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


Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. 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.


>> BILL DRAKE: Hello, everybody.  Since there are no participants out there, around the world logging into this I suppose we should start on time rather than waiting too longer.  We're already starting a couple minutes late even though people are still filtering in.  We are missing panelists.  It will all come together as we hope.  My name is Bill Drake.  Welcome.  This is the workshop.  I approached with names and numbers.  The workshop responds here and I have listed here it's a group that is largely been supporting this series of workshops we're been doing for the past four years including Switzerland, Argentina, some IBC.  Ah, the backgrounds to this particular initiative, ah, this workshop is actually part of a larger dial up that's going on is the view that I think many people have, which I also address.  There's a chapter in the book in your bag.  We have the development.  While development and developing country interests have been mentioned in the internet form, we have not had a really systematic focused dialogue on the precise facts of the pro, con and neutral.  There have been a lot of sort of more political discussions on certain issues whether it's the course file, but we have very rarely actually tried to take down and make the connections between global internet arraignments and development impacts.  And this is, I think, had some frustration among some people.  I've had many conversations over this and various consultation leading to IGFs with people from developing countries particularly government people who said that there is more to try to take up the question in development.  I have taken that on for long ago and developed it and that is important to    because when people feel the discussion that they were expecting isn't happening, the discussion moves elsewhere.  We interview and we should be having.  So, an option for trying to make development more systematic and an integral part of the IGF process is a notion that many people have used this term.  The notion of the development agenda.  By development agenda, the whole action and they have matters into decision making across global mechanisms.  The first instance in my view is fundamentally a political enterprise.  It means monitoring trends and aggregating information and conducting analysis with such progress against some sort of a baseline.  How do we think about how the arrange mets that we have for different dimensions may or may not impact, um, development for a positive or negative perspective.  We just had another workshop in this very room that ended about 10 minutes ago on the notion of development and that on the standpoint of lessons and people look at different governments and try to look at development.  It's still building on that.  It is saying let us have a list and let us hit the foreground.  Question:  What might these government processees aim for development whether in a good or bad sense.  They identified real issues and the issues that are not really particularly related to development and then try to figure how we might approach four.  So why bother?  Why do this?  People have been asking me sometimes why are you doing this?  I have been doing it for four years and one of the reasons I think is that it's good for the IGF and for the wider community that comes together out of the IGF.  The IGF severals as a global point for this kind of global office stake holder engagement that development took its core.  I think there's a knowledge of development from the global social standpoint and justice.  And there should be integral concern of development and often that is not it indicates in some respects is a rationale as well because when we think about the internet over the next 10 years, where is the growth going to be?  We need the institutions of local internet governance for developing countries to be part of that process to make these things work.  We do not have developing countries and lastly, countries would not be discovering.  They have type of communities all engaged.  And there's a political rationale.  As I sort of allude to before, I think that if the IGF process is not responsive to developing concerns, those people with those kinds of the concerns look to other institutions to try to support their interests and that may not lead to the best outcome in terms of actually pursuing processees that promote internet problems.  So, the internet government agenda discussion has evolved over the past four years of organised workshops.  The workshops were looking at this sort of teasing out the general consumption of what might develop with the agenda and how could it mean with the environment at that time.  We have the question of how whether or not development agenda has a logical construct and whether it should be pursued.  Try to think about it through the perspective of a particular key case.  That is the relevance of these numbers.  This also runs parallel with things rung elsewhere.  They will have some development consideration of the IT cam and raising these kinds of concerns.  There was more focused discussion than I had seen previously in development.  I think there's a lot of contention of people who want to think of how to bring developing considerations into that space fully.  I can't stop.  The only institution of names and numbers includes the registrates.  So there's a range involved inevitably within this space.  Ah, to me the notion of development basically has flee broad lines and I think we can think of these relationships the name and numbers fix.  One is capacity building which is obviously a necessary, but not sufficient condition of commerce.  [INAUDIBLE] building is not something you sort of simply involve and all political differences go away and they're singing cam by yaw while on the same page.  They no longer have any problems, although people talk about it in that manner.  It is important.  There's a real question about whether we can do more or aggregate and organise and make available to people information about the kinds of capacity building programs and initiatives that exist in order to make them more accessible and useful to people.  I think that this is particularly relevant with these names and numbers.  The second process concerns potentially problematic or potentially helpful depending on your view point is institutional procedural aspects of the things involved and governance and numbers.  The rule we are talking about decision make rules, rules of participation, things we have created and so on.  Anybody who's painted in many of the institutions that are sort of made of the internet environment they have a particular kind of look and feel of organisational culture is quite different from what people might be used to in the governmental suit.  The organisational culture of ICANN, for example, is one where people are fairly comfortable with challenging each other to justify their arguments to persuade each other on the merits and so on in a fairly open and kind of confrontational way.  People come from a more diplomatic background.  It is a different interaction.  They may find that type of interaction in the Native governance environment is a little bit uncomfortable, not congenial to the participation.  There are problems of outreach and they help cultivate supporters that the people within developing countries that need to become engaged in the governance process ease.  They have been reached and they develop a presence.  They have a location of meetings that problems are getting to them.  The government processees and the fact that anybody who has painted not just in ICANN, but IGF will know that these are very involved, complex conversations that are evolving over significant time and online activity.  It can be very difficult for newcomers, newbies and in particularly I think for people with developing countries who may not have the same background language and cultural orientation, et cetera, to just drop into the process to figure out what's going on and get comfortable and participate effectively.  They have participation and language issues.  There are a lot of institutional issues that may or may not inhibit the ability for people to participate there developing countries.  I think my view is that these guys procedural procedures need to be front and centre in order to figure out how to make an engagement from the developing country and participants more meaningful.  To me, they're accepting the notion.  On my last point, one of the things you hear from participants who come into these environments they feel that it's sort of like an insider world.  They gain system and control the process and they can't figure out how to get their agenda, their concerns on the table and treat it quickly equal and fair manner.  These are all considerations.  Finally, the third development on the agenda approach.  We think about the policy to come out of the institutional arrangements.  In the case of names and numbers, there are different issues that are being addressed on an ongoing basis with various institutions from ridge star to extreme regulation and the market structure and possibilities for participants.  The discussions that we've had with prices and the new GTL and more types of support perhaps can be offered to our participants.  I know there was another workshop the other day that looked at this with some detail as well.  IBM's and E management has registration of use, et cetera and all these issues are on names and numbers.  Generally speak, we tend not to do that with the foreground in terms of the development and how you impacted all the countries and engaged with the big countries more effectively.  I know in my two years there, we have very rarely thought they had any issues with what they discussed.  And the last point that I should note in this context is it comes up in relationship names and numbers and this is the whole rest of the corporation.  And the feeling that many people have, ah, expressed that there's a need for some sort of public policy frameworks with regard to names and should be that is not placed.  Are there distinctive developmental dimensions to that or is that purely a matter of political sovereignty based bargaining and so on.  For the international debate they will be clear on what the concerns are in this arena and development is an integral part of that.  This is just a range of issues that I'm suggesting that what can one look at with regards to the names and numbers from the development perspective and to do that, we have a very nice panel of people who were all engaged.  From the University of Tokyo is in the stake holder group.  We have another participant from Pakistan.  We have him as Chairman of the domain.  He is GNSO council member from the commercial stake holder group.  And know we have one head of the communications network.  She is involved with the Pfizer committee.  We have a processor at the university and also in Delta and Netherlands.  He's a form member of the GSO council.  Mike Solder and know as a committee member of the South African IP association and he sits on the board of directors.  We also have a board of directors from France.  I want to emphasize that people are all speaking here freely in their personal capacity and nothing that anybody says should be interpreted as stating a matter of policy or anything else unless the person's involved state the policy.  The speaker will have to come later.  Also the member of the GSO council is advised to administer foreign affairs.  And the moderator is here for the internet policy.  And bee have a former member of the at large.  So we have a sort of ICANN from all.  People from within ICANN who have a particular interest in development to try to think about how developments with regard to names and numbers and policies and processees might be better advanced through the IGF and other environments.  So I'm looking forward to a discussion and, ah, I will now go in alphabetical order and people will discuss for 7 minutes or so whatever issues in this general space they think are particularly worth bringing to the view and then we will have hopefully your robust question and answer question.  So I hope you're looking forward to it.

