 My name is Johan Suley, I work for Arsicops, a law firm here in Dublin, and my question is whether it's a multi-stakeholder model. Isn't that perceived by some countries as being a very much Western valued model? And for example, I saw certain countries like Saudi Arabia review, other countries would definitely prefer I think a model that allows them to control much more what is being said on the internet and therefore go against the idea of this free internet that has been encouraged by the United States, also the European Union and generally Western countries. I thought you were going to say France there was a story. That was a very close system. You've answered the question I think already because you've mentioned a good example. I think there are countries in the world that certainly think that this is a Western model and especially because of this transition there's a lot of articles out there that say well this is all an American model and even if the US government leaves they leave a model which is inherently favouring US business. And I think that's obviously I think this is wrong and I think it's not shared by everyone. If you look around the world there's actually some countries that completely embrace this model. So you can think about countries like South Africa where for instance they've got a lot of multi-stakeholder models they probably don't call them that because they are rooted in consultations with local tribal type setups. Or Brazil is a very interesting one because Brazil during the World Summit on Information Society was one of the main proponents of taking this governance of the internet into the UN and they evolved a lot in large part because a few years before that I think they set up their own multi-stakeholder model at Brazilian level something called CGI.br who I think manage.br but they also have a role as an NGO to very gather consumer associations, NGOs, academics, telecom regulators, the ministry, business because I can't remember number of representatives now but they're representative of the whole spectrum and they have two or three tasks. One is to basically help develop internet policies at home and the other is to promote local content in Brazilian Portuguese. An interesting thing with internet policy is that it's gone so far that they developed legislation and so they passed a major piece of legislation called Marco Civil that was actually signed during that then Mujer conference last year but it was actually drafted by this multi-stakeholder setup and then went for parliament of course and was adopted and I think we've got too many changes by parliament so you can still have this mix between the traditional democratic process but policies and draft bills basically which are developed by the multi-stakeholder model and we were just saying before you know as a civil servant I love this multi-stakeholder, I'm a former civil servant because I can float ideas with the community and I will know whether it makes sense or creates many problems and if we can all agree by consensus then this is a good idea and we know it's going to be implemented far more easily so I think it makes for better regulation generally so I think it works well so yes there are countries that still think that this is a Western dominated model but I think it's a realization that it doesn't have to be and in fact the key to it not being a Western dominated model is simply to increase participation and that's actually my day job which is my job is global stakeholder engagement my long-term goal is to increase the numbers of European stakeholders that take part in ICA that's why I would very much invite you all to come I can do a separate presentation over there on how I can work how you can have an impact where it's relevant for you there's a lot of lawyers already so we can have others but you know, not just lawyers but yeah, thank you very much My name is William Thaden, I am a member of this institute also a fellow member of ICA just to follow on from that my business comes regularly in Qatar next door to Saudi Arabia and the first time I came to see me I knew your name the first time I came to see me I knew Americans in the background and we were reluctant to engage so we get some thoughts and about a year later a guy who was an Egyptian guy who was organizing the regional thing they came back with what was looking more like a multi-stakeholder model and the Qatarists immediately engaged with and now they're very enthusiastic enthusiastically involved in ICANN ICANN regional matters that was the key to it, because the old model now I hope that when you make the final step hopefully it will be a program declaration that's because you must be able to see this this thing happening as you build the multi-stakeholder model this acceptance my question though, however, I just want to add the information to say the moment you mentioned Saudi because I was next door and down to, you said because there's only one of each domain there the area which, and I don't know what the possibilities are because we're talking millions and billions here is email a friend of mine had his email hijacked about a month ago okay is there any way at all that you're knowledge in your background that we can start working towards that email can become a personal possession that can be protected because I had to ask him this is a senior person who used to work in UAE he's going to tell me the whole story about how his email got hijacked but is there any way of protecting something which affects the individual rather than the business and if there's a massive amount of that hijacking of email they can't go out there so maybe I'd love to hear your thoughts I'm not so sure it's I mean it could be discussed within ICANN but I don't think it's just an ICANN issue I know it's been discussed before I've heard that before as to whether you can sort of have your email for life in theory you can just as an example, not in theory, you can in the sense that for instance you can buy a dedicated domain with your name on so for instance you could have Fagan.com and then you can have email at fagan.com as long as you continue to buy your domain name it will be always attached to you so that doesn't have to be no domain name these days, it's a few euros depending on what you choose barrygroves.com, 19 euro a year 19? 