 The usual way to frame the ITU Wicked process is to call it the UN takeover of the Internet. But what that type of characterization does is it leaves us out of all the details. Any regulation, either national or international, is directed at someone. So the question to ask is, at the end of the wicked process, whose behavior will be regulated? The second question to ask is, what area of their lives or behavior will be regulated? Will the regulation focus on security? Will it focus on intellectual property? Will it focus on speech regulation, etc.? Making broad meta-arguments saying that the process isn't multi-stakeholder enough or the process doesn't represent the views of civil society sufficiently or the process won't represent the views of developing countries adequately. Those are broad meta-arguments, very difficult for anyone to take them seriously or to weigh their consequences accurately. The Indian government's position on Internet governance, one could say, isn't sufficiently thought through and hasn't been arrived upon after consulting all relevant stakeholders. And that is perhaps the reason why the Indian government has made a variety of mistakes in arriving at an enlightened position. And there seems to be, of late, a change in heart. And they are much more welcoming of civil society input and also a variety of stakeholders within India are getting their act together. For the first time this year, we have held an Internet Governance Forum at the national level and hopefully this dialogue that has been initiated will continue and evidence-based policy positions will be agreed upon and negotiated and will inform both national policy and the position that India takes at international fora. The American dominance over the Internet is a historical reality and it's not just the Internet. America takes foreign policy very, very seriously. So whichever international fora you go to, whether it's WIPO or the WHO or any other forum like that, you will find that the American delegation is usually the largest delegation. So to fault the US government for being proactive and for taking international law seriously would be a completely undeserved criticism. I think the most positive change will be to the process and to the overall philosophy at the International Telecommunication Union. The pressure from civil society groups has already forced the ITU to be much more welcoming of different types of input to be a lot more transparent, though still not as transparent as we would want them to be. The second benefit that I see surprisingly will emerge from controversial proposals like the ECNO proposal. Not that we should take that proposal on board, but it is clear that if one were to answer questions like that or attempt to address the problem statement that is raised in that proposal, that we need much more transparency about ISPs and telcos and their peer ring and transit arrangements and that would necessarily be a good thing because it would protect competition. So overall greater transparency at the International Telecommunication Union and greater transparency in the markets that this union is regulating would be the positive outcomes that we should expect from this meeting.