>> Okay. Well, good evening, everybody. May I ask you to take your
seat. According to my computer, it says 19:31, and it's supposed to
start at 19:30. We do have remote participants and they, I think, they
are waiting behind their computers and they would like to get started.
Well, I'm Markus Kummer, and I suggest that we introduce as we do
every time so everybody has the opportunity to introduce himself or
herself.

Before we start doing that, I would like to give the floor to (Jacek),
who has a few administrative remarks, please.

>> Good evening. My name is Jacek, I'm the secretary to Markus, trying
to help him in today's speech. And I will be passing a list of
attendance, asking you to put your name and your chapter or country
and email and telephone to the list, and pass it around the table.

Also let me remind you that this meeting is both live streamed and
captions. So the fact we will be using WebEx only in case you want to
tell us something, to pose a question to the -- to the presenter. In
that sense, I ask you to mute your microphones, wherever you are in
the world. Also those here who are in the room would rather refrain
from using WebEx, there's now extra information and also don't switch
the video since we are connecting to several countries where the
bandwidth is rather a scarce resource. So we will remain in WebEx only
with the stream and the chat window.

Let me also then tell you that remotely, we have already several
participants, Mr. Abzehdin Adam off from Azerbaijan, and and usually,
many, many things to Joly MacFie for all the recording from fork and
there's one other person there who is taking our captions.

So with this, I finish the -- this small introduction of myself and
other remote participants and partial list and give the floor back to
Markus.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I would also like to raise a question, we
traditionally have two meetings at ICANN meetings, one -- the first
one is ISOC at ICANN and the second one is a separate chapter meeting.
I think it was Benny who brought up the question, is it really
necessary to have two meetings? Could we collapse it into one? People
are usually busy.

I would just like to raise the question. We can also discuss it at the
chapters meeting and take it and carry it on to the meeting in
Toronto. Maybe we have one meeting in two parts or whatever. But I
would just like to raise the issue and please think about -- many of
you will also be attending the chapter meeting on Tuesday. So this is
-- maybe this is an opportunity to have the first discussion. But
let's now move to the introduction and to you Walda. Everybody else
knows Walda. Nevertheless, introduce yourself.

>> WALDA: Particularly for those who are calling in, I'm Walda roseman
and I'm the chief operating officer of the Internet society and
welcome here to everyone, particularly those who hear voices but can't
see us and don't know what a wonderful dinner we're having here. I
would suggest you go and you get something for yourself so that you
feel as warm and well fed as we do.

Thank you Markus for raising the question of the two meetings. We want
to do what you want to do. The focus of the meetings is not at this
point the same, put certainly, there's tremendous overlap in who
attends the two meetings. So I think it is a good idea to put this at
least for a little while on the Tuesday night meeting. So thank you.

>> Markus Kummer: And we have the newly formed chapter, Alex.

>> I'm Alex Solonov, Alex in short. I'm representing ISOC Russia,
which is information now. Perhaps an update and I will send updates
later. Thank you. I'm very happy to be here. Thank you.

>> Markus Kummer: Felix.

>> I'm happy toe here. My name is Frederick. And I'm the director and
based in Brussels. Thank you.

>> My name is Victor. I'm the Secretary General of the ISOC Cameroon
chapter. I'm happy to be here. Thanks.

>> My name is Yelvatoun. This is my first participation in this
meeting. I used to be in the chapter meeting the second meeting. So
this is my first participation in this one. So it's from today. I will
have to give an opinion later and know what to say. Thank.

>> Good evening. My name is Barack Chino, the chairperson of the
Internet Society Kenya chapter. I'm happy to be here.

>> Good evening I'm --

>> I'm happy to be here again after Costa Rica.

>> Okay. Good evening, my name is Thomas from Japan chapter. Actually
the Japan chapter, I hope it will be approved soon. Thank you.

>> I'm a member of the ISOC Mexico.

>> Alejandro, chair of the ISOC Mexico.

>> Sebastian Basharane member of -- and French one also.

>> Sylvia, I represent here at chapter in Poland. I have a chapter in
Poland that establishes of 2000 and I'm really happy to be here.

>> Yeah, I didn't hear Alejandro. This is Venne, I was looking at the
wonderful food and drinks that -- that the Internet Society has
provided and I'm extremely happy to note that after -- after about 18
years of arguing with ISOC, I can finally say some good words about
them. (Laughter). And for those of you who are online, really, this is
an amazing change in ISOC of last time and every time before, that
these were plain sandwiches, ham and cheese and tonight we have hot
food and salads and bar and buffet, and red wine, and white wine,
vodka, bourbon and whiskey. Since you mentioned Joly online, I have to
tell you that he's going to suffer tonight because England is playing
against Italy. So we have to finish here by 8:45 so that he can watch
the game.

>> Joly, we will do that for you.

>> Vice chair of ISOC Finland and I also welcome the culinary
improvement. (Laughte.

>>> Markus Kummer: Thank you, all. Kevin, can you introduce would is
participating remotely.

>> I already did it, but there's one more and this is Fatima
cambronero from Argentina. We have seven or eight remote participants
and we hope for more to join.

>> Thank you all, and it's great to see some pillars of the Internet
society been with us for many, many years and also some newcomers, new
chapters, great to see the rejuvenation, and great to have you all
here.

Now, the request, what is the difference between the two meetings,
especially the ISOC at ICANN meeting is today discuss ICANN issues. We
have --

>> (Inaudible).

>> Markus Kummer: Pardon?

>> We are supposed to discuss them and get ourselfed organized.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's always good to lean and stand on the shoulders
of giants and learn from past experiences. Okay. We are here to
discuss ICANN. We have not actually checked an agenda. So it's agenda
bashing, first agenda item, Alejandro, Sebastian?

>>> Alejandro: I would like to -- no, this will be more for the
chapters meeting, but I would like to see issues related to the IGF
Dynamic Coalitions and for this ICANN meeting, I would say the
stability and the security review and the fourth common action forced
ability and security for today's agenda if possible and unfortunately
I have to leave at the same time as the football people but for
another thing.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Sebastian?

>> Sebastian: Mexico is not playing tonight. Yes, the idea when the --
for the question of this --

>> MARKUS KUMMER: The agenda. The idea is it's agenda bashing. You
announced stability and security. Other items people would like to
discuss?

