GAC JOINT MEETING WITH ICANN BOARD (OPEN) ICANN meeting - Paris Tuesday, 24 June 2008 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please take your seats. We are starting in a second. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished board members. I would like to welcome you to the open session with the GAC in presence of representatives of other constituencies. And as we discussed earlier, from our side, we would like to address three subject matters, if the time will allow. And we would start with new gTLD introduction process, then we would take up WHOIS data accuracy, and then for the dessert, we would have ICANN meeting strategy. So these are three topics we would like to propose for discussion. And if that's acceptable, we will go immediately to the first one, new TLD introduction. New gTLD introduction. GAC, during session, had a chance to discuss the introduction -- or new gTLD policy proposed by GNSO council. We had a discussion in the GAC. We had interaction with the GNSO council on the subject. And we appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues. We received from ICANN staff very interesting and useful document which mapped the proposed policy against the new gTLD principles. And on most of the principles, there is compatibility. But during discussions, we identified several questions where a number of GAC members felt that the GAC new gTLD principles were not taken properly into account, or not to the full extent into account. And here I'm referring namely to principle 2.2, or principle in paragraph 2.2, 2.6 and 2.7A and B. All of them are related to geographic names reservation -- reserved name list, the protection of geographic names on the secondary level, as well as competition -- competition policy issues in the gTLD space. So -- And I am looking around to see whether there are GAC members which -- who would like to complement my introductory remarks on this subject. I see Brazil, Everton, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I totally agree with what you just said, and just would like to add that, first, I would like to commend Kurt Pritz for his paper that was extremely helpful for us to understand better how GAC's principles fit into the ICANN decision-making regarding new gTLD proposals. As for the GAC principles document that I suppose you are all aware, since it has been approved in more than one year ago at the Lisbon meeting in March 2007, we are -- we consider it as a standalone document and as a document that constitutes formal GAC advice to the board. So it is our expectation that this advice will be taken, will be considered, in its entirety. It was not meant to merge with the result of GNSO work, which did its job very well and produced also a report and a policy that is now presented to the board. And we believe that during the implementation phase, when concrete cases arise regarding the implementation of such policy, the board will have before it, let's say, both documents that were produced in separate processes. I will not enter into specific comments here, and I just would like to say that we sent an e-mail with some specifics, with copy to Kurt Pritz, and I think he will be -- he might have received it and will consider it in due course. I just would like to take this opportunity to refer to the process of decision-making in this organization and how we see it. In fact, this is one example that it is of two track -- well, it is, of course, open to communication, open to discussion, but the decision on each track -- that is, GNSO and GAC -- followed separately. And interaction. We did not benefit so much from the interaction among ourselves. That's perhaps why the result of the GNSO policy does not incorporate fully what we would like it to. Although, as I said, our document is an advice to the board and not to the GNSO. Then, in principle, it did not have to take our paper into account. But it is important to bear in mind that this kind of process has an alternative kind of process which is the one used to the -- at the IDNC working group to develop the fast-track approach for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs in which there was a much closer and much better interaction between ccNSO and the GAC, which resulted in a paper that has common understanding and common grounds. And of course the -- there are always differences of opinions and it's never -- we are never able to include in a paper all the convergence that we would like to, but I think that this kind of approach, with promoted more interaction, openness, transparency, through the constituencies, is perhaps easier on a sense that it will produce something that is easier for the board, in due course, to take into account and to take decision based on that. So here we are facing, in fact, a question of how the whole decision-making process is structured. And we have clearly two different ways of working, and it's up to us, of course, to choose how to -- how to conduct our work in one way or the other. We would certainly prefer to explore, perhaps, an enhancement of this process that we had as an experiment with ccNSO in the production of such reports to the board decision. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Everton, for the comment. And I will ask European Commission to intervene now, and after that maybe members of the board could answer. