ICANN | President's Strategy Committee Consultations Real-Time Captioning

President's Strategy Committee Consultations

21 July 2006

Note: The following is the output of the audio captioning taken during President's Strategy Committee Consultations held on 21 July 2006 via audio conference call and audio streaming. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

ICANN STRATEGY COMMITTEE CONSULTATIONS
21 July 2006

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Marc, can I just check we are up and audio streaming?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: I will check with Steve right now and be right back.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Paul, yes, we are. It's Theresa. Yes, we are.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: We'll then commence and those members of the committee will join at the time for this particular set of hearings and inquiries.

Why don't I just make a few introductory points and then also go through the timetable that we presently have of people wishing to participate.

As ICANN considers the process of completion of its extension of the Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Commerce, three of the (inaudible) actually pivotal to ICANN's mission, and this strategy committee, drawing on a range of -- a range of people, and I'll come to that grouping shortly, is looking for a long-term model feedback on what is needed to ensure deep-rooted stability of ICANN and the DNS. And the members of the President's Strategy Committee realize that input from the community is fundamental to the ICANN model and the ICANN strategic planning processes.

And the board also feels that the ICANN community could benefit from the advice of the group responsible for making observations and recommendations in setting the strategic issues facing ICANN. And as always, the committee feels the membership in that committee should be broad and deep.

The committee itself continues to expand to meet its range of appropriate representation while being a committee that is not a committee that actually sets the strategy of ICANN. ICANN strategy is set through its strategic planning process and is (inaudible) consultation process and up through to the board.

But this group has been convened since the ICANN meeting in November of 2005 in Montreal to give advice on a range of issues, one of which is perceptions on potential issues of emerging (inaudible) in the Memorandum of Understanding.

I think the people that are on this call, if at any time you are in a position where there is outside noise or you are in a noisy environment, you can push *6 and that will put a mute on your telephone. So if anybody is using a mobile phone or a noisy environment, I advise of you that.

>>HANS CORELL: Excuse me, I didn't get that. This is Hans Corell.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Hans, if there is noise in the background or if you are on a cell phone, it is useful to push *6 on your phone. That will take your phone to mute.

>>HANS CORELL: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: And when you wish to return, just push *6 again. That will --

>>HANS CORELL: Okay. Fine.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: ICANN is committed to a single authoritative stable public root for the Internet's DNS, and from the management of that unique group, the public trust, according to policies developed through community participation and acceptance.

And I think the key issues there is acting in the public trust and developing
(inaudible) to a bottom-up consensus to that process is very important.

The-- By offering users an easy-to-use and reliable means of unambiguously referring to Web sites, e-mail servers, and the internet's many other services, the DNS is helping the Internet to achieve its promise in the global communications medium for commerce, research, education, social and cultural and other expressive activities. And effectively ICANN operates as a steward for users who depend on the internets standing resources. Therefore, it's important that ICANN focus on participation and input to decision-making regarding this valuable resource.

The President's Strategy Committee has asked the community to be involved in a consultation process concerning the -- some key questions, and this set of hearings is one step along the way of taking -- pursuing that consultation process and developing a brief report back to the board and the community on some of the things that this committee considers might be important for the status of the post-MOU or the conclusion of the MOU process and (inaudible) going forward.

I hope members of the community have the view and certainly that the assumption shouldn't be that things here are broken but rather what can we do to improve. And the questions put before the community, which I will come to in a minute, are directed very specifically towards opportunities for improvement.

Members of the committee already in their conversations have expressed the view that the community believes the basic element of the ICANN model is strong. One of its main strengths is accountability to the Internet community and emphasis on broad and informed participation.

Another strength is that the ICANN model has the ability to evolve, if necessary, in order to accomplish its mission. I think that evolution is something that could well be important in the sorts of ideas that we hear today. Members will have the opportunity to talk about what's necessary to continue to strengthen what we consider to be a pretty well-operating multistakeholder framework.

And the questions that we want to focus on, that we have asked the community to focus on what are some of the main challenges to ensuring continued stable and secure operations of the Internet domain name and IP addressing system, and are there steps that could be taken to improve this? Already in conversations members of the committee have come to the conclusion that there are a number of administrative challenges that ICANN faces as it is a unique model of bottom-up participation and coordination of policy decision-making.

And there's interest in furthering discussions that have already taken place in the committee about how the global organizations have met similar challenges, and can experiences of other organizations be applied to ICANN to inform consideration of how to best serve the global community.

Is the organization's ability to scale internationally affected by its legal personality being based in a specific jurisdiction? That's a key question I think some of the people talking today will be addressing.

Given ICANN's narrow technical coordination mission and responsibilities, how should ICANN respond to relevant issues or challenges deriving from the WSIS decisions, including those related to Internet Governance?

Specifically, how should ICANN further enhance cooperation of all ICANN stakeholders on Internet Governance issues that fall within ICANN's scope of activities?

What can ICANN do to further improve the value of the GAC and its individual members offer to the multistakeholder framework and addressing public policy concerns?

What can be done to assist in the evolution of a more widely informed participation for all regions from all interested stakeholders, including government representatives?

And are there activities or steps that will build on existing processes to continue to enhance global accessibility to the transparency of ICANN's processes and input into the decision-making process?

(Music.)

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Just had music join us.

Obviously it's a fine introduction. It's been heralded by an orchestral accolade.

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: I am going to check with the operator to see if she can make that go away.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Marc.

>>ERIKA MANN: Luckily, it's not Beethoven.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I was going to say it could be "Ode to Joy."

>>ERIKA MANN: Of course.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. It seems that we may have addressed that.

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Okay. Thank you.

>> (Speaking in another language.)

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Hello?

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Hello.

>>HANS CORELL: Hello.

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Hello, yeah, this is Pierre.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Is that Pierre?

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Yes, from Dakar.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Hello, Pierre. Thank you for joining us.

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Is that Paul?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes that's right.

Pierre, I am just finishing our opening remarks.

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Okay.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Reinforce some of the processes we are following today. And then we are going to ask the first of our panel members to speak to the committee.

If at any stage you have a noisy background, I will ask you to push *6 on your telephone. That would mute the phone.

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Okay. They called me on my mobile, so what I'll try to do maybe is ask them to try the fixed line.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: That's a good idea.

Marc, can you look after that?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: I certainly will.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Could you speak to Pierre directly?

>>MARC FRIEDMAN: Will do.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. Just to reinforce --

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Hello?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Just to reinforce the timetable, we -- this committee posted a notice of the questions it was asking of the community on July the 11th. We have asked for submissions to be lodged by the community hopefully by the 18th of July but that's not a closing date. We have it open for people to post to the Web site comments or submissions they may have.

The agenda for this consultation was posted 24 hours ago, last night California time, I think, and we are holding the consultations today.

One of the opportunities we will have to at least give some summary of the initial consultations may be provided on the 26th of July at the when the Department of Commerce is holding its own consultations and there might be an opportunity to summarize at that meeting some of the things, points that were made.

August the 15th is the final date that the committee has set for receiving submissions and comments from the community. And we'll be -- this committee will be looking to post a summary of the consultations by the 25th of August, and to provide some report to the ICANN community and board by the end of August on the things that it says.

And the questions it's asking are obviously directed to the issues covered, posed by the MOU preparation period coming towards this, but also by the sort of broader questions facing -- facing ICANN's future.

Members of the committee include Carl Bildt, Peter Dengate Thrush and myself as co-chairs. Marilyn Cade is a member of the community. Art Coviello, the CEO of RSA is a member of the committee. Janis Karklins, Thomas Niles, Adama Samassekou, and Pierre Dandjinou, are members of the committee.

The committee's membership is not yet complete and there are conversations continuing with other representatives of a wide range of people who have an interest in the DNS worldwide and have knowledge of ICANN, but are not necessarily involved in the day-to-day operations or policy development processes of ICANN.

The-- So that's sort of an introduction, I think.

We have as an agenda today that we'll first ask Erika Mann, a member of the European Parliament and chairperson of the European Internet Foundation to address the committee. The plan will be to let people -- panelists speak for 15 or 20 minutes and then I will allow the committee and others to ask questions following on from that.

We will then be followed by -- She will then be followed by Hans Corell, former Under-Secretary-General for legal affairs and legal counsel for the United Nations.

Roelof Meijer, the CEO of SIDN, the operator .nl, and Stefano Trumpy from the
.it registries will be on a panel following from Hans. Becky Burr, a partner in the law firm Roma Hale, will be following that panel. There will then be a panel of at least three registrars: Jon Nevett from Network Solutions, Bhavin Turakhia from DirectI, and Tim Ruiz from GoDaddy. And then after that panel we will be joined by Bernie Turcotte, the CEO of CIRA, .ca, and Margarita Valdes from the .cl ccTLD and also the president of Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD organizations.

We may also have participation today from David Maher from the PIR registry, the operators of .org.

And we will then have a break, and at 3:00 Pacific time we will be joined by Chris Disspain, the CEO of auDA, .au, and also chair of ICANN ccNSO organization.

We'll also potentially have Naomasa-San who is the vice president of Japan Network Information Center. And I know Naomasa-San has some time constraints but I believe he is joining us at that same time.

We will then have but was yet unconfirmed when this record was made, but we're expecting to have then a panel involving Danny Younger, a representative of the ISP constituency, and also Milton Mueller sometime.

That's a summarization of the agenda as it stands.

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am here to report our audio stream is not working. I have been receiving -- So that's one report.

The second is who should I talk to? The ISP constituency representative has contacted to me to ask who he should speak to about trying to get into the end of the morning session.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Marilyn, I have been in contact with Mark [McFadden] and he is to ring back and let me know which --

>>MARILYN CADE: Fine.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: And we will take care of the audio stream.

>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks for that, Marilyn.