>> Sebastian: I want to stress why this meeting was organized. It was
not just to organize ourself, but it was also to be able to share the
concern and the knowledge from each others because we are part of
different constituencies within ICANN, with a different part of the
organization, and when it was created, I was at large. Alexander was a
member, and then it was very useful to us as sections. It was the
reason for, and I hoped it could still be the same here, but that's
not the case.

>> We should read for the -- we have certainly an agenda point about
holding or not the two meetings and we could discuss that ther

>> MARKUS KUMMER: There's definitely merit for having this meeting. Do
we need to have both meetings? That was basically my point.

>> Obviously on the question about the meetings, I stated it on the
list, but on the agenda, I think one of the ways ISOC chapters can be
helpful to ICANN, and to the model is to address an issue which
becomes actually -- I think it becomes more and more an issue which is
the NONCOM is trying to find people to fill a number of spaces every
year and we could use ISOC chapter resources to actually spread the
word, but also to ask yourself to just send their application if they
are interested because every once in a while, there's a situation
where there is not enough choice and there is not enough choice just
because people haven't heard about it.

We know that ICANN's work is time consuming, and people have to
advocate a lot of the efforts to read mail, documents, et cetera, but
at the same time, they complain if something is not going the way they
think it is going. So that's my suggestion for the agenda.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, that's a very practical and sound suggestion.
Are there other suggestions? Yes? Please Mark.

>> Yes, there are comments. I think the meetings should be separate,
because there are a lot of issues within ICANN, but we need to focus
on. In particular, I want to highlight one issue that is more on our
continent, Africa, a number of -- if you look at the new GTLD's list,
this was a very low registration from our continent, and for us, it's
a challenge. ISOC has been doing a lot of awareness, and I think
that's one area we can come in with the support of other chapters. And
then we can retain the chapter meetings to discuss our in-house issues
because not all chapters are at the same leve

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. Nobody questions having the
merit of this type of meeting. The question is more of an
organizational one. Can we collapse it into one? Have the first ISOC
meeting devoted to ICANN meeting and the other half devoted to chapter
issues. I have no -- I'm open. Whatever suits you best, we will
follow, but there's clearly merit in discussing ICANN issues and,
thank you, for basically your agenda item, which I thought would be
first agenda item people would bring up, the new GTL Ds and how we
react to that.

>> Yes, thank you. Thank you, Markus. First of all, I would like to
support the suggestion that ISOC chapters would actively try to find
candidates for ICANN positions. I'm a member of the nominating
committee this year for Europe, AWAK, at large Europe, and I can agree
that we could do with a few more candidates from various areas of the
world. The other thing -- I don't know if we need to discuss that, but
just an observation, that some ISOC chapters are also at large
structures in their country. That's the case of Finland, for instance,
where we are an at-large of ICANN and in some cases that is not a
case. I just wonder, I mean, whether that's an issue that could be --
could be discussed where, Prince, being -- having more ISOC chapters
as ALSs could increase ISOC's influence. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. This particular issue has come up before,
and I think there was a general sense to keep it separate. There is
clearly a cross section of the two. Joly has a suggestion for an
agenda item. Does he want to speak?

>> JOLY: Yes. Can you hear me?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes.

>> Joly: Yes, I would like to talk about the IANA contract and what's
going on with that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Thank you. Alejandro.

>> Alejandro: I don't know, Markus if you have a prepared agenda
besides the issues you have added, if you are going to -- if you are
planning to speak about GPLDs, which seems to be a very important
subject for this meeting. I would like for us, if you find it
appropriate to have a brief discussion about conflict of interest
related ISOC's proposal but to GPLD proposals what are the boundaries
the headquarters, the trustees, the chapter delegates and members in
general. I think they are different.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay I think we have a good agenda. Introduce
yourself for the remote participants.

>> I'm Supraman. President of ISOC India. One the items I would
propose is that ISOC chapters could play a role in -- in defending
ICANN in their regions. ICANN is subject to a lot of unfair criticism
in the recent past and we are quite educated about the ICANN process
and know about ICANN, we could discuss if it's proper for ISOC
chapters to reach out to the communities and present ICANN in the
proper perspective.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Thank you. This agenda item seems to fit more
in the chapter meeting, the role of chapters, obligations is very
important and the counts on the new guys in defending the Internet
model. Of course, that includes ICANN, but this is more of -- I think
of a chapter issue and I would suggest putting this agenda item, which
is an important agenda item on the agenda of Tuesday's meeting.

But as I said, I think we do have a full agenda for tonight and I also
noticed Olga has joined us. Oh, please, microphone.

>> Hello, everyone. Hello, remote, friends, my name is Olga, I'm the
secretary of the chapter of Argentina. And I have the treasurer with
me, the guy with the money.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Welcome to you both. Okay. If there's no new
additions burning additions for the agenda, then I would suggest we
get started and I think I would ask the new GTLDs if -- I think the
single most important issue at this week's meeting, I would like to
start with this, and Barack has also mentioned the importance for
Africa. So I would like to give you the floor.

Maybe just from an ISOC perspective, what we think of extension of
this space, we welcome innovation, we welcome competition and we hope
it will help bring more people on to the Internet, especially people
who don't have English as a mother tongue in combination with IDNs,
but people who have different scripts, the native language would
facilitate their access to the Internet.

When you look at the applications, I would say unfortunately, I would
have personally nothing I can say. ISOC hoped we would get more
applications in IDN forms there are some, yes, but in percentage, it's
not that high as could have been hoped for in terms of leading to more
increased diversity. But I think -- I don't want to preempt you and
obviously, gTLDs from developing countries is an issue, which we would
have hoped that the extension would lead to increased presence on the
net.

And I do remember when talking with friends, say high nice it was to
have on the Internet, but I think it didn't get there. Many of the
applications for IDNs are actually western base to extend the name,
which is great, but we hoped it would lead to more bottom up
applications from countries with other languages, other background.
Yes, there are some but over to you, Barack. You raised the issue.
Please.

>> BARACK: Well, I think I posed the question hypothetically, but,
indeed, it's a big challenge, because there are many schools of
thought out there as to why the uptick of domains and why there isn't.
But of concern is -- or rather what I would like to share -- or to ask
my colleagues here, is maybe to share experiences in their countries
because there is an element of prizing which has been talked about in
our continent and in our fields, in the African continent but I think
the biggest thing is getting people to see will value in the domain
name industry. And I think the domain name industry in a way shows the
development of Internet in a particular industry, if you allow me to
say so.

