ICANN Public Forum in Bucharest
Real-Time Captioning
27 June 2002 – Afternoon Session
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the afternoon session of the ICANN Public Forum held 27 June 2002 in Bucharest, Romania. 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 Public Forum
Bucharest, Romania
Thursday, 27 June 2002
Afternoon Session
Internationalized Domain Name Committee Report
>>Vinton Cerf: Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin in about two minutes' time with the IDN report.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to call the meeting back to order again. And perhaps we could close the doors to avoid noise.
Internationalized Domain Name Committee Report
I'd like to call upon board member Katoh-san to give a report of the Internationalized Domain Name Committee.
>>Masanobu Katoh: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is Masanobu Katoh, currently chairing the ICANN Internationalized Domain Name Committee.
I'd like to very briefly report where we are. Actually, we are finishing, as promising, our work in the last several months. And here is the table of contents of my report for today.
In the Montevideo meeting last year, the ICANN board created this IDN committee. And this is the committee following the original ICANN board working group on the same issue, IDN.
This is a list of the members of the committee. We have ten members working very hard during the last several months.
As you can see from this list, most of us are, you know, born in countries in the world where, except for two, because of some encoding question or problem, some of their names are listed only by ASCII, but they are non-ASCII names, too.
This is a time line. As I said, starting in March 2001, ICANN board created IDN working group in Melbourne. And after they finished the final report in Montevideo, we created this IDN committee. And here we are finishing our report.
As we speak, our report to the board is being posted by some technical reasons, it's not posted, but it was supposed to be posted yesterday. And I’d like to go through very quickly about the report we are going to make for the board.
During the last several months, we focused on several issues, including those five areas of issues. And I’d like to go again quickly over these issues.
The first one is IDN.IDN keyword issue. As you remember, at some point late last year, there was some speculation about some bin practice using key word technology for the DNS-like businesses.
In general, ICANN and our committee strongly support the use of a key word. It is very convenient and useful for the Internet environment. But in this kind of practice, using dot notation as a key word for domain name businesses that would invite a lot of user confusion. Therefore we showed a strong concern for the potential use of such business practice.
In the next paper, which we call the permissible code point, we communicated to IETF during the – their process of formulating IDN protocols or standard regarding some permissible code for the implementation of IDN, and more specifically, the – currently, the Unicode, which lists many characters and signs to be used for our, you know, computer purpose, there are many things which may be confusing if it's implemented as a part of the IDN domain names.
For instance, there are line and symbol drawing characters, symbols and icons that are neither alphabetic nor ideographic characters, such as typographical character dingbat. Well, you go on --
>>Vinton Cerf: This is --
>>Masanobu Katoh: You find very interesting marks and signs and so on which may be very confusing.
>>Vinton Cerf: Is dingbat now considered a technical term in the vocabulary?
>>Masanobu Katoh: Well, it sounds like.
Anyway, we've been communicating to IETF on these issues and they are studying further on this issue.
For your information, IETF is coming to the very final stage, I understand, on their formation of the standard. Yet we are still waiting for their final, you know, decision where they are going from there.
The third area of our study was something we call non-ASCII TLD categories. Before I describe 6 different potential non-ASCII TLDs for consideration in the future, I’d like to go very quickly about the possible steps process, where we should go from here.
Implementation of non-ASCII TLD is not very simple issue. As I said, IETF has to finalize the standard first. And then this board, well, you should expect that once IETF is going to finalize their standard, you, board of ICANN, including me, will be under strong pressure whether and when we should proceed and adopt non-ASCII TLDs. There is a strong demand in the world, request for non-ASCII TLDs and we have to face such strong pressure, which may come very soon.
But even after that decision, if we decide to move on, we should go through root zone implementation testings and also do selection of registry operators, like we did for the new ASCII TLDs. And also, we should conduct a series of registry-level testing and deployment. And this process takes a long time.
Coming back to the 6 categories of possible non-ASCII TLDs, we identify the first, something semantically associated with geographical unit. For instance, – well, this is something similar to ccTLD, using the international or – either language or character sets.
And the second one is something semantically associated with languages, such as Arabic in the Arabic language.
The third category of non-ASCII TLD is something relating to the cultural groups or ethnics. In the previous two categories, we have, for instance, country names or something regarding basic language names.
But for those names like in Kurdish or Swahili, they are not specifically relating or associated with special regions or special language, but there may be some, you know, request for using such non-ASCII TLDs.
The fourth category and the fifth category is something very similar or familiar to our previous practice. The fourth one is something semantically associated with existing sponsored TLDs, such as dot museum equivalent in their – you know, different language or character sets.
The fifth one is something related to the unsponsored TLDs, dot com equivalent in Chinese, Japanese, and so on.
And the last one, this is catchall, everything, all possible, you know, things, combining all possible non-ASCII TLDs.
Here is a quick chart of those six categories. And as you see, it is a challenge to decide to pick up a particular language or a character set for all of those items. Even the first one, which is the TLDs associated with geographical units, well, likely not, we have ISO 3166 defined as the country code by two or three letters. But still we're using some other language than ASCII. You may face very difficult political question, what is the specific country names, and who decides on this.
In other categories, there are many difficult questions on what is the right, you know, definition of those names and who is the right community to decide on those names, and so on.
So as I said, there are many challenges on the selection of those names, too. And this is a quick summary of the comparison of the current ASCII TLDs to those 6 categories of potential non-ASCII TLDs.
On the first two areas, sponsored and unsponsored TLDs, clearly, there is a question, policy question, whether we should give any preference to incumbent registries. And in some other areas, we have many other considerations we should, you know, think of.
In this paper, what we call non-ASCII TLD paper, we analyze in details pros and cons on when you are selecting those 6 different categories of non-ASCII TLDs. And I hope when you are considering in the future about those non-ASCII TLDs, you go through those, you know, suggestions about pros and cons.
And on behalf of the entire ICANN IDN committee, I’d like to thank all ICANN community or Internet communities for giving us very useful input on those materials. We went through a long public, you know, comment period. Actually, some of them are very short. And thank you, you know, for giving us a very quick feedback on those papers and all those comments listed on the ICANN web site.
The fourth paper is something we call registry selection process paper.
If ICANN is going to decide to adopt some non-ASCII TLD in the future, what kind of element, what kind of issues we should consider as a part of the selection of registries.
We, naturally, we found not just elements, we found important for the selection of ASCII TLDs are very, you know, true for this area of non-ASCII TLDs. So we need to first think about the technical competence, and we should evaluate the support from the relevant communities and, you know, so on.
This is the, you know, element, you know, we compared it to the current TLD selection process.
And I’d like to go very briefly on those points.
First, technical competence.
Here probably we should, you know, think more about some, you know, factors, how the registries can meet additional technical requirement such as the capability of encoding and, you know, so on for the non-ASCII environment.
Also, they have to have some better communication with ISPs and so on for the education of the very complicated use of non-ASCII TLDs.
The relevant community support. This is something you find very difficult in some of the categories of non-ASCII TLDs, how we define the relevant community for the support of a certain language or certain ethnic groups and so on.
But we do need their help when we are deciding the non-ASCII strings as well as the proper registry operating for such non-ASCII TLDs.
Thirdly, we think it's very important to continue to find out the commitment to TLD service and trusteeship obligations in this area, too.
And, lastly, it is probably essential for ICANN and ICANN board to have independent evaluation panels on many complicated, you know, issues regarding non-ASCII TLDs.
And lastly, I’d like to, you know, mention very briefly about UDRP review.
We found that non-ASCII TLD review probably increasing our opportunity for cybersquatting and therefore we hope that ICANN's UDRP review working group would take this non-ASCII possibility as your – part of your consideration of when you are doing the UDRP review.
Now, the last part, recommendations.
Through our activities during the last several months, we still think that we should very carefully examine the issue of non-ASCII TLDs, as we heard in many places that the use of non-ASCII TLDs is very, very helpful for many people in the world, for the better and more, you know, convenient use of the Internet. But at the same time, we have many technical and policy challenges here which we have to solve one by one.
So I urge the board to take all of those issues very carefully and take some time to, you know, consider all these issues.
And, secondly, for that purpose, too, the committee recommends ICANN to establish some expert group, ongoing expert group to give you advice and try to facilitate the policy development and many other, you know, discussion on IDN in the future.
And that's it. And, again, on behalf of entire IDN committee, I thank you, all of you. And I’d like to add, this is the committee we met the deadline of the original schedule we set ourselves.
Thank you very much.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you very much, Katoh-san. And let me say publicly that you and your committee have done a fine job of working on an extremely complex topic.
It's clear from your report that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done, both on the technical side and on the policy side.
I wanted to make one observation about the IETF work, as I understand it. The intent is that all of these non-ASCII representations would be transformed by a mechanical process into ASCII representations before they actually get into the domain name system itself. So the actual strings that would be compared and moved around in the system would be – would be ASCII strings that had been mapped from their original Unicode encoded form.
That may help a little bit on the technical side. But it leaves open all of the issues that you raised with respect to which strings would be permitted and which ones would be a problem.
So we – I take your point that we will need continued advice in the policy formation. I think that we should act on that.
Are there any questions from the other members of the board for director Katoh-san?
Are there any questions or --
Are there any questions or issues from the floor?