>> Know thanks for the invitation to join this panel.  For the development aspect and the internet site, I don't need now to introduce myself.  I will go into the presentation.  Now, I am here today to present some work.  What I want to do is focus on the work of the China work group between GSO and recommend for supporting and assisting advocates for the new    those applicants who need assistance and the idea is also the main objective is reduce things for the developing countries.  Just to introduce preview, health and process started in ICANN meeting.  So I think it's good sticking up from ICANN from the whole committee.  Where many people from the community express their fear that the application nears and they present    fears and they are presenting an issue or non profit sector.  And in this, we factor and present and exclude them from the process of the initiative.  So, um, we have    this work group is restless to the ICANN reservation 20.  We have a meeting and just to introduce quickly what is working towards this solution.  I just talked to the main resolution.  The resolution 20 in the meeting support for applicant requesting applications.  The importance of the board request to work through and for a work group to develop in this sustainable work to support applicants and recording assistance and apply for operating new things.  So, after that, the working group started working in many.  For that, we meet today or tomorrow to work.  The work group focus on too main issues for applicants from other countries.  What kind of support that we can    we need provide more applicants and also we need to define those main applicants.  So in regard to the fee issues, in that working group, we tried to figure out what kind of recommendation we can suggest to the board to help.  What kind of cost for the programming and also the stereo feeding during the process.  The whole fee is representing for its applicants.  Even though they feel they are not going to lose a lot of money in that process.  I will not release the recommendation for the issues.  Maybe we need to if some people have more questions that I can't validate later.  In regard of the issues, one of the things is to lower the fees due to the item.  But in all of the recommendations, take care of the cost recovery.  And, um, in addition to the    to these issues, the work group we tried to figure out some recommendation regarding from rises to provide national assistance.  If this throw is establishing good fund raising effort and also try to contact external help and they have applicants for other countries.  In our work group, we don't just blame our recommendation to the other aspect, but also that we think that it means ICANN can provide another kind of assistance like that applicant that may ask to receive some help for support for the application process.  So we don't think that only the increasing, but the process itself can be increased and it is complex for new applicants.  I think in that working group that we need to provide some assistance for those applicants to go through with this process.  And on the other side of logistical support, we think that those are starting from developing countries or representing small communities have some technical support because in    we have various technical requirements and then, ah, some organisation from the communities can prove technical support to those applicants.  Maybe it's more related to the farther side and also the diversity and on that working group, we have comments, but this is still in discussion.  We have the    this recommendation is concerning idea.  We suggest that support for application for difference to support minority language applicants.  Um, I think it's    I try to highlight the main points, but if there is any questions about someone, I can answer later.  Just try to highlight what our condition in that work group which is focusing on the financial assistance for this and also for other organisations and to other sides for the logistical support for the applicants along the process which can self represents.  But most of all, take care of the diversity issues for the application for different ideas.

>> I will responding to one of the questions in the decision making processes of some of the organisations and, you know, perhaps looking at the other for an example.  When I look at it, I think specifically for a region.  I think it's a regional process that has processes much simpler being at regional level and make its a bit more    provides opportunities when increased and affects participation at that level and also taking, um, or adapting some of those processes at the national level.  It is an increased effort with governments that have not been involved in the beginning, but I think what I will call for is to begin, um, to create awareness and seek things in the processes and create an understanding of what that means to it at all of the countries at the national level.  In terms of ITM, it is very global ITM, ITU very global.  We found that, for example, ITF processes in north America and other countries participate in those processes and also it is extremely technical.  Some of the pros    you know, some of the things for example, they transpire.  For example, the IT one has that level of openness or participant calling movement in terms of just adhering that private sector has been asking at that level in governance.  In a way, it has been translated to the IGF will model and it is taken very seriously at that level and glad to see that educated on some of the processees.  You know, for us, we talked about representation.  It is still very important part for us in these meetings.  They talked about the access and the internet processes with policy development processees since that.  Some of them take place at night and some of us do not have that luxury to have high speed and be able to participate effectively.  We have timing clear, tiny assets clear with information.  And then, of course leading by extension creates this tension focused on Africa.  They realize for example the processees that work with the international entity and these have meetings that they can experience out of continent.  It is not getting that same kind of attention.  It was always a very other way of dealing with the introduction of picking up the other regional meetings like the IGL that is specifically introducing them and looking at the pros and cons of this.  Anyway, for the South African region, GTL, this is beginning to look at us.  So we're asking ourselves how is the introduction going to impact on the very CTODs in terms of our capacity at that level.  And also the price of just applying is prohibited.  In talks of the process at the global level, as I said, all transparent and they're in that process.  You understand some of those issues.  But they will involve and know it's not just government.  It is also single society.  They have those processes developed and a strategy here provided to climbing and also one of the examples is working on the same process.  At the same time, the government will find it easier to use things better.  It's more technical.  They're using things by most of us.  It is quite easy for us to fall back to that old way of working.  I'm not saying it's wrong.  I'm saying if our needs open up, there's no need to fear governance.  You go back to the old way of dealing.  It's the same kind of government.  They are sharing and also important to share the national, regional levels.  I engage in the different points and makers of other stake holders with the processes.  We make policies and nationally and regional level.  Even for those we use, it is    we    some of us still find it difficult to understand the terms and processes and all the mechanisms that you have tough making decisions.

