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   And ask for --

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   Thank you very much.  But I think this discussion
is getting close to it, because the previous discussion blurred from
ccTLD to geographic names and if we're talking about country names, per
se, that's one thing.  If we are talking about a broader class of
geographic names, then we start to get into a much muddier area which
is similar to what you were saying there.

 So the broader point that I want to make is that it's not the
question of whether there should be the ccTLDs that have existed versus
the gTLDs have that existed, but going forward, if we are going to try
to keep this distinction, it's going to be I believe increasingly more
complicated because the distinctions are not as simple as they have
been in the past.

 And it's not going to be easy from a user perspective to understand
when he is looking at an IDN string, am I looking at a ccTLD or am I
looking at a gTLD when it's five characters in Chinese or in Arabic or
whatever it might be.

 And what should I understand even if I knew that it's ccTLD versus I
know that it's a gTLD.  What difference does it make to me as the user?

 So those, I think, are the challenges that are going to come.

 Let me add one more small detail.  There was a suggestion we should
have different categories, and it's easy to understand why -- what
motivates that, but it's also -- and this is a technically-oriented
comment -- that whenever you make subcategories, the boundary
conditions create new problems.  And the more categories you have, the
more boundaries you have and the more places you have to stumble as you
come near and across and around those boundaries.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thanks, Steve.

 Andrei.

 >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:   Just a quick note.  I think a little more
chaos in the discussion.  Just an example.  Russia is a multi-national
country.  We have a Tartar Republic which is about 38 million people
speaking their own language.  And, well, whether it is ccTLD or gTLD,
they want their own identity domain, I don't know.  I don't have an
answer.  That's why I said, just a little bit chaos adding.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Andrei.

 A quick reply from Young Eum and then I will come back to you.

 Victor first.

 >>VICTOR HANSEN:  Just to answer the question on whether a city could
like to become a gTLD instead of a ccTLD against the will of its
government, now I think we are entering in a very dangerous terrain
here, which is the issue of sovereignty and the issue of legitimacy of
local governments.

 In this regard, I must recall as all here that when ICANN had to
decide which would be the countries, it considered it was not capable --
it was not competent to decide on that, then it relied on a table that
was built by ISO.

 And I think when it comes to cities and geographic areas, this
questions become far more complicated.

 I think it's beyond the scope of ICANN's competence to decide who is
the legitimate authority to speak on behalf of a particular region,
city or state.

 So I think, as ICANN has searched for help of ISO for ccTLDs, as it
has searched for help of WIPO when it comes to trademark clearances,
and it should rely on a body which would be capable and competent to
define who can -- who is the legitimate authority in a particular region.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Victor.  Can we just get a show of colors
on that for the ideas that Victor has expressed there.  So that's
mostly green, but not everybody has a hand up.  So that's.

  support but certainly not unanimous.  Young Eum, do you want to
follow up on that?

 >>YOUNG EUM LEE:   Yes.  I actually would like to add to Victor's
comment and point out the ccTLD is going through an IDN PDP process,
and everyone is aware that, currently, CCs are going through a fast-
track process, which is intended not to -- not to impede with any
future judgments or future decisions of the ccTLD IDN -- IDN PDP.

 And in that respect, I would like to maybe suggest that -- that if
the distinction between the Gs and the CCs and the names and cities and
-- well, I don't want to go as far as names of cities and other
geographical areas.

 But if the names of CCs are an issue for -- not just for the language
of that country, but maybe for the language of -- in other countries,
that we maybe propose that the maybe potential country names should not
be applied for, or it should be noted that any country name that has
been applied for has the potential of being objected to by that country.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Young Eum.  I'm just going to go to
Roelof, who has been patient, and then Kristina.  And then engage the
audience on another issue.

 >>ROELOF MEIJER:   Still on the different types of TLDs, I think the
confusion or the blurring started already some time ago when we -- I
think something like suddenly stopped using sTLDs as a term.  And while
I probably phrase it the wrong way, but the way I understood it, when
we still had the three flavors was that you had the generics, truly
generic, being global and not really in the particular group, then we
had the sponsored, which were more or less global as well, but targeted
at a specific group, specific as opposed to generic.  And then we had
the ccTLDs.

 And I think the problem already started when we stopped using the
term "sTLDs."

 And now I seem to see a tendency to, for instance, use the "G" in
"gTLD" for all kinds of things, also for "geographic."  And I think it
is a bit weird that if there's a small village in the outback of the
kingdom of the Netherlands that wants to get a TLD, that such a TLD
should be -- or should be called a generic TLD, while it's a village
with perhaps a hundred inhabitants.  There's nothing generic in that.

 I think the distinction remains important, because the mechanisms are
different.

 And coming back to this small village in the outback in the kingdom
of the Netherlands, it's strange that a TLD should have a contract with
a U.S.-based organization that also determines the terms of that
contract, one of them being the use of ICANN-accredited registrars.

 For instance, if you look at dot NL, we are one of the largest
country code top levels, and we have 2,200 registrars, four of which
are ICANN accredited.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Roelof.

 Kristina.

 Sorry, I need to bring that down to you.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   I mean, I think the point about the sponsored
TLDs is interesting, because, actually, in my community, that's one
that's gotten a lot of discussion lately.

 But, unfortunately for my community, the trademark community, I think
we're way beyond that.

 With regard to geographic names, I think the one issue that I really
struggle with is that -- and I am certainly open to being corrected --
but that there really is no international -- under international law,
there's no universally agreed upon protection for country names.  And
that, in large part, it was that understanding in some other work that
was done by the GNSO that resulted in the GNSO's recommendation on this
issue.  And that if, nonetheless, a decision is made within ICANN to
proceed to protect those, that I think we, frankly, need to be honest
about why we're doing it.  That we're not doing it because it is
something that is internationally recognized under international legal
foundations, but we are doing it for political reasons, and I don't
mean to suggest that there's anything wrong with that.  But I think we
need to be honest about it, but I think we also need to be clear.

 And this is actually a question that I would love to hear an answer
from, from the GAC representatives, is that there is now a fairly
complex process in the draft applicant guidebook for applicants to go
about obtaining documentation of objection or nonobjection.

 And I think the one thing that I haven't really seen any articulate
statement of is, are the member countries of the GAC, indeed, willing,
under appropriate circumstances, to issue that documentation?

 Because if we're drafting a process around it, I think we need to
know whether anyone is ever going to actually be able to comply.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's fine.  Now, Kristina, I'm going to put
that question to the GAC people around the table in a moment, but allow
them to speak more generally, perhaps, rather than from their specific
country, to make that a little bit more possible for them.

 But before we do that I'd just like to do a temperature check.

 There seems to be, to me, around the table here a fairly solid weight
of evidence or views that the CC and the G space is blurring.

 So the hypothesis that I would put to you is that in a few years'
time, there will be significant blurring between what we now see as CC
space and G space.

 Can we just see whether --

 So the first -- the first one is, will there be significant blurring?

 >> We do nothing?

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Sorry.  Assuming we do nothing.  Sorry, assuming
we put -- we -- yep.  Good.  Okay.

 So that's about 90/10 green.

 Can I ask a slightly more difficult and pointed question.  And I'll --
I know there's some white, so we'll try to deal with that in a moment.

 Who thinks that in -- let's say nominally say ten years, that this
whole notion that there are CCs and there are Gs will have completely
dissolved in the same way that someone mentioned before that the Ss
have sort of disappeared into everything else?  Will the CCs and the Gs
completely have merged in together in ten years' time?

 Okay.

 Okay.

 Good.  We need some more clarification.  And that's fine.

 We have about five minutes left.

 What I would like to do is just to return to what to me has been one
of the more interesting topics around the table.  And that is the one
of, are there other ways of breaking up the -- the space into other
subcategories rather than just G and CC?  Are there, in terms of their
draft applicant guidebook, other ways of breaking this up so that it
might be more feasible for people in developing countries or smaller
businesses or whatever?

 So I'll take some views on that.  I'll just quickly get a response,
if there's one forthcoming, from a GAC person about -- to Kristina's
question of a moment ago.  Will there be the possibility of governments
providing the sort of information that is required in the draft
applicant guidebook?

 Is there -- is it possible to get an answer to that?

 Manal.  Thank you.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   I think we had this discussion, and we've been
saying that it would be very difficult to have exhaustive lists of
everything we're talking about.

 But we may be able to put some definitions, some criteria to help
first iteration or first decision on applied-for domain names, if this
answers your question.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thanks, Manal.  Quickly from Victor.

 >>VICTOR HANSEN:   To mention about this issue, I would like to make
it clear about the need for geographic names was raised by the GAC for
the first time in the São Paulo meeting in 2006.  So this question is
not new.  And I think something that cannot be affirmed here is that
the GAC is trying to on strategic anything.  I think our position we've
held in this regard is more or less the same as we held in São Paulo in
2006.

 But, of course, the GAC is, as we know -- and whether we like it or
not -- an advisory committee to the board.  So we provide advice to the
board.  We do not participate in PDP.  And we have Bertrand here who
feels very strongly that GAC should be involved in PDP.  And if we got
GAC involved in these issues in an earlier, maybe it would be easier to
address it.

 Coming to this question, I think we had some good suggestions in a
joint meeting the GAC had with the GNSO Council yesterday.  I think
what we could think about that is, instead of trying to -- because the
current recommendation of the GAC with respect to geographic names is
that there should be a list previously elaborated by the GAC that would
represent geographic names that should be protected either in the
first, in the second level.  This is the recommendation, the present
recommendation of the GAC.

 But as there might be problems in implementing that, we could
evaluate other solutions to this problem.  One of them, I think, would
be trying to have a working group, perhaps with people from the GAC and
from GNSO, perhaps, which would define a set of criteria that would be
considered reasonable for the blocking of particular TLDs.  So this
group would work on that.  And then possible presentations of new gTLDs
could be checked against these criterias.

 Of course, then we should seek to define which four of these criteria
would be set.  And we -- and I recognize we do not have an equivalent
to, say, WIPO, which would verify names.

 But it does not make -- the fact that we do not have such an
institution does not make this request less legitimate.  Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thank you, Victor.

 Stephane, are you going to speak to the otherwise splitting up --

 >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER:   I was going to speak to your question
earlier on, Patrick, and just say that my personal opinion on this is
that we're basically still talking about subsets of the gTLD space.  If
-- you know, I don't think you mentioned ccTLDs and gTLDs.  I don't
think there really, in the current model, is ccTLDs.  I think it's a
subset of gTLDs.  We've done it before.  Other speakers have mentioned
the sponsored TLDs have now kind of disappeared.  I mean, there's --
there's extensions out there now that are sponsored TLDs.  But the
class isn't really being talked about anymore.

 And if we talk about city TLDs or other corporate TLDs or whatever,
they're still basic, I think, subsets of gTLDs.

 So I don't see any technical or -- or organizational problem in
having subsets.  And I still do think it would help applicants to put
forward different models.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's fine.

 And Stephane, just to -- I'll come to you next -- just to follow on
to that, would you see that having implications for pricing and costing
of that?

