Multistakeholder Model – Driver for Global Services and SDGs | IGF 2023 Open Forum #89

Audience

The multi-stakeholder model of ICANN has successfully built trust among users, as demonstrated by Varun Dhanapala from the government of Sri Lanka who shared his positive experience after attending an orientation session in Kathmandu. This highlights the effectiveness of the model in fostering user confidence.

Furthermore, the collaboration between the International Governance Forum (IGF) and ICANN is not competitive but complementary. This was evident during an event hosted by the Sri Lanka Mission in New York, which shed light on ICANN’s mission and work. The partnership between IGF and ICANN is crucial for effective internet governance.

ICANN places significant importance on active participation, even during the pandemic. They have supported and promoted participation in their meetings, demonstrating their commitment to inclusivity and ensuring all stakeholders have a voice in shaping internet policies.

Diversity within ICANN is also emphasised, with a need for representation from various age groups, languages, and backgrounds. This diversity brings different perspectives to the decision-making process and ensures policies cater to the needs of a wide range of users.

ICANN’s role in coordinating the technical aspects of the internet, specifically the domain name system (DNS), is crucial for maintaining stability and security. The reliable nature of ICANN is highlighted by VeriSign’s 26 years of uninterrupted uptime for ComNet and root servers. This underscores the significance of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder community in supporting technical coordination.

The internet’s expansive outreach and untapped potential should be fully harnessed to achieve SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. The internet has immense capabilities that can drive innovation and create opportunities for social and economic development.

ICANN recognises the influence of different stakeholders, such as governments, civil society, and the business community. Each stakeholder group has unique contributions to make, and their influence is acknowledged within the ICANN framework. This balanced and inclusive approach ensures comprehensive policy development.

However, ICANN faces several challenges that need to be addressed. The role and influence of ICANN will be assessed by the General Assembly in less than two years, emphasising the need for periodic evaluation and reassessment of its effectiveness. Additionally, ICANN needs to streamline decision-making processes to respond effectively to evolving internet governance issues.

While ICANN is acknowledged as being effective, there is an emphasis on the need for continuous improvement. This highlights ICANN’s ability to adapt and embrace change. Experts with specific areas of expertise are considered valuable contributors to ICANN’s work, even without full-time commitment.

Consensus building within the multi-stakeholder community is viewed as crucial for ICANN’s mission. However, it needs to be carefully approached to ensure predictability and the secure, stable, and resilient operation of networks. This will safeguard the unity of the internet and prevent fragmentation.

Critically, ICANN’s governance has faced scrutiny for its limited interaction with other significant processes, such as the CA browser forum, the Financial Stability Board, and the Decentralised Identity Foundation. There is a call for ICANN to broaden in-house consultation and recognise stakeholders beyond just domain holders, for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to governance.

In conclusion, ICANN plays a critical role in internet governance and coordination, ensuring the stability and security of the DNS. The multi-stakeholder model of ICANN has successfully built trust among users, and collaboration with organisations like the IGF is seen as essential. Active participation, diversity, and consensus building are key, while continuous improvements and addressing gaps are necessary. Overall, ICANN has the potential to evolve, adapt to change, and effectively shape internet policies through the involvement of various stakeholders.

Veni Markovski

The analysis highlights several key points. Firstly, it emphasises the importance of multistakeholder participation in technology development. It underscores that technologies are not created in isolation but are intended to serve a purpose and engage multiple stakeholders. The analysis suggests that no party works in isolation and the implementation of technology should be in line with prevailing laws and policies. It also highlights that technology stimulates the economy. These supporting facts indicate the positive impact of technology on society.

The second point raised in the analysis is the need for ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to improve its engagement with governments. The analysis argues that commitments made by governments to participate in ICANN should be followed by action. This signifies the importance of effective government involvement in shaping internet governance policies. The analysis includes evidence such as Rwanda hosting a high-level governmental meeting and increased government commitment to participate more actively in ICANN. The sentiment towards this point is positive, suggesting a belief in the potential benefits of closer collaboration between ICANN and governments.

The third point highlighted in the analysis is the potential impact of upcoming international processes on ICANN’s work. It mentions that international processes related to ICANN’s mission are taking place at the United Nations (UN), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and potentially at the European Union (EU) level. It implies that these processes may influence ICANN’s role in maintaining and allocating internet resources. While it states a neutral sentiment, it underscores the need for ICANN’s active involvement in these global processes.

Furthermore, the analysis discusses the untapped potential of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to provide recommendations on new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). It suggests that the IGF, as established by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Tunis agenda, could play a more significant role in shaping discussions and offering recommendations on emerging technologies. It recommends using the WSIS plus 20 to improve the IGF and increase its contributions. The analysis presents a positive sentiment towards this point.

Overall, the analysis highlights the importance of multistakeholder participation in technology development, the need for ICANN to engage more with governments, the potential impact of international processes on ICANN, and the untapped potential of the IGF. These points reinforce the significance of collaboration, effective governance, and active involvement in shaping technology policies and the future of the internet.

Edmon Chung

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is widely recognised as a successful multi-stakeholder model for internet governance. It has demonstrated resilience and adaptability through three updates in the past two decades, signifying its commitment to evolving with the changing landscape of the internet. Furthermore, ICANN has incorporated safeguards to protect the system from attempts to extinguish it, highlighting its dedication to ensuring the continuity and stability of the internet.

One of the key strengths of the multi-stakeholder model employed by ICANN is its bottom-up agenda setting approach and consensus-based decision-making. By involving a diverse range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and the private sector, ICANN fosters an inclusive dialogue that allows for the consideration of various perspectives and interests. This approach is crucial as it helps to generate broad consensus and ensures that decisions reflect the needs and aspirations of different stakeholders.

The importance of rough consensus is also stressed in the multi-stakeholder model. While achieving full agreement on every aspect may not always be possible, the concept of rough consensus allows for agreement on enough points to continue working together towards a common goal. This principle helps to maintain a single, unfragmented internet and promotes the collective efforts of stakeholders in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital landscape.

The multi-stakeholder model of internet governance goes beyond addressing technical aspects; it also encompasses broader issues such as sustainability, the environment, and digital inclusion. The model provides a platform for discussions on these topics, enabling stakeholders to work together towards achieving goals such as reduced inequality and industry innovation, as outlined in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is another entity that can benefit from the multi-stakeholder model. By embracing this approach, the IGF can facilitate discussions on internet governance within the context of sustainability and the environment. This not only increases awareness and understanding of these critical issues but also ensures that their consideration becomes an integral part of national and regional IGF discussions.

In conclusion, the multi-stakeholder model adopted by ICANN has proven to be successful in governing the internet. Its bottom-up agenda setting, consensus-based decision-making, and commitment to evolution and adaptability make it a resilient and inclusive approach. The model not only addresses technical aspects but also allows for conversations around sustainability, the environment, and digital inclusion. Both ICANN and the IGF can continue to improve and develop protection mechanisms while emphasising the importance of rough consensus and maintaining a single, unfragmented internet.

Leon Sanchez

The multi-stakeholder model plays a crucial role not only in Internet governance but also in other realms of society. It ensures that all stakeholders have a seat at the table and a say in decision-making processes. This model operates in a horizontal structure where every stakeholder’s voice is heard and considered. The positive sentiment towards the multi-stakeholder model reflects its effectiveness and importance in achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

While the multi-stakeholder model is widely endorsed, it is acknowledged that it is not perfect and has room for improvement. This neutral sentiment suggests that there are areas where the model could be enhanced. However, the overall consensus is that the multi-stakeholder model should be upheld and fostered for future generations. Its positive impact on various aspects, such as making the Internet work and ensuring connectivity during the pandemic, further solidifies the argument for its continued support.

During the pandemic, the multi-stakeholder model proved successful in facilitating online education for students who had connectivity. It also led to the implementation of electronic filing and litigation, ensuring the continuity of the justice system. These examples highlight the adaptability and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model, particularly in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. This positive sentiment towards the model demonstrates its capacity to address challenges and find innovative solutions.

Contrary to the positive sentiment towards the multi-stakeholder model, there is a negative sentiment towards the idea of legislating the internet. It is argued that existing regulations and conduct in the physical world are sufficient to govern the digital world. This sentiment suggests a preference for self-regulation within the multi-stakeholder model rather than imposing stricter legislative measures.

Furthermore, the importance of connecting the next set of users and expanding access to the internet is highlighted as an argument in support of the multi-stakeholder model. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) emphasises the need to bridge the digital divide and ensure equal access to information and resources. The multi-stakeholder model can play a vital role in addressing this issue and promoting inclusivity.

One noteworthy observation is the potential for the multi-stakeholder model to transform representative democracy into a participative one. Utilising this model could enable greater citizen engagement and involvement in decision-making processes, aligning with SDG 16.

In conclusion, the multi-stakeholder model is essential for Internet governance and various aspects of society. While it has room for improvement, its positive impact during the pandemic and the need to address connectivity and digital inequality make a strong case for upholding and fostering this model. The negative sentiment towards legislating the internet highlights the preference for self-regulation within the multi-stakeholder model. By turning representative democracy into a participative one, the multi-stakeholder model has the potential to create a more inclusive and equitable society.

