All posts by Jean-Jacques Subrenat

Association Board

Dear Colleague,

at its monthly meeting on 21 August 2017, the Board of your Association completed its discussion on the duties and composition of the Board. Here are the elements of that discussion, and the ensuing proposal to our membership.

1) Your Association was set up almost 2 years ago, and since then it has worked with a Board of 3 members (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, these designations having replaced the earlier ones of President, Vice President and Secretary).

2) It has become apparent that our Association, and the individual users’ community in Europe, would be better served by several improvements: a revised set of objectives for the period 2017-18, further involvement of our community in EURALO and ALAC activities in ICANN, enhanced involvement of our Members in the work of the Association, enlarging our Board, and further improvements to our website.

3) While the above changes or improvements are under way, the enlargement of the Board requires a consultation of our membership and a formal vote, which we propose to carry out online.

4) With this in mind, and before a formal vote is taken, the following proposal is submitted to you:

‘’The Board, currently composed of 3 Members, shall be enlarged to 5: Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and 2 additional seats.
– A call for candidates shall be issued to Association members in September 2017, with the purpose of populating the 5-member Board. The list of candidates shall be communicated to Association members by email, and be posted on the Association website.
– The current Board shall organise an online vote, with each Association member being requested to designate 2 candidates from the list, for the future 5-member Board.
– The online voting procedure shall be carried out transparently, with an appropriate online voting tool. The method and result of the vote shall be presented once again at our next General Assembly (GA, date, time and venue to be confirmed, in the margins of ICANN-60 in Abu Dhabi).
– The 5 candidates having received the most votes shall constitute the future Board, to be formally voted in during our next General Assembly.
– After confirmation by the GA, the new Board shall then meet (in person, or online); in the course of its first meeting, the new Board shall shall attribute, among its five Members, the positions of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and the 2 remaining seats.
– This proposal shall be posted on the Association website without delay, and include a call for candidates to the future Board.”

5) Members’ comments are welcome on this page mentioned, before 15 September 2017.

6) Members of the Association are encouraged to send in their expression of interest to serve on the Board, by email to euroindividuals@gmail.com , before 15 September 2017.

7) A separate email will be forthcoming about the next General Assembly, to be held in the margins of ICANN-60 in Abu Dhabi (28 October – 3 November 2017).

On behalf of the Board, EURALO Individuals Association:
Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Chair.

Our Association Bylaws updated

Dear colleague,
your Board has completed its work on updating the Bylaws of our Association (see below).
As a Member or Observer of this Association, you are kindly requested to comment on the draft Bylaws before 15 September 2017. Your comments can be communicated in 2 ways:
– either in the ‘’comment’’ space below this draft,
– or by responding to the notification email you received.

 

BYLAWS OF THE EURALO INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATION

1. EURALO Individuals Association

Under the name “EURALO Individuals Association” a European not-for-profit association was created according to Swiss Civil Code, Art. 60 to 79. (Its seat and legal address are specified separately in the foundation protocol).

The EURALO Individuals Association was created in December 2012 to offer a home and legal structure for individuals participating regularly in activities of ICANN’s European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO). This Association allows individuals from all over Europe to work together and have a voting right in EURALO’s annual General Assembly (GA), as stipulated in EURALO’s amended Bylaws from May 2011 in Belgrade.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the Association are:
a) To organize individuals in Europe who are not affiliated to existing At-Large Structures (ALS).
b) To support the general objectives of ICANN’s European At-Large Organization (EURALO) specified in its Bylaws and its MoU with ICANN signed in March 2007 in Lisbon – i.e., inter alia, to promote the open development, multi-stakeholder based evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout Europe and the world.
c) To support EURALO in its regular activities (such as monthly calls, working groups, projects and outreach endeavors).
d) To seek and promote exchange and collaboration with non-European individuals engaging in other RALOs and ICANN.

3. Resources

To fulfill its role in the frame of EURALO, the EURALO Individuals Association relies on resources and capacities of EURALO such as its Secretariat, and does not need its own financial resources or administrative facilities.