Okay. Well, I think we accept your report with great thanks. And I think we look forward, with some trepidation, to the continued challenges of introducing these new strings into the Internet.
Thank you very much.
(applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: At this point in the agenda, I have scheduled a report from the government advisory committee. And I would like to call upon its chairman, Paul Twomey, to present the report, and, no doubt, communiqué from the governmental advisory committee.
Governmental Advisory Committee Report
>>Paul Twomey: Thank you, Vint. And thank you, members of the board and the community.
I noticed that we have half an hour allocated to our session. And we're going to need every minute of it. So let me get started.
I'd like first of all on behalf of the members of the governmental advisory committee to first of all express our thanks to the steering committee, the local committee for this meeting, and to the government of Romania for what's been a spectacular setting and I think a spectacular piece of coordination.
The governmental advisory committee would particularly like to note its thanks and amazement for being in a hotel like this with an organization like this where people kept serving us sandwiches at 10:30 last night and kept a room open until 2:30. Normally in hotels they kick you out at 9:00. So we were very impressed. It passed our test.
So I’d like to start by sharing with you a communiqué, because we always start with a communiqué. And then I would also then like to move on to a statement on ICANN reform and evolution.
For aficionados, this is actually the first time this is a different opening program. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers met on the 24th, the 25th, and the 26th of June in Bucharest, Romania. The attending GAC members, which included representatives from 36 national governments, distinct economies as recognized international fora, and multinational treaty and other organizations, had useful discussions on ICANN and related DNS issues.
I point out to the board this is our equal highest participation rate in a meeting for the governmental advisory committee, it equals the number of participants we had in Accra.
Booting on meetings in Brussels and Canberra, the GAC dedicated much of this meeting to the development of a formal statement on ICANN reform.
This confirms that the process communicated to the ICANN board and community at the Accra meeting, the GAC statement on ICANN reform is attached as an appendix to this communiqué.
And I will come back to that. But if I can proceed with the other items on the communiqué.
First item is dialogue with ICANN and the ccTLD community.
The GAC welcomes its participation in the productive joint meeting held with the ccTLD constituency on the 25th of June. In alignment with the call from the evolution and reform committee of ICANN for GAC to participate in a dialogue with ICANN and the ccTLD community, the GAC notes that this meeting, I would suggest that you read "in this meeting," the GAC and ccTLD community agreed to establish a small group to define segments of the globally diverse family of ccTLDs, including ccTLDs where the administrative contact is based offshore, just as an example of those segments, with a mind to establishing a number of joint working groups to reflect on what steps might be taken to improve the interactions between ICANN, local governments or public authorities, and the ccTLDs.
Second point relates to the process for release of dot info country names. The GAC discussed the implementation of aspects of the board's resolution regarding the dot info country names. The GAC considers its appropriate – for the release of their respective country names in dot info be December the 31st, 2003, with the possibility of the GAC considering the need for extension to this deadline prior to its expiring.
And if I could just share from my personal perspective, much of the concern reflected in that need for possible extension is a desire to ensure that communities in developing countries and governments and public authorities in developing countries, who may be slower to the task, are actually not precluded by setting of that particular deadline.
Ipv6, considering the strong demands and the growing interests for ipv6, the GAC strongly encourages ICANN to provide a session to share the status and direction of ipv6 with the Internet community at the upcoming shanghai meeting.
Finally, consultation process.
For the GAC to perform its role as ICANN advisor, the GAC needs to be given adequate time for deliberation and reflections.
This includes receiving relevant documents in a timely fashion, consistent with generally accepted government practices and procedures which involves consultation with various levels of government and public authorities.
Also, for this consultation to remain effective, there is a need for precise terminology to be used because many Internet terms are not well understood and are subject to interpretation.
The GAC warmly thanks the government of Romania and the sponsors for hosting its meeting, and will hold its next face-to-face meeting in October of 2002 in Shanghai to coincide with ICANN's next round of meetings.
Before I go on to the very serious stuff of ICANN reform, if I could just share a small story, particularly for those here from Romania.
Many – some of you in this ICANN community know that occasionally at these meetings my five-year-old daughter emerges as a topic as discussion.
I wanted to share with you that she rang me this morning to tell me that her first tooth has come out.
And I said to her, "Eloise I’m in this wonderful country and they've got these wonderful castles like fairy castles." And she said, “Daddy, that's where the fairy will come to get my tooth." So she's always here in spirit.
If we can now move to the statement on ICANN evolution and reform.
And I think we had this text available.
It's up.
To be truthful, Vint, I’m wondering if there are any questions from the board on the communiqué before I move to the reform statement, because it's some 35 or 40 paragraphs.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you for asking about that.
Are there any questions?
I would just draw your attention to several typos that are in the communiqué.
The word "confirm" probably should have been "conform" and so on.
Take this off-line, but before you finalize the document, I offer a few comments.
Are there any questions from the floor?
In that case, we will go on to your interminable presentation on the subject of ICANN reform.
>>Paul Twomey: Okay.
The GAC reaffirms its statement of March the 2nd, 1999 endorsing the principles behind the creation of ICANN, and commits itself to work through ICANN to contribute towards its reform.
The GAC notes that the production by the evolution and reform committee of ICANN, "ICANN: A Blueprint for Reform," and makes the following observations on this and previous ERC documents.
It should be noted that some members of the Governmental Advisory Committee have requested that statements of explanation or disassociation with aspects of this statement be expressed in the attached annexes.
So if I can move to it.
ICANN Mission Statement and Core Values.
With the addition of the following italicized phrases, the GAC is satisfied with the proposed mission statement and core values.
Moving to the mission statement, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is the private-sector body responsible for coordinating, at the overall level, the global Internet system of unique identifiers.
The mission of ICANN is to coordinate the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN,
"a," coordinates the allocation and assignment of three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet; that is, as a point of emphasis, domain names, forming a system referred to as the DNS; Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers; and protocol port and parameter numbers.
"b," coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS's root name server system.
"c," this point is fully italicized: coordinates policy development as necessary to perform these technical functions.
Moving to the core values: In performing its mission, ICANN adheres to these core values and principles:
1. Preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.
2. Respect the creativity and innovation made possible by the Internet by limiting ICANN's activities to these matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination.
3. To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegate coordination functions to or recognize the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties.
4. Seek and support broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making.
5. Where feasible and appropriate, depend on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.
6. Introduce and promote competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.
7. Employ open and transparent policy-making mechanisms that, "a," promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and, "b," ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process.
8. Make decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness.
9. Act with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those entities most affected.
10. Remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness.
11. The majority of the GAC considered that this core value should read: While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognize that government or public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly take into account governments or public authorities' recommendations.
The United States believes that the language in the ICANN: A Blueprint for Reform document posted the 20th of June, 2002 is sufficient and does not need to be amended.
Moving to policy implications, ICANN should engage in policy development to the extent, and only to the extent, as is necessary to enable ICANN to fulfill its mission in conformance with its core values.
And this is the end of the section where we refer to italicized differences between the June 20th text and the position of the GAC.
From now on, it's more openly statements from the GAC.
In considering the phrase "Internet community" in the context of the ICANN reform documentation, the GAC does not mean any specific legal or international entity, but rather interprets the term to refer to all of those who are affected, now or in the future, by the operation of the Internet.
GAC proposal for private/public partnership.
The GAC shares the view put forward in the President's report of February 2002 that a private-sect/public-sector partnership will be essential to ICANN's future success.
This view underlies a number of statements issued by the GAC and in particular, the principles for delegation and administration of country code top-level domains of February the 23rd, 2000.
The majority of GAC members agree that the GAC is the principal forum for the international discussion of public policy issues related to the ICANN mission and domain name system.
The delegations from France and Germany disassociate themselves from this wording, and direct readers to alternate language contained in annex 1.
And I’ll come to annex 1 at the end of the discussion.
The GAC considers that the relationship between ICANN and governments and public authorities is a central one for the ongoing achievement for the ICANN mission.
Funding for ICANN.
Recognizing the potential politicizing implications of doing so, the GAC does not support the concept of governments and public authorities contributing directly to the budget of ICANN, with the possible exception of contributing to the cost of the GAC chair and secretariat functions.
Rather, the GAC supports the principle of payment by beneficiaries.
The GAC suggests that the names and address functions could be possible collection mechanisms for the payment by the beneficiaries.
ICANN must have a mechanism for generating adequate financial and personnel resources to carry out its mission.
As part of the reform process, ICANN must ensure that it has enough staffing to execute efficiently and effectively its decision-making processes and its operational responsibilities, including facilitating policy development by its supporting organizations, management of the technical functions, and support for the work of the root server system advisory committee.
ICANN and its stakeholders must place priority effort on securing a stable funding base for the organization's operations.
Board composition.
The GAC notes that the board composition and selection proposals.
In particular, the majority of GAC members support the chair, or where relevant, the acting chair, of GAC being a non-voting ex officio board liaison.
France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, however, do not support the presence of a GAC member on the board because it would lead the GAC representative to deal with matters which have no direct public interest implication, create difficulties in discussions about topics where there is no GAC consensus, and be incompatible with GAC independence.
The international treaty organizations do not offer a view.