Danko Jevtovic

The success of the internet can be attributed to its foundation on open standards and a user-centred approach. The technical community plays a crucial role in this success through their open, liberal, and voluntary approach. This means that the internet’s technical layer is based on standards that are open and accessible to everyone. The acceptance of voluntarily defined addresses of the root server system has also contributed to the success of the internet. Additionally, the power of the network itself, which attracts users, has played a significant role.

The multi-stakeholder model, which involves various stakeholders such as governments, academia, civil society, and businesses, has proven to be an effective framework for governing the internet. Each stakeholder group has an important role to play, contributing to the development and advancement of the internet.

Celebrating its 25th anniversary, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has played a pivotal role in the success of the internet. ICANN’s contributions are recognized, and their role in the internet’s evolution is celebrated. Furthermore, ICANN has actively engaged in ensuring that the technical consequences of potential legislation are thoroughly explained to all stakeholders.

It is important to understand the consequences of potential legislative processes and initiatives related to the internet. There are ongoing discussions and initiatives happening in various fora, and it is crucial to assess and comprehend the implications of these actions.

The desire for the internet to continue evolving is emphasized in order to meet the changing needs of both individuals and businesses. This reflects the dynamic nature of the internet and the importance of keeping up with advancements in technology, innovation, and infrastructure.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meetings, according to Danko Jevtovic, have been successful and continue to improve each year. Jevtovic, who has been a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), has participated in various IGF meetings. He praises the current IGF meeting hosted by Japan and believes that the IGF serves as leverage to create a better internet and work towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Notably, Jevtovic does not see the need to change or create something parallel to the IGF. He emphasizes the importance of utilizing the IGF platform to improve the internet and address the SDGs effectively.

In conclusion, the success of the internet lies in its foundation of open standards and a user-centred approach. The technical community’s open and voluntary approach, the multi-stakeholder model, and ICANN’s contributions have been instrumental in the internet’s success. Understanding the consequences of legislative processes and initiatives related to the internet is important. The desire for the evolution of the internet to meet the needs of individuals and businesses is crucial. The IGF meetings have been viewed as successful and improving each year, providing a platform to work towards a better internet and achieve the SDGs.

Vera Major

The analysis reveals several noteworthy points about ICANN. Firstly, ICANN is commended for its commitment to gender diversity within its organisation. Notably, there are two women in prominent leadership positions – the board chair and the interim CEO. This showcases ICANN’s dedication to promoting gender equality and increasing the representation of women in key decision-making roles. It is an encouraging sign of progress and a step towards creating a more inclusive and diverse environment within the field of internet governance.

Secondly, ICANN demonstrates a commendable level of transparency by making the letters it receives available to the public. This includes letters from governments, the military, and intelligence agencies, providing insights into internet traffic and policy choices. By publishing these letters and providing a link for access, ICANN promotes openness and enables stakeholders to have a deeper understanding of the considerations and decisions shaping internet governance.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the recognition of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9.1 within the context of internet infrastructure. SDG 9.1 focuses on developing quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, with an emphasis on regional and transborder infrastructure that supports economic development and human well-being. This demonstrates that ICANN acknowledges the importance of internet infrastructure as a crucial component of achieving sustainable development goals. By aligning with SDG 9.1, ICANN contributes to the global effort to provide affordable and equitable access to the internet for all individuals, regardless of their geographical location or socio-economic background.

Overall, the analysis underscores ICANN’s positive strides in gender diversity, applauds its transparency through the publication of received letters, and acknowledges its alignment with SDG 9.1. These findings showcase ICANN’s commitment to inclusivity, accountability, and sustainable development. It is encouraging to see such initiatives within the realm of internet governance, as they contribute to a more equitable and accessible digital landscape for the benefit of all individuals and communities worldwide.

Tripti Sinha

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is a non-profit organization that coordinates the Internet’s unique identifier systems. These systems, which include domain names, IP addresses, and protocol parameters, are crucial for the proper functioning of the Internet. ICANN ensures that these identifiers are managed effectively.

At the heart of ICANN’s work lies the multi-stakeholder model, which shapes policies and manages unique identifiers. This model involves the participation of various stakeholders, such as governments, businesses, civil society, and technical experts. The multi-stakeholder approach ensures inclusive and democratic decision-making, which is essential for the continued success of the global Internet.

The Internet operates on a set of protocols and standards that enable connectivity. Thousands of people from around the world collaborate to maintain and improve these systems. ICANN’s governmental advisory committee, with its member governments and observer organizations, exemplifies the global collaboration required for Internet governance.

Discussions on the multi-stakeholder model explore ways to align it with sustainable development goals (SDGs). The model promotes inclusivity, innovation, and engagement to support the digital economy. It has proven effective in ensuring the Internet’s stability over the years, despite the increasing number of users and traffic.

Participants in these discussions highlight the importance of looking beyond existing systems for solutions and proactively driving change. They emphasize the need to involve a wider range of stakeholders and promote diverse perspectives in Internet governance.

While the multi-stakeholder model is widely appreciated, it is cautioned that deviating from democratic principles toward multilateralism could have negative consequences. Upholding democratic decision-making is key to preserving the openness and transparency of Internet governance.

In summary, ICANN plays a vital role in coordinating the Internet’s unique identifier systems. The multi-stakeholder model ensures inclusive and democratic decision-making, which is crucial for the successful functioning of the Internet. Collaboration and engagement from stakeholders worldwide are necessary for effective Internet governance. Discussions focus on aligning the model with SDGs, seeking innovative solutions, and promoting stakeholder inclusion.

Sally Costerton

Upon analysis of the provided information, several key points emerge regarding ICANN and its efforts to shape a more inclusive and multilingual internet. Firstly, ICANN is actively working on expanding the Domain Name System (DNS) to accommodate a wider range of languages and scripts. This initiative arises from recognizing that the next billion users coming online belong to communities with languages and scripts divergent from English and ASCII. By supporting more languages and scripts in the DNS, ICANN aspires to foster a more inclusive digital environment.

Secondly, the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance has played a crucial role in allowing the internet and the digital economy to flourish. This model has facilitated a smooth and stable transition from US government oversight to a global community oversight, ensuring the security and stability of the internet. This observation highlights the importance of the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders in shaping the internet’s governance framework.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic showcased the internet’s pivotal role in supporting remote work, education, healthcare, and connectivity. Governments, internet service providers, technology companies, and civil society organizations collaborated to ensure the internet’s smooth functioning during this crisis. The ability of the internet to handle the surge in usage during the pandemic attests to the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model in maintaining the internet’s resilience and reliability.

Trust is identified as a critical factor for the functionality of the internet. Trust is built between individuals, structures, organizations, and governments, and it is essential for the secure and reliable operation of the internet. The multi-stakeholder approach, with its emphasis on inclusivity and representation, aims to foster trust among different stakeholders in the internet ecosystem.

The stability, security, and resiliency of the DNS are central to ICANN’s mission. ICANN recognizes that every online interaction is connected to the DNS and is committed to delivering a stable, secure, resilient, and open DNS for the global public interest. This emphasis on DNS underscores the crucial role played by the multi-stakeholder model in maintaining the internet’s resiliency.

The internet is increasingly pivotal in driving and shaping societal change. Its power stems from being a single interoperable system accessible globally. This recognition further highlights the significance of the internet as a catalyst for innovation, infrastructure development, and economic growth.

Meaningful participation in policy creation requires empowered stakeholders armed with the appropriate skills, knowledge, and confidence. ICANN acknowledges the importance of individual skills and domain-specific knowledge to effectively contribute to sustainable policy creation. This observation emphasizes the need for capacity building efforts to equip stakeholders with the necessary tools to participate actively in shaping internet policies.

Additionally, sustainable policy creation should take into account the voices of many to reduce inequalities. ICANN supports the idea that policies should be influenced through the diverse perspectives and experiences of a wide range of stakeholders. Inclusivity in policy development is seen as a means to promote justice, peace, and strong institutions.

The multi-stakeholder approach advocated by ICANN needs to be inclusive and representative. ICANN has carried out extensive work to bring newcomers from diverse backgrounds into the internet ecosystem and has emphasized the importance of raising awareness about the functioning of the internet within the broader community. This drive towards inclusivity recognizes the necessity of ensuring representation and participation from all stakeholders for a fair and equitable internet governance framework.

Capacity building is highlighted as a vital aspect of ICANN’s efforts to empower individuals within the internet ecosystem. These capacity building efforts involve providing personal and professional skills to individuals, involving different languages and groups worldwide. The training covers various aspects, ranging from personal skills and time management to technical areas like infrastructure implementation. Such efforts aim to enhance the knowledge and capabilities of stakeholders, ultimately contributing to a more resilient and inclusive internet.

Expanding internet understanding and increasing participation in policy-making processes are identified as key priorities. ICANN recognizes the necessity of generating interest among individuals to comprehend the workings of the internet and the impact of internet policies on their lives. Capacity building is viewed as a crucial step towards enhancing understanding and involvement in shaping these policies.

