Comments: Brazil, Spain, Iran, UK, China, Egypt
BRAZIL:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE. I’D LIKE TO ALSO START BY THANKING THE TWO CO-CHAIRS OF THE GROUP AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS INVESTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL BEFORE US. WE THINK A LOT OF WORK, EFFORT, AND REAL ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE SO MANY VIEWS WAS VESTED IN THIS EXERCISE AND WE'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. HOWEVER, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO, AS KAVOUSS ARASTEH HAS MENTIONED, AND HE MADE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN HIS PARTICIPATION AND — AS REPRESENTATIVE OF IRAN -- AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GAC, I WOULD ALSO LIKETO MAKE IN A SIMILAR FASHION KIND OF A DIFFERENTIATION OR CLARIFICATION WITH REGARD TO OUR ROLE HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THIS BODY AND THE POSITION OF THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE. WE, OF COURSE, COORDINATE INTERNALLY WITH DIFFERENT MINISTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS, AND OF COURSE THE BEST EFFORT WE MAKE, WE HAVE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS TO MAKE SURE IT IS ENDORSED BY THE WIDER GROUP. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE MISLEADING TO SAY THAT BY SAYING YES HERE, WE ARE -- THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT IS SAYING YES. I THINK THIS IS THE WAY GOVERNMENTS NORMALLY OPERATE. AND I THINK MAYBE THIS WILL BE THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO OTHER COLLEAGUES. BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS EVERYTHING WE DO HERE (INDISCERNIBLE) REFERENDUM OF FINAL APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNMENT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FULL AREAS INVOLVED. THIS IS ON THE ONE HAND. JUST TO MENTION IN REGARD TO THAT, OUR MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS IS COMING TO TOWN TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEF HIM ON EVERYTHING THAT IS TAKING PLACE. HE IS ONE OF THE MINISTERS INVOLVED, AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONVEY TO HIM EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE SAID HERE. IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW REFLECTIONS IN THE SENSE WE THINK IT ADDRESSES -- IT TAKES ON BOARD SOME CONCERNS WE HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OTHER CONCERNS, IMPORTANT CONCERNS WE HAVE ARE NOT DEALT WITH ADEQUATELY. WE HAVE INDICATED THIS IN OUR COMMENTS WE SENT BOTH TO THE CWG STEWARDSHIP AND CCWG ACCOUNTABILITY GROUPS. BASICALLY, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL, WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXERCISE AS ONE IN WHICH THE DEFINED OUTCOME WOULD ADDRESS THE NTIA REQUIREMENTS. THE (INDISCERNIBLE) WE ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE. WE THINK THIS ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING, AND WE DON'T SEE THERE ANY CONSISTENCY WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING, SO WE ARE FULLY BEHIND THIS. AT THE OTHER SIDE, WE ARE ALSO ACCOUNTABLE, OF COURSE, TO OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS AND TO SOME HISTORICAL DEMANDS WE HAVE IN REGARD TO THIS PROCESS. FIRST OF ALL, WE STILL -- AND WE WILL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY OF THOSE DAYS WE HAVE HERE IN BUENOS AIRES TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL AND TO DISCUSS WITH THE CO-CHAIRS AND COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE WE WERE VERY FIRMLY INTERESTED THAT AT THE END WE WOULD HAVE REALLY CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN THE POLICY OPERATIONAL ASPECTS . AT THIS POINT I MUST SAY THE PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE -- SEEMS TO HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCIES. ON THE ONE HAND WE SAY THERE IS A LEGAL SEPARATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAY PTI SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY ICANN. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AROUND THIS, BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT IN THE END, THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WILL BE REACHED. AND I THINK MAYBE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM ABOUT THIS IS THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING -- WE HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING ON A CLEAN SLATE OR A BLANK SHEET, HAVING ALL THE OPTIONS BEFORE US. EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST OUR PROPOSALS, OUR MECHANISM TO EXISTING STATUS. SO ANYTHING THAT COMES FORWARD AS A PROPOSAL SHOULD ADJUST ITSELF TO THE FACT THAT ICANN IS INCORPORATED AS AN ENTITY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION, AND WE THINK -- IT MIGHT BE OKAY, BUT IT REFLECTS A SITUATION THAT WAS PREDETERMINED AS WE STARTED THIS EXERCISE, THAT WAS IMPOSED. IT WAS NOT AGREED BY THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, AND BY GOVERNMENTS AS PART OF THAT COMMUNITY. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST A NEW ERA TO THE EXISTING FORMATS, WHICH -- AND WE ENDORSING THIS. SO FOR GOVERNMENTS, I THINK IT'S A VERY HARD STEP TO TAKE. IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED THING, MAYBE. USUALLY, AS A GOVERNMENT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN HAVING A DECISION THAT WILL GO AGAINST OUR (INDISCERNIBLE) TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE PROCESS THAT WILL LEAD TO THIS DECISION. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS TO -- ON THE BASIS OF SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE AND WHICH WE DID NOT PARTICIPATE, TRYING TO REFLECT ON HOW TO IMPROVE IT BUT MAINTAINING THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS. SO WE THINK IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING THING FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENT. AND OF COURSE THIS IS NOT SOME THINGS -- A DECISION WE SHOULD TAKE LIGHTLY. WE HAVE, IF I WOULDN'T LIKE TO MENTION, OUR OWN CRITERIA OR OUR OWN RED LINES, BUT WE THINK IN THE END SOME REFLECTIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ISSUE OF HOW ICANN WILL EMERGE FROM THIS WITH MORE LEGITIMACY, VIS-A-VIS ALL STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, AND WE DON'T SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS IS BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE AT HAND. SO BASICALLY WHAT I'D LIKE JUST TO INDICATE FROM THE START IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS EXERCISE IN THE -- WE THINK IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MODE. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN THERE, AND FOLLOWING AND MAKING INPUTS TO THOSE PROCESSES. BUT I THINK WE -- AND I THINK THIS IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CO-CHAIRS; THAT WE HAVE -- WE MUST HAVE THE -- AN APPRAISAL OF THE FULL PICTURE THAT WILL EMERGE FROM THIS, THE TWO PROPOSALS COMBINED, HOW THEY WILL LOOK, HOW THE PARLANCE OF THAT PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT WE HAVE IMPROVED IN REGARD TO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND IT IS NOT SO CLEAR FOR US RIGHT NOW. AND BASICALLY, JUST TO CONCLUDE, TO SAY THAT THIS EXERCISE INVOLVES DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CULTURES IN REGARD TO GOVERNMENTS, CLEARLY THE CULTURE AND THE WAY GOVERNMENTS ARE COMFORTABLE IN WORKING IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED. WE WORK UNDER RULES. WE HAVE NOT DESIGNS. I SEE IN MANY DOCUMENTS THAT WE MUST STICK TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WE ARE FORCED TO ADOPT. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY STRANGE TO DO. IT'S NOT SOMETHING USUAL, AND WE'LL HAVE TO REPORT BACK TO OUR GOVERNMENT AND SAY WE HAVE BEEN THERE, WE HAVE AGREED TO THIS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T MEET SOME OF THOSE VERY BASIC CONCERNS, IN THE END IT MIGHT BE MISLEADING FOR US TO SAY HERE WE ARE GIVING FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXERCISE FROM THE BEGINNING AS ONE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A NEW PARADIGM OF COOPERATION BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED, ONE IN WHICH ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND HAVE FULL LIBERTY TO DISCUSS AMONG THE STAKEHOLDERS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DESIGN A NEW FORMAT FOR COOPERATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DID NOT TAKE PLACE. WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. I DON'T THINK THIS WILL COME AS A SURPRISE TO YOU. WE THINK THE -- WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN A STRAITJACKET, AND IT BECOMES CLEARLY EVIDENT WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME VERY CREATIVE IDEAS THAT CAME TO THE FORE AND THEY WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ADJUST TO THE FORM THAT WE -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS. MAYBE, IN THE END, WE MAY COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IT ADDRESSES OR IT IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO ENDORSE THE SITUATION BECAUSE IN THE FINAL BALANCE, IT WILL BE IN A BETTER POSITION, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE STILL NEED TO REFLECT. SO AGAIN, WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH YOU TO HAVE BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL; HOWEVER, WE WILL LOOK AT SOMETHING MUCH MORE AMBITIOUS THAT WILL PROVIDE REAL SEPARATION, REAL INDEPENDENT OVERVIEW. AND WE THINK AT THIS POINT IT DOESN'T -- THE PROPOSAL, AS IT STANDS, WILL NEED SOME MORE DETAILS ON HOW THIS WOULD WORK. THANK YOU.
