ICANN Meetings in San Juan, Peurto Rico
Real-time transcription of the session on IGF.
ICANN San Juan, Puerto Rico
28 June 2007
SWINEHART: For those of you stay for
the Internet governance session, stay and sit down.
I need the following
participants. Markus, Jacqueline,
Chris, Mr. Hansem, I need all of you up on the podium, please.
SWINEHART: Okay. If everybody can be seated, and those who
want to continue their conversations, go out into the hallways.
We're going to be
running a very short one-hour session, or perhaps a little bit shorter, on
Internet governance and ICANN's role in relation to critical Internet
I'd like to thank
very much the panelists who have been willing to commit their time and their
schedules to participate in this event.
We should use this
as an opportunity to have some really good conversation and thoughts, and
whatever else we can fit into the short time frame in preparation to leading up
to the IGF meeting in Rio.
And I'd like to
thank Markus Kummer, in particular, for his willingness to be the moderator and
to start off the session.
So we will now get
KUMMER: Thank you, Theresa. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm very pleased to
be given this opportunity to have this workshop.
Sorry, I do apologize. Yes, you can hear me now.
I am very pleased to
have this opportunity to have this workshop on the Internet governance forum,
it comes in very timely as we move into the phase of substantive planning.
Let me start by
introducing the panelists.
We have a truly
multistakeholder panel, as befits a multistakeholder Internet Governance Forum.
From my left, we
have Jacqueline Morris, the ALAC chair, representing civil society, giving us a
civil society perspective.
Next to her, Raul
Echeberria, the CEO of LACNIC representing the RIRs.
On my left, Chris
Disspain, the chairman of the ccNSO.
Next to me is Vint
Cerf, representing ICANN. And next to
him, to my right, is Jose Vitor Hansem giving a government perspective on
behalf of our host country, Brazil.
Let me start by
giving a brief overview on the state of preparations and where we are.
successful inaugural meeting in Athens,
there was a broad consensus that we should build on Athens without slavishly
repeating the form L.A.
So we are going to
have an Athens-plus in Rio.
We will repeat the
four Athens main themes: That is,
access, diversity, openness, and security.
And there will be a
new theme, critical Internet resources, which will be the main focus of today's
In addition to the
main sessions, we will have workshops again, as we had in Athens. And I know the deadline we set is a short
one. It's the 30th of June, and maybe
at the end we can also talk a little bit about the workshop, as I know within
the ICANN community there are various initiatives to submit proposals for
workshop. And I think this is a very
And we also propose
as a new element best practices forums that would allow to present best
practices at the national level. From
the government side, what was the Internet policy they used to deploy and
develop Internet in a country or what were best practices related to a given
theme. We will see what proposals will
come in and, last but not least, we will also provide a platform to all major
institutions dealing with Internet governance-related issues to present
themselves, to have an open forum, and to engage in a dialogue with the
community present at the IGF.
But let's turn now
to the main theme of today's session, critical Internet governance, critical
We had a meeting in
Geneva back in May, and there was a broad agreement that this issue should be
put on the agenda of the Rio de Janeiro meeting.
However, it was not
clear, actually, what we meant by critical Internet resources. And looking up the various text from the
Working Group on Internet Governance to the Tunis Agenda, there is no clear
definition of critical Internet resources.
However, the text used points toward a definition that is broader than
just naming and addressing.
So -- And we also --
while we agreed that we should have the discussion on this issue, we could not
actually -- the discussion, we did not have enough time to develop a format on
how to deal with it, what should be the point of entry, and how we should deal
So this session here
is a very welcome input into that discussion on how to deal with this
theme. And without much further ado, I
would like to ask Vint to give us his thoughts on what are critical Internet
CERF: Thank you very much, Markus, and
good afternoon, everyone.
I'd like to start
out by suggesting a possible term that would help cast Internet and its
infrastructure into a somewhat different perspective than usual.
I'm going to use the
word ecosystem. And I'd like to suggest
to you that the Internet is really a kind of economy and ecology made up of an
extraordinary number of different parts.
If we think of
Internet only as the telecommunications links -- the routers, the companies
that run the networks that make up the Internet -- we are overly constraining
an understanding of what it is that makes the Internet function.
Plainly, the other
parts of the system -- the hosts, the web servers, the e-mail systems, the
companies that run those services -- are part of that ecosystem.
The domain name
system and the various components of it, including the root servers and all the
others who run different layers in the domain name system, are part of that
But I want to depart
from just the physical resources of the Internet say that this ecosystem is
much broader than that.
You could also
include the legal framework, and perhaps regulatory framework, in which the
It's clearly global
in scope. Pieces of it operate in
different jurisdictions under different possible legal and business
frameworks. Of course the only reason
it all works is because it's technologically intended to be compatible and
interoperable. But that draws on yet
another part of the ecosystem, the standards-making component of Internet. The Internet Engineering Task Force being a
primary element, but there are others as well.
