Internet Governance Forum - 2 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 12 November 2007 
 Critical Internet Resources

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 The 2nd Meeting of the IGF.  Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it 
 may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. 
 It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should 
 not be treated as an authoritative record.


 >>PLÍNIO DE AGUIAR:   Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  First of all, I'd
 like to welcome the participants of the first session of the IGF 2007 Internet
 Governance Forum.  This is on critical Internet resources.

 >> Is everybody listening to what the president has to say. (Audio problem).

 >> Could everybody have a seat.  And we have to introduce the chairman of the
 session also.  So as soon as everybody's going to be seated, we will start. 
 Okay, Mr. Chairman, just let me introduce you to the audience so they know who
 you are. Okay. So we are starting the session called Internet critical
 resources.  Welcome to everybody.  Thank you for being here.  And I have the
 pleasure to introduce you to the chairman of the session, Mr. Plínio de Aguiar,
 who is a member of the council of directors and former president of ANATEL, the
 Brazilian FCC.  Is also a board member of the CGI.BR, the Internet steering
 committee of Brazil. Mr. Chairman.

 >>PLÍNIO DE AGUIAR:   Thank you.  First of all, I would like to welcome the
 participants of the first session on Internet governance, the Internet
 Governance Forum 2007, on critical Internet resources. The second IGF meeting
 and the main session dedicated to the theme according to the Tunis Agenda, this
 is new when compared to the inaugural session in Athens, which was such a
 success in November 2006.  Including this theme, as many others in the IGF
 demonstrate the evolution, the growing evolution, of the forum, and the five
 initially planned sessions, we will fully implement the mandate given by the
 international community expressed in the Tunis Agenda.  This is operational
 document which was adopted at the end of the World Summit on the Information
 Society, according to the report submitted by the advisory group, the
 multisectorial MAG, designated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
 the session should debate issues related to infrastructure and the management
 of critical resources on the Internet, including the management of domain name
 systems, DNS, and Internet protocols, the management of root servers,
 standards, interconnection points, telecommunications infrastructures,
 including converging and innovative technologies, as well as the transition to
 multilinguism.  It is consensual that Internet governance is a broader theme
 than the management of Internet resources.  It is key to point out that the
 topics to be debated in this panel which involve physical structure and the
 logic of the system supply support on which all the access -- universal access
 activities take place, and the maintaining of security, which characterize the
 different aspects of Internet governance. So this is an issue that is
 cross-cutting in regards to the others.  Administrative decisions of the
 management of such critical resources cannot be taken without the necessary
 consideration of its consequences in terms of public policies.  And, therefore,
 governments have to oversee such policies. As regards the logic infrastructure,
 we have the implementation of domain names that are internationalized and the
 adoption of criteria for the allocation and reallocation of I.P. addresses and
 the migration of IPv4 to IPv6.  All of them have a great impact on the drafting
 of digital inclusion public policies and the Internet in the developing world. 
 The governance model constituted by ICANN and other organizations connected to
 it bring innovative aspects to the classical intergovernmental organisms
 supported by the U.N.  And this is an important development towards the
 construction of a governance model that is multisectorial, multistakeholder.
 Some ICANN efforts to ensure full and diversified participation of its meetings
 -- and the meetings are held every four months, alternating all five continents
 -- these are initiatives that should be praised and reproduced by IGF in other
 mechanisms. We should recognize that the present global governance system of
 the Internet, ICANN is the only institution that is not intergovernmental, with
 in mind a specific mechanism for the debate of public policies as part of
 governments.  We must follow with interest the initiatives, try to make the
 decision processes as transparent as possible, democratic and participative and
 strive for the independence of the institution vis-ŕ-vis any government. With
 the objective agreed upon in Tunis to make possible to all governments, under
 equal conditions, to participate in the drafting of global public policies, we
 should consider also the strengthening of the DAC and provided with the
 adequate level of institutionality with the participation of governments in
 this makeup, ensuring greater representativity, especially from developing
 countries, the presence of which in these mechanisms still very shy.  And a
 convergence of efforts within the context of improved communications according
 to the Tunis Agenda should help promoting based on administrative experience
 and technical capacity of organizations involved with such themes of better
 performance of developing countries and better participation of these means by
 developing countries. As regards physical structures, the existing governance
 mechanism represented by ITU has likewise undergone several adaptations with a
 view to expand the -- have more nongovernmental representatives in the
 processes to draft policies. In this regard, several resolutions were adopted
 at the last plenipotentiary meeting of the ITU, held in 2006.  It seems
 necessary that both institutions -- ICANN and as well as ITU -- should continue
 to develop in the convergence manner in adapting their decision mechanisms,
 making to the precepts in the information society summit in a coordinated
 manner in the direction to a governance model that is transparent,
 multilateral, multistakeholder, and democratic, and all sectors can carry out
 their roles according to the Tunis Agenda, therefore legitimizing them in the
 exercise of the roles which historically they have been carried out in the
 management of critical resources of the Internet after Tunis. So those were my
 first words.  And I give the floor to the moderator, Mr. Ulysse Gosset.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This discussion will set the stage
 for the next few days, and maybe more, by outlining responsive information and
 comments.  And to achieve this goal, we have here a very prestigious panel to
 talk about Internet critical resources. We have two of the founders of the
 Internet, we have three persons in charge of their national naming
 organizations.  And so we are going to be able to probably talk about the
 challenges, what are the challenges for the CRI, what evolution are we
 expecting, what is the future of ICANN, what kind of evolution do you see for
 ICANN, and what kind of transition are you expecting from IPv4 to IPv6.  These
 are some of the main questions we are going to debate. And to start, I would
 like to introduce our first panelist, Vint Cerf, on the left of the table here,
 is one of the founders of the Internet.  He is chief evangelist at Google, and
 he is the former chairman of ICANN until very recently, ICANN, the Internet
 Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Please, Vinton -- I would like to
 tell the audience that after the panelists, you will be able to ask questions. 
 We have also three discussants here on the floor.  And we would like to have at
 least 15 to 20 people from the audience to speak and to ask questions. So
 everybody will try to be as short as possible, so we have a very lively session
 and very interesting one. Vinton.

 >>VINT CERF:   Thank you very much, Chairman. And good afternoon, ladies and
 gentlemen. I have just a few points I would like to make at the outset.  The
 first one is to emphasize that ICANN is a multistakeholder structure which was
 born that way, and it has developed increasing mechanisms for involving
 interested stakeholders in policy-making with regard to the domain name system
 and to Internet address assignment. I think that one of the most important
 components of ICANN is the Governmental Advisory Committee, and it's very
 important to all of us that we see increased participation in that group in
 order to assure that public policy issues are adequately addressed. By the same
 token, just recently, ICANN has managed to complete the implementation of its
 At-Large Advisory Committee, replacing the interim committee and creating a
 number of regional at-large organizations in order to inform discussion on
 public policy coming from the civil society. I'd like to make the first point
 about infrastructure by -- and critical resources by pointing out that almost
 any resource which is important to implementing the Internet becomes critical
 at one time or another.  For example, having electric power available can
 become a very critical resource.  Having a technical workforce that is
 available to help you build and operate pieces of Internet, having a highly
 open standards-making process is a critical resource. So in the course of the
 discussion in this panel, I hope we don't lose track of the breadth of the
 resources that are needed in order to successfully implement and operate this
 global Internet. The second point I'd like to make is that with regard to
 domain names, there has been substantial progress in the last 12 months in the
 expansion of the domain name space towards non-Latin character sets --
 non-Latin scripts.  There is today a set underway with 11 scripts that are not
 using Latin characters in order to evaluate the effect of those kinds of
 top-level domains on the various applications, the browsers, the e-mail
 applications, and the like, that might encounter such domain names.  The
 intention is to reach the point where ICANN can invite proposals for top-level
 domains in these new character sets somewhere around the middle of 2008.  And
 this objective is for both the country code TLDs and also for the generic ones.
 The second observation I'd like to make with regard to I.P. address space is
 the repeated warning that I.P. version 4 addresses will eventually be
 exhausted.  This doesn't mean that the Internet stops working.  It just means
 that we won't have any more of that address space to hand out. ICANN's blocks
 which are allocated to the Regional Internet Registries will probably be
 exhausted somewhere around the middle of 2010. This simply emphasizes the
 importance of introducing a concurrent operation of I.P. version 6 with a much,
 much larger address space.  There is plenty of IPv6 address space available. 
 But it is not enough simply to have an address. The IPv6 addresses are
 meaningless unless they show up in a routing table somewhere.  And the
 inability to reach everywhere in the Internet with the new address space is a
 serious barrier. When the Internet was first implemented and as it grew, every
 time you connected to a particular network, you could reach all of the other
 networks on the Internet using the I.P. version 4 address space.  But in
 today's terms, IPv6 is not uniformly implemented.  When you implement V6,
 unless you connect to another IPv6 network, you may actually be an island of
 IPv6 operation.  And while there are mechanisms, such as tunneling through the
 IPv4 connected network, I would like to suggest the importance of adopting
 policies that will encourage IPv6 connectivity among all of the Internet
 service providers.  Governments could choose to subsidize the cost of
 interexchange points that would encourage interconnection using IPv6 address
 space so as to reach as quickly as possible a fully connected IPv6 system in
 parallel with the IPv4 system. Finally, the last point I'd like to make is that
 capacity-building is one of the Millennium Development Goals.  And, in my view,
 nothing could be more important than to build additional capacity so that we
 can reach the other five and a half billion people in the world who do not yet
 have access to the Internet.  And that is really the biggest focus of attention
 that I can think of right now, establishing policies that will in fact
 encourage the implementation and spread of access to the Internet and its use.
 So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  That's my open remark. [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you. To my right we have Lesley Cowley, who is the
 chief executive of Nominet, the not-for-profit registry for the U.K.  She is
 also a council member of the Country Code Name Supporting Organization and
 chair of a working group aiming to improve country code manager participation
 in ICANN and regional organization. Lesley.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   Thank you, Ulysse, and thank you also to our Brazilian host.
  Nominet manages dot UK which currently means we manage 6.4 million names. 
 According to my taxi driver the other day, that's the equivalent to the
 population of Rio.  I'm not sure if that's correct, but it is a large number of
 people.  So we run a large registry, but we are a small part of the global
 critical Internet resource which is defined as a quite a large area, and in
 turn, that's just one part of the global Internet. I have been with Nominet for
 eight years now, which is a small time compared to other people on the panel. 
 I have seen huge growth and change.  I've seen evolution, not revolution.  I
 have seen registrations grow from 3,000 a month to 6,000 a day. I have seen the
 number of registrars grow from 100 to over 3,000.  And we have invested
 millions of pounds in our systems and infrastructure to cope with growth and
 provide resilience and reliability to all of our customers. As a not-for-profit
 in the time we have been in existence, we have been able to reduce our prices
 from the grand sum of 100 pounds to five pounds currently. As a result of all
 of this, U.K. citizens can get online quickly and cheaply, and this small part
 of critical Internet resources works well for them. I have also seen a
 continued development of the U.K. multistakeholder approach.  My sector in the
 U.K. hasn't really got any legislation or regulation.  We work on the basis of
 industry, self-regulation, which means we work in partnership with all
 stakeholders and also with our government. And as part of the evolution of the
 U.K. stakeholder -- multistakeholder approach, we have been running a local IGF
 in our own small way.  And we will be sharing our experience of that in a
 session later on today. But, actually, from this discussion within the U.K.
 there come two strong concerns from the users within our country. We have
 concerns about security going forward, and we have concerns about access for
 developing areas of the world. I have also seen an evolution of ICANN during my
 time, and in particular, Nominet's relationship with ICANN. In the years since
 Tunis we have exchanged letters with ICANN which describe and recognize our
 positions. We have also joined the country code name supporting organization,
 where we learn from other country code managers and share experiences and
 policies from our country. We also develop global policy where it's necessary
 to be a global policy.  For example, in the Internationalized Domain Names
 space. I have seen some positive evolution as well, of the service that IANA
 provides.  Of course IANA will know that I prefer it's much faster going
 forward. There's more to be done.  There's more to be done in terms of
 participation, and we are committed to helping improve participation in both
 ICANN and regional organizations going forward. There's also more to be done on
 improving ICANN's accountability, particularly as it moves towards greater
 independence in the future. So to conclude, critical Internet resources
 actually isn't a hot topic in the U.K, particularly for users.  When we discuss
 it at Nominet, which of course we do from time to time, the key issues that
 really  matter to us are about enhanced cooperation and evolution.  We see no
 need for new structures.  The key issues that really matter to U.K. users are
 around security and access for the future global success of the Internet. Thank
 you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you very much. I would like to remind the audience --
 [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   -- that if you have some questions, you will find some
 little notes around the room, and you can fill them, and you have to say to who
 you would like to address this question, what is the main topic of your
 question, make it short, and please identify yourself when you speak. I would
 like to give the floor now to Alain Aina, founder and member of the African
 network operation group, from Togo, he is also a member of the ICANN security
 and stability committee. Alain.

