Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

FINISHED COPY

NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
ISTANBUL, TURKEY
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"

03 SEPTEMBER 2014
14:30
WS 191


ICANN GLOBALIZATION IN AN EVOLVING
INTERNET GOVERNANCE ECOSYSTEM



***
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings.  Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***

    >> MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats. I welcome everybody to Session No. 191. You see that we had more than 200 proposals.

(Internet disconnect)

    >> FIONA ALEXANDER:  So I'd be very curious later on to understand what the differences are. From my perspective, it has always been around the same set of issue. I've always been global, international. When ICANN was created, the question was, do you need to become more global, more international. From the beginning of ICANN until now, we've seen progress and a lot of room for continued progress. Not just the recent opening of engagement centers. You see translation into 6 or 7 languages. I would imagine that ICANN's translation budget is similar to the UN. In large part, due to one of the recommendations from the review teams, ATRT1. From my own personal experiences, I've seen the number in the GAK run from representatives from 100 economies or countries showing up. So that is enhanced globalization. Probably still more needs to happen. I think that is what we're here to talk about, and a few other people.
    In the context of the Yan accountability. I would pause it in the context of globalization. It is important, we're talking about it, as ICANN becomes to be global or international, people from all around the world are involved indecision making. I would see the accountability and transition be examples is that. Maybe I'll leave it that.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Fiona.  He will make his commencement when he is finished -- when we are finished. Feel encouraged if you want to raise your voice. You have watched ICANN, always, you know, from the balcony, that means, always from a civil organization. You have never been inside ICANN inside one of the committees, but you are very, very sensitive observer. Though how do you see it from the outside, from the balcony?
    >> AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you. Yes. So the Center for Democracy and Technology has been on the outside but we are closely watching and interested in what ICANN is doing. In part, I echo what Adiel said, it is about opening offices, but it is about truly engaging. It is about truly engaging with the multi-stakeholder community. We've seen call for that in the announcement from NTIA. So at the end of the day, putting offices in different parts of the world doesn't mean globalization, it means reaching out to people in those countries, bringing increased multi-stakeholder participation into ICANN as it moves forward.
    When you think about the two processes that are under way, one that has to do with accountability, one with the IANA matters. They are multidimensional, we have the two processes now, both of them have an international dimension to them. Both of them require much more global engagement. One of the challenges civil society has is that these are complex issues. Sometimes there's a resource issue. Sometimes there's a complexity issue. There are communities within ICANN that have significant civil society component to them, but there's a whole world out there, as well.
Those communities and those stakeholders need to be involved as well. So there's a call, really, to open up the IANA transition a little bit more. Make it more obvious how global stakeholders who are not part of the ICANN community can contribute and be part of the accountability process.
    It is not surprising that ICANN is under scrutiny at the moment. This is the representative multi-stakeholder body globally. Well, we have the IGF, as well, of course. But the one that is going through the period of transition like none other is ICANN. We shouldn't be surprised of scrutiny and we should be reaching out to them and be trying to bring them on board.

(audio disconnect).

    >> Not everyone is fluent in English. So languages have done an enormous amount of work to sustain communities in their local language. In the moment, Spanish, French, we have had Russian that has been offered on our conference calls. But also, Chinese will be offered very soon. That obviously helps -- obviously English is the one we work in.
    On top of that, the globalization is needed to go out there and to reach out of the people and speak to them in their own terms. One of the problems of ICANN is we have our own lingo. I understand what Matthew is asking about, for example, the problem is that the level of discussion sometimes puts people off very quickly. The acronyms, but also some of the historical implications of what's been happening before, what's been tried before, what might have not worked well. ICANN will only be able to bring people into the debate and into the decision by having easy-to-understand documentation that will really bring people up to speed on that.
    We've seen a lot of improvement as far as the ICANN staff structure is concerned. Again, here, through the putting together of local strategies and strategies for engagement, stakeholder engagement and so on, we've seen a lot of very good improvements in different regions and that's really welcome within our community because often when you have local meetings, local IGFs, a few years ago, there wouldn't be anybody who was interested in ICANN in those meetings or knew anything about ICANN. Now we can see people from the staff structure, but also people from the community, are being sponsored to go to these meetings, and to interact with local communities and perhaps even bring more people into the discussion.
    And finally, with regards to when you look at the overall picture and the end game of where globalization should go, there is a strong component of our community that believes that true globalization of ICANN would be possible through the globalization. This is not something that we need to work on right now, something in the long term.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. You raise a very delicate issue which refers to the business. Business is also a wide range of groups starting with small and medium enterprises. AT&T is certainly a global player. That means, what is the understanding of the business? Big and small? From globalization of ICANN.