The IEEE and the ITU have roles to play in different layers in the
That's not the only
part of the ecosystem. ICANN is a part
of it as well. Its processes contribute
to the stability of the Internet and its continued evolution.
I don't want to take
up too much time because there are so many other people on the panel, but I
would like to say that during the meetings that come up in Rio in November, if
I am permitted to intervene, I will emphasize the scope and diverse nature of
the elements in that Internet ecosystem, all of this need to function
successfully in order for the Internet to work.
The last element of
the ecosystem I'll mention is people.
The users, the
people who make the various parts of the Internet work. The participants in the ICANN process, the
members of the board, the companies and the people who run them, who operate
parts of this ecosystem, are also absolutely critical resources.
One is tempted to
say that without each one of those different resources, the Internet with
neither be what it is now nor would it necessarily survive.
It takes a
collaborative effort in many dimensions for the Internet to work.
And I hope that the
participants in the IGF will understand that an overly narrow definition of the
Internet and its critical resources can only lead to policy which is
inapplicable and doesn't necessarily assure that the Internet will persist.
Thank you very much.
KUMMER: Thank you very much, Vint, for
your thoughts. And let's now turn to
Jose Vitor Hansem.
Vitor could you
explain a bit. Brazil was one of the
countries who wanted to have critical Internet resources on the agenda. Can you share your thoughts with us? Thank you.
HANSEM: Yes, thank you, I can share my
thoughts on this with you --
Let me start by
thanking ICANN for the invitation to participate on this panel, to thank the
sponsors of this event here, in particular dot PR, for this well-organized
ICANN meeting we had here in Puerto Rico and for the splendid organization.
I would like to say
to begin with that Brazil -- Brazil's offer to host the second IGF in Rio
between 12 to 15 November 2007 was a joint initiative by the Ministry of
External Relations and by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee itself that
-- a multistakeholder institution which is in of charge Internet governance in
Brazil and which deals with a wider range of scope, range of issues, wider
range of issues than only management of critical Internet resources at a
On the behalf of the
government of Brazil, as the event host, I would like to present our view on
the IGF, the IGF and WSIS achievement, since we understand the IGF is part of
the WSIS processes -- process.
And mention that
these same views were presented by both the government of Argentina and Brazil
during the preparatory meeting we had for the IGF recently in Geneva. And had been presented as well during our
ICANN Lisbon meeting.
Well, first, we have
to understand that the Internet has evolved, thanks to the efforts of most
people here, into a global facility available to the public and its governments
to constitute a core issue of the information society agenda.
Second point is that
the international management of the Internet should be multilateral,
transparent, and democratic with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society, and international organizations.
governance is an essentially element that's people-centered, inclusive, and
development oriented, nondiscriminatory information society.
Fourth, states have
rights and responsibilities for international Internet related public policy
And fifth point, all
governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international
Internet governance and for ensuring stability, security, continuity and
evolution of the Internet.
With regard to the
IGF, the government of Brazil considers it essential that the mandates
established by the Tunis Agenda regarding participation, scope, thematic,
agenda, and possible outcomes -- possible outcomes expected from the IGF be
No subjects that may
be relevant to Internet governance should be a priori be excluded from the
We also understand
that the IGF is a process that has just started in Athens, and we do not expect
that the second meeting, it will be able to deliver the mandate in its
entirety. But we believe that we need
to move forward and we expect that until its last meeting, all the expectations
that the international community has formulated with regard to the IGF aren't
met. One of the other aspects that I
think is important to observe with regard to first the IGF, is that the
participation of representatives from the developing world was very
limited. Only 5% of the participants
came from, particularly, Latin America and the Caribbean. So I think, since we are fortunately in a
country from this region, it's important to emphasize the need of stronger
participation of the representatives of all stakeholder groups from this region
and the IGF in Rio.
And we think that
the fact that the event is going to happen in Rio will help attendance from
participants from the region and from developing countries.
In this regard, I
would lake to recall that the mandate for the forum calls for balanced regional
This is on paragraph
78 of the Tunis Agenda.
And in the sense, we
support the creation of a mechanism to be -- that is able to be able to revert
the problem of underrepresentation of the developing world, established again
by paragraph 78 of the Tunis Agenda.
secretary-general -- this is, again, a provision by the Tunis Agenda -- should
take balanced regional representation into account in the convening of the IGF.
We understand also
that a balanced regional representation is essential for the legitimacy of
possible recommendations of the IGF.
Now, in line, in
answering the question with which Mr. Kummer introduced my speech, we agree
that Internet governance encompasses a wide range of issues or is -- perhaps we
could adopt Vinton Cerf's definition of an ecosystem or economic system or
something in its shape. And this wide
range of issues include but is not limited to the management of critical
resources. And of course, there is no
-- there is no possibility to say what -- to be of an exhaustive list of what
critical resources are.