 >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER:   I'd love to see that.  I think that really
needs to be addressed.  I think, once again, if you're -- imagine a TLD
that's completely nonprofit, something like, you know, "health" has
been mentioned, something like that, or, you know, "fighting diseases,"
or any cause like that, humanitarian cause.  Can they be charged the
same?  They can't expect to make money in the same way on their TLD. 
And if you're charging them $185,000, they need to make money.  So it
kind of, you know, means that they can't really apply.  So I would
like, yes, to see different pricing models.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thank you.

 Roelof, was that a request for the microphone there?  And then I'll
come to you, Alan after that, and then down to Manal.  And that will
just about be it, I think.

 >>ROELOF MEIJER:   I think a brand is about as opposite as you can
get from generic as possible.

 So I think it's a bit funny if you say that a brand TLD should be a
subset of a gTLD.

 There's no point in making distinctions if the same mechanisms apply.
But my point is that you should have different mechanisms, and thus
there should be different categories, not subsets.

 A brand TLD is definitely something completely different from a
generic.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Great.  Thanks, Roelof.  Excellent point.

 Alan.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:   I guess I'm either fascinated or appalled that
we've come to the stage within a few months of opening the gates on
gTLDs, which ignoring the concern of the word "generic," is a pretty
wide class of it, and we're having this debate now.  I think "appalled"
is the right word.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, I think, Alan.

 Manal.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   Returning back to the geographic names again very
quickly, and making some brief on the constructive discussion we had
yesterday, there were some suggestions to differentiate or make some
distinction between top-level domains and second-level domains.

 And there was another suggestion for making distinction, again,
between prevention of such registrations and avoidance of abuse of
registrations, meaning that some countries might be willing to have
some private company promoting their country as a touristic place, for
example.  But then I don't want to sound finding any solutions.  But
again comes a problem when two countries with the -- or two cities with
the same name, how should this be dealt with?

 And again the translation of such a name, meaning if there is someone
who wants to apply for Alexandria, for example, in Arabic and
Alexandria in another language, and they both have the governmental
support, for example.  So maybe this adds to the agenda for the world
group Victor was talking about.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.  Thank you, Manal.

 I'm going to draw that to a close, because we're almost exactly on
time.

 I'd like us, first of all, before I do that, we'll be back in at 4:00
for a complete change of topic.  And at 4:00, we'll be looking at ways
of improving the policy development process.  And we'll have a slightly
different group of people around the table.

 But as our participants here leave, I think they deserve a very
strong round of applause for their excellent work.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   There'll be various forms of caffeine and
carbohydrate outside the door.  Please go out and partake.  We'll be
back in at 4:00.  And at the end of that session, we'll be asking for
feedback on what we've done.  But I'll explain that when we come back.

 

 Joint AC/SO Workshop

 Part II

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start in about 30
second.  If you could come in and take your seats, please.  We'll start
in 30 seconds.  Please come in and take your seats.

 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second half of the joint
advisory committee and supporting organization meeting.

 As you're seating yourselves, I'd just like to let you know that
several people are moving around the auditorium at the moment,
distributing a feedback form.  Some of them are quite fluorescent green
and some are white.  They're identical.  We'd really value your input
on the sessions we're running this afternoon.  Because as we said at
the beginning, this is the second phase of an experiment.  And we're
hoping to learn from what we do this time to do even better the next
time.

 So those feedback forms will be coming around.  If you'd like to fill
them in either as we go or at the end of the session.  And when you've
done that, can you please return them to the edge of the table here. 
We'll make that the point for collection.  If you can return your forms
to the edge of the table here, we'll then take them and collect them
and use them to improve what we're doing next time.

 There seems to be a little bit of confusion about the feedback forms.

 There's feedback on both halves of this session.  But if you really
want to full it in on the first half, that won't be a big drama.  But
we're really looking for feedback on both portions.  So either as we go
through this time or at the end of this session would probably be the
time to do that.

 In the first half of our session today, we focused on issues around
expanding the name space.  And we had a, I think, very lively and
useful discussion of some of those issues.  In our session this
afternoon, we're going to focus on a different topic.  Our session this
afternoon is about ways that we can improve the policy development
process, or, probably more accurately, policy development processes. 
Because there are several in ICANN, as we shall learn.

 We will follow the same format as we did in the first half.  That is,
we will focus the conversation on the people around the table here.  At
various points in proceedings, I will ask you, using the colored pieces
of paper that you have, to show your approval with the green, your
approval with the red, and use the white to show that the issue needs a
little bit more explanation or things are not clear.  Red for agree --
red for not agree, green for agree, and white for need more information.

 At the end of this session, which will be at 4:30 -- at 5:30, sorry,
at 5:30, we will then open the floor to comments from anyone in the
audience.

 So please, if you've got something that you really are keen to say,
store it away, and we'll take comments at that time.

 But until that time, we're focusing the conversation on the people
around the table.

 Those of you who were at the first session this afternoon might
remember that I mentioned that we had a little bit of a briefing with
the people who are around the table to prepare ourselves for this
afternoon.  And one of the things that became obvious quite quickly
when we came to speak about improving the policy development processes
was that we actually needed, first of all, to explain a little bit
about what they were, and that even that part might be a little bit
contentious.  So that's where we're going to start.

 In a moment, I'm going to ask Philip Sheppard if he'd like to explain
to us the policy development process from the GNSO perspective, from
the Philip Sheppard perspective, and then we'll ask Jeff if he has a
different view, because those of you who know Jeff know that he
sometimes does.

 We'll move from there to talk about things from an ALAC and a ccNSO
perspective, and bring everyone into the table, and we'll try and
moderate that as we go.  We've got our three microphones, the same as
last time.  And I think we should let the games begin.

 So, Bertrand, if you could be our microphone bearer, well done. 
Philip, what is policy development from a --

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   I have a red card already.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Sorry, Philip.  I've been reminded to do
introductions first.  Because we have new people around the table. 
Thank you for reminding you.  Philip, it's still your microphone first.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   Philip Sheppard, a member of the business
constituency and a member of the GNSO Council.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:   I'm Jeff Neuman with NeuStar, I'm a member of the
gTLD registries constituency.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   I'm Bertrand De La Chapelle.  I'm the
French GAC representative and vice chair of the GAC.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   Hi, I'm Lesley Cowley, the CEO of Nominet, the dot
UK registry, and I'm here as a ccNSO member in my own right.

 >>GABRIEL BOMBAMBO:   Gabriel Bombambo, at-large.

 >>BECKY BURR:   Becky Burr, NomCom member of the ccNSO Council.

 >>MONIQUE CHARTRAND:  Monique Chartrand, at large, Quebec, Canada.

 >>HOLLY RAICHE:  Holly Raiche with the Internet Society of Australia
and the at-large community.

 >>SERGIO SALINAS PORTO:  Sergio Salinas Porto.  I represent the
association in my country and the Latin American Association of
Internet users.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:  Steve Crocker, chair of the Security and Stability
Advisory Committee and member of the ICANN board.

 >> (Saying name) NomCom member of ccNSO.

 >> Hi, I'm Louie Lee, the senior network architect at Equinix and I
am also the chair of the ASO Address Council AOL Olga hi, I'm Olga,
representing now the noncommercial users constituency.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   Manal Ismail, Egyptian representative to the GAC
and one of the vice chairs.

 >>MICHAEL SILBER:   Michael Silber director of the dot Z name
authority, member of the ccNSO, and will be taking the ccNSO
appointment to the board from -- with effect from 7 May.

 >>MASON COLE:   My name is Mason Cole.  I represent the Registrars
constituency, and I'm secretary of that constituency.

 >>STEFANO TRUMPY:   Stefano Trumpy representing the GAC for Italy.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   terrific.  Thank you.

 Philip.  Policy development.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   Let me start with a premise.  ICANN contracts
are imperfect documents created by imperfect beings.

 Policy development, therefore, is involvement of a whole lot more of
imperfect beings attempting to make those contracts better.

 Why?  Because, over time, things change.  Over time, externalities,
external costs of what's in those contracts become -- bear on other
parties.  The relevance of those contracts changes over time and the
scope and the scale and therefore the impact of those contracts changes
over time.  And, therefore, in the outside world, the real world,
political and commercial pressures build up and develop and say,
"Change is needed," and that is why we go into a process called policy
development, to, essentially, from my perspective, to change contracts,
which is the -- the real time when you're actually making a difference
and maybe doing some other things that could be voluntary which may
make a difference, but which perhaps are less certain in terms of their
outcome.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Philip.

 Jeff, what's your view on that?

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:   I see Philip gave a good segue.  There's a common
understanding of what policy development means.

 Philip said, and not to quote, but he said it's to make contracts
better.

 Well, part of the problem that people are -- part of the problem that
-- part of the reason people get frustrated with the policy development
process is, they believe that the only acceptable outcome of a policy
development process is a mandatory restriction or obligation on the
contracted party.

 Where I would put forward that an acceptable outcome of a policy
development process is the development of a best practice or multiple
best practices that could voluntarily be adopted by the contracted
parties.

 You know, it's -- we have a unique situation here where contracted
parties, in advance, agree to be bound by a set of policies which have
yet to be determined.  And I want everyone to think about that,
especially those in the business community, of how many of you would
actually put your business in a situation where you would sign a
contract that says that there are going to be a set of policies in the
future that we're not going to tell what you they are now, but no
matter what happens, if it follows this policy development process, you
are actually bound by that.

 And I would venture to say that most of the businesses that you work
for would think you're crazy.

 But it is a reality in which we live.  And, you know, I would also
put forth that -- and this is a frustrating answer as well -- but
sometimes an acceptable outcome of a policy development process could
be no policy at all.  And I know that sounds a little contrary.  But
think about it.

 You could study an issue for a while.  You can work hard at it.  And
you could realize that, wait a minute, maybe it's best that we don't
have a policy on this issue.

 So, as frustrating as that seems, it is an acceptable outcome.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Jeff.

 Now, all of those policies not only impact registries and registrars,
with whom ICANN has contracts, but they also impact end users.

 So, Holly, would you like to, if we can just get the microphone back
to you from down there, thank you -- can we get a user's perspective on
what policy development might be.

 >>HOLLY RAICHE:   That's exactly the first thing I was going to say. 
I heard business, I've heard commercial.  I didn't hear citizen.  And
that worried me.

 The next thing I heard was a lot of discussion about what's
political, what's commercial.  I didn't actually hear the consumer
point of view.

 I thought what was really interesting just before we left for the
coffee and tea break was Alan saying, "You know, how is it we got this
far with the debate on top-level domains and we're still having this
discussion amongst all of us?"  That's not to say it hasn't happened
within ICANN.  But it hasn't happened within the community.  And
somehow, everybody out there finally actually got to have a say, got to
put up their hands -- well, not up their hands, they got to put up
pieces of paper -- and say we've actually got a view, because it's
going to impact us as well.

 So I'd like to put the third party well and truly into the view,
because it's just as important.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific, thanks, Holly.