19 with the registrar I know it's been discussed in privacy discussions in terms of whether you could consider an email address personal information so I know there's been a lot of song discussions about it you know, that's an interesting I need to check it could be that something could be done within the ICANN set up and certainly someone like you could come around the table and say I want to start a discussion on this that's unfortunately how it works it's very open yeah, I'll talk to my friend on Thursday come back to us thanks Ken O'Brien is running for comrade local communications regulator so I suppose we're a participant in the net neutrality debate that's going on through Burke at the moment and the council of ministers is debating all the things out of the net neutrality just one question where would you draw the line of allowing specialized services differentiated services compared to general connectivity so taking off my ICANN hat is trying to do it as a personal individual with a bit of background in issue so interesting thing is to define specialized services the way I try to think about it is for instance I've got cable at home they've offered me video on demand for ages and they do deliver it concurrently to my open internet access and there's never an issue that the stream that delivers the specialized service for instance the video you know plays against the delivery of my open internet service it never has a negative impact on it so I don't have a problem with it I don't think anyone would have a problem with it whether it's a user or an internet company or other so I think it can actually completely coexist but what you need to make sure of is basically that you don't have a negative impact now the way that it's been drafted in parliament was 95% right but they at the last minute they added some crazy wording just about strict admissions controls etc which is just too complex so I know why it's creating problems in council I do think you just need a distinction between the two and they can coexist I don't think there's a big problem between the two where it becomes a problem is if you have a wording that is put together in a way where as a telecom operator you could mask a product as a specialized service which is in fact an internet minus which is what has been happening for years where basically they say ah you can have great internet connection but it's not internet because they forbid you to use VoIP and they forbid you to use whatever they don't like that competes against their own services and they could do that on a specialized service oh no it's not internet it's a specialized service which means it's everything we like and that would have a negative impact so I think that's the key it's maintaining a separation between the two and it doesn't allow for the specialized services to be an escape route that will allow frotling or blocking of services because it could really happen I hope that helps simple question how is ICANN funded? I don't know actually your colleague Miquela Nailon knows it so it's funded by both the registries and the registrants in short there's a small percentage of the cost of buying a website or a domain not a website that goes back to us so I think it's something like 19 cents for every domain so it's it's not the American government the contract between us and the US government is a zero sum contract yeah one question can I ask one question I remember I was asked the standards organization I remember in the city west in Dublin 5-6 years ago there was a meeting in Dublin similar and it's an amazing event to see there was 4,000 techies in the room working on the standards and working in a collaborative way how do you accepting that the American government contract ends and a new kind of more statutory almost not statutory but kind of organized that new governance structure with the continuing what's already happened with multi-stakeholder but that continues how do you see the collaboration with the standard side evolving how does that work because often what you're trying to do sometimes on the registry side it's affected by what's happening on the standard side and vice versa how does that collaboration continue so you have already in built in the ICANN structure you have a presentation from the standards bodies so the ITF the Internet Engineering Task Force which is probably the main standards body for internet issues which is probably the one you're referring to they have a position on the board of ICANN statutory so it's kind of the chair of ITF I think currently the chair of ITF was a Finn who works for Ericsson, Yari Ako so he is there, he advises so he's able to do the liaison and so actually we're developing this on that standard Mac Clash or whatever plus in practice you have a lot of the people that take part in the ITF that might be members of some of the committees usually the security committees or technical committees on ICANN so you have a lot of read across the board that's a technical liaison group that's for the other standards bodies such as the World Wide Web Consolidation which does the website level standards so there's always there's always means of coordination and liaison between those groups so I mentioned earlier that the Internet Governance Internet Governance is an ecosystem or collaborative and for many of those parts there is some sort of formal liaison that exists certainly in our world for the basic functioning of the Internet there is in built liaison between those bodies so if we talk about the INF function for instance when you have the I mentioned the protocol parameters so the protocol parameters are actually devised entirely within the ITF so they devise them as standards that's basically what it is it says you've got an audio format in an MP3 and then this is the way that an MP3 should be allowed by the Internet protocol and we'll just add that to the directory effectively as in a greed way of transporting or accepting that data so they devise it and they give an automatic instruction in two hours saying we've developed this new protocol parameter we've made an amendment to it please update your database to RiftLink that so it has in built liaison there one other question if I can just one and I recall that history sort of very start at that time I met you at that Internet conference also a pleasure meeting with surf and he said out on a napkin some of the history you described and showed and I had that napkin now at home in a frame it was very interesting and that opened and it was Department of Defence funded but not in the sense that it was a difficult it wasn't a defence project in that sense but looking back now one of the characteristics of that initial construction is that it did allow the level of surveillance that now is of such concern do you think or do you see I can taking a role or do you see some of the protocols or some of the basic infrastructure or the characteristics of the Internet changing to reflect concerns people have about surveillance remove that as a as a long-term threat to the viability of the trust people have so and certainly the loss of trust would affect us because it's trust in the overall Internet but the surveillance is not really done at our level as far as we know anyway so it's not the DNS the domain system as such that's thanks to just one layer above and at the level of infrastructure at least and we were supposed to have one of the key people working on this at the moment is Stephen Farrell who was supposed to be here today he's not, he's at Trinity College in the dark but it is in the real movements now standards are about starting to look at it so in the ITF Stephen has called a standard last year which was very much looking at that and saying we haven't fought mass surveillance when we were developing Internet standards because simply we weren't thinking about it but maybe now in the face of what's been happening what we should do is have inbuilt in standards mechanisms that should protect against mass surveillance so as a standard it obviously requires much more discussion