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you, Chair, and thank you Brazil, actually, for very comprehensive introduction. I would just like to complement it with a couple of specific observations about the areas where -- to oversimplify it, we think we may have given a headache to the board, us and GNSO, by giving you slightly -- we have given you advice in Lisbon, actually, which is for new gTLDs forever, until we change it, actually. It's a statement of principles, as Brazil has outlined. For the next gTLD round, the GNSO made recommendations, and we think there are one or two areas that may need to be explored. One was the GAC's view that geographic names should generally be avoided. I think the language we used, ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless an agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. I think the GNSO approach, if I understand it properly, is that there should be an objection procedure. And if a government has a problem, then they can object. We did discuss this in Lisbon at the time as an option and felt that that would be inappropriate because there are many governments who are not in the GAC, and there are probably some governments in the world who will be unaware of the new gTLD process, whatever efforts ICANN make. So we had considered that at the time and felt that was inappropriate. So that's one area that we would like to highlight. I think as a general point, before I go to the next point, what some of us also thought would be useful to discuss with the board today is how you see your role, if, indeed, you do kneel that you have had advice from the GAC and you have had a PDP process which results in some different approach or some potential conflict, how you would see that being resolved from the board's perspective. Another issue which came up in our discussions, which I think is useful to discuss for the board, it relates partly, actually, to the useful discussions that we had in the open session yesterday about the need to avoid capture, which I think we all agree is very important. And it relates in some ways to principles of competition, something that we mentioned in the GAC principles, that we need to promote competition. And I think the expression was competition, consumer choice, geographical and service provider diversity. I think one of the questions which I personally find interesting, because it's a question put to me by colleagues, relates to the fact that from the outside, the policy development process can look a bit odd from an antitrust perspective, because we appear to be inviting the incumbents in the market to define the entry criteria for potential new competitors. And I'm sure that ICANN need always to -- as with other compliance issues, actually, need to minimize any exposure they might get to antitrust action. The normal and reasonable expectation, I guess, in this area would be that those who set the selection criteria would be excluded from bidding for new gTLDs, though I understand that registries, current gTLDs are, but not registrars or, indeed, registries who want to offer back-end services. And there are some issues there about to what degree new people, new applicants would need them. But I just wondered, is this something that the board have reflected on in the past or that they would like to comment on now? Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for the questions. I'm just going to respond briefly to the very first one and then Paul is going to explain the detail. I'm going to confirm the board's appreciation of GAC advice, and also to confirm our understanding of the position that we have adopted by agreement that when we do not agree with GAC advice, we will provide reasons in writing. So let me be clear that that is the position and we understand and approve of that. But let me go on to say that that has not become the state, and may well not become the state in relation to this particular exercise. Let me recall what has happened here, is that after the two-year policy development process culminating in a vote in the GNSO on the 7th of September last year, that policy was passed by a supermajority and sent to the board. Now, the board has received that policy but has not yet adopted it. What we have done is asked the staff to investigate the implementation or the implementability of that policy before we have adopted it. So there has yet been no adoption of the policy and no decisions taken in relation to implementation. So with that, I will go to Paul and say where we're up to in relation to each of these issues. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Peter. They are very good questions, and I wonder if I can, perhaps, Bill, start with your last one and then go back to the first ones. The question you pose I think has been considered by ICANN boards and pre-ICANN founders. I think it goes to the very heart of the construct of the ICANN model, which does not try to avoid conflict. Indeed, somewhat you if like, it embraces it. The heart of the model is to embrace all the interests engaged, but to very carefully structure the decision-making process so that the decision-making process is not -- is not captive of those interests. And so the GNSO itself is a good case in point in the sense that it has all the interests, varying interests in the room. The policy development process comes up through them. Other bodies have a chance to input to that. But the decisions are finally made by the board, and the board takes advice from people like the GAC and other advisory committees and SOs. And the board itself is structured very carefully to ensure that no one group can withstand -- be vulnerable to capture. And that actual structure of decision-making has actually been a question of consideration by U.S. courts several times when it comes to the application of antitrust, and has withstood that questioning because it comes to that heart of the structuring of the decision-making and the group of the decision-making