 Governments are another player in this space.  Bertrand.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   I would like to make just a very simple
starting point when we talk about policy development.

 The question is the purpose.  And the purpose, I believe, we share is
that the goal is to provide the public interest, to define the public
interest at the global level, which is a big challenge.  Which means we
want processes to go beyond the defense of individual interest while
respecting them, so that the global regime that we apply and we all
adhere to is serving the greater good.

 And I would just like to make one comment to what Jeff was saying.

 When you say that a company that agrees to accept any evolution in
the rules that will be applied to this company would be nuts to agree
on this, actually, may I tell you that this is what every single
company incorporating or operating in a country is actually doing.  You
have to abide and accept any legal regime that will come through the
appropriate processes.  And we all know that sometimes the processes
are more democratic than others.

 But the reality is that what we're trying to do is to have a
transparent, really effective process for defining rules that we
collectively accept to be bound by.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Bertrand.

 Now we'll get a technical perspective.  Steve.  And after that, we'll
open to a more general discussion with Sérgio and then Olga.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   Thank you.

 So I do want to bring a very specific technical perspective.  I've
been watching policy development processes in ICANN for a period of
time.  And I've seen what, from my perspective, are errors in two
directions.  One kind of error is not -- is assuming that certain
things can be done because a policy decision has been made that,
therefore will be done, that exceed the technical limits.  And this is
the classic sort of pitfall.  So one of the things that is quite
obvious from my perspective, anyway, is that it would be helpful for
the policy processes to be informed by a certain amount of education,
if you will, as to where -- what the limits are.

 The other side, which is the exact complement of that, is that I've
equally seen policy processes that have gotten bogged down because it
was assumed that there were limits, where, in fact, those limits don't
necessarily exist.  And so that leads to a kind of very low-level fight
as to, well, it either has to be my way or your way, and one or the
other, a kind of zero-sum game.  And so it's just a question of who has
more power or who can outmaneuver, when in fact there may be outcomes
that are positive that are available for both.

 I want to try the following image for you.  It's what I call my Oreo
cookie model for policy development.  That whatever the policy
development process is, whether it's to negotiate changes in contract
or better -- best common practices or for the greater good, that there -
- those processes start, in general, with somebody framing a question,
somebody asking, "Can we do better?"

 I would argue that once that question's on the table, there should be
a very deliberate and careful pause to reach out and engage the -- on a
fact-finding basis, what the technical limits and shape of that field
is.  There may be unpleasant surprises to say, "You can't have A, B,
and C.  You have to make choices."  Or it may be a pleasant surprise
that you don't have to choose among A, B, and C; there's ways to get
all of that.

 Then -- and that's the frosting in the middle of the Oreo cookie. 
And then back to the policy people to finish that process and choose
from within the feasible space, according to whatever the values are
that are brought into that process.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thanks, Steve.

 Next we'll go to Sérgio, who I think will give us more of a user's
perspective on that.  

 >>SERGIO SALINAS PORTO:  I'm going to be speaking English [sic].  

 I was listening to what Philip said.  It is a perspective from the
business.  And they spoke about a contract.  And I immediately
remembered Jean-Jacques Rousseau and "The Social Contract."  I started
thinking that the contract is not between two parties, but three
parties, that is, the state, the business, and the people, the users.

 And that's why I ask myself, why should we see things from only one
perspective?  Why not take a broader perspective?  We can participate. 
And I am under the impression that we should have a stronger position
of participation in every single sector.  But I think the voice of the
state has to be present, and also the voice of users, in order to
define this kind of thing among -- between the whole of us, not only
one party.

 It is true that in this relationship of power, that weaker ones are
the users, and the stronger ones are the businesses, because they have
the money and the power to define.

 It is true that in this relationship of power, the weaker ones are
the users and the stronger ones are the businesses, because they have
the money and the power to define.

 But wouldn't it be more friendly, wouldn't it be more friendly if we
could arrange things in a consensus of the three parties?

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.  Olga Cavalli.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Patrick.  I will speak in Spanish.

 I'd like to take up what Bertrand and Sérgio said.

 I think that the reasonable policy development, one that will include
the contracting parties, because we have different contracts with
Internet, as users, as scholars, as citizens, well, this must be done
necessarily through open-ended working groups and with the
participation of everybody as Sérgio said, where all the stakeholders
are present.  Those that are participating in policy development must
be there.  Those have to be, also, transparent, open.

 But one must also consider how difficult it is for developing
countries, particularly those developing countries that are very far
away in the south or in the west or in different parts of the world,
where it is very expensive to come to these meetings to look for
technological tools to favor the remote participation of more people
who are representing the interests of people all over the world so that
we may reach our next billion users from everywhere, and not only 16%,
as Oscar said in the previous session.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Olga Cavalli.

 Now I have got on the speaking order Lesley, and then I have another
microphone -- we'll go to Lesley and I will sort it out as we go.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   I was going to make a point that as a CC, we have
a national policy process.  And like many others have said, policy, and
the process by which you develop policy, needs to include all of the
stakeholders.

 So it's not just policy devised by registrars or by the registry.  It
needs to include end users, it needs to include businesses,
governments, intellectual property, et cetera, et cetera.

 And that's a real challenge.

 So it's no surprise that it's a real challenge when you try do it on
a global level.

 Now, participation is a key element of that, of course.  And there's
much more we have -- we have done a lot but we can do much more on
participation.

 And I think we need to make it much, much easier for people to
participate.

 But the session which we had earlier on today which I enjoyed
immensely demonstrated to me that because we tend to develop policy in
silos, we miss the opportunity to get all of the constituencies
involved in policy at an early stage.  And I think that's an
opportunity for ICANN, and the participants going forward.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.  Thanks, Lesley.

 We will go to Becky next, and then we will come to Gabriel after that.

 >>BECKY BURR:   I think it was genius to get Philip to start this
conversation followed by Jeff and then Bertrand, because I think I now
know why we're here ten years later.

 What Philip described was an essentially regulatory role.  And
clearly, it's not true that the purpose of policy is to perfect
contracts.  If that's the case, then I have no idea what we spent all
of this time on the gTLD policy doing.

 And Bertrand, as much as I love him, sort of reinforced that.

 But what I heard from Lesley and from Steve and from the others here
is that we ought to be thinking about the policy development process
more as a conversation and a way of finding consensus as opposed to
regulating.

 And I think that split accounts for an enormous amount of the
difficulty.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.  Thanks, Becky.

 I am going to go to Gabriel and then I am going to come over here to
Mason.

 >>GABRIEL BOMBAMBO:  I would like to speak a bit about this topic of
policy development process.  It has to do with the final users, because
the state, the businesses, cannot exist unless we have the final users.

 If you don't have final users, the role of the state, of the
businesses is useless, because you have to have people who use it.

 And in regarding this development of policy, one has to take into
account the final users.

 We have to think of policy by policy.  But what for?  It comes from
the final users.  That is, those who are at the bottom.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.

 Thank you, Gabriel.

 We have got Mason next, and then I am going to go to Holly.  And I
will come to Monique after that.

 >>MASON COLE:   Thank you, Patrick.  I want to start by agreeing with
three things that have been said and then offer a suggestion that might
be helpful as we consider what to do with the policy development process.

 I want to agree with Steve who made the point that when a policy is
proposed, it's a good opportunity to step back and take a look at the
potential impact it might cause.

 And I know that you are speaking from a technical point of view, but
I would like to follow-up on that.

 I also want to agree with Lesley who said it's important to encourage
participation by all parties in a PDP.  I'm also filling an interim
chair role on the GNSO improvements process for the communications team
whereby our objective is to try to encourage better participation
through the GNSO process.

 So I look forward to hopefully a good outcome of that.

 And finally, I want to agree with Becky who said that some of what
causes the split in the way that we think is the idea of regulator
versus nonregulator.  I agree with that as well.

 My suggestion is this, that if we take the lead that Steve just
offered and step back at the moment that a policy is proposed and take
a look at -- do some research to find out what sort of impact it may
have, not only on the technical function of the Internet but on the
companies that provide those services, on the end users that are
impacted by those services, on ICANN itself, there is, beyond the
technical, there is a wealth of unintended consequences that could
disrupt marketplaces, that could disrupt user expectations that had
been built up over time and not interfered with for several years.  And
that kind of potential disruption deserves a rigorous set of research
that would support the policy that's being proposed.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.  Thanks, Mason.

 Holly.

 >>HOLLY RAICHE:   I hate to --

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Lots of waving green there, before you start. 
There's support for that sort of sentiment?  Some?  Good.  Thank you.

 Holly.

 >>HOLLY RAICHE:   The room has gone green.  I am all in favor.

 Call me a pedant or a lawyer or both but I want to go back to square
one.  What do we mean by "policy" because in some context it might be
that the outcome would be some kind of contractual arrangement.  In
others, it might be that it's a best practice guide.  In others it may
be some sort of action or no action.

 But in fact, we're talking about something in a vacuum.  And I'd like
to have a sort of, well, if we're talking about policy, we have to
think about in terms of, number one, are we asking for some kind of
action?

 Number two, are we asking for some kind of action or response?  And
if so, does that party have the jurisdiction to do anything anyway?

 Number three, what kind of coercive power is there?  If there is
none, then probably you are asking for some kind of different response.

 So I understand, to me this is a conversation that perhaps is in the
broad, but going back to the second point that was made, it isn't
always about a contract, it may not always be about a best guideline.

 I think the questions we ask have to actually start with what is it
that we're wanting, what kind of outcome, and then what is possible
within the jurisdictional framework that we are actually asking.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Holly.

 Monique.

 >>MONIQUE CHARTRAND:   I am going to be speaking in French.

 Based on my experience, because I don't have much experience in
ICANN, but in my experience, all policy development should be focused
on the objective of the organization.

 I read the strategic plan and there are a lot of elements that are
interesting, but for me, the first thing is to align, regardless of the
policy, that it should be aligned to the vision and the values of the
organization.

 If I talk of the ICANN's principle value, it's sharing.  And that's
what I have been hearing since I have been here for three days.

 Perhaps there is a need to exchange information between the different
agencies that are within ICANN.

 What I would add, I'm from an at-large group, is that the fact that
we have created at-large structures, that's an opportunity, perhaps, to
try and bring into line the existing policies in line with this new way
of thinking.

 And in the case of work group one, we issued certain guidelines
regarding the end users and the ALS.

 And the thing would be to see how we can have a process that would be
closer to the users and what -- and maybe use the ALS so that we can
have these conditions.

 And what is also important, vis-a-vis reality and the population, is
to have mechanisms, accessibility mechanisms, for handicapped people.

 And this has to become a fact.

 And also, people who are even slightly illiterate or who are not
capable of reading fully.

 And when we use written systems, we need to make them available to
these people.

 And, of course, we also need follow-up mechanisms that follow-up the
people who participate.

 So this has to do with ICANN's fundamental basis, which is sharing.

 And also take the opportunity of take advantage of at-large
structures to adapt a process that would bring in the stakeholders and
make them a part of the whole economic (Off microphone).

