Those topics are:

Status reports

• Document deadlines
• Language
• Calendar of meetings

For discussion

• Public comment process
• Public Forum
• Electronic tools for participation

You can download the backgrounder document here, or read the whole thing below. Everyone is encouraged to read it and come along to the meeting to discussion how ICANN can improve its public participation.

Public meeting backgrounder

Wednesday 24 June 2009

This backgrounder document has been prepared in order to promote more efficient and effective dialogue in the limited time available for the public meeting of the Public Participation Board Committee.

The Committee is working on a range of ways to improve public participation, with the expectation that most of them will be in place in time for ICANN’s meeting in Seoul in October 2009.

The Committee also recognizes that this document will not be released within the document deadline it has sought to outline for the organization to enable effective community review before meetings.

However, in order to promote discussion and dialogue with the community on these issues and to encourage participation in the development of these changes, initial thoughts and ideas have been drawn up and are published below.

The Committee will be available on Wednesday 24 June 2009 at 9 a.m., for about 90 minutes, to discuss any aspect of these ideas and proposals, and those individual Board members on the Committee would also like to encourage community members to share their views and opinions with them directly if there is not sufficient time during that meeting or they are unable to attend.

Topics

The Committee has six main issues it is working on at the moment.

Three of them will be covered here in the form of status updates, and they are:

• Document deadlines
• Language
• Calendar of meetings

And the other three will be specific topics of discussion at the public meeting:

• Public comment process
• Public Forum
• Electronic tools for participation

Each is coverered individually below, in this order.

Document Deadlines – Status Update

The issue of document deadlines, i.e. introducing a cut-off date for the production of documents prior to ICANN international public meetings, was raised at the Committee’s previous meeting in Mexico City.

The idea having met with unanimous approval, the Committee moved forward, proposing a specific resolution to the whole Board at its May meeting.

As a result, the Board approved the introduction of two deadlines for Sydney, and charged the Public Participation Committee with developing a fuller policy in time for the Seoul meeting in October 2009.

The relevant resolutions can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm , point 8).

Below is a quick summary of the feedback received on this point from the Mexico City meeting. Underneath that is an expanded explanation of document deadlines taken from Committee documents used in arriving at the Board-approved deadlines.

Feedback from Mexico City:

1. Support for idea of document deadlines (Note: This is now instituted)
2. But need to communicate that very clearly to SOs and ACs (Note: we hope to achieve that in Sydney)
3. May be useful to produce zip file of all documents for a meeting (Note: something that will be considered for the Seoul meeting as part of the development of an operational policy)
4. Need agenda and presentations earlier (Note: Again, something that will be considered as part of the operational policy)

Excerpt from Committee working documents:

The need for document deadlines

It has long been a complaint of the community that documents are published too late prior to an international public meeting for there to be full consideration of their contents before the meeting starts.

The Committee recognizes the improvements that ICANN staff has made in this respect and also notes that many documents require the input and review of a significant number of people, both staff and community members, which can make early publication of documents difficult.

Nonetheless, due to the strength of feeling expressed by the community on this issue and the fact that it is clear best practice to provide documents sufficiently far ahead of a meeting for their contents to be properly and fully digested, the Committee is making a series of firm recommendations on document deadlines.

It is our belief that these deadlines will make possible greater and more effective participation within ICANN processes.

Community feedback

At the Committee’s public meeting in Mexico City, there was widespread support for the production of document deadlines prior to international public meetings.

Among those who specifically supported the idea were: Chuck Gomes of VeriSign; Ayesha Hassan of the International Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Cade, a member of ICANN’s President’s Strategy Committee; Zahid Jamil, a GNSO Councillor; and ICANN’s President and CEO, Paul Twomey.

ICANN CEO Paul Twomey publicly stated his comfort with the Board Committee for Public Participation recommending to the Board deadlines for the future production of documents for international public meetings.

The issue of document deadlines was also raised by the Governmental Advisory Committee both during its meetings in Mexico City and formally in its communiqué.

The communiqué states: “In order to facilitate better GAC input to ICANN policy making, the GAC proposes that all documents to be considered at ICANN meetings, be posted not less than 15 working days before the meeting. In the event that this is not possible, the GAC may need to defer discussion until the subsequent meeting.”

In light of this community feedback, the Committee is recommending to the Board in this memorandum the introduction of two document deadlines for international public meetings. A 15-working-day deadline should stand for documents intended for GAC review and for final approval by any of the Advisory Committee or Supporting Organization councils, and a 10-working-day deadline for all other documents intending to be provided to the community.

The Committee checked on the definition and intent of “working days” with General Counsel and was informed that the wording referred to week days i.e. Monday to Friday, and that public holidays were not exempt i.e. they are counted as one of the working days.

Sydney and beyond

The system outlined above provides the following deadlines for the Sydney meeting:

• All documents: Monday 8 June 2009, 07:00 UTC
• GAC and final approval documents: Monday 1 June 2009, 07:00 UTC

As this process started only recently, it is expected that a significant number of documents will not meet the deadline set for Sydney. Requesting explanations for late documents, however, should serve to inform the community and staff about the Board’s intentions, and inform the Board about the processes behind the production of documents.

If adopted prior to Sydney, the deadlines should have a significant impact by the time of the Seoul meeting in October, and if successfully implemented and adopted, represent a norm for the meeting in Africa in March 2010.

The need to communicate with ACs and SOs

The Committee was advised by a number of Board members, staff members and members of the community that document deadlines will need to be clearly communicated to the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations.

Most of the work produced by ICANN staff for meetings is community-driven and in many cases progression on documents is reliant on review by one or several advisory committees or supporting organizations. As such, it will be crucial that deadlines be clearly communicated, and their implications fully understood, by the ACs and SOs before becoming effective across the organization.

It will be necessary in many cases for community members and staff to set a series of deadlines over a number of months in order to reach the main meeting document deadline.

Adequate time and consideration will therefore need to be given to ensure that the document deadlines are seen as a valuable assistance rather than being perceived as an unreasonable expectation or an attempt to rush community deliberations.

Exceptions, where warranted.

The Committee acknowledges that there will be occasional exceptions to these deadlines, particularly for the first few meetings after they are adopted. In some cases it is not possible to prepare documents in time, either because of the last-minute nature of the subject or because of unforeseen or unavoidable delays.

However, it is the Committee’s position that these should be exceptions that become increasingly rare over time. Furthermore, in order to understand the various factors that may contribute to late document publication, the Committee will be asking for a full explanation from the relevant staff member for each and every document that is produced late, starting at the Sydney meeting in June 2009.

Exception explanations should be provided to the Committee a minimum of five working days before the first Committee meeting that follows the relevant international public meeting (the Committee’s first meeting after Sydney is held on Tuesday 21 July, so all explanations should be provided to the Committee before Tuesday 14 July).

Going forward

The Committee recognizes that in the production of an operational policy, a wide range of issues need to be reviewed, because of the impact that document deadlines are liable to have.

As such, a small and incomplete list of questions are produced below for discussion:

• What does the deadline apply to? Every document? What about agendas and presentations?
• Is a single 15-working-day deadline the right approach and figure?
• What implications does a deadline have (less time for work between meeting, for example)?
• How do we deal with exceptions?

Language – Status Update

The issue of language, with respect to both the use of terminology and the provision of materials in languages other than English – is something that the Committee continues to review and work on.

With respect to the translation and interpretation provided by ICANN as an organization: the amount, timeliness and quality of both has increased significantly over the past two years and continues to improve. The organization now has a full-time Translations Manager, we are moving toward a multilingual website, and have introduced a new system for community-requested translations.

Additionally, we will soon have new translation software at the back-end and this may soon enable ICANN to give the community a way to directly input translations into our system. ICANN also provided the online Question Box – where any community member is able to ask the Board a specific question – in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian – for the Sydney meeting.

Nevertheless, the issue of translation remains a barrier to participation for a global audience and the Committee will continue to address how, organizationally, ICANN can improve.

Feedback from Mexico

• Attendees need to be able to speak and express themselves in different languages. (Note: Interpretation continues to be provided in all the main sessions and many of the smaller sessions when it is requested. We do note however that the use of headsets remains limited, raising questions about the level of demand for interpretation, and the costs involved.)

• Overuse of acronyms and lingo (Note: Since ICANN’s work typically concerns very specific issues with the domain name system, it is inevitable that a certain degree of lingo will be used. However to the extent that the use of such languages impedes effectives participation, the Committee will continue to examine ways to encourage communication in plain English.

• Translation expensive: so may only need translation of executive summaries. (Note: The Committee will shortly be addressing how best to provide executive summaries of all ICANN documents and the use of plain English as far as possible will be a key component of that process.)

Going forward:

• A new announcements process being developed will enable routine translation of announcements and public comment periods
• A multilingual front page – so people can find information in their language – is under development
• Increased translation. The Translations Manager has been very effective in reducing translation costs so that more translation is possible within the same budget. The translation budget will increase for FY2010; future increases will likely depend on evidence of community demand.
• ICANN is pioneering the use of interactive video transcripts in multiple languages so recordings of ICANN’s work (almost all of which is carried out in English) will be accessible to speakers of other languages.