process. So I can understand the question being asked, because this is an international multistakeholder entity where the stakeholders are involved, and I can understand that's different, potentially, than a domestic environment might be. But there has always been very careful consideration of the very concern you have raised, which is are you going to have these interests capture not -- not capture them, capture the process, but basically settle the rules in their own interests. So to answer your question, has the board considered this? I would say yes, and it's very much at the heart of the foundation of the process, but it is a different one, and is always open for things like we have talked about before with the President's Strategy Committee process and transition. If there's a dialogue to be had around this space, then this is a good time to have that dialogue. To come to the specifics of the advice that's received, can I just make it quite clear -- -- let's explained the documentation you have received and the documentation that's been shared so far at this meeting. The ICANN board received a policy recommendation from the GNSO. Before it was willing to consider whether to approve such a policy, it wanted to have confidence that this policy was implementable. So it has asked ICANN staff to go away and look at the issues of can you actually implement the policy as it's been given to us. Much of the work that you have seen and the work of the presentation of Kurt and others was to give you a sense of the status as of today of that implementation drafting work, which may or may not pass -- be sufficient for the board to come to a conclusion that the process is implementable. But I can tell you that from a staff perspective, from the management perspective, in the prioritization of all this work involved in preparation, that we were first prioritizing the testing of is the GNSO's policy recommendations in key parts of it, are they implementable. So we have just had a prioritization issue. And it might not be obvious, as often texts are. But just looking even at the mapping of GAC principles document that was sent to you, it actually does say that the paper describes how the statements between the two groups map. And then goes on, "The paper also raises some of the related policy implementation aspects currently under development." And the word "some" was important to us but may not have been visible to others. The proposals -- the key points that you've pointed out of 2.2, 2.6, and 2.7 of your GAC advice are still very clearly no front of the staff for us to put forward implementation recommendations to the board. So please don't consider that as of today because they're not there, they're not part of the consideration. The next stage, what we have to work through is RFP processes and draft contract. That's where this sort of thing will come into effect. I just have one potentially -- if I can turn around and ask the one -- sorry, just a point on the 2.6, specifically on competition issues, we, as I've said in other places, we have actually, because of the language in legacy contracts concerning the relationship between registries and registrars, and particularly ownership, direct and indirect ownership limitations on registrars, we have asked CRA International, a well-known international firm of economists, to do some work and to give us some advice about aspects and benefits of structural and -- structural and -- perhaps I should better put it this way -- functional and ownership separation between registries and registrars, and benefits to the consumer in the long-term operation of a market. They have not yet completed this work, unfortunately. But we've been doing a lot of things. When that work is finished, that document will be available publicly, and you'll have a chance to see that observation. And that will be a key aspect of, potentially, some of the issues relating to who can be an applicant and how that will work in the process. So we are conscious of getting some economic advice on some aspects of that. Can I take the opportunity, ambassador, to ask an alternative question, which would hope for clarification. And maybe you can't answer that. In your 2.3 clause, where you refer to, "ICANN should avoid country, territory, or place names," I can tell you one of the pragmatic problems we're trying to deal with at a management level is, what's the granularity of the term "place names"? And, obviously, not only granularity, but the issue of repetitiveness. You might not need to answer now. But that's -- country and territory is reasonably clear. Place name starts getting into issues of ubiquity and granularity that we -- we're a little struggling with in terms of actually coming up with advice. So I'll put that question back to you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Paul, for these answers. We had discussion on place names. And I cannot exclude that at one stage there might be some clarification from our side. This was not conclusive. We will continue discussion tomorrow, particularly on this question, clarification of term "place names." So I cannot exclude that we will reach some kind of agreement on language to clarify that. So may I, now taking into account that time is running, and running fast, may I move to the second question of our agenda, on WHOIS data. And I will ask Suzanne Sene maybe to do a little introduction of this question. Suzanne. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Janis. I appreciate this opportunity to have this exchange with the board. And we have a bonus for you today. I am going to be joined after I do a quick overview of the GAC recommendations for WHOIS studies, I am joined by law enforcement representatives from Spain and Cyprus here who are in Paris at parallel meetings with colleagues from Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, U.K., Lithuania, South Africa, and the United States. So it's a real plus on our part to have their expertise. And they'd like to make a few comments at the end of my short intervention with you. As you all know, in April, the GAC forwarded a set of recommendations for WHOIS studies to the board. And we have received a very gracious response. Thank you for acknowledging our overtures to the board. I have some questions, as we have reviewed the letter back and reviewed the status, which -- the letter, by the way, refers, quite consistently, to ongoing deliberations within the GNSO on the issue of whether or not to conduct WHOIS studies. And we have been very well aware of that initiative in the GNSO, and, in fact, have consistently been engaged in dialogue with the GNSO on this matter. We sent them our GAC recommendations as an FYI, as a courtesy, as they were contemplating what they might do. Having your letter in hand, Mr. Chairman, it's dated May, and being aware of what is in the GNSO WHOIS study group report, which has not yet been voted on, it's -- we felt it was imperative to put the question to the board as to because the GNSO Council report actually has two diametrically opposed position, one is to do no studies at all and one is to do some studies. From the GAC's perspective, and we respect the GNSO's processes, we are certainly mindful that the result could be no studies. And we think that is up to the GNSO to decide. But from the GAC's perspective, our request that you undertake studies still stands. So we would appreciate some clarity there that, notwithstanding whatever the GNSO does or does not decide to do, that ICANN will undertake the studies recommended by the GAC in its recommendation. So if we could perhaps deal with that, and then I'll turn over to my colleagues for some interventions. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Peter, would you like to respond? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. Yes, thank you. The simple position is that we have not yet heard from the GNSO. So it hasn't completed its process. So we're not yet in a position to respond any further. When we get their response, we'll then -- we may then have to make the decision that your question implies. But until then, there's nothing more we can do. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, if I may, I think I would echo a comment made by my colleague from Brazil. We are talking about a procedural situation where the GAC is now in a situation where it's not entirely clear to us where our recommendations go, where our advice goes, and is it contingent upon approval by another body within the ICANN community? Or is it going to be acted on by the board directly? And so your guidance and feedback in that regard would be most helpful to us, because our understanding of the bylaws -- perhaps we are interpreting them too literally, but it's fairly direct -- we are structured to provide advice and guidance to the board, and it has never been clear to us that acting on our advice is contingent upon a decision by another supporting organization. So some clarity there would be very helpful, because it would help govern our work program. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Suzanne. Peter, would you like to comment? Or I will turn to law enforcement officers. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm just looking for some data, because I might be able to advance this in a few moments. So perhaps we could hear from the law enforcement, and we'll come back to you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Maybe you can introduce yourself before you are making your points. Thank you. >>ALEXIS MAVROS: Inspector Alexis Mavros from National Police of Cyprus, Cybercrime. Computer machines for us, law enforcement, may be the tool for committing a crime or may be the victim of a computer crime or a place we can collect evidence to investigate a crime. Since every device directly connected to the Internet must have a unique I.P. address, anyone who uses an I.P. address, law enforcement investigations, for example, child pornography investigations, usually starts under two circumstances: After law enforcement people discover a Web page which is providing access to child pornography material or after law enforcement people discover an Internet user who is possessing, collecting, distributing child pornography. In order to identify that administrator of the suspect Web page and, finally, the individual who is responsible for the illegal content on that Web page or the individual who is collecting child pornography, we need immediate access to the database of WHOIS. I can say that WHOIS is our preliminary and the most important tool for our investigation. We highlight the importance of accurate information in the WHOIS database, because fighting child pornography and other cyber offenses of the Internet rely on the integrity and the accuracy of the database's registration information about Web site operators. Private services and proxies are a major pain for law enforcement. We do not have any magic solution for this problem. But I'm sure you can do a lot in order to help us in the fight against cybercriminals, and especially pedophiles, in order to protect innocent children all over the world. Thank you. >>CESAR LORENZANA: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Cesar Lorenzana, from Spain. I am assigned to the high tech crime group, and we are in charge of fighting cybercrime in