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   (Off microphone) on the GNSO process because
that's where we started, I suppose.

 I would like to go do Louie because the ASO has different view of
this.  

 Louie.

 >>LOUIE LEE:   I would like to offer a perspective of how the policy
development process in the IP addressing world works.  And perhaps
there may be some improvements learning about your policy development
process we can take and perhaps you can take some from ours.

 So just to outline the structure first.

 The IP addresses are distributed from IANA to the five regions around
the world.

 The five regions receive the addresses in Regional Internet Registries.

 From there, the addresses are then redistributed to the users
directly, to the operators of the Internet, both ISPs and perhaps
content providers.

 And how these addresses are given out within the regions, those
policies are developed within each regional fora.

 And participation is invited to -- all parties are invited, shall we
say.  Meaning not just those that receive the addresses directly as an
ISP.  The users are invited, government agencies are invited, even
those that don't live in that region are able to introduce policies. 
This is important in that the global policies, as defined in the MOU
between ICANN and the RIRs, the global policies are those that act on --
that of influence the behavior of IANA and the RIRs.

 So those policies, being global, we need input from the global
community.

 In getting that input, the policy -- a similar policy is introduced
in all five regions.  Ideally, an identical policy is introduced in all
five regions.  And it goes through their own policy development process
as each region determines what that process should be.

 In general, it's, okay, they will have a mailing list where everybody
can discuss.  You don't have to be anybody except for somebody that has
an e-mail address.

 Of course, that precludes some other people to participate.  But you
can also attend the meetings in person.  And then there is a time line
for last call for comments, so on.

 But then as each policy is accepted, meaning consensus is reached, as
what's the best wording, the best -- I want to say -- well, I don't
want to say technical, because just because it's a number doesn't mean
it's technical, because you are talking about influencing and affecting
the users in the end.

 Now, those that participate not just include ISPs, government
agencies.  We have law enforcements also, and research and development
communities also participate, the technical community definitely
participates.  We have many -- those of us that are in this are also
attending IEEE, IETF.  We have liaisons bring information back and forth.

 So the input is done early on, and discussion is done early on.

 So as each is reached, as the consensus is reached in all five
regions, then it bubbles up to my group which confirms that that's the
case and then gets put in front of the board.

 At that point, a lot of discussion has already happened.

 The arguments have happened.

 So if you see -- we like to participate and introduce policies.  Back
at the RIRs, that's the best way to introduce it because then you get
all the input that you desire.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.

 Thanks, Louie.

 So he has given us a different model of policy development.

 Can we see if our pieces of paper are working?  The model that Louie
has described, the ASO model, starts on a regional basis and then comes
to the top.

 Do we think ICANN would be better off if we developed policies
regionally and brought them up to the top from there?

 We have got a few "not clears," lots of reds, and an occasional green.

 Okay.

 Good.

 Philip, let's go back to your perspective.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   It's interesting that in this first round we
have heard words like importance of inclusiveness, which I thoroughly
support.  And we also heard description of problems as silos; in other
words, different groups in different areas.  And I think as someone
with a degree of institutional memory, a wry smile comes upon my lips.

 If we look at ICANN's last reform process, remember we are going
through the second reform process now, I think the first reform process
can perhaps be described as the great phase of silo building.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   Why is this the case?  Because from a lovely
family unit called the Names Council, those children called the CCs
flew the nest to create their new silo outside.  And at the same time,
those new unheard of voices called users at-large started developing
from ground up a whole series of silos that developed into what we now
know as the at-large organization.

 So what hope is there for us?

 Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is immense hope.

 Because in the current reform structure, new constituencies are being
pleaded for, invited for, to come and break down the silos, to some
into the bosom of policy development within the GNSO, and especially in
the noncommercial users' house, the door has been kicked wide up often
the sacrificial blood of the commercial users and their two spots of
the name council to say, "Please, come through the voice of users, you
who as businesses we rely on every day for our bread and butter.  Come
through, join us, be there.  Be a constituency.  Don't just advise
anymore.  Don't just allow yourself to think we made a really good
thing but we can be ignored.  Come inside where the bylaws say once
it's done in a certain thing, you can't be ignored anymore."

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Philip.

 I think that at least deserves a show of support or otherwise.  A
little bit, yes.  Jeff needs a little bit more information, but no
reds, interestingly.

 Thank you, Philip.  

 We have Mike who has waited patiently over there.  

 >>MIKE SILBER:   I don't know if I can follow the drama of Philip's
erudition, but let say a slightly controversial position.

 We started off in terms of policy development where policy
development was pretty much done by one person.  A benign dictator, may
some even argue a divine dictator who set policy and, when it proved to
be wrong, could be prompted to make certain changes because he was the
sort of man who is willing to admit when he made mistakes and to move on.

 The world has changed.  It's gone commercial.  Unfortunately, money
now drives a lot of the policy around the Internet as a whole.

 But still, some of the fundamental principles are there.

 I have no problem with principles of inclusiveness and consultation. 
I have no problem recognizing the different categories, classes,
geographical regions of users.

 I just want to know what a partially illiterate person in my own
country has to do with a policy on Fast Fluxing or domain tasting.

 Do we really need to draw consultation down on every policy to such
an extent that we take ten years to develop every policy?

 Because I think that's the problem that we get to.

 I really like Steve's analysis, but I am concerned that if we have to
be so inclusive about every issue, then we get into an analysis
paralysis.  We make no policy about anything.  We don't develop.  We
stagnate, and those people who are abusing the system or who want the
system to grow are not able to enjoy that.

 My personal feeling is that we need to have a flexible policy
development process.

 There's some policies that should be capable of being resolved in a
matter of months, weeks hopefully, but let's give it months.  There are
some that are going to take years.

 There's some that should be discussed and debated by every potential
constituency out there.

 There's some that those constituencies who want to be heard should
shout loudly, but for the rest it gets discussed in small rooms, with
the doors open so others can hear what's going on, but it's a small
group of people that really need to be there.

 The last thing is, I think we need to recognize that bottom-up policy
is very good in certain circumstances.  It's very good to tell people
when there are errors and omissions in existing policy.

 But sometimes top-down is not a bad thing.

 Now, I'm not suggesting manipulation of process, I am not suggesting
that there should be any sort of dictatorial process as has been the
accusation in the past.  But I am suggesting that sometimes guidance is
necessary; that there are certain elements within the organization that
should be brave enough to say this is where we want policy to go, now
give us feedback, instead of saying, "Come to us, give us your input
and then we will respond but until then, we will (off microphone).

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.  I am going to go to Bertrand.  I have
a lot of patient people here so we will move the microphone as quickly
as we can.  Bertrand.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   I think the discussion is a little bit
less concrete than the one we had in the first panel.  And it's normal.

 I want to reiterate, and I will abuse this term as much as I can, the
term "public interest."  We have to swallow it as much as we can
because this is what this organization is about, and this is why we are
here together.

 The second thing is I fully agree with the notion that we are putting
one single name on a very diverse range of activities.

 And especially the reality is that ICANN has evolved.  It is ten
years old now, and there are very different elements today from what
was done in the very early days.

 If I take a very interesting case, which is the allocation of IP
addresses, I would argue that the policy -- or the public-policy
dimension of the issue has grown as the scarcity is growing.

 It used to be a really technical coordination matter.  It is now
becoming the management of scarcity, and it is now becoming an
operational challenge to steer the community in a coordinated manner so
that we make this transition together. 

 I think we could say the same for other things.  When you have just
dot com and dot org and dot net and the others, fine, it's just
managing that it goes okay.  When we decide to open the gTLD space, for
instance, it is a big policy decision.  And I would actually concur
with Becky.  I remember a statement by Steve Crocker in Lisbon, I
think, who was saying, in reference to the term "market," that this
market, if there is any, is 100% man-made.  We create the resource.  We
decide the rules.  We decide the allocation.  We make it as scarce or
as open as we want.  This is a decision.  And I think there is one
element, and I could deal with other issues but I don't want to be too
long, there's one element that we are somehow having a problem as a
community, and this word is "decision."  If you think about it, it was
actually Philip this morning when we were preparing who made this very
interesting question are we doing policy development or policy
discussion.  That's a very interesting thing.  Policy development, when
you think of it, almost implicitly is such an ongoing process that is
close to a never-ending process.  And the old-timers here, especially
on the new gTLD have the sense of nonclosure.  Dirk Krischenowski has
this wonderful expression of permanent pregnancy.  They say every time
it's nine months later.  And I think the notion of closure is very
important.  Policy is about decisions and sometimes defining the public
interest needs to force some actors to accept in that case their
individual interest has to give away to a global public interest but
that they'll be served in a larger format.  

 The key point I want to make as a link to the policy development
process within ICANN is that it has stages.  I don't want to get into
the details because there are working groups on this, but I could not
insist enough on the importance of the early stages, the issue-scoping,
the issue-framing so that we have common picture, complete picture,
common goals, before we get into finding the solutions.  

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's terrific.  Thank you, Bertrand.  We've got
lots of people waiting.  I'm going to take a few more here and then I'd
like us to start to move to some ideas of what a perfect or ideal
policy process might look like which is the end of what Bertrand was
saying there.  Manal.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   I would like to echo some of the views that were
said earlier.  I think the policy development process is about
participation or -- I mean early participation of all stakeholders to
agree or decide on a way forward on a specific issue.  And this could
result in a contract, could result in a no policy, could result on
whatever.  So actually I tend to agree with most of the views that has
been said here.

 The problem is they are one-sided views, but I tend to view with them
collectively.  I mean, putting all this together is what's policy
development process is.

 And a quick response to this development thing.  We might look at it
in a positive way that we keep enhancing and improving the policy. 
But, again, it has to be phased, it has to have milestones, it has to
have concrete output.  And then we can continue on the improvement.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good, thank you, Manal.  Is there some support
for that?  Excellent.  Thank you.  Can I just throw something else in
while I'm moving the microphone around here?  We've talked, you know,
Bertrand's challenged us there about policy development, policy
discussion.  I haven't heard a lot of talk on the way through about
monitoring what we've actually achieved against what we set out to
achieve.  And I would think that a policy development process somewhere
needs to include something like that.  Otherwise, we are permanently
pregnant, as Bertrand suggested there, that somewhere in the process we
actually need to be considering that as well.

 So let's go to Sergio and they were I'll come back and take Jeff
after that.