SPAIN: THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING. IT'S A QUESTION REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE GAC IN THE (INDISCERNIBLE) STANDING COMMITTEE AND THE IANA FUNCTIONS I'VE SEEN THAT THE CUSTOMER STANDING COMMITTEE, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR THE GAC TO APPOINT A LIAISON. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO APPOINT A PERSON TO THAT COMMITTEE OR IT'S UP TO US TO DESIGNATE IT. . AND IN THIS RESPECT, I COULD ASK YOU WHAT VALUE DO YOU THINK GOVERNMENTS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE CUSTOMER STANDING COMMITTEE. AND IF YOU THINK THAT CUSTOMER STANDING COMMITTEE SHOULD BE OPEN FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF PARTIES THAT DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH IANA. AND WHY IS IT WORTHWHILE TO INCORPORATE THOSE VIEWS TO THESE CUSTOMER STANDING COMMITTEE. AND ALSO REGARDING THE IANA FUNCTIONS REVIEW, I GUESS THAT THE GAC COULD PARTICIPATE IN EITHER -- I THINK IT WOULD BE COMPULSORY FOR US TO APPOINT SOMEONE. BUT I HAVE SEEN THAT THE SPECIAL REVIEW NEEDS THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OR SHOULD BE TRIGGERED BY THE GNSO AND THE ccNSO. DOES IT MEAN THAT THE REVIEW TEAM AS A WHOLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT OR IT'S JUST THAT THE ISSUE HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY GNSO AND ccNSO BUT ON TOP OF THAT, THAT SHOULD BE A CONSENSUS OR MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF INITIATING THAT SPECIAL REVIEW. TWO SMALL COMMENTS TOO ON THE IANA FUNCTION TRANSITION. I'M GLAD THAT THE DISPUTES OVER ccTLDs DELEGATION OR REDELEGATIONS ARE OUTSIDE OF THIS EXERCISE BECAUSE THESE ARE SENSITIVE ISSUES FOR GOVERNMENTS AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S MATURE STUFF NOW TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO THE APPEALS MECHANISMS. I ALSO READ IN THE PROPOSAL THAT ICANN IS ENCOURAGED TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER TO THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN U.S. LAWS THAT PERMIT U.S. GOVERNMENT SO INVOLVES SANCTIONS ON ON CERTAIN AGENTS. I THINK -- I SUPPORT THE ICANN ASK FOR THOSE WAIVERS BECAUSE THE IANA FUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED FROM THE OUTSIDE. THE COMMUNITY SHOULD MEET TO HAVE PREDICTABLE PROCEDURES AND WE WILL TRY TO AVOID OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION OF THOSE PROCEDURES. THANK YOU.