>> Thank you very much, Ellen.  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Hopefully we    can you hear me?  Our next speaker has a broad view perspective.

>> Speak of the IP addresses.  You can confess that when the UN system, I have this notion of economic development by which people get richer and wealthier and have business opportunities that I'm going to focus on as my concept of development and the relationship between IP addresses.  I don't want to get involved in a debate about what is development.  I do want to talk about how IP addressing policy implicates economic and business opportunities for developing countries.  So, the problem with the ICANN environment is that to some of the most interesting policy issues or the IGF environment is some of the interesting issues and they discuss properly precisely because they are interesting.  So, this was the case this morning with the session on critical internet resources.  You never heard a word about these single most IP addressing issue before the current time which has incredibly important implication for developing countries.  And that is the scarcity of IP4 addresses.  The talk was all about implementing IPv6.  In the least optimistic scenario, 25 to 50 years.  So, what happens when we run out of IDNs in two years at most and we're not on IPv6 and we need to expand the internet?  Okay?  That I submit is a rather significant issue.  So one of the things that's going to happen when we want to or not is more or less prepare for the idea of transfer markets allowing people to trade IP address blocks, IP address locks so that they can move from places where there are too many, to places where there are not enough.  And so that people who hold IP address blocks have very strong incentives to utilize it more efficiently because they will now have economic value.  So one thing you can discuss is the implications of the transfer for developing countries.  Some people think it would be I a disaster and they always have to be given wealth rather than, ah, you know, earning it.  And others of us that have an optimistic view they indeed, have a good thing they would actually be able to attract their fair share of IPD four resources.  That's something we can debate.S issue is we'll be seeing greater efficiency of greater utilization and there is indeed a possibility that we never go to IPV6, that we stay on IPV4.  People have an asset they value very highly.  Now then, in that content, one of the most interesting ideas is competition in internet registry services.  Just as ICANN separated the registry function from the registrar function and created a fast industry of registrar and information.  Something can be done with internet address registries where you separate the allocation function which could remain pretty much with the existing RAR system and you introduced the competition in what might be called the registrar services associated with IP addresses.  And that would allow, ah, creating a business opportunity for people in developing countries who may feel that existing services are remote from them.  They're not directly attuned to their own needs.  We do know that the register of market is very concentrated in north America; however, there are developing registrar industries in various parts of the world.  I've seen the south Korean registrars, African registrars and it's generally kind of point of business that provides an interest opportunity.  So that's my initial take    some of the economic implications of the policy.  I think they'll be worked out over the emergence of the scarcity and one of the things also that happens when people are able to enter these businesses is they develop greater expertise.  So many of the political problems you described in terms of process and procedure has to do with the fact that people try to participate in these processes without any resources.  You know, they're saying give us a voice.  Let us sit at the table which is all legitimate, but if they are stake holders in the familiar sense, in the economic sense and they are actually developing and cultivating their own local market, um, then they have a better ability to participate on equal terms or at least on more level terms with the western interests who are also, you know, being financed and you know more about how the industry works.  Right?  And, ah, I think you've seen, you know, um, a great diffusion of knowledge about the domain industry because of this globalization of the registrar industry.  I think it would be important if we did the same with IP addresses.  That's all.

>> I think most of us rise to my point is an African and a very proud African.  One of the biggest issues which is more developed markets come to the table with things involved with requirements and they're working with their developing markets sitting in positions.  And it has a    it's developed little model to countries that are listed out.  Now, there are a couple of options.  One option is for us to sit here.  But there are a couple of options.  One is you can say we need to hand out because developing countries caught actually, ah, implement things and know hey need handoffs to get up to speed for the new utility process.  And if you look at some of the proposals that mean circulating is essentially going to evolve the massive handoffs.  The user decides actually we need that developing country to sync our agenda.  We have different requirements.  We have unique requirements.  We need to actually do more instead of just saying we have developing countries.  Give us a handout.  We need to define requirements so that in the case of that, African ISPs are lucky to take in north America and Europe the policies to be taken and for more efficient used to be made.  They're allocated and addressed and it was an average and it is more efficient to be used because of that.  It's an example of African saying this is what works for us.  It is more efficient as well.  They do not get much spaces    instead of saying we're taking that suppressions and quantity must be developing things and we must be entitled to the same process.  They look at mechanisms to put together foreign clubs and realizing the level of competition or some of the absence of the local competition.  And they have created a group of forms getting together and buying together for buying a single tractor for common use even though they compete against each other.  People say together we can have art to compete with similar enterprises.  We need to do things uniquely and we need to come up with our own models instead of saying, hey, give us each one because of the front development world.  To me, that's a critical issue.  We need to sit our agenda.  We need to sit the obstacles or what we consider to be obstacles to achieve it both requirements.  We will go through to the governance.  That doesn't work for the following reasons.  This is one they require to meet with us in the establishment.  But it wasn't a request.  They are referring to that and it's a sense of thins coming from a number of developing countries that had been excluded from the process.  There was a suggestion that they chose to do something about it.  Well, if you want handoffs and you have the notion of the process, if you're not going to cut your own, then give up the process and wait for it and accept the fact that developing countries will make decisions and then we in the developing world because we've always got our hands out and we will accept what is coming to us from the top.  The working group is absolutely critical indicator of how decisions need to be made that the developing world is to engage with a bit of both worlds and say there is equality and work together to come up with solutions.  When we have solutions, sit our requirements and understand what our objectives are.  Then we can ask for the deviation from the standard process because it will meet our specific requirements.  Simply asking for handouts doesn't work.  We attempt top speak top be right.  We sometimes feel compelled to because they are so uneven.  What I'm suggesting is that we are a massive market.  Particularly a developed market.  We need to establish our own power so that we collect it so that we actually try to achieve the goals we're after.  Why do we not talk to each other?  Why doe we fight amongst ourselves trying to get the crumbs off the table instead of working together to monitor our seats?  There is logical events that may be of interest, but not necessarily   

>> It was very comprehensive.  It helped in the conversation.  Okay.  Our last speaker here.