Possible issues for discussion:

• A very high percentage of the ICANN community remains English-speaking: is this simply the reality of the work ICANN undertakes, or is use of language self-selecting participants?
• Does ICANN’s approach favor those from particular cultures? For example, the use of open microphones and email lists for raising and discussing issues.
• How does ICANN strike the balance between plain language and the fact that much of its work is quite technical in nature?

Calendar of Meetings – Status Update

In deciding on precise meeting dates for the future, ICANN gives careful consideration to international and religious holidays, as well as avoiding overlap with other large conferences, while allowing for adequate time between ICANN Meetings.

The dates for 2010 meetings have already been fixed and the Committee is reviewing the dates for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Staff prepared a calendar of other events occuring through those years in order to help guide and explain the dates put forward.

The Committee is publishing that document so the community has an opportunity to highlight any events or dates that may have been overlooked.

The recommended dates for the 2011-13 are given below:

2011

13-18 March
19-24 June
09-14 October

2012

11-16 March
24-29 June
14-19 October

2013

07-12 April
14-19 July
17-22 November

Possible issues for discussion:

• Have any important dates or holidays been missed that would require review of the above dates?

Public comment process – For discussion

The public comment process – where the community is invited to review and comment on all substantive work that ICANN produces – is a crucial element of the way the organization works and helps ensure both transparency and accountability in its processes.

Despite ongoing improvements to the public comments system – including the provision of a public comment page and summary/analyses of all comments to individual periods – overall it still remains far from optimal.

Staff are currently reviewing three new software solutions that would greatly improve the comment process, and the Committee will soon examine ways to provide executive summaries for most documents, but there remain issues with the public comment process that needs to be addressed by the whole community in order to make the process more effective.

The issues:

• Public comment overload.

ICANN as a whole is producing more comment periods than ever before, leading some to complain of overload and an inability to keep track.

The problem is particularly acute close to ICANN international public meetings. Last month (May 2009), no less than 12 comment periods were opened; in June, so far, there have been a further six. At any given time, an average of eight comment periods open for review.

Does the community believe this is the most effective way for ICANN to do its business while retaining openness and accountability? Are there alternative solutions?

Should there be prescribed spacing out of comment periods? Should comment periods be longer to give more time to respond? Are there some issues or documents that do not need to go through the formal comment system?

• Approach taken.

Currently, all public comment periods are announced on the front page of the ICANN site, and all open and recently closed comment periods are placed on a dedicated public comment page, linked to several times on the front page of ICANN’s main website.

Nevertheless, ICANN continues to receive, on average, under 20 comments per comment period. And if you discount the very large comment periods (Applicant Guidebook versions), there are, on average, just over seven comments per comment period.

Is this a sufficient response to publicly posted documents? Are people being made sufficiently aware of the comment process? Should there be required outreach to identified affected stakeholders?

Is it possible to effectively participate in a comment period? For example, do large documents posted with an email address for comments hinder effective participation? If so, what changes could be made? Would advance notice of comment periods have an impact? Would online polling of particular questions be effective or misleading?

• Feedback.

Every person sending in a comment receives receipt of that comment along with an explanation of ways in which to participate within ICANN’s processes. But, typically, there are no more targeted updates after that point.

Should respondents be kept up-to-date with progress of the particular area? How does ICANN show the impact of public comments on progress of an issue? Should there be required discussion of comment summaries when the topic is discussed next by the relevant group?

• Rules and procedures.

Those within the community know and expect that all revised versions of documents will be put out for public comment for, typically, 30 days. There are also a set of consultation principles that ICANN abides by (http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/community.htm#d ).

However, those are very few stated rules and procedures attached to comment periods. Should there be? For example, who may start a comment period, how it is formatted, which topics require public comment and which do not, how are late comments dealt with, and so on.

The Committee wants to review this crucial process to make sure it is meeting both the organization’s and the community’s needs.

Public Forum – For discussion

The public forum session typically held on Thursday at ICANN’s international public meetings is a crucial point of participation for the community. Anyone may put a question directly to the Board in the long open microphone session.

For Mexico City and for Sydney, there has also been the option to ask a question through an online Question Box – allowing for those that are not physically at the meeting or who prefer not to publicly address the whole room to have their say.

However, the Committee feels that the public forum is not fulfilling its desired purpose which is to act as a place where there can be open and active dialogue between the community and the Board.

The Committee will be recommending a number of changes in the format of the public forum in an experiment and in an effort to improve the session.

Those changes reflect closely what the Committee was told by the community itself at the Committee’s public meeting in Mexico City, namely:

• That the public forum is dominated each time by the same few individuals
• That the current format is not effective at encouraging discussion on particular topic but rather encourages a series of unrelated statements to be read out

The Committee has also recognized that:

• There is not enough two-way interaction between Board and community
• The opportunity for effective remote participation is not being used well
• The Board should be seen to be paying more attention to the room

Suggestions for change to public forum:

• Have the start of forum led by questions sent in remotely (and also, where possible, to give remote participants priority over those in the room)
• Have two microphones and two queues – one for new topics, one for comment on topic currently being discussed.
• Give precedence to those who have not asked a question in a public forum before
• Request that Board members engage more with the room and spend less time looking at their laptop screens

Other feedback from Mexico City:

• Use of colored cards may be useful (Note: The Committee remains uncertain whether this would be a useful system to introduce.)
• Announce issues to be discussed on website earlier (Note: The Committee wonder how effective this would actually be to pulling people into the forum.)

Excerpt from Committee working documents:

This memo represents the deliberations of the Committee with respect to the Public Forum held at the most recent ICANN meeting in Mexico City, as well as the previous international public meetings in Cairo and Paris.

1. Purpose

What is the public forum appropriate for and what is it not appropriate for?

Many hours are given over to the public forum/open microphone at each ICANN meeting and while its purpose is clear – to give the community a clear voice to raise questions or concerns – it is not clear that that purpose is being effectively realized with the current arrangements.

Too often, the public forum is not used as a forum to ask questions but rather as a way for individuals to make statements on the record. This greatly reduces the interactive nature of the forum and also consumes considerable time.

Also, the statements or views expressed are frequently the summation of views already expressed in a number of different fora during the previous days of the meeting.

There needs to be a trade-off between the one-way provision of (often repetitious) information to the Board and a more interactive two-way dialogue between Board and community. It may be worth exploring different avenues for the provision of official statements.

One suggestion is a second standing microphone which is used only for follow-up questions and statements on the particular topic currently being discussed.

2. Participants

It is notable that among approximately 1,200 attendees that the public forum/open microphone is dominated by a very small number of the same individuals at each meeting. The Committee would like to see broader and wider participation of the community during the public forum.

One suggestion put forward during the Board’s own session in Mexico City, and supported by some Committee members, is to reserve the start of the public forum for those that have not asked a question before in the public forum.

3. Remote Participation

The forum is an ideal venue for effective remote participation. However it needs to be recognized that effective remote participation can only be achieved if remote participants are given priority over those physically present.

The Committee wonders whether to recommend that the first hour of the public forum (or appropriate time period) is given over entirely to remote participants. It may be possible to take a number of questions provided by remote participants as the start point for further discussion within the room.

4. Board interaction

It is a consistent complaint that the Board does not interact sufficiently with the community during the public forum. In particular the sight of Board members on stage peering at open laptops rather than looking at the audience has been identified as a source of some consternation.

From the Board’s perspective there are two main issues in this respect. Firstly, much of the information is one-way – with Board members expected to listen to several hours of position statements. Secondly, during the public forum much of the flow of information – which is particularly high due to the session’s nature – is done electronically.

Despite that situation however, the Committee feels that all Board members on stage should demonstrate their attention to the debate during these public discussions. Glancing at the scribe feed on the screens in front of them is understandable, even advisable, but only modest attention should be paid to chat and email while the public forum is going on.

Electronic tools for participation – For discussion

Since ICANN is an Internet organization, it has always sought ways to use the Internet’s unique ability to communicate, to achieve effective participation.

Typically, such participation is carried out in two ways: firstly, through the provision and sharing of information on ICANN’s main website; and secondly, through remote participation tools while a physical meeting is going on.

The Committee is taking a particular interest in the use of electronic tools for remote participation, since it believes effective remote participation is essential to ICANN’s future and also represents significant future cost savings. As such, it recommended to the Board at its meeting in May that the organization take a more formal approach to determining what systems may be best suited to public participation in the context of ICANN.

The Committee’s Charter states that it should identify and encourage the development of effective tools, strategies, and methods for Public Participation activities, and it also agrees with the Chairman’s publicly stated view that ICANN should become a world leader in remote participation.

With this in mind, the Committee is working with staff to assess the suitability for use and best practices for remote participation tools, technologies and approaches in an effort to enable the community to enable greater participation (while also accounting for remote participation capabilities in developing countries).

Possible issues for discussion:

• What tools that ICANN currently uses are most effective, and which are least effective?
• Are there limits to what can be achieved through remote participation? If so, what are they?
• What type of tools does ICANN not currently use that might be useful?
• How can we foster participation from people in countries and regions with limited technical tools (access, connectivity, bandwidth, cost…)?
• What improvements could be made to existing systems?
• Will remote participation become more or less important over time?