The analysis also acknowledges the importance of international and multilateral processes that have relevance to ICANN’s mission. These processes occur at various levels, including the UN, ITU, and the European Union, and their significance is emphasized in the context of the upcoming WSIS plus 20 process. This observation highlights the broader global context in which ICANN operates and the need to engage actively in these processes.

Regarding ICANN’s role in internet governance, Sally Costerton expresses her belief in upholding the multi-stakeholder model that has contributed significantly to the internet’s success. The upcoming ICANN AGM in Hamburg is expected to extensively discuss this model, emphasizing its critical importance. Sally Costerton also recognizes the vital role played by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in facilitating understanding and fostering dialogue between members and their respective governments.

The analysis concludes by extending appreciation for participants’ commitment and passion during ICANN meetings, which indicates a collective determination to address critical issues within the internet ecosystem. Furthermore, ICANN’s emphasis on continuous discussion, communication, and issue-raising reflects its commitment to engaging with stakeholders and maintaining transparency in its processes.

Overall, this comprehensive analysis highlights ICANN’s dedication to an inclusive and multilingual internet, the significance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, and the resilience of the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic. It underscores the importance of trust, capacity building, and broad participation in policy creation to ensure a sustainable and equitable internet ecosystem. The analysis also acknowledges the global context in which ICANN operates and the importance of international and multilateral processes.

Veni Markovski:
If we start on time, we might be the first session starting on time, so I wonder whether we should give a couple of minutes to the people. But we have somebody who is waiting online to speak, actually, Sally Costerton. So it’s a little bit, I think it’s 1.45 where she is, which is a little bit cool. So I think without a further delay, thank you, everyone, for coming to the ICANN Open Forum, the multi-stakeholder model driver for global services and sustainable development goals. My name is Veni Markowski. I’m head of government engagement for ICANN. And we have several speakers with us, but the room is, as you can see, we are very open and close to each other. So if you have any questions, also online moderation is provided by my colleague, Vera. If there is any questions, you can just bring me Vera, and we will introduce the questions. So we will give the floor to Tripti Sinha, our chair of the board. We have also later on Danko, Leon, and Edmond speaking, and we have Sally Costerton, our president and CEO, who will be joining us online. So Tripti, I think with that, we can take the floor for your welcoming remarks.

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you, Veni. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to ICANN’s Open Forum. It is a privilege to join you today to explore the role of the multi-stakeholder governance model in shaping the Internet ecosystem over the last 25 years. The Internet, as you know, is a dynamic and ever-evolving landscape, has woven itself into the fabric of our lives, it connects people, transcending borders and cultures, and bestows us with a wealth of knowledge and communication. But what is often hidden behind this seamless connectivity is the participation of thousands of stakeholders who work together to maintain a stable and reliable Internet. So in today’s discussion, we will delve into the multi-stakeholder model of governance and Internet governance and how it has played a pivotal role in creating our digital economy while contributing to the realization of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the SDGs. So this model lies at the heart of everything ICANN does, shaping policy, implementing changes, and managing the unique identifiers that maintain the Internet’s stability and interoperability. ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is a non-profit organization that coordinates these identifiers. Every time you go online, regardless of the device you are using, the network you are connected to, or where you are in the world, you interact with the Internet’s unique identifier systems that are coordinated and managed by ICANN. For example, when you type a domain name such as ICANN.org into your browser, ICANN ensures, in coordination with many others, that you end up at the correct website. We make that happen at a technical level. ICANN also coordinates policy development around the technical aspects of the Internet. These policies are developed by a multi-stakeholder community, a rich tapestry of representatives from the private sector, governments, the technical community, civil society, and even individual Internet users. Together, this community is committed to serving the best interests of the public, not only the billions of users online currently, but those who are waiting to connect. Today, nearly every device that’s connected to the Internet runs on the same set of protocols and standards and uses the same identifier systems. By using this shared voluntary system, they are all able to communicate with each other, creating a vast interconnected network. At ICANN, we take seriously our responsibility to inform and collaborate with policymakers to ensure that their efforts to protect their communities do not unintentionally damage the Internet’s functionality. Furthermore, governments and intergovernmental organizations are encouraged to participate in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder policy development process. Our governmental advisory committee, which advises the ICANN board on public policy issues, currently has 182 member governments and 38 observer organizations. The Internet, as you know, knows no political or geographic boundaries. Keeping the Internet running is a worldwide effort involving thousands of people with a shared goal, to connect. As we delve into the workings of this multi-stakeholder model of intergovernance, it is essential to recognize that this approach is one of the most inclusive and democratic forms of decision-making ever devised. This approach produces strong results because everyone has a stake in the outcome. The multi-stakeholder model has allowed the Internet and the digital economy to flourish. It has allowed the Internet to function without fail for nearly 40 years, even as the number of users and traffic has exploded. This bottom-up inclusive model is not just an idea, it’s a reality. So thank you for being part of this important conversation. Let us work together to further understand, appreciate, and contribute to the continued success of the multi-stakeholder model in ensuring a stable, reliable, and unified global Internet that benefits everyone. Now I will turn it over to Sally Costerton, ICANN’s interim president and CEO, to share how the multi-stakeholder model and ICANN community is creating a more inclusive Internet. Sally, over to you.

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Tripti. Can you hear me? Yes. Good start. Thank you very much. Thank you, and once again, welcome everyone to ICANN’s open forum. And whether you are participating here in person or online, I look forward to engaging in this discussion with you. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, ICANN has worked hard to ensure equitable participation in our meetings for both in-person and remote attendees. We continue to apply those lessons learned to ensure effective engagement with all our stakeholders on this hybrid model. Building on what Tripti said, I’d like to take a few minutes to delve a bit deeper into a couple of examples that demonstrate the power of the multi-stakeholder model that Tripti described in shaping our digital world. A pivotal moment that showcased the model’s effectiveness took place seven years ago this month. In October 2016, oversight of the coordination and management of the Domain Name System, or DNS, was handed from the US government to the global Internet community. It was a profound exercise in trust, collaboration, and consensus-driven decision-making. Through countless hours of dialogue and negotiation, stakeholders from all corners of the globe came together to ensure that the transition would be smooth and that the Internet’s stability and security would remain uncompromised. This transition established ICANN as an independent, global organization accountable to the world that exemplifies how collective efforts and shared responsibility drive positive change. In the seven years since, the global community has demonstrated that the IANA stewardship transition was a resounding success, a testament to the multi-stakeholder model’s ability to work in the best interests of the global Internet community. It showed that when diverse voices collaborate with a common goal, we can achieve remarkable outcomes. More recently, the world was struck by the COVID-19 pandemic. The unprecedented crisis tested the Internet in ways we could never have imagined. Overnight, the world turned to the Internet for everything, for remote work, education, healthcare, and staying connected with loved ones. The Internet’s ability to scale up and provide essential connectivity during this crisis in a sustainable way was nothing short of remarkable. But what’s even more noteworthy is how the multi-stakeholder model played a crucial role in ensuring that the Internet continued to function seamlessly. Governments, Internet service providers, technology companies, and civil society organizations joined forces to keep the digital infrastructure running smoothly. They worked together to address challenges such as increased bandwidth and ever-changing cybersecurity threats. Now, the multi-stakeholder ICANN community has turned its focus to creating a more multilingual, inclusive Internet. Everyone, regardless of their background, culture, language, or location, should be able to make full use of the Internet, and ICANN is working to expand the DNS to support more languages and scripts. Many of the current users and most of the next billion users coming online are already part of communities that speak and write in languages other than English, and scripts other than ASCII. True, local, and global meaningful access to the Internet can only be accomplished when all Internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems work with and accept all valid domain names and email addresses. As we work towards true digital inclusivity, let us remember that all the multi-stakeholder community, let us remember all that the multi-stakeholder community has achieved so far. Let us continue to embrace the multi-stakeholder model as a guiding principle in Internet governance, ensuring that the Internet remains a powerful force for good in the world. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these important topics.