Note: Appoint a liaison to CSC / Delegation and redelegation
IRAN: THANK YOU, THOMAS. MY COMMENT IS NOT TO QUESTION IS PERHAPS CLARIFYING OF MY UNDERSTANDING. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT PTI SHOULD BE TOTALLY SEPARATE OR NOT SEPARATE WAS DISCUSSED AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND THERE WAS PROPOSAL TO HAVE TOTALLY OUTSIDE, TOTALLY INSIDE AND THEN BECOME SOME KIND OF HYBRID, THAT LEGALLY AND OPERATIONALLY THERE ARE SEPARATE BUT THEY HAVE SOME LINK. THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF 18TH OF MARCH AND 14TH OF APRIL IN DETAIL PROS AND CONS ABOUT EACH OF THIS AND FINALLY CWG COMES TO THE CONCLUSION HA FOR THE TIME BEING, IT IS THE MOST POSSIBLE APPROACH WITH THE VIEW THAT AT THE LATEST STAGE IT COULD BE TOTALLY SEPARATE. SO THIS IS POINT NUMBER ONE. POINT NUMBER 2, THE ccTLD ACTIONS IS NOT IN THE REVIEW PANEL T. IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT ON PAGE 21 SAYING THAT THE APPEAL MECHANISM WILL NOT COVER ISSUES RELATING TO ccTLD DELEGATION AND REDELEGATION. WHICH MECHANISM IS TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE ccTLD COMMUNITY POST TRANSITIONS THAT RESPECT TO THE INCLUSIONS IN THE REVIEW PANEL AND ccTLD THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, WE ARE IN TWO CASES THERE IN COMPOSITION OF THE IANA FUNCTION REVIEW, IT IS MENTIONED GAC AS WELL AS THIS ONE. AND FOR THE OTHER ONE, CSC, ALSO GAC IS FINE. THE ONLY THING THAT WAS RAISED WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE PTI AND JONATHAN MENTIONED FOR VARIOUS REASONS AT THIS STAGE IT IS CONSIDERED THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE A MEMBER OF THAT. AND THESE THREE DIRECTORS APPOINTED BY ICANN PLUS TWO INDEPENDENT SEEMS TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE TIME BEING TO COVER THIS SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT HE WAS GIVEN. ONE POINT WAS RAISED WHETHER ICANN WILL GET INTO NEGOTIATION WITH IANA. I DON'T THINK SO. THE PROPOSAL OF GIG GOES TO IANA -- SORRY, TO NTIA, I'M SORRY, TO NTIA. AND I DON'T KNOW WE COULD TALK WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY NEGOTIATION. I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANY NEGOTIATIONS. IT IS UP TO NTIA SAYING YES, I AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL, NO, I DON'T FOR THIS REASON. GO AND CORRECT IT AND COME BACK AGAIN. SO THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION AND NO SUCH DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE COMMUNITY TO ICANN BOARD TO GO TO THE NTIA AND NEGOTIATE ON OUR BEHALF BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL TO THE ICG IS NOT FROM ICANN. THE PROPOSAL TO ICG IS FROM COMMUNITY. THAT IS UP TO COMMUNITY TO NEGOTIATE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW NTIA COMES BACK TO US, TO THE COMMUNITY, NOT THE GAC, EVERYBODY, SAYING I LIKE IT, I DON'T LIKE IT. SO LET'S JUST WAIT FOR THAT. AND SOME OTHER ISSUE IN PERHAPS THERE ARE SUFFICIENT CLARIFICATIONS IN THE DOCUMENT SO WE HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL, READ THE DOCUMENT OOH AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT. CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS BEEN MENTIONED. WE ARE DEALING WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. AND WE ARE DEALING HOW THE TRANSITION WILL TAKE PLACE. WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE GOVERNANCE. ISSUE. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, ACCOUNTABILITY IS ONE THING, GOVERNANCE IS ANOTHER THING, THANK YOU.
