<tlr> (Everyone else, please ask for the right to talk NOW. ;-)
<aha> The Internet is a new global infrastructure for everyone across borders and political systems.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> A free public space, a global cultural room for all kinds of expressions, a place to share information and everything which can be expressed in data.
<Winfried> a place where everybody is in and nobody is out :-)
<jeah> A virtual environment that becomes even more diverse than it is today
<O_Muron> I think that the Internet future will consist of rapid development of permament IP Connections, new generation mobile networks and the explosion of new applications on these new supports
<aha> The Internet will take over communication between people, businesses, governments, the public, and open new possibilities for selling and buying.
<jeah> and will swollow all other media
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Not only swollow all other media; I persume internet as a medium will change radically the way people create reality in their heads.
<Winfried> it is not the internet itself, but the applications that run on the internet, that will allow all these changes
<aha> By using better tools than IRC, it will be possible to have a structured discussion between a lot of people across the Internet.
<jeah> yes, you are right Andy
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> but still, there are companies whoīd like to change internet just to a market place; bertelsmann for e.g.
<jeah> common on, andy, don't be so moody
<tlr> Camper, your question.

<Winfried> icann should administrate the ressources and safeguard a global functioning
<jeah> safeguard?
<O_Muron> Firstly, this new Internet will be very large and complex, Icann should focus on its main task : management of domain names and IP addresses
<jeah> right, olivier!
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Icann currently is a quiete centrally organised institution for the architecture of the net. On a long-term road, this influences a lot and I hope that Icann does not follow some interests, changing internet to a disney world.
<aha> ICANN keeps the Internet interconnected for Everyone. This means that the coordination of names and numbers performed by ICANN will secure that there will continue to be unique addresses securing that the address space do not create any limits for open communication between everyone.
<O_Muron> Secondly, Icann biggest challenge is to get all involved in its processes especially individuals
<Camper> AMM: you want to have no disney world in the Internet?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camp: I have no problem with an extension and connection of paralel realitys, but I do have a problem with industrial interests who want to misuse domain name issues for e.g. to let internet happen under commercial conditions only.

<jeah> all resources should be public, no privileges for anyone!
<Winfried> this addresses the question of trademarks etc. this is not exclusivly an icann question. however the internet is not above the law
<aha> Single users are dependant on large corporations and vice versa. A ballance is needed, and the ICANN structure has to do this difficult ballancing in a fair way (reagrding names and addresses).
<O_Muron> Toje : domain names are not as rare as one might think, one should be able to reach a consensus on the repartition between commercial and non commercial uses
<jeah> the law's reach is confined to territories, cyberspace is global.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Mr. Schueler: The internet is not above the law, but parts of the internet claim to not be part of the commercial world. So, why not let that be different parts?
<Winfried> the udrp has already laid out rules for this issues. even if not perfect, it is a step to make the internet manageble

<aha> I agree that Internet is not above the law. there are laws i place, and they should be used also in cyberspace.
<Winfried> atoth, udrp tries to address this issue
<jeah> laws can apply only to those parts that can be controlled by national entities
<tlr> jeah: Which, generally, includes the individual user. ;-)
<aha> International disputes have been there for many years before the Internet....
<jeah> not if the user can set up a server on an exotic island ;-)
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> A global cultural space is something new and national lawīs simply didnīt plan something like that to be there.
<tlr> jeah: Youīre wrong there. The user who controls the server is still subject to hius local law. RCourtney has the word.
<jeah> and how would you prove her identity?
<aha> The law makers have to thing new, and revise the laws. ICANN is not a world government.

<jeah> The UDRP favors trademark holders
<Winfried> jeah, what do you mean by it favors trade mark holders
<aha> Yes, the UDRP favour trade mark holders in my opinion, but I have not seen any statistics showing that this is true.
<RCourtney> If it does favor TM holders, what could be changed to rectify that?
<jeah> w: the UDRP has been set up to protect trademarks
<O_Muron> RCourtney : UDRP is progress from the past situation, it's not perfect, Icann has to work on it in order to improve it
<Winfried> rC I think is not perfect, but a first step, i think for such a difficult issue it is functioning comparativly well
<jeah> we need to discuss what "bad faith" actually means
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> In my opinion, UDRP is one way of handling it getting very near to commercial interests. There should by TLDīs with their own UDRPīs, a diversity of "trial and error" and own cultural interests.
<aha> If I could do the correct change just like that, I would have been Superman. WIPO mast be given the necessary input to revise their UDRP.
<jeah> Barcelona.com is a clear example for a too broad interpretation of bad faith
<O_Muron> RCourtney & AndyMueller-Maguhn : arbitrators within UDRP should come from various background and be more aware of the Internet culture
<jeah> aha: The problem is, WIPO gets a lot of input but seems not to care about all the protest
<aha> UDRP favours in my opinion also the Large companies compared to small businesses.
<jeah> aha: hear, hear ;-))