 >>ALAIN AINA:   Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  I will speak in French. So when you
 speak of managing critical Internet resources, generally you refer to what Vint
 Cerf just said, the addressing systems, the domain name systems, the server
 system, and so forth. And on those issues, everyone agrees that, in terms of
 management, there are operational issues, stability, security of these systems
 that need to be maintained, in addition to policy development and other issues.
 In general, when you speak of critical resources, as an issue that's not raised
 very often, and that's one I would like to raise here is routing.  Routing is a
 key issue of Internet.  If you look at one of the difficulties in the
 development of Internet today, it's the management of routing tables.  This is
 a major challenge today.  It's also an important element for us. The problem is
 that Internet is good to a point where these critical structures, these
 critical resources, need to be better managed.  But on the other side, there
 are a number of challenges, such as today, for example, incorporating security
 in most of these resources, and clear identification of who owns an I.P.
 address block today, which we call a certification of an Internet resource,
 making routing secure, certification of DNS and so forth. So there are new
 challenges, and these new challenges have technical aspects, but there are also
 legal elements and decision-making elements at several levels. Vint Cerf, in
 the list of cultural resources referred to infrastructure telecoms and so
 forth, which, from the point of view of a developing country, from an African
 country's point of view, these really are critical elements.  If you don't have
 electricity, if you don't have the telecom infrastructure to get access to
 broadband Internet, you have a problem. And in our developing countries,
 infrastructure and electricity are also critical resources for us, and we must
 talk about them. These critical elements, for example, prevent the development
 in our countries of resources such as, for example, the establishment of a root
 server.  You can't have a root server unless you have the infrastructure
 already there for it. So I think we need to expand the scope of what we mean by
 critical resources. The multistakeholder that's been developed by ICANN and the
 registry system has shown, for example, in our context, in Africa, since the
 introduction of AfriNIC, we have seen that AfriNIC, with the support of other
 bodies, AfNOG, AfriSPA and others, today has made it possible to increase
 Internet penetration in our region.  And I think that this is a model which
 must be encouraged.  It's a model which is gradually bringing governments
 around, getting civil society more and more interested in these issues and
 making them cooperate more for better management and better governance of these
 critical resources. Thank you, Mr. moderator. [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   I would like to give the floor now to Milton Mueller, who is
 professor at Syracuse University in the United States.  He is professor at the
 school of information studies.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   Thank you.  I'm very pleased to be here. Critical Internet
 resources is something that means to me, basically, domain names, root servers,
 and Internet protocol addresses. Both of these are virtual resources essential
 to the functioning of the Internet.  Just like radio spectrum, we need to agree
 on policies to globally govern their allocation and assignment. Note the word
 "global."  The difference between these critical Internet resources and many of
 the other things we have heard are critical, such as electrical power and
 telecom infrastructure, is that there is an inherent and fundamental need for
 global coordination.  And therefore there is a new kind of governance problem
 for these Internet resources.  Electrical power grids are coordinated at the
 national or local level or regional level.  You do not need global governance
 of electrical power resources, and in fact there's very little a global forum
 like this can do about electrical power.  But there is something we can do
 about the critical Internet resources. In fact, to go beyond the dialogue a
 bit, we all know that critical Internet resources in the world summit became a
 code word for ICANN issues and the underlying problem of unilateral control of
 Internet resources by one nation state. There are people who prefer that those
 issues not be discussed here at the forum, but that's obviously no longer the
 case.  We are discussing them, and I'd like to thank the Brazilians and my
 colleagues in civil society for making that happen.  And I think it's going to
 prove to be a productive discussion. Now, these issues are being discussed, and
 quite productively, within ICANN, and the Regional Internet Registries. 
 There's a lot of technical expertise there.  But we also need to discuss them
 here, where there's a much broader set of stakeholder groups, not just
 governments but others.  And we need to focus on the public policy implications
 and not just the technical implications. So what are the issues, as I see them?
  First, we are running out of Internet addresses.  We need to develop new
 mechanisms and allow people, for example, to trade addresses so that they can
 be moved from people who don't need them to people who do need them. 
 Unfortunately, there are people who have buried their head in the sand on this
 issue because of repeating old practices and don't want to make that change.
 Second, there is a new protocol, IPv6, that would create more address space. 
 But the somewhat alarming fact is that this new protocol is not backwards
 compatible with the old Internet protocol.  And the transition to IPv6, as Dr.
 Cerf indicated, raises the risk of severe economic and technical dislocations
 as we move forward. These are fundamental global public policy issues
 pertaining to the basic ability of the Internet to function. Third, we need to
 secure the domain name system.  That means we have to define a new process for
 encrypting the root zone file so that it can serve as a trust anchor for the
 global Internet. And this reincarnates the continuing saga of who rules the
 root. By the way, IGP and some others are doing a workshop on this topic
 Wednesday morning. Finally, we have the creation of new top-level domains, some
 of which will be multilingual, and this raises interesting problems of global
 content regulation, problems of national Internets, problems about the control
 of language communities, and the problems of market dominance in DNS services.
 So in short, critical Internet resources are truly global governance issues. 
 We need the forum to raise awareness of their importance and to develop
 consensus around globally applicable public policy principles for governing
 them.  By participating in the forum, we do not necessarily accept the premise
 that governments need to assert unilateral control over public policy issues. 
 We can develop new institutions that provide for more pluralistic, networked,
 and private sector-based forms of governance as well as understanding and
 implementing the role of governments more effectively. Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you. And now we are going to listen to Carlos Afonso,
 who is the planning director, member of the RITS, the information network for
 third sector, from Rio de Janeiro.  And who is also a board member of the CGI,
 the Internet Steering Committee for Brazil. Carlos.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Thank you very much.  I will read from this. (No audio).
 Okay.  Our colleague, Plínio, the chair, has already summarized what the WGIG
 and the Tunis Agenda expected from the discussion of these critical internet
 resources. Vint Cerf told us that, of course, critical Internet resources are
 those resources without which Internet deployment is fruitless.  And that
 includes electric power, telephone facilities capable of transporting I.P.,
 (inaudible) operators, et cetera. As much as we understand the multiplicity of
 issues which are critical, if we take into account all levels of the Internet,
 in particular for sustainable human development, and we could in this view
 include content itself as a supercritical resource, actually the mother of all
 critical resources that justifies it all, the fact is that any meeting which
 proposes to discuss all of them will be trivially useless. Secondly, the story
 of insertion of this theme in the IGF program has been centrally motivated by
 the concerns from many stakeholders regarding true autonomy in the running of
 the worldwide logical infrastructure of the Internet. In the WGIG, the Working
 Group on Internet Governance, there ought to be a formulation for them which
 accommodated the different strong opinions.  So we ended up with such a generic
 formulation which simply says that the Internet is critical and everything that
 contributes to its functioning, usefulness, is critical as well. And in this
 sense it was imperfect because it should include many other critical
 components, as I mentioned. So sticking to -- sorry. Sticking to the set of
 critical resources, reasonably motivated, difficulty in insertion in the theme
 in the IGF agenda, I think we should read carefully Vint Cerf's letter in the
 ICANN Web site.  It's not from a scientist who co-invented TCP/IP.  It is from
 a seasoned, open-minded visionary with a unique broad experience and expertise
 which will be extremely hard to replace, by the way. For me, the latter
 (inaudible) of issues is an expression of how ICANN, despite the well-known
 odds, is evolving in the direction of serious considering internationalization
 and autonomy in a multistakeholder setting. If this is so, and hoping it will
 continue to be under its -- and I would like to quote, if I can find it here, a
 portion of Vint's letter which says this clearly.  I will not find it right
 now.  We have only five minutes.  I can't search it. So hope it will continue
 to be under its new leadership, its strength.  It should open up a careful
 process of consultations regarding how this can be carried out and, in my view,
 probably a scenario for (inaudible) could evolve -- could involve, I'm sorry,
 what Jack the Ripper used to say. Let's go part by part. [ Laughter ]