In this regard,
Tunis Agenda, paragraph 72, provides that the idea shall, inter alia, debate
issues regarding the management of critical Internet resources, while paragraph
72b asks the IGF to facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss
issues that do not fit within the scope of any existing body.
So I think we share
this view that Internet governance is a very complex field with diversity of
issues, and some of which we cannot entirely bridge.
In this context,
Brazil, as the host country of the second IGF, invites ICANN to participate in
the discussions and topical issues related to critical Internet resources as
well as to participate in discussions on any other issue that might interest or
cross-cutting issues that involve management of Internet critical resources.
We think the ICANN
President's Strategy Committee report could be a good starting point for such
discussions internally in ICANN.
I would also like to
mention that we invite the international telecommunications union to present
its views on the management of critical resources and resolution 102 -- ITU
resolution 102 as a reference document.
That's what we understand.
government considers that the inclusion of a main session on Internet critical
resources in the second IGF program will offer an excellent opportunity for
ICANN to report to the international community to its role and activities -- on
its role and activities, as well as on its WSIS follow-up process, in line with
Tunis Agenda paragraph 70 on enhanced cooperation for Internet governance. We think as well that the IGF provides a
valuable outreach opportunity for ICANN since the event is expected to attract
an estimated 2000 or 2500 participants.
Finally, I would
like to invite you all to go to Rio and actively participate in the event. It's convenient to highlight that the IGF
program will dedicate space for the for the presentation of workshops and
critical Internet resources as well as other issues. And those workshops can be proposed and organized by participants
from all stakeholder groups. And we
would like to invite all ICANN constituencies and members to present their
proposals to the IGF Secretariat, here represented by Mr. Kummer. And to conclude, I am glad to announce here
that the Internet Governance Forum, which is the constituency I belong to, is
considering to present a open forum on its activities and roles.
So I am longing to
see you all in Rio.
KUMMER: Thank you, Vitor, for giving us
your host country perspective. I think
that was very helpful.
And I now turn to
Chris Disspain, giving us his perspective, please.
DISSPAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Markus.
I wanted to talk
very briefly about one aspect, about security, an aspect that is very relevant
to the ccTLD community.
Security was a main
theme in Athens, and it's a main theme again in Rio.
But security also
sits underneath critical Internet resources, because the security of those
resources is obviously very important.
the ccTLD perspective, a lot of the management of our infrastructure has been
carried out on a volunteer basis.
ccTLDs provide each other with secondary servers, that sort of thing.
Movement over the
last few years, of course, has been to see that slowly phase out as ccTLDs
realize they have to take responsibility for their own infrastructure. And the cooperation is key.
Security is also an
area where, even if you're in a territory where the government takes a
hands-off approach in respects to the management of the ccTLDs, security is an
area in which the government obviously is concerned and interested. And it's often security aspects that are the
first to lead to discussions and cooperation between a government and a ccTLD
But it's critically
important to remember that security is also important from the point of view of
the end user.
Most attacks come
from -- are on the end user side, not on the top end, the ccTLD, side.
And the IGF is an
ideal forum to provide education and information to business and to individuals
about the sorts of things that they should be doing in respects to security,
both for their own individual computers on the Internet, but also, of course,
for business structures, such as banks and other institutions that now rely to
a huge extent on the Internet.
So I'm very hopeful
that we'll have some important and wide-ranging discussions in Rio on security
and that we will be able to provide information to people to help keep the
infrastructure and the resources secure.
KUMMER: Thank you, Chris. And with the indulgence of the other
panelists, I would like to follow up with him and ask a very simple question.
How would you then
delineate the discussions on critical Internet resources and the main session
devoted to security? Which session
would be dealing with what?
DISSPAIN: Well, I think that critical
Internet resources is such a wide area and it covers so many different
things. There's a tendency for people,
I think, to assume that when you talk about critical Internet resources, you're
basically talking about names and numbering, and that's it. But you're not. You're talking about a whole heap of stuff.
And I suppose my
straightforward answer to your question, Markus, is that given that we actually
have a theme on security, what I would like to see is -- in Rio is using the
critical Internet resources session to get really clear what we mean when we
talk about critical Internet resources, to get really clear who is responsible
for what, and then perhaps at the next IGF, feed down the -- into the other
themes, where it is of relevance to critical Internet resources, so security,
but it's also relevant to access, it's also relevant to -- perhaps not quite so
much diversity, but it's certainly relevant to access. That's how I would see it working.
KUMMER: Okay. Thank you very much for your explanation.
Next on your list is
Raul. Please, Raul.
ECHEBERRIA: Okay. Thank you, Markus.
I would like to
thank everybody that is here in the room, because I know that we are competing
with the lunch. So we are at a
disadvantage with other alternatives for the people who are here.
I was asked to talk
about IPv4 and consumption and transition to IPv6 in the context of the
IGF. So, really, for those who have
attended our presentations in the GAC and the NRO, ASO report this morning,
probably there are not too many things new.