>> I would like to start off this part of the presentation by linking this workshop with the previous workshop, which I attended in part.  And everyone who is still here now gave a very interesting presentation, but it seemed interesting to me, but some people in the room it was not that obvious.  A very healthy reminder of the importance of states of sovereign states in the whole governance issue.  I think that we have had now for the past 40 years people who have been writing about the rise and fall of empire Paul Kennedy, about the diminishing role of states, sovereign states versus the rising power of corporations.  And, of course, all that is partly true, but I'm glad to propose to you now and as few of you not to doubt about our past, even the recent past, but about becoming chapters.  How do I see the challenges of the internet over the next 10 to 20 years?  I may be completely wrong.  One of the things which strikes me is that most of the rules which have been either established in a purposeful way or they just    or it's always like that because of the weight of history and the different powers of different countries is about to change.  That's three years ago almost.  It was clear that there was an internet world and a world which was joining the internet.  All that has changed now.  August 2009 a number of internet users in one country and Asia, China surpassed the number of internet users first in the United States and then in north America and, ah, central.  So and the end of the story is very much the same.  We are looking at a new configuration.  Another point to take into consideration is that the new term interest will be formed not only by these demographics of the internet, which I have just barely touched upon, but also by a new paradigm of users and usages of the internet.  Internet today is the back door of industry of financial services of government financial services, et cetera, et cetera.  I think that one of the big innovations is the growing importance of social networking.  And that's perhaps one of the entry points for developing countries and, ah, people who are living and operating in developing countries.  It is sort of more informal approach to economics and to market and to opportunities.  I take Mike's point that he is a south African and as an African meets the challenge and welcome withs the challenge of having to decide whether to accept a handout, an Oscar handout on one hand or on the other hand to define his own agenda.  And I very forcefully think that's really worth the very important choices one has to make apart from developing countries he has to come.  So, what is the way forward?  I would like to take perhaps inspiration their things they said earlier.  She said it was mainly three things.  Sharing, imaging, and creating outage.  I'll try to give a sense of how I see these chapters through my experience.  I am a member and speaking of private capacity, but, of course, my own experience is enriched, I hope, by my experience.  Participation there is a fast call for participation they think is justified.  Have the honesty and the cleverness to participate for what calls for what purpose.  I would suggest that the precipice is more than one single track.  One of these tracks is, of course, to have a greater number of people especially there developing countries to engage in the phenomena of the internet, access to information, freedom of speech, et cetera.  One of the challenges is, of course, access to opportunity, which reminds me of a wonderful definition of poverty.  Poverty is not a lack of effort.  It's absence of opportunity.  So, I think that we have to address this.  And, um, to look at the purpose of participation in context at least what I'm suggesting in the content of ICANN where participation in ICANN not so much for the sync of allergy developers, but in the formation of policy is the greater numbers of the views is taken on board and that people from all over the world can and do in fact engage in policy formation or at least contribute to the process of policy formation.  So in participation, there must be a purpose, but there must also be principals.  We must dwell just a while on some of the most obvious which is participation has to be world wide because of the recents, the demographic recents I mentioned a few minutes ago.  It has to be geographical rotation basis as international meetings are concerned and that's done systematically.  I think we have to promote.  We have to continue promoting linguistic and upon diversity, but it shouldn't stop at the border.  And also one of the principals that we have to propose to the world wide community, tools which were not fabricated by ICANN, but we should identify by ICANN as most suitable for public participation.  For instance, remote participation.  We're not, um, promoting these tools only for the happy [INAUDIBLE].  We can take some other means of distance.  So much for the notions behind participation.  We will take a few minutes on international dimension of the developmental agenda and in what way does ICANN or can ICANN contribute to this.  There again, I'm not sure I reflect the part of my colleagues and I am seeking a private capacity.  I just want to identify two aspects of international dimension.  One is the constitutional dimension and the other one would be the community wide.  Let's look at the institutional dimension.  I think there has been some hesitation for a few years about the real respective places of the stake holders.  Corporations, businesses, NGOs and sovereign states.  But I do notice that thanks to the work first of the strategy committee of ICANN which drafted improving confidence document.  Many elements of which were taken over and I am very thankful for that in the affirmation of commitments.  Well, in both texts, there is a confirmation of the role of sovereign states and they cannot particularly    an affirmation or an underlining of it.  And also I would say another register with a strong support that ICANN has voiced in favor of the continuation of the IGF process and the IGF as development, as a forum.  Now, the community wide aspect of international dimension I would like to mention two or three things.  One is you have noticed that the ICANN board has decided to create a position for flaunting board members who have been appointed by the at large community.  So, you may consider that that's not an error revolution, but I think it does say something about the, ah, willingness of the board to enlarge its representativeness at the structure in the designation.  But also I think there is a constant and justified call for linguistic and agenda that is in all of the workings and all of the tools and all of the peers of ICANN and I think we're trying to do that.  There is still a lot of improvement to be done.  So, to end, I would say that, ah, it would be perhaps a mistake and certainly a risk if we tried to define mechanisms for the improvement of the development agenda by looking only at past experience.  We have to look at the face.  The new configuration which is that, ah, internet demographics are not necessarily the exact echo or reflection of what it has been for the past 40 years.  We have to adapt that.  And also, one of the biggest challenges now is the reconfiguration of the economics of the internet.  I hope we'll have a discussion on that as well.  Thanks.

>> Thank you very much.  I have somebody here who's been involved for years.  I came from China and we have other perspectives and if you have to and a few folks.

>> Thank you very much, Phil.  I appreciate the opportunity.  Actually, we have remote and I should be staring at the platform.  I am happy to see the remote areas.  What we're talking about here is beg broadcast all around the world.  So it is very important.  There is a topic.  Seems we have the privilege to communicate directly with distinguished board members and a long time for the colleagues and Alice Munyia.  They have critical issues with respect to names and numbers.  I guess I don't have a systematic presentation here, by some quick thought on the development perspective in the management of this critical resources.  This is very critical indeed.  I tried to link development agenda with diversity consideration as being one of the principal for WSIS process.  The principal and the main thing of IGF discussion.  By link this issue, I have three examples.  The one is that ICANN has a strategic approach to handle will development issues in there management.  This is back to IBM.  We can see ICANN making some isolated access and systematic policies with respect to ideas especially in the new gTLD process.  Recently we just finished the concentration period for single character.  I assume I can receive a more public    there is character variance in certain scripts which means certain scripts are looking different than they should be treated.  So far I can say there's no solution at protocol level, but it can be handled at policy level.  For these, I really access it and policy make we can see that the main policy making is still kind of in the best of centre.  I still believe that is script.  It is a standard at the level of extraordinary elements.  This is single character and the character variance is very, very important at least for Asians, not for leverages and scripts.  They serve some names and it's a single character in these scripts.  They reach the meetings.  They have the meeting of that single character, but according to the ICANN policy, single character cannot simply be in the top level.  Latter script is very reasonable.  It would be confusing, but don't say home.  Each character, you know, is something like a sentence in Latin scripts.  Well, another example is about famous multiple issues.  I had a very interesting discussion.  But on this, it is    we are speaking different languages and using different scripts.  We need different culture traditions.  One turn that could be really obscene in the language can be really okay in another language.  So the issue here is that ICANN will have a global checking and it's storage, of course.  Last but not least, the poverty is a fascinating topic.  Actually positive thinking in this area from the IRT to STI has seen so many policies.  I came all of this way in the protection [INAUDIBLE].  I repeat when I present it like a public forum and public comments, ah, there is    it does not have any exclusive right or any international property over the traditional, trans iteration in any language.  That's very clear.  We shouldn't globalize and stand.  They are exclusive rights.  Always a trademark based in one specific jurisdiction.  They have    the moderator picks up and it's very useful to the conversation.