 >>SERGIO SALINAS PORTO:   Okay, I will continue speaking in Spanish. 
I would like to first talk about Bertrand, Bertrand, what you said was
very clear and I'm grateful for your words.  But retaking what Mason
said and what Mike said also, Mason talked about the potential impact. 
I remember when I was in college when we spoke -- when we talked about
responsibility we would say whoever places something within society has
to take responsibility.  Companies and states, when they develop
scientific research and they introduce new technologies, undoubtedly
they have to take care of that, take responsibility for it, and in
this, and especially when afterwards it has a lucrative end.  In other
words, you put something on sale, it's good, it works, it's also good
for the people.  And therefore, it leaves a profit margin and that's
important, still.  I believe that somehow that value of this new
technology applied in any field -- and I say this because before I was
listening to something about the new gTLDs and I don't really agree
with that and in reality I'm concerned when you work in poverty and you
have to explain to someone that it's going to cost a lot to separate
between dot com, dot edu, et cetera, that now they're negotiation to
have a lot more and that person, perhaps, the only thing they're going
to be able to find are two or three that are going to work then I think
that's going to complicate things more.  But I think that's a
discussion that we can continue on with later on.  But I do think that
users, we should have an -- a very important role.  Because somehow,
and even if we don't know anything, I mean, there can be a user of
these new technologies who knows nothing but still they will have
representatives here who will be able to talk about this and this won't
take 10 years.  What it will take is that we should come up with
something that will be useful for the people to companies and to the
governments or countries.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.  I'll go now to the very patient
Stefano, who has been waiting a while and then I'll come to Jeff next.

 >>STEFANO TRUMPY:   Okay, I appreciate the facts that you started the
discussion from the key word "contract."  That is the final step of the
process.  And here we are discussing about the public -- the policy
development that is the process to agree on principles that we'll be
able to like contracts.  But I would like to say a word that also the
public policy development is an intermediate step.  Because on top
there is the problem of the Internet governance.  And as this has been
discussed and now well understood as a multistakeholder process that
includes then the governments, the private sector and the users.  And
so I can say that ICANN is in the arena of the Internet maybe is the
best example of multistakeholderism, but the point now is that in
preparing this policy development, then ICANN made an effort to locate
the constituencies that are in position to discuss and to propose this -
- this policy development.  And we listened in previous discussions
that someone complained that the users are not so well represented, or,
for example, the potential applicants are not direct into the
discussion of the policy development and of the contracts, of course.

 So my signal is that ICANN is actually starting from a clear position
of multistakeholders.  But may, of course, may improve.  Because there
is a demand from the users on the one side, from the private sector on
the other side to be more active and to be consulted to define these
principles, this policy development process.  

 So -- and then we have seen that there was a big improvement from
version draft one of the handbook to draft two, and now we await draft
three.  So the discussion will be with the community in order to get
more input and possibly to reach something that would not reach a lot
of complaints, let's say.  So my final observation is that here there
is a necessity to converge.  Because the process has been already too
long.  When it was started two years or three years ago.  And then we
should take in mind that sometimes the better is the enemy of the good.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific, thank you, Stefano, Jeff.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:   I'm going to put on a little bit different hat as a
participant on the PDP work team which is tasked with coming up with a
revised policy development process and I want to latch on actually to
something that Mike said.  You know, a lot of times people in this room
and people in the Internet community use the policy development process
really to complain about things that we're not necessarily doing right
and, you know, that actually -- and to talk about procedural matters.  

 Well, I want to say it's a little bit of a disappointment to me since
there's such good views in this room, on these tables and all around
the room on policy development.  Yet when there's an open call from
ICANN to form the policy development work team, open to anyone in the
community, it was really disappointing to see only 10 to 15 people apply.

 You have an opportunity to help revise the process.  And, you know,
it doesn't necessarily mean that the ALAC sends their chair or the same
person from the ALAC that normally attends these.  I'd like to see a
lot of people from the ALAC participate.  I'd like to see everyone in
this room participate.  It's a lot harder to actually do the work than
it is to complain.  

 So this is an open call to anyone who wants to participate to join
the group and help us come up with a policy development process that
works for the consensus of the Internet community.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Jeff.  Can we just see if there's --
what's the level of support for that?  Good.  I'd also like to let you
know that we've just photographed that moment.  We've all found your e-
mail addresses and you'll be e-mailed instructions on how to join the
group.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Jeff.  I've got Lesley and then I'll
work my way round there and then I wants to focus very quickly on what
would the ideal process look like.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   Jeff, I wasn't even aware of that call, and.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   What?

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   I wasn't even aware of that call and I suspect
many people in the room were not.  And I want to make two points.  I
want to make a statement from the point of views that participants
should, okay, because I think we need to get on to some actions here
because the energy level's dropping.  Participants in ICANN should have
a lot of energy, should recognize why it's important to be involved but
equally cannot be involved in everything.  And I think we -- we're not
going to get the whole world involved in this, it's not interesting to
many people.  Okay?  I struggle to explain what I do many times.  But I
do think we need to find ways of getting people involved on issues that
are important to them, okay?  And that's a key challenge, and as
participants, we share a responsibility for doing that.

 My next thing is ICANN should, and I'm well-known for ICANN should
lists.  I think ICANN should improve remote participation.  There's
been a lot done and I know Kieren agrees.  I think we should improve
translation of materials.  I'm lucky, English is my language.  I
really, really struggle to see how people participate in other
languages.  And I think we should recognize that there needs to be much
more investment in communications.  Not all of us are dedicated enough
to read a 40-page document two days before the meeting when you've
crowded a load of stuff into your week because you're going to, "next
week.  Okay?  I think we need to recognize people have limited time,
you need to be incredibly dedicated to be involved in this and a number
of us I know work very hard to try to do that.  That niece to be
acknowledged but it also needs to be made a bit easier for us.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Lesley.  A quick refly from Jeff,
quickly Jeff.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:   Initially on the call for participants, I might let
Kiernan help out and explain but there was a posting on the Web site, a
press release that was issued, it was sent to all of the leaders, this
is -- I don't know, Kieren can provide the data, I guess, it was
several months ago.  And I agree with you on the translation issue. 
That I obviously can't speak to.  And I agree with you that everyone
can't participate in everything.  But why is it I see the exact same
people on every committee?  I mean, and these people are great and they
do a great job.  But, you know, if that were to be -- that wouldn't be
true if we had different people on the committee.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Jeff.  I'm going to pass this around to
you really quickly, about 30 seconds each if we can do it.

 >>BECKY BURR:  Okay, I'm going to follow this on Lesley's list of
moving this into the concrete.  I would like to challenge us never to
use the words "public interest" and "public policy," but instead to use
what Stefano was talking about, convergence. 

 If we started, as Holly suggested, with an articulation of what our
desired outcome is, we would all know where we were headed and where we
disagreed.  When Bertrand says "public policy" and "public interest," I
don't know what he's talking about.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Terrific.  Can we organize an ambulance for
Bertrand, please?  Holly?

 >>HOLLY RAICHE:   I, on the other hand, am going to completely
support where Bertrand starts but support exactly what Becky says and
also what Mike says.  I think the process has to be something where we
can understand clearly what the issues are, we can understand clearly
what the technical implications are or not, we can understand -- and
they're articulated as to what the issues are, what you expect a
response on.  It is not put into 40 pages because particularly the at-
large community usually has low-paying jobs anyway and no time.  And if
you are very concise about what you want responses about, about what
likely outcomes are, people get to think about their outcomes, what's
best for the constituency and recognize that we're all-time poor you're
probably going to come up with a process that is not going to be
continued pregnancy.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Holly.  Very quickly, Sergio.

 >>SERGIO SALINAS PORTO:  Just one thing, one small thing.  Not all of
us know what's happening in the case of the PDP, we didn't know and
many of us weren't aware of it, but probably because it wasn't in
Spanish or it wasn't in France, and these are things we are going to
have to improve to participate.  

 I also think, and I confirm what Holly says there's a lot of
voluntary work and we do as best as we can.  Surely, if we had
documents in Spanish or in other languages, and much quick, much
faster, we would be -- a lot more people would be able to participate.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   (Speaker off microphone) I'll go to Olga for
another brief comment, but before you do, is there a strong support for
Sergio's comments there?  Okay, a few dissenters over there that's good
and largely green, thank you.  Olga.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:   I'd like to talk about -- go back to Jeff's
comment.  I think so the communications and invitations to working
groups always take place in a circle of the same people.  I'm
surprised, I am a university teacher, and when I talk to my colleagues
about this process, including people who are having to do with more
regulatory and technical thinks, they are not aware of what's happening
and they doesn't know how to participate.  And manufacture them I've
been able to include them little by little, including my students.  But
I think for outreach and communications we would have to get outside
the box and go outside the existing structure and go outside
universities and social structures, et cetera.  Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   (Speaker off microphone) support for the need to
go beyond the circle of involved people we have now?  Okay.  Mostly
yeses and one no.  That's fine.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's so significant that I'm going to give you
a mope if I can just find one.  You've got one, very quickly.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I was slightly provocative.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's not like you.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   But the -- my only objection to that, actually,
was I actually believe -- languages aside, and I take that point very
strongly.  I actually believe the ICANN cascade system of information
and invitations is pretty good.  I mean, you've got to -- if you're
interested, you've got to let somebody know in some way you're
interested.  Anything that as a general call for involvement goes to a
les corps liaison six which goes to every constituency and they cascade
that, then, down to their membership or so at-large to get that and
cascade that down.  

 So it does rely on an official cascade system on what's been signed
up.  So centrally only so much can be done and then the rest is up to
the underlying structures.  

 So that was my objection to that, because I believe that the
opportunity for participation exists, and it's a question of efficiency
to make sure the communication happens.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Efficiency and effectiveness, perhaps?  Good. 
Mike.

 >>MIKE SILBER:  I agree completely.  I think multi-languages is very
important.

 You have to draw a line somewhere.  I think that executive summaries
that were mentioned earlier would be fantastic, and those are the
things that need to get translated.

 I don't think you want to delay a document being issued because
you're now getting 40 translations of a 40-page document which will be
read by maybe 40 people.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Okay.  There's good support for that.

 >>MICHAEL SILBER:   Just getting one step further, we're talking
about always be pregnant.

 (inaudible) I want to take out is from very patriarchal societies,
where families will keep on having children until the desired son
arrives.  I'm not suggesting that we are waiting for the perfect policy
to arrive.  But I'm saying we should keep having children in the hope
that they will bring us joy, they will bring us pleasure, they will
bring us lots of pain, and we carry on moving and we carry on having
more because we need to respond at the time to whatever is relevant at
the time.  But the point taken in that corner very particularly, let's
try and work out what we're trying to get to before we set policies and
decide whose interest we are considering to get us there.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Mike.

 Stefano.

 >>STEFANO TRUMPY:   Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Very briefly, please.

 >>STEFANO TRUMPY:   About the pregnant or -- long pregnancy, I would
say the fact that I was speaking about this multistakeholder process
and about the complaints by parts of the community and so on.  So can
we say that this process is as democracy, and democracy has to be
understood as that anyone can express opinions.  And this is open for
everybody.

 But, in the end, we have to recall the spirit of the Internet, and it
is decisions are taken by broad consensus.  And this does not mean that
we have to wait that everyone agrees.

 And that's why we can be not always pregnant.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Ah.  Interesting.  Very good.  Thank you, Stefano.

 Steve.

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   I'd like to ask -- this is a great group to ask
for opinions on your red and green model here.

 The comment about 40 pages being written and released just before
burdens all of us.  And I certainly have had trouble wading through
piles and piles of paper.