    >> CLAUDIA CONTRERAS: Yeah, I think that first of all, I can echo what others have said in the sense that it was simply a dialogue. And also, users were mainly North Americans based in the US, and you had full access point to the exchange traffic. If you look at the internet now, it has evolved and globalized.
At the end of 2014, we will have nearly 3 billion internet users. And so you know also we will have 2.3 billion connected devices. So we can see how the nature of the internet has changed. So also we are going towards a model which is more and more globalized including everybody from different sides of the world. I think the positive side that ICANN is showing, for example, opening up more and more offices in different locations to engage with local people. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it helps towards the local community who can be involved more and more into the debate.
    Certainly having translation in different languages, as we could say before, not everyone is fluent in English. In the framework of the processes that are taking place now, I mean, in the -- as far as accountability is concerned, I would say that we stand for a strong accountability. I think it is key. We need to solve that issue, and we need to respond to precise questions, and for example, to whom will ICANN be accountable and how will we set and place that model? There is not yet an announcer yet, but we need to make sure we have a strong mechanism in place. Also we have IANA transition. We have to keep the security and stability of the internet because this is key. The security of the domain name zone is really key to the security of the internet and to ensure that the economy will continue to grow.
    And so this is -- I don't -- I don't want to take too much time with these comments, but this is my main views.  
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Claudia. The former Director General, UNESCO has global challenges. That means you have experienced to think about. You have to think about what globalization of what ICANN could mean, linking this process of globalization to the actual processes of the accountability issue and the transition issue of ICANN. So that means you just entered at the right moment, the discussion space because we have finished the discussion of the panelists. If you can give your introductory statement. Please be prepared for questions. We do not have a microphone here in the middle, but my understanding is that there is a microphone elsewhere that we can just raise your voice and the microphone will come to your place. Janis, please take the floor.
    >> JANIS: KARKLINS:  It is not easy to just jump in. I think about the discussion of globalization of ICANN is not new. I remember talking about it ten years ago. What is new that ICANN was different and what was not possible at that time -- what was not even imaginable at that time today is reality.
    Of course today we know the substance of sort of complaints by some who consider that the incorporation of ICANN in California is still an issue, and maybe at one point, we will address that issue when it is feasible. But in principle, what I observe in the past ten years, there be associated with that initial debate, also as President of Strategy Committee, I see that ICANN, as an organization, is gradually changing its corporate culture, and is also becoming much more diverse in its staff, staff comes are different countries and I think that this diversity also impacts very much the better understanding of sensitivities dealing with the different parts of the world and dealing with the different countries.
    That's point number 1. Point number 2, the accountability, which is associated with all discussion of internationalization and globalization of ICANN is a little bit of an up-hill battle since it is not easy to quantify, what does it mean to be accountable? Every time we are saying, when we reach an understanding of accountability, then comes somebody who says, "No. I think it should go further."
    Therefore, the discussion about accountability and evolution of ICANN, as such, will be kind of a permanent process which will take years and every time we will push this process further.
So this would be maybe two observations, and I'm happy to engage in the discussion as it evolves. Thank you.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you Janis.  And final recommendation from the podium. Tarek. Please raise your hand. Go ahead.
    >> TAREK KAMEL: Good afternoon everybody. Thank you Wolfgang and we thank the panelists for joining us. I want to add a dimension. Let's get back to the main mission. It is the identification of the technical identifiers of the internet which are mainly three things. The prototypical, the IP addresses and the domain names. In the IP addresses, we were quite successful with the regions. Look at Africa. With the hand holding of (indiscernible) and we have a wide outreach with the countries in the region. It took us some more in some regions than in other regions.
    We had also penetration in Asia, so we are not worried about the globalization when it comes to the globalization with the IP addresses. We still have deployment of IP addresses. The local parameters, we take it from the IETF. I will not go into how globalized the IETF is because there are some main issues around that. The main problem with that, in my opinion, 80 to 90% of ICANN is coming from the gTLD primarily, as much. This is not globalized. It is a problem. This is a problem for all of us. The number of applicants that came from the developing countries. So this was an eye opener despite the support package that was there on the ONS program that has happened.
    Is there no need? Maybe we need to ask ourselves. Maybe it needs hand holding. Maybe it needs incubation from the bigger players. Maybe it needs more awareness. There is definitely a question we need to ask ourselves about. But the main work ICANN is doing is managing the words in these areas. We have very little African representatives as well as from the Middle East as well as from Latin America, and to some extent Asia. They do not reflect the number well and they do not reflect the number of users we have. That means there is a problem in this area.