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   The kernel of the internationalization problem for many
 seems to be government control of the root server file system.  We could
 envision an organic structure in which this would remain with the same
 organization that exists today from the point of secure and reliable operation,
 it works quite well, except for the procedural.  Procedures which involve
 clearance from the Commerce Department, which means rewriting or ending the MOU
 altogether. Secondly, governance of the generic names, domain names system
 would be entirely in the hands of a modifying GNSO which will become another
 institutionalized structure.  (Inaudible) the country code domain name system,
 in which case under another institutional structure derived from ccNSO.
 Decision-making regarding domains would be the exclusive realm of these two
 multistakeholder organizations. Three, ensuring the independence from any
 government of the so-called IANA function, worldwide I.P. number distributions
 governance would continue under a fourth institutional structure.  Obviously,
 the NRO.  Besides being responsible for the secure, stable and efficient
 running of the root server system and in coordination of protocols via the
 current IETF arrangement, ICANN would thus become the binding organization of
 all these four organic structures.  And the construction of this can be carried
 out via a careful plan of institutional rebuilding. All of the four specific
 instances would be overseen by their corresponding multistakeholder boards and
 the ICANN board would be the coordinating board for this institutional
 ensemble. In my view, in this way, less politically sensitive components of the
 governance, of the logical infrastructure could come first in this process of
 change. In the end if this works, the more political sensitive ones would quite
 probably become less so. [ Applause ]

 >>:  Thank you very much.  And our last panelist is Raul Echeberria from
 Uruguay, the CEO of Latin American and Caribbean Internet, the Latin American
 and Caribbean Internet.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: First, I would like to thank the colleagues from the
 advisory council for having chosen me to be part of this panel. I would also
 like to thank the colleagues of the advisory committee of the Internet in
 Brazil for the excellent -- for the effort they have undertaken to organize
 this event and thank my friend, Hartmut Glaser, for his team, for the great
 work they have done in organizing this meeting. [ Applause ]

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   Now, I can speak my mother tongue, which is Spanish. And
 we're going to talk about the critical Internet resources.  I believe that all
 of us here are in agreement that we should discuss the root servers and the
 domain system. I would also like to except and point out that these resources
 are not necessarily critical.  There are other resources which are critical and
 not with the ones I have named above.  Some people see this difference as a
 means of avoiding the debate of these issues.  But it has already been said
 many times that I agree to debate, and we agree to debate this theme in this
 forum and avoid misinterpretations.  But we must discuss at one point which
 resources are critical or not.  And maybe for the next IGF, this will be a
 cross-cutting theme. One thing is critical resources.  The other thing is
 resources due to their own essence in their operation that includes risk
 management, which is the case of most of these resources. And so to add in your
 daily operations the risk management is actually something that should be done
 for critical Internet resources. Let's speak about something else. I'd like to
 point out the progress that has been achieved in recent times, three or four
 years, that is the cooperation amongst the difference stakeholders by means of
 the existing organizations and at other FORA. ICANN has taken important steps
 causing a permanent evolution in the few years it has existed.  And NRO, Number
 Resource Organization, the organization, the five regional registries for
 Internet addresses, has supported this evolution.  And we continue supporting
 this evolution of a more international organization, more multilingual, more
 independent.  This is the route, I believe, we are on, and this is the one we
 should follow. The administration finds the principles set forth in the Tunis
 agreement.  At this IGF forum, we see several traits that for many years the
 processes of the regional registries have faced.  Now, beyond the satisfaction
 or due to the characteristic of the processes, we continue to work close to
 stakeholders and permanent contacts with the stakeholders and governments and
 civil society.  So this issue of the IPv4 addresses and transition to IPv6 is
 an example of cooperation, because the regional registries, the RIRs, have
 brought this theme up in several different FORA, government FORA, and we have
 submitted -- this is our own initiative at the last five meetings of the
 government council with ICANN.  And we have also taken part in roundtables and
 have held contacts with governments and the Inter-American Committee of
 Telecommunications and many other organizations. As regards the specific point
 of IPv4 or IPv6, it is important to divide it into two areas.  On the one hand,
 the main challenge, which is the IPv6 choice.  And this option is important
 that the national registries, together with these organizations, they manage
 the Internet addresses, but we do not manage the technology.  Therefore, the
 adoption of a new technology as IPv6 is not the responsibility of one
 organization, as may have in the present management of Internet resources. 
 This is the work that should be done in a coordinated manner.  This is work in
 which government has an important role by means of the promotion of dialogue
 with industry and by means of incentives. The other aspect is to ensure or to
 work towards providing a harmonic passing over to IPv6.  We have the active
 participation of thousands of people in all regions by means of open and
 transparent and participative processes, which it has demonstrated the present
 policy development processes have proven to be appropriate to deal with the
 situation. Beyond these discussions in the regional manner, we have debated
 with a global perspective.  Governments have different means of participating,
 be it through the process I have just mentioned.  And as many of these policies
 are global policies, they will need the ratification of ICANN and a process by
 which governments are consulted through the Governmental Advisory Committee.
 There is important coordination work of practical and operational work between
 the RIRs and IANA in order to assure -- ensure this transition.  This is
 something we can talk in detail.  Just a few hours ago, there was a specific
 workshop on this theme.  And it would be convenient to leave it open and guide
 the discussion according to the opinion from the audience.  Thank you very
 much. [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you very much. Before giving the floor to the
 discussants, maybe we could see what kind of questions we have here from the
 room, from the audience. I have already six or seven questions, one of them
 being about IPv6.  It's a question from Alain Durand.  Would you like to ask
 your question, please?  Is he here?  No.

 >> Over there.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Please go ahead.  You have the floor. Could you just
 introduce yourself and tell us who you are.

 >> My name is Alain Durand.  (No audio.) My question is for Vint Cerf.  I would
 like to know what could we do as a large service provider moving to IPv6 to
 help content provider to bring back valuable content available on IPv6?

 >>VINT CERF:   It's a very good question. I think the first answer is that if
 you go to the Internet service providers -- perhaps there's more than one
 option for to you get service -- and say to them, "I want to provide my content
 on IPv6.  What can you do for me?  What kind of access can you give me?  And,
 oh, by the way, what reach do I have?  How well can I touch the rest of the
 Internet using IPv6?"  If more of us in the community that consume Internet
 services or provide Internet services through the ISPs, if more of us went to
 them and said, "I now need IPv6 as well as IPv4," it might persuade them that
 they need to supply it. Right now, they're not convinced because they're not
 hearing very much demand.  So I urge you to raise that issue with as many ISPs
 as you are able to.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   There is also a question from Konstantin Novoderejhkin to
 Lesley Cowley.  Thank you.

 >> Good afternoon.  I am Konstantin Novoderejhkin, representative of the
 Russian Federation. Ms. Cowley, your statement, you said that you see a problem
 with the inspection of the participation of international organizations and the
 mechanisms for expanding that needs to be resolved.  Can I ask you, what is
 your opinion, how do you say this problem can be resolved?  What mechanisms can
 be used in order to solve this problem you have identified?  Thank you.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   Let's be clear.  I don't see this as a problem, I she as an
 opportunity, particularly in the ICANN arena for country code managers, I see
 that as an issue that can be dealt with in terms of remote participation, in
 terms of improved communication, and people understanding the benefits and ways
 in which they can get involved. ICANN has also introduced a fellowship scheme. 
 And there is priority in that scheme for representatives from country codes and
 also from the Governmental Advisory Committee.  And I very much see some new
 faces coming to ICANN meetings as a result of that scheme. I very much hope
 that will continue. I also see as important participation in regional
 organizations. We have a spread of regional organizations across the world now.
  And many managers of countries can get involved in those, as well as in the
 ICANN arena.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  There is a question from Martha Leitaro.  Is she
 around? It's about trademarks and domain names.  On the right.  Yes, please. 
 Who would you like to ask the question to?  Can you introduce yourself, please.