So so far uptick of the domains remains very low. Uptick or rather
local content is also really low. And I think our biggest challenge is
to try and encourage more of us to bring -- or rather to bring the
local content to the Internet and it is our hope that this is the only
way that the so-culled new gTLDs will become relevant. We are in a
catch-22 and there are a lot of issues being talkedB. but I'm not sure
if that's the problem that's affecting us. Many our colleagues can
share some experiences in that line.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe you should also say -- you are not only the
head of Kenyan chapter but your professional background is not
unrelated to this issue.

>> That's right, I work for Africa top level domains organizations. So
part of the challenge -- or rather, part of what I'm looking at is
uptick domains across African countries. So far highest we have is
South Africa with about 800,000 domains, and I can see Germany is at
14 or 15 million. So I don't know how we can be able to catch up or
reach that level, but I know the ideas are in this forum, I believe.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Comments? Alejandro.

>> Alejandro: Spot on. I won't surprise you. This is exactly the point
I wanted to discuss and thank you for just bringing us there. There
are three aspects. One is a general view of ISOC, about the expansion
of domain name space, which when I was on the board, it's like persons
look at an essential need of the Internet, but we rather see the
experiment happen than not see the experiment happen. That was more or
less in plain words the view. As you mentioned, there's things that
some of us may find pretty useless or speculative or short lived in
the proposals but it's not for us to judge. We are not the ones to
judge. There are some specific points I think we can pick up here.
First is the size issue that Barack has mentioned. There's a Matthew
effect. This is some quotes to the Bible, but it says: To the rich
will be given. So once a domain name has a lot of names, it begins to
be very attractive. It's not necessarily a network effect, but there's
an exponential there. It begins to be interesting not to have your
name hijacked. Other domain names like Salvador, which doesn't have an
obvious semantic implication are remaining very small and companies in
the countries prefer the dot-coms, and happy.

But I think that's a substantive point, is that ISOC is proposing --
well, not ISOC. BIR is proposing one gTLD, which is.ngo and we should
be very careful what implications that interest has for the rest of
the site and the different levels.

I would speculate at least that trustees and staff are pretty much
bound to want for.ngo to be successful. So it's complicated for
trustees or staff to support any other domain name. It's very
improbable that it will be proper for staff and board to not support
expansion of the domain name space. They may ask for approval of
expansion but not for now expansion. That would be like shooting them
in the foot. When it comes to ISOC members, chapter leaders or members
who are individual members, if we are going to do things like
participate in the SARP and the panel that have asked for funding, or
if some of our chapter leaders under the ALAC gTLD implementation
board then I think we have to be concerned about the implications.
Whether you are in conflict with.ngo, whether it's completely
orthogonal and whether someone can tell which would be a messy and
undesirable step for ISOC which is having any member of ISOC
participating in these debates and being shut down -- being asked to
recuse him or herself, because of conflict of interest, because having
too many fingers in too many pies.

And here that goes to the heart of ISOC's mission. ISOC' mission, the
way I understand it, is -- includes a heavy component of stewardship
for the Internet and that, of course, includes some stewardship for
the domain name system though we know that's mostly ICANN's field of
work. ISOC can't just say, well, let ICANN solve it. We have been
careful with IDNs, with the introduce of fees -- of a non-refundable
fee for domain name testing, which killed a lot of domain name
testing. ICANN has been a responsible citizen and steward and we have
to be careful that we don't get someone shut down now from these
discussions, ISOC becoming an interesting party. Some clarity will be
important. I don't think we have to achieve it today but we would be
asking Walda and Markus to be the channels to provide some guidance
here.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for these thoughtful remarks. I mean, the
dot-ngo was discovered at the level of board, of ISOC, was the -- the
blessing was given to PIR to move ahead. What you said, the way you
see ISOC is very much the way we see ISOC. We don't interfere in the
day-to-day running but what -- our core concern is keeping the global
nature of the Internet and as I said in my introduction remark, you
know does it actually bring more people on to the Internet? Does it
help people with other languages? Does it increase diversity? It's
really very high level principles and we are aware that due to our
special relationships with PIR, we have to be a little bit
conservative in the DNS space, and that's very much part of division
of labor we do have with PIR. We talk on general Internet government
principles but we definitely feel, as you said, it would be
inappropriate being involved in evaluation of applications of our
domain names.

There is clear conflict of interest and I think we steer out of that
space. Now, what it means for chapters, for the broader ISOC family,
that is somewhat trickier questions. I mean, Barack in his
professional capacity, he's in that space. So I think it will be
limiting you too much saying, no, you can't say anything, because ISOC
has a strong relationship with PIR and they are in the field for dot-
ngo, but, I mean, it has to be in the back of our heads when there is
a policy discussion on that. And yes, your professional affiliation
but you also have your ISOC affiliation. People tend to put two and
two together and make it five. So it's better to be very clear about
that, you know, very up front, okay?

I'm an ISOC chapter but here I'm not talking as an ISOC chapter here.
I'm talking as -- I think it's -- as long as we have that in our mind,
you know, and perception sometimes is as important as the facts, you
know? People -- they put two and two together and make it not only
five, but six or seven. It's good to be clear and up front on that,
understand that people might have second thoughts and whatever, but I
think you want to come in again Alejandro.

>> ALEJANDRO: This is very helpful. I would like to make sure that we
have a take-home bundle here. I would say very quickly three things.
One, I already said. I think we should avoid the situation where an
ISOC leader or member is expelled from a room or from a discussion,
has to recuse him or herself from a discussion or a vote because they
are assumed to be in conflict of interest. We should definitely get
away from that as much as possible. Second, it would be useful to have
the statement like the one you have made. Maybe only verbally. There
will be a record and the recording of this meeting, but expand this
further. I have to note that this is one of the chapter meetings in
ICANN meeting that has had the smallest attendance since we started
and I think we have half the normal attendance. So we have to make
sure that we spread this widely. It's not just like a dogma. You know,
this is what you can do, what you cannot do. There's a border, there
but to make the thought be present. And number three is to have a go-
to person on this issue, in eye ISOC. When you find yourself entangled
in an email list, or physical list, who to ask in ISOC, what be the
guidelines to follow.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Thank you. Well, I would have to assume the
responsibility of being the go-to person and I'm happy to volunteer to
that. No. Okay. It's a good suggestion. We might need to be more clear
and up front on this. Actually, I have a breakfast meeting on PIR
colleagues on updating our division of labor in the ICANN space. We
have had a paper some years back, but, I mean, the structure of ICANN
has changed since or whatever. So it's basically updating what was
always the case. We are not engaged in the plumbing of the DNS space.
We are interested in the broader principles and let's think about
maybe something on our web site as a positive statement on that could
be helpful, that we explain. And also the guidance to give to just
avoid any perception of conflict of interest. That very well taken and
thank you for that. Are there other comments?