    This is our main business. When you ask people, "Why don't you come?" "What is it for me? I registered and pay my $5 or $10." We need to establish industries in those developing countries so the stakeholders -- they see interest -- they want to be part of the process as such. And they want to be part of what's going on.
    And really, to make the law and the registration simpler, and the people become part of the process. In the year 2000, I hosted the ICANN meeting in Cairo. I think also in '06 and also in '08. Maybe 10 or 15 people attended the ICANN meeting. Mainly the opening session. After the opening session, no one was there. It was on the election day of Obama.
This competed with other countries in the world. We go, we close after the opening on ourselves. We have topics that are too complicated for some people. There are a lot of acronyms. So they walk away. Maybe the only exception was China in Bejing last year. But this happened to us. When we went to Buenos Aires last year. I was not there.
    In my opinion, the solution is: Let's work on establishing the industry. This is the main income of ICANN. This is what made ICANN famous as well worldwide. This is what politicized also some work of ICANN on a global level. Therefore, we have to include more players by having more companies helping them there to establish their industries. Not only to register in the US, and Europe, because it's easier. That is where I see the main problem. It is not about opening offices. It helps. But it is by far, more than that.
    This is a community responsibility including the businesses that benefited from the stakeholder model. So help us protect the Monte stakeholder.
    >> MODERATOR: We have a gap and imbalance. It will help to introduce the criteria for globalization. Globalization is a process and it can be quantified. You can count the number of offices and stuff, but we have to add qualitative as a measurement of globalization. I think this is an interesting criteria.
    I have already, you know, two gentleman. You had a first, you had a second. Please raise your hands so that I can create a queue.
    >>: AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indiscernible) Wolfgang, you said you would get to the definition of globalization and internationalization, can you explain the difference between globalization and internationalization?
    When somebody in Government or someone with an acute understanding of words and their meanings as a diplomat uses the word "internationalization" or "globalization" what are the subtle implications? Can you explain that?
    >> MODERATOR: Just to give a very brief reply because I use this terminology as an academic. Basically, if it comes to substance, there is no fundamental difference whether you use internationalization or globalization. But some people introduce a certain meaning into two words and say -- the internationalization, closer to international law and to the intergovernmental system and this internationalization is probably closing -- in the Governmental system -- will take care, while globalization is seen by some people more as space, you know, which has no traditional national border, does not refer to the direction state and to international corporation state. But this is really playing with words. If it comes to substance, there's no difference and as Fiona has remembered, the original text in the statement before ICANN was established is "internationalization." Now we're talking about globalization. This is common language now.
    I would want to make a story out of the conflict between internationalization and globalization. There is no conflict. Though the meaning is very clear. We have to involve the whole thing. The critical internet resources are global resources which has to make available to people around the club any time everywhere and I think this is the challenge, and we should not create fault by making words with no meaning. This is my reply as an academic.
    Before we go back to the panel, I would collect some more questions from the floor. The floor is yours.
    >>: AUDIENCE MEMBER ASHVID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ashvid from Indonesia. I think I would like to refer to some of us who went to the meeting before. Whatever you would like to -- to use the terms. One important thing is you have companies -- organizations -- a globalization. Citibank is everywhere in the world. It is an American company. Adidas is made in Indonesia or wherever it is but it is an American company. Because it is an American company, they have at least a head quarters. They have to follow the American law. Most important, they have to follow the US Patriot Act. That is for sure.
    So we would like to see what kind of globalization -- internationalization of particular institutions which is not a UN organization, private organizations which can be called a global or international organization that doesn't follow -- doesn't have to follow any in any particular country. It is not an area on Turkey at the moment. It is a UN. Turkey Law, I can say something about Turkey law, all of us are protected from the Turkish law. It is an agreement between Turkish Government. It is under UN law.
    So we would also like to see from the panel and other friends an example of other organizations that can be exempted from the national law. Thank you.
    >> MODERATOR: Does anybody from the panel want to react? I think as a diplomat, you have dealt with treaties which gives some exemption from national law. Would you be proposed from a legal status that would help with ICANN that would help escape from that?
>> I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers can say, "Excuse me. I did not know what I was talking about." I did refer to the report which was written by former UN legal council Hans Korel who was asked to examine possible avenues for different legal status. There are at least four or five examples of what that could be, but the reality is that ICANN has also commercial liability. And the international status provides protection, an exemption of law and it is not compatible in a sense with the commercial liability of ICANN. That is a complication.