 >> My name is Martha.  I'm not sure to whom I am going to ask the question. 
 But if I say the question, would you please volunteer yourself, okay? So I
 would like to know how ICANN intends to prevent domain name conflicts
 concerning to registered trademarks.  Because we have seen that WIPO has been
 the -- has been doing the procedures after the conflict happens, the conflicts
 happen.  And how does ICANN tend to prevent the conflicts?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Okay.

 >>VINT CERF:   Let me see if I can try to respond.  First of all, I'm sure
 you're familiar with the earlier development of the UDRP, the uniform dispute
 resolution -- UDRP -- thank you -- it shows you how quickly you forget
 everything once you step down from the board. [ Laughter ]

 >>VINT CERF:   The point I want to make, though, is that as we go forward into
 the internationalized domain name territory, this is a place where there's even
 increased concern.  And there are mechanisms that have been proposed by the
 GNSO, the Generic Names Supporting Organization, for further development to try
 to assure that trademarks are properly protected. This is not something we've
 ignored.  And so if you want to learn more, I'd advise to you come to the ICANN
 Web pages and look under the new gTLD policies in order to see more about
 what's being planned.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  Lesley would like to add something.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   I'd just like to add that we need to set this problem in
 context. I recognize it's very important for those concerned.  But in the U.K.
 for example, less than .01% of my 6.4 million names have a dispute.  And,
 actually, not many of those are about trademarks.  And many countries have
 developed their own dispute resolution policies, and, indeed, we've worked with
 fellow CC managers sharing our experiences of doing just that. It's our belief
 that in a country context, national policy needs to be set at a national level
 to address national needs.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  I would like to now go back to the floor, to our
 table, to have a word from Juan Fernández González, who is from Cuba, the
 ministry of information and technology.  He is one of ow three discussants. 
 Please.

 >>JUAN FERNÁNDEZ GONZÁLEZ:   Good afternoon. I would like to ask a question to
 the panel members Vint Cerf, Carlos Afonso and Milton Mueller.  The question is
 the following.  The networks are converging.  That is inevitable. And some
 think it should be inevitable also the convergence of the institutions which
 regulate and coordinate on a global level. For instance, we could mention
 amongst them, but not only these, ICANN and ITU. What do you believe, how
 should this procedure, this convergence, institutional convergence procedure
 should take place?

 >>VINT CERF:   I'd rather you go first, Milton, so I have an opportunity to WAP
 you afterwards.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   You might actually like what I'm going to say.  It's a very
 intelligent question and a very far-seeing -- farsighted question.
 Institutional convergence.  Now, first of all, if you look carefully at
 convergence within industries, you do not really see convergence per se, if
 that means different industries coming together into the same place.  What you
 actually see is the Internet taking over everything. So, to draw out the
 parallel, I would suggest that rather than seeing the ITU converge on ICANN and
 converge on OECD and all of the other institutions that are currently trying to
 in some way affect Internet governance, would you would more likely see are the
 growth and spread of the authority and significance of the organic Internet
 institutions.  For example, ICANN's budget has grown now to $50 million.  And
 in 1998 when ICANN was created, I predicted that within ten years, it would be
 the same size as the ITU.  And everyone laughed at me.  But now I feel
 vindicated. The RIRs are extremely well-endowed institutions, let me say.  Not
 that there's anything wrong with that.  But these institutions are growing. 
 They're getting stronger.  And they have a new ethic of multistakeholderism
 which is very important.  So I would see rather than convergence of the old
 institutions, perhaps a more Darwinian process in which the old institutions
 die and the new ones grow.

 >>VINT CERF:   I'd be hard pressed to object to anything that Milton just said.
 I would like to make an observation, though, about this convergence notion. It
 is not necessarily the case that a medium which moves from, let's say, the
 traditional television world of broadcast or cable or even satellite, when it
 moves into the Internet environment, it may not be the same kind of television
 that you thought it was before.  People use the medium differently.  There are
 different opportunities for sustaining that medium, for supporting its costs,
 and the like. And so the regulatory oversight and structure for businesses that
 operate that medium in the Internet world may be quite different from the ones
 that may have been appropriate in other delivery mechanisms. So I think that,
 in my view, anyway, convergence does not necessarily endow any of the previous
 regulatory structures with any primacy, and, in fact, we may see completely
 different kinds of media arising out of this convergence with Internet delivery
 mechanisms. So I think, like Milton suggests, there may be a Darwinian
 imperative here that you either adapt to this new environment or you die.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Carlos Afonso.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Just a complement.  I think that institutions like the ITU,
 with their one and a half century existence, will need to modernize in order to
 follow up on the convergence process.  And, of course, they have a good part of
 the pie in this process.  But which one is exactly, you know, it's changing as
 well.  So I'm just complementing what Milton Mueller says.  Either modernize,
 rearrange, or die.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Okay.  And we have two questions from the audience.  One
 from Rafid Fatani, and one from Ralf Bendrath, who are quite close.  So if you
 could please -- okay.  Introduce yourself.

 >> Rafid Fatani.  It's a general question to Vint. Do you think the U.N. is the
 best place to bring this forum, knowing the overbureaucracies of the U.N? 
 Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   And your question, please, also, Ralf.

 >> University of Bremen in Germany.  My question is directed to Milton.  And
 you partially already answered it right now.  But maybe I can add on that. You
 made a convincing point that the management of critical Internet resources is a
 global governance issue and that we need global public policy and global public
 policy principles and so on.  And I wanted to ask if you can go a bit further
 and tell us what you think how it should look like, in fact, not just that it's
 good to talk about it. When you just said we need a Darwinian process, that
 surprised me.  Because that sounds very, like, market-driven and so on.  And I
 don't see the public-policy aspect of that.

 >>VINT CERF:   Let me start to respond to the first question about the U.N. A
 most dangerous question to ask in this setting. [ Laughter ]

 >>VINT CERF:   I would like to suggest to you that the convening power of the
 United Nations is evident in this meeting.  And it has been quite valuable so
 far.  Certainly the Athens meeting resulted in a great deal of exchange among
 people who did not normally interact with each other.  And I suggest to you
 that that's happening once again in this meeting.  And so I value that. I don't
 necessarily believe, however, that the governance mechanisms that have evolved
 around the Internet need necessarily to move into the U.N. orbit in a direct
 way.  I think that these new multistakeholder structures deserve some time to
 evolve and develop.  We've had eight years at ICANN.  And I think we've got a
 pretty stable structure, so I think at this point the value of U.N.
 contribution is in the convening of these kinds of discussions.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Okay. Raul.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   Thank you. I believe that the answer, my answer, will be
 along the same lines as what Vint Cerf was saying. The answer lies in this
 meeting, the fact that we felt that we needed to create the new dialogue
 mechanism and for the exchange of ideas to demonstrate that the existing
 mechanisms within the U.N. were not enough to give voice to all stakeholders. 
 And we have to bear in mind that what was desired with IGF was a culture, the
 culture of -- different from the classical culture of U.N. organizations, but
 this would be a participative, multistakeholder operation. The interesting
 point you have raised -- and this is what we were saying before -- how the U.N.
 has been very useful in a very positive manner to create this forum.  And
 according -- even in Tunis, at a moment when we came to a standstill, but the
 figure of the U.N. was something that generated trust, because it's neutral. 
 And so I believe that we have to continue preserve this figure that the U.N.
 Secretary-General or the under secretary as a figure so that we can have
 success with this new experience that we're carrying out.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  There's another question in the room.  (No
 audio).

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   Do I get to answer Ralf's question?  It's a very tough
 question.  I prefer not to.  But if you --

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   One moment.  One moment, please.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   So, Ralf, it's hard to understand whether you're asking me
 to predict the future, that is, what I think will happen, or whether you're
 asking me what I want to happen.  Okay?  You're asking me what I want to
 happen.  Yeah. I would like to see global governance institutions evolve and
 become stronger, and particularly in the field of the Internet, I would like to
 see I guess some kind of translation of notions of liberal democracy into the
 global sphere so that we have a constitution which limits the power of what
 public authorities can do at the same time as it empowers a global public to
 directly select and control these global entities. So, for example, I was a big
 supporter of ICANN's original model in which they actually had a membership
 which voted on the board members.  And I was disappointed when they departed
 from that and set up more of a corporate, self-selecting board structure. On
 the other hand, I know enough about history to know that there are powerful
 interests at stake, and sometimes good ideals can become warped in the
 implementation by the push-and-pull of politics. So this is a very complicated
 topic that, as you know well, which we could discuss at greater length at some
 other time.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Audience, Mr. Wong Ming Hua.

 >>WONG MING HUA:   I'm from the China Internet Emergency Response Group.  I
 would like to ask a question to Mr. Carlos and Mr. Muller. In order to
 implement the multilateralism and (inaudible) principles of the summit. [ Audio
 has two languages ] How to ensure the decision-making mechanism.  Which ensures
 the equal participation of the developing countries.  Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   There was a problem of translation.  I'm sorry, but would it
 be possible for you to summarize again your question.  Because there was a
 problem with translation.  Can you say it again, please.