>> JOLY: I would like to hear about this earlier in getting involved
in dot-com.

>> MARKUS KUMMER. I didn't quite get the comment due to audio.

>> JOLY: Venne, could he talk about this, with his earlier suggestion
about the non-com?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Oh, yes we come to that. We are still finishing the
gTLD bit on that.

>> JOLY: With that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER. We come to the non-com but Barack was asking for the
floor on the gTLD. Please, Barack.

>> Barack: I appreciate the comment my colleague is raising there, but
I think we have a mission to the effect that the Internet is for
everyone, and I think the issue that I consider as a priority of the
moment is for users to be able to understand the effects of the new
GTLD. I think ISOC has been doing really well here. That's where we
come in strong. I don't see ICANN doing very well in terms of
clarifying the differences and effects there. I don't know whether
this is the right forum, but I would wish to know if ISOC can take up
that challenge in getting the information out there and the effect of
new gTLDs or CCL Ds and how the current effort is going to be
affected.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Alejandro.

>> Alejandro: Thank you, Markus for opening up this very friendly
space to talk about it. I think you are making explicit -- creating an
opportunity to explain further why I think we have to have a very
clear way of thinking about conflicts here. South Africa could pull
some registrations away from dot-org and pull some registrations away
from dot-ngo. That's the point of conflict.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, this is actually a very interesting discussion.
The success of dot-org and dot ngo, we are equally interested in the
success of North Africa or in terms of enhancing diversity on the
Internet. I think if you have to assess the balance between our
interest and -- [ Background noise ] Can you please mute your
microphones the remote participants?

I think the Internet as a whole has to come before our own very
legitimate particular interests and I would be ashamed if it was on
the other way around.

>> I agree with you. We would like to not have a zero sum game but if
it becomes a zero couple game, if we can expand all the names, due to
the blooming growth for South Africa and at the same time, have the
peculiar basis of ISOC, we are very happy, but if not, we have to plan
for that conflict in advance, instead of interrupting it.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think quite a few people would like to speak. We
don't want to be put in the position where we actually have to make
decisions on this. We take a step back on these issues.

>> Why do you start with north Africa. You cannot assume that they
will be pulling names from the dot org. You could easily say they will
be pulling names from dot-com. And whoever is running dot-com now
should be more concerned about this. But -- and also with records to
ISOC -- or actually PIR., it's not that big of a problem now in terms
of -- it's a bigger problem because there's no money that ISOC can
send. So this is a problem. But I think the people use more Internet
rather than keep it to the current level. Are we not yet connected. We
should be thinking about them and, for example, IDN, will bring 1
billion people online. The scripts which are currently in existence
are not enough. That's an issue and then people will choose. And also
let's say, if somebody has a dot org name and using it for good
legitimate purposes, what are the chances that they will say, oh,
good. I'm not going to use. This I will build a new brand on the new
one. I don't think that any one of our chapters, for example which has
registered the ISOC-bg-org would say, oh, I'm going to use this new
top level domain for my site, you know. It's building a brand is a
very, very long and complicated issue.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Walda would like to talk about that.
Basically, Barack raised also a question saying he thinks that ICANN
hasn't done enough. ICANN should do more to explain. We are not that
active in the DNS space. We really think that it's the primary
responsibility of ICANN to explain what happens there.

That's just a quick reaction to your comment. But I see that -- well,
we are really getting into a quite lively discussion. Michel? Oh, no.
You are?

>> (Inaudible). Hi. Thank you. Personally, I don't have a fear that as
an ISOC member, our chapter or chapter in 1990 operate, and so we are
also -- I think ISOC also -- for ISOC -- like, if I'm from Africa, for
example, in many countries, you can see people, they are not taking
the top development of the country for the company. Why? Because it's
expensive, one, and the services and people are taking something
different. So I don't mean as an an Africa, it's necessary. I go for
dot-Africa.

So the question is, we have to promote also the -- the choice to have
people give them many choices. They are free to choose, one. We want
ISOC to have Internet for everyone. And promoting ISOC. Coming back to
something he said, if you see the results today, we can say the domain
name industry is something different.

So if ICANN open the market we want to have new domains, the question
is that our people, the community, how many communities wanted really.
The people are applying for the new gTLD. So in conclusion, we ISOC
chapters, most of us also address structures, we just continue the
education and then people are afraid to achieve what they want to
achieve. This is my personal opinion.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: So it's the official ISOC position. We want to
increase the possible for consumers to choose. Victor, you asked for
the floor.

>> Victor: Thank you, Markus. My comment was just following ISOC's
basic mission is to promote the use and the development of the
Internet, and -- ISOC is doing the important work of the world
concerning developing countries like Cameroon, because we are focusing
now on development of local content. We are talking about doe pain
name, the new gTLD, domain name for what? If there is not services or
content behind?

Maybe in 10 or 20 years, Internet user will not use to care about
which domain name they are using. They just care about content, how to
access the content. Maybe like today many people are do -- many users
locally, you say, I'm going to go with the wiki pages. You don't care
about wiki pages dot org or dot-com or something like that. I think
ISOC is already supporting the choices of the Internet by promoting
development of the local content. Because we have seen the question
from -- from Cameroon, and what ICANN did was by putting in place the
dijon agreements to support -- to support the application from
developing economy and country. I just comments that -- that's by
saying we cannot -- we cannot list a busy state, because the domain
name and that is not understanding in Africa and then we move forward
to more promotion on new gTLD. We have to start with the basics. Make
the domain name the understanding and then we can put more energy on
the new gTLD program. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. You mentioned local content. I would like
to do some PR for the program that we developed from UNESCO from local
content proving scientifically with a so many IDNs economic analysis
that producing local content and keeping the traffic local lowers cost
of access to the Internet. Olga and Alexia.