    Maybe simplifying speaking, but that is a complication. How to sort of combine two things. Exemption from the legislation of a country where a company or organization is based, and the activities which are commercial and become tested by others as a litigation of commercial interactions.
    >> I think you have to understand that ICANN has over 2000 bilateral contracts with companies. It means -- in the Governmental organization, it has a Constitution and has one contract with the host country. I can't have these 2000 bilateral contracts and have exemptions. It makes for an interesting conversation.
    >> FIONA ALEXANDER: We've looked at this many times over the years. This is not the first time this question has come up. In the research we've done, which probably isn't fully exhaustive. We haven't found a fully comparable system in dealing with the full nature of ICANN. We talk about ICANN, and ICANN policy making, but the reality is, there is a large part of ICANN that's the execution and enforcement of contracts. And there's got to be a local law or a local jurisdiction that applies to those contracts should there be contractual disputes. These are commercial challenges in finding the right solution.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. It is a delicate issue and it needs more discussion. As Janis has said, Mr. Korel  has created this great study. If you create this with IOC, and the Red Cross, we have to invent specific solutions for ICANN which meets the specific challenges of ICANN.
    You cannot take a blueprint and say, "We are like this now." You have to be creative on terms and this will take time.
    >> STEVE DELBIANCO: Steve DelBianco with NetChoice. What is the importance of the globalization of national activity? All it does is help for the registration and domain names. Mainly what we want to do is make sure we globalize the availability of registration. And to that end, the affirmation of commitments did create a new review we're going to conduct next year and assess whether we've promoted consumer promotion and consumer trust. Olivia worked me on the group that framed this. We had 70 metrics for this. Tarek asked about this. I will read you three metrics we came up with. Not of governance, but of us.
    We want to measure the new quantities of TLDs that use Latin script. TLDs that use English language. Registrars who offer top domain registrants. Finally we did say there ought to be a measure of the quantity of new TLDs where they are offering registrants different legal regimes with how their privacy might be protected when they register. This is registration, not governance. I invite you to discuss the globalization domain name system, not just how it's managed.
    >> MODERATOR: Let's take two or more questions, and I will invite -- let's take two or more questions and then I will go back to the panelist. Sorry, if you want to ask another question. Please be more active, you know. This is unique opportunity to enter into dialogue. So we are not interested in one-way communication.
    >> Yeah. The decisions between ICANN and any other organization that has a contract with any other country where ICANN has a contract with 2000 countries. Complete globalization is difficult. So my thought on top of my mind is that it may not be possible to come to the status of a contract with a single Government overnight, but it is possible to do it over a period of ten years. For example, one of the 2000 contracts is a contract for dot org. It is a time-bound contract. Say it expires in 5 years or 7 years and don't renew it. Tell them it has to be re-negotiated in a new framework and do it in such a way that it doesn't harm the commercial interests of internet industry.
That is one solution. The other solution is, again, I have not thought through this, it just occurs to me, separate ICANN's commercial activities and keep commercial activities as a division of ICANN. As a parent body, it is a non-profit global treaty-like organization, what is the -- which is more appropriate? I don't know the pros and cons. What comes to me, the commercial aspects of ICANN can remain separated and can remain in California and the whole of ICANN can be global.
    >> MODERATOR: One idea in the committee Janis was referring to was to create an ICANN International. This has side effects which are complicated. I think one basic complication is that it has to be secure and stable. That means whatever you do, nothing should be allowed that would undermine the security and stability.
    If you look for alternative solutions and we should look for additional new creative solutions, you have to have a checklist, what are the basic conditions under which you go to another regime? You have a comment on this?
    >> I think this is a really interesting discussion about the jurisdiction issue. But maybe one step at the time. We still have an awful lot of work to do on ICANN accountability. We still have an awful lot of work with the transition that needs to be in place hopefully by September 2015. The opportunity for accountability, it lies before us. That is all stakeholders, including governments. It is a good discussion, but we've got some things light in front of us that we need to address. Thanks.
    >> I will agree with what he said. We need to continue to explore this because it is an important element and it has to be taken into consideration in the accountability discussion. I will comment on the domain name internationalization. There is an aspect of the usage of domain name internationally, including IDN, and all. But there's also the globalization of the business itself.
    Domain name and specifically generic domain name is run and drive by business. We cannot force that to be true. So how can we push this in other area? How can we be driving investment in those countries or areas. How can we raise awareness of the economical model of business? That is the reality. We can not decrease business by saying it will happen. It is driven by economical factors. Anything else will be just speak. So that is what I want to say because it is a fact. It is driven by business.
    How do we make sure that in country, or in area, where this is not well established, we can help business in those countries to catch up.