 >>WONG MING HUA:   Let me just repeat my question.  I'd like to ask the two
 experts, in order to implement the summit principle of multilateralism and
 democracy and transparency, how are you going to propose the solution to the
 problem of the Internet names control that is currently being controlled by one
 state?  What is the approach to this problem?  Is there a timetable for the
 solution of this problem.  And the decision mechanism to ensure the equal
 participation of the developing countries in this --

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   It's a very clear question.  I understood it, so thank you.
 The Internet governance project has written a few things about this. We have
 papers which explain how we think this should happen. Basically it involves
 sticking pretty much with the ICANN structure but getting the U.S. government
 out of it so you denationalize the control of ICANN which means you must
 establish appropriate forms of accountability for ICANN.  And there are various
 institutional proposals around for how to do that. Carlos has proposed one of
 them.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   The jack the ripper proposal.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   The jack the ripper proposal.  He wants to use that name [
 Laughter ]

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   So in terms of what timetable and how fast, we believe that
 this could happen as soon as in two years, maybe sooner.  It depends on certain
 ICANN reform processes.  And that, you know, once you have denationalized the
 name and address spaces that you should rely also on some kind of framework of
 principles for how governments exercise oversight.  We prefer to think of this
 not as governments intervening in ICANN whenever something happens they don't
 like but again having very clear defined principles and rules that limit the
 power of governments as well as of ICANN, and that the governments basically
 make sure that ICANN treats people fairly and doesn't abuse its own processes
 but does not try to shape the policy outcomes on a day-to-day basis based on
 geopolitical contention. We would like to remove the Internet from geopolitical
 contention as much as possible.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Vint.

 >>VINT CERF:   I feel compelled to respond as well. I'd like to suggest to you
 that the current processes for dealing with domain names are largely bottom-up
 processes. ICANN does not dictate what top-level domains are proposed.  It has
 to deal with those which are proposed. Mechanisms for determining whether there
 are conflicts in interest for certain domain names are being developed.  This
 is going to be particularly important with the Internationalized Domain Names.
 And I think I feel also compelled to point out that the U.S. government, in its
 oversight role thus far, has never rejected any recommendations made by ICANN
 for the installation of top-level domains either country code origin or
 generics. It has been, frankly, a rather benign operation. I fully understand
 the desire to de-politicize by having no special responsibilities by any one
 government.  That's why there's a Governmental Advisory Committee.  It's there
 to absorb the public policy aspect of ICANN's operation.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   In the audience about the same subject, Abdullah Aldarrab. 
 Can you please add your question and then we will come back to the panel.

 >> ABDULLAH ALDARRAB:  Thank you.  My name is Abdullah Aldarrab from the
 kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the ICT unit.  The first part of my question has
 already been answered in part.  However I wanted to comment on the point about
 electrical power and that it is considered as a critical resource. 
 Fortunately, electrical power is not controlled by a single company in the
 world.  Otherwise, we may not be meeting here. Anyway, my question, which was
 not fully answered is a question on GAC. GAC is still a group that is only
 advisory, and we would like to know whether you expect the GAC to have a fuller
 powers in terms of international public policy as was mentioned in the final
 results of the summit. And then there's the role of governments. In my opinion,
 the role of governments is very clear in terms of the outcome of the World
 Summit on the Information Society.  In that summit was made very clear what
 role governments should have in terms of drawing up public policy for Internet.
 And there was another idea that was put forward other than the IGF, and that is
 an international cooperative.  But yes, the IGF is very good.  It is making
 good results.  But we will have debate after another, more and more
 discussions.  We will not reach anything conclusive. Anything pragmatic and
 practical, unless we have a clear mechanism that would help countries draw up
 their policies in order to reach concrete results. So I wonder if any of the
 panelists could respond, thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Raul Echeberria would like to answer.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   Thank you.  I will take the opportunity to bring together
 the last two questions. The organization we have created where we have the five
 regional Internet, which we have expressed publicly, we support ICANN's
 independence, independence from governments.  And we follow those lines, and we
 support those so that no specific government will have a dominating role in the
 management of those resources, however. Having said this, is it important that
 we must distinguish the formal aspects of these special powers of a government
 regarding the aspects, how things are run in reality.  Aspects connected to the
 administration of Internet directions. This is purely bottom-up, both for the
 development of policies on the regional level as well as for the development of
 local policies and the decisions how IANA should manage their decisions and the
 I.P. addresses, and based on what they should allocate those. This is purely
 bottom-up. And the ICA (phonetic) government has participated and debated like
 we have been there with discussions, and this has worked perfectly thus far. So
 therefore, I repeat, one thing is a formal power, and we are in fair that this
 should disappear, and at the same time, we cannot in any way harm the
 perception that there should be a development of political policy, which is
 absolutely bottom-up. Now, regarding the GAC in itself, this is my opinion, as
 one of the players participating in this system.  I don't know about other
 players or stakeholders or even -- that can have a different opinion.  My
 opinion is many times this is a discussion between government and the rest of
 society, and this is a fallacy, because actually, GAC has powers the
 governments have decided to have.  To date, as regional registries we have
 never had to discuss an issue that comes from GAC saying we want to have more
 power, functions than what we have.  GAC has a function that the governments
 have agreed to, and that is good.  However, if at any moment the government
 must have different operation then we say we support any reform or evolution of
 this Government Advisory Committee, and we are willing to analyze any proposals
 to be submitted, which has not happened thus far. So many times you have a
 perception that it is a problem between what governments want to do and what
 the stakeholders do not allow them. This is not correct. However, there is a
 lot to be discussed among governments.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   I would like to give the microphone to one of our
 discussants here, Alun Michael, who is a member of the United Kingdom
 parliament.

 >>ALUN MICHAEL:   One plea, a comment and a question.  The plea, let's not get
 bogged down on the issues of the management of the domain name system and be
 diverted from being really excited about the innovative nature of the Internet
 Governance Forum, the IGF, which was stressed strongly by the secretary-general
 this morning. First of the comments.  We consulted in the U.K. about people's
 priorities for Rio.  That included industry, it included civil society, NGOs,
 parliamentarians, as well as government. And what came through was that
 security, confidence, is the biggest issue. And that's very much an issue for
 partnership in design.  It's also important to link security to enterprise. In
 other words, security has to be connected to the cutting edge rather than as an
 after thought. So, for example, this morning, in his comments, the
 secretary-general mentioned child safety as something that should be at the
 heart of our work at the IGF.  Vint earlier talked about access for all
 children. And those two are linked, access and safety are linked.  We need to
 make those connections. So worldwide, we need to connect security, access, and
 openness. Second comment, there's a problem.  Because the Internet is so big,
 so fast, everybody grasps one corner of the picture, be it security,
 communications, education, open access, and we lose track because they are
 interrelated.  And that's why, I think, the comments from Mr. Unger this
 morning was wrong to look for an old-style institution to be able to deal with
 the institutional aspect of this.  That's reaching for a safety blanket because
 it's a shape we already understand.  The shape has to be much wider.  People,
 information, progress, development, as well as systems. And that's why in the
 U.K, we are going to try to walk the talk, and demonstrate our belief in the
 IGF approach by establishing a United Kingdom Internet Governance Forum, a U.K.
 IGF, bringing together industry, NGOs, parliamentarians, with government to
 tackle the sort of issues that we're talking about. And the question I would
 like to leave, particularly perhaps for Vint but perhaps other members of the
 panel, is how can we deepen the cooperative engagement, the teamwork, the
 bringing together of people between IGFs so we are making that much deeper and
 stronger.

 >>VINT CERF:   Let me respond to that.  First of all, I am quite interested in
 the experiment you are planning to perform, the U.K. IGF, and so I hope you
 will keep us advised of the success of that effort. With regard to interactions
 in between the IGF sessions, there are several options. One of them would be
 for the participants in the IGF to participate in some of the other
 organizations' meetings that take place during the course of the year.  Going
 to an RIR meeting in a regional area, coming to an ICANN meeting, going to one
 of the Internet society sponsored events. All of those things would be helpful
 because those of you who participate so far only in the IGF would be bringing
 your thoughts and perspectives to these other events as well, and I would find
 that very useful, because when we reconvene the IGF again, you will be bringing
 some exposure to those other activities. That would be very helpful in the
 course of the discussions that we have in the IGF.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   If I could go back to that question about GAC which I don't
 feel has been properly answered. GAC is the wrong model.  Governments should be
 outside ICANN, acting on an integrated basis as a check or balance. Remember
 the idea of a constitution, of a set of globally applicable rules that would
 serve as a basis for constraining ICANN when it does something wrong and
 enabling it to do the things it needs to do. But to have governments inside of
 ICANN is a very unstable and informal and very unworkable solution to the
 problem of the relationship between governments and ICANN, because what happens
 is that you develop policies through the organic tracks of ICANN and then the
 governments stick their fingers in and say "i don't like the results of that"
 or "we can't agree." GAC has no -- you say it's only advisory, but in fact they
 have enormous informal kinds of power. Things have been held up in ICANN simply
 because certain governments -- not all governments, but certain governments
 don't want them to happen or to be concluded or they have been short circuited
 and thrown back into the process of policy development. So you have no well
 defined formalized set of powers for GAC. The joke in the U.S. during WSIS was
 the U.N. was out to take over the Internet. The response is that if the U.N.
 takes over the Internet, it will do so through the GAC, because governments
 within GAC have more power than the U.N. or ITU will ever have over ICANN.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   We have a few question among the audience. And then we will
 hear the man who is probably going to answer a lot of questions, the new chair
 of ICANN is here with us and is probably going to answer many questions. But
 first, can we hear Dannika Lewis in the room, please, a question about
 Internationalized Domain Names.

 >> Dannika Lewis:  Hi, I am here in conjunction with imagining the Internet
 research, and in regards to Internationalized Domain Names, what triggered
 ICANN to start these policies when they did?  And what consequences have come
 or have yet to come from steering away from the uniformity? And then more
 directed to Mr. Aina and Echeberria, how effective will Internationalized
 Domain Names be in your countries, and will the content be equitable to the
 structure of what they are planning to do with the domain names?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Okay.  Before answering I would like to hear the question of
 Gulshan Rai also about malicious domain names.