general. And we have been discussing all the day with my colleagues from other countries the importance of the WHOIS database. And we all have come to the conclusion that, for us, it's a basic tool. It is basic, because we use it every day, and anytime, and many investigation. So, for instance, think about the child pornography and the sharing of these kind of files in peer-to-peer networks. If you find -- if you look for a file in these kind of networks, we probably find that it has been shared for 30 or 40 users at the same time. We take a look at these users. We realize that there are about 20 or 30 I.P. addresses implied. And when we try to locate these I.P. addresses, we realize that there are several country-related, maybe two, three, four, five countries related. Actually, we found these kind of cases, we transmit all the information to the other countries. In case we get a court order, we get a warrant to get this data, we still need a kind of database to get which country is the final destiny of the information. So, I mean, we need these databases, we need the WHOIS, we need the RIPE just in order to continue working, to keep on fighting the cybercrime. So I know we must protect privacy, and privacy is one of the most important issues in our society. But I think there are other subjects that must be protected. So just think about the child exploitation, frauds, hacking, and cybercrime in general. I think we need these kind of databases. And if you make it private or you limit the access or the information content in these databases, we need to have the access, because we need it every day to work. That's all. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, representatives of law enforcement agencies, for these statements. I see that Roberto Gaetano from the board wants to take the floor. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I'm afraid that I'm missing a bit of the conversation. I was under the impression that the fact that WHOIS -- complete and accurate information from the WHOIS, that that was a useful, I would say necessary, tool for law enforcement was never put under question. There was never a doubt about this. The question, the way I have always understood the WHOIS debate, was, if we give those data -- access to those data to the law enforcement, that doesn't mean automatically that all those data have to be publicly accessible by everybody. I think that this is the key issue. I think that nobody -- nobody questions the fact that a law enforcement agency will have the need for using this tool. I think that we are all aware of this and we all agree. But the problem is how we are going to provide this access, at the same time, not extending public access for everybody. An example that I was making for exactly the same debate many years ago in Tunis, when we had exactly the same debate, is related to, how do we behave, for instance, for car license plates? If there's an accident, if there's something, a violation, there's no doubt that law enforcement will have access to the database of license plates in order to be able to identify the owner of the car. And that happens all the time, all over the world. But that doesn't mean that everybody will have access to the private data of the owners of the cars, not even to talk about bulk access. So I think that we need to frame the discussion in a way that we can say, we all agree there's concerns on this part, and we get it out of the table. And then we focus the discussion on -- and we get maybe additional data on the parts where there's this agreement. But to continue discussing on what we agree is not helpful. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Roberto. Suzanne. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Janis. And thank you, Roberto, actually, for reinforcing the case for the GAC recommendations for WHOIS studies. As you point out, this debate has gone on for many, many, many years. And what strikes the GAC as being a fundamental disconnect in that discussion, if you will, is the lack of data. There is no data to inform this discussion. There are no facts. There are no figures. We have no idea how many natural persons who do not conduct business on the Internet using a domain name, and therefore have some expectation of privacy protection because they reside in a jurisdiction that offers them that. We have no idea how many of those people actually register a domain name under proxy services. So we have no idea, no way of knowing how many proxy services are being offered legitimately or are being used legitimately by those who can actually benefit from privacy protection. There are a lot of commercial entities that are taking advantage, or fraudulent entities, or child pornographers, criminal activities that are going on by virtue of anonymity, or anonymity services. What the GAC would like, and we think it would be extremely helpful for the entire community, is we would like to simply have a better idea of these facts, these statistics. So we feel rather strongly -- again, with all due respects to our colleagues in the GNSO, who have their own processes, and they will come to their own decision based on their debate and their dialogue. But the GAC feels quite strongly that its recommendations for WHOIS studies should be acted on. And we think it can only benefit any kind of dialogue on this very important issue, because we need facts. Thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Just one sentence. So can I conclude that the request is to have a complete and accurate data, and we agree that this is only for the purpose of for the perusal of the law enforcement agencies? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please, Suzanne. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you again. Actually, what I think it's best to do is to perhaps suggest that we refresh memories as to what the recommendations include. There's a very extensive set of questions that we believe need to be answered. So they're fairly broad in scope. We think we made quite a good case for a threshold set of data, after which that is analyzed, we lay out a series of fairly detailed questions. And I think you'll get a sense of what we think the data will be helpful for. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Demi is next. >>DEMI GETSCHKO: Just some short remarks. First of all, I really don't think the proxy registration is a good idea. I suppose that doesn't serve to the whole community. And the second remark, kind of in a different direction, if I have my data in WHOIS, I prefer to know that everyone has access to my data than to have some organizations in a global market that have access and I don't know who. Then, in some way, I suppose my privacy is better served to know that my data is exposed to the whole world than to know that my data is exposed to some level of organizations globally that I don't know who are. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Peter, you're next. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. I just took the time to have the staff collect the timing of this so that I can properly answer Suzanne's question. The GNSO Council voted to reject the OPoC proposal in October 2007. And it decided at that meeting that it would conduct comprehensive objective and quantifiable studies about WHOIS. And at that same meeting, the GAC communiqué strongly supported the idea of studies and promised to supply details of the sorts of questions that should be included in any study. Then in March of this year, the council formed a group to review the suggestions and recommend what study should be done. And in April, on the 16th of April, the GAC recommendations for the -- for inclusion in those studies were received. Now, there has been some dispute and debate in the GNSO about what and if and whether to do the studies. Until that decision is resolved, the board is satisfied that the process is being properly dealt with by the proper organ in ICANN for conducting this exercise. I'm informed that it's expected that a final decision will be made by the GNSO this week. If the studies go ahead, then that will be the resolution of that matter. If the studies do not go ahead, the board will then be faced with what it should be doing in order to comply with the GAC request. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So are there any other requests on this subject? I see none. Then we can maybe move to the next, and the last, agenda item we have in front of us. And that relates to -- that relates to ICANN -- new proposed ICANN meeting strategy. We had a relatively deep exchange on this subject. And as a conclusion, we want to say that, in our view, one, two, or three meetings are not of that importance; that how these meetings are conducted, how constituencies interact in those meetings, and how issues are addressed during ICANN meetings. I think the number of the meetings, in the GAC's view, are related with the working methods during those meetings and the way how issues are addressed, whether each constituency are sitting in its own silo, using the term of one GAC member, and discussing questions in isolation, or the issue is addressed in cross-constituency fashion. And the last example of development of the fast-track methodology, in the GAC view, is the good example of such a cross-constituency interaction. That, in essence, is the GAC view, preliminary view, on the document. I think the -- if we are going from three to two annual meetings, then it may affect the productivity of the GAC, because we can take decisions only during the face-to-face meetings. And then, of course, if the decision will be made to diminish the number of meetings to two, then the GAC will see whether there will be a need to organize specific GAC meetings in order to take necessary decisions, when appropriate. Not necessarily on a regular basis, but when appropriate. I see Bertrand wants -- no? So this, in essence, was the flavor of our discussion. And I don't know whether -- Senegal, Maimouna, please. >>SENEGAL: Thank you, Chair. I just want to take this opportunity to make an announcement, and what I can call a plea for the ICANN board to take in consideration the specific need of GAC member coming from developing countries, and also from non-speaking-English countries. I want to talk about the translation of the document. I'm the vice chair of the GAC since two years, and I really try to get more African countries on the GAC work. And I take time to translate the document I got from English to French. I take time to write a letter to all the ministers on west African countries -- most of them are speaking French -- to allow them to get the information of what is going on in the GAC discussion. And I think at the end of the day, what I really have is, they will not be able to attend a lot of the meetings because of the travel of the costs. I know that we have GAC -- the ICANN board put in place a fellowship program. But most of them are not comfortable with this program, because they come from the government, and they don't want to have to answer to all those questions and so forth. And that's why I really want to appeal to have new consideration, because we are, because we are on reform process. We are thinking about how ICANN can be more open, and how can ICANN be more inclusive. So I really think that we will have room for