    >> MODERATOR: Let me ask a direct question. In the new TTOD area, we had small number of applications from Africa. The fact that I can offer a program for help, what is your experience -- how you can stimulate global need for this kind of business? Do we have any idea? Because it has to come from the bottom. You cannot bring it top down. This is what we have learned. What is your idea? For all you potential entrepreneurs in the room, maybe they can discover a new business model. What would be a recommendation? How to stimulate global needs?
    >> Well, I don't have a magic solution for that, of course. But again, that goes down to the economic ecosystem of the country. Having a program by ICANN saying if you are from this country, go through this program is one thing. Being able to sustain that is another thing. How do investors in those countries see themselves and the dynamic of their country. How that will work. That is why people refrain. They don't understand the model properly. We have to go beyond that. We have to make sure that the industry that exists today has more partnership locally so that there is an exchange of knowledge on how to run those business and what is the need to run those business so people can feel comfortable running that. Take a simple example. Things work best with online payment. If you look at online payment in African country, it is close to 0.
    So how do you run a business where the model is based with online payment where you are in an area where online payment is not welded up and your critical mass is based on that. So you have to come up with new idea, new way of doing that. That does not mean it is not done that way anywhere else.
    So there is a -- some -- I will say, uncomfortableness for business people to rush into the area. It is a process that will go and ICANN should try to find how to partner with an organization that can, fact, facilitate the risk-taking investment.
    >> You want to make a comment and then we will go did back to the audience.
    >> Just quickly. One needs to understand that maybe the globalization of registrar would be the right way to think because in many countries CLTCs are predominantly use. You cannot buy in national country, or being outside the actual country, you cannot get to that domain name unless you contact the registrar in that country.
    I would argue that CCTLDs are the only real solution because they make their business reach within their country. Only those companies that reach internationally, they look for TLDs. Particularly there was a business in Latvia, they applied for EU. Others tried only to do business with their local domain name. Therefore, the registrar business globalization would probably be the thing to think about.
    >> MODERATOR: Olivier wanted to make a point.
    >> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLAND:  The process was announced, went forward, and we believed in the at-large community that some parts of it has been overlooked. No one has ever said that the program was a total success and everything because we're still waiting for the feedback and for the metrics, but certainly on the applicant support program, we had very few applicants. The program was put together by the community. It was too restricted, worried that it might be gamed by outside organizations, putting it out there as a shell for application fees.
    I think it is expected that during the next round, this will be hopefully something that goes deeper than applicants fees being subsidized and I totally agree with the amount of work that needs to double up the effort in those industries.
    >>: AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. So there have been a lot of discussions now about the globalization of ICANN also in the context of the IANA transition. Of course it is a complex issue because it -- the other challenge is of course to measure that. But I'd actually -- I also think it is important to look at what structures, mechanisms, and processes do need to put in place to not only make ICANN more global, but to actually then ensure that that globalization stays that way because having an ICANN that is accountable to an undefined community is problematic, of course. Because those who are in the ICANN community can manage to include in their community. There are big groups out there that are not part of the ICANN community, that don't see themselves as part of the ICANN community and who don't have the financial needs to be part of the community, but that should still have a stake in that.
I think there's also -- of course -- it is a challenge for ICANN to be accountable to a large community and the larger and the more diverse and the more global it is, the harder it is to be accountable to it.
    So I think that there's a natural tendency to want to define that community in a homogenous way. And that's where I think I'd like to hear some reflections on what processes, mechanisms and tools do you need to put in place to make sure that even if we then manage to globalize ICANN in a way that we find satisfactory, that we don't fall back into a community that steadily shrinks.
    >> MODERATOR: Do we have the proposal, how to do that?
    >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was asking the expert panelists.
    >> MODERATOR: We have one question more, and then probably we take another question and then go back to the panel. There in the back. Go ahead.
    >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: So I don't understand creating yet another organization that is international. ICANN is international. If it is not international, make it international. One more common towards the -- as a Turkish citizen, what is the -- let's look back for 15 years of ICANN plus, and see what examples -- that could be different in a better way if the jurisdiction was different. I can't think of any single example that could be -- that could make today's ICANN better if it was in another jurisdiction. Prove me wrong.
    >> MODERATOR: California law was chosen because it was the most liberal and flexible law. Californian law was seen as the best compromise. We will have to find a way that will not undermine the stability and security but will also meet with questions of concerned groups.
    >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off mic).
    >> Nobody can hear you in the back.
    >> MODERATOR: Let's stop the conversation and go to the next speaker. Can you introduce yourself?