The delegation of Germany expressed its view that to facilitate and expedite internal coordination processes and keep costs down, the board of a reformed ICANN should be composed of a noticeably smaller number of members than so far.
The GAC would like to see opportunities for broad-ranging dialogue between the ICANN board and the GAC.
In that respect, the GAC notes that the ERC encourages the board to inviolate the GAC to explore ways in which multi-way communication can be enhanced beyond the recommendations contained in this Blueprint.
Board selection process.
The majority of GAC members do not have a strong opinion on the concept of a nominating committee, believing this to be an issue of ICANN's internal corporate governance, nor on the proposition that there be a GAC delegate on the nominating committee.
A minority, including France and Germany, specifically expresses its discomfort with the concept of the nominating committee.
The delegation of Germany raised its concerns that even though the personal properties referred to as selection criteria may basically be unobjectionable, evaluating individuals by such criteria invariably would be highly subjective and, thus, a doubt-raising procedure.
The delegation of Germany believes that this would be all the more so if the nominating committee as the selecting body was not sufficiently legitimated.
The structure and authority presently proposed for the nominating committee would more or less mean replacing the bottom-up by the top-down principle, thereby counteracting the objective of securing wider recognition for ICANN.
The representative of Spain expressed disagreement with the concept of any potential GAC delegate being in the nominating committee.
Malaysia is of the view if there is a GAC delegate, they should not have voting powers.
The international treaty organization members do not offer a view.
That's a bit of a theme, folks.
(Laughter.)
>>Paul Twomey: Not on everything, no, no.
Not on everything.
Otherwise, David would find it difficult to justify his trip.
Because of the risk of politicization, the GAC does not support the selection to the board of staff members of public authority with the exception of the ex officio participation of the GAC chair.
In the board selection process, the GAC stresses the utmost importance of giving full weight to internationalization, transparency and fairness and to maintaining the principle of geographic diversity and representation.
The GAC supports the suggestion that the number of ICANN's regions be reexamined.
Liaison with supporting organizations and advisory councils.
The majority of GAC members support the appointment of nonvoting liaisons to each of the SO councils, and the RSSAC and the TAC and the SAC.
And look forward to discussing implementation issues with these bodies and ICANN.
Brazil supports having regular participation of representatives of the SOs and advisory committees in GAC meetings.
Germany would support a voting liaison on the CNSO.
The international treaty organization members do not offer a view.
Liaison with IANA.
The majority of GAC members support the appointment of a contact point to help provide advice and information to relevant government officials and help with liaison between IANA and these particular government officials when there are delegations or redelegations pending.
This contact point could also provide a focus for advice and information on other administrative issues related to the IANA function.
The international treaty organization members do not offer a view.
Policy development structure and process.
The GAC notes the policy and process proposals.
The GAC supports the expectation that all policy proposals would be circulated to and get comments from all constituencies before board consideration.
The GAC notes in particular the ERC's statement that the GAC should receive adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on all ICANN policy decisions before they are taken.
This notice should be timely.
The delegations from Germany and Spain disassociate themselves from this wording, and direct readers to alternate language contained in annex 1.
The GAC also calls for a mechanism such as an amendment of ICANN's bylaws, if necessary, to allow the GAC to put issues to the board directly, either by way of comment or warning, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies.
The proposed consultation process should ensure that the advice of the GAC on public policy matters is duly taken into account both at the policy drafting and at the decision-taking stage.
In all cases, ICANN will inform the GAC on how its advice has been taken into account.
There may be policy proposals with public interest implications on which, exceptionally, the views of the majority of the ICANN board are in conflict with the GAC advice.
In those cases, the GAC and the ICANN board will try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient way, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
In the absence of agreement being achieved the board will act according to its own best judgment.
In any case, governments have the right to take decisions in line with their laws in order to protect the public interest.
The delegation from Germany disassociates itself from this wording, and directs readers to alternate language contained in annex 1.
Reliance by ICANN on expert bodies.
This time the international treaty organizations do have a view.
(Laughter.)
>>Paul Twomey: The GAC supports the ERC's call for the use of advice from external expert bodies, especially in the area of interaction with public policy.
For instance, competition policy, consumer protection, privacy policy, and intellectual property protection.
In particular, the GAC believes that there may be opportunities for constructive participation by international treaty organizations.
The GAC will facilitate the consideration by the ICANN board of the advice in question.
With respect to intellectual property issues, the GAC notes that this mechanism was particularly useful in the case of significant beneficial contribution to the development of the.
The board proposes that the ICANN board use the GAC as a resource for the identification of other potential expert bodies.
The GAC is of the view that it would be preferable to institutionalize the ability of the ICANN board to refer specific issues to outside experts for their advice, rather than making use of an appropriate expert only on a case-by-base basis when questions for expert opinions rise.
The GAC recognizes that relevant intergovernmental organizations have a valuable consideration in expertise.
The GAC offers to assist the ICANN board and staff in exploring ways of working with these organizations.
Accountability, the GAC notes the three accountability mechanisms outlined in the reform committee's paper of 20th of June, 2002.
Members of the GAC consider that as well as implementing dispute resolution methods, more attention could be paid to the prevention of these disputes, focusing upon ICANN staffing issues and work processes.
Transition.
The GAC expects that the period between the Bucharest and shanghai meetings will be dedicated to the defining of detailed implementation steps including rewriting of ICANN's bylaws.
The GAC expects to be closely involved in the development of these implementation steps.
The GAC encourages ICANN to consider whether it should continue to operate a registry and a root server.
While acknowledging ICANN's recent efforts to clarify the process steps involved, the GAC considers that progress on ccTLD redelegations still requires strong continuous action.
Further, to this, the GAC acknowledges the commitment of the GAC and the ccTLD community to reflect on what steps might be taken to improve the interactions between ICANN, local governments or public authorities, and the ccTLDs.
That shows the main text of the statement, but if I can please read two annexes to the statement.
And in reading the annexes, certainly for the first one I will point out the references to the subject areas that they refer to.
So annex 1 refers to physical paragraph 9 which talked about public private partnership.
And this annex is wording offered by the delegations from France and Germany.
The GAC members agree that, at this stage, the GAC is the main forum for the international discussion of public policy issues that may arise in ICANN's sphere of competence, along with the competent international organizations; for example, the ITU, OECD and WIPO.
Due to the evolutionary nature of ICANN's mission, a different organization of government participation on a different legal basis may be contemplated in the future.
The second paragraph of annex 1 refers to GAC information.
And this is the – refers to the issue of information being shared, and the delegations of Germany and Spain offered the following text.
Governments and public authorities are responsible for the pursuit of public policy objectives.
Where ICANN's activities are likely to involve public policy implications, the GAC calls for compulsory prior consultation by ICANN with the GAC.
The GAC and ICANN should seek to define in advance which areas involve such implications.
The final paragraph in annex 1 is offered from the delegation of Germany and deals with the issue of where this conflict, potential conflict, between a board consideration and GAC advice.
When there is an ICANN board majority against a GAC advice, the matter should be further discussed in good faith between the ICANN board and the GAC with a view to reaching an agreement.
Decisions taken by the ICANN board against a GAC advice do not prejudice any steps governments may decide to take in order to protect the public interest.
In all cases, ICANN should inform the GAC on how its advice has been taken into account.
Finally on this topic, I refer you to annexure 2.
It reads, "the international telecommunications union disassociates itself from portions of this document."
Chair, that's the – if you'd like the second stage of this report which is formally the statement, there are a couple of other administrative things but perhaps we can stop now for the statement.
>>Vinton Cerf: Yes, I think that would be a useful step, Paul.
Are there any other questions or issues the board wants to raise specifically with regard to the report from the GAC?
I have one question which I would not necessarily ask an answer for, but something to take back for consideration.
This is the first time that I can recall that a report from the GAC has contained appendices, annexes indicating varying opinions from the various participants in the GAC.
And I think it's not surprising that there should be such variations.
It's – these are all complex.
>>: Louder.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are you having trouble hearing me?
I'm sorry.
I thought I was speaking directly into the microphone.
I believe this is the first time we've seen annexes in the report that indicate some differences of opinion among the various members of the GAC which are communicated to us.
In particular, the question of how one deals with advice that may come from the GAC.
If it comes in a form which is not uniform and if it comes in a form where there are differences of view, I’m not sure I understand how we should treat that other than to imagine that there has to be some resulting discussion with the GAC, which might involve a number of different perspectives that have to be resolved.
So I take it that's the intent.
The only other thing I would suggest for clarification is that in the communiqué, the term ccTLDs is used fairly frequently. Is it intended that that means the operators of the ccTLDs?
>>Paul Twomey: Yes.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you.
>>Paul Twomey: I wonder if I might just making a – without responding to your point, and, I think, basically the board comes to its own conclusions in the circumstances.
But I wonder if I can make an observation as the chair.
As outlined in principle 48 in the outlining principles, the GAC aims toward consensus. But where it is not possible, it's explicit upon the chair of the GAC to explain the range of views to the board.
At the beginning of the founding process of ICANN, one public authority, one government or public authority put forward a green paper for discussion, and a number of others responded at a national public authority level.
And I think the feeling in the GAC was that if for such an important topic as the reform process and structure reform process, that it was actually good night appropriate and not at all a sense of failure that people had different perspectives than the national perspectives.
