09 August 2009 Transcript EN

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss and raise the awareness of what's going on in the consultation of geographic regions and the first of, I believe, three, I think, we're going to do. Rob, you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Reports from the workgroup that Katherine and I are involved in.

It's a matter, which I think the regional leads and representatives of the at-large structures within the, currently, five regions in the ICANN and, therefore, ALAC, world need to take very, very seriously, and one that I think has somewhat fallen under the radar.

Admittedly, the initial report is not getting into too much of the meaty bits, but what we'd like to do today is go through some of the high points and, I think, extremely useful data that has been drawn out by the workgroup. And, Rob, I don't know -- do you have access to any of the slides that -- particularly, of those tables that we could perhaps share with the group today?

Rob Hoggarth: Unfortunately, Cheryl, I am not able to connect today with Adobe.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, that's fine. I mean, what I'd like, then, to do is make sure that we put up the slideshows that we've done at the Sydney meeting, which had those titles in their ultimate form, just on the meeting space and the wiki, so that in the regional meetings that are going and as we want to get greater input from the regions and the ILSs moving to the discussions and workgroups that we'll be doing in Seoul -- that people can access those. Is what the baseline information that's in those titles, I think you'll find is extraordinarily useful.
To take it to introduction, Rob has been herding these cats, along with Bart, and managing to get us on task. We've got a fairly, I think, extensive review done on what ICANN currently uses -- the different parts of ICANN -- currently use the geographic demarkings into the five regions for. And that, in itself, actually brought up some very, very interesting issues.
Rob, did you want to make some general introductory remarks just to get us all on the same page here?

Rob Hoggarth: Thank you, Cheryl. Yes, I'll make that attempt. As many of you may have been alerted by Cheryl and Carlton in previous conversations and ALAC meetings, the CCNSL approach, the Board of ICANN back in 2007 timeframe, with the specific concern that the geographic regions hadn't been reviewed in some time, and that there were a number of anomalies and concerns with respect to how the regions were set out and allocated within the ICANN universe.

As a result, the ICANN Board formed a community-wide working group and invited all of the supporting organizations and advisory committees to provide representatives to that group. That group's charter was approved this past summer by the Board, and the charter of the group centrally sets out, as Cheryl mentioned, a three-phase approach in which the group is producing an interim report -- I'm sorry, an initial report -- sort of studying the lay of the land and the jurisdiction and expectations of the working group effort.

A second report, which is they anticipated to come in the midterm, which is an interim report to focus on -- begin to focus on some specific recommendations, and then a final report in which the working groups make specific recommendations to the community for potential changes in the regions or for no changes or for an assortment of other potential actions that may take place in the future.
The working group is currently in the first phase of that effort. After spending some significant time outlining their charter and the timetables that they agreed to work under, they produced their initial report after the Sydney meeting, and essentially tried to set out for the community some general parameters to get community feedback to determine if they're identifying the correct areas to focus on, creating the right sort of framework for their conversation and, essentially, getting community buy-in that their jurisdiction focus is correct and consistent with community expectations.

That document that Cheryl alluded to has been subject to a public comment forum. The forum only closed on September 4, and for better or for worse, we only received one public comment in the forum, to date.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (laughing) Sorry, Rob, I just can't help myself.
Rob Hoggarth: Well, I think what's important, Cheryl, to note, as you did for the group, is that the initial report essentially sets the stage and tries to provide the outline. The true meat of the conversations won't really be taking place until we address the interim report, and then, clearly, the real focus will be on the final report.

But what was very important from the working group perspective was really to get a sense and to share with the communities who are the parameters of the discussion. You know, what current uses of geographic regions are currently taking place in ICANN? Has the working group identified the correct usage categories where there are potentially others that they hadn't identified? And then just, more generally, are there areas that should be deleted from the parameters of the group and its jurisdiction or other items that should be added to that? And that's essentially what the initial report does.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hm. Thanks, Rob. I've done my best when I don't have any edit control over the (inaudible) for reasons that I'll discuss with the staff later, to put, at least, the questions that were raised by the initial report. There were eight questions, in particular, that the working group was asking for community feedback on. And I think what we might do is ask you, Rob, if possible, what was the general thrust of the comments that did come in from the public. I've been very remiss and rather busy and haven't had a look. If it's on the public record, I haven't read it.

The comment that came in on the initial report -- was it analyzing any of those eight questions that were raised or was it just a general comment?

Rob Hoggarth: Actually, it was a comment that (inaudible) to go to the meat of the issues, and first they asked for the creation of a region for Arab interests.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: A region for -- can you repeat, please? There was another noise on the line.