But I'm obligated to repeat some of the information that has been already
As most of you probably
know, the central pool of IPv4 addresses is becoming smaller all the time. If we can anticipate, probably also an
increasing of the consumption of IPv4 in the next few years, since Internet
conditions growing around the world.
Currently, only 19%
of the total IPv4 addresses are still available in the central pool.
made by different scientists, the most known probably is Geoff Huston from
Australia, indicate that the IPv4 central pool will be absolutely depleted for
2010, 2011 sometime, and probably the stock of IPv4 addresses being
administered by the RIRs in each region will be finished in one more year.
Some -- when we say
that, many people ask us to indicate a more precise date on which all IPv4
addresses will be extinguished. We
always say the same: It is impossible
to say that. The predictions are only
At the same time,
probably in the new policies will be developed, I cannot anticipate which
policies will be developed, because they are developed in a bottom-up fashion,
but some people could think that more conservative policies could be adopted in
the next few years.
So probably the life
of IPv4 could be standing for a short time.
Other people think
that the best thing that could happen is to consume all IPv4 addresses as soon
as possible. So probably they will
propose policies in the opposite direction.
So it is impossible
to say now what will happen a few years.
The only thing that we know is that the IPv4 addresses are becoming --
the pool is becoming shorter.
And so the reality
says that this is the moment for adoption of IPv6 as the solution to this
problem. It doesn't matter if the IPv4
addresses will be extinguished in 2012 or 2013; it's almost the same problem,
with very few months of difference.
Yes, of course, in
LACNIC, for example, we have mentioned a date, but not a date for indicating
that in that date there will not be more IPv4 addresses. What we are saying is we are proposing to
the region is a date as a goal for the adoption of IPv6. And we are indicating the date of the
beginning of 2011 as the -- for having all the networks in the region working
in a compatible way with IPv6.
Everybody has a role
in this for achieving those objectives.
The technical community has to work, continue working, for providing
solutions to some aspects that need some adjustment yet. The private sector will be those who will
lead the adoption of IPv6 through investments.
The public sector has to offer some facilitating environments for the
adoption of IPv6, probably also a stimulated option through regulatory or
economic measures. And also
coordinating with industry.
The most important,
as has been said this morning by reports, I guess, is not only to have the
networks working in a compatible way with IPv6, but the most important is that
all the applications could be accessible from IPv6 networks. Sometimes, the people that want to deploy
big networks will have to deploy the networks on IPv6, because there will not
be big contiguous blocks of IPv4 addresses.
So they will have to set up IPv6 networks. So there will be -- at some moment, there will be users only
running IPv6. So one of the things that
we have to promote is that everybody take measures for making their
applications available for IPv6 users.
Due to the fact that
IGF is a place in which all the stakeholders participate, it's a good place for
disseminating this information, for locating people, also for offering all the
information in order that each existing stakeholder could decide or could realize
what is the role that they have to play for achieving the objective of the role
of IPv6 adoption in time. I liked it
when Vint Cerf said this morning that the deadline for adopting IPv6 is before
IPv4 exhaustion. But this is very nice.
Personally, I have
-- I always agree with inclusion of Internet resources as one of the topics for
the main sessions in IGF. So I'm very
comfortable with this situation.
As I said before,
since IGF is the place in which every stakeholder participates, it's the right
place for discussing that, for allowing each stakeholder what is the role they
have to play in that.
The NRO, the Number
Resource Organization, has been involved since the beginning in this
process. And since 2003, when this
issue of Internet governance became a central point in the discussion in the
summit process and in the working group on Internet governance later, as we
have supported the IGF function in supporting this and participating actively
in every discussion. We will continue
this support -- supporting this initiative, because we think that we have
created a very good thing. It's a very
good experience, very innovative experience in which every stakeholder can have
a very productive dialogue, can be engaged in a very productive dialogue without
the pressure of making recommendations, basically, on agreed, negotiated
outcomes. This is the main difference
of IGF in relation with other processes like the summit itself. And this is because we think that this is a
very productive initiative, and we will be in Rio de Janeiro for contributing
to the discussion on this topic, but also in other topics that are of the
interest of the community.
KUMMER: Thank you, Raul, very much for
your -- also for your supportive attitude towards the IGF.
I think everybody
will agree that the issues you highlighted, transition of IPv4 to IPv6, are
important issues related to critical Internet resources, and building on what
Chris has suggested, having a first session showing a bit the landscape of who is
responsible for what, I could imagine that the RIRs sit up on a panel, one of
you, and highlight the problem, and then it will be deepened in one or more of
And I know some
workshops are on the way.
You would like to
ECHEBERRIA: I would like to add a
personal comment. It's very short.
The people that
spoke before me mentioned that one of the things is to look at what are the
Internet critical resources.