Nevertheless, the members did as much as possible to try to decide where there was consensus and share that. But I don't think there's any sense in the GAC that having separate views expressed on certain points is any way a sense of failure. We think it's an appropriate way to express the views at an important time.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you. That input, of course, is always valued, even if it does come in various and sundry ways.
I think we have some questions that – coming from the floor.
>>Peter Dengate Thrush: Peter Dengate Thrush.
Could I echo and support Mr. Twomey's – on the success of the first working group between the ccTLDs and the GAC. We look forward to that developing into a productive way of a relationship between our two organizations.
Our view, of course, is that that is a much better way of establishing policy exchanges and discussions than the static, structural solution of a fixed nominee.
We think that the process we have started is likely to be much more productive.
Paul (inaudible), we'll ask the same – we're the only group that has the breadth of linguistic and other diversity. When we change regions, another whole group of countries arrive. And at this meeting, there are, for example, my own government couldn't afford to come. And we have a problem when we reach a policy decision that not only represents the ccTLD members meeting at the meeting. And it's a perennial debate as to how binding such a decision is.
We try and go back onto our lists and say, well, this was the decision of Bucharest, well, this was the decision of Cairo, and give the ccTLDs who couldn't be at the meeting an opportunity to contribute. I wonder particularly in light of the expressions of clearly strongly held differences in relation to the most important issues in relation to reform, whether you're going to open perhaps a list up for other countries who can't be here to subscribe to either the Franco-German position or the ITU position or the majority position so that some clarity or some additional input can be received.
>>Paul Twomey: Thanks, Peter. It's a good point. The first thing, I think, people should be aware of is the degree to which the GAC is committed to doing outreach.
The condition to which the GAC chair and secretariat have communicated to, well, at least 179 governments or public authorities on several occasions about what the GAC does, and issuing up invitations.
We also run a list amongst our members. And we have quite a number of members who don't attend our meetings and participate online or we take information. This will be available.
I think just as is common for governments experienced in any number of organizations, be they formed by international treaty or be they formed simply by agreement, there's a range, as you can imagine, of governments who participate in them many times.
The GAC has a rule in its operation which is similar to other cases, that you have to operate on a quorum process where there is actually a meeting.
So in terms of taking views and conveying them, of course, we shall. In terms of being able to say, "this was the position of the GAC, according to operating principles," which, by the way, our operating principles are basically based on the world trade organization operating principles, we work on the principle that at the meeting, if there's a quorum and the quorum comes to a decision, then that is actually the decision. It's a balance between getting continuous feedback and actually having some certainty at a particular time.
But we take your point.
I would go further, peter, and actually ask for your colleagues' help and assistance in our communication and identification of government officials at the appropriate level in the appropriate countries.
It doesn't want to diminish in any way the interactions and great advantage we can get from our members in the international treaty organizations. But many of your members actually know which parts of governments may well be involved. And it might make it much easier in terms of us identifying the right people. This is a request we've made several times, but I would re-make it in terms of if you think there are people who are the appropriate people to be in contact with, we'd be very happy to know who they are.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Paul. I think that's a very constructive recommendation.
Jamie.
>>Jamie Love: Paul, I – as I read your presentation, the GAC is asserting itself more and more in sort of the policy-making arena as far as DNS type things are concerned.
In some ways being inserted between international organizations and the board are --
>> Louder.
>>Jamie Love: Sorry. Can you hear me better now? Is that --
So I’d just like to point out that as far as end user or consumer type interest, we feel like we're being unwelcomed in the normal ICANN process. They're shutting down the forums where there's expressions that they don't like. They're shutting off free speech, eliminating the right for us to elect our leaders, even to express nonbinding votes. You know, they've gone from 9 elected members in the white paper to five in Cairo, to a proposal for 3 being bandied about, down to less on a 19-member nominating committee. An at-large system basically managed by the staff and all top down and like that --
>>Vinton Cerf: Do you have a question, Jamie?
>>Jamie Love: Yes, I do. If you want to talk for me, you can talk for me, but I came a long ways for an opportunity to be here. Most people couldn't afford it because the ICANN board didn't pay their way. I paid my own way to be here.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: Jamie, but is this going to be a question to call to me or is this a question to the committee which will be forthcoming?
>>Jamie Love: This is a question to Paul, rather.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: If it's going to --
>>Jamie Love: Do you want to cut me off like every time today?
>>Alejandro Pisanty: I am asking you to direct it to the right person. To me or to the GAC person?
>>Jamie Love: Yes, yes, and yes again.
And because we have these problems, we want you to pay more attention to civil society concerns and consumer interest. Don't tell us to talk to the ICANN board, because they don't pay attention to us. If you don't notice what's going on, if you're not watching what's happening in the discussion list, if you don't see what's going on, then you're blind and you're not doing your job. If the GAC is going to take the policy thing seriously, you have to tell us where we can go to talk about policy, to talk about competition policy, to talk about privacy issues, talk about all of these kind of things. Because a lot of it's not going to happen in this forum.
If it's going to be you, tell us it's you. If it's going to be, you know, some international organization, just write it on the board which one it is.
But at some point, more and more people are going to try and find out who it is in the governments. These people are taking away our right to vote. We still get to vote for governments in some countries. Certainly in your country, certainly my country.
Because of that, we want to know, who are we supposed to talk to about policy issues when the official, you know, sort of, you know, ICANN governance structure is cutting us off.
>>Paul Twomey: Thanks, Jamie. I don't think I could – I don't think I could say – you've put me in somewhat of a difficult position. Because I don't think I could say anything to the board other than what's in our text. I think there's the sort of statements there about the values that we've put forward in the report which are consistent with many of the things you're saying. I certainly can reconfirm for you that one of the great interests and concerns of the GAC – actually, there's two.
One is very much the point you're talking about when it comes to what we keep referring to as the public interest. I think we see the public interest as being an expansive phrase to include the sort of issues you're talking about. That is a value and a value we – our members promote.
The second point I would make to you was made in open session with the GAC and several parts of the constituency on Tuesday, is that there's a constant warning from the GAC to ICANN, which is, do not become a trade association.
The members of the GAC, I don't think, would be at all comfortable and have actually several times given warning that as the GAC – as the ICANN process develops, if it were simply to evolve into a series of groups and committees representing the supply side or different aspects of the DNS (inaudible) net system, it would lose legitimacy in the eyes of the governments, in the sense it would simply become an international trade association and not have balance around end users and public interests governments think of as important.
(inaudible) is a chair of a group of 36 people who have just gone through three and a half days of intense attempts at common language. So I can't sort of speak beyond my mandate. But I can report to you that in – this is a matter of open record, that that has been a consistent message that has been conveyed by myself in communiqués and in text at meetings I think three or four times in the last two – two or three times in the last four years. It is a message several members have given directly in this process. I know it's an issue that we reconfirmed again on Tuesday in our position. I don't want you to feel the issues you are raising are not issues that are not sympathetic to the sort of interests that governments have in mind, nor do I think you should take away any sort of view that the governments are you – are the things that governments want to see cut out. They are concerned about the same sorts of issues.
I feel a little bit constrained that I can't go beyond what I’ve actually talked about in terms of anything in terms of the reform or evolutionary process.
>>Jamie Love: It would be helpful if you would give us a direct --
>>Paul Twomey: I would point out, again, on – to a degree, there's a limitation where GAC can move as a group versus where members of governments and public authorities can.
I would point out to you that the government of Australia, the government of the United Kingdom both have had open public processes underway concerning this reform process.
And I would interpret as is – well, one could interpret that – one aspect of the American governmental system in terms of action of the congress that there have been hearings in the congress, which is a form of consultation process. I'm not trying to speak for the type of executive. But, I mean, there have been active processes, and members of the GAC have told us also of informal processes with the sorts of constituencies you're talking about in their home jurisdictions. So what the GAC as sort of a committee may actually see to people may be limited because of what it actually is in terms of a structure within ICANN. What its members are doing, I think, is actually, at least in the example I gave you, is actually quite different. And I think that is one of the challenges. And we do try at the GAC level to make that point in our web site, for instance, and other places, we put out all the GAC members, those who attend, and ask people to get in contact with their local governmental member.
That avenue is not closed off. But there are limits of what the GAC as a separate entity can do within the context of a bylaw, in terms of operating in ICANN.
>>Jamie Love: Thank you.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you very much, Paul. Esther.
>>Esther Dyson: First of all, I’d like to disassociate myself from the previous question.
But then I would like to ask the following. I know you made no statement on it, so you cannot.
But within the framework of the ERC document, the Blueprint, it seems it would be possible to create a more formal structure that would deal with public input, otherwise known as the at-large whatever whatever. And we're curious if that even came up in an explicit way and whether you think that's an appropriate thing to have within ICANN, even though you also represent the public in a different way.
>>Paul Twomey: Yeah. Well, let me go back. Because of my position and the text, I can't really answer the second question as to what I – I think would be appropriate for structure, because --
>>Esther Dyson: But was it raised?
>>Paul Twomey: Let's go to the first question.
The answer is, yes, those issues were raised. They were raised fairly consistently throughout our process, which was two intercessional meetings and discussions.
And I would make the observation about the distinctions between recognition of need and perceptions of affected outcome and process.