Rob Hoggarth: I'm sorry -- for a region to identify specifically Arab interests --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, okay.

Rob Hoggarth: -- with geographic regions (inaudible).

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, yes, the Arab states, on which, of course, was something that was alluded to in the initial report. Interestingly enough, and this is where it would be nice to have had Carlton join us on this call, a very analogous situation to the cadre of Arab states is a parallel we drew with the island states, of course. I know the Pacific Island grouping here in Asia Pacific, and I suspect Carlton's experience in the Latin American and Caribbean island states would be very similar -- where there is a feeling that, as a sub-state, all the larger geographic regions, their interests and needs and very specific, if not cultural, issues capability of engagement in an Internet-based world issues are unique to that cluster. So -- that's something that I think each of the parts of the at-large advisory committee and the regional leads need to discuss and look at.

Can I ask, at this point, and I see no hands up -- oh -- I'm now being given -- sharing my computer. Oh, goody, let's open up a whiteboard.

If I can ask for any questions or any teasing out that might have been brought to any of the regional leads' minds. Dev, obviously, Latin America and the Caribbean, we've got Darlene and Gareth from North America and who else have we got? In Africa, we've got a few people in the French channel, both Hawa and Tijani, and is anyone in the Spanish channel at this stage?

Unidentified Speaker: No, not yet.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, thank you. (inaudible) the floor for any particular questions or issues while I work out how I get the whiteboard to share with everybody?

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Well, this is Dev, and part of my ignorance about it -- so -- the Arab region -- under what RALO does that fall under -- Asia Pacific?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, Dev, it does. The Asia Pacific region is somewhat huge geographically as well as culturally and linguistically, to say nothing of ranging from least-developed, most-developed country status. With our particular region in the Asia Pacific includes the Arab states right through to the Antipodes, which is, of course, Australia and New Zealand.

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. I was just trying to find the actual map. So are there any participation from any of the Middle Eastern countries in AFRALO in terms of -- ?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: IPRALO, oh, yes, yes, in fact, one of our very earliest and active at-large structures is the Arab knowledge community, and we currently ensure regional balance from an at-large advisory committee regional point of view by having a vice-chair from both the most Western states and the most Southeastern states. So we have our Pacific Islands leader as one of our vice-chairs and an Arab state leader as the other vice-chair.

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, yes, I'm now looking at the at-large ICANN maps for APRALO. Okay, all right.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And, again, I think it would be something, Dev, that Latin American and Caribbean conversations need to be looking very seriously as we move to this next phase -- getting to the meaty bits, as Rob described it as -- because you have both the language, developmental and cultural diversity in your own region. Not quite so large in terms of the geographic spread as the Asia Pacific but (inaudible) Latin American and Caribbean in that name. It says that there are some issues that might be analyzed and looked at there, as well.

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Indeed.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Can I ask from the French channel, from an African perspective where you have language diversity but also diversity in the ability to access and engage in how we use the regions within ICANN?

Tisha: I just asked them -- waiting for a response -- Tisha here.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, thank you, Tisha.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: (Through translator). Linguistically speaking, there are so many different languages that are spoken in Africa, so you can't say that Africa speaks the same language, obviously. They really -- it's so different. They are far away from speaking a common language and, however, I don't think that we don't want to fractionalize Africa because they have all this diversity of language at the moment. There is a bit of a fracture between the French Africa and English Africa, but it's not real, really. It's just the way people view things, but it's not that it should all be in English or all in French, but as far as the interests of Africa are concerned, are the same. All of the Africans have the same interest, and they are all in the same situation, because there obviously are differences between the various areas.

Now, there are some African countries that are much more IT-involved than others, or are much more up-to-date. But we all have the same interests. So I would like to come back to the question -- (speaks French) -- (translating) oh -- the Arab community. Okay, the Arab community, Tijani says, that's a very real problem because the Arabs are divided between Africa, Algeria, and all of the Arab countries have, basically, the same interests, let's say -- definitely, the same interests. They are more or less at the same degree of integration as far as information technology is concerned. So an Arab region would be interesting to see -- because on the cultural level and linguistic level. And as far as technological integration is concerned, I would say that they have, more or less, the same interests -- the Arab countries.
That's all, merci.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Tijani. And that raises some very interesting points that perhaps Rob can let us know with the particular comment -- was it from a linguistics or the cultural aspects that the comment was being put in? Was it from the perspective that pieces of the current African region as well as the Asia Pacific region would be (inaudible) together to make a new Arab language or Arab state region? What was the approach being taken so we can perhaps discuss this better further?