Okay. Having done quite a lot of introduction, Erika, I wonder whether -- considering you have a time constraint, whether we could welcome you to address the members of the committee, and then talk to some of those questions, and be available for any questions yourself.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, Certainly I can do this. My time constraint, around 8:00, 8:10, so I will keep my remarks quite short.

First of all, my name is Erika Mann; I am from Germany, elected member to the European Parliament and working on IT issues since the very beginning.

>>HANS CORELL: I am afraid you are fading away.

>>ERIKA MANN: I am fading away? Is it getting better now? Is it better now?

>>HANS CORELL: Only bits and pieces.

>>ERIKA MANN: Only bits and pieces? I'm sorry. There is nothing I can do from my side.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Erika, I can hear you clearly, so perhaps you can just continue.

>>ERIKA MANN: Okay. I will continue.

So what I would -- I have been looking into the various questions and some of the answers.

I think what the real task is for the future are probably three folded. Certainly there are many more around but I will think there are three folded.

The one is how can one make sure that ICANN is, on one side, a single entity based in California, but on the other side take on its international task as well.

This is probably the greatest challenge because there are many, of course, other models to think about, either to internationalize the system or to find a way of making sure that international concerns are taken into account the way the structure functions and the way the decision-making process functions.

Now, I prefer, but that's a very personal opinion, it doesn't reflect an official EU or an official European Parliament's position. I think it is probably much easier to take the international responsibility and make it--

>>ERIKA MANN: That's what I think one should do, because there are many reasons for my argument.

First of all, I think even, you know, building a new international structure will not solve the problem and the difficulties they had. Because, I mean, there are many other experience. I mean, I am very much involved with the WTO, and I know, you know, it will not make the decision-making process much easier, and it will even then not take into account all the concerns some countries do have with the structure the way it exists in the moment. Specifically, the developing countries.

So I would argue the other way around. I would argue wouldn't it be possible to make sure that all those concerns, you know, either coming from developing country, coming from single communities or coming from other sides which do have a concern about the way ICANN functions in the moment as an entity, legal entity from based in California, with its connection to the Department of Commerce, how one can turn this in a -- in a structure that those international concerns are taken into consideration, and so that it's not outsourcing to a certain degree to an international level, but it's the other way, taking those concerns into consideration.

My second argument would be around about how can one build a greater trust so that the climate of doubt which is in the moment surrounding ICANN and the existing -- the structure the way it exists can be -- can be turned really into a climate of trust and a climate of responsibility and a climate of reliability.

And I think probably this is related to my first argument to a certain degree. But of course it is related to many other arguments as well.

So if there is the right balance, what kind of reform is needed in the future? Are we looking more for radical reform? Are we looking more for more gradual evolution?

How can the various stakeholders be part of the process, in a transparent way, in an open way, but, on the other side, not losing the control which one wants to have, which one reaches through a single entity? And that's why I personally think the single entity is so relevant.

How to make sure that transparency -- it's a given within all the contracts ICANN will sign. The way ICANN includes stakeholders or the voting system. So there are so many ways of looking into it to rebuild the structure of trust.

And with this then, I think even the item looking back to the question, you know, how -- taking the public concern and government concern into consideration about how much is ICANN actually based on an international model, I think this then would be -- would be greater built into the structure of building trust as well. And but it makes much more reasonable and easier for other people and for other governments to understand the way ICANN functions.

And my third argument around the question of security and stability. And I think looking into the questions and looking back to the history, I would argue that I think that this is probably the greatest challenge in the future, to ensure stability and to ensure security at the very same time. The interest is transforming constantly, and it's transforming in so many ways, and it's so much related to our growth, it's so much related to our economy, it is so much related to our society needs.

It is much more than a technical tool. It's part of our daily lives in a very sophisticated way. And it's part of the way governments function to a certain degree as well, and definitely how a company built -- build their system in the future.

So I think this is the greatest challenge and the responsibility that lies with ICANN, of course not ICANN alone. There are many other processes involved in this process in ensuring stability and ensuring security. I personally think it's the greatest challenge. And this should be much more in the forefront.

And from there again, I think some of the other concerns which are touched either by the question how international should ICANN be, do we need other legal entities or how can trust rebuild in a fundamental way, I think this -- all the three areas taken into consideration I think then would probably help to rebuild -- to rebuild the trust we need.

Now, there is-- Related to this, of course, to the last point of security and stability and to the first one on how ICANN can become or should become more international, of course the question coming up from many countries, specifically developing countries, how can they ensure the sovereignty, how can they ensure that their concerns are taken into consideration?

And I think I am happy about the business process because this clearly is something -- this can continue in the future to make sure that it's a parallel process where all those concerns are taken into consideration, seriously taken into consideration, and always feed it back into the structure which exists in the moment.

Now, I would argue, finally, that probably we need a longer transformation process, because I do have the feeling that we don't -- we haven't found the right answers yet. And I would argue that a longer transformation process is needed, probably another half an hour.

I wouldn't go for a very long period, again, because I think the majority of the communities I think know what they want.

It's just finding common understanding and a consensus.

And then from there I think we can build on the structure which exists, making it not so complicated. Rebuilding the trust, ensuring the security and the stability we need, taking along the stakeholders. And on the other side, preserving what we have in the moment.

Is this fine for you?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: That's fine. That's very good. Thank you for that. Do you still have time to take questions?

>>ERIKA MANN: Of course I have time.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Are there members of the committee who would like to ask questions?

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn. I would like to ask a question.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sure.

>>MARILYN CADE: Would you like to take a queue or should I go ahead?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Please go ahead.

>>MARILYN CADE: Erika, thank you so much for that. I did have a question. Perhaps I may have missed it, but you mentioned the transition period. Did you have a time frame in mind when you mentioned that?

>>ERIKA MANN: My feeling is -- I'm not certain my answer is perfect, but my feeling is probably another half a year.

I don't -- I wouldn't go much longer than half a year.

>>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. I heard you give an answer but I didn't quite catch it. Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Are there other members of the committee that have questions?

Perhaps, Erika, I would have one.

You raise the issue of building greater trust, and one of the questions that
-- I have sort of an observation and then a question. I think one of the things we will hear from other people saying today and which I think we have already heard in our other meetings in Marrakech of the difference between transparency in the sense of the posting of materials available and accessibility in communication. I think that certainly has been a challenge of ensuring that all stakeholders are not only knowing things posted and available and transparent in that sense but that they also have understanding and there's communication about what is actually occurring.

But I've got a further question. Perhaps you have an observation from the Brussels perspective. The domain name space, the DNS space is now a space of much more sophisticated marketplaces with much more competitive forces at play.

And those forces tend to generate -- they naturally tend to generate pressures and winners and losers, if you want to put it that way, and pressures backwards and forwards. Do you have any observations of where you have seen good steps to create trust and transparency in environments where it is still incredibly competitive and forceful?

>>ERIKA MANN: That's a really fundamental question. I agree with you, looking into the trust issue, I mean, that's -- on one side you want to have accessibility to the various documents and to the procedures. And you want to give the various communities the understanding that they can follow the issue.

But on the other side, there is a marketplace out there and there is competition. And competition -- not competition, by the way, coming from business communities alone or from other stakeholders, but from governments as well-- that feel excluded and cannot, because of various reasons, either because they are stepping very late into the process of understanding the Internet and Internet-related issues or because they have a different answer to it. And that's one of the reasons, by the way, why I think it is important to keep the single structure.

No, I think, you know, as long as in each area, you know, on rebuilding trust one clarifies the process and talks to all the various stakeholder, makes it transparent, to a certain degree those kind of concerns will -- you know, will be -- I wouldn't say will go away, but you know they themselves, the various constitutions, they feel better embedded in the process and better embroiled and so they will not feel so much confronted with the development they have to follow, but it's more part of a partnership process and intellectual partnership process. And I think that this is what many governments and many business communities are looking for.

I cannot imagine, you know, that the competition will go away and the battle about certain things, but it will become more sophisticated and it will help to bring all the partners together instead of dividing them.

And I think this is relevant what we want to have in the Internet. You don't want to have too many divisions and too many, you know, competitions; unnecessary competition, I would say.

No one else? Everyone else is happy.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Peter or Janis, do you have any questions?

Peter, can I just make sure you are online?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, I am here.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: And Janis?

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn. I do have another question if I might.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sure. Please proceed.

>>MARILYN CADE: Erika, we had thrown out some questions, but we had also made it clear that we were very interested in any other issues that you might raise. And I think you have done an excellent job of giving us further input.

At this time, you raised something that I would like to ask you about that I think is something that we all struggle with, and that is given the importance of the Internet, but also and the importance of continuing its reach and deepening its reach, not just, you know, access in developing countries but deepening the way that all interested stakeholders with participate, but also keeping in mind that ICANN has a narrow technical set of activities, you have mentioned what I might -- when you refer to unnecessary competition, I guess I read that as perhaps support for cooperation and coordination across different bodies.

Would that be --

>>ERIKA MANN: Not competition with ICANN.

>>MARILYN CADE: Yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: I mean I want to have ICANN the way it -- I mean, there's always change necessary, but I think ICANN is fundamental for the continuation of the global Internet system. And I don't want to see -- I don't want to see a fundamental change there.

>>MARILYN CADE: And so could I then interpret that you would support the activities where ICANN cooperates, collaborates with others bodies, each sort of maintaining their core competencies but perhaps enhancing their cooperation?

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes. You clearly need greater cooperation, greater partnership, and I think education as well. Because, I mean, it is such a sophisticated --

>>MARILYN CADE: Yes.

>>ERIKA MANN: -- and complex area we are talking about.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right.

>>ERIKA MANN: And of course there is concern, rightly, I think, that technical issues are always related to political and, you know, to greater questions which is true.

So one has to take those kinds of concerns into consideration as well, and to build a real partnership in making sure that the various communities and the various governments are being part of a process and feel -- and this is much more relevant, feel being part of a process and not excluded.