And it was a wide, varietous conversation. I don't want anybody in the community to go away with the feeling that these issues are not actively in the minds of the governments they're talking about. Nor that per se they think the government alone is the vehicle for some sort of expression of that, although the governments clearly think they have a major role in saying that.
>>Esther Dyson: So the need was raised, and the question is whether there's an effective way to meet that need? Okay. Thanks.
(Laughter.)
>>Paul Twomey: What I have written, I have written.
>>Ramesh Nadorajah: Thank you. I'll keep my question short.
There was a recommendation by the ERC that there be, I think, multi- – I can't remember the words.
I took that to mean that there should be more involvement between ICANN and GAC in terms of the meetings itself.
A good first step has been taken between the ccTLDs and the GAC. Is there any intention to expand upon that? And was it ever brought up to have – well, I suppose what I’m asking is, do we – can we expect GAC meetings to be more open?
(Laughter.)
>>Paul Twomey: You're not a journalist, are you? That's a great question. Ask four questions and ask the one with the stinger in the tail.
Let me answer the first four questions. When it comes to more like a consultation, I think there was a sense of, by some members, that there might be value in actually having that open – more open discussion with the board on some occasions.
I think the cc experience has been a good experience. And I think that's building on. I think let's also not kid ourselves. This stuff is a learning process and it's a trust-building process. If we go back to Santiago, you know, there was a fair amount of hate and fire going on between those two constituencies. Now, that's gradually moved. It's moved for two reasons. I think it's moved because of getting to know and building trust. And, secondly, because the Internet world out there is changing very quickly. As a consequence, the forces have that.
I think similar with the board, the question about being open or not.
We are certainly going to talk about external things driving change because of the whole process of change that Stuart sort of initiated here at ICANN. I think some of the calls by the chair and others about looking at our own processes has got greater sort of urgency now. And the GAC's actually going to have its own process of looking at the way it operates in shanghai.
I keep having to come back to share a problem with you. And the problem I have to share with you is, I don't know how many of you have actually been to international conferences. Sort of where governments come along. What you normally find is you come along, and when the governments turn up, there's some whole list of people one after the other droning on, reading out some long text that nobody in the room wants to listen to. And that's the purpose of the text, so that nobody will listen to it. Because the real reality is, in a hotel three doors down, the deal is getting done in a corridor. That's how things work, the international conference on climate control, cbd, you name it, that's how that system works. Because the ability – it's the ability to do a deal. It's no different in business.
Now, my challenge – my challenge is I’m trying to find more ways of being open, at the same time, not to have – that outcome is not what you want. You don't want that sort of outcome. It's less accountable than the present one.
So as the chair, what I’m trying as much as possible, and other members are agreeing with this, that when we need to be in camera so we can actually talk properly, we can be; but we are trying to increase the amount of time in our meetings that are open to other constituencies and to be more communicative of what we're doing. And this meeting, I think, we had, you know, 20% of our time period was open. We're getting better.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Paul.
Marilyn.
>>Marilyn Cade: Paul, the BC has been a strong supporter of private-sector leadership from the days that precede ICANN's launch and continue to do so.
However, we have also been a strong supporter of the need to increase consultation and interaction between the GAC and the policy-making SOs. We have submitted that in writing in some of our submissions. We've said that to you and others in the GAC.
However, seeing for the first time, and I understand that it was developed here, but seeing for the first time a 40-point communiqué with a very high number of changes in the influence and presence of government in ICANN and throughout its various processes, what impact do you see these recommendations, if all are implemented, having on the private-sector leadership?
>>Paul Twomey: You be good.
You will have seen that there was a range – you will have perceived a range of views on special things, on special topics, one after the other, by governments and distinct economies.
However, the key theme throughout all of this document and as a point of consensus is support by the GAC members for a not-for-profit private sector organization operating this function. And that's – that supports --
>>Marilyn Cade: I’m sorry. Could I just ask, is there a key phrase. When you say "private sector entity," does that include private sector leadership?
>>Paul Twomey: I would think that if you were to draw the conclusions from the structural – the structural Blueprint which emerges out of the ICANN statement, that the vast input to the ICANN process is technical and private sector.
If you were to – the reform committee has come up with a series of committees – organizationals and advisory committees going to the ICANN board, there's nothing in this document which says "get rid of the TAC, get rid of this, that, have two committees and this bunch and the government." there is nothing saying that at all. There has been no criticism or statement made about the nature of the input communities. And you can draw your conclusions, therefore, about the comfort with the sorts of people doing that and driving that.
This statement has focused purely upon the issue about how do you express a closer public/private sector partnership.
>>Marilyn Cade: I take that as an assurance from the chair of the GAC that there is support from the GAC for continued leadership of the private sector?
(Laughter.)
>>Paul Twomey: You may interpret it as you wish.
(Laughter.)
(Applause.)
>>Paul Twomey: The reality is, you're going to.
>> It's not fair following Marilyn to microphones.
>>Vinton Cerf: It sounds like it's almost time for a break, doesn't it. I think – I hope this could be the last question in this session, because we are very behind schedule now, please.
>>Adam Peake: Adam Peake from Glocom in Tokyo.
Two quick questions.
You used public policy and public interest. And these are terms that are often quite difficult to define culturally. I know we've had those problems doing work on the at large and trying to put those words into sort of context. It means different things in Japan to what it does in the u.s. and elsewhere.
I wonder if you could help clarify now or later what you do mean quite specifically by those terms and the area that is they might cover.
>>Paul Twomey: Seeing that you asked me and not the GAC, I will give an answer, not a GAC answer.
>> Adam Peake: At some time, would you clarify for the GAC?
>>Paul Twomey: Hear the answer. There is a slight distinction, and they're important.
The public interest, I think, is an evaluation and judgment and expression of those – of what is in the interest of the broader community.
It picks up a lot of the things that Jamie was talking about and which I would describe as being more free-flowing in the policy and political environment of governments. It's something that's being judged on a regular basis.
Public policy tends to have more of a formal process of expressing aspects of that. So a policy-making process is often about producing laws or producing particular frameworks or producing particular policies, while, you know, public interest is something which can be expressed on more of an aspect of day-to-day judgment. But it's a question of degree of the (inaudible).
>> Adam Peake: It may be worth trying to define it from the GAC's point of view, or you'll get back into the problem we had with the ICANN mission of what does – what do some of these terms mean. If you don't define it, then we're going to be arguing about what does --
>>Paul Twomey: There is – you can inverse this and say there is in some respect a reflection of what you are saying. Because the GAC (inaudible) talks quite strongly about applauding the idea of expert advisory groups in areas that relate to public policy. And you'll see the sort of examples that were given are often the sort of entities that are specifically focused in the public policy aspect, actually, the formal creation of public policy. So that's been distinguished. That's not saying the GAC itself doesn't have a role in that. But there's been no description of talking about advice for the public interest. The GAC has seen that very much as part of a role of the members of the GAC.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Andy has a comment. And that should be the last – well, I guess not. Amadeu has one. Please, let's let these please be the last two. Because I really want to get to the next subject. Andy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Just a personal question. I saw some difficulties from you answering questions for the whole GAC. And that's why I am asking this question to you as a person and not as a representative of the GAC.
The question is, if that kind of difficulties is also visible for representatives of governments within the GAC speaking for the whole government.
>>Paul Twomey: Sorry. When you say speaking for the whole government --
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Do you have representatives of governments within the GAC? And I, of course, respect, and I see you have, of course, difficulties answering questions for the whole GAC.
So my question is, how is it within the GAC? Isn't it the same way, that GAC or members of the GAC speaking for whole governments have the same kind of difficulty speaking for the whole governments, watching the amount of different opinions within governments, within countries?
>>Paul Twomey: Andy, that's a – it's an issue that governments deal with, have dealt with for about 4- or 5000 years. So they've actually got some protocols for it.
If I can just make this point.
Several members of the GAC arrived at this meeting with ministerial briefs where this issue had gone through right to the ministers. Others came with cross-government supported briefs, with briefs that had been established at high levels of ministries. So there's a process inside for how can you go away anywhere and say, "I’m talking for the government."
As far as governments talking for all governments, I think we've actually dealt with that issue earlier, which is about the nature of attachment.
>>Vinton Cerf: Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Yeah, thanks. I will try to keep it short because your statement was very long, and there were lots of questions regarding that.
But I need your help trying to understand something, not only because your English is the most difficult one in the ICANN community. Even our stenos have problem sometimes to follow you, but also because you have to speak this special GAC dialect of English.
In one part, there's something saying that regarding the Blueprint, know that proposals should be sent to the GAC, there is a remark saying that they should be, though, in a timely way, somehow underlined.
Should I interpret that somehow the GAC is considering that this time has not been timely enough and that you would like having more time for discussing these reforms? Or I am completely misplaced in understanding that.
The second question is simple. Is there any difference as "noting with interest" in the past and just "noting" that you are doing today?
>>Paul Twomey: It's a question of degree.
I think nothing and nothing – noting and noting with interest are small degrees of difference.
Your question about timing, I think what the GAC is saying in the communiqué and to (inaudible) in the reform document is partly the other side of the coin of Andy’s question, which is, if government representatives are going to come and say this is the perspective of a particular government or particular groups of governments, they actually need the time to go and have their consultation.