Rob Hoggarth: Cheryl, the recommendation from the comments were to identify an Arab region primarily geared toward membership in the Arab League, which currently consists of 22 countries, and which is recognized by the UN as a separate region itself.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. So that, in fact, I think, Rob, brings us back to one of the question that was being raised in Table 3, and that is whether or not ICANN should explore aligning itself with some formal international norm. If we look at the UN geographic regions being somewhat different, including the Arab League Nations to the ones we use, I'm wondering what the feeling of the African representatives on this call is to that? I see Alan first and then back to the French channel. Go ahead, Alan.

Alan Greenberg: I guess listening to the various comments and trying to extrapolate what this would mean if the workgroup makes recommendations along these lines, the concept of having ICANN regions either divided on linguistic lines or cultural lines implies what seems to be a huge number of regions. And, really, we are not looking at the concept of region that is for equitable representation and a certain number of people on a board or on the ALACs for each region if we end it with 20 different regions. It's a different concept altogether, and I don't see any way you could divide on linguistic or cultural lines, which would not end up with an absolutely huge number of regions. So I think somewhere along the line we have to look at maybe someone who already has as to what is the endpoint? What is the intent of this process and what use are you trying to serve? Because otherwise we can end up with something that makes complete sense from an analysis point of view but is useless in terms of implementing ICANN.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks for that, Alan, and just before I switch across to the French channel, of course, intended and unintended consequences of these possible actions are very important for us to hypothesize about and perhaps do some explorations of. And there are upsides and downsides to any choices that are going to be made, and one of the things that I am particularly keen, as the current ALAC chair to do is to ensure that it's not just the regions within our regional at-large organizational structures. Few may be affected by these potential changes, but it's all of the regions, which is why I'm delighted to see Seth and Gareth and Darlene and others from North America -- well, Alan, of course, is on a NomCom position, but very much interested in a more global view. We do need to hear the opinions and discussions happening from all the regions and between all the regions, and it might be something that we should spend a little bit of time on our Sunday in Seoul.

Tisha, if you could just -- back to Tijani or perhaps Hawa --

Tisha: Let me ask them. Somebody had a question, Cheryl.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much, Tisha, go ahead.

Hawa Diakite: Okay, Hawa is speaking now. (Through translator). Thank you. I want to thank the whole meeting for putting forth this question. It is very important -- I am worried about another particular disposition with regard to the United Nations ideas because there could be a conflict of interest later on with what we might call the "global organization" with respect to this question, and that's what I wanted to say about that.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Hawa. Could I ask you to expand for me and the others on the call what perceived conflict you might be referring to? I can guess, but I would rather have it outlined for me. Thank you.

Hawa Diakite: (Through translator). Conflicts of interest, like a country that is in Africa, there is in the European Union and what interest does he have as far as remaining as an African region or as a member of the European Union? That's already -- that could be a conflict that could arise. And then to choose what regions will participate and how and what can happen if you favor one region instead of another. Those are the kinds of things I wanted to have a response to.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. Rob, I am wondering whether or not, as we move towards the next stage and analyze this proposal from the Arab League Nations and move towards our interim report -- whether or not some of these issues that are being raised here today might be teased out more effectively and how the workgroup might approach not only the at-large community but the other community members in the ICs and FOs to perhaps, I guess, formulate a set of questions, which are not just coming from the workgroup but from -- in from the edges as opposed from -- out from the workgroup. Any of your thoughts on that?

Rob Hoggarth: Thank you, Cheryl. Well, one of my first thoughts is that's clearly the purpose of the comment forums because they are very helpful tools for doing that. But I think the other vehicle is clearly the representatives from each of the supporting organizations and advisory committees as conduits for that information. I think the working group worked very effectively -- and for those of you who have reviewed the initial report, Table 3 lists 25 separate issues and points of concern with respect to geographic regions that the working group members collected. And so that interim report effort will be several magnitudes higher than the initial report in terms of really trying to address those in a substantive way.

You mentioned just the current distribution of the regions and the issue of ICANN conforming to existing international norms. The questions or matters to be taken into consideration go well beyond that in terms of some of the topics you are already discussing on this call. What are issues of cultural commonality and should those be considered? How do linguistics factor into that? And, as Alan pointed out, then what implications does that have more broadly for ICANN and its regional structure?

I think that some of the people on this call, and others within the at-large community have some tremendous background and expertise to share in that regard. I certainly hope they'll share it through the mechanism of you and Carlton and your workgroup participation. But, specifically, if this group or others can be teed up to be ready for the interim report when it comes out, I think we will have many, many, many more comments than just the single one that we had during this round.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks for that, Rob, and one of the things I'd like to explore towards the close of this meeting is how we might make some very definite next-steps planning to get that as an endpoint.