It is very
interesting, one week ago or two weeks ago, somewhere a cable was broken in
Central America between Nicaragua and Honduras. This is one of the cables that connects most of the Pacific Ocean
countries in South America with central American countries, with the United
States. So millions of users were affected
And this -- I have
heard that it will take a couple of months to solve the problem. So when we think about what are the critical
resources, we -- I think that it's more exciting, the discussion of DNS and
everything, but we don't have to forget also that cables are also a critical
resource. Because if -- as one friend
of mine said yesterday, if we know to where we can -- we want to go, but we
don't have the way for going to that, then this is really a big problem.
KUMMER: Thank you for this.
And you also pointed
out the strength of the IGF. And I
think very much the multistakeholder approach is the core of the strength.
And we have
Jacqueline here to give us a multistakeholder, civil society perspective.
How would you frame
this particular issue, Jacqueline? Or
anything you would like to add, please.
MORRIS: Yeah, thank you.
Actually, first, I
wanted to say about what Raul said about the Pacific line, we have one very
recently with -- off Guyana and Suriname, and that took down not just the
Internet, but also a lot of the international phone lines. And some of the guys from Guyana can tell
about you the stress they went through even to get basic e-mail via dialup over
their cell phone and all sorts of things.
It really destroys -- that's a really, really serious, critical Internet
Anyway, with regard
to the civil society position, I sat down and started looking at the mandate
for the IGF, and realized that with regard to at-large, what we've done is that
we are working really hard to put the multistakeholder structure within
ICANN. We endorse, of course, the
multistakeholder framework of the IGF.
And ICANN itself finally today, a few minutes ago, has reached a new
milestone with regards to its multistakeholder behavior with the end of the
interim ALAC, which had appointed members by the board, and the formalization
of the structure with elected members.
We hope that this will give us full or close to full participation of
individual users and mechanisms for a dialogue with and advice from the
individual Internet users.
The road is a rough
and difficult one. There's a lot of
work we have to do to be able to get that advice and get that dialogue
going. But one of the things that we've
noticed while we were getting when we were starting that is that ICANN's remit
is a very, very narrow technical one.
The groups that we
have as our members, the ALSs, the NGOs, the multistakeholder groups that are
effective in their regions, have much, much broader issues that they want to
deal with. And it's sometimes very
difficult to tell them, yeah, it's a really, really important issue, but you
can't bring that up here, because ICANN doesn't have anything to do with it.
And so one of the
things that we really like about the IGF, and one of the things that I think we
need to work more with the IGF in, is the fact that the IGF is, in its mandate,
the space for things that can't fit in ICANN and can't fit in IETF. And things that work across all of these
places. Because it's supposed to
provide a space for dealing with the different cross-cutting international
public policies regarding the Internet and a space to discuss issues which
don't fall within the scope of any existing bodies.
And one that works
-- that is a major, major thing for a lot of people which ICANN doesn't deal
with at all, which is access and availability.
Because we can have
all the wonderful documents, we can get Kieren to write them and do cartoons
and make them very, very easy for people to understand, but until we have them
as Internet users, they are still not really part of the constituency within
And that's not an
ICANN issue to get them to be connected, but that's something that the ALSs can
work with in the IGF structure.
So I think it's
really important that the two things work together hand in hand.
And as so, as such,
we really want to say that the ALAC is ready, willing and able to participate
in any initiative that ICANN wants to put forward towards IGF. We are also looking at working -- at doing
some work on our own towards the IGF, and to support the participation of the
at-large structures, the NGOs and the MSHs and so on that may want to
participate in the IGF in Rio. And I
hope we can support these activities, as ICANN should be a strong
multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
And it should be working towards an open, inclusive, positive, and
constructive dialogue about what is needed, both for the Internet Governance
Forum community and for all the other organizations and groups that are
necessary to meet the mandate given to the IGF in Tunis.
That's it. Thank you.
KUMMER: Thank you, Jacqueline. I think that was also very helpful.
And I particularly
liked the way you pointed out that the IGF and ICANN, that they are
complementary and can be beneficial to each other, and I very much, I think,
share this view.
I wonder at this
stage whether any of the panelists -- well, we lost two of them -- would like
DISSPAIN: You Raul is over there. He will be back in a second.
KUMMER: Any other comments from the
panelists or should we go straight to the floor?
DISSPAIN: I would just like to
acknowledge and agree with what Jacqueline just said. I think we sometimes tend to lose sight of the fact that this
stuff is all here for a reason, and that reason is for people to be able to
connect to the Internet, and find what they're looking for.
And I think
Jacqueline has highlighted one of the major issues really well, and even though
it's major issue, it tends not to get much traction. And that is the access -- access is the most important thing,
because if you can't get access, it's completely pointless having anything
KUMMER: Well, thank you for that.
And you will
remember that we have changed the order of the main themes. This year we will begin with access -- I
mean after the critical Internet resources, but within the four Athens themes –
DISSPAIN: Are you getting some sort of
sense that I don't understand "begin"? Because that normally means you begin at the beginning –
KUMMER: We begin at the beginning.