Website usability study

ICANN’s website is the main entry point for the community to follow the work of the organization, but it remains far from optimal.

The Committee notes, and will follow with particular interest, a usability study that staff are carrying out with respect to the ICANN.org website where the community is being encouraged to provide its views on the website and where it can be adjusted or improved.

The Committee encourages all community members to fill in the online survey form opened prior to the Sydney meeting to gather information, and would like to discuss input into that process, the issues that people have with the current website.

Possible issues for discussion:

• What do people expect from the ICANN.org website?
• How easy is the navigation on the site?
• What features would be useful on the website?

• A new registrars contract

After two years of work, a new contract covering the relationship between ICANN and registrars was approved by the Board.

The contract contains no less than 17 amendments and was the first overhaul of the contract since it was first approved in 2001. Read more in the official announcement: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-29may09-en.htm.

The review came about after the collapse of registrar RegisterFly back in April 2007. It was clear then that there needed to be greater protections for those registering domains, and to have a system that would work better in the case of a future registrar collapse.

So ICANN did what it does and went to the broad Internet community to ask what changes to make and how to make them. The end result is something that everyone has signed up to and should strengthen the domain name system as a whole.

• Document Deadlines

A frequent complaint in the community for years has been the fact that documents for ICANN meetings often arrive just a few days before they are due to be discussed, which doesn’t give people enough time to review them.

This issue was picked up by the new Public Participation Board Committee and the idea of introducing document deadlines was raised at the Mexico City meeting in March. Everyone agreed that it would be a good idea, with the GAC even asking for a 15-working-day deadline in its official communiqué.

So, the Public Participation Committee worked on the proposal and recommended to the Board the introduction of such a deadline, which the Board approved and is now in place.

Since Sydney was so close however, two deadlines were created: one of 15 working days for material that the GAC would be expected to review, and a second one of 10 working days for everything else.

The first deadline is actually today (1 June 2009) – which is why so many documents were published over the weekend and are now available on the front page. The second deadline is next Monday.

The intent for the next meeting (Seoul in October) is that there will be a single deadline of 15 working days, although that will depend on what happens with Sydney and what the community makes of the approach (you’ll be able to discuss the matter at the Public Participation Committee’s public meeting on Wednesday).

Something that the community does need to understand however is that while the deadline provides much more time to review documents (which can only be a good thing), it also comes with a cost.

The time available to do the actual work of ICANN is growing shorter. With the community also asking for longer public comment periods, and for there to be more translation of documents, it becomes increasingly difficult for both staff and community to make sufficient progress on documents in between meetings.

The most obvious solutions – and one that has been put forward twice before over the past three years – is to move to two meetings a year rather than three. Another solution is to hold different types of meetings. Another, to increase the time between meetings. Or the community may need to decide what it will work on at the next meeting and what it will not so resources can be allocated in the right places.

In the meantime, everyone should be able to enjoy having more time to review documents for Sydney.

• Internet user seats on the Board?

It has long been a bone of contention that the “At Large” community i.e. average Internet users do not have voting seats on the Board.

The original intent in ICANN’s formation was that representatives of average Internet users would have a significant number of Board seats, but following public elections in 2000 and then a long and rancorous restructure, ICANN ended up with a Nominating Committee and an ALAC structure with Regional At Large Organizations (RALOs).

As part of the ALAC review started last year, it was recommend that the broad Internet community again be given the right to choose voting Board members. The review is still ongoing but a Board Committee recommended that the Board agree “in principle” at this stage with the idea of allowing ALAC to choose voting Board members.

The result of that discussion was that the Board noted it was not opposed to the principle of having civil society given a voting voice on the Board, but it wanted to know more about how it would be done before actually approving it.

So the Structural Improvements Committee was asked to come back with “detailed scenarios and options” and ways to implement them.

• ccNSO review

The ccNSO review was kicked off with the production of the review’s “terms of reference” for public comment. Here’s a very brief and incomplete rundown of what happens from this point:

• After the community has a change to review the terms, bidders for the review are sought out.
• Reviewers are hired, and they interview a wide variety of relevant people
• The reviewers produce a report that is put out for public comment and reviewed at the next ICANN meeting
• This report goes through iterations as needed and ends up with a variety of recommendations
• The report is typically given to a Working Group which then tries to turn the recommendations into reality

The ccNSO is one of the last ACs and SOs to go through this process. It all started with the GNSO – which is now coming to a close. Also going through review at the moment are: the ALAC, Board, Nominating Committee, SSAC and RSSAC.

• Faster, simpler UDRP filing.

The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has been running a pilot project to allow UDRP filings to be done online. UDRP is the system for deciding domain disputes.

It has had no reported problems so the Board approved the CAC’s request to implement the pilot. This means that documents in disputes will be able to be sent and – crucially – signed electronic and online.

This should speed up and simplify the process.

Other quick highlights of the Board’s May meeting:

• Nairobi, Kenya was chosen as the location for the Africa 2010 meeting
• The introduction of one and two-character domains under .biz were approved
• A paper outlining lessons learnt from the independent reviews of ICANN’s structure, complete with a few suggestions for changes to the system, will be published for public comment
• The recommendations of the working group looking at review of the Board will be published for public comment
• The charters outlining the four stakeholders groups within the GNSO will be published for Board review and action in Sydney
• There will be a US Congressional hearing regarding ICANN and the Joint Project Agreement on 4 June in Washington. CEO Paul Twomey will represent ICANN.

Toutes ces entités sont regroupées en collèges afin de leur donner une représentation officielle au sein de l’ICANN.

La pyramide organisationnelle de l’ICANN est ainsi faite : les collèges remontent vers des “organismes de soutien (le “SO”)” comme le GNSO (il y en a deux autres : le ccNSO regroupe les gestionnaires d’extensions nationales et l’ASO les registres d’adresses IP régionaux). Comme leur nom l’indique, ces organismes servent de soutien direct au Conseil d’administration de l’ICANN.

Un exemple concret : le programme des nouvelles extensions. Depuis plusieurs années, ces grandes lignes ont été développées par le GNSO. Une fois prêtes, elles ont été présentées au Conseil d’administration. En juin 2008, lors de la réunion internationale de Paris, il les approuvé. Depuis, les équipes de l’ICANN travaillent avec le GNSO et le reste de la communauté pour en peaufiner les modalités d’application.

Le GNSO est donc actuellement sous les feux de la rampe et c’est une période très intéressante pour rejoindre son Conseil. J’y ai été élu par le collège des registrars pour remplacer Tom Keller, en fin de mandat. Le collège des registrars a trois représentants au Conseil, un pour l’Asie Pacifique (Adrian Kinderis), un pour l’Amérique du Nord (Tim Ruiz) et un pour l’Europe (moi). Mon mandat, de deux ans, a commencé juste après la réunion internationale du Caire.

Alors qu’ai-je vu ou appris depuis un mois ?

En une phrase : être au Conseil du GNSO, c’est une charge de travail incroyable et une implication de tout instant. Il est sans doute utile de rappeler que les conseillers du GNSO sont des volontaires non rémunérés. Chacun a une vie professionnelle (et accessoirement personnelle) en dehors de l’ICANN. Bien souvent, ce sont leurs employeurs qui supportent la charge financière du travail qu’ils réalisent pour le GNSO, y compris les voyages.

Bien entendu, le temps que ces conseillers passent à s’occuper du GNSO est autant de temps qu’ils ne donnent pas à leurs employeurs. De combien de temps parle-t-on ? J’ai voulu l’évaluer “au doigt mouillé”, juste pour me faire une idée. En un mois, c’est un petit millier d’emails dans ma boîte de réception en rapport avec le GNSO. Disons 10 minutes de traitement par email en moyenne, cela donne presque 7 jours de travail ! Voilà qui s’ajoute à ma fonction “officielle”, celle de gérer l’entreprise dont je suis l’un des fondateurs.

Mais lire des emails ne suffit pas. Il faut aussi comprendre les très nombreux sujets sur lesquels l’ICANN et sa communauté se penchent. Car pour être efficace et prendre les bonnes décisions, un conseiller se doit non seulement de maîtriser les dossiers directement en rapport avec son propre “SO”, mais aussi ceux des autres. Jetez un rapide coup d’œil à la une du site de l’ICANN et vous verrez parmi les sujets en cours : les relations registres/registrars, les nouveaux TLDs, les IDNs, le WHOIS, les activités du NomCom ou encore le plan stratégique de l’ICANN !