<aha> jeah: Yes, the challange is to structure the infoflow, and ICANN can do a job there and take up the difficult issues.
<O_Muron> RCourtney : I think so !
<jeah> RCourtney: This is not a matter ICANN alone should decide upon
<Winfried> icann should use the experiences of the registries and make improvements accordingly
<jeah> All the domain name holders are affected by this policy
<jeah> winfried: not only expert knowledge should be considered
<aha> jeah: Not the domain name holders under ccTLDs.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> RCourtny: Icann should allow TLD`s to have their own ways of handling things. And there should be a balance between commercial and non-commercial TLD`s.
<Winfried> jeah. true, but we have to use the experience from the registries
<jeah> winfried, fine by me. I just don't want to rely solely on expert knowledge

<jeah> Pinsel: I am worried about monopolies in general, this special one is scaring
<O_Muron> Pinsel : Icann should manage the A server. Icann should submit a proposal on this regard to US DoC
<aha> I see this from a global perspective. A lot of mistrust has been created because USG still is "the owner" of ICANN. In order to change this, ICANN has to become s STABLE private organization.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Pinsel: Indeed, this is a sensitive point. I Guess, ICANN has the chance to change to an organisation which truely works decentrally and allows participation from everywhere, or there will be the point where alternative structures change the situation of ICANN.
<aha> On the other hand I think the USG is showing great responsibility to govern the ICANN treasures untill the organisation has managed to organize itsalf in a stable fashion.
<O_Muron> Right aha !
<jeah> aha: I seriously disagree on that one. This is about power
<jeah> aha: How come that all governments are excluded, but the USG keeps on claiming control??

<Winfried> icann has to ensure that the technical integracy is maintained
<O_Muron> tlr : Icann is able to intervene due to its contract with NSI
<aha> My understanding is that NSI is just doin tests, but I might be wrong.
<Winfried> due to the publicity icann would be in a position by public power to prevent nsi from doing this
<aha> Noone should ever set IDNs in operation until the IETF has finnished their work on this.
<jeah> aha: Why didn't ICANN protest strongly against NSI's initiative?
<tlr> camper has another question...

<O_Muron> Camper : One example is creation of ".eu"
<Winfried> to make sure that all cultures can use the internet in their native tongue
<O_Muron> Camper : But also reinforce European partcipation in Icann processes and staff
<Winfried> we also have to make sure, that the american interest do not dominate all aspects of the internet
<jeah> winfried: I agree
<aha> The European and all othe interests in ICANN is that everyone receives a feir treatment regarding names and addresses.
<aha> So far .com has favoured American interests, but this must be changed.
<jeah> aha: what would you consider to be a fair treatment?
<aha> All type of entities (Large and small, orgs and individuals) should belong in an address space where they feel comfortable.
<Winfried> the question is how the european candidate can bundle the european interests and be represenative
<jeah> winfied: and what exactly would be the EUROPEAN interest?
<Winfried> i suggest that whoever wins should hold regular public forums etc
<jeah> winfried: this is not enough!!
<jeah> winfried: we net to get the european members organized
<Winfried> jeah. as mentioned, to give people the opportunity to use their own language
<Winfried> and to get tlds for europe such as .eu
<jeah> aha: what about the free speach issue?
<aha> I think this is realistic if ICANN manage to limit its scope to names and numbers, and not talk so much about general politics.
<O_Muron> jeah : It has been done earlier with the EC-Panel of particpants
<O_Muron> But one needs to do more
<jeah> O: EC-POP doesn't include plain users
<O_Muron> jeah : yes, it did includes users and is open to everyone who want to join
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> transparence and bottum up legitimatiom instead of dominating us-interests, closed door meetings
<aha> Andy: Correct.
<jeah> aha: the problem is to draw the line between the administration of technologie and politics
<Winfried> not every user wants to participate in in EC_POP. we have to make sure, that people can use the internet, not run it
<aha> Jeah, Yes there are problems, or I would rather call them "opportunities".
<tlr> Last round about European Interests?
<jeah> winfried: I want to make sure that all who want to participate are free to do so
<Winfried> so do i
<O_Muron> Me as well
<Winfried> but there are limitations
<jeah> winfried: what kind?
<aha> Europe should be interested in a stable ICANN owned by the Global Internet Community, including Europe.
<Winfried> people want a working internet that they can use. not everybody wants to get involved in the nitty gritty icann issues
<tlr> ok. AlexanderS hasw been waiting for some time. Hīs next, then atoth.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> European interests: support decentralisation and to avoid, that icann is misused by the us government for their own (cultural and commercial) interests. Also, technically changing it to a us-independent decentrally working structure.
<jeah> winfried: this is fine by me, this is about openness and access
<aha> Winfred: Correct. ICANN is doing a great job, when ICANN is Invisible. Like a movie Director.