-- but begin at the
opening ceremony, then we have the critical Internet resources, that was the
general wish. But within the four
Athens' themes, we reversed the order because it was generally recognized that,
indeed, access is the most important theme for most people. Once people have access, then the things you
highlighted, like security, become more important, yes.
I wonder whether if
we have questions from the floor or are people hungry? And I can see Bill disappearing to lunch and
has all my sympathy
[ Laughter ]
KUMMER: Would jib like to take the
floor? Have a question.
While you are
thinking, maybe I can say a few words on the workshops.
I can see Izumi is
saving us from any embarrassment.
DISSPAIN: There's no mike.
KUMMER: Oh, there's no mike.
AIZU: Can I use this one?
Just to save us
farther away from the lunch, just one sort of naive question.
I noticed that in
the consultation there are certain governments or others who would like to have
more sort of binding or some sort of conclusion or document or whatever as a
clear outcome from the IGF. And of
course the IGF originally is designed to be a forum for dialogue. But there was some vague language, "If
appropriate" or something that you come to the recommendation of some
What is the status
of debate or preparation? Is this IGF
different from the original one in that regard or it remains pretty much the
KUMMER: Well, with your indulgence,
I'll briefly respond from the chair.
It is a negotiated
mandate, as you know, and it has all the ambiguities that are inherent in a negotiated
mandate. But the mandate does mention
the possibility of making recommendations.
It does not say how
this should be achieved as the mandate doesn't set out procedures.
And we had the first
discussion in Athens. Some participants
feel there should be something coming out of a meeting such as the IGF in terms
You rightly pointed
out, it says recommendations. The
mandate also says "where appropriate." In diplomatese, that means virtually never because there is
always somebody who will say, no, this is not inappropriate. And also the recommendations are actually
limited to emerging issues.
But this is an
ongoing discussion. I think it touches
on the heart itself of what the IGF is.
Would it be a diplomatic conference or is it really a forum for
multistakeholder dialogue? But it is
difficult to imagine that you can actually reach recommendations without any
rules of procedure.
I see now we have a
line of speakers.
DELBIANCO: Thank you, Markus. My name is Steve Delbianco with NetChoice,
coalition of e-commerce companies and very active here at ICANN in the business
I think Vint
correctly contextualized the ecosystem of the Internet. He is right about that. And within that context he did make the DNS
management as conducted by ICANN to be -- well, it's only one component in that
But I'll admit
readily that it is a critical component.
Again, it is only just one.
But it must be
critical, it must be important or there wouldn't be so many stakeholders
putting so much time into participating in the ICANN process. I can tell you it's a lot of work to stay
engaged at the level of depth and detail necessary to understand, influence,
and move the ball down the field on ICANN when it comes to DNS management.
So with all of us
putting so much time into it, I have to share that on Monday morning, when we
kicked off this entire ICANN week, I had some discomfort when the host country,
U.S. government representative, kicked things off by reminding ICANN that it
had work to do, to be more transparent and accountable.
I have no discomfort
with that. I want ICANN to be
transparent and accountable. But I
winced because I feared that the nations that are pushing for the give to be
the answer heard completely different words coming from the U.S. government.
They heard that
statement to say that, well, it must be apparent that ICANN is accountable to
the U.S. government.
true. It's not remotely true.
And yet I fear that
that message must be what's pushing some major nations to put their faith in
the IGF for critical Internet resources like this instead of in ICANN.
And that will be a
loss to not only the world at large but the nations that are particularly
pushing for IGF to look harder and harder at some of the things ICANN manages.
Why aren't more
nations pushing for IGF's expansion of its agenda here for this week in Puerto
Rico? I would remind you that a quarter
-- we talked about the developing nations perhaps having underrepresentation at
the first IGF, and I was there in Athens.
But keep in mind that a quarter of ICANN's budget, about $11 million a
year, is for outreach, and outreach is about getting who are and more nations,
both the developing and otherwise, to participate in the ICANN process.
I believe 33 nations
have representatives that are here at ICANN on a basis of fellowship grants
amounting to about a hundred thousand.
But 11 million is a
lot of money, and for that kind of money, if we can't convince Chinese and
Russian governments to participate actively, that's enough money, we should
kidnap them and bring them here so they can get engaged in the process.
So my appeal is to
please participate. Don't duplicate the
DNS management done in ICANN. Because
from the perspective of the private sector and the work we put in plus the
trillion dollars we've invested to build out the Internet, I can tell you the
only thing worse than having to work at ICANN is having two ICANNs to follow-up
KUMMER: I don't know whether it's
appropriate -- a very brief reaction. I
think what your formula, participate and duplicate, I think is shared by most
who are involved in preparing the meetings.
And I think there is
no competition between the IGF and ICANN.
I think both are complementary institutions. And I think Raul pointed it out nicely, and also Jacqueline. There are issues which don't fall within the
scope of ICANN.