And this, I think is the relevant title for ICANN for the future. And certain, of course, I mean, the transparency rules, the accessibility, it's all part of the process. But I think it's much more sophisticated and goes much more beyond giving information, making information available.

It is really a system that is built on trust which needs to be built. And this is not relevant for, you know, the technical communities or for the various stakeholders or for government alone, but it's relevant for the greater public to feel that the structure from ICANN is related to the way of how they see the Internet wants to be -- should be built on.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think the work that has been going on between the GAC and the ICANN board just on first steps around coordination of communication on issues that are emerging issues which have public policy consequences is an important part of that.

And the first step, I think, in doing that is the processes that you talk about is just a common understanding around time frames.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: And it's only a first step, but it's an important one because it links into sort of the two cultures, if you like.

But I think you are right, there is a need to constantly keep reviewing those processes.

I think one of the things that has come up at least in some of the discussions among some of the members of the committee is that the present bylaw provisions of ICANN which call for review of organizations and structures within ICANN on a regular basis is actually a very valuable thing. Because it does actually allow the constant amendment of Supporting Organizations, committees, other structures to ensure that they are remaining relevant to that part of the Internet which had emerged in the time between one and the other, between when it was established and when it was last reviewed.

And I think your point about the -- that the Internet not only is constantly changing and broadening but also deepening is an important point and one which I think the committee is very conscious of the need to make certain that even if there are moves towards, you mentioned some of these issues, input to the internationalization, but there is also need to ensure that that institutional flexibility remains such that it remains focused on the relevant constituencies who are participating in ICANN in the DNS in particular at that time.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, absolutely. I think that's the key.

But, I mean, it is relevant to look for the right balance and to take all those concerns into consideration, because I mean the question how do you internationalize? The Internet is international, but there is the feeling in some of the communities that, you know, the structure of the Internet should be followed by truly international body or it should relate to an already existing international body.

Now, I think that it would be good to argue the other way around as well and to argue that ICANN and the way ICANN perceives its work; it can be turned into an international structure.

Now, I know it is complicated to argue this case, but I'm -- I would, from my point of view, would think this is much more the right answer for the future instead of creating or relating the work ICANN is doing into existing or newly built international structures.

Of course you cannot then avoid the question, you know, the relationship to the Department of Commerce, but I think evaluating the case again and again and again, I'm sure the right answer will come in the future.

And instead of, you know, looking for the right answer in an artificial way, I think it is better to see the answer coming through an evolution instead of, you know, making the case now.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think even in some of the discussions amongst some of the committee members, because the point you are making about internationalization has been one that has been a consistent message we have heard, and we have seen not only in the committee itself received but, importantly, I think we are also seeing a lot in the feedback that the Department of Commerce has issued into its consultation process.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I think there is quite a distinction or there is certainly a distinction, and eventually Hans will be talking towards this after you, between not-for-profit entities or similar things issuing international agendas, and then potentially international private organizations, which are distinguishable from national public organizations.

That is tended to be bounded by treaty. I won't talk to it further, but I think your points of that there are grades of distinction here is probably an important one.

>>ERIKA MANN: Yes, certainly.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Paul?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, Janis.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: I tried to follow your instructions and press the #6 and then I couldn't get back online.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: We're glad you made it back again.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: I wanted to make a comment on what Erika just said.

From my experience and what I heard, first of all, I think that many governments are acting not based on fact but based on perception.

And it is indeed a long-term task to fight perception. Perception that U.S. government can do something bad for Internet or access to Internet, one or another country in exceptional circumstances.

So this is one thing.

Another thing what I have observed is that within the ICANN GAC framework, sometimes governments don't feel comfortable to be advisors to a private company. And that again is a psychological discomfort. And from this perspective, we have to think how to make this system different, to comfort governments to feel more part of the process, including decision-making process.

>>ERIKA MANN: Absolutely right.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, keeping to the agenda, I would like to say thank you to Erika for her contribution. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it very much.

>>ERIKA MANN: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the debate. Bye.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder if we may now welcome Hans Corell. Hans is the former

Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and a former Legal Counsel of the United Nations and has a long history of seeing to public service for His Majesty's government in Sweden.

The committee -- Some members of the committee when initially forming and discussing some of these issues that were emerging in discussions which Erika has already raised in her presentation was looking for someone who could give some general advice to the committee, or at least that we could first consult with, who had some understanding of how international entities actually were formed. This is for background purposes. And the committee found Hans
(inaudible) putting it all in context with Hans and made some initial consultations with him about some general background on international entities.

But we asked Hans to speak to these particular consultations to give some further background and share further with the community some of his knowledge of international organizational issues, particularly as it relates to the first few questions I think that are being asked by the committee.

And I thought we might welcome Hans to speak and give us some of that background, and then we'll ask some questions.

>>HANS CORELL: Thank you very much, Paul.

I'm sorry that I missed part of Erika Mann's presentation, but I was given a better line so I heard the last part of it, which of course is very important because these are policy matters and this is what comes first. The policy has to be discussed and decided upon and then you can always find the legal solutions to the policy decision taken.

You will recall that when we had our first contacts, I told you about my initial reaction when I learned about the Internet some years ago and how it functioned. I and my colleagues in the U.N. system were quite taken aback that governments had not taken the initiative to regularize this in the way that they did with other major communication systems which were invented in the past. Like post, telegraph, telephone, all these kind of things.

We raised this matter, actually, with the World Intellectual Property Organization. But then we understood that the issue is perhaps more complex with the Internet than with the other communication systems. It's highly technical, and there could be also other solutions than having governments completing a treaty on how to govern the Internet. And what I heard in the discussion from Erika Mann that this has to evolve and one has to find solutions as one goes along is probably a wise thing to do.

Because if you consider making a treaty, you tend to solidify things and it's very difficult to change them.

But be this as it may, this is a policy matter. So what I was asked to do was actually to provide some material to assist ICANN in deciding what status the corporation should aim for as a private international entity in its own country, irrespective of where this country would be.

And you also asked me to look at in what manner intergovernmental organizations, with privileges and immunities protect the integrity of the organization.

So I did that. I went through a number of conventions, including the ones that govern the United Nations to demonstrate how the U.N. is protected against, for example, lawsuits, against attachment of assets and so forth and how you protect the integrity of the decision-making process in an entity.

And then I studied the legislation in a number of countries. In particular, I looked at the legislation in Switzerland where the United Nations has an office. I looked at the legislation in Austria, in France, in the Netherlands because of earlier contacts there. And also I looked obviously at the legislation in the United States.

You also asked me to look at some other entities, and in particular I looked at entities that could, in a sense, be said to resemble ICANN in the sense that they are not public legal personalities under public international law but rather private entities with an international standing.

And here I looked in particular at the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and the Olympic Committee. But also, on some other entities.

And to make a long story short, there is, of course, a regime for intergovernmental organizations, and that goes without saying. But if this is not the solution that is contemplated here, then the question would be how does one internationalize ICANN?

And judging from these other entities that I have looked into, this is an option, this is a possibility. Because it goes without saying that if the legal entity is not an entity under public international law, that legal entity has to abide by the laws where it is incorporated or where it is registered. And in the case of ICANN, of course, it's obviously the laws of the United States. Or, rather, the state law of the State of California and maybe also, to a certain extent, federal laws of the United States.

But there are possibilities of, shall we say, creating, even on those premises, an internationalized entity that could be granted some facilities that would guarantee the standing of this entity in the territory of the state which is the host state.

And here, it was specifically of interest, I think, to ICANN that I looked at some entities that have been incorporated in the United States and that have been given some internationalized capacity.

And there is actually a possibility under U.S. law to grant to private entities facilities provided that this is in the interest of the state.

I looked at some executive orders issued by the President of the United States, and there were three entities that were of particular interest here.

One is the International Fertilizer Development Center, the IFDC, and the other is the International Food Policy Research Institute, which is the IFPRI, and then finally the Inter-American Statistical Institute, the IASI. Looking to these entities, it showed, in particular, in the case of the IFDC, that they had started off as a private enterprise as it were, private entity, but had been given international status within the territory of the United States.

And these entities now have offices all over the world, and have some facilities of the kind that ICANN would probably benefit from in case it would be internationalized.

Now, I'm very careful to stress that it's not my task to, shall we say, discuss or participate in a policy discussion. I don't know enough about ICANN to do that. And basically, it's for ICANN's board of governors to do this.

So what I can do is to provide information that might assist ICANN in finding the right path on the way ahead.

And then I have some material, and I hope, Paul, that you got all this material. I think it's important that every avenue is examined so that you can find the appropriate format for your activities. And in particular, that you identify the kind of protection, if I may use that word, or perhaps facilities that you would need the host state to extend to you in order for you to be able to carry out the duties with the integrity that must be granted to an entity like ICANN.

Obviously, there is always the option at the end of the day that governments would get involved more directly in this process and maybe adopt the same practice they have applied in the past, i.e. treaty making. But on the other hand, if you can prove that the system works in a very efficient manner and that ICANN is in a position to administer this worldwide and highly complex technical system, well, then, what's the point of changing that order?

But I think that, as a point of departure, you should look at how you could, shall we say, strengthen ICANN's position as a private entity by granting it some facilities from the host country.

It goes without saying that you operate all over the world, so this means that the same kind of facilities would have to be granted by the states where you are active. And in particular, if for security reasons you establish hubs from where you can continue working in case something would happen to your main hub in California. This is the same kind of thinking we had in the United Nations that we have to be able to operate from different places in the world if something happens, physically, for example, to our headquarters.

Paul, I think this is sort of a general outline of the material that I have presented to you. But since you are familiar with at least part of it, you may have questions that you would like me to answer specifically.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, thank you, Hans. I probably do. I'm certain other members of the committee will as well.