<jeah> alexander: good point. Who will pay for the next elections? I have no answer to this
<O_Muron> AlexanderS : ICann has about the right size now
<Winfried> aha, yes, that is why i dont think icann should grow very much
<O_Muron> AlexanderS : Money will come from registrars , registries and RIRs
<Winfried> icann should focus on a clear, limited number on important issues
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Alexander: Icann could do more to be transparent and let decision by legitimated through bottum-up net processes without an increase of money.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> alex: I mean, that is possible. Not a question of money, a question of mind-set.
<aha> Yes there is a danger that ICANN becomes a big buer.c. org, but by focusing on ICANNS limited scope, names and numbers, I think it is possible to keep it small.
<jeah> andy: we need more money to improve the election procedure
<Winfried> the budget issue will be resolved by receiving all the outstanding bills
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> jeah: ?
<jeah> andy: do we disagree finally ;-)
<Winfried> AMM: any concret ideas how to achieve this
<Winfried> ???
<O_Muron> About Icann transparency, progress has already been made like open meetings but more can be done for openess
<aha> The elections could be done by external experts, just managed by ICANN staff.
<O_Muron> aha : I don't see the need for it
<jeah> aha: this a good idea, doesn't solve the budget issue though
<aha> There is no free lunch.

<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Winfried: Yes, I wonder why europe participants of GAC donīt let their work be transparent to show, that this is possible. I guess, you know what I mean.
<jeah> tlr: I would reject a fee
<jeah> andy: you are right!
<jeah> hi, kilian ;-)
<Winfried> but how important is gac, but i agree, it should be more transparent. however gac is not icann but the governments and they decide what and how much they disclose
<O_Muron> tlr : we have to develop the at large membership, so a fee is not in question now
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> jeah: you, too. but, how should more money have improved the election procedure?
<jeah> winfried: the gac plays a major role
<aha> Yes, the at large has to pay our share of ICANN's cost, but someone else than the individual members could pay for this. Perhaps Governments, becaus they are serving the public.
<jeah> amm: my donations probably
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> win: GAC _could_ have been a way to change the way icann works. But it seems like it prefers to take part in a conspiracy instead of breaking it up.
<Winfried> jeah. they dont have influence on technical issues
<jeah> aha: in the long run, they might
<jeah> winfried: they claim political control over the cctlds
<Winfried> jeah. yes for cctld but not for address issues and gtlds

<aha> There will never be enough diversity.
<Rince> s/will/would/
<aha> Rince: No.
<jeah> rince: i don't mind where the money comes from, as long as it can't exert influence over content and procedures
<jeah> rince: this is why it should come from various sources
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> aha: governments serving the public? Is this reality?
<aha> Andy, at least some governments...
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> aha: maybe you can mail me and I change to another one ;-)
<tlr> Let me follow up on the diversity issue.