 >>GULSHAN RAI:  Especially she has said about the (inaudible) domain name and
 (inaudible) identified as a critical resources, what steps are you going to
 take to check for malicious domain names?  And this is increasing day by day.
 And another question by Everton Lucero.  Are you here?  Yes, please. And then
 we will have the pleasure to hear one of our discussants, Bob Kahn, who is one
 of the founders of the Internet and who is the chairman of the CNRI. But
 please, your question.

 >>EVERTON LUCERO:   Ms. Cowley said U.K. users are not quite as interested in
 critical internet resources issues as perhaps one of the top-ranking priorities
 of U.K. users. She also mentioned that U.K. users are more interested in among
 other topics, enhanced cooperation. Well, paragraph 70 of the Tunis Agenda on
 enhanced cooperation says that using relevant international organizations,
 enhanced cooperation should include the development of globally applicable
 principles on public policy issues.  Associated with the coordination and
 management of critical internet resources. Now, just to quote another speaker,
 Mr. Aina said that there are technical as well as legal and policy-making
 levels to be considered when addressing any specific critical internet
 resources problem. Now, how do you think -- and this question is not directed
 only to these two speakers but to anyone who would like to reply.  How do you
 think that the present structures, like ICANN or within ICANN and others, could
 be improved so as to allow for the relevant actors to consider legal and
 policy-making aspects of critical internet resources management, and to develop
 globally applicable public policy principles.  In particular, by governments,
 since they have this particular role according to the Tunis Agenda.  Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  Can you hand the microphone to the young lady
 over there and perhaps a few other questions.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   What I really wanted to do was put this discussion today in
 another context.  There have been a lot of specific questions and a lot of very
 specific notions put forth. But I think it's really important to see this in
 sort of a setting of time.  And that's what I'd like to do today, with your
 permission. The Internet has had a rather complex evolution over the past
 30-some-odd years since we first started it. Vint and I were very fortunate to
 be there at a time when this was all virgin territory and we pretty much had
 free rein to go try what we wanted.  It's hard to believe that we had so much
 free rein back then.  And if we can't solve the international problems, I think
 if Vint and I only had the ability to live forever, we'd probably volunteer --
 maybe we shouldn't -- to jump back into that role again. But I think that's not
 in the cards. What we did do was spend quite a bit of our time over the last 20
 years systematically working to get government out of the business of running
 the Internet.  And to this point, there's very little that's left that has any
 direct government tie.  It's mainly the private sector that is operating the
 Internet today. I think it's, if anything, surprising that it works as well as
 it does, given that there are so many contributors to this process from all
 over the globe.  You might ask yourself what example is there in history where
 you've had literally so many parties not directly collaborating with each
 other, but collaborating in a very broad context that's allowed a complex
 system like this to evolve over so many years.  And hopefully it will in the
 future. There are so many issues that we need to deal with in the Internet that
 I find it strange that we're having so much focus on ICANN.  I understand why
 the focus is on ICANN. But I want to sort of give you a larger view of things
 as I see it. One is how little time and energy we are spending on focusing on
 what's going on in our computers directly.  You know, I think that we all know
 that there's a lot of spam.  We all know that there are viruses.  We know about
 lack of security.  But wouldn't you all like to know what's going on within
 your machine a lot better?  To have the same notion of what's going on in that
 environment with regard to everything else in the world that you care about? 
 Most of us are probably just unaware of a lot of the details that are going on
 in the machine, unless you have some kind of software that occasionally will
 block something, and it may not even tell you. There's been quite a bit of work
 on developing something called a clean slate Internet.  And the arguments that
 are made for that have always seemed rather strange to me, that is, well, we've
 got too much spam.  We need a whole new Internet.  Or too many viruses.  We
 need a whole new Internet.  If anything, the Internet has been working too well
 at getting all this spam and viruses around.  We don't need a new one.  We need
 to figure out how to deal with those issues.  If we had a solution to those
 problems today, we could probably do a pretty good job of figuring out how to
 implement them on today's current Internet.  That doesn't mean that we won't
 see architectural ideas in the future that will need to be evolved.  I hope we
 will.  But there are various ways that that can be explored. Now, the DNS
 happened to be one choice that was made relative to the Internet.  The thing
 that's critical inside the Internet itself are I.P. addresses.  That's what
 allows packets to move around the Internet from one place to another.  The
 choice of the DNS, which we made back in the mid-1980s, was designed by some
 other folks, Jon Postel, Paul Mockapetris, and others, was to make it easier to
 deal with I.P. addresses so you didn't have to remember numbers, you could deal
 with something that was more semantic. But, you know, to me, when I think
 about, you know, how many people think it's so intrinsic, it's only because we
 have built that into applications.  You can imagine other ways of dealing with
 the Internet today that don't require that at all.  Yet, we have this
 incredible focus on -- I hope ICANN continues to flourish going forward, but
 not for the reason that so many people have expressed.  Yes, it is critical to
 the management of the DNS and I.P. addresses.  I'd like to see that continue. 
 But the reason I'd like to see it flourish is because it's one of many options
 that we have, not because it's the only one. The efforts to try and bring it
 under the control of some organization, whether it's the U.N. or a
 multinational setting, has largely been because people think it's the only one.
 There is an organization called the International DOI Foundation, it's
 headquartered in Geneva and the U.S., that deals with a very similar thing that
 ICANN does in the world of publishing and information access.  It's got a
 registration system.  If you look at it, carefully map it against ICANN, you'll
 see very many strong similarities.  It's never come up here.  And, yet, if
 somebody were to say that the IDF should come under the U.N., I would say, why
 that one?  And why any particular one, especially if we have lots of
 alternatives in the future, which I hope we do. The Handle System, which I've
 talked about much in some of these meetings, is such another alternative.  And
 I think that, you know, even though I've been directly associated with that, my
 point in bringing it up is simply to point out, there is another one powerful
 alternative that we might use.  This is about managing information on the Net,
 dealing with the objects directly rather than routing.  It's been very widely
 used.  There is something like 30 million objects that the International DOI
 Foundation currently deals with with that system, totally independent of the
 DNS, totally independent of ICANN. I hope we see many more things like that
 evolve in the future. So I want to emphasize that the software application side
 of it is really where we need to put significant focus going forward, to invent
 new capabilities both in terms of how the functions work and what are the
 critical infrastructure requirements that they need, and that there are many,
 many more important issues to focus on, in my opinion, and that if these
 alternatives develop, as I surely hope and expect that they will, then time
 will show that we don't need to place our attention or at least so much
 attention, on any single organization, whether it be ICANN or any other one.
 And the real future of the Internet is in all the innovation.  And that's where
 my hope is, that we let it flourish and we do it in a cooperative fashion that
 allows multistakeholder participation from all over the world. Thank you. [
 Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you very much. Before going to the new chair of ICANN,
 I would like to give the microphone to Alain who has been asked specific
 questions about the audience.