>> Yes.  We will go now and I'm sure we all have some things on our mind we would like to respond to each other.  Do we have any other questions online?  Before I go to the floor, I know from looking in the crowd, there are going to be several people that want to take the floor.  Do you want to have a quick response on the panel and they have points that has raised.  Please keep this part brief and we'll go to the floor.

>> Absolutely.  You brought up a few good points of great interest, but I must say there is a history toward this.  So I'm not speaking on behalf of the ICANN or the Sox, but there is a historic way to all this.  You can find it regrettable that, ah, single letter things in one script are acceptable or could be acceptable and are not in Chinese.  I had no idea.  I know Chinese.  So I can say that yes.  You are right when you say the character in Chinese should be accepted.  I can understand that, but there's a history.  So we have to deal with the historical differences.  I'm sure it will come to as far as variance are concerned.  There is a group within the board which is working with that    on that with the stuff.  In fact, a variance to not apply only to the Chinese script and apply to Arabic to many other scripts and languages.  So, what you are saying is a sort of general theory that it will not tinker with this.  I am saying on the contrary.  We are at a certain point in history.  Perhaps this has not been dealt with properly in the past.  There is certainly a will to deal with it from now on.  We're doing that just now.  That's a quick response to your remark about diversity.

>> Thank you.  Mike, do you have anything on the phone?

>> Just want to comment on the variance that was made in the end.  People comment from countries and communities with different scripts instead of waiting for solutions and come up with their own solutions and presenting them.  We're working very hard around those options, but most of the hard work was done within the first communities.  They put the solutions into the IGF also we can work.  The perfect example of how to push more of the development agenda by really having a solution and then taking out and seeing if it will work and pushing it back.

>> Thank you.  Okay.  So you feel a number of interesting and important ideas.  We have gTLDs and issues raised about engagement within ICANN and other name and numbers, organisations and requests.  Is there a strategy or a strategic outlook for promoting engagement by developing country or should there be?  There's more important questions and you're got a good chunk of time in which to do it and I see quite a few people I know who have things to say about this.  It will be interesting.  So I will have to put this microphone back.  We need more microphones in this room.  I will just hand you the mic.  Can you say who you are, please?

>> I am here from Kenya.  I just want to comment on this particular issue looking at internet through the lenses and social economic development.  Late last year we put this through the internet.  And some to the end of the choir people are singing from some in Sydney and some in America and so on.  They all put together a perfect choir.  This was we were at the power of the internet enabling social interaction and using power.  People whoever they are, whatever their economic status arrived to get to that kind of channel.  So I think that was a big demonstration by the power of the internet.  We are saying to ourselves like others said that we need to engage.  That means we will focus on this together.  We need to share, you know, the more of this world.  It is very much involved in the internet from the point of view being able to finance the separations and its creation and take something up in the networks.  They develop with the people because as you can see, the growth areas have been sitting here and people really account to you the running to be heard on the internet.  You they're looking for computers there.  They just want to carry on.  I remember the people, the children race school are engaging first.  Performance plummeted because they're so interested in how they interact to the fiscal.  Now all these projects of the internet, how we engage.  I think one thing is we will call for IGF meetings in our region.  We want our people to be able to discuss in this kind of variance the issues to be addressed.  And that's why we tried to move interests so that the petitions are interested and they'll know more positive power can be allowed to take place.  At this meeting, we hope members of parliaments were staring and ICT is also here.  They have interest and they developed.  What they're asking is more interest to watch IGFs being set up.  I have found that I cam is very    I would say it's a tight house.  It's very difficult with ICANN.  But I think the idea is the intervention of parliament for people of government, they can say what they want there, they can see what they want to do.  They can be interested to initiate finance programs that can get internet going.  So I really sympathize with my friend Mike because I can agree with him.  It is very true what this is.  Our feel is normally beg seen to look for handouts and we can look into this.  It can be set up in the meeting and all people can come.  And then the rest you have looking for handouts to finance, to run, but I think IGF is something they talked about and all of us to see how we did this.  I wanted to make those remarks.  Thank you very much.

>> That was very helpful.  A particular point you made about the perception of reality that ICANN is a tight house.  That's hard for people to enter into and engage.  It is a really operative point of how we need to work around that.  I want to welcome to the room Vince.  Do you want to add anything about this general arena, let me know.  Okay.  So who else?  I would like to get Chuck Holmes the Chair of the GSO council.  Can we put the microphone back in the stand there?  People can go to the mic.

>> I will keep it in my seat at home, but I will put it back on the stand.  I will look at my screen.  Thanks.
Compliments on this session and, Bill, you mentioned a possibility of some strategic approaches.  I will get tactical on some responses because of the timing of some of these remarks really fits into what is going on in the GSO.  First of all, we'll talk about the map or mobo or whatever you want to call it.  There's a lot going on in my inbox they haven't looked at it yet.  I don't think they will put any because I don't see him typing.  So, ah, ah, the issue there, we have actually talked about the issue of a strain being offensive or whatever term we want to use on one script and not another.  The fact is the group that's working on this is in agreement.  That's why you have to be very careful when you deal with these.  So that's a live issue that's going on.  That's all there's been talk about government involvement here and, ah, and my long experience in the GSO, we have one of the most effective groups going on right now in terms of government involvement and people from government.  And I hope that sets a stage for more of that in the future and it's on that particular issue of the morality and public order recommendation.  So I want to encourage further work in that.  Governments work very differently than we do in the GNSO, for example, but I think we're discovering now some ways that we can do it more effectively to accommodate those differences and not let those be road blocks.  So I think that's a positive sign.  With regard to single character names, that's another one that's going on right now not just in the GNSO.  The IBM work group.  The Jake as we call it as players from across the community especially in ccTLDs and the GNSO.  And they're working on a single character issue.  It is not only an issue in those from countries that have scripts, use the scripts for their languages.  They're very, ah, [INAUDIBLE] single character words and names.  And it's an issue for those of us that would like to offer our top level domains and their scripts in single characters.  That's the most appropriate way to go.  The tactical suggestion I want to make has to do with a process that hasn't been going on for a long time in GNSO and that's part of the GNSO improvement process.  Our work model is not finished yet.  I think it would be appropriate if some input from this series of workshops, Bill, and any people in them that would like to do so to provide input as to how we can better involve people from the developing world in the working groups.  We keep them open.  They're open to anybody, but that doesn't mean it's easy or possible to do.  And so I think there's a real opportunity in the next couple months.  That's why I say tactical instead of strategic.  First they ended that process and I strongly encourage that.  It's not enough to say the working group is open.  It's very hard as people pointed out to participate and I talked to a government person from China last night and told him hey, let me know if there's some suggestions you have that we can make it easier for you to participate.  And I    and I give that same offer to this group to the people in this room, to the people on the panel and hopefully we can really begin to make some strides in terms of making that happen.