and since there are open discussions and there will be governments in the room they might not like that and let's be fair I mean if we're talking about surveillance in EU law EU telecoms law, if you're a telecom provider you have to allow surveillance it's there, it's called legal intercept it's been there for as long as there has been a telecom's law and it's quite draconian in some EU jurisdictions I could say some examples in some countries in Europe where the security services have got an actual room that's dedicated to them at the central offices of telecom companies normally the security services have got a key to and they are able to interrogate any data that they want that goes through the pipes that's an EU country and that's under the telecoms law which follows the EU directives on telecoms so that discussion doesn't even need to go to the internet standards but I think it's a wider discussion that needs to be happening at parliamentary level frankly including European Parliament I mean you've got one side of the European Parliament actually is probably even the same sign we need to protect against my severance but that same side is saying well we need to make sure we have legal intercept and when I worked for internet companies and William knows that because he's seen some of my colleagues in the past people contacted us and said well you need to be regulated as a telecom company and believe me they were really interested about consumer protection and competition the number one thing that they asked and usually they would back off from any other demand if you said yes or I don't remember if you ever said yes but that was they wanted to intercept communications so it's a very complex question because it's the long standing not dilemma but balance to be had between privacy and security and that's a very fair balance to have we need to protect ourselves from the theft of our personal information some shape or form as much as we need to protect ourselves in our nations from security threats but there's a lot of confidence in the internet but it's a wider societal problem that politicians need to handle internet companies came out saying that there was a collective of the big American companies Microsoft, Apple, Google all co-signatories and they said it's all interesting this whole mass surveillance debate but we're just quoting crossfire it's for you governments to sort out an international level how you handle surveillance we can't be it's not for industry to resolve it it's for governments of course through the democratic process that's a question you've actually my name is Deirdre Feltway I'm also a lawyer I suppose I would be familiar with ICANN terms of saying people are challenging registration of domains in bad faith in this future resolution process ICANN actually acts as a convert for a resolution of disputes and that's very much in the IP space but now I think one of the biggest developments in the last few years in technology has been data, managing data controlling data, regulating data data protection and what I think you've addressed the tension between government players and perhaps those which are on the internet I do think that there's probably another role there to act in relation to those who do abuse data and use domain names in a way that I just wondered what the are there in terms of advancing corporate governance in that area I mean, hopefully I'm getting the full sense of your question I think the answer is yes which is that we have, for instance we're reviewing the so-called who is directory which is a directory that anyone can interrogate where basically you can find out who owns the website in short and so when you buy your website you have to enter your name and a few personal details and normally it's just to make sure that you can be contacted if there's a problem with your website or indeed for law enforcement agencies it's a way of being able to go after people that abuse either IP or other things could be counterfeit, could be any sorts of cyber crime, etc. So the discussion about reviewing this directory at the moment includes a lot of discussions about privacy because law enforcement which is very present in ICANN of course is saying and so is the IP lobby and saying look, we need to have as much data on owners of websites as possible and then you've got the registries and the registrars who are managing the domain names saying hold on, we've got to comply with for instance EU data protection laws which will stop us from doing all the stuff that you want and then we've got NGOs around the table saying hold on, this is all against freedom of speech privacy and this and that so you have discussions of that nature that are happening very much now I'm not sure if that addresses exactly your query but I'm trying to illustrate the sort of discussions that are happening so if it's in terms of again IP protection for instance or other types of consumer safeguards there's always discussions if there's a new type of problem that's connected to the domain name system or numbering in theory it can be brought up I'm more than happy to if you've got a specific one and I can look at it Thank you very much Nashak you've finished there I can conclude there were just three very simple short thoughts firstly I was just thinking that the institute here actually in some ways is a multi-stakeover sales order venue we have regulatory business, academic and well we're not provided maybe a further example of what is the benefit of multi-stakeover meeting places secondly I was very technically set as a former public servant the opportunity is such a approach for us to free you up as a public servant I was very excited recently last year at the launch of Code for Ireland I think it was a coding multi-stakeholder facility and I think particularly for people in the public service the ability to try things out to engage your people in a different way that you're going to get hammered if you make a mistake or things don't work I just thought for me with the most exciting aspect of it it could free up the public service to work in a flexible way which isn't always the characteristic of our public service system and lastly I suppose just reflect what we were talking about earlier just to share it more widely one of the characteristics of the internet as we're saying is collaborative, it works and it's also competitive it allows new technologies to evolve quite quickly and we were just reflecting earlier on in terms of I think it's the letter from the Bishops of England the Anglican Bishops in Britain to the British political system saying competition and collaboration are not competing are not opposing forces they both oppose monopoly and monopoly, whether it's a state monopoly or monopoly with a private monopoly is not in the interest of collaboration collaboration breaks monopoly competition breaks monopoly so the two are not competing the competition and collaboration and with monopoly being the enemy in some ways whether it is that a state is essentially controlled so that collaborative approach can work with the competitive approach and that's not a small talk I think to the internet today thank you for coming over to us