<Rince> jeah: that's why I mentioned one hardware company and one software company :-)
<jeah> tlr: my experience is certainly different from SO directors ;-)
<Winfried> with my background i can represent 8.5 million internet users
<jeah> winfried: are these 8.5 people telekom customers?
<O_Muron> Coming back to the diversity question, I think that Icann's current diversity is partially achieved at board level. What is most needed is a high vision on both technical and non technical usages
<Winfried> internet users, some of the probably telekom customers whos needs i know :-)
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> My experience is just 15 years of learning by doing and trying to support transparency on some issues. As a speaker of CCC I am also a little bit "used" to cultural-confrontation between business and personal interests for e.g.
<jeah> winfried: but we have about 100 mio users in Europe!
<aha> I can contribute to a stable ICANN. Agreements/contracts have to be written between ICANN and the ccTLDs regarding root service, redelegation etc. This is of outmost impotance for a stable, operational Internet used for all kinds of buisniss purposes.
<jeah> tlr: my experience refers to the intersection of technology and politics. This is my research area
<Winfried> ok, but i think the problems i hear about are typical
<jeah> winfried: i just wondered about the figure (8.5)
<Winfried> i also have many years of experience in the international field
<jeah> winfried: most of us have this more or less
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> technogical development changing the way society work is a global issue.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> work+s
<aha> I can contibute to consensus building. DNSO has to be fixed. Cross region participation is essencial.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> 8.5 mio t-online users? how many of them do you know personally?
<jeah> aha: how would you propose to fix DNSO?
<aha> I can contribute to secure the interests of the consumers in their "fights" with the big companies.
<O_Muron> Jeah : There is working group inside DNSO, let's wait for their proposal
<Winfried> amm. they are not all t-online users, however, i hear of the problems they experience without personal acquaintance
<jeah> O: I know, the problem is, individual domain name holders have no voice in the name council
<aha> jeah: first we have to look at the review results. One possible re-structure, coul be to separate the gTLD constituency from the ccTLD const., because they have not so much in common.
<aha> Perhaps the Names Council shoul rather have been an "Names Forum" like the proposed regional "At Large Fprum".
<O_Muron> Jeah : Not just that; the consensus building processis not working within the DNSO : everyone speaks only for its constituency
<jeah> o: This is why I was asking about how this problem should be fixed
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> aha: I donīt see internet-users as "consumers" cause their role is not as static as it is in the television-media-set. Internet-Users can be senders or receivers of media-information, t-online users mostly cannot, cause they donīt have a static ip.
<Winfried> most users dont have static ip. amm, do you want to represent only the ones with static ip???
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> win: of course not. but I would be happy if you would see internet-users not as consumers, as the business model of t-online does.
<aha> Andy: Agree, Individuals are not *allways* consumers. The internet opens for anyone to both consume and produce.
<O_Muron> Jeah : maybe there should be a permanent speaker but let the working group advance (bottom-up
<tlr> I think we should go on to the next questions which are slightly related. Jessica, then Camper.

<O_Muron> jessica : I will have a strong commitment to the user community and will spend as much time as needed
<aha> I don't know, but this is something you must have as a hobby. You cannot count the hours.
<Winfried> i expect that the icann work will consume a lot of time. i am comitted to spending it
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> jes: I guess itīs something like a 24 hours job, cause it means to be responsibly for watching the process and lock it requires action. I am used to that. But also, I think it would be very helpful to have next to mailing lists some regular kinds of meetings with people from all european countries.
<aha> I will of course stay in my current job.
<jeah> jessica: tough question, certainly more than half of my dayly working time
<aha> Wake up...

<jeah> camper: I have job and my employer is willing to give some extra support
<Camper> Does he have an interest in ICANN work?
<jeah> camper: huh?
<Camper> jeah: I mean what goals has your emploer?
<jeah> camper: oh, none at all
<Camper> Why does he give you free time?
<jeah> camper: I am an academic working for a research institute
<aha> I work for UNINETT FAS, a non-commercial company owned by the Government. Ad a Director I can use my time as long as I manage the company well.
<jeah> camper: because ICANN is my research topic
<Camper> So this is live research?
<jeah> camper: exactly!
<Camper> So this is just a test?
<Camper> AMM? Who pays you?
<Camper> Telling ...
<jeah> camper: nonsense!
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camper: I am self-employed, and live from journalism (articles), speeches/lectures at conferences and from beeing sometimes involved as an expert witness in lawsuits etc. No dependencies, no non-disclosure-agreements.
<jeah> camper: I am a hybrid, both a researcher and a political active Zeitgenosse
<Camper> jeah: What is a Zeitgenosse?
<jeah> a netizen
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> jeah ;-)
<Camper> AMM: no interest for CCC?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> AMM: no, CCC is NGO/NPO, non profit. Of course lectures do stand in context of my ccc work.
<Camper> So is this fun or do yoiu try to accomplish a goal?
<Camper> I mean besides evry netizens interest?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camp: you mean Jeanette or me?
<Camper> both
<jeah> camper: this is dead serious!
<jeah> camper: I am seriously concerned about the Net's future
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> shure this is serious. I think the development of the net is very important, cause living on this planet is increasingly becoming dependent on how the net works.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> shure-h