The problem starts
when we discuss, then, "ICANN issues," in quotes.
But I would suggest
-- how much time do we have, Theresa?
When are they going to kick us out of this room?
SWINEHART: I'm not sure they are going
to kick us out.
KUMMER: The question will be more, I
suppose, the hunger test by participants.
Shall we listen to
questions and then react? Please,
HASSAN: Mine is more a comment, Ayesha
has San from the international Chamber of Commerce and also on behalf of the
members of the basis initiative, business action to support the information society.
I just wanted to
emphasize two of the cross-cutting themes.
I appreciated the range of comments and issues that were brought up by
the panelists and I think it's important to remember that the IGF has a
capacity building and development focus to cross-cutting themes for all of the
main meetings. And the ICC and basis
members really looking at those two themes in the context of the critical
Internet resources session as a real opportunity.
The opportunity to
lay the landscape, as Markus, you commented.
To lay out what are the critical Internet resources. And the IGF serves an important function in
raising awareness amongst all stakeholders about the Internet resource-oriented
activities that are happening around the world.
And we look at that as
a very important element to bear in mind as the session is shaped, so at this
first discussion, people leave with a greater understanding of who is doing
what, as Chris and others have mentioned.
And also, with the
opportunity to engage with those people throughout the week in the other
opportunities that are presented through the IGF events.
Thank you very much.
KUMMER: Thank you, Ayesha.
LA CHAPELLE: Good morning, my name is
Bertrand De La Chapelle.
Just a brief comment
to support the complementarity. As a
participant in the different processes, both in the WSIS, now in the IGF and in
ICANN, there is an incredible benefit for all the different actors to cross
pollinate to different spheres because they are addressing sometimes the same
types of problems but from different angles, also from different
I had a very
interesting experience a few weeks ago.
Participating in a seminar in a foundation in the U.K. on the future of
the long-term impact of the Internet.
And participating were a lot of people who were completely involved --
publishers from the Washington Post, people who have been in business
administration and who were dealing with that subject.
The level of
awareness of what had happened in the World Summit on the Information Society
that had relatively some external coverage, let alone the level of awareness
that existed about what is being discussed here was completely different, and
it's perfectly normal. Exactly like a
lot of us have a scarce knowledge of what is happening in the IETF, but it's
the interconnectedness that's important.
I think Vint used
the word "ecosystem." We must
all think about the governance framework or the Internet governance framework
as a governance ecosystem. There are a
lot of bodies, entities, that interact, that deal with the issues, and the key
question is how they interrelate. The
IGF is a wonderful place and is intended as a wonderful place to address the
issue framing, awareness-raising, network-connecting. I mean it's a social network connecting place. And all the different bodies that deal with
the Internet-related issues have an opportunity there to come, share and see
how they can address the issues at best.
Last point, what I
take out from this week is the importance for the whole of the ICANN community
to think about what we understand as a multistakeholder public policy -- policy
development process. It's a challenge
for everybody. Nobody knows exactly
what it is.
The IGF is
addressing the very early part of any public policy development process. The issue framing, agenda setting, awareness
And ICANN is dealing
mostly with, once an issue is identified within ICANN or elsewhere, how to
define it correctly and how to implement and manage.
That's the kind of
articulation I can see.
KUMMER: Thank you, Bertrand.
If there are no
further questions from the floor, then I can we can sort of proceed to a
wrap-up from the podium.
I already have a
concrete take-away from this session, that is the governance he can
ecosystem. That's a new buzzword I
Chris, you asked to
DISSPAIN: I just wanted to pick up on
something that a couple of people have said from the floor about creating another
ICANN or don't duplicate.
I think there's a
perception that some people involved in the IGF are working really hard to make
ICANN not a topic of discussion. And
that's actually not the case.
Internet resources of which the DNS is a part is a very important issue and it
should be discussed.
The problem that
arises is when -- is if you try to use something like the IGF as a forum to
discuss ICANN's mandate, or anyone else's mandate for that matter, there are
plenty of other places to talk about that.
One of them being here.
But the discussion
about what ICANN does, how it does it, how it could do it better is fine.
It's the discussion
about the mandate that causes problems, I think.
KUMMER: Thank you. You would like to react, Vitor?
HANSEM: Yes. Just in the same line regarding the (inaudible) duplication, I
would like to say that the purpose of the IGF is neither to duplicate ICANN nor
to duplicate ITU or to duplicate any existing body that is responsible for
Internet governance-related activities.
On behalf of the Brazilian government, I can say that we have actively
participated from the very beginning, activities within ICANN as well as we
have participated on all the activism related to the IGF and we have profited
from both. And the IGF I think have
taken into account the ecosystem approach mentioned by Vint Cerf here. We have to understand that the IGF is the
perfect place for cross-cutting issues to be dealt with.
KUMMER: Thank you, Vitor. I am looking to my left. Who next?