4. Organisational Structure and Membership

The EURALO Individuals Association’s organizational structure is simple and functional:
• It is open to all interested individuals sharing its goals and objectives outlined above.
• Individuals who are either European nationals or residents in Europe, where Europe is defined according to the ICANN Regions, are eligible to become Members, while individuals who do not satisfy these conditions are eligible to become Observers.
• Members have voting rights. Observers have the same rights and duties, with the exception of voting rights.
• Members of the Association elect a Board for a biannual term (two years, reelection possible).
• The Board, in consultation with Members, approves applications for new membership.
• All Members have a voting right at the Association’s annual General Assembly (GA), in line with the EURALO Bylaws.

The Association’s annual General Assembly (GA) selects its representative who has a voting right at EURALO’s GA.

5. Termination of membership

Membership in EURALO Individuals Association is terminated through withdrawal, exclusion or death.

6. Termination through withdrawal or exclusion

Withdrawal from the EURALO Individuals Association is always possible. Notification of withdrawal shall be sent in writing to the Board.
Members and Observers can be excluded from the EURALO Individuals Association for specific reasons. Decisions for exclusion are taken via a vote called by the Board. The member concerned may appeal to the General Assembly.

7. Organs of the association

The organs of the association are:
a) General Assembly
b) Board
The Board can create further sub-groups or committees as required.

8. The General Assembly

The primary organ of the association is the General Assembly. It meets annually, in conjunction with EURALO’s GA.
Invitations to General Assembly meetings will be sent at least three weeks in advance by writing (normally electronically), the agenda will be included in the posting. Extraordinary meetings of the General Assembly may be held by order of the Board or if ten percent of the members request such a meeting and indicate the issues to be addressed. In such a case, the extraordinary meeting is to be held within three months of receiving the request.

The General Assembly is responsible for:
a) Electing the Board of the Association
b) Electing the voting representative to the EURALO General Assembly
c) Any changes and amendments to the Bylaws
d) Dealing with motions and inquiries.
For changes to the Bylaws, a majority of two thirds of the cast votes is required.
The decision-making process is open unless the General Assembly calls for a secret ballot.

9. Auditors

As the Association does not have its own funds (see section 3 of these Bylaws), no auditors are required.

10. Authority to sign

Members of the Board have authority to sign, with two signatures being required.

11. Liability

Personal liability of the members is excluded.

12. Termination

Terminating the Association requires an extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly that shall be convened for this purpose. Termination requires a majority of three quarters of the cast votes.

13. Seat

The legal seat of the EURALO Individuals Association is in Switzerland, according to association Bylaws.

14. Date of effect

These Bylaws become effective with the written approval of the founding members on November 1, 2017.

15. Legally binding text

The legally binding text for these Bylaws of the EURALO Individuals is in the English language document /version.

ICANN-58: Update for our Members

Dear Member,

This is an interesting time for all the stakeholder communities in ICANN, and if you are attending ICANN-58 we encourage you to get in touch with our Secretary, Roberto Gaetano, who is in Copenhagen. Here is an update on our activity, and some pointers to future challenges and activities.

Recent elections

– Seat 15 on the ICANN Board: as you are aware,  this seat is filled by a person nominated by the At-Large community. ALAC (ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee) set up a structure and procedure to receive candidacies, and organized a vote throughout the 5 ICANN regions. The final slate retained Leon Sanchez Ambia and Alan Greenberg. Our Association is one of the ALSs (ICANN At-Large Structures) who consulted all its members, and your choice was Leon. The vote throughout the 5 RALOs resulted in the nomination of Leon, who will join the ICANN Board at the next Annual General Meeting (November 2017), click here.

– ALAC Leadership Team: ALSs were asked to appoint a new member; the candidates were Oksana Pryhodko and Bastiaan Goslings. We conducted a poll among our Members and your choice was the same as a majority of other ALSs: Bastiaan. He has already taken up his position. Click here.