<aha> Please explain.
<alvar> it's the "fight" between a non-commercial art project (in this case) with a "big company". etoy was two years before etoys.com was founded on the net
<alvar> it's the question, if the powerful companies can suck each domain, because they have a trademark on some similar words
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> alvar: Iīd prefer to have TMīholders to have their own TLD, and if there is no global TM-law, than let those lawyers play their games in secondary TLD`s in the countries.
<Winfried> i would try to resolve it with udrp
<jeah> alvar: I think trademark owners should be granted the right to grasp all domain names that sound similar
<aha> jeah: Disagree.
<Winfried> jeah: you are kidding, right?
<jeah> aha: sorry, I forgot the n't
<jeah> winfried: it was just a mistake, I was distracted by Deutsche Welle who have joined the session
<O_Muron> alvar : I am not familiar with this particular case, but with new TLDs, such problems can be solved more easily

<aha> If so, I am think etoy.com should win....
<aha> Sorry, for the misprint...
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> right. And Etoy (TM) should get etoytm.com for e.g.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> or etoy.tm.us
<O_Muron> tlr : good question, both ways should be studied. Chartered TLD are a good idea. On the technical side, directory and search engines can help
<aha> I think we should not discuss spesific cases.
<Winfried> aha: fully agree
<alvar> ok, but with national laws, they may throw with lawsuits around them?

<jeah> Rcourtney: I do except a slow start with few new TLDs
<jeah> RCourtney: I am afraid they are going to mereley duplicate .com
<Winfried> in teh future, icann should have clearer guidelines for new tlds
<Winfried> we have discussed the issue of new tlds for two years now, and still dont have any guidelines
<Winfried> that shouzld be improved
<aha> The criteria for new gTLDs are not in place. The proposed process opens for discussions and negotiations, and I think this can lead to som criteria in the end.
<O_Muron> Rcourtney : I think I have a problem with the $50000 fee, a more flexible solution would have been preferable depending on the kind of TLD proposed
<jeah> O: I fully agree
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> RCourtney: The current suggestions just seem to be following the commercial interests of "selling" licences for gTLDīs. There should be at least the same numbers of non-commercial new gTLD`s brought in.
<aha> The pont with the fee is that it should cover the cost. I think there is a lot of work to handle the applications, and a fee is needed. The size of it can be discussed.

<jeah> RCourtey: The guidelines should preserve diversity on the Net
<O_Muron> RCourtney : a large diiversity of business models and operators
<jeah> Chartered & non-chartered, open and non-open tlds
<Winfried> diversity is great, but people have to be able to find what they are looking for in an easy manner
<jeah> winfried: the DNS is the wrong tool for this!
<aha> Most of us know what a TLD manager is doing. Try to look at ICANN as a root manager with similar things to do as a TLD manager, just one level up.
<RCourtney> aha: Could you clarify what you mean by that?
<aha> Every TLD has a nameing-policy, even if it is completely open. (The policy says: We are open"). A naming polocy has also to be written (by ICANN) for the root.
<jeah> Chartered & non-chartered, open and non-open tlds
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> RCourtney: Icann should have a general rule, that the net is a public space, where commercial action can take place, as same as all kinds of cultural ideas can live. Diversity for me means also, that the areas have their own rules.
<Winfried> dns is only one part of the story. we need additional search tools. people use dns as a search tool. we can not ignore that
<jeah> winfried: the dns should get rid of the locator function
<jeah> winfried: domain names were not meant as addresses
<Winfried> in principle yes, but we have to live with reality for now
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Icannīs role is not orientation, itīs more about managing complex architecture.
<jeah> winfried: here, we disagree, the Net used to change fast, why shouldn't this functional overload vanish again?
<aha> The naming-policy for the root domains managed by ICANN, will be split in at least two: One for the ccTLDs, and one for the gTLDs, the latter will define the criteria for new gTLDs.
<Winfried> we must guarantee the stability of todays network while planning hte next steps like idn and cdap
<Winfried> sorry cdnrp
<tlr> CDNRP = Common name Resolution Protocol, for those who donīt know the acronym.
<jeah> winfried: the net doesn't need to be planned as telco networks used to be ;-))
<tlr> AMM: So who should give the orientation and set the policies?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> tlr: orientation is not the same as policies. architecture means to manage different platforms and functionalities. the policys should be made by the platform holders; business might follow UDRP with WIPO, .GPL same other ideas. Orientation is a question of transparency of structures and free flow of information.
<Winfried> of course the internet backbones are managed and plans networks. how else would it function
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Win: decentrally
<jeah> winfried: we are talking about the DNS, not about backbones
<Winfried> yes of course, but in a coordinated manner
<Winfried> not unplanned and not unmanaged
<Winfried> jeah: and where are teh D
<Winfried> NS server are located
<Winfried> we can not run the internet without networks, servers etc. that is just a fact
<Winfried> :-)
<aha> The detailed naming policy for the new gTLDs should be written by the gTLD managers, not ICANN. ICANN should just define the criteria for the domains, not the internal policy (RFC 1591 is mandatory).
<jeah> winfried: please, we were discussing the future role of the DNS
<Winfried> exactly ;-)
<jeah> winfried: the introduction of directory systems is a way to ease the current burden of the DNS
<Winfried> we are working on that
<jeah> winfried: we have already talked about this. My question would be: who has access to this directory system?