Leon Sanchez:
Thank you, Sally, and thanks for being with us given the late, or early, rather, time. But feel free, by the way, if you have any comments when we start the conversation to raise your hand or just unmute yourself, because I understand you’re a co-host, and you can do that and intervene in our conversation. So I’m going to open the conversation with a couple of guiding questions, but guys who are here, feel free to, again, raise your hand. There are microphones enough in the room, and I see familiar faces here, so you can comment or ask questions. So we would love to hear also your contributions on the topic that we’re discussing. So I spend most of my time at the United Nations, so the topic of the SDGs is near and dear to my heart. So I would rather start the conversation with questions to you guys, the panelists, as to what are the tenets of the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, and why are they important to ensuring this open, secure, and interoperable and resilient Internet ecosystem that we have. So who would want to take the first? Leon? Thank you very much, Veni, and thank you, everyone, for being here with us. I think that, as Veni was trying to say, we’re trying to make this more as a dialogue rather than a monologue, so feel free to chime in and raise your hand and just contribute to the conversation at any time. So I think the multi-stakeholder model is essential to not only Internet governance, but I see it, you know, penetrating other real dreams of society nowadays, and I think it’s important because it’s the place where everyone has a seat at the table, and not only a seat at the table, but a seat on a horizontal structure, right? Rather than a top-down model, at least how it works in ICANN, it’s on a bottom-up fashion, right? So it guarantees and it ensures that every stakeholder and every interest group has a saying and is able to raise their voice, and that voice is taken into account. Now, we often confuse being taken into account with producing the outcome that we wished that it was produced by raising our voices. Now, that’s definitely not how any model works, I guess, and the multi-stakeholder model is not an exception, but I think what’s important is that everyone is heard, everyone is, again, sat at the table and able to voice their thoughts, voice their interests, and if, you know, the arguments are so that your point of view prevails, then that is one of the wonderful things that the multi-stakeholder model has, that by consensus, it fosters this interaction between stakeholders that sometimes may have, you know, very opposite points of views and very opposite interests. Nevertheless, through dialogue and through these conversations, we find common grounds that enable us to take action and to build policies and agreements that make the Internet make the Internet work how it works, and I think it’s one of the principles that we should continue to uphold and foster for the next generations to learn and to improve, because, of course, the model is not perfect, right? So we have room for improvement within the model, and I think that’s essential to what we do here in the IGF, right? To try to find those areas of opportunity in which we can improve the multi-stakeholder model and try to then go back to our communities and implement those improvements to strengthen and to make the multi-stakeholder model more efficient. So that’s my initial contribution, Veni, and of course, happy to hear other thoughts.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks, Leon. What you’re saying about the fact that everyone is heard is very important, because indeed, in the multi-stakeholder universe and at the IGF, it is the case. And at ICANN, it is the case. Anybody can come to the microphone, take the floor, and speak equally with the others. Danko, did you want to say something? Yes.

Danko Jevtovic:
Thank you, Veni. Danko Jevtovic, for the record. So I think Leon has very nicely outlined how the model works. But also, we are here at the IGF to celebrate the success of the internet in contributing to the humanity, to the strategic sustainable development goals that UN has. And in discussing that, we are looking also at the model, but I was originally a techie, so I would like to comment a bit why the technical community is an important part of the multi-stakeholder model. So we heard in the Tripti’s and Sally’s opening remarks some very important words, like interoperability, voluntarily system, open standards, and everything. So I would like us to remind us that basically, the technical layer of the internet is on top of the world telecommunication network that now often includes mobile telephony. But this technical layer is actually based on those very open standards and on accepting what is defining the internet, and this is IPv4, IPv6, and the DNS system. And the key to the success of the system is acceptance of this voluntarily defined addresses of the root server system that actually everyone wants to use, because everyone is there. So the power of the network that is happening is something that is attracting the users. So the importance of the internet in today’s life is not coming from some sort of the top down approach, but is coming from the interest of the end users to actually use this network we have. So I think this shows that the open, liberal, and voluntarily approach taken on by the technical community is very much contributing to the success of the whole model. So this is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the model works. And now, of course, in a multi-stakeholder way, there is a very important role of the other stakeholders, governments caring for the public interest in their democratic processes, academia, obviously civil society, and businesses. So we are all together in this. And in exercising the model, as Leon commented, it works. And we celebrate that here. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
I’d just like to add something to what Danko and Leon just said. Fundamentally, when technology is created, invented, and developed, it’s not done in isolation, and it’s done for a reason. They’re created for enablement. There’s a form and function to it. So you essentially have to bring multiple stakeholders to the table, because no one is working here in isolation, because then it serves no purpose. So typically, technologies, a technical community develops a technology to enable a user community. And then around that, you need to wrap policies and so forth, so that they implement it fairly and abide by prevailing laws, so on and so forth. And technology in this, in the internet in particular, of course, or stimulates the economy and businesses and so forth. So we’re all sort of interconnected. So let’s not forget the fundamental premise that we don’t work in isolation. Thanks, Edmund, you?

Edmon Chung:
Yeah, Edmund Chung here. Happy to add a little bit of my perspective. I think we, I love ICANN and it’s very important. I grew up with ICANN and almost, but we’re here to celebrate the multi-stakeholder model, not just ICANN. ICANN is one of many successful multi-stakeholder models for internet governance. IGF here, the multi-stakeholder advisory group, the MAG of the IGF is another one. The IETF, the RIRs use a different model, but they are all successful multi-stakeholder models for the global internet and that’s what makes it work. I think that’s a very important part. It’s the global internet governance ecosystem that really makes it tick because I think both Tripti and Sally earlier mentioned that really every click on the internet touches the DNS, touches the IP addressing system. And ICANN plays a role in maintaining the unique identifiers, but these identifiers are developed by the IETF and also maintained by the RIRs as well. So it is working together that makes the global internet governance system work. So another thing that Sally touched on that I want to add is the internationalized domain names. Those who know me know that that’s a topic of passion, but that has been a topic of passion for 25 years. 25 years ago, I went to ICANN and the door was completely open and allowed me to really pick up the mic and start speaking. That goes to Leon’s point about being able to raise a voice for issues that are important because I do believe that a fully multilingual internet is important and it is a foundation towards digital inclusion, which brings me to the topic of SDGs. It’s the sustainable development goals that is really important because the internet is supporting the achievement of these goals. And if you look at IDNs, for example, the acceptance, the universal acceptance of the multilingual internet needs other stakeholders as well. And it’s not just ICANN, it’s not even just the internet governance ecosystem. We need other stakeholders, more of the governments, more of the academia, more of the industry and civil society around the world to make this work. So that’s, in my mind, what is, I guess, beautiful about this model. And Veni started the open the discussion by saying, what are some of the tenants? Well, multi-stakeholder model is of course one of them, but there is a little bit more. So what is in the multi-stakeholder model is also important. And I will highlight two of them that I believe are important tenants. One is the bottom-up agenda setting. And that’s what ICANN is about. That’s what 25 years ago, I was able to step into the mic and speak about. That’s what the IGF here embraces as well, the bottom-up agenda setting, the setting of the program, the MAG and the workshops. The other thing is consensus-based and rough consensus. And I think both Leon and Danko mentioned it, not necessarily always be on the side of the consensus. Sometimes you would be on the side of the rough, right? For the first 10 years, I have been struggling to get anyone being interested in IDNs to, and it took time for the technology and policy to develop. So those two things are equally important, I think, as part of the ecosystem. So finally, I wanted to touch on one thing. There are attacks to the system. There are attacks to ICANN. There are attacks to this global multi-stakeholder model. And for example, that it’s being slow, that things aren’t getting done. I think it’s the time it takes to develop a global consensus on global policies need time. But that doesn’t mean there are not situations that almost borders into filibustering, right? I mean, there are those cases. And that’s why we need to continue to improve. Is it fully democratic? No. Is it a representative democracy? No, but it is a more deliberative, it is a more liquid kind of democracy, but we need to continuously improve it. And at the GNSO at ICANN, you would hear that the policy development process is now in 3.0. What that means is that over the last 20 years, it has been updated three times. So that’s an important part of the multi-stakeholder model, I think. And finally, I wanna say, I very much believe that a noisy ICANN is a healthy ICANN. That being said, for those who wanna challenge this system, and those who wanna really sort of extinguish this open and bottom-up and consensus-based approach, we also need to develop protection mechanisms. And I think ICANN has developed some of it. And then I think also the internet institutions are going through processes to improve that because we need these inoculation mechanisms to built into it so that the multi-stakeholder model can continue to thrive. So for those who wanna come and challenge, I would challenge them to come and participate and change ICANN, but also be warned that we do have these inoculation mechanisms to repel those who intend to kill the multi-stakeholder bottom-up consensus-based mode. So I guess this is what defines ICANN in my mind and why I love it. And the internet governance ecosystem has really proven its resilience and value to humanity. And let’s build it better.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks a lot. I don’t know, Sally, if you wanna step in a little bit on that question. Or if not, I have another one for you, but let me see what you think.

Sally Costerton:
I’m happy to take a slide. Why don’t we go to the next question, Veni?

Veni Markovski:
Unless anybody, I mean, I think there is- There is a question in the room, yeah. Yeah. Can you just introduce yourself?

Audience:
Yes, I’m Varun Dhanapala from Sri Lanka, government of Sri Lanka and one time GAC alternate member. So just to add to the colleagues, so there are a lot of argument of this model, multi-stakeholder model and all these things. I was actually new to this ICANN business. My colleague, Jayanthi Fernandes, introduced me and then I went for an orientation session in Kathmandu. Then only I realized what it really is and engaged with various stakeholders, but we could build trust in this model. So there is a, I attended a couple of sessions, one of the AGMs in maybe Montreal or Barcelona, and there are some arguments with the, it is, whether there’s a competition between IGF and ICANN and I see it rather complimentary rather than competitive. So there’s a lot of give and take things from the state-driven or multi-stakeholder approaches. So that’s what I got and I also, having a diplomat head in New York, I think we could host one of the events for ICANN by the Srilanka Mission in New York for various nation states to give some light on what ICANN is doing in New York. So I think when it compares to many of the infrastructure, I think the internet has a wide outreach and there should be a real strength should be harnessed through all these aspects. That’s my comment and to this, thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, thank you very much. So Sally, we were talking, I think Edmund mentioned about the resiliency and how the service is working. So the DNS is providing uninterrupted service, which illustrates its reliability and connectivity. How do you think the multi-stakeholder model contributed to maintaining this level of resiliency and do you think this model actually is the one that helped the internet?