– EURALO Board: in order to replace a person who resigned for personal reasons, there was a call for candidates. Olawale Bakare, Vice-Chair of our Board, expressed his interest and was elected. Congratulations ‘Wale!

Survey of our Association Members

We are grateful to Members for having taken the time to respond to the survey. You can read some lessons learned here . In order to implement the recommendations or preferences you expressed, your Board will be making proposals in the near future. One of the indications from the survey is that a number of Members are prepared to engage actively, either on an enlarged Board, or in Working Groups: please read the next two items.

Association Board

Members willing to engage actively in an enlarged Board are invited to give their vues on these topics: preferred number of seats on the Board (currently 3), tasks to be performed in the next 2 years, desirable areas of expertise.

Working Groups

Members who wish to take an active part  can do so via the links:

(A) EURALO Taskforces:

  • At- Large Structure Engagement, here.
  • EURALO ByLaws, here.

(B) At-Large Community Working Groups:

  • Public Interest WG, here.
  • ICANN Evolution WG, here.
  • At-Large Review Party, here.
  • All other Working Groups can be viewed here.

(C) ICANN Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2), which deals with the 9 topical areas within the remit of ICANN’s accountability process, as well as its operations:

  1. Diversity
  2. Guidelines for Good Faith Conduct
  3. Human Rights
  4. Jurisdiction
  5. Ombudsman
  6. Reviewing CEP
  7. SO/AC Accountability
  8. Staff Accountability
  9. Transparency

At-Large Review

Our Secretary, Roberto Gaetano, will be sending out an email to Members, calling for Members to give their views on the Review.
We hope you find this update useful.

On behalf of the Board:
Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Chair.

IANA Functions: lessons learned

On 1st October 2016, Assistant Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling, Administrator of the NTIA, made this statement:  “The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs’ application for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA functions contract has expired.” This chosen brevity adds strength to the NTIA statement, contrasting with the loosely worded and often misleading rhetoric of some Congressmen who were keen to oppose the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions. In the period leading up to the US Presidential Election (8 November 2016), this topic which would normally be a simple administrative task, became a pawn in a wider political game. The landmark ruling in Galveston by Judge George Hanks was a rebuttal of the civil action by the Attorneys General of Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas, who requested “temporary relief, enjoining and/or staying the expiration of the period of performance under the IANA Contract, which is currently set to expire on September 30, 2016”.

Having failed to win the Republican Primary, perhaps Senator Ted Cruz latched onto the IANA Contract as a way of staying in the limelight, with his sights on the 2020 Presidential Election. On 14 September, he and others organized a Senate hearing, to which they summoned witnesses including the Administrator of the NTIA. For an Internet user outside the USA, the title of the Hearing was misleading, “Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet”: can the USA really claim to be the protector of Internet freedom, just a couple of years after Edward Snowden revealed the massive surveillance conducted by the US against its own citizens?  And was the US really called upon to relinquish “oversight of the Internet”, rather than just “oversight of the IANA Functions”? Some of the remarks by Senators Ted Cruz and Chuck Grassley reveal a stark ignorance of how the global Internet operates, unless their feigned ignorance was intentionally misleading.

This Hearing did not support the claim that the Internet is US Property. On the contrary, the US GAO (General Accountability Office) stated, in its Decision dated 12 September 2016: “We find it is unlikely that either the domain name system or the authoritative root zone file (the “address book” for the top-level domain) is U.S. Government property under Article IV.  We also find the Government may have certain data rights, and has limited intellectual and tangible property, all of which constitute Article IV property, but that property will be retained and not disposed of in connection with the transition. Finally, the Government has a contractual right to continued performance by the entities carrying out the IANA functions and related services. That right, which also constitutes U.S. Government property, would be disposed of if NTIA terminates the agreements rather than allowing them to expire, but NTIA has the requisite authority to dispose of this Government property interest.”