>> Olga: Thank you, Marcus. I would like to address the comment made
by Alejandro, which I think is relevant. I think we could perhaps make
a concept of the ISOC community in two layers. One, those who are
related with the staff with the organization itself, and board members
and people who have direct relationship with the ongoing activities of
ISOC. And then the rest of us who are part of the ISOC community, but
not directly related. I think those who are directly related should
have issues in mind that Alejandro was pointing out very well. We
should have the Internet as a whole in mind. And I think new gTLD
brings in a big challenge now that the list is out there, especially
who will manage some generic names that are very much relevant, for
example. Who will manage the Bible or dot-Islam. So I see us in having
a role in saying something in that.

And I believe for me, Patagonia is something which is important for my
country, and it's a trademark as well. It's a region of South America.
And should it be handled by a company in the United States that has
the trademark or should it be relevant to the community, which
involved several millions of people in the south of the world. I think
those kind of reflections could be in the mines of us. We are in the
whole community and, of course, the PRI issue should be more focused
and the people would are directly related with the organization. That
is my comment.

>> Yes I try to say very much the same thing. There's a difference
between the ISOC family and the ISOC staff. Alexia, please.

>> Alexia: We work within ISOC, because we just like -- a version of
this organization and how we would promote and use it and why and the
main thing as we see is ISOC will give the floor to anybody who shares
our vision and ideas which is also good. So for us this possibility is
great and if anybody by definition wants to promote some ideas which
are beneficial, this portion of could by definition and get the floor
and join ISOC and basically vocal this idea from their organizations
which is perfect bottom-up structure. We don't have such structure in
Russia. What we see from the site by now, we haven't been in the
process for a long time, that this is the most like, unique and
beneficial thing regarding this organizations. And, of course, we have
a list of, -- like, the founding members and all of these people have
their interests.

It's fine and by definition, we can use and promote anybody who has
new ideas as well. So we see the main benefit of their organization to
have this opportunity, and that's basically what we want to utilize.
Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. Walda, you have been very
patient. Do you want to make a comment as well?

>> WALDA: Actually in the interest of time. Several people have made
the point I wanted to make, including yourself on some of your
comebacks. I will take no more time right now.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's good to see that we agree on ISOC staff. It's
been a very interesting and useful discussion. I mean, these are
important issues. Have we exhausted the new gTLD. I think you will see
a sense of nodding around the table. Alejandro mentioned stability and
security and the other issue was Benny's -- oh, he as to leave and I
will have to case after him.

Well, basically, I think it was the point on the non-com and also Joly
asked for an update on IANA. So depending -- well, if Joly wants to
watch the football, maybe we start with his agenda and update on IANA.
I don't think there's really that much to say, as far as I understand
the contract will be issued. There's no major surprise. There's not, I
feel, a general enthusiasm in the community for the extension of the
contract, it's also, as it's more or less on the same basis and the
community had hoped on the commitment that maybe the US would take a
little bit more of a step back, but this will not happen this time
around. So let's hope there will be another time around and that the
affirmation of commitment will be revitalized, and it was an important
step forward. Let's face it, but I think more needs to be made out of
it.

I don't know whether anybody else has anything to add or questions to
ask. I'm not the source of wisdom here. I'm not in the secret of the
gods. All I here is that general wisdom is that it will be extended.
Does anybody know more? Can add anything? Doesn't seem to be the case.
Well, should we take the non-com first? I think there's really, again,
this is maybe also an agenda item that could be followed up on the
Tuesday meeting, the roles of -- the roles of chapters. I mean, the
idea is go to make better use of the chapters in influencing the non-
com process. Do you have anything to add on that?

>> Thank you. Thank you, Markus. Well, actually, anybody can suggest
candidates to the non-com. So anybody can do it as just an individual
or any organization, but, of course, it would be in a way natural that
ISOC chapters will follow these things. We could use that possibility
also. And as I said, I mean, after these two terms on the NONCOM, I
think it really depends on these suggestions, either people suggesting
themselves, making this statement of interest or other people doing it
for them. But, I mean, whatever -- whatever it is, the -- when we come
together and start selecting board members of the various SO councils
we are restricted to those names. And that's, of course, the more
names we have, the better. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Thank you. Let's put that on the Tuesday
agenda, how to make best possible use of chapters and it's not just --
I mean it's NONCOM, many talk about access to ICANN but there are
other areas as well. I'm just thinking the selection of MAG members,
for instance is similar. You can -- and it's not just us applying
yourself, it's also thinking of other people and motivating them.
Would you be ready to stand as a candidate? And it's one thing to have
a fame and go to meeting, but it does mean work. People need to be
motivated. Let's put that on Tuesday's agenda as well, how to enhance
the participation, efficiency in the work for the good for the broader
community, be that through -- as was mentioned, basically promoting
the Internet ecould system, but also finding people who are willing
actually to work for the good of the community.

That leaves with us stability and security, a very easy agenda item.
Alejandro, you would introduce it?

>>> Alejandro: We found that sometimes ISOC chapters were coming into
ICANN meeting with positions that were not aligned or actually quite
opposite, which is perfectly fine in the diversity, but sometimes we
ended up having mixed messages from ISOC, uncoordinated messages from
ISOC and totally opposed positions, which, you know, ISOC will have to
make a choice. And sometimes it was just a lack of information
internally. It's not only sharing information but help society as a
whole, help the Internet Society as a whole be present and effective
in the ICANN space, of which it is a steward. I would like to insist
on this aspect.

ISOC is very important and instrumental in creating ICANN and
important in shaping ICANN and things decided in ICANN. So this is not
only a discussion but meant as a coordination meeting so that within
the diversity that the big chapter still has to have, at least act in
a way that's informed by the general course of society and the other
chapters. That said, in particular, for the stability security, and
resilience of the DNS issues, I think that this gives us a very good
opportunity for ISOC chapters to become engaged in ICANN work. This
relates to work I have done and led in the past months and in part
more general work in ICANN. As many of you know, I had the honor to
chair the stability, security and resilience review team mandated.
That's a very important piece of work, not for myself, but for this
environment, because that is where the multistakeholder environment is
going in internal governance. It's a very important piece because this
replaces the check list that the United States government used to
measure the advance of ICANN in its contract with the US government.
Now this instrument does not report to the US government. It reports
to a community, through ICANN. So government oversight is guaranteed,
but multi stakeholders. That's the significance of all the reviews,
like the stability, the security review and one more that is out
there. Now ICANN has started decisions on some of the recommendations
that we have made. They have started consultations on the stability
and scority plans, the budget, and they put out a paper with a
definition of the reviews of stability and security and resilience of
the Internet and what ICANN should be doing there. That's one
important reason to go to the consultations. It's mostly by email
papers and so on. Second at 2 p.m., tomorrow we will have a general
community meeting to present the review which everybody is cordially
invited to. And Thursday, starting, I think at 8 a.m., there's a
series of meetings related to security, and resilience. The first is
the SSAC, the official Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and
the other is DSSA, which is for identifying the threats that we have.
And the third one is a discussion with the board working group that is
doing the more general tasks that we see is a forward looking task,
which is establishing a framework for risk analysis of the D
Newfoundland S, where everyone can define their own work and know what
has to be done to manage risks to the DNS. So I would encourage
everybody's attendance and that maybe pick up some of these tasks for
groups of five or six chapters. It will allow us to give a lot of
education among our members and the chapters. I think that's a
valuable thing.