 >>ALAIN AINA:   Yes.  She spoke of IDN and content.  Well, I think, in general,
 there's some confusion when you start associating IDN with content. I think we
 need to try to separate them. In my country, my region, we realized a long time
 ago that we didn't have enough content, particularly in local languages.  And
 efforts are now being made to try and improve local language content.  And I
 think the deployment of IDN will accompany that. But I don't think that that
 could increase.  What we're hoping is that the work we have started to promote
 languages, to promote language content, I think that's where we need to place
 the focus.  Of course, the IDNs will come afterwards, accompanying that. On the
 other point, I think a gentleman asked how the current structures could be
 approved in order to manage the legal and technical aspects of critical
 Internet resources.  I believe -- I'm not sure that we can really talk about
 improving existing structures, rather, I think it's increasing awareness that
 all of these aspects are relevant to all of us as users, governments, private
 companies, or industry, whatever, the resources are of importance to all of us.
  It's a group effort.  When you speak of respect for privacy, all of those
 aspects need to be considered by all of us.  And everyone agrees that for that
 purpose, we need regional and international cooperation on these issues.  So I
 don't think we should focus only on the improvement of ICANN or other
 structures.  I think what we need is local cooperation, international
 cooperation in order to tackle these issues.  Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   I would like to give the microphone to the new chair of
 ICANN.  There have been a lot of questions about your organization.  So I'm
 happy to let you talk about it.  Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Peter Dengate
 Thrush.  And ten days ago, I was elected as the new chairman of the board,
 succeeding Vint. I know this seminar is not about ICANN.  I know critical
 Internet resources are about much more than ICANN.  But there have been a
 number of specific questions directed about ICANN.  And I thought I might just
 answer a few of those raised by the panelists and make some comment. I think
 the first one is why I'm standing up.  The question early on was about the new
 leadership of ICANN, is it going to be open to discussions.  And, yes,
 absolutely.  Here we are.  Their commitment remains the same, to the white
 paper principles.  We're looking at an industry-led, self-regulated, bottom-up,
 transparent process for the coordination of the Internet resources.  And that's
 going to continue under the new leadership, as you called it. Another comment
 called -- calls for greater integration.  And we heard about more convergence,
 and, in particular, with the GAC and the ITU. Let me say, first of all, yes, we
 are very keen on working more closely with the GAC, and we have had for some
 time a committee trying to strengthen the processes of the GAC within ICANN
 because of the commitment we have to the contribution governments can make to
 the ICANN process. Milton challenged the idea of whether governments should be
 in the GAC -- in ICANN at all. At the moment, that's a question for
 governments.  All of ICANN's institutions are built from the bottom up.  And
 the governments have expressed an interest to take part in that fashion. If and
 when governments decide they no longer want to take part in the GAC, of course,
 that will be up to governments.  But while they want to take part, the
 Governmental Advisory Committee is the place for them, and we want to make that
 work. Convergence in relation to the ITU.  Yes, absolutely, we look forward to
 working very closely with the ITU and with all other institutions involved in
 this area. And while I'm talking about Milton, perhaps, Milton, your other
 point I want to disagree with was the suggestion that there are -- that ICANN
 does not want to be talked about at this seminar. You said there are people
 here who don't want to talk about this.  We do.  We're here.  We've supported
 the creation of the IGF.  We're participating in it.  And we have no difficulty
 talking about what we do here or anywhere else.  We look forward to this kind
 of debate.  That's our commitment to the bottom-up principle.  We need to hear
 from everybody. Raul, amongst some very many other things that you talked
 about, you talked about the need for greater multilingualism, and I agree with
 that, and I'm delighted to report that at the last meeting ten days ago, in Los
 Angeles, we had for the first time at an ICANN meeting people standing up and
 being able to speak in their own languages.  We had people speaking in Spanish,
 French, Chinese, and other languages.  So there is also a commitment, Raul, to
 multilingualism at ICANN.  And I hope that continues. Mr. Afonso, there were
 some very interesting proposals, and I'm not going to use your metaphor for
 fear it becomes embedded in the discussion.  Some very interesting suggestions
 about restructuring for ICANN.  Under our bylaws, we have a very rigorous
 self-examination process.  Every three years, every part of ICANN undergoes a
 serious review.  That's our commitment to reestablishing ourselves, reexamining
 ourselves, rebuilding ourselves to respond to the processes. And I urge you,
 Mr. Afonso -- I know you're a regular contributor -- and anyone who else wants
 to contribute to ICANN -- to take part in those processes for rebuilding. So,
 Mr. Chairman, that's just a few comments in relation to some of the questions
 that were raised.  This is not a seminar about ICANN.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you very much.  Could I ask you one more question?
 What do you expect from the midterm report, the midterm review by the
 Department of Commerce which is coming soon?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   What do I expect from the midterm review. Well, I
 hope that everybody who wants to participate in that will do so.  The first
 part of that, of course, is a call for comment.  I think the CEO has on a
 number of occasions recently invited members of the community to contribute to
 that. If there are things that you think ICANN is doing badly, please, will you
 say so.  We will not learn, we will not improve unless we get that feedback.
 But, of course, if there are things that you think we are doing well, and there
 are many things that I think we're doing well, then it would be appropriate
 that the Department of Commerce know that as well. I'm not able, I think, to
 predict the outcome of anything, let alone JPA reviews.  But we think it will
 be a further step in the evolution of ICANN.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you very much. I would like to go back to the
 audience.  There is a question from Vladimir Cavalcante.  Yes.

 >> VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:  Good afternoon. I have not my question, so I will try
 to remember the question. Some years ago, we have --

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Would you introduce yourself.

 >> VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:  -- we had a Rio ICANN meeting.  And the problem of
 domains was mentioned as a -- written calls in Portuguese, who (inaudible) the
 domain. I think that there is a war between we and the problem.  Submissions,
 who submits what to whom?  The process impedes people to express freely,
 because they are submitted, right.  The governments cannot be -- sorry -- is
 that okay?  Can you hear me?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Yes.

 >> VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:  Right.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Please.

 >> VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:  So --

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Just be short, please.

 >> VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:  It will help me a lot. Since ICANN meeting in Rio when
 Vinton Cerf was here, and ICANN, and we had proposal, the restoration of
 at-large membership, I don't know if someone here remembers that, but it
 existed a long time ago.  We are looking a world vision, a different world
 vision, not dominated, but not with the management of domains, and with a
 semantic functionality very limited.  That's the point. Why it's so difficult
 to institutions admit that publicly, in the public space? And, second, how to
 evangelize with a (inaudible) with a lot of innovation.  That's the question.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  Vint.

 >>VINT CERF:   I must confess that I'm having trouble fully understanding the
 nature of the question. First of all, I don't believe ICANN met in Rio seven
 years ago.  It would have been Los Angeles or -- sorry?

 >> 2003.

 >>VINT CERF:   2003.  But that was in Sao Paulo.

 >> No.

 >>VINT CERF:   It was here?  In Rio? [ Laughter ]

 >>VINT CERF:   I don't remember being in Rio. [ Laughter ]

 >> Copacabana.

 >>VINT CERF:   How quickly your memory goes away. Okay.  So but the question
 you raise has to do with domain names and how hard it is to get them approved. 
 Is that what you were concerned about? I honestly did not follow the question. 
 So I'm just temporizing until you give up. I don't have a good answer here. 
 I'm sorry.  I just literally do not understand what the question was. Mr.
 Chairman, would you care to interpret the question?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Any other member of the panel?  Yes, please.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   I will take advantage of the question.  I think we do have
 channels within ICANN for participation.  And it would be absurd if we said
 there aren't. One of the spaces for civil society organizations is the NCUC,
 regarding the discussion of generic domain names.  If anyone wants to
 participate, there are channels.  There is the NCUC.  And, of course, there is
 user community, represented through associations in the ALAC, which is working
 and is open. So I would really encourage people to participate through these
 channels as well in the ICANN process and discussions.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  We have a question from Everton Lucero, please. 
 What about Bertrand de la Chapelle?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Hi, good afternoon.  My name is Bertrand de la
 Chapelle.  I'm from the French foreign ministry. Just two remarks, one to
 respectfully disagree with Milton, who basically attributes the delay in
 addressing issues to the participation of governments.My brief experience
 within ICANN shows that on the WHOIS question, it's probably the lack of
 participation of governments that delayed the treatment of the question.  But
 that's a joke.  My key comment was to come back to what Juan Fernández
 mentioned about the convergence, and Milton's remark.  Actually, what we're
 seeing is not a convergence of organizations, like one overtaking the other by
 Darwinian or whatever other process.  It's what we're seeing is the convergence
 of methodologies.  The reality is, just like the I.P. protocol, as spread and
 transformed almost any kind of activity, be it video, be it phone, be it
 whatever, what we are seeing today is that a multistakeholder principle is
 spreading in any kind of entity or any organization that has to deal with
 Internet matters. So if there is something that is happening, it's the
 convergence towards of sort of multistakeholder protocol that we are here all
 trying to elaborate.  And no one has the final solution.  I mean, ICANN is the
 first experiment in that respect.  It's still missing in terms of engagement of
 governments and probably other stakeholders. IGF is another attempt at moving
 forward.  But the equal footing of actors that we have here in the
 decision-shaping phases of issues is probably the most fruitful thing that came
 out of the WSIS. And just for Carlos, the metaphor that you were using, I hope
 it doesn't mean that you intend to terminate the patient and that basically
 you're mostly addressing or recommending to address the issues bit by bit and
 function by function. Thank you.

 >>VINT CERF:   Mr. Chairman, just one observation, a very important use of a
 word, Bertrand, you mentioned the term "protocol."  And interestingly enough,
 you used it in its original meaning, which is a protocol for political
 interaction. We took that word from the political process and used it to
 describe what the computers were doing with each other.  Your observation that
 this multistakeholder thing is a protocol in the most literal sense is very
 important, because we now have to fashion it and figure out how to make it
 work.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   Address his point about the GAC. You know, we can't make
 much progress by talking about governments in the abstract, you see.  The delay
 in the WHOIS is not caused by governments.  It's not caused by the lack of
 governments.  It's caused by a particular government, if you know what I mean.
 So --

 >> Not France.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   And it's not your government that we're talking about. [
 Laughter ]

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   But, to be a little more constructive here, it is a bit of
 a stretch to talk about bottom-up processes and say that, you know, Wolfgang
 and subcommittee member these civil society advocates are on equal terms with
 the GAC, okay.  Any government can walk into our meetings and talk with me.  I
 cannot go into a GAC meeting.  Okay? So the problem with governments -- it's
 not a problem with governments.  It's a problem with global governance, is that
 they don't agree.  And so by bringing governments into ICANN as a so-called
 advisory body, you don't solve or erase the geopolitical conflicts that can
 prevent governments from acting on a global basis. You can't treat them as
 simply another set of free-floating stakeholders who enter into this process
 freely and willing to negotiate agreements. What you're doing by bringing them
 into GAC is just reproducing all the geopolitical conflicts that already exist.
  And the point is, ICANN was created as a global governance agency to transcend
 those jurisdictional and sovereignty problems. So whatever relationship between
 governments and ICANN should be, I don't think the GAC is the right model.  I
 really don't.  I think we have to look seriously at that. And I know that Peter
 is trying to sort of be -- develop better relations with governments.  He think
 that's the right thing to do.  And it is the right thing to do. But the GAC
 model is not the right model.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   There was a question, how can present structures be
 improved, by Everton Lucero.  And Lesley Cowley would like to answer that.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:   Thank you, I think this links quite nicely with Milton's
 point just now.  I don't agree that just because we don't agree on things the
 structures need to be changed.  I think that means we need better dialogue and
 better cooperation. I think we need to recollection that what we're talking
 about here at the IGF is an experiment.  It's an experiment in multistakeholder
 participation. It's hard.  I would expect it to be hard. But we all share views
 and we all have opinions.  And that is part of the benefit of this process. And
 to respond to Everton's question about how can we improve the present
 structures, I think we can improve by participation, and I think we can improve
 by more dialogue and more coordination.  And can to quote you back on the WSIS
 statement, paragraph 80 talks about the development of multistakeholder
 processes at the national, regional, and international levels. I think that's
 key for us moving forward.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   Mr. Chair, I would like to comment also.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Raul, please.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   In my opening remarks, I spoke of how, throughout the
 years, cooperation among different stakeholders had grown. I think the enhanced
 cooperation we talk about so much is, what, four and a half years old since the
 first time this issue was brought up at the summit. At this present moment,
 many things have changed. The fact that the whole preparatory process to the
 summit, the involvement of Internet associations and organizations, this gave
 us the opportunity to discuss in the different environment.  That was a good,
 an important step forward.  And also the contacts we have with governments. 
 Not only bilateral contacts, but we have participation and activities which are
 jointly organized. And the role governments have in LACNIC. These are politics,
 which have been adopted, that is recommendations on different issues. The
 country codes and the domain names. I believe that it's not the structures. 
 And I agree with Lesley, it's not necessarily the structures that have to
 change, but the change stems from a different attitude all of us have. And the
 level of cooperation among the stakeholders has increased enormously in recent
 years.  And this is the route we have to follow, and not necessarily do we have
 to change the structures.  And if they have to be changed, the answers to the
 question, which structures to change, the changes that have to be done are
 those that will be agreed upon by all, where we have a consensus according to
 the present participation processes.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you very much. We have a few more questions from the
 audience which I would like to give the microphone to Juan Fernández González,
 please.