For an Internet user outside the USA, say in Europe, several lessons can be learned from the huge community effort for the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions, and battles waged against it:

  • Motivation and role of the United States. The US Administration and the global Internet community proposed  some form of “transition” as early as 1998. It has taken 18 years from formulation to implementation: what happened in between? Other priorities retained Washington’s attention: resisting the call by some parties for an inter-governmental solution to Internet governance, played out in ITU; a new phase of US withdrawal into their own world, perhaps a collective fatigue of the sole remaining superpower? However, and at least viewed from Europe, the proximate cause of Washington’s renewed advocacy in 2014 was the revelation by Edward Snowden, that same year, of the extent of US mass surveillance worldwide, as well as on its own citizens: the US had to recover its image as a trustworthy ally. This does not in any way diminish the merits of Larry Strickling and the NTIA team, the Chair, Board and Staff, of ICANN, the Chairs and members of the ICG, and all the contributors to the Transition of Oversight: this was a good example of what a multi-stakeholder community can achieve.
  • Validation of the multi-stakeholder approach. The natural tendency of sovereign states to consider themselves as the sole legitimate stewards of the national interest, led them to believe that the same would apply in the novel area of Internet governance. It took many consultations to get capitals to even consider the presence of other categories alongside themselves: Tunis Agenda, IGF, other fora and events played a major role in helping governments to accept this way of dealing with global issues which, by definition, reach beyond national borders and jurisdictions. The Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions is not a globalization of ICANN, nor of PTI (Post-Transition IANA), which both remain incorporated in the US. It is a limited but significant change in the way we approach the Internet as a collective ressource, for which there is a collective responsibility.
  • Remaining questions:
    1. Will the next US Administration thoroughly implement the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions? It is no longer held hostage by some budget appropriation, the ruling by Judge George Hanks in Galveston is not being (cannot be?) appealed, and the Presidential campaign is treating US voters to so many other distractions. So, at this stage, there seems to be no administrative or political obstacle to implementation.
    2. One of many arguments in favour of the Transition of Oversight was that, WITHOUT it, we would draw dangerously close to a fragmentation of the Internet. While rejoicing that the IANA Contract was allowed to expire, we should remain conscious that geopolitics might some day favour a fragmentation of the Internet, for reasons not directly related to the Transition of Oversight. The worldwide Internet community must remain vigilant to any weakening of the features which make today’s Internet unique, reliable and global.

 

 

 

 

 

Oversight of IANA Functions: demand clarity!

The Proposal to transfer (“transition”) the oversight of the IANA Functions, from the US Administration to a multi-stakeholder system with checks and balances, was approved by the NTIA earlier this year.  More recently, the NTIA declared its intention to let the current IANA contract expire on 1st of October 2016. Interestingly, until August this year the issue seemed to float in a calm bubble. But with the acceleration of the US presidential campaign, the question of who should have oversight of the IANA Functions was back, like a puck in a hockey rink, slapped here and there.

On 14th of September, Senator Ted Cruz and some others summoned witnesses to a hearing held by the Judiciary Committee, “Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending US Oversight of the Internet”. The terms used were meant to instill fear among US voters: “Protecting” must be against some attack; and “Freedom” suggests that, without US control, the alternative must needs be a takeover by some Evil Force. 

Two recent articles attempt to inform the US and global public about the fallacy of some of the claims made by Senator Cruz and others: on 15th of September, the New York Times wrote “Ted Cruz Fights Internet Directory’s Transfer; Techies Say He Just Doesn’t Get It“, and on 18th of September The Guardian’s editorial pointed to “Ted Cruz’s wrong turn on the information superhighway“.

Just before these articles, a group of 12 individuals from the US and elsewhere sent a letter to President Obama, urging the Administration to implement, and the Congress to not impede the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions. Similar letters were sent to the Speaker and Leadership of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore and Leadership of the Senate. Here is the content of the letter sent to the US President on the 12th of September, and subsequently conveyed to the New York Times, The Guardian and several other media:

BEGIN QUOTE

Dear Mr. President:

As the first truly universal infrastructure in human history, the Internet has allowed huge progress to be achieved in business, legislation, science, public health, agriculture, industry, education and communications, at the same time as it has facilitated the daily lives of ordinary citizens all over the world.