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Veni. Yes, it’s the short answer to the last part of your question, but let me explain a little bit about how I think that works. Well, I think probably everybody maybe in this room understands this, but I think it merits repeating that it is not, part of ICANN’s mission is to serve the global public interest. So the maintenance, the mandate to ensure the stable, secure and resilient and open DNS is how we do that. That is what we are actually delivering to the internet users of the world. And you may say, well, why does that matter? Well, because every time any of us go online, whatever device you’re using, you are, or whatever type of network you’re connected to or wherever you are in the world, you’re going to touch something that originates from ICANN. And those, that takes the form of the unique identifiers, particularly the domain name system identifiers that enable internet users to connect to each other. So at its simplest level, if you type ICANN.org into a browser, that system ensures that you can end up on the right site. And we make that work at a technical level. Do it in coordination with partners in the technical ecosystem. And we are not a political organization. So it’s ICANN, it is different groups of people from many diverse communities, as many people have referred to already this morning, performing that mission and doing it using a bottom-up process that uses consensus. And what that means is that when those policies are developed, in my experience at ICANN, and I think what ICANN has brought to the world in the last 25 years, it’s our 25th anniversary this year, is sustainable policy, because it has the hands of so many people over it. The consensus model is so critical because diversity means people come to ICANN and they don’t agree. They may come from many different points of view in the analog world where they have different ways of doing things. But when it comes to making the policy and coordinating the identifiers that deliver this service to the world, this critical service that keeps the internet open and functioning and always on, they do it using this consensus model where you come into ICANN and you agree that you will find a way forward. And that policy will then have the stamp of agreement and approval and support of the multi-stakeholder community that represents the world’s internet users at ICANN. And that is, as Edmund said, and he’s right, sometimes that process can take quite a long time because to get people to agree to something that is sustainable and that works and that contribute to that critical infrastructure that we all rely on so much, you can’t rush these things. They have to work. They have to work technically. They have to work between all the stakeholders that use the internet. And in order to do that, we have to do one thing that maybe we haven’t talked about yet today, but I want to stress it. And that is we have to build trust. And trust is built between people one-to-one, structures as in organizational groups, organizations, countries, governments, and we all have to have that climate of trust, that ability to trust that we are going to do what we said we were going to do every second, every minute, every day, every hour, wherever internet users are in the world. And the power of the internet comes from the fact that it is a single interoperable system, which is accessible globally and locally, such that one of the, that great strength that we deliver that all the time can sometimes be challenging because it looks so easy. It can look to people that don’t understand how it works like it’s just there. It’s just always there, if you like, like a magic trick. But the reality is, as Tripti said in her comments, that to focus on that part of the internet, we need an internet governance structure as we work so closely today with the MAG, with the IGF, and have done for the whole of the period of this, the time ICANN has been in existence, that the aspects of internet governance around content are outside our remit. So when we are working, we’re working around our mission, around the governance of specifically the technical infrastructure layer. And I think that level of focus has been an incredibly important part of ICANN’s ability to deliver that success over the years. And finally, I just wanted to say, is that one of the key elements we have to focus on, I’ve been very involved in this in the time I’ve been working in this organisation, we have to keep bringing new people in. The world is changing constantly. The internet is an increasingly important element and aspect and driver of that change. And in order to do that, we have to keep widening the net. We need to keep bringing new users into ICANN and we need to help them with capacity development tools and with working together to come into our world, like Edmund said, to show up, to feel welcome, to feel heard, to feel equal, to feel empowered, so that they can make meaningful contributions. I hope that’s helpful, thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Very helpful, thank you. Before I see a couple of hands, but I would just want to make sure if somebody, okay. Oh, Edmund wants, oh, you know. Okay, go ahead. Sebastian was first, I think. Can you? Yeah, there is a microphone, but it’s okay. All right, Steve Del Bianco. I know, you can argue who’s gonna first.

Audience:
Steve Del Bianco with NetChoice and we’re halfway through this session and thus far, the audience to which the message has been directed would be an audience of multi-stakeholders who don’t really have any experience with ICANN. To that extent, it’s been normative and aspirational about how welcome it is to have a voice. I think that’s appropriate to bring people into the consideration of trying ICANN. But at least half of our audience at an IGF, the 17th IGF, are people that have been working within ICANN, as I have for 20 years. That audience realizes that having a voice is not the same thing as having influence and that audience might regard with some skepticism the ease with which having a voice affects outcomes. We actually have a good story to tell to that second audience and our story would be how business, government, and civil society, if they do more than exercise a voice, if they actually show up and participate, can, over time, begin to nudge and change policies. Giving examples that will affect the thinking that will go on, the debate that will go on in governments and the General Assembly over the next two years. Some of that audience experienced ICANN and we need to remind them how governments, through the GAC, have a special form of influence at ICANN, how we engineered their special role through the transition, how governments affect the way ICANN moves and has a huge role on the new GTLD program. Civil society, we want to remind them that, over a decade of effort, they did have a significant nudge to the way ICANN handled the publication of WHOIS data and the new policies that emerged. And in the business community, the story’s a little more muddled because different parts of the business community see ICANN in a different way, but all are able to influence policy, but only by participation. I really believe you oversell, you oversell the value of, oh, having a voice, giving a speech and an open microphone. That is not gonna ring true and effective for the audience that will decide the degree to which governments will accommodate ICANN’s role in the vote the General Assembly takes in less than two years.

Veni Markovski:
For those of you who are wondering what this vote is in two years, it’s the WSIS + 20 review, which many sessions here actually have touched on that. Sebastien.

Audience:
Thank you, Sebastien Bachelet. I wanted to come back to a few positive things and maybe some less positive on ICANN. The first is that, yes, it is participation. And ICANN, it’s the only multi-stakeholder organization who support participation to some of the people. I will just take one example. During the pandemic, ICANN decide to help people to be connected to internet, to participate to the meeting of ICANN in some country where it was expensive, difficult. And there are many other example. I don’t want to take too long on that. But for me, it’s one of the, it’s the only organization doing that. Therefore, it’s important to put that on the table. I understand that you are happy with what ICANN is doing and we are happy with ICANN is doing. But I feel that we can bring new people, yes, but we need also old timers. And we can’t say one and not the other. The diversity, it’s important. We can’t have people just, okay, let’s have everybody out and put new people. We need to have this diversity. It’s also important to continue to have more and more diversity of age, diversity of language. background and so on and so forth. But I really feel that after 25 years and more than 20 years of the last real reorganization of ICANN, it’s time to sit down and to think about that. Yes, I know there are pressing issues, the next round of TLD, the RDAP, and so on and so forth. But if we don’t sit down now, and I say now, to discuss how we can evolve ICANN to shorten the time of decision. Yes, we need time, but maybe we don’t need so much time. With 20 years, more than 20 years, we are discussing on that. It’s sometime we need to find a way to have decision-making, maybe a little bit different. Yes, maybe it will be to take out to some bodies as a final decision, maybe to rebalance the things was done after the transition. But if we don’t sit down now, I am in trouble for the future. Yes, we are doing very good things and yes, ICANN is essential and the way ICANN is working, it’s very good, but we can do better. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
To address Steve’s comments, you’re absolutely right that it’s one thing to say we are open and you know anyone, but participation is important. One thing that is coming out of literally like last week, I’m already lost what days today, is that with regards to the governments, because I know you understand the importance of them participating and ICANN not just having a voice, is that there will be a high-level governmental meeting in Rwanda on June 9th and we’ve already used the opportunity in our meetings here with government officials to invite them and there are some commitments already of people to come. There will be some official announcement coming at the ICANN Hamburg meeting, but it’s important we, as important as the other stakeholders participation or maybe even more so because of the process that you mentioned, the WSIS plus 20 and the global digital compact which is next year. So we are not happy about the fact that you know it’s an open microphone, anybody can speak, but we are happy that governments actually we see now with Rwanda taking the lead you know to host a high-level governmental meeting and with the conversations that we had here and the bilaterals that I have in the last several months, there is I would say a new commitment by governments to participate, not just to have the right to participate. So we’ll see, you know, they make promises, we’ll see how it goes. Do we have any questions online or no? I don’t know if Sally, do you have any comments?

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Veni. I absolutely agree with what Steve and Sebastian said about participation, meaningful participation and that requires an empowered stakeholders who are equipped with the right skills and knowledge and confidence. So people skills, individual skills, as well as the knowledge that they need, the subject matter, the knowledge that they need to contribute. Because Steve’s right, the purpose is to is to create sustainable policy and to have an influence on that and to make sure that it’s done through the voices of many and not few.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks, Sally. We have several comments here, go ahead.