>> Thank you, Chuck.  There is this interesting situation of the formal openness to the ability to attract and engage.  That's why I try to push this issue to see if we can have this conversation.  Gentlemen in the back, please identify yourselves.  (Multiple speakers at once)

>> Thank you.  My name is John.  I come from Kenya.  I also seek support.  There are issues about contribution of effectively engaging other stake holds are.  We at the board realize that in the last three meetings, ah, the CEO sent out invitations to government representatives in Africa with all the 50 plus representatives inviting them to participate in the public policy meetings, but unfortunately over the last three sessions, we've had less than 10 government representations in such meetings.  So, we still are looking at different options on how to entice government to be present in this African public policy meetings in order for us to explore between African and governments as well as other stake holders.  My other comment goes to work that probably if the management process of how African manages the IP resources.  For example, it could be split up.  The way I can split up the registry    the registrar roads in the domain, if that could happen in the space, maybe it can create an economic benefit for developing.  I'm not sure how that will happen, but my fear here is that it may create a benefit, but not necessarily for African registrars per se    registrars per se.  They work and they will come out and benefit.  Maybe I will hear some comments on that.  Thank you.

>> Well, it depends on what benefits you're talking about.  If the IP   the people using IP networks in Africa get better service from anyone, U.S., Africa, wherever, that will be a benefit to them.  But you're talking about the development of registrar industry.  I think people most likely to succeed in African context would be people who know the languages, the people, ah, situation within Africa.  And that it's another one of these situations where so much business is transactional.  So, if a company starts in Europe let's say    I don't know.  Generally or whatever starts IP address registry is competitive, but in order to get to the African market, they're employing six or seven people and they're making competitive on the ground in Africa, is that bad because it's owned in Germany?  We have this debate in U.S. about outsourcing jobs so that people in America say it's horrible when somebody in the U.S. has a business hires people in India to do things there that they could be doing in the U.S.  In general, I think it's true that, ah, the ability to get the job done most efficiently is in everybody's interest in the long run.  And it's not like there's already this gigantic industry in south Africa that's going to be displayed.  As far as I know, there's a very small core of people who are just sort of getting the things started from the allocation standpoint, but can really use a lot of expansion in terms of responding with the service needs of the region.  Mike also wants to weigh in on that.

>> South Africa is a case study with one of the more developed areas.  In Africa in a year or two, some of them are ahead of us, but a lot of that will be responding specifically.  I think it's applicable.  Why do you go    it is preferred to the one of the generics.  Why would you go to the generics and the exception, but one of the key issues is because we have implemented a fully interactive registered system with various processes that we have ongoing.  So that convenience will be fully integrated registry into those is something that the number of respondents indicated it's missing.  They're also responding and they looked at things had today and it's been first choice because of the international part because they were a national eBusiness.  And because they want to be identified in south Africa.  And the trick is that there are a number of countries inside that can also be within some of our second levels.  We have restrictions for our residence on this monitored residence.  They're also with formal registries.  They have a registration with the names and they have gone through registrar.  So there are multiple bodies playing in that space.  And it works reasonably well.  They register in the business sense.  I don't think we should underestimate.  They take national pride as well as convenience, along with stability and certainty.  You had a choice of going local and possibly losing your name and not resolving or going generic.  I think the summary is within the number exposed as well because if you have a good level services meeting the needs, then people will use them and they will use them in preference because there are companies that they deal with other issues.  People will go behind the operating services on their own and they will go behind coupled with first tier connectivity.  Physical links, things like that is pretty seldom that a provider by the third party with some other connections.  It is more than just convenience.  It is some of the other elements coming in.

>> I saw Vince grab the other microphone.  Good to have mentioned here.  I think what we're going to do actually is let's    I want to get more people there the audience and make sure you get an opportunity to say something.  So, let's just take a bunch of questions and we'll collect the responses to the mix.  We have Jamie had his hand up.  The woman in the back there.  I can't see very well because my eyes are bad.
The gentleman over there.  Oscar?  I will start with Jamie.  Helen, please if people could keep their questions brief and we'll get everybody on board.

>> You asked me   

>> Please say who you are, Jamie.

>> I am Jamie.  I'm from Brazil.  I represent the IS piece.  And I'm also at the GSO council.  I would like to make    to address Milton.  But I will first agree with Milton that I consider development in the end economic.  So, I want to thank also and address the point that we are very concerned that it was a digital mark, but the digital mark is dividing those who have access and those that don't have access to take.  We are talking about access.  And access is concerned infrastructure and infrastructure has resources.  Telecommunication resources and IP addresses.  Names    well, lower level of interest, but IP addresses are the quick resources to access.  But once we pass this digital divider, they gave us the information that in China, we already have this digital device surpassed.  There will be another divided.  I think it's concerns more the matter of development where we are focusing on two things.  Because we will have consumers from on site and producers from the other side with information.  But more of that, we will have users and developers of tools to access this information.  And I think that it's here that the matter of development should focus on the tools because once we have developers in the tools and developing countries and then we will have an economic opportunity for them to use the access to the overall market of consumers and users of information and tools.  So I think this is the main focus saying that I would like to understand what Milton says.  I will ask a clarifying question.  As I understand, IPV form are not well users.  And some of the RARs of developing countries.  Could be    while business is scarce, resource to access to the first one and this is an opportunity for them to sell these resources, but this can't be used abroad and not to sell to Africans or to Latin Americas.  It can't be used to anybody.  Am I right in this interpretation?  If I sell    if I have a bunch unused IP addresses and I sell to you and America and you use them, you are able to sell information and tools to everybody, not only to Latin America, but in the whole word, yes?  Am I right or am I wrong with this interpretation?

>> Thank you, Jamie.  I will try to take a bun of questions and fairly rapid over there and then get the panel to respond.  I see gentleman over here who jumped with great enthusiasm.