Il y a aussi les comités et groupes de travail sur lesquels un conseiller peut se retrouver. Un exemple rapide : une réforme importante du GNSO est en cours. Pour la mener à bien, deux comités de pilotages ont été créés. Je représente le collège des registrars sur l’un d’entre eux, l’OSC (pour “Operations Steering Committee”). A la clef, une réunion téléphonique de deux heures toute les semaines, un plan d’action à construire, des groupes de travail à constituer… tout cela s’ajoutant déjà aux réunions téléphoniques du Conseil, du bureau exécutif du collège des registrars, des séances d’information organisées par le GNSO ou l’ICANN directement…

Mais être au Conseil du GNSO ce n’est pas que du temps passé en réunions. C’est aussi être au contact de personnes dont le niveau de connaissance et de compréhension des processus de l’ICANN est tout simplement époustouflant. Alors que j’ai encore du mal ne serait-ce qu’à comprendre les règles de fonctionnement du Conseil, je suis entouré de personnes qui maîtrisent le moindre détail de dossiers allant du contrat des registrars ICANN aux règles d’application des régions géographiques utilisées pour nommer les nouveaux membres du Conseil d’administration.

Il y a là de quoi être impressionné, voir même intimidé.

Alors qu’ai-je appris en un mois au Conseil du GNSO ? Pour résumer : à respecter toujours plus ceux qui, dans toutes les différentes structures de l’ICANN, du plus petit groupe de travail jusqu’au Conseil d’administration, donnent sans compter pour faire avancer l’Internet.

A PDF version of this document is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-response.pdf

Note from the Chairman:

One of the most significant features of ICANN meetings is the Public Forum, where members of the ICANN community are able to present their views on issues of concern to them to the ICANN Board, in public session. The fact that we rotate meetings through each of the geographic sectors of the world enhances the opportunity that people from every region to present their views to the ICANN Board, in the presence of Staff and the whole ICANN community.

As a long-time participant from the floor presenting views, in my case from the ccTLD community, I am well aware of the time, effort and expense that goes into the preparation of such statements. As a board member, I have valued hearing those submissions, from individuals, governments and constituencies. I am determined as Chair to continue this tradition, and to maximise the opportunities for information sharing it represents.

I have been concerned, however that we have not always captured the inputs from these sessions, so in Cairo I asked Staff to review the comments made in the open microphone sessions of the Public Forum, and to provide responses to comments, and answers to questions that, in the interests of hearing from everyone wishing to speak, were not given on the day.

Those comments and answers are given below. I hope members of the community find this a useful process, and one which is worth continuing, after future Public Forums.
Thank you to those who contributed in Cairo. Please accept the Staff invitation to continue to contribute through the mechanisms they identify in the paper below.

Peter Dengate Thrush
Chairman, ICANN
15 December 2008

CONTENTS

COMMENTS

• Applicant Guidebook
  • Don’t delay process
  • Registry fee is too high
  • Application fee is too high
  • Scoring in Module 4.3
  • Independent string approach will cause problems
  • Start awareness campaign earlier
  • International Chamber of Commerce wrong for deciding morality claims

• IDNs and IDN ccTLDs
  • Government "control" over ccTLD IDNs
  • Three-letter rule wrong for IDNs

• Policy
  • Policy based too much on opinion

• IPv6
  • No consensus on what to do for IPv6 transition

• Board Review
  • Set CEO term limits
  • Board members should be compensated

• ICANN meetings
  • Take travel time into account when deciding on location
  • Uphold transparency and regional diversity when deciding on location

• General
  • Difficult to get ITU to recognize civil society
  • Country code manager should listen to their individual Net users
  • A lot of mistrust and suspicion at ICANN meetings
  • The organization needs more international staff
  • The organization should stay out of operational areas
  • Concern over a .companyname top-level domain
  • More representative groups needed in GNSO
  • Public comment should be a greater priority at ICANN meetings
  • Increase geographic mix of participants at ICANN meetings
  • Thanks to ICANN Staff

QUESTIONS

• Applicant Guidebook
  • Who will be the panelists?
  • Will IDNs and gTLDs be available at the same time?
  • How much will the refunds be and when will they be given?

• Improving Institutional Confidence
  • How can ICANN get over the legal obligation it has that it cannot trade with states identified by the US government?

SUGGESTIONS

• If a new registry makes under $1million it should be waived the annual fees under the Applicant Guidebook
• Allow non-profits to pay a percentage of the annual registry fee for the first two years of running a new gTLD
• Create a special cross-constituency working group to identify what ICANN could do to promote IPv6 update
• Lower the scoring in Module 4.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook from 11 out of 12 to 10 out of 12
• Move Guidebook awareness campaign forward to January 2009
• Fund an outreach effort to reach groups such as families, consumers, victims of cybercrime to encourage them to form new constituencies in GNSO
• Fix more time for public comment into the meeting schedule
• Introduce metrics for ICANN Staff performance

RESPONDENTS

The forum took place on Thursday 6 November 2008 and came in two parts: between 12pm and 1.15pm; and between 2.45pm and 3.30pm.

This summary seeks to capture the comments made during the public forum and, where possible, provide answers to questions raised. You can view the full transcripts of both sessions on this website at:

http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-transcript.html

Or on the Cairo meeting dedicated website at the two following addresses:

http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/public-forum-open-discussion-06nov08.txt
http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/psc-public-forum-06nov08.txt

Input can be broadly split into three different areas:

A majority of the input during the forum came in the form of Comments. This input is summarized according to subject area with those individuals who raised the comment identified through their initials and a key at the end of the document.

Second, a number of clear Questions were raised and those questions are restated below, with answers provided where possible. And lastly, a number of Suggestions were made. Where appropriate, feedback on these suggestions has also been included.

While every effort has been made to capture people’s comments as accurately and fully as possible, the production of a workable summary that can be responded to will inevitably see the loss of some of the finer points of argument. ICANN Staff begs the community’s understanding and forgiveness for any resulting oversights.

COMMENTS

SUBJECT AREA: Applicant Guidebook

Explanation: The Cairo meeting saw the release of a draft form of the “Applicant Guidebook” for those interested in applying for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The draft was drawn up by Staff following the approval of the process itself by the Board in Paris in July 2008 (and following a number of years of policy work and implementation planning). The community was invited to comment, following the normal ICANN consensus-building procedures, on the draft guidebook in preparation for a revised version.

For more information and to post comments on the Guidebook, please visit: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm.

ICANN Staff response: While we understand the frustration of many in the community who have been following this process for a number of years, as many of you will also appreciate, it is a very complex task, made all the more complex by issues raised during the policy development process and the Internet’s increasing importance in global economies.

ICANN is committed to promoting competition in the domain name system and as such has been moving forward with the new gTLD program as quickly as possible. However, the organization is duty-bound to consider other aspects alongside competition when expanding the top level of the domain name system.

Most dominant among these are: the need to ensure the security and stability of the Internet; and the need to move forward through consultation with all of ICANN’s stakeholders.

During the course of the new gTLD program, a multitude of other issues, from trademark and sovereignty rights, to dispute resolution procedures, to technical barriers have arisen. ICANN Staff has sought to work through these as efficiently as possible. The result has been that initial estimates for when applications will be accepted have been put back several times.

While our expectation is that there will be changes to the current draft Applicant Guidebook, we plan to analyse the comments made and make any such changes in an efficient manner. The comment process itself has become an accepted and highly valued part of ICANN’s processes that its work is put out to public comment and review before being put before the Board.

Although the advantages to opening up applications as soon as possible (i.e. by starting the four-month communication process early) were clearly and persuasively articulated at the public forum, it is the view of ICANN Staff that the risks involved in not following the process as outlined through to completion may outweigh the advantages.

The public comment process has both a pragmatic and organizational advantage. Pragmatically, it allows many thousands of eyes to go through the application process to pick out any potential future conflicts and issues. The value of this review cannot be underestimated.

Second, ICANN is a multistakeholder organization where the Staff acts as a facilitator of the consensus view. Without a clear, transparent and open public comment process, the ability of the community to both check on the Staff’s work and to provide implicit approval of the process is lost.

There is also the fact that public comment periods and broader communications bring with them greater awareness of ICANN’s work beyond the small number that follow ICANN closely. In the case of new gTLDs, this awareness will be crucial to the project’s success.

For this reason, it is the Staff’s view that the process needs to continue on its current path, even though that will mean that applications for new gTLDs will not be accepted until the third quarter of 2009.

Staff will continue to update the timetable on the process as it continues.

The $75,000 annual registry fee outlined in the Applicant Guidebook is too high (MF, DK, R1, SR, RA, AP, MB, JB, AM, IA, TH)*. It may have the effect of restricting applicants (MF, DK, R1, SR, AP, IA)*; the costs will be passed onto consumers (RA, AM, TH)*; and it does not account for smaller communities (SR, JB)* or non-profits (TH)*.

ICANN Staff response: The current assumption in the Applicant Guidebook is that a new registry will pay $75,000 or five percent of transaction revenue to ICANN, whichever is higher.

That fee would cover the support ICANN provides to registries: such things as compliance, registry liaisons, and possible increased registrar activity. Currently every registry pays such a fee and this approach provides a highly valued level of stability to the system. It also recognizes the fact that every new registry added to the Internet comes with an associated and ongoing cost.

In the explanatory memorandum to the pricing issue in the guidebook (download it from: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf), it is twice noted (in section 3.5) that there may need to be some flexibility in this fee. First it recognizes there will be “a variety of different models for new gTLDs” and secondly it draws reference to “community or other limited registration uses” that may have different requirements. However, it still suggests the full $75,000 fee for all applicants.

