Notes from the GAC to board meeting, March 12th, 2002 11:00 in the morning

DISCLAIMER: This protocol is not word by word, misunderstandings and incorrect speeling are mine.

Just hacked in editor while the meeting, no time to correct any errors yet.

-----

Paul Twomey Intrudoction: Necessary Structural Change, welcomed.

-

Stuart Lynn Propoganda:

Board careful considered, encouraged me to post it and the issues

raised in that report. Will not present the report here once more.

Philosophical Background: General sense, that several problems

raised want to bring to the court of the community. Beeing a

president now for a year minus a day.

ICANN is not a failure, has been very succesful with the help and

full participation of a whole community.

Certain kinds of problems beeing adress, serious doubts that ICANN

is in the position to solve this problems.

People say: ICANN´s mission needs to be a thin one, don´t know what

thin or thick definitions include, need to sharpen that. Need to

define what´s in and out.

One of the things that is in the proposal: privately organized

organization, will face the day it is responsible for managing

the root.

ICANN is a serious well managed effected organization on behalf of

the world´s internet stakeholders inclusive governments.

ICANN needs the full participation of the key stakeholders,

thought of in terms of agreements what´s been done very

informally already needs to be. Fully Participation, policy

formulating, participating also means to pay attentation that

ICANN is accurately funded.

I beleave that one of the key stakeholders is the world governments.

The internet became to important.

The perception of ICANN it is perceived more with process less with

effectivness.

There is a lack of conviction, including funding. Some say that very

narrow mission could be the solution of funding, but no one told me

on how to narrow the mission from the status we are in now.

Mission is much more complex, we are seriously underfounded.

I strongly believe we have to open up, we need to reform to fulfill

the mission. If we don´t make structural fundumental changes failure

might be the right term to use.

The proposal is a blueprint. Archived it´s purpose.

If there´s any better ways, we´d be glad to hear them.

For e.G.: the motion of public/private partnership could be in very

different forms. We´d welcome your ideas and motions.

How to bring in governmental ideas without jeopardizing the original

idea of the internet might be difficult. Explicitely the ideas of

funding might not work out in the way as proposed.

I´d invite you to think about this issues.

We don´t have the luxury time for a 3 year debate over it.

I don´t know how the process will be, but in bukarest we need

a blueprint on how to answer the questions of restructuring.

Need your input to able to include it at bukarest blueprint

for the board to make decissions on it.

Vint Cerf Comments:

CEO is doing what he is supposed to do. Board has not made any

decissions, had to listen to it to find out if the ICANN mission

fits to the structures.

But we have to make some serious progress at bukarest. Its non

surprised, that we need to envolve like the technology we

need to act on.

Also: Interest if we characterised the mission of ICANN correct,

also following the targets from the Mou with the USG/DOC.

Do we have the right modul of funding of the operation,

do we have the right structure?

We have a frequent confusion about internet governance and

icann governance. ICANN only adress allocation and domain

name regulation including policy.

Mechanics is easy, but questions about who under what conditions

get names is more complex. Successfull operation of ICANN also

depend from local governance.

I encourage you to respond to Stuarts Questions raised in the

proposal, to be able to make decissions as early as bukarest

meeting.

Paul Twomey Propaganda Moderating:

Carefull use of language

Strong Support of Language "Evolutionary Forms" of ICANN

Let me clear up something: Draft up for comment

Questions now

France:

First dicsussions have shown broad support, but some question

question about funding: could we get presentation about the

financial problems to be able to contribute the funding

Stuart:

I´d be happy to summarize finanical situation. Our current

budget runs about 5.5 Million US $ / a year

The revenues have not been realized, because the ccTLD community

only got 1.3 Million US $. Shortfall created because ccTLD

does not pay what it should. This year: 21 positions, 17 positions

now can be realized only. We have to spend a lot of time, that

we need the contributions.

Two problems: any org requieres reserves for protection against

this and that. About 1 year operation should be in reserves, we

have about zero reserves, fluctuation would cause real problems.

The other: Serious problems in financing the operations,

security committee for e.g. has problems, some of the idn issues,

evaluation of stuff.

(while he talked, electric power disrupted)

most important thing: understaffed and current staff is getting

burned out.

France:

Trustees you focused to put on the board. In what relation

shall they be to the governments.

Stuart:

That was left pretty vague to get your input from the

governmental community.