And since many ISOC chapters are AWAK chapters better informed ISOC
chapters will inform these things without violating our general
agreement that ISOC as a whole does not participate in the ALAK. Each
chapter participates individually but we want to participate in a way
that still is coordinated. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for this. It's an important issue you
raised and thank you for reminding us of why we have these meetings.
Clearly there is merit in having this type of loose coordination as I
would put it or exchange of information, at least, you know, we don't
need to --

>> (Inaudible).

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes we don't need to agree on everything in advance,
but at least we know -- there were no surprises. That's the key word.
But this actually brings me to another point, this is not the chapters
meeting. This is ISOC at ICANN. I think we see here mainly chapter
representatives and we have a separate meeting with the advisory
council on Friday. And should we not try at least aim to have
everybody together right, you know, before the ICANN meeting starts?
Because some of the old members may have a different point of view.
That's fine, but at least precisely to put issues on the table and see
where we stand and, again, avoid surprises, that we know with we are
in the family. Yes, Sebastian and Barack.

>> Sebastian: Yes, thank you, Markus to bring that. I guess this
meeting was never intended to be a chapter member only. It was ISOC
with ICANN and the full ISOC. It's not just one part or the other. It
was supposed to be open for a number of chapters, for old member and
for the staff. And it may be a communication around, it's not exactly
like that, or that we are in this situation, but it's really
important, because I think what's Alejandro say about the security and
stability, it would be very interesting for all the members, and what
I will say again, that I would like each in this room to say, what is
important for them during this week and where they are involved and,
like that. If we have a question about something up in -- where we are
not participating in, and we need information, we are ready to
exchange, we know would is doing what and where.

It was to know from the ISOC participant where they are involved, what
they are doing and what is the main concern and how they can get help
and how they can help the other. If I can later come back, I would
like to talk about the participation. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: This is for the whole ISOC family within ICANN. You
look around the table and it seems to be the case that all --
(Inaudible) -- how to make it more attractive or make sure that they
all sit together. Alexia.

>> Alexia: In my two major points which the Russia chapter is security
and stability, that's really interesting for us.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: My apologies to Barack. I jumped you. You were in
the queue first. Please, Barack.

>> Barack: Thank you, Markus. For me one other issue I would emphasize
is creating frameworks that prepare our members to participate in this
ICANN meetings, because when I look at the Kenyan chapter, for
instance, we have members from the noncommercial constituency and it's
almost impossible to agree on what you would call the ISOC position
but the most you can see do is prepare the respective members to be
effective in the constituencies that they are participating in. Of
courseW. the objective of promoting the Internet for all, as you were
saying. Secondly, I think the same case would apply for security and
stability. One of the biggest challenges we would rather have faith in
the chapter, nontechnical members saying, why are they taking over the
show? Is ISOC for techies or non-techies? And well, again the kind of
framework that we create, those who are not security gurus or geeks do
not feel left out in this conversation.

As we talk about that, I'm thinking of the -- ISOC has the next best
program. The way of educating the members so that they can make a
decision on where they want to participate. So those would be my
comments.

>> Thank you. That was I think one of the comments from one of the
remote participants that we should give more guidance on what the
issues are, the meetings they should participate in during the week.
What you said, Barack, it resonates very strongly with me and I think
that's why I feel very happy to work for ISOC. We have a very broad
roof, and we have all different tendencies under this roof, that we
all share some common values and that is to work together for the good
of the Internet.

We may have different points of view on the way to get there, but we
do share some common values and principles. And I think that's where
we find each other as a family but I think you wanted to come in as
well and Walda wanted to make a comment.

>> Yes this meeting, is so successful in aligning chapters' views to
ISOC. Why don't we think of monthly meetings of chapters online to
talk about all issues not only about ISOC issues but about all issues
and make it so that all chapter leaders attend that meeting and we
give them a clear picture of the issues that ISOC is working on.

I'm proposing this as a person to whom education -- education of
Internet issues meant a lot. I was a completely uneducated person on
Internet issues and was proposing the wrong things when I started and
Alejandro taught me so much. But that I gained a lot of understanding,
and that understanding has to be there with every chapter member, and
I'm making this remark in the ISOC at ICANN meeting but it goes beyond
that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: This, I think could be an agenda item for the
Tuesday meeting. Walda wanted to comment on that. Please.

>> Walda: First of all, I'm taking these very good suggestions on
board. Our chapters group is really looking for ways to be more
helpful and to make it easier for all of you to engage, decide where
you want to engage and how you want to do it. And so, yes, we can
raise that again, but even if not, this is something that I'm taking
on board and taking back.

I just wanted to note the question of why there may not be org members
here and whether we might have an elevated success of doing it some
other way. Yes, they do know, but their engagement here, as you
probably know, has many faces. And some of them are commercial faces.
So there are a lot of activities going on with the companies this
evening too. In general, when we tried to bring together board members
we, of course, looked to them and what works for them and both here
and at the IETF meetings, we have found that -- that it works best for
them if we meet directly after all of the ICANN meetings are
officially finished or after all the IETF meetings are officially
finishes. So it's not an accident of fate that the AC advisory council
is going to be Friday morning.