We clearly heard a number of voices during the public forum saying that they felt this figure, although not the notion of such a figure, was too high. One or two suggestions were also put forward, such as allowing smaller fees to be paid for the first two years while a new registry stabilized itself.

This is the purpose of the public comment period: for the community to question and test the assumptions made in the production of the Applicant Guidebook.

The level of the annual registry fee has clearly been flagged as an issue, and as such we urge and encourage the community to now go beyond raising the issue and to provide greater information from which ICANN Staff can define a way forward.

Does the $75,000 level genuinely risk disrupting people’s plans for legitimate gTLDs? Or is it simply a large sum of money that looks foreboding at the start of the process? Can you supply real-world figures to back up the argument?

Are you uncertain that it costs ICANN $75,000 per registry to cover its services? Would a breakdown explanation of those costs alleviate your concerns? Do you have possible solutions that may help young registries find their feet, while maintaining stability across the registry system?

ICANN welcomes all such input. You can email your comments on this issue directly to: gtld-intro@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: We outlined the reasoning behind the $185,000 application fee in quite some depth in an explanatory memorandum (download it here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf).

Broadly speaking, we arrived at the figure by:

• Calculating out how much it has cost the organization so far in arriving at the new gTLD process and guidebook
• Using the two previous gTLD rounds to arrive at a cost per application
• Estimating the additional costs and risks associated with the application process this time around
• Dividing a fixed cost figures by the number of applications we estimate will be received – in this case, 500

This approach was taken because it was determined during the policy making process of this project that the whole thing should be “revenue neutral” i.e. that the application fee should cover the costs of the project.

We should note as well that this wasn’t just ICANN Staff drawing up these figures – we hired the services of the world’s third largest insurance broker and risk consultant, Willis Enterprise & Risk Finance (WERF), who looked very carefully at risk aspects of the process and came up with a figure that we adopted.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how many applications there will actually be, but this is the best estimate we have. If there are more than 500 applications, ICANN may have a surplus of money; if there are fewer, a deficit. Either way, the figures will be made publicly available and the community will be consulted about the best path forward once we have a firmer idea of what those figures actually are.

It is also worth noting that the issue of fees, possible reductions and grants was extensively reviewed in the creation to the guidebook. The guidebook notes: “No practical method of ICANN financial assistance or fee reductions was identified for the first round of new gTLD applications, though an appropriate mechanism might be defined for subsequent rounds. If Staff is able to identify sources for potential grants, financial assistance or match-making opportunities for applicants from qualified developing nations, and indigenous and minority peoples in need, the results will be made publicly available.”

So, while we recognize the community concern expressed during the public forum about the application fee, Staff remain confident that the $185,000 application fee is the best figure that we can arrive at, given the decision by the ICANN community much earlier in the process that the whole thing should be revenue neutral.

That said, we welcome review of the assumptions we have made in arriving at that figure. The Board will be reviewing the assumptions, including the extent of past years’ costs to be recovered, and there may well be some changes made in the final guidebook, dealing with, for example, applicants for multiple TLDs.

As time progresses, it may also be possible that more precise figures, for example on the number of applications, become available. As mentioned above, we would also welcome information and suggestions on sources for potential grants, financial assistance or match-making opportunities.

It is possible that ICANN Staff and WERF accidentally overlooked something that may have an impact on the pricing. If so, please let us know as soon as possible.

If you feel you are able to provide this kind of valuable feedback into the process, we strongly encourage you to do so. You can email your comments on this issue directly to: gtld-intro@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: Thankyou for this input. The main reason behind the public comment process is for the community to question and test the assumptions made in the production of the Applicant Guidebook.

We note that the individual that made this comment at the public forum has gone into greater depth on this issue in an email to the public comment period, and we thank him for that. That email will form part of the review of all comments submitted in the first comment period for the Applicant Guidebook.

We would also encourage any others who would to make their views known on this issue to make them directly into the public comment process by sending an email to: gtld-string@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: As anyone who has followed this process will no doubt be aware, the issue of related strings, or confusingly similar strings, the issues of trademark rights and usage rights, and the unique issues of internationalized domain names have all been extensively reviewed and debated for a number of years, both in the policy-making and in the implementation planning.

There exists no system or solution that will solve all – or even most – of the issues and problems associated with creating new top-level registries on the Internet.

As a result, the solution arrived at to deal with the multitude of potential issues was to devise a flexible dispute resolution process handled by third-party experts. In this way, ICANN can concentrate on its core functions while providing outside expert decision-making facilities where needed. Or, put another way, ICANN Staff has no desire to become a referee in a dispute over potential ownership of a gTLD.

That said, while the input provided on this point is unlikely to change the dispute resolution systems that the Applicant Guidebook outlines, such feedback may prove valuable to those organizations that will act as the arbitrators of future disputes.

ICANN Staff will see to it that the third-party experts it retains for dispute resolution are made aware of all of this feedback in order to help them devise appropriate systems and solutions and provide them with insight into the intricacies of this work.

We encourage all community members to send their reflections on this issue to: gtld-string@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: We understand that for many members of the ICANN community, having an awareness campaign for a process that they have closely followed for several years may appear to be a waste of valuable time.

However, the rationale for such a campaign stems from the fact that the ICANN community comprises of only a few thousand people while the introduction of this round of new gTLDs has the potential to impact hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. Press interest in the new gTLD program at the ICANN Paris meeting was so significant and global that we recognized there was a clear need to explain the process and the application procedure globally before we embarked on the actual applications.

The reality is that it is not possible to run such an awareness campaign until the details are finalized. It would be self-defeating for ICANN to be in a position where it ran an awareness campaign that either did not contain all the information, or where the information subsequently changed. As such, the campaign can only begin properly once the guidebook has been through the full public comment process.

Why four months? First, that period was suggested by the GNSO as implementation advice. Second, based on the advice and expertise of a number of communications professionals, four months was seen as the shortest period of time in which ICANN could effectively get the message out.

It is perhaps worth pointing to the positive effects that such an awareness campaign will likely have: the Internet has become the extraordinary force it is today because its open structure has enabled people with ideas to try them out with far lower overheads than were previously possible through any other medium.

While the ICANN community is an extraordinary collection of individuals, no one will claim that we have a collective monopoly on insight into the domain name system’s potential. An awareness campaign will not only make it more likely that the people with the next revolutionary idea hear about the new gTLD process, but it will also bring in new participants to the ICANN model – something that everyone can also agree is a good thing for the organization and for the Internet as a whole.

ICANN Staff response: On the surface, it may appear odd that the International Chamber of Commerce be used to decide issues of morality and public order.

However, the way morality and public order decisions are actually made in this context is through accepted legal norms recognized under international principles of law. In that respect – looking at these issues through legal eyes – the arbitration division of the International Chamber of Commerce is ideally suited and has a wealth of experience and expertise in dealing with these situations.

If the community has recommendations for an alternative dispute resolution provider for this element of the process (or the other two elements: string confusion, and legal rights) then ICANN Staff will review that recommendation.

For any and all input on this issues and related dispute resolution issues, please email directly into the public comment process by using the following email address: gtld-dispute@icann.org.

Giving governments control over ccTLD space may stifle competition (R1, R2)*

ICANN Staff response: We are aware of the concerns that people have regarding the IDN Fast Track – where a limited number of internationalized domain names (IDNs) are approved before a full policy is developed by the country-code names supporting organization (ccNSO).

However, with respect to the fears raised about governments having some form of control over this space, we believe this stems from a misunderstanding of what ICANN is doing with regard to internationalized domain names.

First off, it should be noted that IDN applications will be accepted as part of the new gTLDs process. That means that anyone following the gTLD Applicant Guidebook requirements will be able to apply for a top-level domain in their script or language.

There are additional criteria that need to be considered for IDNs (all of which are outlined in the Applicant Guidebook). However, applications for IDNs will be accepted and will be introduced at the same time as other gTLDs.

The ccTLD Fast Track on the other hand covers a very specific type of IDN – namely, those domain names that represent the name of a country or a territory.

During the course of the policy processes that the community has gone through over the past year or more, both governments (through the Governmental Advisory Committee, or GAC) and country-code managers (through the ccNSO) expressed their concerns about people applying for new top-level domains that represent the names of their countries or their existing top-level domains.

It has long been a rule that new generic top-level domains must be made up of at least three letters. One-letter TLDs are held back for technical reasons; and two-letter TLDs are reserved for use by the countries of the world i.e. .de for Germany; .jp for Japan; .us for the United States (and are based on an international standard).

The addition of TLDs in other languages and scripts complicates this system. Firstly, in some scripts whole words can be produced using a single character. Secondly, taking Japan’s ccTLD as an example, .jp is an ASCII representation for Japan, but Japan has its own script that does not use “j” or “p”. The countries of the world are justifiably proud of their own ccTLDs – many of which represent the Internet itself to their peoples – and so they have asserted that they have a right to have their language equivalent of their ccTLD.

In the same vein, many governments are concerned that individuals or companies will register top-level domains that represent the country. To use Japan again as an example, something like “.japan” or the equivalent of .japan in Japanese script.