Audience:
Thanks, Jonathan Zuck from the Innovators Network Foundation and I’m currently serve as the chair of the ALAC which is the part of the ICANN community that’s endeavors to represent the interests of individual and users. But just speaking for myself and talking about ICANN generally, it’s interesting what Sebastian said that it’s we’re good but we could be better and I suspect that no matter what we do that will always be the description of ICANN, right? There’s that song Imperfectly Perfect or Perfectly Imperfect or whatever it is, right? And that’s going to be the answer. When Jordan Carter yesterday asked people to raise their hand if you thought that internet governance is perfect, I raised my hand. He didn’t see me thankfully because it might have led to an extended conversation. But the truth of the matter is it doesn’t mean that if you have a perfect system you’re gonna have perfect outcomes or anything like that. It just means that you have a system that has the capacity to evolve, that has the capacity to deal with change, etc. But one thing I feel like I’ve been talking about for about 20 years that I think is a challenge much more so than the structure of ICANN is the ability to involve people periodically. Because there’s a lot of people out there in this sort of internet community that have specific areas of expertise but don’t have a general interest in devoting their life to the work of ICANN. And we sort of create this binary that says okay you can come participate and as Steve says you can influence things and Steve’s managed to influence things with just participating for 20 years in the ICANN process. And I think we really need to find a way to, and this was part of the GNSS efforts with PDP 3.0, was to find a way to make the efforts more granular so that I’m asking smaller questions, I’m packaging them in a way that people that have domain expertise can participate for the duration of that small conversation and go back to their regular life. I mean we don’t want twice as many people twice as many lifers that ICANN but we want more voices when they matter, when they count them, when that expertise can be brought to bear. And I think that’s something we should really focus on doing is helping people with periodic participation.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks. I think I mean Tripti has a short comment.

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you Jonathan. Thank you Sebastian. I just want to remind everyone this is not an ICANN meeting. And point well taken but this is about the multi-stakeholder model and how we can sharpen that model and contribute towards the United Nations SDGs and so forth. So just just to remind everyone this is not an ICANN meeting. But I’m glad that you’re interchanging it, getting it confused with IGF and multi-stakeholder when I can. So at least it means that we’re on solid footing when it comes to multi-stakeholderism.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks Tripti. I think Edmund, who is first?

Edmon Chung:
I can quickly because I think it adds on to what Tripti said. I think this is a great demonstration of a noisy ICANN that I think is a healthy ICANN. So but I did want to highlight one of the things that that yes I agree the the evolution of the system is is very important. But one of the things that that I want to highlight on the resilience it is this thing this type of argument that that that supports the resilience of the governance system as well and not counting on full agreement. That’s the the beauty of rough consensus right. But in terms of rough consensus there’s also a nugget where we do agree. We agree enough to continue to work together and not go out and do something else. And I think that is equally important. And that is the the nugget of rough consensus that that’s what maintains one Internet unfragmented. And then you know that’s that’s the one thing that I wanted to add.

Audience:
My name is Werner Staub. I’m also part of the that half of the audience was attending ICANN meetings on a regular basis. And in the context of how we should organize the multi-stakeholder process of ICANN we can actually look back on 20 years of experience and see successes and one enormous failure. And that only enormous failure is the fact that if you have this pyramid of multi-stakeholderism focusing on the top which is the ICANN itself you know the it’s it’s it’s a it’s governance structure. It fails to interact with other processes that produce useful things that would actually be very much necessary for the community that ICANN is supposed to serve. And that community is not the domain holders. That community is the end-users of the Internet. And specifically I can give a couple of examples of other processes. They’re even kind of not so represented in in this IGF but they’re really key to it. One of them is the CA browser forum. We have a lack of interaction with that organization which is critical form for most of stuff that affect the users of what ICANN ultimately outputs. Secondly we have the Financial Stability Board which finally took action about identification of legal entities worldwide. And compare that to ICANN’s conclusion that it was unable to distinguish effectively between organizations and natural persons. It beggars belief that we had that result simply because we’re looking for a solution inside of this pyramid when actually the solution comes from from somewhere else. And finally we’ve got another example which is the identity forums. You know there’s a number of there’s a number of initiatives around there. The Decentralized Identity Foundation and so on. All these they would need some interaction but we cannot organize this you know with just some of the stakeholders going there. It needs some interaction from the top of ICANN as well.

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you. Once again just a response to your comment. You’re talking using ICANN as an example again but the takeaway from your comment is that regardless of what multi-stakeholder model we use whether it’s for the IGF or for ICANN or any other body let’s make sure that we look outside of our own system. And good point well taken. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks and I want to bring Sally again in the conversation because I think it goes along with a couple of the comments we heard. So my next question is how to ensure that this multi-stakeholder approach is inclusive yet representative which is something that Steve was talking about. And particularly of underrepresented groups and regions. And what is the role of capacity building that and how ICANN is engaging to expand and to bring new people. So Sally do you want to comment on that?

Sally Costerton:
Thanks Vani yes it’s essential and right as Tripti said not just within ICANN but right across the internet ecosystem. We’ve done we’ve done an enormous amount of work on bringing in newcomers of all different types to ICANN. Now what we discovered early on and I’ve been at ICANN about 11 years and during this time we discover this and I know that our colleagues at ISOC and in the RIRs and right across the the system have the same challenge that as Jonathan said the first thing is you have to get people interested and that means they have to understand why what ICANN does affects them. People will not give up hundreds and hundreds of hours of their own time it’s a volunteer community to do something however important we may think it is until they understand why they think it’s important and so that’s that’s a critical hurdle that we have to get over as an internet community not just as an ICANN community and one of the things we have to do to do that effectively and this is an incredibly important part of the role of the IGF I think is to raise awareness of how the internet actually works and how those how people can come and be part of that and why it matters and how they have an influence and as those 10 years have gone on there’s been more of more interest in how the internet works more and more interest in the internet itself which is no surprise as the as the users have grown so very much and that means then we also have to bring people in and say here’s what you need to know. Now some people come to ICANN and they know they very well understand the content but they may not have the personal skills they may come from environments where they’re not trained in in the personal confidence skills and the time management skills chairing meetings participating in meetings and so forth and the work of drafting and editing that goes into policymaking which we see is again not just not just ICANN but in in many other groups that are involved in this. So the capacity building with what we mean is in what usually my definition of that would be is we’re giving people a skill so that they they can stand on their own feet this is sort of the teach a man to fish and teach a woman to fish idea. So much of the capacity building we do at ICANN around the world is about working with groups of people to help them to learn for themselves the skills that they need to to use that energy and ambition and excitement that they have to be part of it in a meaningful way so they are not just talking in a microphone they are participating in that policymaking process and we have to do that in multiple languages we have to do it in multiple time zones and we have to do it with different groups of of participants. So what students might need engineering students might need for example in Asia Pacific might be very different from what a new GAC rep might need in Latin America in South America or Latin America. So we do lots of different kinds of training capacity building we create a lot of different content in lots of different languages and some of that capacity building is very hands-on particularly our technical training so when people are putting in new infrastructure in their or in their countries and their organizations we do everything we can to help them to do that to make sure that they understand how to how to put in those things like DNSSEC for example security for the DNS they can do it effectively and they have the confidence to do that moving forward.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks Sally. Keith you’re giving priority here.

Audience:
Thank you very much Benny and hi everybody Keith Drezik I work for Verisign we are the registry operator for the .com and .net top level domains we operate two of the internet’s root servers and we perform the root zone maintainer function under a contract with ICANN and that may be well-known information to some of the ICANNers in the room but I’m sort of introducing myself in the company for those who may be following online maybe watching the recording later. I want to take this conversation perhaps up a level and back to the focus on ICANN’s role and the ICANN multi-stakeholder community’s role in supporting its mission its technical coordination mission of the IANA functions as well as in support of the SDGs. I think as we talk about this session the way that it was teed up it’s you know important to note that ICANN has a very important role at the technical layer of the internet it has a very important multi-stakeholder engagement in support of the development of policies that impact that technical layer of the internet and as we look at the SDGs there is no one that is you know a direct recipient of something specific that is coming out of the ICANN process but fundamentally what ICANN does in the coordination of that technical layer and of the IANA functions specifically the coordination of domain names of IP addresses of protocols that come out of the IETF is that what we do in a predictable manner in the ICANN space it creates stability security and resiliency for that technical layer that enables everything else to function in a predictable way for the work that needs to take place to deliver on the sustainable development goals it all in our interconnected world relies on the predictable stable secure and resilient operation of the DNS and I think it’s just critical to recognize that ICANN’s mission is a narrow one by necessity ICANN does it very well VeriSign has been delivering on our DNS uptime for ComNet and the root servers that we operate 100% uptime for more than 26 years we are able to do that because of the policies and because of the predictability that exists in the ICANN space in the management of the IANA functions our ability to do that and other registries and registrars and the service operators the RIRs we are able to do that because of that predictable nature but it’s really important to note that policies do need to evolve policies do need to change attackers and the DNS are getting more sophisticated they are evolving we need to evolve our policies accordingly and there’s probably another you know a range of more options or examples that I could provide but just you know to summarize I think we have very good engagement in a multi-stakeholder way in the ICANN space multi-stakeholder consensus building is really about compromise at the end of the day consensus building bottom-up consensus building in a multi-stakeholder fashion is about compromising but it needs to be done carefully and it needs to be done to ensure that predictability and secure stable resilient operation of the networks so thank you very much thank

Veni Markovski:
thank you this could have been actually a good fine final statement for the meeting but we still have time and we have people who raise their hands so first is Danko and then Leon.