UNITED KINGDOM: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. AND MANY THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED SO FAR IN PARTICULAR JONATHAN AN LISE FOR OPENING UP THE DISCUSSION OF THE STEWARDSHIP PROPOSAL. AND FOR COLLEAGUES ON THE ICG TO UPDATE US ON THE PROSPECT FOR THE WORK ON THE ICG. IT'S BEEN HELP FU AND I'M SURE MANY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN MAKING NOTES AS I HAVE TO HELP ME REPORT BACK TO CAPITOL AND IDENTIFY THE KEY ISSUES. I JUST WANT TO FIRST OF ALL, COMMEND REALLY, ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE CWG EFFORT. IT'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS DEMONSTRATION OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODELED. AND PICKING UP A HIGHLY COMPLEX ISSUE EMBRACING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A NEW APPROACH BUILDING ON WHAT ALREADY EXISTS AND THE TWO COCHAIRS OF THE CWG HAVE STEERED THIS PROCESS WITH REMARKABLE DILIGENCE, CLARITY, AUTHORITY, MANAGEMENT, BUT OPENNESS AND REGARD FOR ALL THE VIEWS AND TRUB EU COMMISSIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CWG PARTICIPANTS AND OTHER COMMENTATORS IN THE COMMENT PROCESS. THE COMMENT PROCESS, I THINK WAS VERY GOOD. THE EARLY STAGES I THOUGHT OF THE CWG'S WORK DID ALLOW THAT OPEN FREE THINKING AND INNOVATIVE IDEAS TO BE EXPLORED AND SO ON. SO I WAS VERY IMPRESSED. BUT OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO NARROW DOWN AND FOCUS TO A PROPOSAL. AND THE SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT THAT STAGE THE PROPOSAL I THINK WAS VERY CLEARLY ARTICULATED AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PTI WAS, I THINK, COMMENDABLY EXPLAINED. AND I JUST -- I JUST WANT TO REFLECT A LITTLE BIT ON THE PTI'S BOARD. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTED TO ESTABLISH ANOTHER PARALLEL COMPLEX MULTISTAKEHOLDER BOARD FOR THE PTI. THAT WOULD IN SOME WAY MIRROR OR ACT IN PARALLEL WITH THE ICANN BOARD. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY SERIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED THAT. AND THE ELABORATE STRUCTURES AND LEGAL ISSUES AND. PROCESSES FOR DETERMINING MEMBERSHIP AND SO ON THAT THAT WOULD CREATE. SO OUR VIEW FROM THE U.K., FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH OUR ADVISORY GROUP OF EXPERTS THAT WE'VE CONVENED TO REVIEW PROGRESS, HAS BEEN TO WELCOME THE IDENTIFICATION OF A BOARD FOR THE PTI, WHICH IS TIGHTLY RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONAL OPERATIONS OF THE OPERATOR TO BE MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF THE OPERATOR OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS. SO WE WELCOME THAT APPROACH. PERHAPS WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THERE IS SOME INDEPENDENT EXPERTISE THAT IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE BOARD'S ACTIONS. AND THAT BRINGS ME, REALLY, TO A QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT IN THAT IN THAT EXTREME SITUATION WHERE AN ESCALATION PROCESS WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS -- AND THAT I THINK IS WHERE A KEY ISSUE OF LEGITIMACY OF THE PROPOSAL LIES WHEN IT GETS TO ESCALATION OF REVIEW AND ALSO HOW DO WE ADDRESS A FUNDAMENTAL FAILURE OR SUSTAINED ISSUE OF PROBLEMS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED BY THE KEY ACTORS? THAT PROCESS, I THINK, DOES CREATE PROFOUND LEGITIMACY IN THE PROPOSAL THAT IT'S MULTISTAKEHOLDER AND WE IN GOVERNMENTS WILL PLAY OUR PART. IN THAT RESPECT FORE WAITING FOR FINAL PART OF THE JIGSAW TO COME TOGETHER FROM THE CCWG AND WE IN THE GAC WILL NEED TO DETERMINE HOW WE PLAY THAT ROLE. WHEN IT COMES TO A PROCESS OF SEPARATION, AS I SAY, IN THAT