Just to set some priority on our previous conversations, one of the things some members of the committee have reflected in their earlier discussions has been on discussions that have taken places on the fringes of ICANN meetings for some years. I know Peter and I have talked about such discussions that have taken place in restaurants and coffee shops at the fringes of ICANN meetings over some period of time where people have asked the question about legal personality and different types of legal personality.

And with your expertise in this area, it's been valuable to have that to turn to someone and say, "Can you give us some sense of what's the spectrum."

And I think what we would also like to ask you, I'll ask you personally, is to -- if you can provide us with an educational document or a document which outlines these -- these models and these different ways in which different international entities are expressed. You mentioned about three particularly in the United States jurisdiction. You may want to talk about that there is also the Swiss Federation and also the Netherlands has seen their policies directed towards those sorts of, if you like, international private organization facilities. Is that correct?

>>HANS CORELL: Yes, I forgot to mention, I also looked briefly at the legislation of the United Kingdom. Yes, I can certainly provide you with a document, as you said yourself, educational.

But these would be facts mainly that I have collected in order to provide ICANN with material on which it could base its policy discussions.

As I said, the policy decision is extremely important. Unless -- for a lawyer, at least -- unless you have a clear indication where the organization wants to go and how it wants to organize itself, then it's more difficult to give legal advice, also for your internal legal advisers, of how exactly you should draw up the necessary legal documentation.

Also, normally if you internationalize, as it were, then you should have some agreement with the host country, the country where you would have your seat. An agreement setting down the way that this internationalized entity should be treated by the host country.

And I'm sure that for any host country, this would be an extremely interesting entity to have within its borders. So therefore, I expect there would be an openness on the part of the host country to discuss solutions with the interest toward actually making it possible for ICANN to demonstrate that you have an independent international structure as far as you can go with the proviso that you must be considered established under the legislation of any one national state.

In effect.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Peter here.

Hans, first of all, thank you for the clarity of the presentation.

I wonder if -- The way Erika characterized the problem, and that was supported by Janis's description of it as well, was in two parts. The first was the very part of being -- of ICANN's being a U.S. corporation raised some problems. And the second one was the relationship, then, with the Department of Commerce.

Obviously the sort of discussion -- the information you are giving us would be about changing the first one, the nature of the legal structure.

Is there a relationship, though, that changing the legal structure would have with the second problem? How-- How do you see changing the structure to one of those international-type organizations that you mentioned? Would that itself, in your view, lead to a change in the relationship, then, with the U.S. government or would it help or change the relationship in which that organization would exist.

>>HANS CORELL: That's a good question, and I have seen the Memorandum of Understanding and the amendment. But as far as I am concerned, as long as you operate in any one country, you have to, shall we say, realize that ultimately you are subject to the legislation of that country, to the jurisdiction of that country.

The country can extend facilities, like immunities and privileges to a certain extent also to private entities. And that is a matter of negotiations between the entity and the government of that country.

To what extent that would influence the relationship between ICANN and the Department of Commerce really depends on what you want to achieve through your policy decision.

But I think that having listened to at least part of what Erika said, that the main aim of the whole exercise should be to strengthen the authority and the ability of ICANN as an entity that actually manages the whole worldwide system. And there it goes without saying that the more you can demonstrate that you could act independently, the closer you come to that goal.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mm-hmm, thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Do other members of the panel have questions?

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn. I don't have a question but I would just extend my thanks as well and say that I will look forward to reviewing the document that you and Ambassador Corell and discussing and perhaps I may have questions at that time.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Paul, may I -- Janis here.

I just wanted to test with Mr.Corell my theory which I developed during the WSIS process.

And first of all, I should start my thanking him for a very interesting briefly.

What I found interesting was that in '98 when U.S. government decided to sort of engage in privatization of the system, and since then the system-- Internet has been developed mostly under and operated under international private law based on many private contracts between ICANN and the different operators on the Internet scene. And now when theWSIS structure, the whole discussion, including about Internet Governance, was based not on that law but on the international private law, the system on law on which diplomats have been trained and intergovernmental relations have been managed.

And it seems to me that there is very little interaction, at least known interaction, between these two systems of law. And my feeling was that governments didn't feel comfortable to engage with the private company because they said, no, we know how to operate between governments or among governments, but a private company? No.

We-- Governments dictated or tried to dictate its own rule.

So could you maybe elaborate a little bit on existing examples of interaction of international public and international private law systems.

>>HANS CORELL: Again, it is very difficult to have a general outline here.

I recognize certainly the problem. And in particular, when you come into the area where an activity would resemble the exercise of public authority, like giving licenses and giving permissions and so on. In the case of ICANN, it is granting the top-level domain names and all the things that you decide upon. That could, at the international level, be seen as some kind of exercise of authority.

Normally, that is done by a government agency. But there are also situations where governments actually hand over to private entities to exercise these kinds of functions.

In my own country, for example, this can be done provided that this is done under the law. A statue law adopted by parliament that lays down that you can do this.

As I said, it is really a policy issue. But if governments will one day decide that they would like to engage more deeply in this, they can always do so.

And if we look at the Tunis document, of course the Tunis Agenda, you can see language to this effect.

At the same time, if the governments think that something operates in a functional manner and that it might be more suitable to organize it in the way that it's done by a private entity, well, then they can just stay their hand and leave it as it is.

I think that the future will show how all this will operate. And I noted in particular what Erika Mann said about following the evolution here to see how it develops.

What we have to do, and in answer to your question, is to actually find out how entities that could be seen as similar to ICANN, how they interact with governments.

And the advice here that I will give is that the people who are familiar, and I mean really familiar with the way ICANN operates, that they might wish to get in touch with colleagues in such internationalized organizations to see how they interact with government. What are the problems? Because only people who have intimate knowledge about the functioning of organizations of this kind can actually explain how it works.

And I, for one, I have been a government official and I have worked in the U.N. as the Legal Counsel for ten years. I have experience from that field, but I do not have experience from working within a private entity interacting with governments.

So I think there is a learning process here, and that is the advice I would give.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Are there other questions from members of the committee?

Hans, may I just say, then, thank you very much for your -- for your presentation. We will look forward to receiving and posting your educational piece on the various models that you have identified, both under the U.S. jurisdiction, but also under -- potentially under Swiss and also your analysis of Dutch and potentially UK legal environments, as just examples for members that are not necessarily familiar with this body of jurisprudence to be able to have some understanding. I think one of the key parts of the message that you indicated I think which is interesting is that there is possibility for internationalization within the actions of a particular jurisdiction. And that we also look at the point you are saying which is that these are really policy questions and, to a degree, questions of political will. But they are not necessarily all legal questions and we certainly do not consider your participation in this as anything as any form of advocacy but rather as an expert that is able to give us some expert observations and information.

Political will or rule?

>>HANS CORELL: Thank you very much, Paul, for making that point because I do not want to be seen as an advocate for any particular solution; rather, trying to assist ICANN in finding material that can assist you in the policy decision that eventually, then, when the policy is decided upon, it will have to be translated in legal terms.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Right.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much for that, and we look forward to receiving that volume of material.

The next people on the panel, in my understanding, and I will ask for confirmation from either Theresa or Marc, is Roelof Meijer and Stefano Trumpy. IS that correct?

>>THERESA SWINEHART: Yes, yes. They are both on.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: May I say welcome to Roelof, welcome Stefano.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: Hello, I am here.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: Good morning. Hello, Paul. This the Roelof. Hello to the other committee members as well.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you for coming in this afternoon.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: No problem.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Peter and I are both at the moment sharing very early Saturday mornings as we do this exercise.

Roelof, I suggest that -- I don't know whether you and Stefano has spoken but perhaps each of you could make a presentation, and perhaps you could start first, and then we'll ask questions of both of you at the end.

So if you could start with your presentation and then we'll ask questions of both.

Roelof, why don't you go first.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: Can you hear me?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: Okay.

As you are probably aware, SIDN has already made a submission to the NTIA. So what I did with respect to the eight questions that were post in the document that I received, so I will just treat them in their own sequence, if that's okay with you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, certainly.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: Yeah? Okay.

Well, the first question is about the main challenges that are there and that have to be coped with to ensure continue stable and secure operations of -- well, the domain name and addressing system.

I make a distinction in two fields, the technical challenges and the political challenges.

As I consider ICANN's role mainly to be technical, I will start with the technical challenges. And we have seen quite a few have been addressed in the Tunis exercise, in the WSIS exercise as well.

First, the future of the Internet as a technical network. IPv6, the security system and the legal content, I think those are technical challenges that faces, and some of them are dealt with properly, some of them are dealt with outside of ICANN, like DNSsec and the root that is clearly an ICANN matter. And I think it's important that we keep up to speed with those issues. And I think also, like was stated in the IGF forum, that we need a more concerted international approach on that.

On the political issues, many of them are dealing with the governance of the Internet. SIDN is of the opinion that the day-to-day management of the Internet should be left to technical institutions, and technical institutions that operate in the private sector.

I feel also that the present unilateral oversight of ICANN should in time be replaced by a more international body, which has a very light oversight over ICANN. I am not referring to the U.N. I don't think it will be a good solution. It will probably introduce too much bureaucracy and slow down the decision-making too much. But I think that the present situation whereby there is oversight by only one nation is reaching the end of its time, and it's a subject that has to be dealt with because it's too much an issue for too many countries.

I do feel, however, that replacing the present model of oversight of ICANN should only be done when the new model is clear to everyone and is in place. That is not the case yet, so I think that -- I feel that we should postpone a decision to change the present oversight until we have found a proper new model.

There's one other issue on the political front which I think came up quite a lot over the last few years and that's bridging the digital divide. I think there the role of ICANN and the possibilities of ICANN to solve that problem are fairly limited. Of course, introducing multilingualism in the Internet environment, that is something that also ICANN has to deal with. But the present discussion on fairly intensive outreach programs for ICANN, I am not really in favor of that. I am a supporter of ICANN sticking -- mainly sticking to its technical role.