And as you know, government's not monolithic. There's actually lots of points of view. That's really been the basis of that reaction.
As far as the timeliness of the process here, I would say the process here affected to what's been – both in Accra and then again in our statement here, we've actually outlined our view about the timing and process around reform, which I think are broadly consistent with what's being followed.
>>Vinton Cerf: All right. Thank you very much, Paul, for developing such an extensive commentary for us.
We have a lot to chew on, I think. Thank you very much for your report.
You have one more item?
>>Paul Twomey: Yeah, there's just one more thing I should share with the board and with the community.
And I have been asked to communicate this on behalf of the Australian government.
Just to state that the Australian government's actually committed to the orderly transmission of the GA secretariat, GAC secretariat functions during this transition period, and that Australia will hold discussions with some other governments to secure this process as soon as possible. But to inform that you the secretariat function for the GAC will continue to operate in Australia for the time being while these discussions are concluded, and that the chair of the GAC is now in a position to continue to work out the chair's term rather than resigning as of the end of the shanghai meeting. In effect, that actually only means an extra meeting, because the term finishes in March. But that means I will be seeing you in March, I think.
(Applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: I think I can speak for the board that Australia's generosity and willingness to continue this support is extremely well received and very grateful for it.
And we will work diligently to assure a smooth transition to another form of support.
Ladies and gentlemen, we've now reached the point where we should be talking about the ICANN evolution and reform report I note that we are about an hour later in the schedule. I also committed to the hotel that we would take a break at 3:00, so I suggest that we consider the possibility – it's – what about taking – they really don't want us out there until 3:00 so I think we'll have to start the presentation and stop it at some point near 3:00, and then continue from there.
And I apologize for having to break it up that way.
But if I could call on the vice-chairman Alejandro Pisanty, who is the chairman of the evolution and reform committee, to begin his report.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're planning to leave the room because you're not interested in evolution and reform, please do so quickly and quietly because we are going to start this report now.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to call the room to order, please.
(knocking on table).
>>Vinton Cerf: The room will come to order, please.
Will you standing with the door open, would you kindly close the door in the back, if we could have the doors close please. Thank you very much.
And I call upon Alejandro Pisanty to present the Blueprint for ICANN Reform, as it currently exists.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: Mr. Chairman, fellow members of the board, fellow members of the ICANN community present here, I am charged very – I’m very honored to be charged – the presenter is also the work on the ICANN committee on evolution and reform.
Which I think condensed in the Blueprint that has been circulated which what we felt was ample time for discussion, more than two days.
(Laughter.)
>>Alejandro Pisanty: Considering the cycle we went through during the process, this is really one more of many tenths of iteration time than we used to, in a very rich manner with input from the community.
I would like to go through this presentation with the following outline, describe very quickly the committee itself, the work that was done, the time line and the effort that has gone into this reform proposal.
To speak a little bit about the way in which the interaction with the community was conducted and the way that – the avenues we opened for listening and for a structured discussion with the community, describe the Blueprint itself and some steps to be taken further.
The committee was formed by myself as the chair, by Lyman Chapin, Philip Davidson, who unfortunately retired from the ICANN board and therefore from the committee before long but left us with very significant input; by Hans Kraaijenbrink and Nii Quaynor.
I would like to note the very ample functional and geographic diversity that this committee has, even being only a committee of five.
There's continents, regions, different SOs, technical and policy people, there's really a wide variety of views included even in this small committee.
And I have to acknowledge very gladly a continuous and extremely high quality and high intensity staff report from Stuart Lynn, Louis Touton, Andrew McLaughlin, and the other part that's very important to acknowledge is this is not only the work of a committee, not only a work of committee of directors plus staff, this is enormously the work of the community.
This is work in which every part of the ICANN community has contributed.
We have been able to input and to recognize a lot of the input that we obtained.
The work we did was based in many ways it's a continuation of the intellectual work, at least, done for the previous DNSO review which had several parts.
And the previous at-large review, which we had studied as it went, as it was done, and particularly with its final results.
And of course, our charge from the board was to start our work on the basis of the paper, "the case for reform" by Stuart Lynn.
Which tells us also this is an effort that was basically, starting February, if you want, but formally this committee was charged in March – in the middle of March.
It's only three months ago, and plus a week or two, that we got our charge.
And this has really been an all-volunteer effort done in a short time and I will attest to the number of iterations.
I'm going into this for a moment because I think it's important for the board and community to know how much and from how many places the results have come.
The discussions of the committee took place through e-mail, not only of the committee but the interactions with the community, through e-mail, through a web-based forum, through a number of teleconferences.
There was a board retreat which we used, in particular, to send the board – to get the sense of the board and find out where it was wishing to go and not to go in the reform process.
So further, we had a large number of published documents from different stakeholders in the community.
This went around the clock and around the world during a period of a few months during which many members of the committee also went through several draining events in their own work lives.
This is a huge effort that has been put upon by people who otherwise were facing layoff restructurings and a number of other sizable events in the work that actually feeds their families.
The way, it's important to hear again, the way we receive the input and elicit the input, because not all of it was forthcoming, was attending meetings, communicating directly with some people, indirectly, and through people like our President and CEO, through people who are already familiar, who served as ambassadors, liaisons, and no other ways to communicate with the key stakeholders in this process.
We think we were successful in establishing a form of structured discussion by bringing out successive drafts of documents, different ways of thinking.
That means not only subjecting our conclusions or finished work to public comment but also to share the reasoning that was going on and having this be a process of collective thought, collective idea production together with the community.
And I think that's been one of the, personally, most attractive and interesting parts of this process, to be really reasoning together with people with diverse interests and views, sometimes opposing interests, conflicts in principles, and yet we were able to do this, different levels of collaboration in successive drafts of the document, to set out specific questions and queries to the community and get a lot of feedback on them.
I would like to acknowledge in particular that we were – it's not only for the particularity of the Names Council, but the way the process is converged between the Names Council and the committee; that there were a large number of teleconferences, and the back and forth between the committee and Names Council as it was with other parts of the ICANN community was very intense, and it came, again through a strong sense of convergence.
It doesn't place anybody in particular.
It's the general sense we get of it right now is that most people know where they disagree.
They know where there's no real point in pressing harder for getting absolutely everything stated the way they like it or built the way they would imagine it, but they are able to live with the result we have, believing that also the process we have started, which will be a process of continuous change and reform in ICANN, not continuous upheaval but continuous gradual change, and continued communication with these people, make them trust ICANN, the way it will work. I'll go over the Blueprint, , briefly because I assume it has been read, but it will be on the published part of the Blueprint and the papers that precede it.
We tried to address some of the most important criticisms that we have been receiving in the last years, and the needs posed by Stuart Lynn with this paper, which most of the community agrees, even if not in the solutions he proposed are not fully, there's almost complete agreement in the identification and prioritization of the problems he posed.
There's a clear definition of mission, and it's not only a mission of what we do or should be doing, but also the core values to which we adhere when we make decisions.
And an explanation which we hope is satisfactory and we've been told by many that it is.
Of how the technical coordination function in each of its steps requires making decisions, and in order to eliminate or reduce opportunities of arbitrariness of these positions, and in order not to proceed in an ad hoc basis continuously, there is the need for, what we will call, policy, which has been clearly defined in the paper also; that is, to have a general framework for this decision-making, particularly in those decisions that have a large, wide affect in the community.
Personally, I have been very concerned about the question of legitimacy, the political concept of legitimacy is all important.
ICANN has to continually worry about this concept.
The concept of legitimacy is one of these cultural things is why do you have different meanings in different cultures and even different political parties within each country and culture.
We worry about legitimacy through representation, through the way that people that feel affected by the process think that they can speak to the process, to this representation of factor of legitimacy which is more traditionally political.
And we also are very concerned, and Stuart was right on the spot by pointing this problem, we may be as legitimate as we want to people who are making us do what we do, but we may not be legitimate enough if we're not credible enough to the people that have to abide by our proposals or the people that have to continue supporting ICANN.
So we have tried to redo the balance between legitimacy as the result of representation and to the very essential factor of credibility.
Correct will come from an effective organization that can keep its business in order, that can do what it has to do in a time that's reasonable for its – for those affected.
And we look to still have an open, transparent organization which can be effective.
The ways to be open and transparent are open.
The ways to be effective are not that many, so we have had to concentrate on being effective and keeping the ways for openness and transparency, instead of starting with a democratic ideal, utopian organization which is open and transparent, but which if it doesn't care for the purposes it serves, it will not be effective enough.
The governance and the structure that are contained in the Blueprint have the following general features.
First is very strong emphasis, and this took us a lot of time and effort to make sure that we wanted this and that we reflected the community's wishes on that to have intermediate policy development by the supporting organizations and the committees.
We see – I will start our discussion on some of these issues myself.
We see with great concern, for example, smaller groups than we have identified, fractions of what we have identified as supporting organizations, attempting to form a supporting organization by themselves, because we believe that that will fractionalize the approach and in the end undermine the idea of the policy develop.
The policy development is not wide enough in the principles that they contain and bring into discussion, then what we will have is finally no intermediate level, everybody coming directly to the board and having the board solve everything.
We don't support that concept.