Because of the seminal contribution of the United States of America in creating the Internet and carrying forward so many of its subsequent developments, your country has earned the deep and lasting gratitude of billions of people. In fact, today’s younger generations in so many countries cannot even imagine life without the benefits of ubiquitous connectivity, quick and free access to knowledge, as well as the facilitation of social intercourse.

As individuals deeply engaged in, and committed to improving the integrity, stability and uses of the Internet, we believe that now is an appropriate time to confirm the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet, in a way that would benefit both the United States and the rest of the world. In this respect, we note that the United States have consistently considered that the further development of the Internet would best be served by a global multi-stakeholder model:

  1. At the inception of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in September 1998, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions (“IANA functions”) would be temporary. Also in 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a Statement of Policy that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS (Domain Name System) management.

  1. In December 2012, the House of Representatives and the Senate jointly stated: It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today. (H.Con.Res.127; S.Con.Res.50).

  1. In March 2014, the National Telecommunication and Information Agency (NTIA) announced its intention to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. As the first step, NTIA asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current oversight role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system, and set out four criteria for such a transition to merit consideration. As requested, ICANN convened the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) which started work in December 2014.

  1. In March 2016 the ICG, with the input of the Internet community, submitted its Proposal to NTIA. The NTIA certified that the Proposal met the four criteria (June 2016), approved it (August 2016), and announced its intention to let the IANA Functions contract expire on October 1st, 2016.

It is our belief and indeed our conviction that the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions, from an agency of the United States Government to a multi-stakeholder system equipped with detailed checks and balances, will safeguard the security, openness and efficiency of the Internet, while helping to meet some of the challenges facing humanity and the world in which we live.

In bringing this to your esteemed attention, we are inspired by the fact that the foundation of the United States of America was, in itself, a major innovation of its time: it set out a model of government predicated on principles, a judiciary unswerved by political partisanship, and an economic model in which wealth and success would be earned by initiative and enterprise rather than by inheritance alone. Implementing those lofty principles required open information, as well as the awareness and growing participation of citizens. For the Internet today, the challenges are not very different.

It is our sincere hope that the Administration will now implement, and that the Congress of the United States of America will not impede the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions.

We are addressing similar letters to the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the Honorable President pro tempore of the Senate.

Most respectfully,

On behalf of the signatories listed below: Jean-Jacques Subrenat (Ambassador, ret.)

Signatories:

  • The Hon. Carl Bildt (Sweden), Chair, Global Commission on Internet Governance; former Prime Minister & Foreign Minister
  • Dr. Vinton G. Cerf (United States), former Chair of the Board of ICANN, Internet Pioneer
  • Mr. John Danilovich (United States), Ambassador (ret.); Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce
  • Ms. Avri Doria (United States), Principal Researcher, Technicalities
  • Mr. Roberto Gaetano (Italy), Chair, the Public Interest Registry
  • Prof. Dr. MURAI Jun 村井 純 (Japan), Dean & Professor, Environment and Information Studies, Keio University; Founder of Junet & WideProject
  • Dr. Nii Narku Quaynor (Ghana), Chairman, Ghana Dot Com Ltd.; founding Chairman of AfriNIC
  • Ms. Njeri Rionge (Kenya), Founder & CEO, Ignite Consult. & Investment; co-founder & Director, Wananchi Online Ltd.
  • The Hon. Ms. Marietje Schaake (Netherlands), Founder, Intergroup on the Digital Agenda for Europe; Member of the European Parliament
  • Mr. Jean-Jacques Subrenat (France), Ambassador (ret.); Former member, ICANN Board; Member of the ICG (2014~)
  • Dr. Prof. XUE Hong 薛虹 (China), Founding Director, Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal Univ. 北京师范大学
  • Dr. Prof. YOKOZAWA Makoto 横澤 誠 (Japan), Professor, Kyoto University; Vice Chair of the Internet Economy WG, Keidanren

(Views expressed in this letter are those of the signatories, and do not purport to represent the positions of entities with which they may be associated.)