 >>JUAN FERNÁNDEZ GONZÁLEZ:   Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. President. I would like
 to make a comment, because as we have heard, everything we have heard, the
 audience can believe that everything is well in the world of the Internet. And
 actually, in the Internet world, not everything is well. I would say, and you
 know, that the Internet reflects the world and the conditions of the
 present-day world. Those who have more access to the Internet are those who
 have access to more wealth in the world.  The poor in the world are the poor in
 Internet access. Those who do not have voice in matters of the world are also
 those who do not have voice in issues regarding the Internet. So I do not
 believe that the evolution of the Internet has been fully, let's say,
 progressive. Let me give you one example. The question of international
 connections to the Internet, the cost, to be debated at this forum has evolved
 due to historic reasons into a model that is totally non-equalitarian, in which
 the poor countries are those who have to pay for the cost of the connection to
 the Internet. This is an example of how evolution not always leads to the
 desired results. There must be an intervention, a thinking about the public
 policy objectives of the Internet.  There must be an intervention, an ordered
 one, supposedly led by governments, with the full participation of the other
 players. We cannot forget that development models, there's not only one, the
 one that the market is the boss for development. For instance, in Latin
 America, in the past 20 years, this has been a true disaster.  There must be
 one policy, there must be one development strategy.  And the Internet must be
 part of this development policy.  Together with access to the Internet, there
 must be access to drinking water and we must have literate people. Thank you
 very much [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  Two last questions.  Two last questions from --
 one from Renate Bloem. Yes, please.  And then from David Appasamy.  You can
 prepare your question.

 >>RENATE BLOEM:  Thank you very much.  I am the conference of NGOs, Congo.  It
 is a very basic question after this very, very, I would say, interesting
 debate. The stakeholders here together, I think one is missing, and we have
 heard so often if only we had electricity and power.  Why are the actors who
 are really providing this not on the table?  We know we do not have a world
 agency on electricity.  But I think there are some powers, and I think the IGF
 could invite some of them.  That they could also be here to debate how,
 finally, that we cannot say each time we have so many innovative ways now, we
 have connecting Africa and broadband.  We have outsourcing the outsourcing to
 the rural areas. And yet, at the end of the day, they say if only we had
 electricity.  If only we had power, then finally we would be sustainable, could
 move forward. And I think Aina has said it very, very strongly. So why can't we
 have some actors on the table who discuss this also with us?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Thank you.  And the question from David Appasamy, please, if
 he is still here. Can you introduce yourself.  Thank you.

 >>DAVID APPASAMY:   Yes, I am David Appasamy from Pacific technologies from
 India. This is more of an observation, I guess.  Not quite a question. I'm
 afraid in the kind of preoccupation we have had with ICANN, we haven't quite
 covered critical internet resources which could be more at the regional or
 national level.  We have covered things from a micro-level, from DNS root
 servers, IPv4, IPv6, and all of that. But proliferation of local broadband
 networks and ISPs, datacenters, you know, PCI, security, we have really not had
 a chance to talk about anything like that. Coming from a developing nation, I
 can tell you it's vitally important that everybody understands the importance
 of these measures at a local level to take the Internet to the masses. The one
 other thing perhaps that we could have talked upon are new technologies like
 wi-max which would make all the difference in a large dispersed country like
 India. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET: Thank you very much. Bob Kahn, would you like to say a final
 word, trying to answer this gentleman?  And then we will sum up the discussion.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   Well, I really sympathize with all the concerns about getting
 more equal distribution of technology.  Wi-max is one interesting possibility.
 I know there have been many discussions about the economics of various choices,
 you know, whether you could really put fiberoptics, which can handle more
 bandwidth, in versus wireless, which is actually more constrained, at least at
 any point in time.  In principle, there's infinite bandwidth, but in practice,
 multi-path and other considerations play into that. So I am very sympathetic to
 the point that you make here. Also getting into the point that Juan made
 before, you ultimately get into the decision about what's the best way to make
 progress?  Do you do it through top-down organized structures or do you do it
 through bottom-up kind of processes?  And I think there are some things that
 just work better one way and other things that work better another way and not
 everything fits one model. You know, when you come to things that are in the
 public sphere, you often get conflicting issues, and that's why you end up with
 rules and regulations about health considerations, you end up with rules about
 clean water, and food issues and the like, because no one organization can
 guarantee those across the whole spectrum. So I think this is going to be a
 continuing discussion, a continuing debate. I don't think it's going to be
 resolvable by, okay, the answer is X or Y. I think any system in which you need
 to make a decision has to have a mechanism for enabling a decision to get made.
  And inevitably, if there are disagreements, some parties will be disappointed
 and some others won't.  And if you have an ideal system, you get a balancing of
 these things over time.  Benevolent dictatorships often work well, which is
 what we had with the Internet for the first ten years.  But I think we're
 beyond that at this point.  And these issues will be with us going forward.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:   Well, thank you very much. I would like to conclude now by
 saying that I think we had a very interesting discussion that was really full
 of promises for the next few days and until the next forum that we will have. I
 would like probably to conclude, remind everybody the sentence of the Brazilian
 writer who said that the future has been invented to be changed.  And that's
 exactly what we are going to see.  And to conclude really I would like to give
 the floor to the chairman of this session, Mr.  Plínio de Aguiar who is one of
 the former president's of Anatel.

 >>PLÍNIO DE AGUIAR:   Thank you. Thank you, Ulysse Gosset, for another special
 mention of Paulo Coelho, the Brazilian author.  This was an adequate quotation.
 We would like to thank all participants for the excellent session we have just
 had, and the special contribution of Ulysse.  You have conducted the session
 with great interaction from the audience, and this is very important in the
 first day.  And thank you very much, Ulysse, for conducting this meeting and to
 achieve what we have achieved. And what have we achieved? We have achieved to
 fulfill our mandate, which was to discuss these issues of the topics of the
 technical aspects, the core of Internet governance, which will contribute to
 the other themes.  The other themes are those which are closer to the public
 policies of each government. So this debate oversees all of the other themes to
 be -- this is a very important cross-cutting issue.  Our panel had the
 objective to discuss physical and logical Internet infrastructure, and this was
 approved by MAG, and to evaluate the present governance model according to the
 principles of the summit of the Information Society.  Among the topics, we
 discussed many of them, was dedicated to the issue of the Internet governance
 model, so we discussed not only the model itself but the manners.  Darwinian or
 other ways. We have even submitted some methods as to how to get there. The
 multisectorial aspect of ICANN was emphasized.  Representation by government
 and regional participation.  Different views were brought up regarding the role
 of governments, if it is contemplated in the ICANN model, according to the
 results of the summit. We also debated the possibilities of
 internationalization and restructuring of ICANN and the need to be independent
 from any government. It was concluded that it is necessary to have the presence
 of governments in specific functions, drafting public policies.  And this is
 due to the fact that governance is multisectorial. It was also stated that
 ICANN can expand the ongoing efforts to cooperate with governments in carrying
 out their attributions regarding Internet governance. It was acknowledged that
 Internet governance mechanisms, including ICANN and IGF, are in evolution.
 Technical aspects were discussed, such as the transition of IPv4 to IPv6 and
 risk of rupture of the integrity of the network, the need for a well-planned
 and cautious transition. It was also discussed the evolution of the network and
 the expansion to higher speeds. Difficulties in the management of routing
 tables was discussed, among other issues. As a conclusion, we have verified
 that the diversified content of our debate today, as well as the participation
 of the public, has demonstrated the interest that this issue raises in the
 international community and the need to go deep into it. There was a consensus
 regarding the evolution aspect of the Internet and there was a need for the
 governance mechanisms to respond to the demands of efficiency and legitimacy by
 the international community. Ladies and gentlemen and participants, those who
 submitted questions, they were very relevant.  Once again, I would like to
 thank the ITU secretary, and thank you Ulysse for his participation. Thank you
 very much.  We have the feeling that we have accomplished our mission today. 
 Thank you very much. [ Applause ]

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Short announcement, we have tomorrow morning reporting-back
 session at 10:00.  The idea is that the workshops that are being held now and
 tomorrow before the main session will report back to the main session, and they
 will feed into the discussions.  There were already three workshops on access
 this afternoon.  There will be one tomorrow morning.  And all these workshops
 will then feed into the main session on access. So please be here at 10:00 to
 listen to the other events that we report back. Thank you. (5:22 p.m.)