Danko Jevtovic:
Thank you Kit I think this is a great introduction also to what I wanted to say so by celebrating the success of internet here probably we are talking so much about ICANN also because well it’s a lot of ICANNers here but we also celebrating 25th anniversary of ICANN here and I think this is part of this success story for the whole internet so inside the ICANN ecosystem we are coordinating those policies that enable this mid-layer to function and to be the fundamental for all the services and content and everything why the users are there but also as Sally explained it is our role to engage and to explain the technical consequences of possible legislations that are coming so in these discussions in the IJF I think it’s very important to contribute because we are walking towards the global digital compact we are walking towards voices plus 20 and for all of this technical community and things that are coordinating in the multi-stakeholder model well through ICANN and through IJF and for others it is important that we understand what are the consequences of the possible legislative processes and initiatives that are happening also in other fora and give our best help, assessment, expertise to be able to, for this great internet to continue for next 25 and 25 and more years after that and obviously to evolve to serve the needs of the end users of the people of the world and businesses. So I think this is very good explanation how actually the things work and it will continue to be helpful.

Leon Sanchez:
Thank you, so just as Tripti was reminding us that this is not an ICANN meeting, I’d like to take the conversation a little bit out of the realm of the ICANN world and try to remind us how the multi-stakeholder model and what it produces actually has been successful in forwarding or going forward or progressing at least two of the SDGs and I’m gonna center in SDG four, which is quality education and SDG 16, which deals with justice. And we could see the results of how the multi-stakeholder model delivered in progressing these two goals during the pandemic, right? If it hadn’t been because of the products made out of the multi-stakeholder model, children, a lot of children around the world, of course, didn’t have the benefits of having continuous education during the pandemic, that’s for sure. But those who were able to connect, those who had connectivity, they were able to continue having their lessons taught. They were able to continue learning. And that is another challenge of the multi-stakeholder model to connect the next users that are still not connected. So this is an effort that only, at least in my mind, only through a multi-stakeholder model of doing things we will be able to achieve. And that will also progress on the SDGs of equity, et cetera, et cetera. And in terms of justice, I know that this might not apply to all legal systems around the world, but at least I can tell you my experience being a practicing lawyer in Mexico. We’ve had legislation that established electronic means for filing, for litigating, et cetera, et cetera, for years, but they were never implemented because we didn’t need them. And as soon as the pandemic hit us, then all of a sudden, the courts, the different offices in government, et cetera, et cetera, they implemented this legislation that had been dormant for years. And we were able to continue litigating, we were able to continue filing all types of affairs in front of government offices because of the products that we produce in this multi-stakeholder model. Not only within ICANN, again, but through the different allies and the different bodies that conform the wider internet community, right? And I think one lesson that I’d like to convey or to share with those decision makers that might be listening to us is that we don’t necessarily need to legislate the internet because it’s already regulated, right? Because regulation regulates conduct. It doesn’t regulate means or media. So whatever we do in our physical world, it already has an equivalent conduct in the digital world. So whatever legislation we apply to the physical world, we can port that to the digital world. Of course, there might be gaps that we need to look at, but we should look at them in a very careful way and by all means through a multi-stakeholder approach because that will ensure that whatever legislation is crafted will take into account the interests of those who will be affected by those legislation. So again, I think porting this multi-stakeholder model not only to the internet community, but to a larger model like the representative democracy and turning it into a participative democracy would be the ultimate goal for us to prove that the multi-stakeholder model is fruitful.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks. I understand there are some comments online if you wanna read them.

Vera Major:
Yes, thank you, Benny. Can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you, Benny. You can hear me now? So we have several comments in the chat as well as a question which was answered in the chat, but I’d still like to read it out loud. First, Desiree Milosevic commented, I would like to highlight a really great recent development that ICANN in terms of diversity. ICANN has two women at the helm of ICANN, the board chair and the interim CEO, and many diverse members of the ICANN community in leadership positions. And there was a question for Morgan Rockwell. Is there a transparent report on how governments and military and intelligence agencies requested ICANN to interfere in internet traffic, IP designation, or any policy choices? Which was answered by Mikaela Nalon in the chat. ICANN published the letters they received and he provided the link. So for anyone who would like to see the link, please go to the Zoom room in the chat. And finally, an observation from our board member, Edmund Chung. There’s one specific SDG 9.1, develop quality, reliable and sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure to support economic development and human wellbeing with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all. That was it for now. Thank you, Vera.

Veni Markovski:
That kind of brings me, the whole conversation here brings me to the point where I wanna skip a couple of the questions I was having in mind, but go to the point that Steve was mentioning, which is the WSIS plus 20 process and to see like in the next two, three years, there are international and multilateral processes that have relation to ICANN’s mission. They’re happening at the UN, they’re happening at the ITU, they may be happening at the European Union level with different elections next year and different legislation. So I was wondering whether maybe Sally, cause we don’t see you here in the room, but I can see a little screen with you there. So on our screen, so maybe do you wanna take it from here and say how do you see ICANN’s role in the next couple of years vis-a-vis those international intergovernmental processes that in some of them we cannot participate because they are closed only for governments and in others, they try to open them with stakeholder consultations and stuff like that and to give you some background, two days ago, I believe, in one of the sessions, Jordan Carton, I believe, from Aude said that it’s enough with the consultation, we want to be involved. Now, within the UN General Assembly, we cannot be involved because the rules of procedure do not allow us to be involved. So consultation is the only path forward. But what do you think about these processes internationally and intergovernmentally that might impact ICANN’s mission?

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Vani. Yes, it’s an extremely critical topic for ICANN, for the world and for the internet as we go forward into the next two years of this discussion. And we are about to have our next meeting in Hamburg, our AGM, which will take place in a couple of weeks’ time. And I know from having seen the agenda and talked to many stakeholders that we will have a lot of discussion on this exact question you’re asking. So first thing I would say is I think we need to raise awareness of the importance of the discussion inside ICANN. Although it is not an ICANN process, clearly it is a process in which ICANN is very affected and is very involved. So everybody that participates in ICANN needs to increase their awareness about what it is, why it matters, and what they can do and what we should do as organisations and groups to contribute. It revolves around two fundamental objectives in terms of our position, I would say. The primary objective is to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance that was created 20 years ago. And I think there is a, certainly my view and I think view of many people in our ecosystem is that it is that multi-stakeholder model, that process that we’ve discussed a lot this morning in this discussion, that has delivered the success that we see from the internet today, which Leon referred to, many other people referred to the outcomes of what the internet has been able to deliver. And that extraordinary model at the centre of it that was created 20 years ago has been probably one of the most important contributory factors that has enabled that to happen. So maintaining that as we move forward with a dramatically expanded internet, as I said earlier on, and Edwin referred to, of many new participants with different languages, different scripts, different needs to participate, but that model needs to stay at the heart of it. And to achieve that objective, we’re dedicated to raising awareness, not just inside ICANN, but also awareness amongst the member states that will discuss this and all stakeholders by whom they will, who will also participate and who will also be very influential onto the member states that are involved. And that means sharing our knowledge about how the internet works, the consequences of unintended regulation, some of the topics we’ve talked about this morning, and going back to something Steve referred to earlier, and we have an ex-GAC member in the room, I know, the role of the Government Advisory Committee is such an important part of the way that ICANN works. It’s a very unusual setup. It’s extraordinarily, I think, an important part of ICANN and making sure that the GAC, the individual GAC members and the GAC as a group are fully equipped and fully empowered to participate in that discussion and that we’re maximizing the knowledge and access and relationships that the GAC members who come to ICANN have within their own countries and their own governments to increase the understanding of those governments in these critical issues. The final thing I’d say is that we have two specific, two aims for WSIS-20. Firstly, to increase the awareness of the global digital cooperation, the GDC, as you mentioned already, Bernie, and the review. And the second is, as I said earlier, to draw attention to the key issues within that review that have the potential to adversely affect the internet and adversely affect ICANN’s ability to deliver its mission in the successful way that it has for the last 25 years. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, Sally. Actually, on that point, with regards to the WSIS-20 process, this is one of the, ICANN is, I don’t know if it’s the only organization, but ICANN definitely has a goal, a CEO goal, which is about WSIS-20. So that shows commitment of not only the CEO, but the whole organization to make sure that we pay attention, we raise awareness, we continue to provide technical, neutral information to governments around the world and in the United Nations so that when they go to those negotiations behind closed doors, we hope there will be enough knowledge there so that they are not going to propose stuff which we have seen in the previous discussions, especially in the WSIS plus 10 negotiations in 2015. So a lot of work needs to be done, but we are hopeful that we’ll continue to do that. Any comments on that question in the room online? No. So another question, though, related for me, then related to this one would be for you guys, the panelists, is to, do you think there is, I mean, we all hear about the proposals for creating a multilateral forum. There have been conversation here in the hallways whether this multilateral forum that it might be or may not be, we don’t know, created next year at the Summit of the Future and the Global Digital Compact, whether this could mean a replacement for the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, we are at the IGF and we heard a lot of public statements in support of the IGF, but I’m just wondering whether any of you want to, like, maybe even make a guess or, and then we can remind you two years in the, Steve is nodding no, want to make, doesn’t want to make a guess. Take bets. We can make a little bet, you know, a glass of water or something like that. Any, Edmund? Happy to add Edmund here.