 One of the things that I've noticed is that when I pick up a
document, and I try to understand what's going on, the first thing and
the second thing and the third thing, and, in fact, almost all of the
document, is a recitation of the process that was taken, of who did
what when and what process was followed and so forth.  And from my
point of view, that's irrelevant.

 What I want to know is, what's the state of the dialogue, what is the
substance of the dialogue, and apropos of a joke that some may
understand, that when you squeeze all of that out, it may be quite small.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.  And just to note, so that it's on the
record of the scribing there, there was very strong support around the
room for that.

 Bertrand.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Actually, I wanted to fully support what
Steve was saying.  And this is comment intended to Mike.

 We don't need executive summaries.  We need status of the process. 
What we need is very short pages that say, basically, four things: 
This is where we were at the previous step.  This is what we have
agreed at the current step.  These are the three, four, five issues
that are not agreed upon yet and should be discussed now.  And, four,
these are the next steps and the next opportunity for you to participate.

 If we could have that for every single document, that would be great.

 The other --

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I'm going to stop through, Bertrand.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Just one --

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   No.  I'll come back to you.

 That makes sense.  Good.  Keep going, please.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   And the other point, to go in the
direction Mike was saying, is, I think the objective is, try to get the
relevant actors for each issue.

 And sometimes it's a smaller group.  I mean, you just have to look
around here.  People were interested in process.  Everybody knows I'm a
process guy.

 People are interested in process are a little less numerous than the
ones who are interested in substance.  And it's fine, as long as all
those who are interested in process can participate.

 Final point to Becky -- and I'm serious here -- if in this
organization people don't understand what public interest is, then this
is why we have a problem.

 >>BECKY BURR:   Okay.  I agree.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Bertrand.  There was agreement there
from Becky.

 Mike, quickly.

 [ Applause ]

 >>MICHAEL SILBER:   Very quick one.  A lot of those papers are
produced by lawyers or consultants.  And as a practicing lawyer and a
sometimes consultant, if you don't produce 40 pages, you can't justify
the bill, at the end of the day.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Mike.  Thank you, thank you.

 Can I just try and draw some of that together, conscious that we only
have about 15 minutes left.

 I think these are some of the things that we've said.  And I'll try
and go through them sort of a point at a time.  And if we can just go,
yes, he's got it right, or, no, he's got it wrong.

 >> I'm really sorry to interject.  Before do you, the one thing that
my colleagues on the GAC, I'm surprised, haven't brought up quite
enough, but Lesley raised it earlier, is that sometimes policy is just
best practice, and we cannot be bound, because we belong to sovereign
countries where we choose to do things differently, we vote for our own
governments, we have our own processes.  And sometimes we can see what
others are doing, and we take heed of it, but we can't be bound by it. 
We just get guided.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Mike.

 Holly, quickly, and then you Becky.

 >>HOLLY RAICHE:   That's exactly what I was saying earlier, that we
have to actually look at the outcomes.  And sometimes the outcomes are
not binding.  Sometimes the outcomes that we're looking for are best
practice.

 Now, that's not to denigrate from it.  It's to say, this is what we
can do.  Let's get on and do it.

 >>BECKY BURR:   I just want to say that I agree with Bertrand that we
-- that that is the source of the big problem.

 If you think that when you use the word "public interest," everyone
knows what you're talking about and agrees on what the public interest
is, you're fooling yourself.  That's why we're not getting places,
because we are not articulating what we want.  We put it in this word. 
You know, what's in the public interest for some people is going to be
different.  There's no such thing as, you know, everybody doing the
mind meld with Bertrand's view of public interest.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Becky.

 Manal.

 >>MANAL ISMAIL:   Just quickly responding to Mike, being one of the
GAC.  And this is why early participation is necessary, so that we can
voice our concerns and say that we have a national problem and then
maybe spare you all the work.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Manal.

 Very, very quickly, Sérgio.

 >>SERGIO SALINAS PORTO:   I'm just going to say two words.  It's
really very short.

 I would like to explain what "public interest" is, at least as far as
the users is concerned, is a tripartite government, an egalitarian
tripartite.  At least for those of us who are at the base of using
Internet, if we can participate along with the rest, that's
guaranteeing everybody's public interest.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Sérgio.

 >>SERGIO SALINAS PORTO:  I wanted to bring one other thing to the
attention of everyone here.  That is, I've had a number of
conversations in the last probably two, three months with ICANN staff
and with some in the community.  There's a real danger, I believe, in
the volume of work that's coming toward ICANN as a staff and toward the
community, meaning ICANN staff is having a difficult time processing
the amount of data and information and requests and demands and
everything else that comes at them.  And the quality of work, if we're
not careful, is going to suffer.

 And it -- the other danger is, this can overwhelm the community's
ability to thoughtfully consider what's happening.

 So, to everyone's point here, 40-page documents, you can argue about
the -- the tactics used to distribute information.  The fact is, the
amount of data and the amount of proposed policies and everything else
is about to overwhelm the community's ability to thoughtfully give
input and actually come out with something that we can all live with.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Okay.  I'm going to try and draw all this
together.  Thank you.  At this time.  At the end, I'll take some more
comments.

 So to go back to where we started, we seemed to be saying, it was
Steve's comment early on, that before we do any sort of policy, what we
need to do is stop and take a deep breath.  I think they were your
words, Steve.

 Yes, thank you.

 They were your words, that that's what we need to do.  So we need a
process that before we actually start anything, we, as a community,
stop and think about it.

 I think one of the things that ties in well there is the comment that
Stefano made a little while ago about convergence.  And it also ties in
well with another place that we started earlier on, Holly, for example,
and Sérgio as well, the need to bring users, and I think you laid it
out as users and businesses and governments.  And I think we need to
add to that in our environment the point that Steve made early on, that
we should also do the technical piece, or at least some of the
technical piece, at the beginning.

 So does that make sense as part of the -- as an important start to
the process, that we stop, we take a deep breath, we figure out who
needs to be involved.  And that would be individuals, businesses,
governments, technical community, and probably others.  And then do
that initial analysis to work out what to do.

 Does that seem like a sensible starting point?

 Yeah, it needs more information from Jeff.

 Okay.

 Another thing that I think has come out very strongly is the need to
make the work that we do in policy more accessible to those who want to
be involved.

 And that that has at least two elements.  One is that the way that
information is presented needs to be much more concise than what it is
at present.  People have talked about either executive summaries or
Bertrand's status update or whatever.  Yes, so there's some agreement
there.

 And the second part of that is that that needs to be translated so
that people on a global basis can participate in that.

 Is that -- I think that was quite strongly the mood of the room
before, with a few dissenters.

 Good.  Thank you.

 We haven't actually covered a lot of the process of what we would do
from there.  I raised an issue on the way through about how might we
put the goals of implementation into the policy process.  And we at the
time, I think, agreed that that was a good idea.  But it's obviously
not foremost in people's thinking, because it didn't come back into the
conversation.  So I think that might be another challenge for us, how
we think about the implement -- the goals of implementation as we
design the policy.

 There's another sort of aspect of that that came, I think it might
have been from Mike, if my memory is correct, that the policy decisions
that we're wanting to undertake need to be done in a broader framework
of what the strategic direction would be.

 I think -- over there was it, sorry?  Yes, sorry.

 So that we need to be doing that in a broader framework of what it is
that we're wanting to achieve.

 Now, Bertrand would say that a really significant part of what we're
wanting to achieve needs to include the public interest.  And Becky
would say that what we need to do there is to define that a little bit
more carefully.  And we won't try and do that now.  But that's
obviously an important part --

 >>BECKY BURR:   (off microphone) different from --

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Hang on.

 It will be different from policy to policy.  So what we need to do in
each process is define what the public interest might be in a
particular place.

 Okay.  Let's take a few quick pieces of feedback on that.  Stefano
and then Bertrand.

 >>STEFANO TRUMPY:   Can I joke a little bit philosophically? 
Convergence is a tentative to unite the opposites.  And this is
something that has to be done.  Because the interests are different in
the community.  And then we have to find the convergence, as I said,
and without forgetting that Internet is a company, not for profit,
international type, led by the private sector.  But in this case, the
private sector has the necessity to listen to the users, listen to the
governments, and then make adjustments.

 But this is the difficult part.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Stefano.

 Bertrand.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Just one word to say that I don't
disagree with what Becky says.  If I try to address myself perfectly,
what I mean is that the purpose of an organization like ICANN and of
the processes that it puts in place is to have the interaction among
the actors reveal what the global public interest is.  It's an
objective.  It's an opportunity for the different actors to participate.

 What I just meant is that we need to have this in mind when we speak.
When we participate, we are participating at two levels, defending our
interest, but also contributing collectively to a common definition of
the public interest, just like at the national level, this is the role
of the parliament.  In a parliament, you have represents that are
defending their constituents.  But at the same time, the collective
group of all deputies in the parliament have the responsibility, with
the government, to define the national public interest.

 We have here a question, which is, what is the global public
interest.  And it's just an objective.

 My vision is different from everybody else, of course.  And this is
fine.  That's the goal of the debate.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Good.  Thanks, Bertrand.

 Very quickly, Jeff.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:   I like to be controversial.  So maybe I'll introduce
a controversial thing.  Oftentimes we hear that the policy development
process needs to go quicker.  In a number of cases, especially where
there's something that's deeply affecting users, there have been
situations, domain tasting, others where people want an immediate
solution.  On the other hand, we hear we have to have input from all
sorts of members of the community and stakeholders, including the
governments.

 One of the issues that we have with the GAC, and I think this is an
issue you all have, too, 'cause I've heard from a number of members, is
that it takes so long to get to a position with the governments that I
don't know how to strike a balance.  And maybe you all can help us
strike that balance.  But there are issues that the GAC is discussing
now which are many months old.  And I don't know how to strike that
balance of how to speed it up but slow it down.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thanks, Jeff.

 Lesley.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   I often hear dialogue about defending positions
and sides and things.  And I think as ICANN matures, we're going to
have to recognize that there will be compromise needed and there will
need to be movement in positions, because that's in the public interest.

 And I think as part of that, as a community, we need to be much
better at listening to people more and understanding what they're
saying and then developing some consensus as a result.

 That will require movement.  That will not require defending of
positions.  Otherwise, we will still be here.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Lesley.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   The same issue.

 >>MASON COLE:  If I may, just to go back to what your idea of a best
practice of a policy would look like.  

 I'd like to re-add to your process the idea of justification for the
policy.  So if there is a policy being proposed that is going to have
as much impact as an ICANN policy will across the world, that demands
and deserves a rigorous examination of the impact on everyone.  And
that includes, again, the people who provide those services, the people
who buy those services, the expectations that have been set up with
customers, the financial impact on ICANN, because that can be very real.

 All those things should be a required part of a policy development,
so that everyone can understand exactly what could happen if that comes
to life.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Mason.