I'd like to ask someone from the North American region -- Seth, Gareth, Darlene -- Alan's had a turn, perhaps one of you -- that doesn't stop Alan having a turn, I'll hasten to add -- whether or not, as a very cohesive region, although you do have a couple of island groups, which are geographically distanced from you that, say, you're not unlikely to be unaffected by future geographical regional boundary changes. Listening to some of the issues that are being discussed and looking at what I think is a marvelous analysis in the initial report, I'd like to get a sense of how a very cohesive geographic and cultural region might be responding to this? Are you now seeing this issue of geographic regions and whether or not we should change them or not, for good or ill, and as a worthy piece of NAROLO's time, perhaps in a face-to-face part of Seoul or a future meeting?

Nobody's here? Go, Darlene. Okay, (inaudible) I'll start naming people.

Darlene Thompson: Talk or be forced to talk, eh? Personally, I am just here to listen because, as you mentioned, North America does seem to be very cohesive. We all get along -- San Juan, United States, Canada, you know, and we seem to work very well together. So my purpose for being on this call is really just to listen to find out what we -- how things are going in the other regions.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hm, okay. Seth, any feed-in from you?

Seth Reiss: Yes, actually, sorry -- I just had an interruption here. I guess, reflecting -- Hawaii, these islands, we are used to getting swallowed up by North America culturally and politically. We are fairly consistent, but we do actually share a lot with Asia in the Pacific and, you know, sometimes our perspective is closely aligned with Oceania and the Pacific.

Just from the political point of view, though, we are so used to being American and considered part of North America that I think even though we're very sensitive to the Asian Pacific and can provide insights perhaps better than other parts of North America as with respect to Asia Pacific. You know, and sometimes we like to categorized over there, I think, it would probably be unworkable from just a political and perhaps also a cultural perspective.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And yet it's very easy for a -- I won't suggest it's a simplistic view, but it's very easy to take a view all is well. We should lump islands, say, together, or we should lump -- you know, it's -

Seth Reiss: Sure, sure, but, I mean, you know, from an indigenous point of view, you know, we do have a sensitivity to indigenous issues, which -- and that's unique not just to us but also to indigenous cultures in many, many places. And I think Darlene comes from a place that has some sensitivities that I said were from North America as well there.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed, and these are very, very, I think, important things to focus on as we move into the next step on this geographic region's workgroup. Yes, Alan, go ahead.

Alan Greenberg: I think it's important in these discussions to remember that human beings and cultures and countries are not mono-dimensional. We are going to continually find that any given group for one rationale fits into Group X and for another rationale fits into Group Y. When we started the North American region, there was some discussion of should we be doing everything in Spanish because of Puerto Rico?

You know, so there's always going to be rationales for why people fit one place or the other and, ultimately, decisions are going to have to be made and not every allegiance is going to be honored with hard divisions, unless people are allowed to belong to five regions in parallel.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, won't we have --

Alan Greenberg: Which I am not recommending.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was going to say won't we have very colorful ribbons if we ever do another summit, if that's the case. Go ahead, Gareth.

Gareth Shearman: Yes, one of the things that I seem to remember from some earlier discussions was that only the English-speaking islands in the Caribbean had some view of the (inaudible) and might be closer aligned with the North American region than with the Latin American and primarily Spanish-speaking region.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hm. Yes, Gareth, without Carlton being on the call, I am fairly confident saying that I've seen that in writing and that that is the case, yes.

Gareth Shearman: Well, that would be one thing that would certainly affect our region, although, as you say, it's a very cohesive region otherwise, although we do have primarily English but also some French members of our group (inaudible) the comment that Alan made about the issues in the North that Darlene is very well aware of.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. Dev, I wonder if, as a LACRALO Secretariat, you might have a reaction to the matters of language and the Caribbean, which I'm sure you've heard before.

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Yes. This is Dev. Yes, and there is that. I think, for the Caribbean perspective, obviously, I am saying this personally as a private thing, not as a Secretariat -- I think we find ourselves, because we are English, especially for the English-speaking islands that form part of CARICOM, which is the regional grouping of Caribbean states there. I think we would find ourselves more aligned to North America and so forth, and I guess it's primarily because of the language issue. It's also primarily, I think, also, that, you know, small island states, that type of thing. Because we find ourselves overshadowed a lot by Latin America in terms of -- oh -- a variety of things.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hm, okay. Rob, I am wondering if this is not hitting -- I guess I get rather excited about putting people in rooms and exploring hypotheticals -- if this might not be a very interesting topic for a slightly different type of workgroup or workshop activity we do explore along a hypothetical point of view so that we avoid some of the political and socioeconomic sensitivities, which are definitely in this particular topic going to come to the fore.