EXTREME SITUATION, WHAT THEN IS THE ROLE OF THE PTI BOARD? WILL IT STILL CONTINUE IN ITS ESTABLISHED FUNCTION? OR WOULD THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD HAVE TO CHANGE IN THAT SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING DOWN A TRACK OF SEPARATION? AND HERE I THINK WE COME BACK TO THE CONCERN ABOUT SUSTAINED STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE PTI BOARD IN THAT SITUATION AND WOULD WE HAVE TO REDEFINE OR REAPPOINT IT IN SOME WAY WHEREAS, PREVIOUSLY, OF COURSE, IT'S BEEN APPOINTED BY ICANN? AND AS A DESIGNATED BOARD AS A SUBSIDIARY OF ICANN? I WOULD EXPECT SOME REORIENTATION OF THE BOARD OF THE PTI TO BE NECESSARY IN THAT SITUATION. BUT PERHAPS SOME CLARIFICATION OF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IRAN: THANK YOU, THOMAS. IN THE EVENT THAT, VERY UNLIKELY, WE GO TO THE TOTAL SEPARATION AND HAVING A PTI, THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD, IF WE COULD MENTION AT LEAST COMPOSITION TO BE DIFFERENT, BUT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT AT THIS STAGE TO SAY HOW DIFFERENT IT WOULD BE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE A MULTISTAKEHOLDER BOARD. IN THAT CASE WE COME TO THE POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY. SO WE CANNOT MAKE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ACCOUNTABLE TO MULTISTAKEHOLDER. SO ONE OF THE ISSUE THAT THE BOARD NOW IS PART OF THE ICANN, BECAUSE AT THE END, ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY MULTISTAKEHOLDER. SO THAT IS A VERY CRITICAL QUESTION AND NEED THOROUGH ANALYSIS AND STUDY. THANK YOU.
CHINA: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. WE'D LIKE TO THANK ALL THE VOLUNTEERS AND ALL THE RELATED ICANN STAFF TO THEIR EFFORT FOR THIS PROPOSAL. SO WE BELIEVE THIS REPORT HAS COMBINED ALL THE WISDOM AND THEIR EFFORT. WE ALSO THINK THIS IS THE VERY GOOD RESULT AT THIS POINT. BUT TO THE TRANSFER OF THE IANA FUNCTION, THE TECHNICAL PART IS NOT DIFFICULT. WE THINK THE FOCUS POINT IS IANA, THE PROCESS, HOW TO ESTABLISH SENSIBLE ACCOUNTABILITY. THAT IS HOW -- WHY WE INSISTED TO HAVE THE CWG AND CCWG'S WORK SIMULTANEOUSLY TOGETHER. WE BELIEVE THAT ALL THE IANA TRANSFER ACCOUNTABILITY DESIGN HAS TO BE EVALUATED AND COMBINE ALL THE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS, AND WE FINE-TUNING AND IMPROVE THIS PROPOSAL. ALSO, IN ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE SHOULD BE A SENSIBLE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM, BECAUSE NOW I SEE CWG'S WORK IS NOT COMPLETE YET BASED ON WHAT WE LEARNED, THE CWG CCWG, THEIR PROPOSAL CAN ONLY BE SUBMITTED AT THE NEXT MEETING. WE BELIEVE THAT PROCESS SHOULD BE ESCALATED TO GET FASTER, BECAUSE THAT WAY THEY CAN SUBMIT TO THE ICG EARLIER. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT TO APPROVE THAT PROPOSAL, SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT CWG'S PROPOSAL AND CCWG'S PROPOSAL NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED. WE NEED TO CONSIDER THEM TOGETHER. IN THAT CASE, IF THEY DON'T GET IT TOGETHER, THEN THEY DON'T GET THE SUPPORT OF ALL THE COMMUNITIES FOR PTI, WE THINK THE PROBLEM IS ALSO AT THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. AT THIS POINT, WE'D LIKE TO FURTHER DISCUSS AND SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE PTI ITSELF AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF PTI AND ICANN AS WELL AS THE MEMBER OF THE PTI COMMITTEE, THE BOARD. SO ALL THAT IS TO ENSURE THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF ICANN, PTI TO MAKE SURE YOU THAT TRANSFER IS SMOOTH AND BENEFIT TO ALL THE COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.