It is for these reasons that the ccNSO is embarking on a policy development process to decide how to resolve such applications. Since this process will take some time, and because of the significant demand that has built up for TLDs in other scripts, the ccTLD Fast Track was created to allow for the creation of IDN TLDs that both the GAC and the ccNSO could agree would not be challenged (it should be noted, incidentally, that The Fast Track is based and builds upon the current IANA practices for the delegation of ccTLDs).

This means that those IDNs that come through the Fast Track will, by design, need the endorsement (or non-objection) of the relevant public authority, which in many cases will be a government department. At the same time, it must also meet the need of that particular community and the community must demonstrate that they are ready to implement the IDN ccTLD.

That is very different from saying that governments will have controls over IDNs or even IDN ccTLDs, however. Although it is true that IDNs that denote a specific country will be unlikely to make it through the new gTLD application process (as they are likely to be considered part of the ccTLD Fast Track), the whole world of top-level domains in different scripts is open to those that wish to apply.

So while a Japanese organization will not succeed with an application for .japan, or .jp in Japanese script, it will be able to apply for something that has meaning to Japanese Internet users in their own language. So, for example, cartoons are extremely popular in Japan. If an organization felt there would be sufficient interest in a whole area of the Internet dedicated to cartoons, it could apply for .cartoon in Japanese script.

So the ccTLD Fast Track is not stifling competition at the ccTLD level any more than current practices. While at the same time, the new gTLD process will hugely increase the opportunities for competition for Internet users across the world and in their own languages by allowing IDNs.

ICANN Staff response: Thank you for this feedback and for highlighting the disparity that can be created by applying English-language rules and assumptions onto other scripts and languages.

The example given in the public forum of “.cat” being represented by a single character in Chinese but also being represented by many more than one character in the domain name system itself (all domains in non-ASCII scripts being represented a the technical level by the ASCII prefix “xn--“) was a helpful illustration.

Please be assured that ICANN will carefully review whether and how the three-character rule can be applied with regard to IDNs. As always with IDNs, however, the fact that there are many thousands of different scripts, each with its own attributes, means the issue is likely to be complex.

If it is indeed possible to waive the three-character rules for IDNs, or certain types of IDN, without detrimental impact elsewhere, ICANN will follow that path. As it currently stands, single-letter characters will not be allowed for technical reasons and two-character domains are held back because of the traditional use of the ISO list for defining country-code TLDs. We are waiting on further public comments to guide final recommendations.

• Two new Board members
• Two members of the ALAC
• One member of the ccNSO Council
• One member of the GNSO Council

In total, 78 individuals applied (13 female and 65 male). The geographic split saw 27 apply from Europe, 20 from North America, 15 from Africa, 14 from Asia-Pacific and 8 from Latin America and the Caribbean.

All the successful applicants, introduced below, will take up their positions at ICANN’s 33rd international public meeting in Cairo, starting on 2 November. We wish them all the best in their new roles.

Board of Directors

The ICANN Board makes all final decisions pertaining to ICANN’s work. It comprises 21 members – 15 voting and six non-voting. The Nominating Committee chooses eight of the voting members, a majority, over a three-year period.

In addition, each of the three supporting organizations within ICANN chooses two voting members each, and the president (also the CEO) makes up the final voting member. The non-voting members are liaisons from each of the six advisory committees.

The successful applicants will serve a three-year term on the Board and they are:

Steve Crocker (USA, North America)

Dr Steve Crocker has served on the ICANN board as a non-voting liaison representing the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) since 2003. He is the CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro, a company focused on dynamic sharing of information across the Internet. He has also served on the board of the Internet Society (2003-06).

Dr Crocker has been involved in the Internet since its inception. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, he was part of the team that developed the protocols for the Arpanet and laid the foundation for today’s Internet. He organized the Network Working Group, which was the forerunner of the modern Internet Engineering Task Force, and initiated the Request for Comment (RFC) series. He remains active in Internet standards work through the IETF and IAB. For this work, he was awarded the 2002 IEEE Internet Award.

Dr Crocker’s experience includes research management at DARPA, USC/ISI and The Aerospace Corporation, and co-founder of CyberCash and Longitude Systems. He earned his BA in mathematics and PhD in computer science at UCLA, and he studied artificial intelligence at MIT.

“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my time as SSAC chair and liaison to the Board. But I’ve done it for long enough and I think for the health of the organization, we should have a transition.

“The organization is going through maturation and I want to be a part of helping it evolve while making sure that the technical aspects run smoothly with the organizational aspects.”

Katim S. Touray (Gambia, Africa)

Dr Katim S. Touray is an independent development consultant based in Gambia. A follower of the early Internet, he is a well-known advocate for the network and its uses across a range of media and to a wide variety of audiences for over 15 years.

With a B.Agric, an MS, and PhD degrees in Soil Science (from the universities of Nigeria, Montana State and Wisconsin-Madison, respectively), Dr Touray worked for a number of years for Ministry of Agriculture in The Gambia, and serves as Chairman of the National Agricultural Development Agency (NADA). He has also conducted consultancies on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the media, HIV/AIDS, and other subjects for non-governmental organizations, as well as government and UN agencies.

Dr Touray has significant experience as a producer and host of African music, educational, and public affairs programs on community radio and TV in the US, and national radio in Gambia. He has written a number of articles about the Internet and ICT, and helped found the Consumer Protection Association of The Gambia (CPAG). Dr Touray is self-educated about the Internet and ICT in general. He is also a free and open source software enthusiast and advocate, and serves on the Council of the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA).

“I’m really excited and looking forward to working in ICANN. It’s a privilege to have been chosen and I see it as a challenging opportunity.

“I hope to be an active representative of Africa on the Board of ICANN, representing not just the the middle classes but also those in villages who a lot of people don’t see as users but for whom the Internet will have a lot of benefit. I think I can also be an active member in helping to build bridges between the various interest groups, and ensure that the greater good is taken care of.”

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) represents the interests of individual Internet users within ICANN.

The Committee comprises 15 members – three from each of ICANN’s five geographic regions. Two members are chosen from each region by its Regional At Large Organization (RALO) and the third in each case is selected by the Nominating Committee. A chair is selected annually by the members.

Two of the five NomCom places were filled this year and the successful applicants will serve two-year terms. They are:

Alan Greenberg (Canada, North America)

Alan Greenberg has forty years of experience with computing and networking technologies. For much of his career, he worked for McGill University in Montreal, Canada, covering software design and development, education technology support, and management and policy development. He has taught courses in computer architecture and design, as well as managed Internet Society workshops which taught personnel from 150 developing countries how to build, support, manage and use the Internet in their countries.

Since retiring as Director of Computing and Telecommunications at McGill, he has served as an independent consultant focusing on the effective use of technology in developing countries. More recently he has worked with several donor countries providing guidance on how they should focus their technology-related support of developing and least-developed countries.

He has been a Nominating Committee appointee to the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) since 2006, also acting as liaison to the GNSO.

Mr Greenberg holds a BSc degree in Mathematics and Physics, and an MSc in Computer Science, both from McGill University.

“I am delighted to have been re-appointed to the ALAC. When I was first appointed two year ago, it was to the Interim ALAC, with 10 of its members appointed by the Board and five by the NomCom. Now all five RALOs are functioning and the ten Board-appointed members have been replaced by those selected within their own regions. I look forward to continuing to work with the ALAC, helping to ensure that it truly represents user issues and needs within ICANN.”

Adam Peake (UK, Europe)

Adam Peake has been involved in ICANN since its creation in 1998, most recently as Associate Chair of the Nominating Committee in 2006 and 2007.

He was an early member of the non-commercial users constituency, a founding member of the .ORG Advisory Council (to May 2006), and a member of the NAIS Project that in 2000-2001 contributed to the review of the At-Large elections and public representation and participation in ICANN.

Mr Peake is currently a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, where he works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, performs follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students. He has been involved in Internet policy-making activities since the mid-1990s.

Mr Peake was co-coordinator of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus from 2003 to 2006, and a member of the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) between 2006 and 2008. He is a UK citizen and currently lives in Japan.

“Having been a member of the Nominating Committee for a number of years, I’m very pleased to be able to add myself to the list of volunteers that I have seen go before me.

“ALAC is an essential part of ICANN’s multistakeholder model, and a great deal of effort has been put in to create the RALOs, but as yet we’re not managing to get voices coming through. So I hope I’ll be in a position to help with that essential user voice.”

ccNSO Council

The Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) develops policy and makes recommendations relating to country-code top-level domains within ICANN. Its decisions are made by the ccNSO Council.

The Council comprises 18 members – three from each of five geographic regions, plus three chosen by the Nominating Committee. Members of the ccNSO from each region select their three representatives. A chair is selected annually by the members.

One of the three NomCom places was filled this year and the successful applicant will serve a three-year term. That person:

Jian Zhang (China/USA, Asia-Pacific/North America)

Jian Zhang is the director of International Business and Policy Development department at CNNIC.
She has over 10 years of experiences in ICT and networking, having also worked at GTE Internetworking, Nextel Communications and Cisco Systems. At CNNIC, Ms Zhang has worked on both domestic and international policy areas, including policy analysis and development strategy. She is on the Board of the Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD) – an organization for ccTLD registries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ms Zhang has an MS in Information Systems from Northeastern University, Massachussets. She has hands-on experience with Internet technology and management as well as valuable skills in cross-cultural communications.