And so we'll continue to make maybe even a better -- do a better job
of letting everyone know in advance that this meeting takes place but
I will -- we will see what results that produces.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. There's a merit of having a stock
meeting. But I think there's a merit of having the whole ISOC family
together meeting, as I say, out-of-the-box, blue sky approach, let's
see what works best for everybody concerned. I think -- I don't think
anybody around this table questions the need to have this meeting.
It's a question of maximizing the benefits of the opportunities to
make sure everybody gets the best out of it. I think we had a --
personally, I've had a very interesting and stimulating and thought-
provoking discussion. I think we can build on that. Yes, we can assess
what is the best way to organize it in the future. Maybe the
conclusion will be don't change anything. It may be the best way
forward. There is merit in having this meeting before the ICANN
meeting proper starts, that we exchange notes, share our views. It
would be definitely more interesting to have all members around the
table. So this is a question we can ask at the Friday meeting with the
org members. We can discuss it further with the chapter meeting on how
to enhance the role of the chapters. I'm open to any suggestions. I
think as long as we agree that we want to get the best out of it, and
that's what I feel is very much the feeling around this table, that we
think that it is merit in having this kind of meeting and let's just
see how we can maximize the benefits and the impact.

We do have to be clear there are certain constraints. I think we don't
want to jump in as ISOC into what we would consider ICANN activities,
and responsibilities. I mean, outreach to developing countries for new
gTLDs, that's not ISOC's job. That's ICANN's job. Now, we can discuss
how if you have other ideas, how ICANN can do this, that should be
taken up within ICANN context. The same thing about, you know, how to
improve ISOC's presence or how to improve the quality of nominees for
the various ICANN positions. This is something clearly worth while
discussing. Within our networks, we do have good compacts and -- well,
one of my pet subjects so to speak is the importance of improving the
presence of developing countries. I'm happy to see around this table
-- we have a fairly balanced crowd. There's a fairly diverse -- nobody
can accuse us of being just sort of North American or European. We
have strong contingent from Africa. Japan is present, Asia Pacific.
So, you know this is really something which is important to us as
ISOC.

So if we can work as ISOC to improve diversity, within ICANN, let's do
it. You know, and I think we, as ISOC, we are committed to do that. It
is extremely important to give ownership of the Internet to people in
developing countries, and when I say people, I mean people. Not just
governments, but all stakeholders. The important thing is to have
people, there chapters who can then also talk to their governments and
say that they are comfortable with the arrangements in place and it is
also believed that the current Internet Governance arrangements are
best united to the Internet -- to its technical architecture, which
is, as we know, bottom up distributed and bottom up collaborated and
distributed governance arrangements. That's basically what was
suggested. Let's see how best to bring that into the government
debate.

The key is we have to increase participation of developing countries
in all of these governance arrangements and you are our best allies in
helping us to do so. And if you can, you know -- obviously there's
always room for improvement on how we can increase our effectiveness
and efficiency and this is something we can discuss at our chapters
meeting.

I don't know -- we have, I think five minutes left, but I don't think
-- basically we have gone through our agenda. And as I said, I think
it was a good meeting. It was an interesting meeting. And, yes, I'm
asking for last comments and Sebastian has one. Please, Sebastian.

>> Sebastian: Yeah, I wanted to raise one meeting this week with --
where I'm more involved, but I think it could be interesting to have
input from the participants here. It's the public participation
committee of the board who get public session and it's the only board
committee who get public session with input from the public. Of
course, it's public participation that's quite dominant but my idea is
that there could be other board committees who could have public
sessions.

And the two items will be the question around the public comment
period process, because we -- we get a lot of -- we try something and
we get a lot of inputs and we would like to have a face-to-face
discussion. And the second was important, also, it's -- it's services
around language translation, interpretation, and so on and so forth.

And one of the reasons I really would like to have also a joint input
of this meeting, as a chapter you participate in online discussion,
you participate through using WebEx tools to different -- what they
are doing for all the meetings around the world. I think we could
learn from both organizations how to do better with all of those
tools.

And the meeting is on (Thursday) the 28th, from 9 to 10:30. Thank you.
It was an announcement and a marketing from the chair of the PPC.
Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Sebastian. When it comes to commercials,
many others may are commercials. Tomorrow afternoon, I think it is
1:30, there's a workshop on the broader Internet governance landscape
which responds directly to one of the issues raised by Sevas. It's
basically raising awareness of what the various discussions happening
from corporations to wiki.

There will be a conversation on Thursday on wiki. Thursday morning. I
don't have the exact times in my head. I have been approached on that.
So it's always important to be informed about the broader issues.
ICANN is an important organization and an important big piece in the
puzzle of Internet Governance, but there are broader issues around. We
have to do the work conference on telecommunication known as wiki ed,
there's the Internet Governance, and there's the world telecom forum
next year and more. It's always good to have these broader issues in
mind and not look at ICANN in isolation. ICANN is a crucial element in
this, and we -- it's absolutely vital that ICANN functions and
functions well because if ICANN does not function well, then there are
those in the background who would like to shift the responsibility
over this space into other governance structures. So this is
important. Are there any other commercials for meetings?

>> This is not actually a commercial. It's relevant to what you said
just now. We were talking about the good intentions to involve
developing countries more and more and you even said you want to give
ownership to developing countries but it's perceived in a totally
different way from what I have seen. I had a conversation with someone
from government. Let me say that I met them on a plane. I don't want
to get into specifics. And my understanding was that I brought up the
topic of India's proposals to you and one thing was cheer was that
India does not -- or at least, the educated people do not believe that
ITU is an alternative. But at the same time, I could notice some
concerns. One was that -- one was a question that I will probably have
to take input from you to give a clear answer and one concern was what
can we do if there's a cyber attack by some of the country on India?
Would do we go to? Do we go to ICANN? And while that point was
mentioned, I could also notice that they were unhappy about ICANN, the
way ICANN works.

What he want to ask you is what is it that ISOC chapters could do to
instill confidence in other governments that the Internet community,
that the multistakeholder community is fair, is supportive, and it is
the way to go? What can we do? And what kind of answer do I give to
some specific concerns? There are some concerns, which rather than
being expressed as concerns, surface in a negative way as proposed. So
I made it cheer instead of proposals we could seek answers and I'm now
seeking answers from you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. It's a big question and it's a thoughtful
question. You know, we do recognize there are legitimate concerns on
all of these issues and we may not have a fully fledged answer to
them, so these concerns and it clearly merits, you know, another
discussion and I think it's well on the agenda of the Tuesday meeting.

As I said, there aren't easy discussion -- easy answers to difficult
questions. I don't know whether you have read there was an article in
the "Economist" a couple of weeks back on the gTLD expansion, and they
were not at all enthusiastic. And the "Economist" has very much led
the private sector led management of Internet resources and they were
quite derogatory of ICANN handling the process. You know, an
organization that cannot even do this or that, but then their
conclusion was the alternative would be much worse.