Perhaps we can make some assumptions and explore some of these scenario principles, because I do think there is a level of -- and when I use the term "superficiality" I am not using it in any derogatory way, but I think what we are risking doing and what I am hearing just from this conversation is that it is very easy to say least-developed countries should all be lumped together or language groups should all be lumped together, or it's silly to have American Samoa sitting in a North American region when it's in the middle of the Pacific. But there are far more complex underlying issues and risks and benefits that might need to be looked at.

So I'm not asking you to speak on future meeting planning, I'm just thinking that perhaps that might be something to raise with the workgroup to explore some of those possibilities as we move towards the middle of our work.

Rob Hoggarth: I think that's a great idea, Cheryl. I think one of the key contributions that working group members can make is trying to identify, perhaps, less traditional ways to get input and comment as we have just observed with the initial report itself. There is certainly a place for written comments, but there are certainly other venues that can be used to get different (inaudible).

One other point that I wanted to make sure that participants on this call were aware of, and this is just from the staff observation perspective -- I think the working group did a very good job in a relatively short section of the report but really reflects a significant degree of thought, and that is the working group's consideration of why ICANN has geographic regions and how they are applied. That's an important aspect when anyone starts to talk about, "Well, I would like to have a separate region" for the following reasons.

And harkening back to the original purposes or at least how they are currently being used, I think is an important element of that. For those of you who didn't have an opportunity to review the report, the working group identified three primary areas where geographic regions are important and where they are currently being used by ICANN. They are being used for representational purposes, you know, primarily from an electoral standpoint, to create some mechanism for diversity on various organizations or ICANN structures. They are used to balance participation -- another very important element of work within ICANN. And then, finally, they are used from more of an operational standpoint -- to focus organizational resources and make sure that they are shared fairly -- or that they are properly directed from a strategic standpoint.

So those are important overall considerations, I think, that anybody coming to this discussion has to have generally, and I think even though the comment period has ended, any input that participants on this call can provide to Cheryl or Carlton for further working group discussions would be very helpful in this regard.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks for that, Rob. I'd just like to see if there are any questions or responses from, first of all, the French or Spanish channel?
Spanish Interpreter: Yes, this is the Spanish interpreter. We still don't have anybody in the Spanish channel.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Tisha?

Tisha: I am asking them now. Thank you, Cheryl. Cheryl, I can't tell if anybody is on the line. Oh, wait a minute, Tijani has something to say.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think we find not only is it the interpretation time but coming off and on mute gives us that little hiatus. Go ahead, Tijani.

Tijani Ben Jamaa: (Through translator). The revision of the ICANN areas, there was a problem -- (speaks French) -- the first people who brought up the problem, it's not something that is falling out of the sky. This is that there is a need that was felt that we have some kind of review. So the work that was done by the workgroup was really exceptional because we tried to identify the problems and how we could work with and use ICANN, and I believe, says Tijani, that we shouldn't be afraid. If we need to change anything, we shouldn't be afraid of this. Obviously, we have to be careful about fragmenting the various regions, and that would be impossible. However, we certainly can try to find any changes that are valuable or necessary. And I think the main point is that we shouldn't be afraid of these changes because I sometimes felt there was a little fear about making any changes. Merci, Tijani.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, indeed. I think that's something that was very much the basis of why the CCN is so -- first of all, did its analysis quite some time ago and, secondly, brought it to the ICANN Board's attention as a matter that needed addressing. And, certainly, members of the GNSO have raised the point that, indeed, we are not married to only having five regions, and that, of course, we should not see a change. But I think, as Alan points out, we are probably well advised to look at the consequences, the risks and the benefits of such changes so that we embrace what change happens with a very much informed consent from those who are going to be affected.

And to that end, it was probably very appropriate to raise in this discussion the matter of those of us who are already well-represented or able to be well-represented within ICANN processes and those of us who have yet to join the Internet in large numbers. And, of course, that's something that brings us to economic divides -- least-developed, emerging, and most-developed economy lines, and something that affects some of our regions far more than others.
We've highlighted, in our discussions in the working group and, to a lesser extent, in the meat and gristle of the report, but something that we will be tackling, particularly based on the comment coming in from the Arab League countries and raised by Seth, of course, with the island states issue -- something that the Pacific and Oceanic islands have constantly raised within Asia Pacific region at-large organization.