“I am quite honored by the Nominating Committee and I thank them for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Internet society.

“As a Council member I hope to make a contribution to the work that is going on, particularly with respect to international TLDs.”

GNSO Council

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is the main policy development arm of ICANN. Its decisions and recommendations are made by the GNSO Council.

There are 18 members of the GNSO Council, comprising three members from each of the GNSO’s six constituencies, plus three chosen by the Nominating Committee. There are also two non-voting liaisons and a chair chosen from the Council members.

The Nominating Committee 2008 chose one new Council member, who will serve a two-year term:

Terry Davis (USA, North America)

Terry Davis has over 30 years’ experience in large-scale systems and network design, security, implementation, and operations. Heralding from the aviation industry, he is currently in charge of Aircraft Network and Security Architecture & Strategy for Boeing and was previously the Chief Network Engineer for Connexion by Boeing, the in-flight Internet service.

Mr Davis has also been Vice-President of Professional Services for ViaLight, a fiber to the home company; a Technology Leader for Internet security company Adario; and Senior Corporate Security Architect for the Boeing as well as an aircraft simulation designer, network engineer, and system programmer.

An active contributor to and participant in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1992 and he is also a member of the North American IPv6 Task Force (NAv6TF). In addition, he has served his city and county governments for almost 20 years as a commissioner for Land Use and Development, Basin Water, and Cable TV.

Mr Davis holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Oklahoma State University and an MS in Strategic Planning for Critical Infrastructure from the University of Washington. He is a Boeing Technical Fellow, a member of the IEEE and the American Society of Civil Engineers, and is a registered professional engineer in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington. He and his wife Jennie have been residents of Issaquah, Washington for over 20 years.

“I’m extremely honoured to have been selected – it surprised me very much. As to what I want to accomplish in the role, I think the domain name space is one of the most critical things going forward – we have some real challenges in TLDs as well as with security.

“The aviation industry, for example, is just beginning to make planes Internet capable, and there is lots of activity around aircraft naming and addressing. This is going to provide some real challenges.”

Each issue covers the latest news and events, plus outlines how you can interact with the organization. This month, alongside the usual policy rundown, compliance summary, Board meeting precis, public comment digest, and blog complendium, is a briefing note for the recent Paris meeting and some early details about the Cairo meeting.

The hope is that, no matter which part of ICANN you are interested in, this magazine will act as an entry point and make people more aware of the other work that the organization carries out every month.

Feedback, as ever, is welcome. If you wish to receive the magazine automatically to your inbox, there is a very simple sign-up box above the magazine on the main magazine webpage at http://www.icann.org/magazine/.

ICANN’s 32nd international public meeting was one of three held annually to conduct policy development and outreach. It was hosted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and Agifem, a non-profit organization made up of several French Internet companies and organizations.

The meeting was opened by the Eric Besson, France’s Minister of State for forward planning, assessment of public policies, and development of the digital economy.

1,672 people participated from 166 different countries, making this ICANN’s biggest ever meeting. The participants engaged in a wide range of discussions about the Internet’s domain name system and related issues.

Further information about the meeting, including presentations and transcripts, is available at http://par.icann.org/.

ICANN’s next international public meeting will take place in Cairo, Egypt, beginning on 3rd November, 2008.

What happened and what are the next steps?

Many meetings, workshops, public forums and informal discussions were held over six days by the different stakeholders of the ICANN model:
• business interests
• civil society
• governments and government agencies
• Internet service providers
• registrants
• registrars
• registries
• the technical community

Several key issues and themes evolved over the course of the meeting. They are summarized below.

NEW gTLDs

ICANN’s Board of Directors took a significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains (new gTLDS – extensions to the domain name system in addition to, for example, .COM or .INFO). The Board approved the policy recommendations on new gTLDs developed by the GNSO, ICANN’s policy development arm for the generic name space. The Board directed ICANN staff to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan.

New generic top-level domains were a featured topic of conversation during the meeting. The week began with a dedicated two-and-a-half-hour interactive session where experts from different industries and sectors around the world shared a diversity of views about the potential changes to the Internet as the New gTLD Program is launched. The workshop was presented with MARQUES, the Association of European trademark owners, which represents trademark owners’ interests before EU and other international bodies.

ICANN staff updated the community on how new gTLDs may be implemented, including a timeline and recent steps taken to address potential disputes. Similar updates were presented to the various stakeholders including the GNSO Council.

New gTLDs were also discussed at the Public Forum, later in the week. During the meeting, a number of suggestions for new gTLDs also emerged. The discussions on new gTLDs were the subject of worldwide and widespread press coverage including by BBC, CNN, NBC, Les Echos, Business Week, Le Monde, Liberation, The Times of London, the Financial Times, and other media outlets all over the world.

More information is available on ICANN’s new gTLDs page (http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm). This web page includes a factsheet on the topic written in plain language and accessible to a general audience.

Next steps:
The Board approved the policy recommendations on new gTLDs, drawn up by the GNSO, and directed ICANN staff to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan.

Before the new gTLD introduction process is launched, the Board will be given a final version of the implementation proposals of the proposed process after a community review.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm

IDNS AND IDN FAST TRACK

Much of the discussion about Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) during the Paris meeting centered on the work of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG). The IDNC WG was chartered by the Board at its November 2007 meeting. Its participants were appointed by the following supporting organizations and advisory committees of ICANN: the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), GNSO, Government Advisory Committee (GAC), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

The group has been working on the issue of an accelerated introduction of IDNs (the “fast track”) where specific, non-controversial country-code top-level domains in non-Latin scripts could be approved and added to the Internet’s root without having to wait for the full approval process to be finalized.

The IDNC WG released its draft final report on the feasibility of this approach for public comment two weeks prior to the Paris meeting. The report provided a number of high-level recommendations and received broad approval from the ccNSO and the GAC.

On the broader topic of IDNs, the Director of the IDN Program, Tina Dam, gave updates to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, describing progress on technical and other IDN implementation issues. IDNs were discussed at the Public Forum, and a progress update was also given on the final day of the meeting.

Of particular interest was how finalization of the IDNA protocol revision would impact top-level IDN domains, in particular when and how they will be introduced.

Next steps:
The Board asked the IDNC WG final report to be posted for public comment and asked staff to produce a detailed report on implementation issues, following consultation with the community, in time for the next meeting in Cairo in November 2008.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm and at http://icann.org/topics/idn

IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENCE

The Paris meeting saw the release of three documents from the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) outlining a new “Improving Institutional Confidence” public consultation.

This consultation’s aim is for the community to discuss possible changes to ICANN in the lead up to the completion of the JPA in September 2009. This work has been led by the PSC whose role is to provide advice to the Board.

The three documents – Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN, Transition Action Plan and Frequently Asked Questions – were used as the basis for a two-hour discussion session. During a public meeting on the issue, the PSC explained how the consultation would work and how people could find out more information at each stage. The issue was also given a dedicated timeslot in the Public Forum.

The documents are currently out for public comment (closing on 31 July).

Next Steps:
The consultation process outlined in the Transition Action Plan will be followed. The entire community is encouraged to read the documents and send their comments in before 31 July.

The documents will then be revised and put out for additional comment in September 2008 in preparation for further discussions at the Cairo meeting in November. A final report by the PSC will be provided to the Board in December.

More information:
More information is available online at: http://icann.org/jpa/iic

INDEPENDENT REVIEWS

The independent review process requires each of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to undergo review every few years to make sure that the organization as a whole continues to serves the needs of the global Internet community.

There are several independent reviews currently underway or soon to be launched. The Board of Directors is also undergoing an independent review in 2008. The Paris meeting saw a number of updates on the current reviews.

GNSO
The GNSO’s review has been completed and it is now in the implementation stage. The Board approved all but one of the recommendations developed by a special Board working group to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO’s policy activities, structure, operations and communications. Recommendations to be implemented include:
• use of a working group model for future policy development
• a revised policy development process
• enhancements to the different constituencies that make up the GNSO
• improved communications.

The Board deferred its final decision on one recommendation – restructuring the GNSO Council – and decided to give the GNSO one last chance to submit a consensus recommendation on how to structure the Council before it makes its final decision in the next few weeks. The Board requested that the GNSO convene a small working group to submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring no later than 25 July. The group is to include one member from each constituency, one of the current Nominating Committee appointees, and one member from each liaison-appointing advisory committee (if that advisory committee so desires).

In a related development, the GNSO Council postponed a vote on a top-level GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan and called for a 21-day public comment forum on the document. That open public comment forum closes on 18 July 2008.

ALAC
Two public sessions and two informal sessions were held to discuss a report from the ALAC’s independent reviewers. The Board’s ALAC review working group held its first sessions. The draft report is currently out for public comment.

Board of Directors
The Boston Consulting Group was selected as the consultant to perform the independent review of the Board of Directors.

Nominating Committee
A working group created by the Board Governance Committee is working on recommendations following the independent evaluators’ report on the Nominating Committee.