talking about our specific problem and our specific need. And we will organize in Dakar, in Senegal, in October, from 3rd to 15 of October, 2008, a meeting on e-governance issue. And it will be a meeting for all African countries. And we will tackle about all the issues we are talking in. And I take the floor on behalf of my government, who will organize this meeting, to invite the ICANN board and the GAC bureau chair and vice chair, and all the African governments to come, to attend to this meeting in order to give an African -- a chance to the Africans to have a voice on all those discussions about the future of the Internet. I come from Seoul, where the OECD organized a meeting on the future of the Internet. I am very happy to be part of this, even if our biggest problem now is how to connect those who are not connected, I think we also have to think about the future of the Internet, at this time, not the next time, that we -- I don't want to be long. It was just an invitation to all of you to attend the Dakar meeting and to get the voice from those who don't have the voice here. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Maimouna, for reminding that this was the question that I really forgot to raise in my earlier -- or in my introductory remarks. Indeed, we were discussing that since there is an evaluation of different policies, including travel policy, since we know that there are other advisory committees and Supporting Organizations are receiving some add administrative assistance in order to make the work more effective, that includes also translation of the meetings. And that includes also translation of the documents for the meetings. And since there has been a certain shift in the position of number of GAC member states with respect to receiving support from ICANN to the GAC activities, I would like to ask, consider, to the extent possible, what is feasible and what is not feasible to support GAC activities? Namely, with translation of GAC meetings, translation of documents. And, if possible, travel support for the members, GAC members, from developing and least developed countries. So this is a request, and if you could consider it during the budgetary discussions and see what is feasible and what is not feasible during the next budgetary period. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Chairman, thanks for that. We do take the issues that the representative of Senegal raised quite seriously. And I can report that we will take the points that you have raised within the budgetary context. I do know that translation for GAC documents is actually a line item in the proposed operational plan. But the broader questions you have raised, we will certainly consider. And I am certain that, at least talking for staff, ICANN will look very kindly at considering whether we can attend the meeting in Dakar. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Now I'm looking whether somebody else wants to intervene. Bertrand. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you. Just a brief point on the evolution of the number of sessions. As I had the opportunity to discuss with the staff earlier, there are two elements, as Janis mentioned, that are closely interlinked. One is the number of meetings and the other one is the intersessional work for the GAC, but also for other groups. If we reduce the number of meetings first, without optimizing the intersessional work and transforming the structure of the meetings themselves, we will only slow down the process. And I fully support what Janis was saying. I think we are in a situation where there is a natural time line. In the coming year, we have the possibility to continue the great improvements in the structure of the meetings that have been started in New Delhi and that are getting along again, or pursued here. And I suppose that Cairo and other meetings will help structure the schedule in an even clearer manner. One point in particular that Janis mentioned, and I fully support, is the number of sessions that bring together the different actors to discuss a given issue. To give you a very concrete example, it was a bilateral relation, but we had an ALAC/GAC meeting today, and during the exchange, we discovered that the ALAC felt that the -- in the introduction of new gTLDs, the notion of morality and public order evaluation was something that the GAC had requested. The reality is it was not in our explicit wording, and it had been implemented for the sake of simplicity on a document by -- after the GNSO review for implementation. It took a sort of triangle of interaction to understand that probably a different formulation would have eliminated a lot of the interaction. So to make a long story short, if we could first promote the kind of open fora and multistakeholder groups and working groups like the IDN fast-track working groups, to get all the actors together. And then, second, during the physical sessions; then optimize the intersessional work. Then it will be easier to reduce the number of meetings, and it might be an interesting goal. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Bertrand, for these thoughts. And since the time of the meeting has run out, and the board has other obligations, I would like to bring this meeting to close. And I would like, on behalf of the GAC, to thank board members for honoring us with their presence. Thank, also, representatives of other constituencies who took their time to come to this exchange -- open exchange with the board. Thank you very much, and we are looking forward to interaction in the next meeting, whenever this meeting will be, in Cairo. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much.