END QUOTE

R. Gaetano new PIR Chair

In July 2016, Roberto Gaetano was elected as Chair of the Board of Public Interest Registry (PIR, which operates the .org, .ong and .ngo domain names) for the period 2016-19. Roberto’s Internet experience covers a wide spectrum, from technical management to governance issues. During his service as an international civil servant at the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA), he became familiar with the complexities of  an international Treaty Organization. As Internet Policy Advisor at ETSI, he was active in Internet policymaking and process leading to the creation of ICANN and its supporting organizations. Roberto was a member of the ICANN Board or Directors for 6 years, of which 3 as Liaison from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).

To those who have attended ICANN meetings not only in the daytime, Roberto also stands out as an accomplished jazz musician, livening things up with his saxophone on Music Nights under many latitudes.

Roberto is the initiator, a founding member, and currently Secretary of our EURALO Individual Users’ Association.

Warm congratulations to Roberto on his election as Chair of the PIR Board!

Annual General Assembly, 28 June 2016

Dear Members,

this is to confirm that our annual General Assembly will be held in Helsinki, during the ICANN-56 international meeting.

Date & time: Tuesday 28th of June 2016, starting at 10:45 sharp (just after the EURALO General Assembly) till noon. Reminder: Finnish time = UTC+3.

Venue: Finlandia Hall (same venue as ICANN-56), 2nd floor Aurora meeting room

Remote participation: details are communicated to Members by email

Draft agenda:
1) Roll call of members (present, represented, remote participation), apologies received in advance; adoption of Draft Agenda
2) Welcome; brief presentation
3) Membership: categories; criteria; procedures (acceptance, termination)
4) Association structure & Bylaws
5) Financial aspects: current expenses (domain name, website maintenance, logo); need for a Treasurer?
6) Activity of our Association: views of our Members
7) Outreach, partnerships
8) AOB; Concluding remarks (Note: conclusions and action items from our AGM will be sent by email to all Members).

Members are encouraged to attend our General Assembly.Those not attending in person may designate a proxy (a Member present) in case of any vote.

Within a few days, Members will receive by email a report on the main conclusions and action items of the meeting.

 

 

 

US Administration approves ICG Transition Proposal

Right now there’s a flurry of news items, blog posts and comments on an event the global Internet community was expecting sometime this year: the NTIA (National Communications and Information Administration, under the US Department of Commerce) has just published its “IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assessment Report“. As a member of the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group), but writing here in a personal capacity, I am pleased to bring the following points to the attention of our Members:

  • The Transition Proposal sent on 10th of March 2016 by the ICG to the NTIA “satisfies the four criteria” set out by the US Administration: 1) Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2) Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3) Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; 4) Maintain the openness of the Internet.
  • The Assessment Report, just published by the NTIA, is the result of an extensive inter-agency examination and appraisal throughout the Obama Administration. Viewed from outside the USA, this fact adds another layer of authority to the Assessment Report.
  • After a cursory look at the 26-page document, it seems that the Assessment Report accepts the ICG Proposal without reservations (but this requires careful analysis).
  • In addition to accepting the ICG proposal, the Assessment Report vindicates the principles and processes we set up in the ICG.

For Internet users outside North America, placing the Assessment Report in context may be of some interest: the outgoing Administration seems keen to leave a legacy in Internet matters, at a time when the Presidential Primaries are in full swing; the Multistakeholder Model (MSM) enjoys wide support, but has its opponents (some sovereign states, some intergovernmental bodies…), and seems to need a boost; the alternative to MSM, e.g. several parallel Internets, must be avoided.

The next step? The worldwide Internet community now awaits decisions in Washington regarding the implementation of the ICG Proposal.