    >> PAUL LEVINS:  Paul Levins. Former ICANN employee.  Who holds the ILAC to account? Who holds the JSO to account and why there is such a focus on ICANN accountability and why those constituency groups are equally taken into consideration.
    >> MODERATOR: I think it is time for the panel.
    >> FIONA ALEXANDER: What everybody has been trying to do is allowing you to participate. When you think about ICANN 15 years ago, there has been time to focus on the problems of today. But in terms of, you know, the regional engagement centers, an amazing remote participation. The IGF was tested and proven. How do you get people to show up? How do you motivate people to show up? When there's a motivation, an interest, there's a need, and a desire. I think to Tarek's point is, until you can get people in developing countries where they have a need to participate for commercial gain or not, we're going to be having these globalization questions.
    I don't have an issue with that. But the question, how do you build local registries or registrars, why did no one build these in the ICANN program, they are not specific to the internet system or specific to ICANN. What is the incentive factors for that? You have to look at local laws. You have to look at enabling environments. And all these traditional rule of laws, and put them into the domain name space. But the one question I would put to folks is, is this the job of ICANN. It is the technical quarter of the domain name system. A lot of scrutiny has been put on ICANN. We want to globalize resources. Is it ICANN's job to go work with registries and registrars. To speak to Paul's point about accountability, I think it is a good conversation to have when this enhanced accountability conversation is going on in the context of its role, it's going to have to be ICANN at large. It is not just the ICANN board and staff. It is no part of ICANN.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Adiel?
    >> ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Decentralize the ICANN process, how it can be replicated globally, so that when those processes are strengthened and our participated by local people, it can be reflected globally and then we have the structure locally, we can continue to nurture the ICANN process.
The second thing I want to reply on, constituency accountability. I think that is also something fundamental. When we think about ICANN accountability, the internet is global, and it is something that everybody who care about, I think ICANN constituency first, who ICANN is accountable to directly. Anyone can come in and exercise their right to hold ICANN accountable. How the constituency is responsible for themselves, that is another area we can talk about.
    We have started working on surveying all of the five areas, for instance, to know what are the accountability practices that we have in place. That will be published. That allow us to know that we are accountable to our community. How can we improve that? How the community can get -- we always say that our legitimacy comes from our community, how can we reinforce that? It is a process that each constituency must go through to make sure they, themselves, they are strong enough, they are confident enough to talk about accountability so that can be reflected globally.
    >> MODERATOR: I have a queue that is coming around.
    >> Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on what Fiona has mentioned. Right now we have a different ICANN than we had 2 years ago, and the amount of effort and investment that has been done with the stakeholder engagement team, as well as the office as well as the workshop that has happened, in the strategies and its implementation is definitely enormous. We realize it is not enough and we need to do more.
    For people to engage, there must be a self-interest for them to come. This is what we are trying to build upon. It is building a commercial motivation as Adiel has mentioned through the business, or through the at-large structure. That is the only avenues we have as such. And that is what we are trying to do with the stakeholder team and the team that we are leading within the Government engagement as well. Governments have a major role in providing the right investment environment because it's not just about business. It's just about the investment environment and entrepreneurship. But even governments need to be motivated. In order to motivate governments, it's about jobs and it's about socioeconomic development.
    I was, myself, working for the Government. These are the two motivations that motivate any employee. These studies have been incorporated, an open internet is for socioeconomic benefits for the various governments. So we're trying to promote the studies in order for the governments to help their own people to continue to help the internet be un-fragmented as well as participating in the open IGF system. I just want to mention that we are working on it. It is a long journey.
    Whether this is ICANN's job alone, no. We need partnerships. But most importantly, the businesses that have the experiences. We have already talked to some of them and simulated some of them to talk to the start-ups. We need more than that. We need to hand hold them and to work together with them. Just as registrars as Janis has said. Let's see what round 2 will bring concerning the new development in the developing countries.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
    >> In the framework of the accountability (panel member) we should reflect on {?} to whom ICANN should be accountable. What kind of oversight this should be. I think it's key now that the transition happens and we should ensure also as has been said, that no governments should intervene. It is important to maintain the centralized approach because it is key also in the type of governance we have in ensuring that the internet continue to work well and to ensure as well the security of the DNS function. All the elements I wanted to bring in is accountability principles, I wanted to, for example, stress the importance also of the transparency within ICANN.
    For example, decoration of specific performance goal which could be submitted by audit by independent account. The audit should be broadened then, traditional audit and financial record. We should assess also what is reached in meetings. We should also try to be more transparent, for example, in adding detailed -- the minutes, after the board is meeting, so everyone is aware of what is happening.