<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Alex: Individual users should have all information to understand the processes and they should have the chance to participate. Of course this needs moderation, but moderation does not necessarily mean just to vote "representatives".
* tlr would like to point the candidates to Alexanderīs question.
<O_Muron> AlexanderS : After the election, At Large members should self organize and give their opinions to their representative at the board who will carry them.
<O_Muron> Also electroning polling can be used on important issues
<aha> The At large should advice the ICANN Board, not only the At Large Directors.
<jeah> alexander: all those who are affected by ICANN's decisions should have a say, quite simple
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> aha: good point
<aha> An At large organisation must be built up making it possible for members to express their concerns and views in a structured way.
<Winfried> but it is necessary that they have representatives. that is the only way that 100 mio users in europe can express their concerns to the icann boards
<Winfried> aha: I agree
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> represantatives cannot replace possibilities of participation

<Winfried> one does not exclude the other
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> they have to support it
<Winfried> everybody naturally
<jeah> tlr: of course, the DNS policy directly affects all users
<O_Muron> tlr : the issue of new tld for example interest a very large number of users
<aha> I would rather say they will be affected if ICANN do NOT make decision. Then the address space would be chaos (sorry Andy).
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> chaos is reality.
<Winfried> but reality is not always chaos ;-)
<jeah> andy: and reality quite often chaos
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> naturally it is.
<tlr> Andy, jeah, Winfried: Please donīt let the topic drift towards proofs of godīs existence. Thanks. ;-)
<jeah> tlr: granted ;-))
<Winfried> ok, back to reality then
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> win: whatever that shall be ;-?
<stargazer> tlr: e.g. the IANA "suggestion" that dialup be dynamic if ever possible affects everybody wanting to use e.g. internet telephony without having a leased line.
<jeah> stargazer: exactly
<stargazer> tlr: so yes, ICANN decisions form the framework on the distribution of assets
<jeah> stargazer: nicely put!
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> stargazer: right. This is exactly what I also meant with us government cultural/economic interests.
<tlr> Camperīs next.

<Winfried> i believe in being constructive, meaning to work together with the other directors
<jeah> camper: I think that the power of directors depends on the support by their community
<Camper> would you worlk together with the DNSO?
<jeah> camper: this is why it is so important to get the ALM organized and firmly established
<Camper> But you only have one voice?
<aha> I will not talk about persons here. I admit that I now do not know all the details about everything in ICANN. However I know a lot about what are the big issues.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camper: I wonder a little bit about this "consensual" way of the decission process. Last time I heard something like that, it was about the former german democratic republic. I am open to cooperate in specific questions, if it is possible. but a little bit more controversial open discussion could be good and necessary at the BOD.
<Camper> The ICANN board makes majority decisions