 I think this will be the last comment we'll take.  It will be Philip.
The first shall be last, the last shall be first.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:   Thank you, Patrick.  I think there have been
some great closing comments and a lot of good material probably for the
next one of these types of events.  And maybe one subject there, I
think, could be which is a very ICANN thing, and related directly to
what we've been talking about, is the trap of transparency.

 I think a lot of the times, we fall into what we can describe as the
opaqueness of transparency.  And that is exactly what Mike was saying
in terms of, are we consulting people who don't want to be consulted? 
Are we producing vast documents that are too difficult to read in the
name of transparency?  Are we so concerned about the process of
transparency that we forget it's about policy and the end result?

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Philip.

 I'm going to close it there, because we're on time.

 I would ideally have loved, in my heart of hearts, to have gotten to
this point at 5:30 and be able to say we have the policy process,
points A, B, C, D, all the way down to J or K.  I didn't really think
that would happen.  But it would have been nice.

 I do think what we have here, lots of good ideas about how we can
proceed.  And we've raised, I think, some very, very important issues.

 For me, the big take-out from our discussion today is, actually, the
willingness of the GNSO, the GAC, the ccNSO, the ALAC, SSAC, the ASO --
I think I've covered everybody -- to be part of the revision and
improvement of the process.  And I --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:   So join the group.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   That's exactly where I am going.  Exactly where I
am going, Jeff.  And you recall earlier we took photos of everyone who
raised a little green piece of paper.  And we will be inviting you to
join in the group.

 But, in general, over the next few days in the meeting, we should be
taking a little bit of time in each of our Supporting Organizations and
Advisory Committees to think about this issue, and that might be over
coffee rather than on the formal  agenda, but it should be part of the
conversation.  And we might, if it's reasonable, and I don't know if it
is, perhaps re-issue that invitation through the SOs and ACs so people
are aware of that and can join if they want to.

 I would like to say a big thanks to our participants, our panelists
this afternoon.

 Thank you very much.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   I think it's always important to say thank you to
our scribes, who as always, have done a phenomenal job.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   To our interpreters who have dealt with lots of
accents and some of us who speak quickly.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   A special thanks to our audio and technical team
who have made everything work very smoothly.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   And then finally for yourselves for a fantastic
showing of green and red pieces of paper.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   The next thing on the agenda --

 >> Thanks to you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Sebastien.

 The next thing on the agenda is a chance to talk back.

 So we will have an open mic session.

 I would like to give the people who are seated the opportunity to
quickly pick up their goods and move back to another seat, if that's
what you would like to do.  And then we will move straight into the
opportunity for people in the audience, via the public mic, to make
some comments.

 We have ideally about 30 minutes for this.  So as always, shorter
comments that are to the point are more valuable than long diatribes.

 So if you could be brief, that would be good.

 And if you would like to make a comment, can you please raise your
hand.  We have a number of microphone assistants who will be able to
help us there.

 So we will start with the gentleman here, number one, I think, is it?
If you would like, just wait perhaps another 15 seconds until we can
clear the table.

 >> Okay.

 

 That's about 15 seconds.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   And while we are waiting for you, I would just
like to remind people in the room that there are feedback forms on
their chairs, and if you would like to fill them in, that would be
great, and if you would like to leave them on the edge of the table here.

 And if you would introduce yourself before you speak.

 >> My name is Paul Fuedy.  I come from Canada.  I am an individual
domain owner, and as such I wouldn't be able to get a gTLD.  That's a
bone of contention.

 I think what we -- what everyone should remember here is that we are
dealing with something that affects 7 billion people.  And the world is
a huge place.  We can't expect to contact everyone.

 But as an Internet owner for over -- an Internet domain name owner
for over 12 years now, I regularly update my contact information with
ICANN, and yet I didn't get an e-mail about this.  I don't think I have
ever had an e-mail from ICANN about ICANN meetings.  I have never been
asked to participate in this sort of thing.

 And I think what you have got to look at is you have got to remember
that when you are an organization and you are dealing on behalf of such
a massive number of people, integrity is absolutely the key watch word.

 It's interesting that I don't think ICANN sends out -- how easy would
it be for ICANN to do a mail-out to every person who owns domain names?
You know, you have got all the e-mail addresses, they are up-to-date. 
No, I haven't joined any committees, but I haven't been asked.

 On a second note, the letter that went out to the government
officials on the 24th of October of last year advising about the intent
to introduce the gTLDs, it was released on the 24th of October.  The
Bush administration by that time was dead in the water.  The Canadian
government was pro rote, which means it was on holiday.  And since
ICANN is American based, you would think that an organization of
integrity would have made sure that they'd have timed that sort of
announcement so that people could deal with it effectively.

 On a personal note, I have been writing, e-mailing, faxing and
phoning ICANN for the last two and a half years, and the responses have
been so poor that I have had my solicitor write to ICANN and I have
still not had any response.

 I have brought the copies of the correspondence with me to this
event.  I have offered them to Patrick Jones, I believe, and to Robert
Battuck.  And the two of them refused to even acknowledge -- to accept
them, let alone respond to them.

 So when we're talking about integrity, I think we have got to decide
that we have a duty to be totally honest.

 And this room is filled with people who have massive conflicts of
interest.  We have the ICANN guys who are going to get paid 185 grand a
new gTLD, we have the registrars who are going to make a fortune out of
it, we have, above all, the lawyers, Arturo who sat next to me is a
lawyer who rubs his hands gleefully at the prospect.

 So as we sit here and agree this is a great idea, let's go ahead with
it, we have to put aside or conflicts of interest.  Because as far as I
can see, the gTLD is the greatest global theft that there has ever
been, and that's my opinion.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 Mark, have you got a microphone?

 [ Applause ]

 >> Thanks.  Mark McFadden from the ISP constituency.  I was
considering Stefano's concept of convergence and then trying to think
about that with the concept of pregnancy.  I was going to make a joke,
and then I thought it wasn't in the best public interest.

 I think one of the most important take-aways for your session today
is something that came up toward the end of the discussion, and that is
the impact of the workload on the volunteer community and the ICANN
community as a whole, seeing the community as a convergence, if you
will, of the staff community and the volunteers that dedicate so much
time.  One of the things we are failing do as an organization is
prioritize the work that we bring in to our organization.  It affects
the quality of the policy work, and it affects which policies we
actually take on.

 We fail on that account.  The board, I believe, fails to help us do
that.  But we as volunteers also fail to deliver a message, "This is
more important than that.  This is going to take more time than that,"
or "these resources could be better used on a different task."

 That message is going to become more and more clear to us in the
coming 12 months as more work comes our way.  It is not just the
process of reform but of evaluating the impact of new gTLDs and the
policies that will naturally come up as a result of their emergence. 
The impact of new IDNs are going to have policy issues as well that we
don't even recognize yet.

 The failure to prioritize our work is simply going to exhaust us at a
staff level, at a volunteer level.  And it's going to change how we do
policy.  It's going to make our policy work poor.

 My suggestion for the community is that one of the things that we
have to do and help the board do is prioritize the work of the community.

 We can't simply be it back in 2003 where we took on every single task
that came our way.  That method of working will no longer scale for us.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Mark.

 Over here.

 >> Hello, my name is Garth B. from (saying name) dot com and also
from ALAC and RALO.  And I want to address the issue of sovereignty and
ccTLDs, and specifically the case of dot MD, which is for the country
of Moldova.  And this TLD has more or less been sold to a gentleman in
New Jersey in the United States.  I don't know how this benefits the
people of Moldova.  And this is an important issue in terms of
sovereignty.  We give something away to a government and it's up to
them what to do with it and we have no say in what they do with it, but
it's an issue of concern.

 And I think we do a disservice to the people of a country where their
government may abscond with this really precious thing that they have
been given.

 And I don't claim to have the answer, but I just want everybody to be
aware it have.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Lovely.  Thank you.

 Let's go down the back there.

 >>CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON:   Thank you, Christopher Wilkinson.

 I just want to address the domain names discussion that we had prior.
I'll pass on policy development this time.

 First of all, there is no rigorous taxonomy of the domain space.  I'm
sorry, but whatever proposition you put forward, there's an exception,
if not three or four.

 Secondly, there definitely has been blurring, and it started a long
time before ICANN existed.

 Thirdly, I think we need to maintain distinct categories of TLDs.  I
don't think you can put all the new gTLD concepts into one basket and
say that's -- and they all pay the same fees and they are all the same.
They are not.

 And the cities, the sponsored and other categories should be
recognized as distinct and should be treated distinctly.

 Next, I would say that the first hundred genuine IDN TLDs are today
of a far higher priority than the next hundred generic commercial TLDs.
For two reasons.  First of all, we have already got quite a few
commercial generic TLDs.  And secondly, we have just moved into,
unfortunately, a period of serious economic recession.

 Perhaps ICANN should commission or do themselves some sort of
correlation over the last ten years between new registrations and the
economic cycle.  Because people who thought that a new commercial TLD
would enter the market 12 months ago and be a success will have to
discount that expectation in the next 12 months.

 So I think we got the timing wrong on the gTLD commercial dot com
clone types.

 Meanwhile, we do have an opportunity, and I think it was Mark who
said that we need to prioritize our work, we do have an opportunity
right now to diversify the general categories of new TLDs,
particularly, to give an absolute priority for political reasons, for
social reasons, for geographical regions to the first hundred IDNs.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 We'll take one from there and then we will come back to over there.

 >> Good afternoon, my name is Karen Francis from Jamaica and I would
like to congratulate you on a very informative session.

 I am particularly interested in the policy formulation methodology
that is used by ICANN, and I think coming out of this session we have
had some very good recommendations specifically as the gentleman said,
we need to prioritize, because in every organization, you have key
performance indicators and I think for ICANN we need to do so.

 But more importantly, the point was made about the staff, and the
fact that they have so much to do.

 And that led me to think about the institutional framework that
enough terms of how you support the policy development agenda.

 And I was reflecting with my friend Carlton Samuels about the LAC
RALO model whereby you have national and going to regional and then
moving up to the board.  And that will take care of the need to have
transparency, because transparency is important, especially since you
have such a wide membership.  And at those levels, you would be getting
input from a wide range of participants, and then the information would
be filtered up in terms of the main topics moving up.

 And I think consideration should be given to that model.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI:   Dirk Krischenowski from dot Berlin top-level
domain.  I am speaking here on behalf of the future city top-level
domain constituency, and I would first like to say I am very happy
about the format we have in this room today in the discussion, and this
discussion really reflects the views and the thoughts we have on the
process and the things going on there.

 So we, as many other stakeholders within ICANN think that the ccTLDs
and other geo-related top-level domain names are a special category
within the new top-level domain process.  And, indeed, we -- all of us,
expect that the city top-level domains will be the most easy to process
top-level domains with less risk and with less cost for ICANN.

 The reason for that is obvious.  The city top-level domain names can
only be a category when they -- the city top-level domains are operated
with governmental and authority support, and by this they are a real
special category, which provides this less risk.  And for this reason,
which is the support of the governments, they are also operated in the
private interest.