I think there are other organizations that are better placed, better equipped, and better experienced in solving let's say the digital divide problem.

Then the second question about if there are examples of how other global organizations have met similar challenges, I really doubt that there are useful examples. I have heard quite a few also during this conference already; a few examples have been put forward. But I think they all lack similarity with the ICANN or the Internet situation in that the stakes are not as high. They are not as global and, at the meantime, so national as the stakes are when it comes to the Internet.

So I don't think that they are really examples that will give us the solution for ICANN's future. And maybe we should all decide that we will make ICANN the example for the future. Because I think if you really start comparing them, somebody will come up with the conclusion that almost all situations where the stakes are so high and so global that it's the U.N. in one way or another that is running the show. And I don't think that is a conclusion that we want to draw.

Is the organization's ability to scale internationally affected by its legal personality being based in a specific jurisdiction? Yes, unavoidably so, and I think it might hinder progress sometimes but I don't think it's an obstruction. And I don't see a solution anyway. But I don't think it -- in my opinion and to my experience so far, I don't think it's really a big problem.

On the question on how ICANN should respond to relevant issues coming from the WSIS discussion, I think that -- I feel that ICANN should focus on WSIS output that is relevant to its technical coordination mission. So it should really limit actions and responses to the WSIS process as far as they are linked to its technical mission.

Of course, it should also support an issue like enhanced cooperation, cooperation on a broader scale. It should as such operate complementary to the IETF but also complementary to all other kinds of other technical institutions that are dealing with the Internet.

So I think ICANN's role is fairly distinct and it's also fairly limited with regard to the WSIS discussion. Of course it should participate and operate within its own mission.

How should ICANN further announce cooperation of all ICANN stakeholders? I think ICANN or my experience with ICANN already provides many platforms for discussion and cooperation between stakeholders. Some of them are not yet up to their, let's say, maximum use. I think the ccNSO is an example. Although the number has increased recently -- congratulations, Paul, by the way, for that -- I think there is still quite a bit of room to improve and stimulate participation by the different stakeholders. And I think also it is necessary to stimulate adequate expertise levels of those who are participating.

And on the other side, I think that ICANN really should act on the advice it gets. So give the different stakeholder organizations adequate influence. But of course then I come back to my previous point, it makes it very necessary that those organizations have, within their roles, adequate expertise. Otherwise, it will be difficult or it may even be dangerous for ICANN to act on the given advice.

And I think that's the same for the sixth question which refers to the GAC. I think it's very important that the GAC properly organizes itself so it is able to act more as representing one particular group of stakeholders, one particular very important group of stakeholders, but also it is very necessary -- if they want to reach that goal, it is very necessary that they improve the level of expertise among their roles, in their roles.

What can be done to assist in the evolution of a more widely informed participation from all regions, including governmental representatives? Well, I think part of that I answered in the question I previously answered.

I think it's important that ICANN makes clear where knowledge on Internet issues can be obtained. And once again, it just makes clear that relevant expertise is a necessity if one wants to influence the process.

If this question also refers to ICANN's outreach program, then as I said before, I feel that ICANN should really limit activities in the direction at least for the time being, more issues that have to be dealt with at the moment that are more -- that are closer to ICANN's original mission.

Are there activities or steps that will build on existing processes to continue to enhance global accessibility to the transparency of ICANN's processes? One of my predecessors in this conference already stated that not seldomly a certain level of trust toward ICANN is lacking. I think it will always be the case to a limited extent. It has to do with having a unique position and people or organizations not being able to choose.

I think most registries experience the same. Although they are not really monopolies, they are often considered being that. And then perhaps lacking why people get frustrated with not having a choice and complain, sometimes rightly so and sometimes not rightly so.

But I think there is room for improvement on the openness and transparency on how ICANN is run and how decisions are made and how policy is created. Since the one and a half year that I am here, I have seen improvements already, and I think ICANN puts a lot of effort in this.

We just need some more results, and results will come with time and results will come with more efforts.

I think it's very important that ICANN remains or becomes, but I should say remains, I think, lean and mean in the meaning that it remains effective and efficient. And that it acts adequately and speedily so that it keeps in sync with the very high tempo the developments in the industry are following.

And I think finally that it should further improve stakeholders' participation, again both in quantity but also in quality. And as an example, I have already mentioned the ccNSO.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Roelof.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: I think I should give some time to my colleague from Italy.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: Yes.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Stefano.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: Okay. Let me say briefly, first of all, thatisoc.it made the comment to the NTIA question, and you may read that. And this contribution that is coming from me, Vittorio Bertola and (saying name) and written is prepared by the group of us that are involved in the governmental group discussing Internet Governance.

So I want to say simply this, that coming to the challenges, we mentioned mainly the technical ones, because I would think that ICANN should speak to its raising our role, and we should try to elaborate the definition of the public policy issues, but try to avoid to see in public policy too many technical details. And only look at the very general questions.

So the challenges are to speak to the standardization process made by IETF to keep the root unique, the root of the Internet, and to keep an eye on the technical evolutions and the research sector that is providing, maybe in the long range, solutions that will change the centrality of the DNS as it is right now. And then of course having a look to have a liability, redundancy and scalability of DNS. I think the number of users and computers and equipment connected is growing very, very dramatically.

So we didn't say so much about the question two concerning the other organizations that may see similar changes to ICANN. Our predecessor from U.N. was much more prepared and gave some very good ideas.

In any case, we think that ICANN could reach some more -- some more clearly defined international aspects because it will be a way to rid -- to get rid of many of the political questions and issues repeatedly(inaudible) by other interventions.

And it is important the question concerning the ICANN role that is the issues that have come from WSIS. In my opinion, the -- ICANN should speak to the original role to the narrow mandate. But this problem is also connected to the funding model of ICANN. Because we know that ICANN basically gets funds from gTLDs mainly, and only in -- the contribution from CCs and IP registries is much less relevant.

And it is true that there is an expectation on ICANN to do more and to expand in areas like multilingualism, like promoting IPv6 and other markets not particularly connected to the DNS.

ICANN could do something, but the funding model will have to be reviewed, because only if there are other funding sources and other stakeholders interested in this original task could be enlarged. So in these TLDs, better not to do that in my opinion.

And concerning the stakeholders, it was mentioned that there is a good improvement for what concerned the CCs and the joining the ccNSO and also signing the extent of letters or accountability agreements. But this is something that have to be expanded to a majority of ccTLDs. And I'm glad to verify that there is -- that we have improvement of, not just now, but in the past it has been maybe too slow for many reasons.

Also, the problem of having more consumer representation of the -- we call it at-large. I name this the registrants, those that are registering names in the Internet.

And this aspect is still not clear, and there was a change made, if we compare to the initial white book, I think that something should be moved to have more representation from the users.

And concerning the GAC, of course I know something about that as the vice chair of the GAC.

And my impression is that also the joint group activity between the GAC and the board is doing an excellent work. And there is a nucleus of the enhanced cooperation, and we should be able to be as much effective as possible in order to prove that the enhanced cooperation may be realized from inside -- from inside ICANN itself. So this is a really important point.

And so the last question is also really important, what ICANN can do to enhance global accessibility and transparency. ICANN could do very much, but the problem is that making regional meetings, translating into many languages, and making this campaign of training and sensitization will cost a lot of resources and then this will be connected, of course, with funds available.

So in my opinion, ICANN should do the best in order to gain more credibility, more legitimacy, and then the rest will come. So it is a chicken-and-egg problem.

So basically this is my evaluation and my input to the eight questions.

Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Roelof, and thank you Stefano. That was very useful.

I want to start myself with an observation and then turn to other members of the committee.

I just want to make an observation on one of the points that Stefano made about funding and about certain activities. And let's just make this observation, that it's nice to hear someone who does (inaudible) into funding issues because your observation has been quite right about the expense of certain things.

But I think also the other thing that is interesting is, as we talk about the growth of the Internet, there's sometimes a tendency to think of that growth as being purely geographic rather than necessarily deep as well. And I think I have been well on record as someone being very supportive of ensuring that we can engage -- that ICANN engage with the full geographic community.

I think there's also recognition that one of the simple realities of the present international economic structures is that some countries are increasingly reliant on the Internet for great depth of their economy more than others. And if you are only going to look at the e-commerce figures to see,for instance, how much North America is using the Internet for e-commerce versus any other parts of the world.

So I think the point we need to consider, it doesn't necessarily vitiate against the geographic point, but it does actually add a layer of complexity to the question of where are the pressures going to come from for ensuring good service in the DNS across the whole of the Internet. I think those pressures aren't just going to come from geographic pressures, one country after the other, if you like, but they are also going to come from increasing parts of different economies that are increasingly being penetrated by e-commerce and Internet usage.

Are there any other questions?

>>HANS CORELL: Paul, this is Hans Corell. I am still here. Before I am leaving, just one point of clarification, I am listening to these very interesting observations. But it is my conclusion that there is no other organization that exists that is similar to ICANN. Certainly I am not suggesting that. By by pointing to certain examples, I am simply drawing your attention to entities that are not subjects under public international law but that are internationalized - private law institutions that have gained high credibility at the international level.

And it should be interesting for ICANN to look at them, how they are organized. Is there something we can learn from that? Not really relating to your work but relating to your organization and how you interact with the world community and particular governments. That's my only purpose in drawing your attention to those examples.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you for that.

>>MARILYN CADE: Paul, it's Marilyn. May I ask a question?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Sure.

>>MARILYN CADE: It kind of goes back both to the comment that Ambassador Corell just made but also a comment that Janis Karklins made just a few minutes ago. And I would like to address it to both of our speakers, both Hans and also Stefano.