>> I did.  Thank you.  Just to make sure that you appreciate.  First of all, you mentioned IPV4.  You understand we're running out of those addresses.  People running around selling blocks of IP addresses.  If causes the routing tables to get better.  The better solution is implement IPv6.  Once you get any address as you pointed out in theory, you should be able to get anywhere.  Go to any resource.  Contribute any processor service.  They revolve in part trying to make sure that's still true for everyone.  Nothing can be more important than making sure that stays true in the world where they have not had this much opportunity to be part of the system.  Thank you for letting me jump in there.  I hope it's informative.

>> Thanks.  Was there a request before I go to the next person?  No?  Okay.  Good.  There are a number of people in this room and we'll just kind of swing back.  Let's keep our questions brief and say who you are.  Somebody hand the mic to the gentleman.

>> Sorry.  Thank you.  That's not a different question than from what has been asked.

>> I am from New Zealand, human rights commission.  My question relates to applications from the development implications of increasing linguistic and cultural diversity and the IBM area and certain relation to TLDs.  Particularly when there's any implications for the solution processes for domain names.  In particular, if there are the focus of the solutions, processes initially took years of development in the property.  And it is related to speech for domain names.  But it seems to me that one of the implications from the development of the linguistic and cultural diversity of domain names encrypts into the room and they wanted it to be a different set of skills and things needed for the resolution of the expedience of the linguistic differences.  So my question is whether any work in those areas is being considered and if so, will we be able to find out about it?

>> Thank you very much.  The gentleman here has been waiting patiently.  Please.

>> Two quick coms.  My name is Carlos from Mexico.  One to Alice.  She mentioned the situation of the accessibility race before the introduction of the new list.  I think on the development of this may see improvements and current situations.  If they need you to have strategies of communication, ah, and they look out CCDLDs.  I think we have seen and make some in Latin America is that many users, many term users don't have enough information about domain names.  So, ah, having more to offer will improve    could improve the domain penetration in a perspective territory.  Of course, it has to be a current area with the new gTLD.  The second comment is to Milton.  Of course nobody knows exactly what's going to happen and the scenario of IPV4 according to that and IPv6.  Starting IPv6.  But, ah, we should certainly reconsider the most pessimistic scenarios like the ones listed by Milton, but one of the most pessimistic in order to develop policies and consider those scenarios.  Those policies have to happen    I know everybody that this kind of concerns to present those ideas and those concerns in order to be considered for new policies.

>> Thank you, Oscar.  I'll swing over here.

>> Thank you.  My question is to myself.  Is there sufficient effort inside of that community to deal with this?  It's a kind of meta question because triggered (Audio is fading in and out) two days ago that he signed an interesting document.  And you report to the high level commission on the ICDs.  You have a meeting in New York that you were the last speaker on the three or four.  It was perhaps the first time the U.N. recognize the ICANN and the need for the developing countries to participate.  And it was very, very friendly.  I mean taunts of the whole report.  U.N. Latin nations and they all have to compliment each other.  They participate in ICANN and more in particular.  They don't have confrontation in May.  There is an advantage situation in the developing countries in the re preparation parties which has much more in the resource.  The representative of the knowledge of the concerns noted they were ongoing.  This is interesting to me.  So I think we have not certain implements reveals and again, that means I can perhaps.  Then I read that this year, we started a square and there's no mention of developing that other than increasing    increased participation here or policies.  So there's no sort of special focus to the development agenda while the IGF, the whole thing is the governance.  That's at least the routing thing.  I question to myself as well as the border ICANN community members that they're having to measure how we are meeting the expectations or tanks that ask for the focal or for the dropout.  If so, we can come to specific areas.  If not, if the current border of GNS and they set up so fine, we better just cross and they cross errors, et cetera.  But I think there is still some insufficient mechanics internal as well as external that might also help.  So that's my question and comment.

>> That's precisely what we hear and certainly led me to another one of the sections.  The gentleman over here.  Please.

>> I just wanted to comment   

>> I'm sorry.  You didn't give your name.

>> I'm sorry.  I am from the parliament in Kenya.  I don't want to see what I saw in 1995's government.  If so, they talk about Latin Telcos.  It was difficult.  They did penetrate that in ITU.  If they are in documents that need to identify it so that governments can detect this issue seriously, I would recommend that.  Lastly, let me ask something.  In Kenya today, we have at least three tables in connection to the national back bones.  They are all the way into the different parts, but the problem is accessibility and formability.  Again, the IPv6 is available and can be used.  Lastly, out of the presence of insult from 1980 in Washington D.C where we used to put things to make 6 kilometers.  Thank you.

>> Before you sit down, can I just ask you.  You refer to you're working with ITU and so on.  I'm wondering if you think about the two institutions, is there anything that can be learned from the ITU environment that would be helpful in engaging developing countries more in ICANN?

>> For some reason, I    if I did go through ITU, there's no way India was going to penetrate countries especially in developing countries.  Um, and even the united nations can also assist.  Personally, all that's developing can be sent.  I came here because I was forced out by IGF.  I think there's so much we can do.  But it's so important that government get involved because the policy makers.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Thank you.

>> Are there any other quick interjections?  I'm sorry.  You had your hand up.  We'll come back for responses to whichever these points they'd like to pick up on.

>> Great.  Ukraine.  I just want to comment that all people talking about exhausting for addresses and implication you should all understand that until every IP addresses are people who would have to use some sort of translation.  So the issue of training IP for addresses in the near restrictions would be allocations and they would be unable.  So I think at this moment, I really have to step up and have a market to sell IP address blocks maintaining this and essentially establishing the frameworks similar to the one we have now with registrars that will be able to sell from different parts.  Every time I see Aaron has set up that market place, but it's not functioning yet.  It's just like a board.  But I think we need a more stable framework.  As I said, we have fire in our organisation.  The central policies which would trigger I would say one year from now back to the date of discussion.  So that's my comment.  Thank you.

>> Okay.  Well, we have glaze the over a wide range of issues.  There's still obviously more that can be grazed.  We got through a whole session of names and numbers and development.  They are expected to do that.  But that's fine.  Let's turn back to the panel and see which of these points they'd like to pick up.  Pick to any of the points.  We'll start with you.  Is there anything you'd like to comment on?  The questions or comments that were made.

>> Know    what is it to highlight here.  I believe there is some comment what maybe developing countries don't need assistance, but maybe they need to figure out how to fix this issue without    the problem they have is just we focus and the issues are stuck in the process.  Plus to apply it is complicated.  The meeting may understand all of this process.  Some applicant from developing you just heard about this product and want to apply and just to rethink that.  The famous deck and also there is a problem for them to find to just apply because applicants from developing countries we cannot    can't run if we take examples of sensitivity.  They cannot, but just the course of that is definitely there.

>> Thanks.  So, areas of engagement is something we have to look forward and keep in mind to work with in IGF and ICANN.