But there is very, very unique things that happen when you've got vast bodies of water between you, and simply getting access to the Internet is slightly trickier than plugging into a choice of 19 different providers.
The same thing can be said in parts of, of course, Asia Pacific and, naturally, parts of Africa where we are (inaudible) the next billion after that worth of Internet users. And we do need, according to how we have rationalized our current geographic identifiers within ICANN, to consider how those voices are also going to be, I guess, looked after if not actually heard, and that's a role that, based on the outcomes of the at-large advisory committee review process is very much in our particular area of interest.

Now, Nick, you just said you might ask that on the bridge so Rob can hear it and respond. What is that in reference to? Was that to Dev?

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Hi, this is Dev. Actually, it was a question.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dev, go ahead.

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sorry. The question I was raising, Table 3, item number 5 -- ICANN regions that seek to balance three goals -- diversity of representation; ease of participation; and simplicity. I was just kind of curious -- what does "ease of participation" mean? I could go -- ?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Rob, I'll talk to you because basically I don't have any participation because of the need for me to rely on the phone bridge rather than my internet connection, which is racked down to 64 kilobytes at the moment.

Rob Hoggarth: Thank you, Cheryl.

Armando Flores: Yes, this is Armando Flores (ph) from the Spanish channel. I have somebody who has a question.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. We're back to you next. Go ahead, Rob.

Rob Hoggarth: Certainly. The working groups methodology for building Table 3 was to get input from the various supporting organizations. Number 5 came from input provided by the GNSO, and what the GNSO did was they created a set of principles. And so when you see topics, general principles, their overall sense was that -- they were concerned, and I think in the case of some of the constituencies and stakeholder groups in the GNSO, they have some challenges filling some of their slots from a regional perspective. And so simplicity there, perhaps, and I'm just guessing here, reflected that ability to be able to comply with overall principles in a simple manner.
Unfortunately, I didn't create those principles from the GNSO, so I cannot provide any more details of --

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Again, something that could be explored in a hypothetical or a discussion context. Alan, is your question to this point, or is it separate. If it's separate, I'll go to Spanish first.

Alan Greenberg: My question was in response to the statement you made about difficulty of access, and you can take me whenever you want.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, I'll go to Spanish first then. Go ahead, please.

Silveri: Yes, this is Silveri (ph) of LAC RALO. I would like to apologize because I couldn't get here on time, and I was listening on the English channel. I didn't know we had a Spanish channel. And I would like to have a summary of what I heard in the channel. I think it was bringing forth that we don't have to be afraid of creating divisions -- more than five regions of our work. And not only that we have to concern about the language or multi-language, despite the fact that Cheryl has asked us to participate in English. But those of us who don't speak English, we are still fearful to communicate and explain ourself in English, and some people can't do it. But independently of that, it is important that it's not a matter of the language itself, but it's a matter of culture as well.
In LAC RALO, we have the Caribbean region and the Latin American region, which, between those two regions -- or two regions -- we not only are divided by the English language but as well as the cultural (inaudible). We are totally different, one from the others. I want to make clear, though, that I am making this comment strictly on a personal basis on behalf of Silveri, no otherwise, and I really think that we have some inconvenient attempts of communication and understanding among ourselves.

So I think that it will be valuable if we have more regions in divisions, one being necessarily separated by language but for cultural aspects as well. In terms of the language, I am a little concerned. I might be wrong, but what it was approved about in terms of the characteristics of what the new candidates that should be part of ALAC in point 1, point 8, it is said that people who want to have a position in ALAC should speak English both oral and written.

Now, if that has been approved and we are still talking about that we have to divide the regions through other parameters to be able to understand each other and to have more participation, I think there is some incongruency in that sense in that document. Well, that's it. Thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that, Silveri. So, now, Alan, I'll just respond, although you might want to pick up on that point as well.

Silveri, it's very important to recognize that ICANN works in a predominant language of English. However, as a matter of principle and to involve public participation, it is, albeit with more effort required, at least taking some steps to address its interpretation and its translation of documents policy. And I think it's important here to recognize what's going on in the recently released comments period on exactly this topic where there is a rather traditional but useful tool of a discussion thread -- a bulletin, a virtual bulletin board being explored as a way to engage why the public -- and, of course, you can type in whatever script takes your language, and it's up to ICANN to move it into a language from that point of view that can be understood by all of us.

That said, the ALAC, as an advisory committee, in other words, the 15 people who make up the advisory committee to the Board of ICANN, has also chosen to state that adequate written and spoken English is an aid and assistance to ensure that the work of the ALAC is conducted efficiently and cost-effectively.
That's why 1.8 is in the ALAC rolls. That is very different to asking for regional participation and public participation, which must, certainly, in my view, and in many other people's views, be done in a way that allows for ease of access, ease of understanding, and that includes script use, local language use, and, of course, simple language use as well.
Alan, over to you.