I think we do strongly believe in the ICANN model. We do accept there
may be criticism on the details. No human endeavor is ever perfect,
but the Al tentatives definitely will be much worse and ICANN is a
very young organization when you look in terms of human history. We
were set up in 1998. And that's very young. And the achievements have
been tremendous! You know, the gTLD, I just discussed it with
colleagues who pushed around by the business people, and their voice
was heard by the board. They did not listen just to governments. The
final decision was finally calibrated and not all the proposals put
forward by governments were taken on board, but the board actually
listened to the ALAK proposals' moved a little bit more towards their
side. And in terms of a government's model, I think is quite
extraordinary. So, you know, let's look at the positive sides, and the
achievements and -- well, and the bottom line is the Internet works.
(Chuckles). And would you have the Internet had it been done in
another way. I think we have to -- and Olga. Olivia as well.

>> Thank you, Markus. Just briefly, I would like to thank ISOC for
their good work done by Sally wentworth in providing those ISOC
chapters who are trying to influence the national preparation process
for the ITU meeting in Dubai, WCIT. They are very good tools. She was
able to translate and synthesize those awful ITU documents into
something understandable, which we can use. And by the same token, I
would suggest that perhaps at this chapters meeting, we could talk
about the role -- I mean, the possibilities of national chapters to
actually to force their way into the national preparation for the --
for the -- for the ITU meeting. Thank yo

>>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you that's on the agenda. And it's not just
Sally. It's also Kelly Mulberry.

>> Thank you from the ISOC chapters in Pakistan. I'm going to sort of
step into a totally different area. I'm out of the ITF, so I have no
time to think about these things. Something you mentioned, a
relatively young organization, but seeing very strong accomplishments
and presently in 2012, massive innovation over the name space. Amazing
issues that we have witnessed in the past, you know, one and a half
years that were democracy changing situations, in terms of impacting
that. Within that context, okay, we will have this gap continuously
about ICANN's understanding and how to understand ICANN. There is
something much broader than that as well which is, for example, if I
would state I come from Pakistan, you would see in the global politics
how the states get together and how they have human rights issues and
we have seen human rights issues and expand. That's how the Internet
issues are now awe part of the world.

The situation is different in our part of the world. That is why
sometimes a different strategy has to be adopted. In Pakistan, we saw
the activities within it. There were no clear statements. Pakistan
stations (indiscernible) so if you look at the landscape of politics
and what's happening. The issues that we have discussed with science
and technology and the Internet. And that's where there's new faith
that the Internet Society should also add -- it may be a bit
diplomatic, but then ISOC should also start visiting countries, have
delegations, meet with the top brass, have a discussion with them. The
Google CEO, he had an interesting agenda.

He was talking about freedom of expression and the freedom of
expression in Pakistan on the Internet. Number two, the Prime Minister
-- the then Prime Minister who has just retired, proposed to have a
surveillance system at the border as the Internet. Part of using the
Google satellite network to actually permit surveillance which is
against the freedom movement. It's a human rights issue. The third
issue, censorship. Censorship. There's no custodian and or guardian of
the word censorship or against censorship. Nobody has become a
custodian to help protect us, especially within the Internet community
and that's a challenge which is continuing to be imposed upon us,
whether it's in the context of maybe protecting states from religion
conducts. Many of these are democracy controls. They will at certain
points in time due to situations in their countries institute it.

That's a challenge that I see and an important area. The capacity in
these regions, often Africa down to Asian Pacific, Muslim countries,
it's huge! And no one realizes it, but they follow by example.

On Facebook, that's a good example. So this, whether we do it
together, whether we start forming this activity whereby we deal with
it, we have to go to the grass roots in terms of international
diplomatic grass roots and we have to start talking. Corporations in
the US are coming down to Pakistan and talking about what do you want
us to say in terms of ITRs. There's a capacity gap even in the US on
these companies. Now they are coming directly to us, what is it that
they want. There's a clear gap between the governments and the stance
to be taken. This is just like the IPV6 business case. As an
individual, what does IP6 do for me. As a spall company, what does it
do as a nonprofit corporation, what does it do? We don't have those.
Same case is happening over here. Do you know that behind Pakistan,
all -- all of the organizations of companies, Pakistan can influence
all of those. No one has come to the discussion with them. Maybe we
should have more meetings. We should pick up this issue about
censorship and talk about it in terms of our global strategy. Again,
there's some people would have done this.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think you opened up a whole new dimension. How
many more minutes do we have? I think we really ought to come to
arkoses.

>> I think three minutes.

>> Three minutes. Olivier. You wanted to come?

>> Olivier from the English chapter. I don't know how to follow up
with the trivial matter I want to announce after these deep words from
my friend Fayad. That's something I will have to think of and we will
all have to think of. A cheap commercial break, actually, for
tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon at 1600, we are celebrating the ten years
of ALAC, at at large advisory committee, which was formalized at the
end of 2002. I invite all of you and I note that several of you are
part of ISOC chapters and at large chapters and bringing then user
point of view into ICANN processes and through the formalized ALAC,
the regional at large organizations, we have been going from strengths
to strengths.

So this whole celebration will come back to some of the hard times
that the at large community ALAC has had to go through, but also some
of the successes. I would like to invite you, Marcus, Walda Kevin and
I don't know anyone else from ISOC is there to the place. Grand
Ballroom 1600 to about 1900, but we will probably all drop dead before
the end because it's a long one. Thank you very much.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. I received an invitation. Olga.

>> Olga: Congratulations to the ALAC. Yes, I have been trying and I
want your help to -- I have been trying to contact the people would
have been organizing the training in Spanish. I want to offer the help
of our chapters because we have been totally ignored and we want to
moderate, to help without compensation. I mean, on a pro Bono basis.
And I cannot recall how can I reach to the people to tell me how is
that organized. I did send several emails, believe me, because
training in Spanish is sparse, especially online. I think we have a
lot of specialized people to help. Thank you very much for this
meeting. I think it was very good.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Olga. I take it there's no further ask
for the floor. With this, I would like to thank you all for
participating. I really, once again, I think it was a very interesting
very good meeting. And with that, I would like to conclude the meeting
and invite you to join with the rest of the buffet and the desserts.
We will continue the discussion. Thank you.

>> Walda: And thank you for those online, and Joly, if you are not
watching the game now, you are free to do so. (End of meeting 2:17
p.m. Central Time)