Note: "the tech part of #IANAsteward transition isn’t hard. The key issue is accountability.”
EGYPT: THANK YOU, THOMAS. ACTUALLY, THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT FROM OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM CHINA, AND TO FURTHER CONFIRM WHAT JONATHAN JUST MENTIONED REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP OR THE INTERDEPENDENCY BETWEEN THE NAMES PROPOSAL AND THE ACCOUNTABILITY TRACK. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ICG HAS CREATED A WORK GROUP THAT WILL KEEP AN EYE ON THE WORK OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND FLAG ANY IMPACT REGARDING THE NAMES PROPOSAL OR THE ICG ASSESSMENT. WHAT I FORGOT TO MENTION IS ONE OF THE DECISIONS, THE OUTPUT OF OUR MEETING, THE ICG MEETING HERE IN BUENOS AIRES, IS THAT ONCE THE CCWG WORK STREAM ONE OUTPUT IS SUBMITTED TO THE S.O.s AND A.C.s FOR APPROVAL, THAT THE ICG WILL SEEK CONFIRMATION FROM THE CWG THAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY WORK MEETS THE NAMES PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS IS JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT JONATHAN MENTIONED. THANK YOU.
BRAZIL: JUST A QUICK COMMENT IN THAT REGARD. I -- IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THE CHAIR, AND YOU CAN COUNT ON US TO CONTINUE TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY ON THIS. I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO ACHIEVE BY WEDNESDAY IS TO GIVE THE ICG THE GO AHEAD TO CONTINUE ITS WORK. I -- IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTRAINT THAT OTHER -- GOVERNMENT NKS I'M SPEAKING FOR BRAZIL, NOT THE FULL BODY, I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD FOR US TO SAY WE EXPLICITLY APPROVE AND ENDORSE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE DRAFT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT STILL NEED TO HAVE MORE DETAIL AND WE SHOULD GO INTO SOME MORE DISCUSSION AND HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, AND AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, TO SEE IN THE END HOW THIS WILL LINK TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY OUTPUT. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT TO SAY THAT WE EXPLICITLY COMPLETELY APPROVE, ENDORSE BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE SOME BUILT-IN MECHANISMS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOO FARFETCHED FOR SOME OF US. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE GO-AHEAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORK WILL PROCEED SMOOTHLY AND IN THE END WE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A FIVE-HOUR APPRAISAL OF THE FULL PROPOSAL. I THINK MAYBE IF WE DON'T HAVE THE AMBITION TO GET OUT OF THIS THE FULL, EVERYTHING THAT IS INSIDE THAT MIGHT PROVIDE US WITH A WAY FORWARD IN THIS. AND WE ARE LOOKING VERY MUCH FORWARD TO BEING CONSTRUCTIVE IN THAT REGARD. THANK YOU.
IRAN: LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR. GAC IS NOT EXPECTED TO GIVE ANY REPLY TO ICG. GAC IS EXPECTED TO GIVE REPLY TO THE CWG, BUT NOT ICG. TWO, OF COURSE REPLY OF THE GAC COULD BE AMONG SEVERAL OPTIONS. ONE OPTION, YES, WE AGREE WITH THAT WITH THE CONDITIONALITY. IF ALL THE CONDITION ARE MET, AND COULD HAVE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS, AND THAT QUALIFICATION NEED TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED. SO THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT ONLY THE CONDITIONALITY. MIGHT BE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE RAISE AND SAY, OKAY, THIS IS OUR REPLY PROVIDED THAT CONDITIONALITY IS MET AND THESE OTHER QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED. THANK YOU.