 But we have two concerns.  One concern is about the delayed time
line.  The time line for the new TLDs is always delayed for three
months to six months when I come to an ICANN meeting, so that makes
nine months ahead of the round.  And this is for ten ICANN meetings;
meanwhile, where the time line always is nine months away.

 So that's really hard to believe that it will happen in nine months
and not in whatever months.

 The second concern are the application annual costs.  So lower costs
for the special category of top-level domain names and geo top-level
domain names would make it much easier for cities and regions to
utilize the benefits the Domain Name System provides and contribute to
reasonable development of the Domain Name System.

 Thank you.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 Sebastien.

 >>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET:   Thank you.

 In French.

 I would like to talk about -- not about the contents, but what
contains it, the container, and the way the works this afternoon were
organized.  Because I think it's important that we also -- that we see
what was around the ring, or ringside, to see if it was interesting, if
we could -- something that could advance the thinking.  I would like to
personally thank the presidents of the different structures who
established these sessions this afternoon, because it seemed to me that
they were useful and interesting.

 I would also like to insist on the fact that there was a real mixture
between people who have a lot of experience, who have been here since
the beginning, since the beginning of ICANN, even before, and people
who are much less experienced.  And in listening to these different
perspectives and capacities and cultures and languages, and that's how
we can move forward the thinking as a whole within ICANN.

 I would just like to add one thing in terms of the content and the
subjects that we talked about.

 I really want you to remember this phrase, "Why make it simple when
you can make it complicated."

 So I think ICANN should really remember this.

 Thank you very much, and thank you to all of the participants who
traveled and who came to talk here.  And thank you to Patrick.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   There and then I will come back here.

 >> Hello, my name is Arturo (saying name).  I am a lawyer from
Mexico, and I am speaking on my own behalf.

 I would like to start with the gTLDs and ccTLDs, and I will say I'm
supporting the idea of having new ones.

 I myself declare a beneficiary of the dot pro.  But then again, I
will raise one question, and I am thinking about the dot NU top-level
domain.

 Dot NU is being used in Scandinavia mostly for commercial sites and
it has been turned into some sort of national identity in the terms of
if you visit any dot NU site, you will find it mostly on any
Scandinavian language, either Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Icelandic or
Danish.

 So here we have an issue or a point where a ccTLD is becoming a
commercially used one.  And you should think if this is ethical, if
this is beneficial, who is taking the best benefit of it.

 And this leads me to the policies, which is a function of ICANN.

 ICANN is meant to keep the Internet functional, not to make it
beneficial to a specific group but to make it functional.  And that
means it should be easy to use, easily understandable for those who are
interested in technology.

 And you should not think that everybody is going to be interested and
participating.  But maybe solely some people will want to know what is
happening within ICANN or what can be done to make the Internet some
sort of beneficial issue.

 So this is somehow -- we should think, then, which is the function or
which is the objective, which is the interest of the Internet by
itself, and just keep in mind, it comes from the ARPANET which have a
very military survival issue.

 So there are too many things to think about, but the point is which
is going to be our understanding of the public interest?  Who is going
to represent the Internet users?  Because it's governments,
corporations, industries, commercial firms, personal use, individuals,
educational institutions.

 So I think it's a pretty good moment to understand or to try to
understand where is the Internet leading us.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you.

 >>WERNER STAUB:   My name is Werner Staub.  I work for CORE.  I would
like to respond to the comments that were made about the not-so-high
priority, as Christopher put it, of gTLDs, and the labeling of gTLDs as
dot com copies.

 And I say that with a lot of emotion because I spent ten years of my
life, actually 11, trying to point out to the world that, no, new
domains do not need to be and shouldn't probably be, most of the time,
copies of dot com.

 And there are industries, users who need name spaces that are
memorable and that have been waiting and given up, essentially, of
getting anything.  So they have actually forgot that it is even possible.

 To give an example of how important this is, I worked on a project
for a name space for international securities identifiers.  This is an
obviously necessary development.  I am happy to explain more about this
to anyone who wants to hear it.  But it is even more important when we
look what happened in the financial industry last year when we
discovered the that foundations in terms of the entire logic of the
financial world were not properly built.  And that is how this happened.

 Now, maybe we have a good argument why something should be done.  But
if finally the working groups get together and something is built up
and ICANN is not around to receive an application, well, how is any
industry going to use this vital resource?

 So what we have here is a misunderstanding based on the word.  gTLD
was a term coined back in 1997.  Before that, people used to say iTLD
for international TLD, and then this was perceived to be wrong so gTLD
was put there in place, and then people discovered that, you know,
essentially gTLD was supposed to be anything that was not the CC and
something like dot INT was left undefined, or edu was left undefined.

 Now, of course we know there are going to be many more categories,
but the first most important thing for us is not to be confuse bid
worse and not to be confused just by copying things we have seen before.

 And in this development what worries me most is, indeed, many people
are now aspiring to some position copying what has been seen before,
even if we now leave the gTLD subject and just look at the other
subject that was discussed today about how we represent the users and
the providers.

 We again got confused in the word.  We talk about contracted parties
and noncontracted parties.

 Essentially, we are copying things from 200 years ago.  You know, we
have the lords and the commons.  And you have got the clerics, of
course, but I suppose that's the ICANN staff and the evaluators.

 Now, of course if you use those words and get confused, we lock out
of the entire process on the provider side all these people who do not
have direct contract with ICANN but, of course, participate very
strongly in the value added and all the services and even the things
that do not necessarily have any monetary perspective, but they help on
the provider side.  But they are just locked out.  They are not there.

 Non-ICANN-accredited registrars, they are not there.  They do most of
the value added, quite frankly.

 And on the other hand, we have in terms of registries, all the people
who have something to build, they are also locked out, except here in
the public comment.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you very much.

 That's a very interesting point, the last one you have made there.

 Thank you.

 We will keep going there and we will make that the last comment,
given the hour, and then we will just have a closing remark.

 >> Good afternoon.  My name is Sérgio Bronson from (saying name)
Venezuela.

 This is my first meeting of this sort.

 I am here from perhaps a very primitive perspective, which is to see
how someone who is computer illiterate or -- and people who are -- or
someone who is in popular communities or can become a part of and
leverage or take advantage of the Internet.  That's my concern.

 I'm talking from the other extreme, from the prior colleague.

 We were talking about problematic problems that's completely removed
from what I see daily, at least mostly.

 And perhaps this self-same virginity, if I can call it that, this
innocence or this ignorance will enable me to be able to see very
broadly what it is that we are talking about when we talk about ICANN.

 I think that ICANN is an institution that should express three basic
interests:  that of the governments, that of industries or companies,
and that of users, because that of the technicians or technologues of
the lawyers, those are support.  I don't think they need to be part of
an Internet governance.  I think they have to do with consultation. 
And that's why this problem -- this problem came up, this opinion came
up that we also have to include them.  And I don't believe so.

 I don't think they need to be part of the -- they are support
institutions and shouldn't be part of the governing body, so that we
can begin to see where we are going in the future.

 So that we can begin to see where we're going in the national security.

 The other thing, which I think is essential is to simplify the
mechanisms, which is what was being mentioned here, and that's all I
have to say.

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you very much.  Thank you for your
participation this afternoon.  I'm actually going to close it off there
because we promised we would finish it at 6:00.  And I would just turn
to Jean-Jacques Subrenat who is a board member and the chair of the
board's public participation committee who would just like to say a few
words in closing.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thanks very much.  I have a few things to
say as someone who has attended today's session of the AC and SO joint
effort.

 First of all, this Cairo I think so there was an initial trial at
this, and we all know what was successful there, and especially what
was not successful.  That's what brought us to this attempt today.

 So I would qualify the Cairo attempt as the 0.1 and today as perhaps
the real 1.0 format of what we're trying to do.  Or what you are trying
to do.

 On the substance, I found that there were some very interesting and
sometimes rather deep, even, questions on definition, for instance,
what is public trust?  What is public interest?  I was surprised to
hear this.  But it was very useful to have both points of view repeated
here.

 Of course, on gTLDs, on IDNs, that was a very essential debate as well.

 On the process, what I go away with as a member of the board and as a
member of the public participation committee, of which there are other
members present in the hall here, I would say simplify, prepare,
translate, be timely.

 So this is something I take away, and we will have to work on this.

 Now, I would like to say a few words about this exercise you have
organized and for which I really am very thankful.  As an exercise in
public debate and in public participation, actually, because I think it
says something about the stage we have reached and what remains to be
done which is still very important.

 First of all, this effort at convergence.  Convergence between bodies
of stakeholders.  It's easy to talk about multistakeholder but actually
to organize it even physically is rather complex.

 When I came into this hall this afternoon I was surprised by the
arrangement.  And I was wondering, first, in petto, as the Latins say,
about the efficiency of this, but it worked.  It can still be improved,
don't worry, but it worked.  Now, the colored papers, I found that that
was an amusing thing.  It probably was conducive to a better atmosphere
also but, on the other hand, I would say it cannot, of course -- and
that's not your fault, Patrick -- it cannot replace entirely a real
debate.  

 So the real question there is should we keep on the colored paper
things only?  Okay.  Okay.  No white, no red.  Or should we simply
consider that this -- the whole exercise, whatever the subject,
whatever the content, is important enough for all the constituencies so
that we give it simply more time and perhaps organize it in an even
more efficient way.  That's the real organizational challenge, I think.

 So colored papers is not actually equivalent to public debate.

 Now, someone told me -- I didn't hear it in public, but during the
coffee break someone made to me a very important, I think, remark.  And
that is he said -- by the way, this person is someone who has been
around in ICANN since its inception.  That's 100 years ago almost.  And
he said, "All this is very interesting," but he was rather put off and
said, "actually, this has really completely changed the established
culture of this kind of interconstituency or intercommunity dialogue."

 So I think that's a worthwhile remark you have to take away with you
as organizers and as participants as well.  Hmm?  As a compliment.  But
also as an indication of what we should do in order to preserve what is
worth preserving of the -- from the former model, as it were.  I think
that's the real challenge.  It's not to keep everything as it has
always been for the past 100 years of ICANN.  But to adapt those
elements which are worthy to be preserved and to transform them to the
modern needs with -- and that's the real challenge -- with, in mind, a
public which is perhaps no longer the one that you knew 10 years ago. 
Because, after all, one of the aims of public participation is to
increase, not the volume, but the representativity, the variety, the
linguistic, the cultural, the geographic variety of participants, so I
think we should think about that.

 And in concluding I'd like to thank all of you, once again.  I, as a
silent participant, found this extremely worthwhile, very interesting,
and I hope this will be carried forward with the improvements which you
have pointed out, either by speaking up or by wagging your papers. 
Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>PATRICK SHARRY:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques, and Amadeu is showing us
how to we can wave paper over there.  Thank you, Amadeu.

 Just to follow very quickly on Jean-Jacques' point, can I remind you
if you haven't filled in your feedback form, can you do that now and
leave it on the edge of the table here.  There's a disappointing small
number of them, and I'd really like there to be more, so we'd really
appreciate your feedback.  Thank you again for your participation, have
a good evening.