We want the policy development to come through these supporting organizations and committees.
That's a definite commitment that we have.
Also, it's brought in with the board and that's one thing you can count on that my forecast is that this board will absolutely not budge on the idea that policy development has to come bottom-up through legitimate organizations, and these have to be wide-ranging enough to bring really well-developed policies forward.
There's a board of directors and a nominating committee.
I will comment for a second on the nominating committee concept because it also shows the way ideas and principles evolved during the discussion and during the drafting of this set of documents.
The nominating committee idea as proposed first has been criticized now because it doesn't do nominations for some further purpose of selection or election or confirmation or anything else.
The first ideas and discussion were to have a nominating committee to come up with nominations, proposals of names, and to have someone else who would be, according to many proposals, the board ratifying or designating these individuals for the board function.
This was scrapped in order to have a self-perpetuating board, which was one of the main criticisms we've had not to become a self-perpetuating organization.
I can tell you for every single person sitting up front, it doesn't want to be self-perpetuating.
It wants to be stable, wants to guarantee a quality of operation, but it wants to have a process for renewal and for input of fresh viewpoints, ideas, or what's called fresh blood but I was told in Transylvania it's not polite to use that term, or I would be offering my own in whatever degree of staleness it is already.
So this avoidance of a closed cycle and inbreeding is one of the first changes you see here.
However, we kept this name of nominating committee maybe too routinely.
We are changing the nature and the name of the DNSO, the present domain name supporting organization.
Most of its functions and most of its present components go to form part of the GNSO, which is the generic name supporting organization, which is designed to provide policy input on generic TLD naming issues.
It contains user constituencies provider constituencies, gives formation of new constituencies and it has a major change.
It has been criticized as being overly proscriptive but we think there are reasons for doing this.
The general assembly is to be conceived as a cross-constituency form.
There's no objection on my part and I don't sense any objection on the part of the committee for groups to form that are not in the present constituencies.
There's a lack of individuals, especially individual domain name holders constituencies, which can sort issues which of are interest to individual domain name holders.
There's a number of very generic interests that come together.
There's nothing against the formation of groupings and their expression and self-organization; .
What we do want is to preserve a cross-constituency forum which has been lost in the DNSO, and that's a cause of major pain in the present DNSO; the fact that there's no real space for communicating cross-constituencies other than the Names Council where people actually go and communicate.
It's not that the space is there but that it can actually be used for this communication.
We move the issues related to country coded or to what we will call now country names, of course the specific term will be ccTLD related issues, but it's not only the issues that are of importance for ccTLD administrators.
This organization is called upon to provide input, in general, from the point of view of what happens under country names.
The policy development needed there.
But that will include a lot of issues, and not only the interests of the ccTLDs.
We are being – we are in strong recognition of the work that the ccTLDs do.
Our intensive discussions during these past few weeks have given me personally at least a high recognition of the work and quality of people that are in the ccTLD community.
But we have stated very specifically that what ICANN has to include is not a trade association or a labor union of ccTLD administrators.
It has to bring in the ccTLD administrators in such a way that they contribute to the general policy making and decision-making, and therefore to the coordination function of ICANN.
And we see a value of a holistic organization instead of a fractionalized one.
And finally the ASO which I will be brief about, has been analyzed to be in good shape and we're basically keeping it, and we have been in touch with this community and stating we may have lost touch, and we think we are finding ways to keeping continuous communication to ASO and to tell the ASO what we are telling many others.
Don't be so much concerned about what you would lose by participating in ICANN or what ICANN – what damage ICANN can inflict you; tell us how we can work together in such a way that your contributions to the rest of the people can be better used.
In particular, the ASO has a very strong tradition of bottom-up participation.
It identifies very well who is a key stakeholder, who has to be there in the process and that's one of the traditions we want to see expanded to the rest of ICANN.
There are committees which are the governmental advisory committee which you have seen is calling for the same thing we are calling, which is improved communications, improved forms of participation.
We'll try to make that more later on in – it's more a process than a structure issue, how to make those communications happen.
The root server problem that was pointed out by Stuart Lynn in his paper is still recognized by many ICANN board members.
I can say that – let me be a little bit congenial about it.
It's one of the few points where I can see that Karl Auerbach and Stuart Lynn have expressed very closely related views.
Karl Auerbach is one of the – sorry to speak in the name of someone that's absent, but I think that his voice would be lost otherwise.
He is one of those concerned that the root server operations should be professional, should be paid for, and there should be a contract that can provide even a service level agreement there.
However, all the sense we got from the community, from all sectors of the community, is if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
If it's working well and these people are working extremely well, the community in general, Internet community, not only the ICANN community is very thankful for the effort and the result that the root server community provides, and therefore, don't touch it for now.
The security advisory committee has already spoken here, and I can only say it will have a very welcome role.
It's not only seen for the security aspect but also as a key representative of technical opinion.
There's the issue of a technical advisory committee which is still in the way of being resolved in final form, but which essentially brings two aspects, which is technical advice, per se, and advice on how the technical standards process is being developed.
And the nominating committee.
The nominating committee is designed explicitly and only to select directors and a few other people that have to go into the structure according to the Blueprint.
It's not a super government of ICANN.
It's not a super governing body.
It's only there for designating people.
In a caricature, some people have pointed out it looks like an indirect election, with not that many elections but an indirect process from that community to the board, but which goes over the top instead of through the middle, through the waist.
And in this committee, there are people that are – that come from the following communities: The gTLD registries, gTLD registrars, ccTLD registries, address registries, Internet service providers, large business users small business users.
There's some differentiation here, in order to make sure these voices can really, in turn, make sure that the directors that are appointed will be sensitive to their interests, or – and/or principles.
Intellectual property related organizations, academic and other public service entities, consumer and civil society groups, individual domain name holders, the Internet architecture board and the IETF, the technical advisory committee, the governmental advisory committee.
As you have seen, this is still an ongoing discussion again.
And unaffiliated persons who are known for their stewardship for the capability of representing the public interest in a general worldwide geographically diversified manner.
There's a diagram here – I don't know, Lyman, if you want to present it.
I'll interrupt for a second here.
>>Lyman Chapin: Actually, for simplicity, I’ll stay here instead of crowding around the podium with you.
This picture, I want to thank Alexander Svensson who has done an excellent job, the first after we may 31st and a three-part version after we posted the June 20th Blueprint for reform.
The intent is to give in a single-page overview a sense of what the structure of a reformed ICANN would be.
Necessarily, when you put this in diagrammatic form, you are forced to leave some things out.
But I think the key things that emerge from a picture like this, is first of all, the balance between how you go about ensuring that you populate ICANN's board with a broad spectrum of qualified people versus the way in which you ensure that the operations of ICANN can be successfully pursued.
And one of the things that has been very important to the evolution and reform committee, as we've talked to people in the community and as we've talked amongst ourselves, is ensuring that there is an adequate structure for the support of the people who actually perform from both an operations and policy development standpoint the work of ICANN, what you might call the core mission of ICANN, while at the same time balancing that with sufficient and adequate representation for a very much larger population of people and groups who have a legitimate interest in what ICANN does but are not necessarily direct participants in the things that ICANN actually does on a day-to-day basis.
The specifics on this diagram, if I have been fortunate in putting it together, are precisely aligned with and the same as the description that Alejandro just went through.
What I propose to do is make use of this diagram during a period of question and answer and open mike and so forth, because I think that if we can draw people back to this, it may help to structure that discussion.
I will add one additional item which is not currently part of the Blueprint but which we have been developing in conversations during the course of this week, and I will do so with the prefatory admonition that this is something that has just been – just recently been entered into the discussion.
It is not something that has been discussed fully, even amongst the board as a whole.
Only within the evolution and reform committee.
And therefore, is something that may change in large or small ways before it actually receives the approval of the board.
And that is if you look over on the right-hand side of this picture, we have nonvoting liaisons on the board, and there's the list of the four standing advisory committees that we have in the Blueprint.
And one of the things that is on the table for discussion right now is adding to that list of advisory committees an at-large advisory committee or ALAC which would essentially mimic – or not mimic.
It would parallel in structure the technical advisory committee.
In other words, it would play two essential roles.
It would be available as a resource to pursue specific questions, much as the technical advisory committee is expected to be a resource to the board for pursuing specific technical questions.
It would also serve in an active watchdog role to ensure that at-large concerns are brought to the attention of the board and other parts of ICANN to guarantee or to guard against the possibility that those concerns might be overlooked.
And again, that's very similar to the second of the two roles that we've specified for the technical advisory committee.
The intent – and again, this is still a matter for discussion, but the intent is for the at-large advisory committee to have the same essential characteristics as the other advisory committees.
In other words, it would contribute a nonvoting liaison member to the ICANN board.
It would participate in a liaison capacity in the work of other organizations as appropriate, with the cross-liaison structure we're anticipating for ICANN as a whole.
It would appoint to the nominating committee, delegates to the nominating get, and in most other ways act as an advisory committee in the same ways as we have defined for the other four.
One of the key aspects of forming such a technical advisory committee will be to identify, obviously, the – what it means to be a representative of what the at-large study committee has called at-large structures.
It's very often the case that we see people come forward and claim to be representatives of large or small constituencies, and we believe it's extremely important for reasons of establishing legitimacy and effectiveness and the ability to operate with an understanding of who you're talking to that part of the mandate for the formation of a at-large advisory committee include explicit demonstrations of the extent to which the constituent bodies, the at-large structures of such a committee genuinely represent, in an effective and direct way, as opposed to a in-principle or in-theory way, the interests of the at-large community.
We happen to believe that there is in fact a high likelihood that such an at-large advisory committee can be formed under those conditions. And I’m – I’ll express some personal optimism that we will be able to take advantage of this ALAC structure to incorporate an at-large voice into the – both the policy-making deliberations and also the operational considerations of ICANN in a way that we've been trying to do now for quite a long time.
So with that, I’ll return the microphone to Alejandro.
>>Vinton Cerf: Alejandro, may I interrupt and make an observation that it's now about 11 minutes after the hour. I've been advised that coffee and refreshments are outside, that they will evaporate around – I’m losing track of time – at 3:45.
So may I suggest, if it's possible, that we take a break at this point and we return in 20 minutes, please. And we'll continue from there.
>> 3:30?
>>Vinton Cerf: 3:30.
(break.)
>>Vinton Cerf: Are we ready to begin again? I think we should just get started here.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to reconvene the meeting now.
It looks like a great many people are more interested in tea and coffee than they are in reform. But perhaps they will join us shortly.
Okay, please go ahead, Alejandro.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: Thank you, Vint.
I will go on and try to be – I’m in a bind here trying both to be more or less exhaustive in describing at least extensively the paper, if not in depth, and on the other hand trying to leave the most opportunity possible for the discussion for the public, face-to-face discussion for an important complement to the one we have been having online and by other means up to now.
So coming to the policy point, – coming to the point of policy, and policy development, first, what we did in the paper, as you know, is to define about what is understood in this proposal to be a policy decision or policy development. And that means, first of all, framework for a decision. Second, framework for more than one decision, let's say horizontally, or in time something that will have a more general application instead of being a point-by-point thing.
And also it's not a policy – a policy decision is not a decision that has to do with things like administrative things, things that are not for the public development or for the major ICANN decisions.
To have, then, lasting value and be a guide for future decisions or framework.
The process I have mentioned already, and I will be very brief now, has to be bottom-up, has to be consensus driven. As a preference. We will still have to work out during these last couple of days, we've been seeing that there are still details proposed which we may be able to incorporate into the process that will allow us a better definition of when the board has to intervene and say, okay, this is a process where we didn't obtain enough consensus or clear enough consensus or where there clearly will not be a consensus, and the board has to have the tools to still act in the face of it.
The improvement here is very important. One of the very clear – clearly identified problems that Stuart's paper gave us at the beginning of the year was the fact that there is too much process that ICANN gets very frequently bogged in process. And that's something that not only structural improvements alone will change, but we need to improve various process. It's not, as I have said repeatedly, the anatomy, but the physiology, the way it works that has to be improved.
And there we think that we have been able to define what one can define formally. The process will have to be approved by actually doing things. But then the Blueprint, what we can offer for the improvements of the policy development process is clear assignment to an appropriate – not just to leave something out there to be discussed by whoever comes in, but to assign it to a specific body that will be in charge. In the case that several different bodies could be interested in the – or this could be in the field of several different bodies, what we will be doing is to assign one of them the responsibility of conducting the policy development process.
There has to be a defined time scale. There has to be a defined process and time scale in particular for input into the process. There has to be a recommendation to the board after the process, after the discussions and whatever procedures are established by each body in the case.
There has to be a recommendation to the board. This recommendation to the board must record the inputs, the reasons, and the reasoning given behind or to promote these inputs. The report has to tell us what the consensus has been, if any consensus was reached; what were the (inaudible) for the points which were agreed, and who supports them, and who opposes them. And further, if there are dissenting opinions, then as has already been demonstrated by the GAC, it is – and that is done very usually in panels in other spheres, knowing what the dissenting opinions are is important. In some cases, the board may have to retrace part of the development process, the policy development process, and knowing all these inputs will save us a lot of time and will gain us a lot of legitimacy. We can continue the argumentation that has been in a community to develop the process.
Further, as part of the process, we have to open always the opportunity for advice from experts. And I have taken notes very carefully of the GAC proposal that these experts are not only called by ad hoc procedures or specifically for each problem, but also are institutionalized. In fact, this has been part of the discussions if you look at papers like the May 31st paper and compare it to the Blueprint, there's much more detail on how we should go on about the expert organizations on May 31st, and the fact that we have changed the presentation for the one now --
I'll come back.
Oh, it's the screen saver.
Anyways, the – no, the power's all right. There's some unfriendliness going on inside the computer.
(Laughter.)
>>Alejandro Pisanty: I’m told by apple experts that this is a piece (inaudible).
One of the worst things that – a very well-known provider of PC software has given us is the (inaudible) show of presenters fiddling with computers instead of taking up printed notes and going on.
>>Vinton Cerf: That's why some people still use overhead projection units. My boss used to tell me he never had a protocol problem with a light bulb.
(Laughter.)
>>Alejandro Pisanty: They do know how to fry, but....
Let me just get them here. Okay. Go back one slide to make sure – yeah.
So we have to have this expert base. There's an ongoing discussion on how to incorporate them, how to make – whether we have to decide once and for all who are the experts we can call on or we can have an ongoing addition of experts for the different questions that may come up.
And there has, of course, at the end of the policy development process cycle each time to be the opportunity to – there's the obligation to publish a tentative decision and have a chance for public comment and review.
One very important point here and on which I have made a personal commitment to some of the participants in the process, some of the critics of the way things have been done, is to make sure that we have important letters of accountability which still are practical, which still will not hamper ICANN's work with what could be frivolous or contrived decisions. Some of the reconsideration applications we have received, for example, in the reconsideration committee are maybe not frivolous, but very contrived. They are basically put in to test the system, they are put in in order to make some safeguards for some future very possible tentative event. There are some events that have been substantial and some which actually have been responded to.
So since in Accra the – in the previous ICANN meeting, the board decided not to continue trying to populate the Independent Review Panel and to substitute that process or body with a different one, the proposal of Stuart Lynn and a few additions we have made to it will take us to an Ombudsman, to a management public participation process. The proposal we have now if we get the funds for this stuff, will be to have a Manager of Public Participation. And, of course, to refine the reconsideration process, and to concentrate it on bylaw amendments and alleged infringements.
The Blueprint comes in a few months, it provides for government participation through the GAC and through GAC liaisons in several of the policy development bodies.
This, as you have seen, is something that the GAC is actually not only supporting, but demanding. And we believe that this is – there's been some discussion even with some of our fellow board members about this. I can tell you that, in my view, this can be seen as calling for and doing interference in ICANN's process, but it can also be seen as being proactive and peremptory in knowing if you have something that will go to the governmental advisory committee for opinion, we better have them aware from the beginning, better have a communication with the governments from the start of the policy development process that we are in, attempting something, that we are being called to develop something, and that then these people can perform the very important role from the beginning. I have characterized the way we communicate sometimes with important GAC – the Oracle in Delphi and a Mayan Diviner on top of a Yucatan pyramid, each spelling out oracles at each other and you can take a good year and all of the four seasons of the year before you get the right plumage of the birds, you have to interpret to see what that means. We have to have a more active and productive and instructive way of communicating.
The expert advisory panels I already described.
The committee was unfortunately unable due to time and to the voluntary character of the effort to go into details of funding structure. We see in our proposal the ability to develop from it funding structure. The one thing that's very clear is that the core funding must be based on those registries, registrars, and if you can bring up some other people or organizations. But those people who have agreements with ICANN. That's the predictable basis.
Stuart's very important point about funding at the beginning of the year was not only that it's insufficient for the scope of the size of ICANN can work with its limited scope efficiently and – everybody, as you have heard, asked for staff or some other critical resource for policy development or for their work, which has to come from this budget. So even to keep focused and be effective, we need this larger budget. But that's not the only problem. The most important problem is the predictability of the budget, the stability of its basis.
Therefore, we do support the idea in the committee that the core funding must come from people who have agreements which are stable, which are binding both ways, they bind ICANN to do some things; they bind the people who signed them to do some other things.
And in the internal structure, we are only – we only make a very brief comment, which is that there's – there has been this very long discussion about the thin ICANN and thick ICANN. It may be cynical, everybody wants an ICANN that's thin and contains their own agenda. And the addition of all of these things may still make it thick.
So what we are concentrating more for the future development of the structure is to have the operations part, the IANA and other operations part, well defined, and if not isolated, have a clear interface with the policy development part of ICANN. We are not elaborating any more on this point – at this point in time. But this will truly be a basis forward.
And moving on, we think that we will have to have public forum, we will have a board meeting and discussion tomorrow. We hope that it is – what I put forward to my colleagues on the board is the proposal, the motion that this Blueprint be approved at least in its general terms, which means the nominating committee concept, the general characteristics of the structure, and some means of moving on to an implementation phase. The implementation phase will need, of course, a lot of community and other feedback. But our expectation is to draw a line between past and future tomorrow with a decision on what's the skeleton that will be fleshed out. These details that will be filled in in our expectation should be for the structure described here.
One of the things that has to be done is writing bylaws, developing procedures and