Edmon Chung:
Well, I guess this is topic that is one of the hot topics around, you know, as I was discussing with different people here at the IGF. I think generally, at least, maybe it’s because I’m from ICANN and from, you know, supporting the IGF as it is, but I generally, I think here that the community thinks that the IGF needs improvement, but the IGF and the multi-stakeholder model that it takes actually can work better and will work better based on a multi-stakeholder model that can actually bring in different stakeholders. Yesterday, I was at the main session on sustainability and environment, and there’s a clear need to bring in other stakeholders, which is the, I guess, the benefit of a multi-stakeholder model versus another type of model, because then the changes might be much harder to make, and from that main session, at least my conclusion is that we need to take the discussion about internet governance in relation to sustainability and environment to the national and regional IGFs, which then comes back and inform the global IGF, and again, that is the multi-stakeholder model in action and how it would work that I think the IGF can build on and is kind of the right model to build further, and that’s sort of what I’m, at least I’m hearing from the community as well.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you. Yes, Danko.

Danko Jevtovic:
Thank you, Veni. Danko speaking. So I am happy to take possible criticism that I’m too optimistic here, but today is the last day of this great IGF meeting, and I was a MAG member from 2017 until 20, so Paris IGF, Berlin IGF, and a virtual Katowice IGF, and I think, first, I’m very grateful for the Japanese hosts here, but I think this is great IGF. It is getting better every year, and I think this is actually proof not only of the success of internet, as I’m often saying, obviously, but the proof that IGF is functioning and it is getting better, so I don’t, I see those discussions. I see that UN, as the organization of member states, has a certain point of view, but I don’t really see the need to change IGF or to create something in parallel to it. We need to discuss, we need to evolve, and we want to strengthen the IGF, but I think this year is a great success, and I think it should be celebrated by striving to get better and better IGFs, but using that as leverage to create a better internet and to work on the sustainable development goals.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, Danko. Keith? Okay, thank you, Veni.

Audience:
Thanks again, Keith Drezic, Verisign. So I’d like to build on a bit of what Danko and Edmund just said. I think as it relates to IGF, Verisign has been a longtime supporter of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder engagement, very important. So I think we think of multi-stakeholder internet governance, there’s a macro level, right? There’s the big picture where it’s very, very important that stakeholders have a voice in the development of policy and the development of governance structures. I think that’s all very important and critical at a macro level, but I think in order to have the internet governance forum be relevant and to encourage participation, and as Danko said, we’ve seen tremendous participation here at this IGF meeting in Kyoto. Which I think is really positive, but I think it’s important to be able to identify specific issues and specific topics that need focus and that need contribution and need dialogue and discussion. And I’ll give you an example just from this week. So the Dynamic Coalition on DNS Issues was originally established, I wanna say six years ago, and its focus at that time time was on universal acceptance issues, IDNs, but universal acceptance in general. And then during the pandemic, it sort of went dormant. And obviously, there were the challenges of lack of in-person participation, but the group sort of went quiet. And we have just re-energized, re-established the dynamic coalition on DNS issues. It’s now we were able to get a dynamic coalition session here in Kyoto. And that session was focused on the governance gaps as it relates to the DNS. As was noted earlier, ICANN’s role is very limited. It’s limited to primarily a technical function. And it is clearly not in the content arena. ICANN’s bylaws prohibit it from, it and its contracted parties and others in various ways, from engaging in content moderation. So one of the governance gaps that we’ve identified is, how do we have policy development in a multi-stakeholder way, or even just dialogue and development of best practices in a multi-stakeholder way on content-related harms or content-related matters? So we’re starting this dialogue in a parallel multi-stakeholder track outside of ICANN, but within the Internet Governance Forum context. This is just beginning. I think there’s an opportunity there for a range of views and voices to contribute to that effort. And so, again, just to summarize, macro internet governance, multi-stakeholder IGF, really important. But I think the micro issues, where you get into the more concrete details, will generate more participation, more contribution, and more engagement. Thanks.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you. I want to use the fact to have somebody from DESA here and talk a little one comment on the IGF, which is, I mean, we hear a lot about the IGF. It’s a place for discussion. Actually, the WSIS Tunis agenda in the paragraphs that establish and define what the IGF is, it actually says that the IGF can provide recommendations on new technologies. So I mean, I was thinking, listening to the Secretary General in the last few months, he says, you know, we need an AI agency because AI is dangerous, et cetera, et cetera. This is one thing that the IGF could also do. There could be sessions on AI, and there could be some recommendations expressed by the IGF. So there are still unused opportunities of the IGF. I think that we need to go back and reread the document, the WSIS Tunis agenda, and the WSIS plus 10 outcome document, and maybe provide some feedback to the governments in New York and our national governments, and tell them, hey, you can use the WSIS plus 20, actually, to improve the IGF. And also, you can urge the IGF to be more contributing into what we are going to say. You don’t need to comment, but you have the microphone.

Audience:
Yeah, I do. This is why I’m walking around. But I think you have pretty much stated the lines. But I just like to also, on the record, if you revisit the Secretary General message for the opening of this IGF, I think that that is actually a very big compliment about the IGF, how it has demonstrated in the past 18 years of the multi-stakeholder model. The question in context is actually whether there need to be a separate body on AI. So right now, the approach of the Secretary General is of a high-level advisory body. That doesn’t mean that there will be a high AI advisory board, high-level advisory to him in giving recommendation. So that does not stop IGF from giving recommendations. As a matter of fact, one of the themes of this IGF is on AI. So hopefully, we will have significant or good enough key messages that will talk about what will be the AI, the trends, or the recommendations, or anything for that matter. But having said that, I think for the remaining two years, this is still a possibility for the IGF to reinvent, because that will also be demonstrative of how, during the review in 2025, about what specific impact. And that also relate to the future mandate of the IGF. So I think it’s important. And as a staff member, I heard many compliments about the relevance of IGF. And there’s no need for other bodies. But I think it’s also within this room or this hall, we do have to look at what are the views of those who still think that what are the sort of gaps that IGF ends up being able to fulfill. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Back to you. Thank you. I don’t know if there are any comments. There are no comments online, right? OK. So Sally, we are coming to the end of this session. I wanted to see whether you have some final remarks of what you’re thinking about this whole discussion that we had here. And then I’ll pass it to Tripti for the final comments.

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Veni. I want to thank everybody for coming together at the IGF meeting, for having the energy, the focus, the commitment, and the passion to continue to focus on these critical issues that we’ve been discussing today, and for helping ICANN to continue to raise awareness of the issues that are so, so important as we move through these next couple of years, which we’ve been discussing, particularly in the second half of this meeting. So any of you who are coming to Hamburg to our meeting, I look forward to seeing you there, either online or in person. And in meanwhile, if there is anything that anybody would like to raise with us, with ICANN, that we’ve discussed this morning, we have plenty of ways of communicating with us. Please do that. And thank you very much for your participation this morning. It’s been really a very, very important discussion.

Veni Markovski:
And thank you, Sally, for staying with us. We understand what the time is in the UK. So thanks a lot. Really appreciate it. Tripti?

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you, Veni. So thank you, everyone, for the discussion. I was reflecting on how I’ve come to realize that ICANN is a synonym for the MSM and the IGF. And so I take that as a compliment that our discussion kept going back to ICANN. I think it’s being used more as a model of a multi-stakeholder model that it’s functioning. And as you pointed out, Steve, you’re saying let’s not just have a voice. Let’s be influencers. Let’s move the needle on issues. And we need greater engagement, just more proaction in how we actually bring about change and effect change. And as you were saying, the other gentleman, that oftentimes the solution may exist outside of the perimeters of whatever system we’re working within. And you’re absolutely right. And to me, the gap that that addresses is that perhaps we don’t have everyone inside. We need more stakeholders. And we should go seek them. And that is a point that has come up in the discussions this week here, which is what’s missing at the IGF? And who’s not at the table? And let’s bring them in. And I think that applies to any model of MSM. And no model is perfect, Jonathan. But I think we’re doing quite well. And if I could end on one note, which is in many ways, this is a democracy, if you will, at a high level of abstraction. This is a democracy where you’re trying to bring everyone’s voice and influence to play. And if we’re moving towards multilateralism, I’d say, sadly, the old truism that democracy dies in darkness, that is indeed what will happen. You take away some very important players and you begin to create instability and destabilize the system. So on that note, I’d like to say, let’s just chisel away and make this a better system. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, Tripti. Thank you, everyone, for coming. I understand it’s the last day. So it’s kind of a, you know, you’re looking forward to leave the venue. But thanks again for coming. And thank you, Vera, for the online support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You too, let’s see next. Oh, that’s okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.