Others
The Board established three working groups to review future independent review reports. They will cover: the Board, the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

Next steps:
The reviews will continue to progress through each step in the review process. Updates will be provided at the Cairo meeting in November.

More information:
More information including links to each of the reviews and public comments pages can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/reviews/

REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT

More progress was made on improvements to protections for registrants provided through the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA – the contract ICANN holds with companies that register domain names on behalf of registrants).

15 revised changes and amendments were published in a report currently out for public comment (the comment period closes 4 August 2008). The amendments were outlined in meetings with individual Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, as well as a dedicated one-and-a-half-hour public workshop. RAA amendments also had a specific timeslot for discussion during the Public Forum, and were further outlined at the final day’s report session.

There are four categories of amendment to the RAA:

• Enforcement tools, including graduated sanctions, liability and audit provisions
• Protections for registrants, including possible improvements to data escrow and the ability to make resellers comply with RAA obligations
• A more stable registrar marketplace, including training for registrar operators
• Modernizing the agreement, bringing it up to date with changes in the use and reuse of domain names

Next steps:
The amendments will be revised following input during the public comment period and then shared with the Board, who will determine the next steps.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/

MEETINGS REVIEW

A paper covering possible changes to ICANN meetings themselves was put to the community in a number of different sessions, including several Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee meetings, the opening day public forum, mid-week Public Forum, and the closing-day reports session.
There were two main recommendations in the paper:

• that ICANN move from three to two meetings a year; and
• that one of those meetings be held in a “hub” city.

There was a broad range of views and discussion on both points, as well as discussion of the change to the Paris schedule which saw the meeting end a day earlier on Thursday, rather than on Friday.

Next steps:
The meetings paper is out for public comment until 10 July and will be revised following feedback from the community.

More information:
More information can be found online at:
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#meeting-consultation-2008

IPv6

A number of information sessions on the new Internet Protocol were held in order to the make community more aware of support issues and to outline ways forward.

The ALAC, ccNSO, Registry and Registrar constituencies were also addressed by experts on this topic during their own meetings. Business leaders were given an overview as part of the Business Access Agenda. IPv6 was also discussed during the Public Forum.

The GAC heard from several individuals and organizations, including the OECD and the Names Resource Organization, about current trends and the challenges to IPv6 deployment worldwide.
More information:

A factsheet written in plain and clear language has been produced: “IPv6 – The Internet’s vital expansion – October 2007”. It explains the protocol upgrade to a non-technical audience and is available here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf

BUSINESS ACCESS AGENDA

For the first time, a specific agenda and series of targeted meetings and discussions were held for business leaders in an effort to engage business more effectively within ICANN’s processes.
The agenda included briefings on the most significant topics facing ICANN at the moment, including new gTLDs, IDNs and IPv6, and a meeting with the Board of Directors. It was organized in cooperation with the E-Business, IT and Telecoms Commission of the International Chamber of Commerce.

OTHER ISSUES

• The Board approved a recommendation by the GNSO to tackle “domain tasting”.
• The FY09 ICANN operating plan and budget of $57.1m were adopted by the Board.
• Approval was given to a plan by PIR (the Public Interest Registry) to add the security protocol DNSSEC to the .org registry.
• An “At Large Summit” was approved to enable representatives of Internet user groups (At-Large Structures) to meet together within the next year, most likely at the Mexico City meeting in March 2009.
• The SSAC published a number of new reports and survey results relating to security and stability of the Internet. (http://www.icann.org/committees/security/)
• A number of policy development processes were started or advanced at the GNSO including Fast Flux and inter-registrar transfers.
• The GAC reiterated its strong support for a number of studies into the use and abuse of Whois data, and asked for clarification from the Board on whether studies would depend on the outcome of the GNSO Council’s decision. The GNSO Council created a working group to review recommendations for Whois studies.

Each issue covers the latest news and events, plus outlines how you can interact with the organization. It should also give you an insight into the upcoming month, including the upcoming meeting in Paris between 22 and 26 June. This issue is slightly different in that two parts of it — the Policy update and the Compliance section — are previews of new newsletters we produce each month.

The hope is that, no matter which part of ICANN you are interested in, this magazine will act as an entry point and make people more aware of the other work that the organization carries out every month.

Feedback, as ever, is welcome. If you wish to receive the magazine automatically to your inbox, there is a very simple sign-up box above the magazine on the main magazine webpage at http://www.icann.org/magazine/.

The following positions are being filled this year:

* 2 Board Directors
* 1 GNSO Council member
* 1 ccNSO Council member
* 2 ALAC members (who will represent Europe and North American regions)

51 statements of interest have been received so far (46 from men, 5 from women).

With an eagle-eyed community keeping tabs on the organisation’s every move, the tiny tweaks that, left noticed, would irreversibly alter the entire domain name system keep getting picked up before they can work their magic.

We have decided to come clean with the latest example, henceforth to be known as the “organizational structure image conspiracy”, or OSIO for short.

Picture this

Last week, we changed the image on the About page that tries to outline as simply as possible the structure of ICANN with the SOs, ACs, Board, liaisons, staff, and so on.

The old image of a huge Board of Directors with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees pointing accusatorially at it was out-of-date, not very clear, and not at all accurate for how ICANN as an organization functions.

The inadequacy of this image was realized around a year ago and so a new graphic was produced to be used in the Annual Report.

This graphic would explain a little the split between SOs and ACs, and try to outline what exactly they were and who they represented. It would also try to get across the fact that the Board of Directors is made up of representatives from the different constituent parts of the organizations. Plus, include the vital role the Nominating Committee plays within ICANN. Not an easy task.

But a graphic was arrived at, boldly stuck in the Annual Report [pdf] on page 7, and then the whole report was released with as much fanfare as possible in December 2007. It was printed out, emailed, linked to, stuck on a carnival float bare-chested and wheeled around Los Angeles, all in the hope that people would actually read it.

This was clearly less than fully successful as the first time many people have seen the graphic on page 7 was when we finally got around to sticking it on the About page last week.

Here it is:

No doubt those of you that have not already read the various email messages decrying this new image will have spotted the conspiracy.

But just to make our culpability absolutely clear, you will note several things.

• There is no Ombudsman in the new graphic. The secret hope here was that by not including his name on a graphic, the Ombudsman would be destroyed by feelings of personal inadequacy and so be unable to continue with his job, leaving ICANN free to claim full control of the Internet unhindered.
• The gTLD registries and registrars are featured *in bold* under the GNSO, while the other constituents are not. This was done on the advice of a Puerto Rican witchdoctor while in San Juan last year. He told us that to make one constituency bold, while making another not bold, would provide strength and unassailable mental prowess to the bold party. In the interests of full disclosure, that witchdoctor’s exhorbitant fees were paid for by GoDaddy.
• In the same box, on the advice of said witchdoctor, the NCUC was hideously malformed from Non Commercial User Constituency to just “universities/consumers” despite the glaring evidence that there is at least one person in the NCUC that is not a consumer or from a university [can we fact check this, please? - Ed]
• If that wasn’t bad enough, the NomCom is disparaged, some would say libelled, but being represented using the colour black. What can this mean? Yes, that’s right, we were hoping that the NomCom wouldn’t be noticed at all. We wish you’d forget all about the NomCom so we can call it “The President’s Appointing Board” and replace all the Board members with the children of ICANN staff – and no one would ever have known. At least until bedtime.
• But hang on… the NomCom also only has arrows to the Board, yet it appoints members of the SOs and ACs as well. We have yet to even discover what fiendish plan we have in store with this one.
• And if you look really carefully are the number of seats selected by the NomCom and the ACs being subtly hidden with an expedient dot?
• But probably worst of all: what exactly do the strange sucker-like graphics on the side of the GAC and President boxes mean? That’s right – they are the power suckers. By putting these tiny images on a graphic on a page of the ICANN website, we have managed to unravel the bylaws and nearly a decade’s worth of real-world practice and allow ICANN to be run entirely by the President and GAC.

Or at least that’s what would have happened had it gone unnoticed for just another five days. But gah! the organizational structure image conspiracy (OSIO) was uncovered on various mailing lists before it could take place.

Your turn to undermine the entire multi-stakeholder model

Our spin on all this is that it is actually incredibly difficult to produce a graphic that covers the complexities of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model while still appearing mildly comprehensible. As such we have had to simplify and modify.

You will all, quite rightly, dismiss this excuse out of hand. To which we say, in all seriousness, please come up with your own graphic and email us and if it’s better we will use it instead – feature it on the website, in the Annual Report, brochures, whatever. Think of it as a competition.

And feel free to have some fun. We won’t use any daft ones of course but if they make us laugh we’ll feature them here on the blog. This is not a competition competition in the sense that we are not going to pick a winner and then parade the winning entry, but we would sincerely like to see the ICANN model represented as clearly and simply as possible so if you fancy picking up the gauntlet, here’s your chance.

Please draw up your graphics, or make your comments, and then either email Kieren McCarthy at kieren[dot]mccarthy @ ICANN [dot] org, or stick a link or a comment below.

And good luck with cracking the other conspiracies. There are, I am told, three more.