    For example, also, I was thinking about separation of function within the IANA {*}. So the separation between the policy making and the implementation. So I think that we -- you know, we need to reflect -- there is no announcer now to -- now to structure the -- for the moment which type of structure should be in place, but I think that we have a process that is undergoing. We welcome the nomination also of the expert that can bring in also the expertise and their help, but ultimately, there should be consultations put forward and stakeholder contributing to it.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'd like to come back to the earlier point. ICANN does have a heavy burden to ensure that the accountability processes are done in the most open and inclusive process. The technical community has a responsibility. Civil society has a responsibility. Governments have a responsibility. This is not some thing that can be solved by governments alone. So they need to reach out to their own stakeholders.
So let me ask you a question. Everybody received an IGF bag, correct? Who in that bag saw the card about this big from the regional internet industries about the IANA internet registry? Everybody should look at how they should contribute and participate and do so. Thank you.
    >> OLIVIER CREDPIN-LEBLOND: That is a very good plug. One of the things regarding accountability and so on is really the tracking of it. Steve eluded to it earlier. To track its success and so on. There is also a set of processes within ICANN which are there to track ICANN accountability and track their development and continuous improvement process and that is of course the continuous review process that ICANN, not just the organization, but the component communities. The GNS is just starting a new process, where an external person is going to look at it and then the community will start working to add to those recommendations. Every part of ICANN has gone through that. I would hope that metrics would be derived out of these things.
    The last ALAC Review did say that we needed to have some metrics and globalization and we have started to not only look at metrics and globalization, but on ALAC members, they are volunteers, but they are members. The committee decided that we will have metrics on those members. If you hold a seat, you are there to relay the input from your community. This is something that is not really coming across ICANN. There are metrics on staff and processes. If we can start tracking things, then we will be able to improve them.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Any other questions in the room? If this is for the moment not the case, I want to go back to the -- to an issue which was partly raised by Fiona when she said, "Okay. A lot of this when we talk about the pro-internet governance has started within ICANN." That means ICANN was certainly a source of inspiration for a lot of other processs.
Now we are confronted with new processes. So we have recommendations from the high-level panel under the President, we have -- my question to the panelists would be here: What you would recommend to processes outside of ICANN? What could we learn from ICANN? How to be as global as possible? As open and transparent as possible? Are there any -- let's say positive conclusions from the 15 years of ICANN debate which can give way to new processes? Claudia, probably we can start from the left side and to the right side and then end with Tarek and then we can close the session.
    >> CLAUDIA CONTRERAS: The multi-stakeholder that is within ICANN, we have seen that within the IGF. I think this is one of main thing that can -- let's say, unify the different discussions and issues that are taking place. So all the different stakeholders discuss different issues and trying to advance on very critical and important discussions which are -- which are global. So we have seen the outcome of the document where different issues are being discussed. The multi-stakeholder approach is key and is important. The high-level panel as well. If I'm recollecting well one of the key finding -- let say one of the key recommendation was to support the multi-stakeholder alliances. So I think that we -- one of the recommendation I would give is precisely that one.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Because our session is ICANN governization. It is a small part. We have responsibility also for the other parts. Olivier, you are part of the other large structures. What would you see as the greatest gift that ICANN can give to the ecosystem?
    >> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: I think one of the gifts that I can share and ICANN communities can share is to have a multi-stakeholder model where you have to reach a decision that will effectively effect 2 billion -- now nearly 3 billion internet users. Multi-stakeholder processes is good, but not when there is no decision made in the end. When this decision involves money, power and political implications. It is a lot harder than seeing it theoretically on paper. There are several parts of ICANN that work in this environment. Maybe in a slightly different way. They have certainly some experience to share with people that are not taking part in ICANN. The way to reach consensus. The way to go and draft documents. A number of ways which I certainly a few years ago, when I started in ICANN, had no clue about, and thought about two completely opposite views. They're never going to read consensus. Yet consensus was reached. The process by which consensus can be reached can be shared with others.
    >> I think that over the next two years through to the "summit" we have an incredibly difficult set of months ahead of us. This is why the IANA transition and ICANN accountability are so important. The biggest gift that ICANN gift can gift, is a successful transparent, accountable and fully functioning stress-tested IANA transition. No shortcuts. No pre-cooked things. Fully open. Fully transparent. That's the gift I'd like to see.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Fiona?