ECHEBERRIA: Thank you, Markus.
I'm sorry for the
Yes, I want to
comment on something that was said regarding development.
I think that
capacity-building is very important, of course. But I really put the focus on development. I think that this is the most important
I accept that
Internet resources is a very important topic.
And this is because it has to be in the agenda of IGF. As I said before, I'm very comfortable with
But we cannot forget
that the most important things are those that are related with
I have pointed out
in a previous meeting the result of a survey that was conducted by ECLAC, the
Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean region, in which
participated 500 people from different sectors. Good presentations from the governments, good presentation from
the people from civil society, from the economic sector and private
sector. The conclusion when you see the
result of the survey, what are the issues that are more important for the
people who participate, you can see that the top of the list are all the issues
that are related strictly with development:
Access, as has been pointed out by Jacqueline before, issues related
with allocation, research, and many other things.
So we cannot lose
the focus on that.
The IGF is a result
of the summit on information society, not only on information resources. So we have to deal with all those aspects of
Internet governance that have impact in the development of the information
society. Thank you.
KUMMER: Thank you, Raul.
MORRIS: All I want to do is just remind
everyone that we -- well, the ALAC as a whole right now has a potential
membership of a billion people, a billion people who are connected.
But -- and we've
gotten to a couple of million of those.
We really need to
move to a space where we have the six billion people, whether they're connected
or not connected, giving us information so that we can put information forward
so decisions are made, because the decisions that we're making here at ICANN
and in the IGF are decisions that are being made for the long term. It's not decisions that we're going to
change next year or the year after.
And if people are
coming online in five years, ten years, we have to think about what they need
and what they're going to want, even though they may not be able to come here
or go online and tell us right now. And
I think that's part of the reason that the IGF is really, really useful,
because the IGF has a reach that ICANN doesn't have because of the mandate.
So I just hope we
don't forget all those people that we can't really access right now.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jacqueline.
[ Applause ]
KUMMER: I think this discussion was
very helpful, indeed.
I think -- well, we
all agree that we are going to discuss critical Internet resources and we're
going to have further discussions on how to do so. We have another open round of consultations on the 3rd of
September in Geneva, and we also invite for contributions on our Web site.
But I think there
are certain ideas that were mentioned and aired today that could help: That in the first phase we lay out the
landscape of who is doing what, who is who with regard to critical Internet
resources. And I think a strong message
that came out today was, we should never lose the development focus and remain
faithful to our cross-cutting priorities -- development and capacity-building
-- and also that we should look ahead on how to get the next five billion on
board as Internet users.
Let me maybe briefly
conclude with -- I was going to say a commercial, but it's not quite a
commercial. It's just a reminder on the
One of the deadlines
is approaching fast, that is the deadline for submitting proposals for
workshops. And I know there are various
groups within the ICANN community that were discussing workshop proposals.
My message, don't be
afraid of the short deadline, but please post something, fill in the form, and
say, "The rest will follow."
For us, it's helpful to have a placeholder that we do know who is
planning what, because several people -- several groups of people may be toying
with the idea of planning a workshop which is very similar. So the next month will give us an
opportunity to contact the proposers of workshops, see whether they want to
merge or see whether they want to approach a theme from a different angle.
I know there are
various discussions about workshops on the transition from IPv4 and IPv6, and I
think it would deserve maybe more than one workshop. But, of course, we cannot repeat the same workshop. They should be what different.
So it doesn't matter
if the proposal is not fully fleshed out.
But, please, those who are planing to submit one, just give us a
declaration of intent, a placeholder, and register.
We have so far I
think 17 workshops that are sort of in the making, not yet submitted, but they
are in the pipeline. And I think more
will come in the last few days.
There will be also
other deadlines. We will have the 31st
of July for submission of best practice forum proposals and open forum
sessions. So there is a little bit more
time for these.
If you would like,
from the host country, would like to add something? Please.
HANSEM: You have a right to present
your commercial. I would like to
On behalf of -- I
would like to tell everybody in this room that whoever wants to -- thinks a
Brazilian partner to a workshop would be useful from any stakeholder group that
you are interested in, please, we will be available to contact, Brazilian
organizations, civil society organizations, governmental agencies, or private
sector institutions, to cohost, to co-organize workshops with any stakeholder
interest. So please present your
proposal and try to identify a Brazilian partner if you think it's interesting.
KUMMER: Thank you. And the very last commercial. We're going to have an excellent meeting,
thanks to our Brazilian hosts. It is
the team that organized the Sao Paulo ICANN meeting. They know how to organize a meeting.
So I'm very
confident we're going to have an excellent meeting.
A very last, Jacqueline.
MORRIS: Since we're doing adverts, at
2:00, in flamingo C and D, the ALAC will be having a workshop on IDNs. And we would love to have all of you there.
KUMMER: Okay. Thank you, all, for your attention. And enjoy your lunch.
Thank you. Bye bye.
[ Applause ]