<jeah> tlr: right now: DNS & the future structure of DNSO
<jeah> tlr: in future perhaps about the allocation of IPv6 addresses
<O_Muron> Jeah : I don't foresee major difficulties with IPV6 allocation
<aha> I am sure that there will be a diversity in the knowledge internally in the Board, and also by external experst, to prepare detailded matirial based on consensus from the SOs and The At Large.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camper: right, but those decisions still have to follow the "bottom-up" legimation which is in the icann-statues.
<Camper> How do you want to create the bottom-up llegitimiation?
<aha> The Board members must have the broad overview of "everything" and vite correctly, but they need also detailed knowledge on certain areas.
<jeah> camper: by organizing decision-building structures among alm
<tlr> We have about 20 minutes left, and no questions in the queue.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camper: Depending on the specific questions. I could imagine, that in some areas there should be an open process of suggestions and decisions through the ALM, for example when it is about UDRP/WIPO etc.
<tlr> Iīd like to solicit questions in particular from those who have been silent so far. Please just msg to Rince or tlr.
<jeah> camper: fortunately, the Net's services allow for this
<Camper> O_Muron and Winfried who is your partner in the DNSO?
<Winfried> depends on the subject
<O_Muron> Camper : What do you mean by partner ?
<Camper> do you have an infrastructure? CCC has one?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Camper: "Infrastructure" is a big word, I do have my own office-simulation, CCC is still a chaotic computer club which of course has also some infrastructure like web, mail, ftp-server, rooms etc.
<Camper> Are your working toigether with the DNSO or will you block their decisions?
<O_Muron> Camper : I will represent At large members and so if DNSO acts againsts their interesrs I will stand against their positions
<aha> I will certainly not "block" decisions unless I think it is necessary based on my values fro the Internet.

<jeah> pi: yes, I would
<Winfried> i think the at large membership structure needs to be improved and will need more funding to become more efficient
<tlr> Do you have any particular ideas on where funding should come from? Maybe the Euroipean Union, national govts, ...?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> pi: possible, but this would be a support of communication, propably not of money. I think it is more a question of communication than of money, as said before.
<Winfried> european union might be one source. the markle foundation could be anothe one
<jeah> tlr: I find imporant the financial sources are diverse
<aha> I do not expect my organisation to contribute with funding of ICANN. I would rather lobby those who receives services from ICANN, example the SOs. or the constituencies.
<Winfried> as well as others
<jeah> tlr: we should be independant, not dependant from gov's
<aha> I think the funding should be split in two:
<aha> 1) Those who receives services should pay for them.
<jeah> aha: no, this is not what politics and demorcratic decision-making should be about
<tlr> jeah: Whegn I talked about the EU or govts, I was thinking about funding for ICANNīs work on the ALM.
<jeah> tlr: it is alm what I meant by "we"
<aha> 2) The "owners" of ICANN (in the end the "Global Internet Community", not USG) should pay for the consensus building process.
<jeah> aha: wouldn't this exclude users from 3 world countries
<aha> jeah: no.
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> pi: Funding should probably go to an ALM-EU-forum/organization to enshure transparency.
<pi> q2: what about transparency of funding for the european candidate ?
<jeah> pi: full disclose on the Net perhaps? ;-)
<O_Muron> pi : I agree on disclosure
<tlr> ok. Pinsel has the word on a fundamental question.

<jeah> pinsel: If I talk about public resources, I mean they belong to everyone
<O_Muron> Pinsel : its a common public resource but should be managed with efficiency and by the Internet community and not states
<Winfried> no state responsibility, rather a private sector, self responsible administration, but globally transparent
<jeah> pinsel: in the US context, public resource seems to suggest it should be managed and controled by gov's. It seems to be a matter of political traditions and cultural contexts
<jeah> winfried: would private sector mean: governed by companies
<Winfried> jeah: no, not necessarily
<jeah> winfried: what, then, does private mean? Just not controlled by gov's?
<AndyMueller-Maguhn> Pinsel: DNS could be both. Parts of it public, parts of it private (.TM). Parts of it cultural space without govenmental interests.
<O_Muron> That's the very challenge of Icann, to do it differently from ITU !
<jeah> O: ITU is evil from the Net's perspective ;-))
<O_Muron> Exactly what I meant
<aha> It is a public resource, administered by the privat sector. The Goverments are "law makers" for law thet the private sector has to play with the rules.
<tlr> Itīs getting late, and people are becoming tired. Camper has the last question.