Thinking that it may be heart to have 5 people from

differnet govenrments, so thought it would be easier

to have nongovernmental people to be there.

I laied out a regional concept here. The problems of a region

might be more effective transformed, but may that s wrong and

you have better advise to us.

Cerf:

One thought, purely my own thought:

I consider every single trustee to have reponsiblity to the

internet at large.

Representatives of the board of trustees if they are somehow

endorsed by governments still need to have that full scope

of reponsibility.

Stuart:

Different of bringing input and voting (responsiblity)

ITU (?)

I guesss you know how governments work

Governments sign treaties and agreements

how shall this work out?

Stuart:

Nothing in my proposal suggests governments to sign anything

Still ICANN is getting in understanding with governments

Malaysia:

Government understand public/private partnership modells

What I´d like to hear is the feeling of other communities?

There seems to be a very heavy reactions, is what to be heard

at the coffeebreaks etc. because we as governments also have

to handle that realities.

Stuart:

We wouldnt be ICANN if anything we lay out would be just

getting support. Brought real problems to the surfaced,

so that is what needed to be done.

Controversial is ok.

European Commission, Dalmas:

There is a necessity to a new icann, dynamic betweens

users, internet infrastructure industry and governments.

Chronicity: we need the time of governments, we need to

interact with national administrations to raise positions

etc and that time might be more than internet time and

icann time, we need to give time..

Stuart:

We need to surprise because that´s whats happening

in an open and transparent organization, within 24

hours everyone knows etc.

Spain:

(hard to hear, microphone not working, fixed while she spoke).

question about nominees, dns still run by us org

users interests different than govenrmental interests

how do you want to adress public interests and gov interests

as well as pso, aso and other interests, how do you want

to take this into account? must work will all stakeholders.

we need to work with you all the time to mention public

interest in the issues.

Stuart:

Yes, but how to do this in the framework of icann, you need

to tell us how to realize this in the structure of icann

Vint:

Be careful not to confuse the public interest in internet and

public interest in icann. we do ourself a terrible disturbance

if we mix them up, we would mess up if we take or be the org

to be adressed all concerns about internet.

Small e.g.: world intellectual property but not icann is the

only institution, national level etc still lots of things todo.

Idea of trusteees works well in IETF and other technical

orgs. is populated by members of technical communities to take

the criteria to fulfull the mission.

nominating committee could do job to listen to all icann-groups

to listen to the criteria of people needed and also from the

governments? need to populate to fulfill the responsiblity.

Stuart:

ICANN not responsibily of policy and public interests everywhere.

If I mean public interest I of course only mean the areas where

ICANN is responsible.

Everyone wants somebody to be in charge. So watch areas of ICANN

scope by anything happening.

Paul Twomey:

Oberservations very true. Also now the problem that people want

someone to take care of everything. Helpful would be a list what

ICANN is responsible issues, and those issues thats outside the

scope of ICANN. Helpful to know who´s responsible for what in

the internet field (for e.g. wipo on some issues etc.)

Stuart:

Correct, that´s what we currently do to sort out and look what

is on the list, what should not be on the list.

Good sugeestion that we will take. To foresee is not possible.

Is one of the things we dont know how to do.

United States:

Question about stakeholder engagement. You wrote that stakeholders

dont have enough participation with ICANN, for e.g. governmental

participation not enough.

What strikes me is that Internet becomes very important to the

economy. For e.g. global ISPs, regional ISPs, large scale

business that are fulling our economy and are based on the

internet.

How will you seek to engage that groups? Do this by using the

GDPE? Or other forums, like asian forums like pet (?).

How identify stakeholders that are vital but not here.

Stuart:

Absolutely right, need to bring stakeholders to table, but

not only commercial but also non-profit stakeholders, such

as academic stakeholders.

Within the framework, we have bylaws to create constituencyes

so I would like to make ICANN an Instituion easyle for groups

to get into ICANN.

Blokzijl:

Would like to make a small correction. One Example for a potential

stakeholders, the ISP´s, they are already involved through the

local adress organizations. Just because you missed that they

are already involved does not mean that they are not there.

So this says something more about your understanding than about

ICANN.

Stuart:

Sorry but of course they also could get direct in process.

Vint:

Respond to a question that was not asked. Most people just want

it to work. Be careful with forcing people to participate in

something they simply want to work.

Paul Twomey:

Thank the board, this is a process we will follow, watch that

we need time to make our observations and express them.

Happy to have the views of different board members etc.

EOF