    >> FIONA ALEXANDER: I think every approach is different. I think the articulation can be different. Here at the IGF, it is the dialogue and consultation, but at the end of the day, it is not what is going to be put into contracts. So every system, I think is slightly different in how they've approached it. But I think that one of the things that ICANN has epitomized, and I think Peter may have said this, the ability and willingness to evolve and learn. There's been so much change in ICANN over the last 15 years, remote participation, putting things out for comment. I think ICANN has been the industry standard with Adobe chat rooms, and the Mag that was public.
    I was surprised that we were not using everything. We have yet to address that component to it. I think the standard in terms of allowing people to participate has been raised tremendously when I go through the first set of meetings to now, I think that is something that folks should not take for granted and again, a lot of this gets back to being open. As issues come up to evolve and change things. For this, I think ICANN and the ICANN community can get loud and boisterous. That is the mark of the multi-stakeholder. It can be challenging for some people, but I think it is a part of what the system is about.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Adiel.
    >> ADIEL AKPLOGAN:  I will say that the ICANN echo system is where the multi-stakeholder has been tested, has been implemented based on whatever else. So we have one responsibility to, in fact, highlight that. Highlight the fact that we have ten years of experience on multi-stakeholderism. It may not have been perfect. But we have some experience that we have to be confident about and let the world know. We are at a junction right now where we are moving for two world, one cyber, one world. Everything will be cyber, and multi-stakeholderism will be the base for that global governance. It is not only the governance itself which will be based on multi-stakeholderism. That is exposing us from those who apply to multi-stakeholderism. How do we stand by our multi-stakeholderism experience to show the world that it works?
    I think we have the transition as one example to show the world that we can do it and it works.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you. Janis?
    >> JANIS KARKLINS: I remember the day when they opened the door for others to listen to the meetings. After the first session, someone in the corridor said, "If that is what they do, it is better that they do it behind closed doors." There is no mystery behind the closed doors. But more seriously, I will put my Governmental hat on now and we will talk about the GAK {*} and the relationship between the ICANN and the US Government which used to be very strict with a 6-month reporting period and a target and then it became loose and now it is just a Gentleman's Agreement. But it is still a Gentleman's Agreement between ICANN and the US Government.
    If you read reports on the committee, which suggests that maybe we should think in the direction of documenting relationship only between ICANN and the US Government, but between ICANN and other governments as well. Making a collective commitment of agreements where everybody who would be interested would sign up for it and exercise the influence over ICANN through the Government advisory committee. That is something I feel very strong about, and we have example in our community where these agreements exist. And they gradually are growing.
    So I think that also is one then that ICANN could consider in the future in strengthening accountability to the Government of all countries in the world. Thank you.
    >> MODERATOR: Thank you Janis.  Tarek?
    >> TAREK KAMEL:  Thank you. I will go back to 2005 as Fiona has mentioned. We were celebrating at that time when Janis was the chair of the committee when we got recognition as a multi-stakeholder community for the first time.
    In the last ten years we have proven a success for the multi-stakeholder and the ecosystem as well. This has given us and the multi-stakeholder community great legitimacy. The big challenge that we have is that we need to globalize this process. This is homework number 2 for the next five years and we need to do it and we need to do it right because the world is really watching us.
    So we gain legitimacy through excellence. Nobody is saying that servers are not working. This phase is over. This might have been in the past. But now they say they are speaking about the globalization and we need to tackle it from the right forum with the right political touch and taking into conversation the benefits of the different stakeholders, including the governments has mentioned. this is the homework that we have. As I said, we need to be up to our possibility. We need to fill the gap, otherwise someone else will fill it, fill this vacuum as such, and if we succeed, then maybe for the governance of shared resources globally and other disciplines, we are putting the right model.
    >> MODERATOR: If I tried to summarize the session, 1 would be that we have discussed that the globalization of ICANN is more than just to open more offices, but it means in particular the globalization of the markets, particularly the domain name market. We have learned that the accountability issue is more than the accountability of the board. It is also the accountability of all the constituencies.
    And we have learned that ICANN, with its 15 years of experience, can give to the broader internet governance debate a lot of interesting inspirations, transparency, openness, Adobe Connect, and a lot of other things which would be great if they're used in a broader term.
    Probably then, in 2020, we have not just a globalized ICANN, but we have a globalized internet and one world. With this, I bring the meeting to an end. I thank the panel and I thank Nigel for this. I thank the moderators for remote participation. Unfortunately we didn't have questions from remote participants, but probably we will have more questions in the future. This discussion will not stop. We will continue this discussion. Next stop is the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles and we will have more opportunities next year. Enjoy your coffee break.
    >> NIGEL CASSIMIRE: Thank you. We also have another ICANN forum tomorrow afternoon. Thank you all for coming. Thank you Wolfgang. Thank you all for coming.

***
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings.  Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***