Alan Greenberg: Okay, I'll talk about that one for a minute and then go on to what I was originally going to say. If you read the external review, or the report of the Board committee on the review of the ALAC, they use words something like, "for the moment" it is important that English -- that ALAC members have facility to both speak and write and read English. That statement of the reality that ALAC members are supposed to interact with other parts of ICANN; are supposed to sit on committees; are supposed to work closely with other parts of ICANN and act as the interface between ICANN and their regions and to do that until ICANN decides to work in all of the United Nations languages with simultaneous translation of everything -- all documents and all spoken meetings.

ALAC members are going to have to participate on those rules. Now, if ICANN ever changes completely, that changes the ground rules. But, until then, if someone cannot participate with the rest of ICANN in English, which is the language of the other meetings and many of the documents, then they are disenfranchising -- they are hurting their own region because they can't act as that interface.

So that, as I understand it, is the logic why it was in the Board review, and we have implemented in our policy to follow that Board-approved policy.
To go back to why I originally put my hand up, Cheryl, you were talking about the fact that in some regions of the world there are people who have great difficulty accessing the Internet. There is also a great skills deficit, and there are a whole bunch of very significant problems. Africa is the one to easily identify. And, from what you tell me, just outside of Sydney is another area where access to the Internet is exceedingly difficult.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed.

Alan Greenberg: I don't think there are any regions in the -- any of the five ICANN regions right now, which don't have some parts of their population, which meet that criteria.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.

Alan Greenberg: Now, in Europe and North America, they are smaller percentages of the population. In other parts of the world, they are much larger. I think what we are highlighting is the need for ICANN to remember that always and factor it into all of its policies and all of its discussions and not pretend that everyone has wideband connections and unlimited access to the Internet.
But I don't think it's a regional thing. Certainly, it's more of a problem in Africa than it is in North America, but it's an issue that I think ICANN has to get its handle around and stop thinking of only the top 30 percent of the most advantaged people from the point of view of the Internet and look at the world access to the Internet. And, at that point, it ceases to become a regional issue, and it should.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think there are people standing in their various rooms and offices applauding you at that point. Gareth has noted on the chat, "Well said, Alan." And I think that's a very important thing that is certainly not a geographic issue but one that is being used as a tension builder, or a case of motivation to look at the geographic or regional boundary changes.

Alan Greenberg: One more quick comment -- as some of you know, I spent a fair amount of my life working with developing countries in use of technology. And I never cease to be amazed that no matter where you go, someone will tell you -- and where you go may be Kenya or may be Sweden, and someone will tell you why they are so different from the rest of the world, and invariably their story, with slight changes, applies almost everywhere. I think this is one of those examples.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. Dev, to some extent, that goes back to your earlier question of ease of participation as well.

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Mm-hm. Indeed, thanks.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry -- who is that again?

Dev Anand Teelucksingh: No, no, go ahead.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was just looking at the time, and also looking at a five-hour drive ahead of me in a little while, so I would like to make sure that this call sticks very much to an hour. So what I'd like to do is ask, from the Spanish and then French channel if there is any particular issues on what we have discussed, so far, in this meeting that need to be raised -- Spanish first?

Translator: Yes, this is the Spanish interpreter, and this is the polling comment. The person who was talking was Nick?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan.

Silveri: (Through translator). Okay, I agree. Thanks to Alan for the clarifications. The comment that I made was only to forget to understand to incorporate more people in LAC RALO. It will be very important to deal with it -- language topic. But I totally agree with him that by the moment -- for the moment, that is -- English is the language -- the common language, and we are working within those parameters. So that's all, thank you very much.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Silveri. Tisha, some French?

Tisha: Let me ask them.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you.

Hawa Diakite: (Through translator). With respect to the question of language, says Hawa, I agree with Cheryl that the members of ALAC must speak English. But we, of course, are in a region that the people who speak English are less motivated to participate. So that means it's going to mean less participation as far as our regions are concerned. So we need to keep up the translations, at least, so that people are more active and participating in the discussions with ALAC and otherwise it will be less and less participation. And so I think that we need to encourage participation here. So that could be a kind of break on participating. So I just think we need to make sure that there is enough translation and interpretation.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Hawa, and, of course, that's something that the ALAC and the current (inaudible) regions need to continually work towards and remind perhaps the more advantaged Internet users and perhaps more experienced ICANNers that these are issues that they do need to consider as they are moving forward. Alan, you've got your hand still up or again?