Hans, I found your discussion about the idea that we should think of ICANN as
-- continue to think of ICANN, I guess I would interpret from your statement, as a new model and examine how to perhaps make those governments and parties who are not comfortable with the new model, how to make them more comfortable with it as opposed to trying to change the model that we originally founded ICANN on.

I attended as many of the WSIS meetings as industry was allowed to attend. And thanks to Ambassador Karklins, I was in many of them, due to the evolution of the rules of how the private sector could participate.

I did observe over the two and a half years a lot of growth and change in how comfortable some governments became with private sector involvement.

We have so much more work to do in that area, it's quite clear to me. And I think Ambassador Karklins referenced that earlier.

Could you just say something more, both of you, about ideas for enhancing that level of comfort on the part of governments who do yet feel comfortable with the private sector leadership and technical leadership model. Are there any other comments or suggestions you might offer?

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: Stefano answering. First of all, the idea of changing the legal status of ICANN and forming it into an international recognized institution, then this will make many governments that are not -- that do not agree with the present status, many of their objections will be released.

Second point, we still have to discuss in the GAC and in the governments that are represented the fact that governments' advice should not be binding and should not be stressed in such a way to block the activity of the board and so on.

So there is a real necessity of continuing-- let's call it, education continues towards all the governments that enter into direct relation with ICANN.

And I'm rather confident that this that we call enhanced cooperation from internal of ICANN can be reached, but we need a continuous effort with these two considerations are made.

>> Maybe I can also react. Yeah, I agree with the notion that instead of changing the model, most of the attention should be focused on creating more comfort for the model internationally. But I think one of the ways to do that is by taking their -- the remarks that some governments have, or the reservations that the governments have on the present model, taking them very serious and trying to adjust the present model to adopt it, to address those reservations.

And I think there is clearly room for improvement, and I think that room should be used.

>>MARILYN CADE: (Inaudible) room for improvement you I think had referenced transparency and openness. Did you have specific ideas as to how we may continue to improve?

>> Well, I think it's transparency, it's openness, but it's also acting on the advice received, for instance, by the GAC. Making sure that -- or stimulating that they have the necessary expertise level. And that's valid, I think, for more Supporting Organizations and advisory committees.

But I think -- well, we all know that one of the issues is the present unilateral oversight of ICANN. And I don't think -- while I don't think that that issue should be solved now or tackled now, it will have to be tackled because there are too many countries that see that as a problem. And it makes it unavoidable -- unavoidable to come up with a solution. And I think it would also improve the present situation if eventually we -- or eventually sounds very far away -- if we in the near future come up with a model that guarantees more international or multi-national light oversight of ICANN.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: Can I add something here? Stefano speaking.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, Stefano.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: Yeah, but the real problem is not the stop the single government oversight with a multitude of government oversight. The real problem is to progress and to convince a single government to release, to be more -- to -- don't to express an oversight function and make a step back, let's say. And then the GAC could evolve to continue providing advices, but staying in the backstage, let's say, and trying to guide on policy matters not on the page which ICANN should avoid to do in order not to enter into conflict with international treaties or national laws. So there is the real point that I see.

Some worries from the government side that the present oversight of ICANN by Department of Commerce should be -- should become multilateral oversight. This is not what we think, but rather that the U.S. government should make a significant step back, keeping only the very straight functions that are necessary to assure continued stability of the DNS.

>> Mr.Chairman, can I briefly react to that?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Certainly.

>> Well, I was not suggesting that we replace the oversight by one government by the oversight of a multitude of governments, although that is one -- one way to do it. I don't think it would be a very successful one. I see more in the model whereby the present oversight by one government is replaced by oversight -- light oversight by a group of persons or an organization or whatever model that we come up. I don't have the solution, by the way. I haven't found it. Yes, I would have told you if I had it.

An organization or a group of people that has international support. You don't have to be a government or you don't have to be a group of governments or you don't have to be all governments to have international support.

I think we have to-- And that's why I -- although I agree we should definitely look at other organizations that operate internationally to see if we can learn from that, I think we should prepare ourselves to create something unique for the time being, which is not organized in the way in which the U.N. is organized and which is not organized in the way in which private organizations are organized as far as supervision of their operation is concerned but which is something new but supported by let's say the majority of the world's countries.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: May I ask a question?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Janis.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: During the presentation you spoke about internationalization and said that that would be a solution which would take off the stress from the government perception of the existing situation.

My question is, do we need to discuss what this next model could be? And if the answer is affirmative, then where would be the right forum for governments to discuss this next international model, whether that would be within GAC or whether that would be within United Nations or one of United Nations' organization? How do you see the intergovernmental consultation process on -- to confirm that all governments would feel comfortable with the internationalization of ICANN?

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: This is Stefano. It would be very important to see the evolution of the direction of the MOU and what would be next. In my opinion, the GAC has the possibility to exercise this light -- light oversight and to evolve from the present situation without the need of thinking to create an external body representing the government.

But this is something that we have to play from inside and only if the GAC will move into a situation that is convincing also the governments that do not agree with the present situation, then this could be successful, not changing significantly the present situation. This is my opinion.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Sorry, Stefano. Thank you for that. I was not asking about oversight function. I am far from thinking the GAC would be in a position to do any oversight.

My question was concerning internationalization. So there was an affirmation that internationalization of ICANN would comfort many governments. And I believe that that is the case. But my question was whether governments should discuss modalities of this internationalization? And for instance, one problem may be with ICANN as an international organization acting under U.S. federal law. Maybe 60% of governments would prefer to see ICANN act under Swiss law or law of any other country.

So that's the essence of the question.

Do we need to discuss? And if yes, then where would be the right forum, whether that would be GAC or whether that would be any other organization.

>> I think if I might try to give my answer to this question. Since it's not solely a government issue but a new model should be supported by all stakeholders, I think that the main arena for that discussion is the ICANN arena. And of course I mean if U.N. countries would like to discuss the issue within the U.N., that is something that will happen anyway, but I think that it is a multistakeholder discussion so it should be discussed within the boundaries of the ICANN organization and the Supporting Organizations.

So my answer is the governments should discuss it in the GAC, and it should not be an isolated government discussion and an isolated ccTLD registry discussion, but it should be a joint discussion of the different stakeholders.

>>MARILYN CADE: Can I ask a follow-up question, maybe? It's Marilyn.

When we-- So in --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Marilyn, it's Peter here. I can't hear you. Are you using a speakerphone or something?

>>MARILYN CADE: No, I'm not. Is that better?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Much better, thank you.

>>MARILYN CADE: Roelof, in the model that you just described or the suggestion you just made, the discussion would take place broadly within the set of ICANN stakeholders, both within the Supporting Organizations, the advisory committees, the GAC. And if we follow our existing model of consultation at ICANN, that would be open to even parties who aren't involved in ICANN now through a public comment process. Is that what you were thinking of?

>>ROELOF MEIJER: Yes, it is. I haven't worked out the details because it was the first time the question was asked to me, but yeah, I think so. And the danger there is that this whole discussion might take years, and that it would be even -- it would be even slower than trying to come up with a new model in the U.N.

So that is definitely a challenge.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Perhaps I might just finish these questions from the particular panel now. It is a very interesting presentation, but we do have other people waiting. I would just make an observation on this last issue that just emerged about potential choice of jurisdiction that applies. This is an active operational question that emerges in all registry discussions, including accountability frameworks with CCs already, and the answer tends to be different according to the circumstances of the parties. And I think it tends to effect a little bit-- Janis, you asked the question before of Hans about interaction of international private law and international public law.

I think the decision that, say, Roelof and ICANN might make about what might apply in the accountability framework between .nl and ICANN is a (inaudible) contract of international private law where the two parties themselves try to figure out what is best for them.

Now, I am sort of drawing a line about consultations (inaudible) before, but I suppose this sort of question is something that practically comes up in the negotiation of contracts. On the accountability framework there is specifically an example where there has been some (inaudible) by different parties and different CCs at different times.

Why don't we say thanks very much for Roelof and to Stefano, and I'm sure both gentlemen will be happy to take follow-up questions from the committee. I know there are probably other issues that have emerged during the discussion.

Okay.

>> Thank you very much.

>>ROELOF MEIJER: Okay. Good luck with the consultation.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you very much.

In terms of the agenda, why don't we now turn to Becky Burr. Becky has her own issues with ICANN and pre-ICANN. Becky is a partner with the law firm of Roma Hale. And then after Becky, and relative to study in the consultation is Paul Levins who has only just recently joined ICANN as the executive officer and vice president of corporate affairs, but who has some views he wishes to share as a new almost outsider about some of the transparency, accessibility, communication issues that have been raised by some members. He has his own perspective as well.

So why don't we start first with Becky.

Becky, are you online?

>>BECKY BURR: I am online. Can you all hear me?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I can.

>>BECKY BURR: Okay.

Thanks for inviting me to participate in this. I think it was sort of instigated by the fact that Marilyn Cade and I put together comments that we submitted to NTIA in an attempt to provide a sort of practical and constructive task forward in response to their Notice of Inquiry, I think. We may have been motivated from a variety of reasons and perhaps not all of the same reasons, but I was certainly, given my long history with ICANN, very anxious to see that something, you know -- something that is forward-moving and constructive comes out of this Notice of Inquiry.

It was-- The paper is quite narrowly focused, and it is really intended to suggest a way forward to remove what I think is a kind of a festering sore in the ICANN world. And it's not a festering sore at ICANN but a festering sore that colors how ICANN is viewed and that is certainly distracting for ICANN, which is -- and I would be quite blunt, the failure of the U.S. government to complete the transition to private sector governance. That was an essential part of the bargain when many of us sat around the table in 1997 and 1998 and decided how to figure out how to move forward with effective domain name management in a way that was both private sector led, nimble, fleet, and not governmentally directed. So that was really the purpose of it.

I think there are four points, and I'll just go through those briefly.