>> I forgot all the questions.  I wonder if we can hear them again.
No.  It's been a long time.  So, ah, I guess Jamie was first.  So and his    his question relates to the last comment from the Ukrainian gentleman.  So, um, the answer to your question is not simple.  Can you sell these IP addresses to anybody in the world?  The transfer markets that are being set up by the IRAs are meant to be put with the intra regional transfers.  However, there's a large block we call Legacy addresses which are not under contract.  These are ARs.  Most of these addresses are in the United States and you would be looking at probably    who knows where they will end up, but there's nothing preventing them if they're outside of the RAR framework.  So let need just respond to what Vince said.  He said you shouldn't sell IPV.  That's good in the sense you're not creating more IP addresses.  You're moving it around and that fixed stock is not getting any bigger.  He says that you should implement IPv6.  The problem with that is that when you implement IPv6, you have to also implement IPV4.  You have to go dual stack.  So, you can't expand the IPv6 without also having the need for IPV4 addresses.  So I just don't know how that solves the problem.

>> First of all,that's not precisely correct.  You can implement IPv6 without implementing IPV4.

>> We have connected it.

>> It's hard to get access to the IPV4 and I will say, however, that the account to utilize the one you had previously assigned and don't use before the address base won't last very long in terms of the rate of consumption.  Right now they might give you another month at the current rate in which the four addresses are beg consumed.  So it's not    the amount of work involved to recover those addresses may not benefit very much.  So the real issue is getting everybody up and running the IP66 as quickly as    IPv6 as quickly as possible.  The only other alternatives are solutions which are done in genral.  We've been saying this since 1996.  You don't pay much attention until it became clear that we were going to run out.  We actually tried to move toward the solution.

>>S on the only for a month.  Why not let it go.  Why fight it if the secondary market won't last for about a month.  Why all the effort to stop it.  I'm still trying to figure out why the ground swell is against the concept.  I'm trying to understand how the flee markets is a bad thing.

>> What's your name?

>> Peter.

>> Just to indicate not as a regular redesigned, not a regulator where they have a coordinator.  We'll coordinate with the IARs.  The reason is we have indicated because the impact on the reaching times will be used afterwards.  So for a month 's rest, we'll let up with complex reaching titles that provide us and we'll have to live with.

>> I think nothing can resist the round tables.

>> I think, um, on the one month issue, I think that's a very speculative thing.  Even the OECD reports says there's low levels of Legacy blocks and you might be talking more over than a month.  Years instead.  You can't take policies in terms of transfers that are, ah, neutral with respect to aggregation and that does restrict the flow of the market.  There's no questions about that.  You can't just sell off two IP addresses.  And then there's a debate about the degree to which routers can handle and continue expansion.  So these are all debatable issues.  So just want to raise that.

>> Thank you.  The cameraman is still here with us.  I'm glad for that.  We can't go too much longer.  It's the end of the day.  We will have more synthesizing operations of the remaining questions from the people in the back.

>> Just a couple of responses.  We will have some further discussion.  The gTLDs is really considered the technical requirements.  They have the technical requirements for each gTLD registered.  It is the least of your concepts.  The application fee is not going over.  In which case, why do you need to step up?  Because then you each have an open model.  What needs to happen is these people need to get attention if there needs to be differential treatment.  You have to come out strong in a developing country.  Again, if there's than differential treatment, it's got to be a project on the back end.  So, with these at the end of the day, they probably will differ some of the initial application to a later stage, but you're certainly not going to head our charity what is a successful venture.  They're talking about unsuccessful or non commercial mention, then that's a different issue entirely.  I think it's time that we at CCs will start looking at that and go into either and say, hey, why die hear?  I have our geographic light.  What have I worked on?  What are the logistics representing a particular territory?  These are the things that we'd be interested in your gTLD.  We don't have to give you a cut of what names we have on those.  So I can sell the main food.  We can both make money out of it and we can be more sustainable together.  What's going to happen if we sit there with CCs and think that's done potentially.  We'll wait for the successful ones to come to us and we have an option for you.  We will work together.  We should be sitting in the agenda.  And that's really the point that I'm trying to make.  We need to control our own.

>> Thanks.  I think I want to respond to a question regarding looking at gTLDs differently because it's an issue that has popped up several times regarding the process.  I'm not proud of an introduction of a top level domain.  It's not for us.  We looked at the development and they had some choices and greeting competition at that level.  But it would be hard to be    some of them want to ask you and you have to still have issues of dedication.  So I think it's looking at them too and once you bring that CC for us on the national, just get to this.  They're very new and this event theories are reported us to.  We would like to see a way the two of them can get together.  If you look at the example of Kenya, I think we got a restriction on more than a thousand against internet users where it was 3.2 million.  Most of them have generic fop level domain    top level domains.  You can see it is signed to us.  It's not so much that we don't support it.  We do.  We're working together.  But I think it's the end of what it's going to bring.  For most of our users, what does that mean and also we adopt the introduction of the various usages of the internet, for example.  Education and protection of users around that.  So I think it's much more than simply being against.  It is all of the other issues.  They have other specific things developing.  Thank you.

>> Thank you, Alice.

>> Thanks.  I will take two of the points.  First one is heart.  There's no mention of development in the strategic plan 2010.  And, um, that is an interesting thing.  There are limbs throughout participation and outreach and quite a few things and ideas to consider.  That's one as well.  I talked about that with my colleagues, but I wanted to recognize that you brought up an interesting question.  I would like to give a quick overview of this.  You have sociological terms.  To begin with, they thought it was made perhaps to set and not fall top politicians.  The way it's been treated is tilling is unequal    still is unequal.  You have dedications to all the IGFs, which is all starting.  I think that's remarkable and it should be that way.  So what I'm saying is that it's also    you can just bash the institutions where I can or anyone else.  I think that there is a toss of awareness and getting what's together as part of the governments as well.  I see more liberty.  And I think that one of the challenges for states, for governments now a days is to insure that in the multiplicity of form where they're speaking and have a voice, sometimes a little voice that they have a coherent precision which can be translated throughout the institutions and not only on, um, how should I say?  On the basis of opportunity of one conference of one conference or a conference somewhere else.  There has to be a consistency in policy and international or regional level.  I think that's a challenge.  And it's not very nice yet as a true challenge.  So that goes into the part as well.

>> Thank you very much.  Well, it was a lot more than two hours.  There's much more that can be said.  We only scratched the surface.  This is the kind of conversation one would hope we could have more often not only in IGF, but in ICANN.  We had a focus of development related issues and I think that that's    a missed opportunity.  We've going to Cartagena and maybe we can do something to address that.  I think there is a main session for tomorrow for anybody who wants to think about these issues to alleviate the broader framing.  In the meanwhile, I thank you all.  My apologies for running over and my thanks to all the people on the panel.  Thank you.

Meeting ended at 10:43 a.m. CST.