Alan Greenberg: No, just a very quick one. I'll point out that in the same Board report on the ALAC that talked about English is the language for ALAC, it made a very strong statement that ICANN must do much better and much more volume with quality and timeliness -- quality, quantity and timeliness on transaction and interpretation.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed, and looking at the delay in very critical reports including those that are out for public comment right now -- coming out in English -- and a huge delay in the other -- even just the French and Spanish let alone all of the (inaudible) languages, I think that's something that I would be describing as an appalling delay. And I look forward to the time where all languages are treated in exactly the same way and would probably think that's going to be an ongoing battle that we will have to be championing for some time yet to come.

As we look towards wrapping up, I'd like to propose to the regional leaders and that large structure of representatives who are here on this call and, of course, to Rob to make sure that we get this taken back to the workgroup. I think this type of conversation and some of the concepts that are being teased out in this now coming up to just 60 minutes, has been hugely important and very, very instructive. I think it's an exercise that could be well worth us taking some time in our face-to-face meeting on the Sunday in Seoul.

And, to that end, I am going to ask the regional reps to inquire of the regions and their ILSs whether or not they agree with me, and that we should have this matter of the geographic regions and looking at the particular initial working group reports that we have in front of us now is a worthwhile exercise for us to spend. Let's propose, perhaps, 45 or 60 minutes of our Sunday as an agenda item. And that if that is the case, perhaps some of the members of the geographic workgroup that are not Carlton or I, because we'll be in the room, anyway. I'm sure, but, Rob, the relevant staff, and Pat Summers (ph), the other workgroup members might be able to be included in those -- in that workshop, that sort of mini-workshop within the ALAC context.

If that's the case, we'd really only be able to slot it into our Sunday, and we'd have to look at the logistics of that. But if the regional meetings that are running between the 14th and the 23rd, I think, or 25th of this month, can look at that and get back to us, we can tweak our Sunday agenda, and I'll undertake to work with Rob and the rest of the geo regions workgroup to see what we might be able to liaise and organize.

Alan, that's something you're going to have to look fairly closely at because I don't know what the GNSO requirements. If you will be on the Sunday, but it's certainly something that I would prefer to have you in the room for.

Alan Greenberg: I'm sure I'll be fully committed both places. My only comment on that is it's not only an issue for the regions to discuss whether it would be good to have this discussion, but whether it's important enough and timely enough right now that it must be had at this meeting instead of something else. Because whatever -- if we take 45 minutes, it will be in place of something else.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed, and we do have a packed agenda but, of course, it will be between the Seoul meeting and the Nairobi meeting that the next report will be coming out from this workgroup. So it will be an opportunity for us to prepare effective input into the next report, and something that I think, just based on today's conversation, many of us have discovered we do have far more vested interest and commentary on than we first thought.

In closing, I'd like to leave everyone with two thoughts -- the first one is sometimes creative tension and diversity within any form of bounded structure -- in this case, five, seven or 11, I don't care about the number, but a regional structure, a geographically bounded structure, or a culturally bounded structure can be a very useful thing, and that some of us in Asia Pacific, which, as we mentioned earlier, has a last diversity including of languages. I think we have in excess of 55 major languages. Of course, we all have to work in English because none of us managed our particular dialects. I think 12 or 15 in the Indian subcontinent, for example. So we all have to work in our second language, unless we happen to be from the Antipodes, and then that's our first language.

But sometimes that has produced strengths and has produced advantages and has allowed us to, I think, get some outcomes that have been advantageous as opposed to really disadvantageous. So we need to think about the pluses as well as the minuses. And I'd like to thank Rob for his time, and thank each and every one of you for your time, whether it's morning, evening, or afternoon, and I look forward to getting the feedback from the regions. And, of course, even if this particular topic doesn't get a Guernsey (ph) for the Sunday on our Seoul meeting, it is a topic that the regions and the ILSs may wish to take up and prepare themselves for. And I'm quite sure that I can speak on behalf of Carlton and, certainly, myself and, I suspect, Rob and some of the other geographic regions workgroup team would be more than happy to engage in future discussions or discourses at a regional level, if we are not going to do it as an at-large wide one.

Rob, was that taking too much for granted as far as you're concerned?

Rob Hoggarth: Not at all, Cheryl, thank you.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I hate to take you for granted. Thank you very much, Rob. Thank you very much, and what I will also do is make sure that we get the PowerPoint slides, which are far better than this disastrous mess I made of the whiteboard here -- and have those copied up to the wiki so the regional leads can access those and look at Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 with greater ease.
All right, thank you all, good morning, good evening, good night. Thank you, Trisha. Thank you, Giles (ph). Sorry, Jose, and I appreciate everyone on all of the language channels for their time today. Bye for now.