Let me say that the other part of the sort of pragmatic and constructive approach is to find something that can actually be done quickly. You know, the international not-for-profit organizations like the Fertilizer Development Center are very interesting models, and I think I agree with Stefano that they are not particularly -- not necessarily exactly on point, although I take the point that it is just an example of an organization that is well respected.

But in the history of that organization, it took many, many years and a presidential directive to have that international status sped up. And so whatever-- Whether this is a long-term solution or not, it is intended to be something that can happen quickly.

So the first point is to sort of acknowledge and accept that there is a desire on the part of governments, and frankly I think we see a desire on the part of some of the commenter's on the Notice of Inquiry, to maintain, at least for the time being, some residual government authority with respect to the root.

But I think that the first step that needs to be taken is to articulate what the nature and purpose of any kind of residual governmental authority over the root is. And that would be simply to stand up and say the purpose of any residual authority over the root by governments is to act in an emergency to preserve the stability and security of the Internet or the DNS. Nothing else. It's a very contained and easily articulated.

The next point, the next step then would be for the U.S. government to take immediate steps to -- and I am going to use the word internationalize, but I'm talking about internationalizing that limited residual governmental authority over the root, which is really an emergency (inaudible) power as we have identified it.

Now, our paper proposes as a -- what we would call a straw man, an intergovernmental working group. It is — no wait - what, the what the model we used was to go back to those governments that had been most involved in the original intergovernmental negotiations related to DNS management and to fill in with governments from all of the ICANN regions.

Paul, I think -- I hope you noticed there were four in the Asia-Pacific region. This was definitely done with a purpose.

But it's simply a model, and from my perspective, it doesn't particularly matter how the group is constructed so long as it understand its role is to, you know, act as a collective multi-governmental back stop with respect to security and stability.

And then for the U.S. government essentially to do what it has the authority to do right now, which is to tellVeriSign to do what ICANN tells it to do, unless it tells it not to, to ensure that all of the reports that ICANN slash IANA provide with respect to modification of the authoritative root, that it is distributed to all of the members of the working group and to permit a member -- any member of the working group to object to any proposed change within a fixed time, and I would say a small fixed time, on the limited grounds that the change threatens the stability or security of the Internet. And sort of move forward on the basis of what the group decides.

I think it needs to be a fairly small and fairly senior group so that it can be nimble, but as I said, how you constitute it strikes me as not -- not the most critical issue in the world so long as the leadership is there. And that is our third point, to have the U.S. government lead by example and be the first one to stand up and say there's a limited role for government with respect to this residual authority over the root.

And then finally, as the fourth point in our paper, we have suggested that the issue that we're hearing in some of the NOI comments and in the sort of commenting in general related to transparency and accountability with respect to ICANN I think really is fundamentally a legitimacy issue. And in terms of, sort of when everybody is going to feel good about the transition to private sector governance is the moment when the community, the decision-makers, really does feel like it knows what's going on and it has real mechanisms to ensure that ICANN acts transparently and accountably.

So we have as part of this a proposal that there -- that there be a review of effectiveness of the accountability and transparency mechanisms.

And I think it may seem something of an after thought to tack on that piece to the very focused efforts to internationalize limited residual governmental authority over the root, but I think that the two things kind of go hand in hand.

So that's what the proposal amounts to. It was designed, and some of my friends would accuse me of being an un- -- unreformed incrementalist, but it was designed to avoid a lot of questions that would be raised by more complicated internationalization of ICANN related to transfer of government property, which was -- is a sort of thorny issue that hangs out there and may, you know, eventually dissipate, but what we tried to do is come up with something that sort of walks around the potentially dicey legal issues related to a more complex internationalization process.

And finally, it really is designed to be consistent, and in fact to be sort of a "let's go back to the white paper" principle, primarily in the sense of, you know, articulating a governmental role that is limited, contained, and clear with respect to ICANN.

So the paper is short. It's only two pages, but I am happy to take any questions on it.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Becky, for putting that forward and explaining it.

Perhaps I could ask an operational question, I suppose.

You took that the clarification of the role of the United States government when it comes to (inaudible) authorization and then you talk about potentially some grouping of governments playing some role.

The present IANA statistics shows that on average, a country code asks for an amendment to its -- anything to do with its own sovereignty once every 2.8 years. Now, there are some country codes that are much more common than and other ones that are much less common. But on average, it's once every 2.8 years, the consequence of which is that in practical terms, every time a country code interacts with the IANA staff, there is an education process often taking place of just educating the particular staff person about what is involved in making such a request. And that's simply just a question of they do it once every 2.8 years and they have staff turnovers so that the person who did it last time is not here this time and that sort of thing.

I suppose in any -- two questions emerge to put to your model. One is how would you move to such a model without inherently politicizing in a different way from the way you put it, from how you perceived it, but how would you implement such a limited council, a limited grouping of governments in a way that doesn't politicize that function. And secondly, how would you do it in a way that ensures you really do have expertise? The present function does actually result in true expertise about what's involved because there is a limited number of people who actually do it all the time.

So those are the two questions I have.

>>BECKY BURR: Okay. I think that the critical piece here is the clear understanding about what the working group's scope of authority is.

And if scope of authority is clearly understood to be does a particular proposed change constitute a threat to the technical stability and security of the Internet, that's the question that's on the table.

Now, I happen to have sort of particular -- a sort of particularly strongly held view on this, because as you know, for some time, I was the person who made the call to VeriSign to say make a change to the root.

My view on that was that if the United States government ever tried to use that authority as any kind of a political -- in any political way, that the system would completely fall apart.

So I was, you know, rather dogmatic, I think some of my friends in the European Commission will say, about a change to adding.EU to the root, and that my view was if it's on the ISO list, it goes in; if it's not, it does not. And so I think that the way to make that process not political is to say the role of this working group is very limited.

Now, under those circumstances, I would imagine that virtually none of the changes that ICANN recommends or IANA recommends to the root constitute even a remote threat to the stability or security of the Internet.

And so I think that this works -- the model works only if the residual authority of government understood in a clearly limited fashion.

Now, I mean, I just can't -- you know, unless you were going to add, I don't know, 500 new IDN TLDs, you know, tomorrow, there's very little that constitutes a threat to the stability or security of the Internet.

So at some levels, it's not a particularly powerful residual governmental authority, but it does remove this -- you know, the unhappiness about the unilateral control over the root that the U.S. government is retaining.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. Are there other questions from members of the committee?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, Peter here.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Peter, then Janis.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Becky, I found your approach very helpful in focusing on what the authority is and what it might be. And we've heard a lot about light-handed oversight or other models. And I think it's important to work out what is this oversight of and for, and I appreciate your approach to that.

One of the other elements that's currently being exercised in relation to that is in the referral back to the U.S. Department of Commerce of the .com agreement. Do you see any continuing role in relation to gTLD sort of commercial or anti-trust or other issues that need to be dealt with before we get to the situation which is as clean and bare as you propose?

>>BECKY BURR: Well, let me first say that this is intended to be a very narrow -- this is intended to focus on the root.

So at one level, one could put the VeriSign agreement into an entirely separate bucket, which is that, you know, there is a three-way agreement there that has its own source of authority that's completely separate from the root issue.

So let me just say, that seems to me to be one -- one way of saying you can still -- whether you think that that problem needs to be solved before or after, you can still have that -- you know, that three-way agreement is not necessarily eliminated by this approach.

And then my response on this one, let me say that this response is my response and I certainly -- because it is outside the scope of the paper, I am not speaking for my co-author necessarily. I think that there are a lot of other issues. And I have said a number of times and said at least in hearings that the issue with respect to things like, you know, VeriSign's position is is it in a position, given its dominance in the market, does it have the ability to abuse that market position? And if so, are there effective checks on that, whether they are governmental checks or some other kind of checks. Those are questions that need to be explored. Clearly they need to be effective checks.

My personal view is that you probably need a sovereign and not an ICANN to be the competition enforcement authority. But that really does not get to the
-- to the issue with respect to the authority over the root.

It seems to be clear --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes.

>>BECKY BURR: -- this authority over the root -- I often say this is my fault, but I will say in particular this really is in some ways my fault because when we got to 1998 and discovered that no government had any authority over the root that we could rely on, and VeriSign was threatening to split the root, we, you know, demanded a trade for -- you know, an extension of the MOU at that time or of the cooperative agreement at that time, that they simply say they would never change the root without being directed to by the U.S. government or by somebody the U.S. government put in place.

So although it was quite necessary at the time in order to ensure the transition, it is an authority that is simply a product of contract.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: So I think-- I find that helpful. Thank you.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Janis, have you got a question?

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Yes. In fact, it's rather a comment than a question.

I found this model interesting and when someone in the U.N. says
"interesting," then very frequently that means unhelpful or bad.

[ Laughter ]

>>BECKY BURR: Thank you for the translation.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Not in that meaning. But I found one, let's say, weakness, if I may say. And this is the subjectivity of approach, meaning you say
"light oversight." "Light" is a very objective term. One may consider a thing being light, another may consider a thing being sufficiently heavy.

So therefore, it will be very difficult to draw the line between light oversight and heavy oversight. And I can argue in all directions on that issue.

And secondly, there will be very difficult to define the group of governments which would exercise this light oversight because, first and foremost, that will contradict one agreement government reached in WSIS that there shouldn't be any involvement of other governments in the issue of ccTLDs of other countries. And if one request for the change will contain -- or will be asked -- will relate to change of ccTLD, then this principle will be immediately violated.

So how did -- what-- How do you see this could be a result, or how you would comment these concerns?

>>BECKY BURR: Okay. First of all, I think you are absolutely correct that anything like "light oversight" is a subjective term, and we affirmatively avoided characterizing the residual authority of governments in that fashion whatsoever. It is intended to be a very, very clear and very limited authority. Which is to say if a proposed change threatens the technical security and stability of the root, the governments are empowered to step in to prevent that.

But that's not oversight, light or heavy. It is a technical security and stability issue.

And as I said before, I would expect that ICANN would have to do something close to unimaginable to actually meet that standard.

So I completely agree with you, what the rule in which somebody intervenes when a government intervenes would have to be very, very clearly and directly and firmly spelled out and contained.

That, I think, essentially answers the second question, which is that it is even more inconceivable to me that the transfer of a, you know, delegation from -- of a ccTLD from one operator to another could ever constitute a stability or security threat unless the operator was doing something crazy.

Now, I mean, I'm very conscious of how difficult the ccTLD delegation issue must be for ICANN as well, and not just other governments.

So I would imagine that no other government wants to be involved in the call of, you know, is this a good operator or a bad operator, but the only question on the table with respect to ccTLDs would be is there a technical stability threat involved in it.

So it's critical in order to address both sorts of questions that you put on the table to go back to the way in which this role is limited. And one of the ways in which I came up with this — Mel [Goudie?] and I came up with this articulation is just out of a conversation I had with Ambassador Gross months ago in which I sort of said, "Why don't you just stand up and say the U.S. government will not intervene unless that intervention is necessary to preserve the security and stability of the Internet and the DNS?" And he said, "Oh, we said that a hundred times."

The truth is, I don't think the U.S. government has said that very clearly. And I think in some ways, this should not be a very big step for them to take.

Now, with respect to the makeup of the panel, as I said, I really am quite indifferent so long as the -- the limited role is respected. It could be, you know, the GAC elects people, and it could be the GAC governments by region get together and designate governments on a rotating basis to serve in the working group. I had proposed that some time ago and got some push-back from members of the GAC.

But I think that the protection here is in the -- it's not the makeup of the working group. It is the sort of religious adherence to the limited role and the limited scope of authority for the working group.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Can I just add a question to that, Becky? When in any practical sense would the working group be informed of an action?

>>BECKY BURR: I think when ICANN/IANA submits a recommendation to make a change in the root, which has to go to the commerce department so the commerce department can direct VeriSign to do it, what I would propose is that the recommendation or the direction be issued directly from IANA to VeriSign, and every member of the working group be copied on it. And VeriSign's operating directions would be basically that recommendation is implemented 14 days from the day it's received unless, you know, the working group has registered there's been a protest filed. And then you'd have to have some time frame for how quickly the working group would convene to determine whether the--

>>PAUL TWOMEY: You said how many days? You said 14?

>>BECKY BURR: I said 14.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: But my question goes to the fact that considering the time frames for these sort of changes now are measured in single days and there's some pressures from some CCs that these activities should take place measured in minutes and hours, how would this work? Please change my secondary server now automatically as I ask for it. And some of the input we have received which talks about automation is directed towards I want my secondary server — changed now — please do that.

>>BECKY BURR: That's a very easy problem to solve which is to say that there are whole categories of things for which the U.S. government ought to say right now to VeriSign, "Do whatever ICANN tells to you do."

That same-- In that case, you know, somebody might be copied, but there are whole categories of changes along those lines that do not -- you know, that could not possibly create a risk of the kind within scope that ought to be just taken off the table for the working group.

And it's all the same-- It's all the underlying problem of -- and it's not all underlying problems, but it does solve the, you know, what is the U.S. government doing with this unilateral authority?

So I think probably, you know, all of the -- all of-- When we, you know, put into Amendment 11 the commitment on VeriSign's part that it would not change the root without the direction -- except at the direction of the U.S. government, the language that is in that contract specifically says, and we reserve the right to tell you to do whatever somebody else -- you know, whatever NewCo says.

So in 1998 we were contemplating a situation where simply the direction would be simply, you know, any change of -- you know, any change that ICANN directs should be implemented.

So you can go as far down the line on that one as you need.

And if I could just sort of get back to the emotional impetus behind this proposal. It really was to relieve pressure on the -- what I think is a serious source of unhappiness among governments that creates a lot of external noise and distraction for ICANN.

Now, the way we're serving it up here, it's not -- you know, it's not -- it's a fairly limited change that could be implemented reasonably quickly and remove that source of unhappiness which I think undermines ICANN on a day-to-day basis.

You may have, you know, more elaborate outcomes down the line or changes, but this is something that could be implemented quickly, without creating legal issues or the need for presidential directives or the need for, you know, treaty-based anything, and would improve the sort of -- improve the environment.

But it's not offered as a -- you know, it's not offered as the -- you know, as some stroke of -- that creates a monumental change in anything.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, we might say thank you at this stage. We are running some time behind on the schedule, and we have two and a half panels to go.

But obviously this is a very interesting proposal, and again I assume that you will be available for members of the committee if they wish to do follow-up questions.

>>BECKY BURR: Absolutely.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you very much for participating.

>>BECKY BURR: Okay.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder if we can now move just briefly to Paul Levins.

Paul, are you online?

>>PAUL LEVINS: Yes, I am. Can you hear me?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder -- Paul Levins is the -- very recently, I think as of
-- he attended Marrakech, but he has literally moved to the LosAngeles office yesterday, the very newly appointed head of corporate affairs and executive officer of ICANN. Who I think comes with some specific outsider views particularly around the communications and transparency, accessibility questions that many people have raised so far in this process.

So we thought it would be useful for him to give some initial perspectives on what does an outsider feel like, and then we will move to a panel which includes Jon Nevett, Bhavin and Tim Ruiz.

So Paul.

>>PAUL LEVINS: Thank you very much, Paul. Actually, I'm grateful for the committee time. As Paul mentioned, unlike others I am brand-new to the organization. I am conscious that I haven't provided you with any sort of written submission. As Paul said, I literally moved my family to L.A. yesterday. But I am particularly keen to provide you with some comments on a recurrent theme that I think I have heard certainly since I started and has been maintained over the course of this call, at least the components of this call that I heard, and that is somehow the organization is clothed in some sort of secrecy or isn't transparent enough.

That's obviously -- the reason this is occurring is because it's an extremely important element in the organizational model strengthening, especially in the context of the evolution and growth of the Internet which, as I understand it, is the basic question that the committee has asked of itself in deliberations.

As I said, I think it's fundamental because as the Internet evolves, it challenges what we know of the organizational dynamics of communications and consultation. So what I meant by that is in some respect the technologies got ahead of the cultural and rule-based organization of regular organizational model.

If I can just elaborate a little bit on that, we'd all agree that the Internet has changed and is changing the way we communicate and what we expect from each other at such a pace that our more established regimes haven't had time to catch up in some regard, thereby applied old the expectations and rules. I think that's the especially the case with the law. We have become used to speed and informality through the Internet. We have become used to wider, freer, and simpler communications.

That level of informality is often conversational and not meant to be held against, especially in a legal setting.

Yet the reality is that we are and will be, into the future.

So I think in that context the answer is not to go back to the future and to demand that the organization somehow get smaller or remain the same. It has to grow and accommodate its environment that it finds itself in.

You also have to understand the comments I am making in the context of the growth of the organization that is ICANN. It started as a small operation that's now responsible for a global task and what always has been a global task but one that has grown beyond what was comprehended as a possibility even in as little as a matter of a few years ago.

My comments also go to the committee's acceptance that there are a number of administrative challenges that the ICANN faces as it grows to serve that global community.

One of the great strengths of the ICANN model is its consultive power. You all know that. You know it as an inherent strength of the model. But implementing that model is an administrative challenge that has I think some unique complexities. We do know it's successful. It is a successful model by virtue that we are having this debate.

I mean, here we are laying bare our thoughts on what is right and wrong about the organization and the model for all the world to hear. But we also know that the organization is challenged by virtue of the "could do better" critiques that occur along with the significant wins the organization has had.

As I said I am new to the organization and to the debates that it has had but as someone whose career is based on more than 25 years experience in communications, policy administration and politics, I have got the job of being the critic and the repairman at the same time, at least in the communications area.

So I want to point out what I see as problematic and I'll be fairly blunt in that regard.

What do I see as a new person coming into the organization? I see a set of confused or missing messages. It's an extremely difficult organization to access unless you are an ICANN insider.

It's as I think as you have acknowledged and as I said early on, one of the great participatory models, but instead it seems mysterious and rule bound and legalistic.

The Web site thing is certainly inaccessible. It's very text bound. It doesn't answer or accommodate easy inquiries. And the other general point I'd make about the organization's communication with its community, I think over time somehow posting has been considered dialogue. As long as it's on the Web site somewhere, that's sufficient towards engagement with the community, and clearly that's not the case.

I also want to address this point in more detail on the issue of transparency. I do think that the -- I think I understand the critique that's been implied here but I do think the word transparency is being misapplied. It is, from my perspective, anyway, a very transparent organization. There's lots of information. It's just not very accessible.

Insurance policies printed up (inaudible) software agreements are all very transparent. You couldn't argue that those things aren't transparent. It's just they aren't very easily understandable or accessible.

So I don't think it's that ICANN is hiding information. There's plenty there. It's just not very accessible.

Now I've got some ideas about how I want to change that and we will be implementing those, but I'm aware that people say, hang on, it's not just about the level or quality of the information that is applied through, say, our Web site. It's also what happens during the course of the debates. And I'd like to make a comment, new as I am, in relation to that as well.

I have heard about the -- I have heard of the debates around some of the TLD contracts, for example. And from what I can tell, I think the lessons here are less about transparency and more about the corporation having to guard against potential and actual litigation. We're in a litigious environment increasingly and being based as a corporation in California law, I think the board would have been naive to do more than it did in terms of information sharing on the public record in the place of some of the TLD debates. I know some of the community might have expected more of the organization in those circumstances, but frankly, I think the critique is not so much about transparency but more that the organization being hamstrung by its legal identity. And also, to a certain extent as I mentioned earlier, it's accessibility, information's accessibility.

But being committed to ensuring that information is communicated and discussed, not just posted, is certainly an area where impro

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers