►
From YouTube: Internet Society Board of Trustees Meeting 166-Day 2
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
back
to
day
two
of
the
annual
general
meeting
of
the
internet
society
board
of
trustees,
this
is
meeting
number
166
of
the
society
to
start
the
day.
Are
there
any
conflicts
of
interest
or
other
issues
to
bring
bring
before
the
board?
A
C
So
this
is
to
talk
about
the
health
and
sustainability
results
from
2021,
and
the
critical
thing
to
understand
here
is
that
these
are
measures
that
we
put.
Oh.
Could
we
pause
the
automatic
yeah
thanks
and
back
to
please.
C
There
we
are
nope,
one
more
so
so
the
basic
idea
here
is
to
is
to
measure
our
ability
to
advance
our
mission
over
the
long
term.
If
you
could
move
forward
one
more
please
so,
we've
got
five
areas
that
we're
trying
to
measure.
One
is
talent.
The
next
is
finance.
C
The
next
is
our
reputation.
We
try
to
measure
internet
champions
and
we're
trying
to
measure
our
governance.
The
last
of
these
requires
your
approvals,
and
so
we
we
don't
have
any
results
for
that.
Yet
we
we're
doing
this
and
we
started.
We
started
in
2021
and
we
do
this.
We
do
this
measurement
annually,
so
we
do
it
in
the
first
quarter
of
the
year
looking
retrospectively
and
the
the
basic
idea
here
is
that
we
develop
a
mechanism
by
which
we
measure
the
the
organization.
C
I
don't
think
these
are
perfect
measures.
I
don't.
I
don't
want
to
suggest
that
they're
perfect
measures,
but
these
were
the
ones
that
the
board
approved
last
year
agreed
to
agreed
to
these,
with
the
exception
of
of
of
the
ones
for
governance.
C
So
it
wasn't
all
of
you,
but
the
previous
board
said
yes,
these
are
good.
These
are
ones
that
we're
going
to
continue
with
so
so
this
is
the
basis
on
which
we
proceeded
next
slide.
Please
well!
You
can
skip
forward
too,
because
it's
just
a
cover
slide.
C
So
we're
going
to
do
talent
here,
we've
got
first
of
all,
this
maintaining
a
high
performing
workforce.
The
the
basic
idea
here
is
to
measure
first
of
all,
the
percentage
of
the
staff
that
that
rate
themselves
rate
the
internet
society
is
recognizing
their
value.
So
this
is
we.
C
We
do
performance,
analysis
or
performance
assessments
of
this
staff
twice
a
year,
and
there
is
a
a
self-reflection
question
that
the
staff
respond
to
on
that
on
those
assessments
that
say
how
well
does
the
internet
society
recognize
my
value?
So
the
idea
here
is
that
this
is
a
proxy
for
a
recognition
by
the
employee
that
we
recognize
their
value
and
that
and
the
basic
idea
here
is
that
that
gives
people
confidence
that
you
know
we're
investing
in
them.
C
The
the
goal
here
is
to
rate
three
out
of
four
in
in
this
assessment,
as
you
can
see,
the
average
across
the
employees
at
78
percent,
so
we're
on
target
here
at
at
least
in
this
case
bless
you.
Similarly,
we
have
a
denison
survey.
We
do
this
annual
culture
survey
and
there's
a
a
question.
Banks
about
bench,
strength,
the
capability
of
people
and
that
that
that
it's
constantly
improving,
so
this
is
really
a
peer,
a
measure
right.
C
This
is
a
measure
by
the
employees
of
of
the
way
the
the
rest
of
the
employees
are,
and
the
the
basic
idea
here
is
that
we
want
to
hit
essentially
75
here
in
2021.
This
was
79..
Now
I
should
point
out
that
this
is
not
the.
This
is
not
a
percentile
score
of
the
of
the
of
the
employees.
C
This
is
a
percentile
as
against
the
denison
survey,
so
so
this
is
a
we're
trying
to
hit
the
75th
percentile
of
the
denison
database,
so
we're
at
the
79th
year.
I
will
say
that
this
has
risen.
I
think
I
talked
to
you
before
about
the
results
in
the
denison
survey,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
think
this
is
an
area
where
we
have
proven
pretty
strong
next
slide.
Please.
C
We
also
want
to
maintain,
build
and
maintain
the
expertise
and
skills,
and
so
what
we're
measuring
here
is
the
frequency
of
the
percentage
of
the
staff
that
participate
in
professional
development
activities
we're
only
getting
that
started
last
year.
So
we
don't
have
any
data
over
2021,
but
we
will
continue
to
to
report
on
this
in
the
future.
C
We
also
want
to
develop
the
expertise
of
the
project
staff,
so
there's
a
distinction
between
the
people
who
are
working
on
the
projects
that
the
internet
society
is
doing
and
the
entire
staff
basis,
and
so
this
focuses
just
on
the
project
staff,
because
the
project
staff
are
the
you
know,
they're
working
on
the
projects
that
we
have
in
the
in
the
annual
action
plan.
So
we
think
that
that's
one
of
the
areas
that
we
want
to
measure-
and
this
again
is
a
professional
development
measure.
C
So
this
is
a
this
is
a
subset
of
the
whole
staff,
the
subset
of
of
the
previous
measure-
and
this
was
86
in
2021,
so
the
staff
are
invest.
Are
you
know,
spending
the
time
to
invest
in
their
skills
and
and
upgrading
them?
C
Next
slide,
please.
The
first
of
these
is
to
talk
about
public
support,
and
in
this
case
it's
really
the
percentage
of
our
total
revenues
that
are
attributable
to
public
support
contributions
and,
as
you
can
see,
this
is
not
where
we
want
it
to
be
it's
too
low.
So
this
is
an
area
where
we
clearly
need
to
need
to
work
harder.
That
being
so
low
is
part
of
the
reason
that
the
number
did
not
go
in
the
direction
we
expected
last
year.
C
So
this
is
this
is
an
area
for
considerable
work.
Next
slide,
please
the
other
one
that
we're
measuring
is
the
percent
variance
of
annual
expenditures
so
as
against
budget.
So
the
basic
idea
here
is
that
we're
trying
to
measure
how
effectively
we,
how
effectively
we
budget,
whether
we
stick
to
the
the
budgets
that
we
set
and
so
on.
Historically,
this
is
an
area
where
the
internet
society
was
like,
I
won't
say
bad,
but
maybe
not
as
good
as
we
would
have
liked,
and-
and
so
this
in
2021,
the
actuals.
C
The
variance
here
was
4.7.
This
is
inside
our
goal
for
the
year,
so
so
this
was
a.
This
was
a
really
successful.
This
was
a
real
improvement
in
the
in
the
history
of
the
internet
society,
so.
C
In
this
case,
it's
an
underspend,
but
the
idea
here
is
that
this
is
a.
This
is
an
absolute
value
so
plus
or
minus
right.
But
in
this
case
we
were
understand.
Yes,
can
I
ask
a
question?
Yes,
the
so.
Do
you
have
a
target
you're
trying
to
get
to
or
just
as
low
as
possible?
Well,
the
target
that
that
we
set
for
last
year
was
within
five
percent,
and
so
we
made
it.
C
My
my
real
target,
of
course,
is
zero,
because
I
would
like
budgets
to
be
100
correct,
but
I
you
know,
I'm
also
a
realist,
but
you
know
I
I
will
say
that,
like
in
my
first
year,
one
of
the
budget
items
was
70
percent
away
from
the
budget.
So
I
this
is
a
fairly
significant.
C
Oh,
I
see
what
you
mean,
so
my
immediate
term
goal
has
been
to
just
improve
this
like
to
get
this
within
some
kind
of
thing,
so
that
the
budget
is
like
an
actual
guide
for
what
the
future
is
going
to
hit
bear,
I
think,
probably
in
the
future,
we
will
do
some
benchmarking
against
other
organizations
to
see
to
see
how
they,
how
they
are.
It's
very,
very
difficult
as
say
was
saying
it
was
in
closed
session,
but
as
she
was
mentioning
yesterday,
you
know
not.
C
Every
organization
is
as
transparent
as
we
are
about
about
budgets
and
so
forth,
so
they
don't
always
give
you
the
kinds
of
targets
that
you
would
like
and
for
that
reason
it's
a
little
hard
to
get
on
this
kind
of
data.
But
we
could
you
know
we
could
do
it
against
other
organizations
that
are
as
transparent
as
we
are
and
that
you
know
that
might
be
enough.
C
All
right
next
slide,
please!
This
area
is
about
reputation,
oh
and
slide
after
that,
so
this
is.
This
is
a
measure
of
reputation,
so
we
want
to.
We
want
to
have
a
a
good
reputation
as
trusted
as
credible
and
as
relevant,
and
our
theory,
of
course
here,
is
that
if
we
are,
if
we,
if
we
have
this
reputation,
then
we
will
be
able
to
to
lead
people
towards
the
internet
that
we
want
for
everyone,
and
so
we
measure
this
on
on
three
axes.
C
One,
the
total
number
of
mentions
the
the
total
number
of
media
inquiries
and
the
domain
authority
rank.
So
so
the
latter
is
a
comparative
one,
whereas
the
other
two
are
just
sort
of
you
know,
they're
just
counts
and
I
think
we're
gonna
sharpen
the
the
first
two
a
little
bit
in
the
future,
because
what
we're
gonna
see
is
a
trend
over
time,
but
we
didn't
have
any
base
data
to
start
with.
So
this
is,
these
are
just
counts
to
start.
So
so
let
me
confirm
yeah.
I
thought.
A
We
actually
had
data
during
the
pir
proposed
sale
that
that
listed
the
number
of
mentions.
C
Sure
so
we
have,
the
problem
is
actually
that
that
was
our
baseline
and
and
it's
kind
of
stupid
to
compare
against
that
baseline.
So
right,
like
you
know
so
so
we
didn't
use
it
as
a
baseline,
because
it's
kind
of
a
garbage
based
line,
but
instead
you
know
we
did
obviously
want
to
improve
things,
and-
and
I
think
we
we
found
that
that
that
was
the
case
we
wanted
to.
You
know
we
want
to
understand
in
an
ordinary
year.
C
How
often
do
we
get
mentioned
and
how
many
inquiries,
how
many
inbound
game
inquiries
do
we
have
because
inbound
inquiries
are
an
indication
that
we
have
a
reputation
that
people
want
to
talk
to
us
about?
Well,.
A
The
reason
I
bring
it
up
is
obviously
one
other
thing.
The
board
right
after
the
proposed
sale
fell
through
was
concerned
about
was
restoring
the
reputation
of
the
international
society,
given
how
how
many
of
the
critics
of
it
were
kind
of
lobbying
general
purpose
critiques,
rather
than
focused
on
that
particular
deal,
and
so,
even
though
you
obviously
don't
want
to
use
it
as
a
baseline,
a
retrospective
view.
C
C
Have
improved
would
be
very
useful,
so
we
we
have
such
numbers
we're
not
using
them
as
as
as
the
basic
health
measures,
I'm
I'm
we're
happy
to
produce,
as
I
think
we
produced
them
once
before,
but
I'm
happy
to
I'm
having
a
report
to
the
board
again
on
that.
If
you
would
like
what
that
really
was
was
a
sort
of
like
a
kind
of
valence
measure.
C
You
know
it's
a
measure
of
positive
versus
negative
sentiment
and
the
way
that
it's
measured,
the
the
content
marketing
communications
actually
actually
follows
that
what
we
don't
do
is
treat
that
as
a
as
a
health
measure,
exactly
because
it's
very
difficult
to
to
know
how
that
first
of
all
the
sentiment
analysis
is
it's
like
it's
widely
used
in
the
industry,
but
many
people
think
that
it's
a
little
fishy,
and
so
we
try
to
we
try
to
you
know
we
try
not
to
use
that
as
the
as
the
overall
health
measure,
because
we,
our
theory,
is
that
the
the
one
that
we
really
want
to
get
is
this
domain
authority
rank
the
the
the
the
ranking
there
right
we
want.
C
We
want
this
sort
of
idea
that
there's
a
search
engine
score
that
says:
how
likely
are
we
to
rank
in
in
the
result
pages?
So
when
you
know
something
searches
for
something
the
the
search
engines
are
optimizing
for
a
number
of
things,
and
one
of
the
things
is
not
just
you
know
it's
not
like
the
old
page
rank
where
it's
just
like
number
of
links.
C
It's
also
like
how
credible
are
the
links
to
that
and
so
on,
and
so
our
theory
is
that
we
want
to
be
high
in
there
and
and
that's
really
where
we,
where
we're
trying
to
where
we're
aiming
to
optimize,
because
that
the
theory
there
is
that
that's
that's
the
reputation
that
that
we
really
want
to
have
that
we're
the
authority
on
these
on
these
topics.
Well,
it.
B
A
And
so
the
dependency
you
may
have
there
is
like:
what's
the
response
rate,
when
you
put
out
a
campaign
right
right,
is
that
is
the
media
inquiry
slope
looking
equivalent
to
the
slope
of
of
a
trusted
organization,
or
are
we
still
seeing
some
some
hangover
right?
Clearly,
it's
gotten
a
lot
better
right.
Nobody
is
still
you
know.
Publishing
the
internet.
Society
doesn't
know
what
it's
doing,
because
it
tried
to
sell
pir
no.
A
But
the
the
upside
of
that
is
that
it
would
be
useful
for
us
to
to
see
how
the.
A
How
the
campaign
versus
response
by
the
media
trends
over
time?
Okay,
obviously
because
if,
if
one
of
our
things
is
we
can't
do
direct
lobbying
very
often
education
via
the
media
is
one
of
the
primary
ways
we
get
the
message
out
and
if
that's
continuously
improving,
that's
a
really
great
sign.
Okay,.
A
Different
measure
right
I
mean
the
total
number
of
media
inquiries
is
still
useful,
but
watching
the
response
to
a
campaign
where
you're
seeking
media
detention
and
making
sure
that
the
response
media
inquiries
are
from.
You
know
reputable
right
places
and
what
whether
the
the
number
of
media
inquiries
goes
up
as
you
build
right.
That
would
be
the
useful
second
order
measurement
here.
F
C
All
right,
so
I
I
want
to
point
out
that
this
domain
authority
rank
this
is
a
2021
result,
so
the
the
basic
thing
that
you
want
is
is
for
that
to
be
higher.
So
this
is
a
rank
of
like
zero
to
100
and
higher
is
better,
and
you
know
in
the
areas
where
we
I
mean
this
isn't
on
anything
right.
C
If
somebody
searches
for
cat
videos,
we
don't
rank
high,
but
you
know
so
it's
a
it's
a
domain
of
of
selected
terms,
but
on
those
selected
terms,
we're
doing
pretty
well
there,
and
I
think
that
I
think
we
can
be
proud
of
this
all
right.
The
next
area
is
the
internet
champions
and
you
can
skip
forward
too
please.
C
So.
The
first
area
here
is
to
is
to
grow
the
number
of
internet
champions
and
and
by
internet
champions.
What
we
really
mean
is
you
know
people
who
want
to
carry
our
message,
who
are
you
know,
we're
essentially
growing
our
community
but
growing
the
community
of
people
who
are
pressing
in
favor
of
us,
not
just
people
who
are
supporters,
but
people
who
are
you
know
pushing
the
messages
that
we
believe
about
the
internet.
It's
open!
It's
globally
connected,
it's
secure,
it's
trustworthy
and
it's
for
everyone.
So
we
have
you
know.
C
One
of
these
is
partner
memorandum
of
understanding
and
the
total
number
of
these,
so
those
should
go
up
over
time.
Some
of
these
are
baselines.
These
are
these
are
actuals
in
2021,
but
they
we
hadn't
always
counted
them.
So
you
know
in
the
future.
This
will
be.
You
know
comparative
year
on
year,
but
this
is
a
baseline
year.
We've
also
been
measuring
the
number,
the
total
number
of
new
individual
members.
C
This
is
also
how
you
get
into
some
of
our
some
of
the
things.
So,
for
instance,
you
have
to
be
a
member
of
the
internet
society
in
order
to
have
a
login
in
order
to
join
some
of
the
lists
or,
for
instance,
the
education
things
and
so
on,
and
so
that's
a
that.
That's
a
a
sort
of
indirect
measure
of
some
of
those
things.
We
also
worry,
of
course,
about
new
organization
members.
C
That's
you
know,
people
who
are
who
are
coming
in
and
we
look
at
the
chapters
and
there
are
two
two
sub
pieces
there.
The
first
chapters
in
good
standing,
so
good
standing
is
a
is
a
fundamental
measure
of
of
chapters,
and
you
know,
for
instance,
a
new
chapter
is
in
good
standing
and
when
chapters
are
decharted
is
because
they've
failed,
their
good
standing
for
a
period
of
time.
C
In
the
sense
that
it
well,
it's
not
net
new,
it's
new
members,
so
so
people
who
come
in
so
a
member
that
left
and
came
back
does
count
as
a
new
member.
C
C
So,
for
instance,
one
that
we
can
talk
about
pretty
easily
is
the
organization
of
american
states,
so
we
had
we
had
a
memorandum
of
understanding
with
them.
A
lot
of
these
memoranda
of
understanding
are
really
partnerships
that
we're
undertaking
with
people.
You
can't
really
have
a
contract
with
such
organizations
like
governments,
don't
really
want
to
enter
into
a
contract
with
you
unless
it's
a
services
contract
and
we're
trying
not
to
do
services
contracts
in
that
sense,
because,
of
course,
that's
business
revenue
that
we
don't
really
want.
C
D
C
It
is,
we
can
add
that
one
of
the
things
we've
tried
to
do
is
to
keep
the
number
of
these
unmanageable,
and
if
we
started
to
measure
churn
on
all
of
these,
it
could
be,
but
we
can
certainly
look
at
it.
It
has
been
a
topic
of
conversation
on
more
than
one
occasion.
You
know
actually
understanding
net
new
is
important.
H
C
Generally,
we
don't
undertake
mousse
with
private
companies,
because
we,
under
those
circumstances.
I
About
the
the
number
of
chapters
that
comply,
the
good
stunting
conditions,
if
we
are
now
we
are
on
92
percent.
C
Well,
no,
there
are
two
things
here.
This
is
the
point
this
isn't.
This
is
a.
This
is
a
two-factor
evaluation,
so
the
number
of
chapters
that
are
in
good
standing
is
the
same
thing
as
the
number
of
chapters
all
of
the
chapters
are
either
in
good
standing
or
in
rejuvenation.
Okay,
so
so
we
typically
have
a
few
are
that
are
in
rejuvenation
at
any
one
time,
but
the
number
of
chapters
in
in
good
standing
is
is
pretty
it.
C
It
wasn't
always
this
case
this
way,
but
we
have
emphasized
over
the
last
several
years.
We
really
want
to
be
putting
the
resources
into
the
chapters
that
are
active
and
we
will
help
with
rejuvenation,
but
instead
of
kiting
that
out
for
two
or
three
years,
we've
been
following
actually
the
agreement
that
we
have
with
the
chapters-
and
I
think
this
has
been
healthy-
we
had
a.
C
We
did
have
a
few
where
we
a
couple
of
quarters
where
we
cleared
out
quite
a
bit
and
it
was
distressing
to
a
lot
of
people
to
see
that
drop,
but
the
chapter
community
seems
healthier
for
it.
So
I
don't
think
it
helps
anybody
to
have
chapters
that
are
hanging
around
for
two
or
three
years
that
aren't
really
doing
anything
yeah.
It's
like
the
what
we
discovered
in
russia
and.
I
Ukrainian
right,
yeah
and
the
so
essentially
all
the
chapters
are
in
good
standing
and
gender.
I
C
As
well,
that's
that's
right
and
that's
that's
the
idea
here
that
what
we
want
to
what
we
want
to
see
here
is
a
high
degree,
not
just
of
chapters
that
are
doing
the
minimum,
but
that
are
in
fact
up
in
the
you
know,
top
75
percent
of
the
criteria.
So
that's
not.
Obviously
it
can't
possibly
be
that
92
of
the
chapters
are
in
the
top
75
percent
of
chapters,
but
yeah.
That's
not
that
this
is
this
is
rather
we've
got.
C
We've
got
these
categories
of
like
25th,
50th,
75th
and
and
what
we
want
are
people
who
are
in
that
top
75
and
above
and
that's
what
this
92
percent
is.
So
the
chapters
are
like
this
is
actually
a
really
healthy
result.
C
But
well
it's
it's.
Neither
of
those.
What
it
really
is
is
the
categories
so
we've
we've,
given
them
cutesy
names
on
the
website.
It's
like
gigabit
versus
yeah
and
and
those
are
the
levels,
but
people
complain
about
the
cutesy
names.
So
we
just
said
this:
you
know
top
75
percent.
C
All
right
next
slide,
please.
So
we
also
worry
about
retention
of
of
the
community.
Right.
Are
people
remaining
engaged,
and
so
we
had
this
percentage
percent
retention
of
individual
members.
We
were
hoping,
of
course,
that
we
would
improve
the
association
management
system
in
time.
To
do
this
didn't
happen.
We
had
a
number
of
things
that
got
in
the
way
of
that,
but
this
is
one
that
we
definitely
want
to.
C
We
want
to
pay
attention
to
because
we
want
to
know
if
individual
members
come
do
they
leave
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
that
they
remain
engaged
and
then
similarly,
we
want
to
do
the
same
with
our
organization
members.
So
this
is
where
you
see
that
net
new,
that
new
number
that
is,
you
know
we
saw
how
many
new
org
members
came
in
and
now
we
can
see
but
87
of
the
of
the
membership
stays
on,
and
so
that's
that's
that's
the
place
where
you
see
the
decline
next
slide.
C
C
This
is
in
distinction
from
you
know
the
retention
of
of
champions.
This
is
where
we
want
to
build
the
the
capacity,
and
so
the
first
thing
has
to
do
with
the
percent
change
of
total
online
courses.
Obviously,
with
only
one
year
of
data,
you
can't
do
a
trendline
analysis,
so
on
2021
is
the
baseline
year
and
we
will
be
reporting
this
in
the
future.
We
also
count
the
number
of
fellows
this
includes
fellows
to
the
ietf,
the
igf,
youth
ambassadors
and
the
early
career
fellowship
in
2022.
C
We'll
also
have
the
mid-year
mid-career
fellowship
on
numbers,
and
so
this
will
be.
This
will
be
a
number
this.
You
know
people
sometimes
say
well,
these
are
small
numbers,
because
you
know
we
don't
have
groups
of
thousands.
We
have
concluded
over
time
that
very
large
cohorts
of
fellows.
C
Don't
we
don't
have
the
resources
to
really
attend
to
them,
so
we've
decided
that
smaller
cohorts
that
we
can
spend
more
time
on
are
more
valuable
and
it's
a
sort
of
you
know
like
build,
build
champions
and
then
that
group
will
get
bigger,
and
this
is
why
you
saw
yesterday,
for
instance,
the
discussion
of
the
alumni
program
and
why
that's
important,
because
the
idea
is
if
we
can
build
this
capacity
and
we
can
retain
them
in
the
community,
then
they-
you
know
it's
like
the
old.
Now
I'm
really
gonna
date
myself.
C
It's
like
that
old,
shampoo,
commercial
right.
They
tell
three
friends
and
three
friends
and
so
on.
So
so
that's
the
idea
here
next,
please,
it's
distressing!
How
many
of
us
found
that
funny?
Because
it
tells
us
something
about
our
average
age.
C
Yes,
yes,
although,
like
you
know,
I
don't
know,
it
was
cross-border.
I
guess
this
last
one
in
this
category
is
to
increase
participation
in
internet
society
activities,
and
this
is
a
measure
of
the
participation
by
community
members
in
in
activities
that
we
do
the
data
collection.
For
this,
like
we
depend
on
the
new
ams
and
because
that
has
been
delayed,
it's
not
going
as
fast
as
we
would
like.
So
will
we
be
able.
A
To
capture
participation
in
chapter
activities
as
well
or
omac
activities,
that's.
C
A
that's
part
of
the
problem
that
we
have
that
breaking
those
things
out
is
quite
difficult.
The
basic
idea
is
that,
once
we
have
the
new
ams,
this
is
one
of
the
big
pieces
of
functionality
that
that
drove
us
towards
fontiva,
because,
yes,
underlying
the
the
big
one
of
the
big
features
that
that
system
has.
C
Is
this
ability
to
break
out
and
stratify
of
different
parts
of
the
community
and
and
provide
the
the
underlying
capabilities
to,
for
instance,
our
chapters
so
that
they
can
manage
those
things
themselves
and
that
that
was
a
notable
gap
in
the
system
when
we
launched
a
member
nova-
and
we
never
did
manage
to
get
the
features
that
we
wanted.
That
way,
yeah.
A
C
Next
slide,
please
well
two
slides,
so
this
is
about
the
governance
we
want.
This
is
one
of
the
measures
that
we
asked
for
and
we
we
talked
to
the
governance
committee
we
wanted.
We
want
measures
of
an
accountable
and
effective
board
of
trustees.
We
proposed
these
measures
to
to
the
governance
committee
last
year
and
the
governance
committee
wasn't
able
to
come
to
consensus
on
this.
C
So
as
far
as
I
know,
it
never
actually
came
to
the
board,
but
these
are
the
three
that
we
we've
got
placeholders
for,
but
you
can
change
them
to
anything.
You
want.
You
know,
you're
the
board,
you
get
to
decide
how
accountable
and
effective
is
measured,
but
these
are
three
three
measures
that
we
have
proposed.
That
people
said
they
didn't
like.
So
this
might
be
an
action
for
the
board
to
come
to
some
consensus
about
what
an
accountable
and
effective
board
of
trustees.
C
How
you
would
measure
that
and
then
we
would
we
would
track
it.
The
community
definitely
has
given
us
feedback
that
they
want
something
like
this.
So
I
don't
know
what
what
the
measures
that
you
would
want
to
put
in
place,
but
I
I
do
ask
you
that
you
come
up
with
something
that
we
can.
We
can
include
in
this
because
this
is
a
report,
of
course,
ultimately
to
our
community.
So
question
on
that.
E
Do
we
have
access
to
the
the
actual
rationalization
of
what
we
didn't
like
about
it
with
air
quotes?
I.
C
Think
you
probably
want
to
take
that
up
with
the
governance
committee.
I
think
it
was
in
the
report
from
the
governance
committee
from
last
year.
Okay,
so
it's
in
the
report.
I
believe
it
is
yes.
D
C
A
it's
a
real
problem
because
a
lot
of
non-profits
well,
so
there
are
a
few
a
few
different
issues
here.
One
is
different:
non-profits
structure,
their
boards
in
different
ways
like
a
lot
of
non-profits.
The
way
you
get
on
the
board
is
you
give
a
certain
amount
of
money
and
the
board
is
like
the
size
of
the
board
is
determined
by
how
much
money
the
organization
brings
in
so
you
know,
in
those
cases,
probably
the
measures
would
really
be
in
terms
of
maybe
size
of
the
board
and
the
size
of
the
donations.
C
So
that's
one
one
issue
another.
Is
that
not
not
every
non-profit
publishes
all
of
the
information
that
you
would
like?
So
I
don't
know
if
these
are
best
practices,
they
seemed
like
you
know,
possibly
things
that
we
you
would
want
to
do,
and
so
they
were
the
proposals
that
we
had,
but
you
know
the
staff.
Doesn't
I
certainly.
I
do
not
feel
competent
to
tell
you
what
the
right
answer
is
here.
These
are
just
ones
that
we
proposed.
A
Thanks
do
any
other
board
members
want
to
discuss
these
measures,
in
particular,.
H
Well,
maybe
check
that
I
mean
not
to.
I
don't
want
to
interrupt
the
flow,
because
this
is
a
really
good
presentation
by
andrew
well.
This
is
the
last
measure
that
we
have
in
this
presentation.
So,
okay.
Well,
you
know
these
seem
kind
of
random.
I
mean
the
fact
that
you
know
when
I
look
at
the
second
one,
100
or
95
I
mean
you
know
we
we're
actually
pretty
efficient.
So
is
that
a
good
measure,
bad
measure?
I
mean
it's
like
if
this.
H
If
these
are
the
metrics
requested
or
generally
as
part
of
the
you
know,
governance
committee
and
what
the
community
raised,
I'm
not
sure
where
those
came
from
or
what
the
problems
were,
that
they
were
trying
and
I've
read
the
governance
committee
report.
I
I
don't
think
these
measures
fit
any
criteria
to
assess
the
quality
of
or
effectiveness
of
the
board.
I
mean
the
attendance
rate
you
know
is
pretty
high.
You
know
we
move
agenda
items,
everything
I
mean
very
few
things
have.
H
I
can't
remember
anything
that
didn't
get
done
on
the
schedule
he
wanted
and
then
you
know
the
the
last
one
when
we're
not
an
executive
session.
Everything's
recorded
and
posted,
so
that's
like
100,
so
I
I
don't
know
what
the
question
is
that
we're
trying
to
solve
that
these
metrics
would
help
us
answer.
D
So
I
can
think
of
a
wider
variety
of
things
that
might
be
useful
here,
because
I
know
a
lot
of
what
we
have
from
the
community
wasn't
voted
to
be
accountable,
and
I
know
when
you
work
at
a
private
company
where
people
say
I
want
executives
to
be
accountable,
what
they
mean
is
we
want
people
to
get
fired,
so
I
wonder
whether
we
need
something
more
subjective
here
like,
and
this
is
going
to
be
very
unpopular,
I'm
sure,
but
maybe
it's
more
useful.
D
You
know
what
is
staff
sentiment
about
the
board
of
trustees?
What
is
member
sentiment,
which
is
going
to
be
terrible
about
the
board
of
trustees,
but
I
do
think
like
is
that
is
that
useful,
because
it's
not
the
only
measure,
obviously,
but
is
it
something
that
you
would
add?
I
just
don't
know
what.
H
H
You
know
I
saw
that's
what
andrew
does
with
the
senior
staff
right.
So
I
think
it
goes
to
you
know
the
role,
the
role
of
the
board,
and
I
don't
think
again,
you
know
being
part
of
some
of
the
discussions
and
the
sessions
that
we've
had
as
part
of
the
governance
committee.
H
There's
a
wide
range
of
perceptions
about
what
the
role
of
the
board
is
that
actually
are
not
part
of
what
the
board
does
right.
You
know
I
mean
there
are
some
people
who
think
the
board
should
be
running
the
association
and
telling
andrew
what
to
do.
That's
not
what
we're
supposed
to
do.
H
So
I
I
I
think
it's
I'm
just
kind
of
befuddled
about
you
know,
first
of
all,
how
we
would
think
as
a
board,
how
we
think
about
our
effectiveness,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
we
need
to
do
as
a
board
to
think
florida.
D
Since
I
agree
with
you
and
one
of
the
things
that
occurs
to
me,
that
I'm
surprised
isn't
on
here
actually
given
the
discussions,
the
community
is
that
there
is
no
measure
of
board.
Diversity
seems
like
something
that
the
community
has
repeatedly
asked
for.
Oh
sorry,
sorry
I
sat
back.
I
apologize.
One
thing
that
I
think
the
community
would
want
on
here
will
be
something
about
board
diversity,
based
on
all
the
discussions
that
we've
heard,
but
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
it's
a
more
complex
conversation.
J
I
I
have
to
disagree
with
pepper
a
little
bit
on
the
the
second
item,
the
percentage
of
board
issues
that
get
resolved
whatever
it's,
and
there
are
plenty
of
boards
that
don't
get
their
work
done,
and
the
fact
that
we
do
doesn't
make
that
measure
any
less
useful.
J
So
you
know
the
having
that
and
saying
we
need
it.
Stunningly
is
is
fine,
but
but
I
think
it
is
an
important
measure.
I
I
agree:
that's
fair
yeah,
the
we're
talking
about
effectiveness
yeah,
so
that
means
input
output
yes
and
mission
fulfillment.
So
if
we
look
into
our
mission
as
a
board,
then
we
have
a
number
of
things
to
be
done.
I
I
agree
with
barry
some
of
these
things
just
to
be
taken
into
account
count
as
as
work.
Yes,
they
don't
necessarily
need
to
be
completed.
I
Yes,
because
there
are
very
complex
operations,
but
also,
as
you
say,
there
are
specific
things
that
we
need
to
fulfill.
If
we
get
a
cue
of
things
and
we
do
not
go
through
the
agenda
for
a
session,
that
will
be
a
non
effectiveness
measure
right.
The
results,
sorry,
but
in
the
case
of
diversity
I
will
have
to
defer
with
you
function
is
not
related
to
gender.
Yes,.
D
I
mean
more
in
terms
of
I
wouldn't
say
effectiveness,
but
accountability
right.
So,
although
this
data,
I
think
that
the
community
wants
the
board
to
reflect
the
community
right.
So
that
could
be
things
like.
Does
the
board
geographic
diversity
specifically
represent?
You
know
it's.
I
H
No,
I
was
just
going
to
agree
with
barry
and
I
yes
I
mean
it
is
a
metric
on
how
effective
we
are
be.
You
know
and
you're
correct.
I
was
you
know
looking
at
that
saying
yeah
we
do
that,
but
is
that
I
was
thinking
then
I
was
thinking
more,
not
diagnostically,
about
what
is
it
that
we
do
and
how
to
improve.
But
I
agree
with
you.
Yes,
that
is
a
measure
of
effectiveness
and
knock
wood.
So
far
what
I've
seen
were
effective
on
that
metric
okay,
so
I
just
wanted.
C
C
So
so
my
understanding
is
that
that's
the
board's
policy
and
and
then
a
the
the
measure
here
is
well.
Are
you
conforming
to
the
policy?
Yes
or
no?
I
mean
if
if,
if
that
were,
if
that
were
100
for
many
quarters
running,
that
would
be
a
good
thing
and
then,
if
what
you
discovered
was
like
you
know,
one
year
it
like
fell
off
a
cliff.
Well.
That
would
be
a
sign
that
you
know
that
maybe
accountability
had
declined
and
you
would
need
to
have
the
history
in
order
to
measure
that.
A
So
I
just
want
to
go,
go
back
and
say
first,
I
think
this
does
deserve
a
longer
discussion,
both
with
the
board
as
a
whole,
and
certainly
in
the
governance
committee,
to
to
discuss
what
these
measures
of
effectiveness
are,
and,
secondly,
that
we
actually
have
agreed
with
the
community
to
develop
methods
which
do
drive
things
like
increased
board
diversity,
and
I
think
we
can
be
measured
on
the
effectiveness
of
those
right.
First
did
we
deliver
on
them?
A
When
we
said
we
would
did
we
in
fact
create
a
binding
resolution
for
the
governance
committee
to
take
to
the
to
the
nom
comm
and
and
make
sure
that
its
representatives
or
its
its
members
were
diverse?
Did
we
in
fact
talk
to
by
the
internet
architecture
board?
Did
we
in
fact
go
and
make
appointments
along
the
lines
that
we
have
committed?
A
I
think
those
are
measures
of
effectiveness
that
do
speak
to
the
question
of
diversity,
because
their
commitments
by
one
of
the
boards
to
to
reach
for
reach
for
that
characteristic
through
a
particular
set
of
processes,
and
so
we
can
always
go
back
to
the
community
and
say:
hey.
We've
found
that
it
is
more
effective
to
achieve
diversity
by
doing
x
than
y,
so
we're
going
to
switch
from
doing
x
to
y,
but
we're
still
going
to
hit
the
overall
target.
A
That's
a
that's
something
we
can
still
do,
but
at
the
short
term
measuring
is
against
our
commitments
to
communities
is
pretty
key
and
I
think
some
of
what
I
see
there
are
commitments
to
the
community.
The
commitment
to
making
meetings
and
myriad
and
meeting
materials
publicly
available
is
one
that
a
previous
board
took
pretty
seriously
because
they
had
been
approached
by
the
community
to
say:
why
are
all
your
meetings?
A
A
So
I
think
we
want
to
think
about
two
things
here,
and
one
is
what
are
the
existing
commitments
that
we
might
measure
here
and
second,
are
there
new
commitments
we
want
to
make
and
once
those
new
commitments
are
made,
what
do
we
want
to
measure
about
them,
and
I
think
that
might
give
the
governance
committee
kind
of
a
scaffolding
to
to
have
the
discussion.
C
If
I
could
point
out
one
thing
about
this,
this
particular
example
percentage
of
board
meetings
and
meeting
materials
that
are
publicly
available.
If
we
had
been
measuring
this
all
along
several
of
the
discussions
on
the
governance
reform
working
group
list
over
the
past
several
years
would
have
been
like
could
have
been
fact-based.
C
We
had
several
discussions
there
that
were
really
based
on
kind
of
impressions
that
people
had
about.
You
know
what
things
were
or
not,
but
if
we
had
been
measuring
this
consistently,
we
would
have
been
able
to
say
no
look.
C
Here's
here's
the
number
of
things
that
the
board
has
done
and
here's
the
number
of
of
those
things
that
were
done
in
public,
and
you
would
actually
have
that
measure
and
you
would
have
been
able
to
point
to
it
now.
Of
course,
some
people
would
have
said
yeah,
but
we
want
to
know
what's
going
on
in
the
closed
things
and
the
then
the
answer
would
have
to
be
okay
but
look.
This
is
this.
Is
the
percentage
that
that
you
know
these
are
personnel
items
and
such
like?
C
You
can't
possibly
do
those
in
public
and-
and
I
think
you
know
it
would
have
been
helpful-
to
have
some
of
these
measures
so
that
the
community
could
have
been
better
informed
about
what
was
going
on.
H
That
actually
is
a
really
good
point,
because
it
goes
to
the
per
state,
not
the
board's
perceptions,
but
the
community's
perceptions
of
what
is
an
effective
board,
and
I
think,
that's
actually
important
so
yeah.
I
hadn't
thought
about
that
when
I
commented.
C
Initially-
and
let
me
maybe
make
one
more
remark
about
this
entire
set
of
things,
which
is
the
reason
we
decided
we
needed
to
start
measuring
this
and
started
and
start
publishing
it
and
so
on
to
the
community,
is
because
we
were
getting
feedback.
You
know,
people
don't
know
what
we're
doing,
and
this
is
a
way
of
saying,
okay.
Well,
here's
what
we're
doing
and
here's
the
evidence
that
we've
gathered
about
about
whether
we're
doing
the
things
that
we
said
we
were
going
to
do.
C
That's
that's
been
the
the
goal
on
all
along
to
develop
these
things.
So,
as
you,
you
know,
digest
these
results
and
as
we
make
these
things
available,
as
you
will
recall,
there
is
a
dashboard.
That's
been
under
development.
That's
been
a
little
bit
hijacked
because
of
some
systems,
problems
that
we've
had,
but
you
know
as
you
digest
these
results.
C
You
know
think
about
other
things
that
you,
you
might
say,
actually
you're
missing
a
measure
here,
because
you
know
we
will
develop
the
measure
as
necessary
in
order
to
support
that.
But
you
know
if
there's
something
that
isn't
clear.
Just
as
we
got
some
feedback,
then
you
know
we
want
to
develop
this
so
that
it's
a
useful
tool
for
the
board
and
ultimately
for
the
community
to
understand
you
know,
is
the
organization
healthy.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
think
the
board
governance
committee
needs
to
take
up
this
discussion
and
the
next
step,
I
think,
is
to
go
on
to
our
next
presentation,
which
is
also
me,
have
the
2025
the
midterm
updates.
C
Yes,
so
we
can
put
up
this
presentation,
but
it's
not
really
a
presentation.
C
As
you
know,
this
is
really
much
more
of
a
report
and
there
isn't
a
presentation
to
go
along
with
this,
because
we
tried
to
develop
a
presentation
for
this
and
came
to
the
very
quick
conclusion
that
either
you
have
a
meaningless
slide
of
like
random
words
or
you
or
or
you
have
like.
You
know,
wall
of
words
anyway,
and
so
it
seemed
better
to
have
a
report.
C
So
that's
why
this
has
come
to
you
in
the
form
of
this
kind
of
report,
as
opposed
to
a
set
of
slides
that
I
can
present
very
conveniently
here.
But
I
you
know,
I'm
I'm
hoping
and
assuming
that
people
have
read
this.
The
the
overarching
goal
here
is
to
talk
about
three
basic
things
right.
We
have.
We
have
this
idea,
the
path
to
2025
that
we
build,
promote
and
defend
the
internet.
C
That's
fundamentally
what
what
it
is
that
we're
we're
doing
about,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
created
a
bunch
of
things
where
we
said
what
is
it
that
we're
doing
so?
C
We
say
you
know,
build
we're
going
to
extend
the
internet
to
communities
that
do
not
have
it
and
need
it
most,
and
then
we
created
a
bunch
of
targets
for
this,
and
then
you
know
on
any
given
year
we
produce
evidence
to
the
effect
of
whether
we
have
done
that
or
not,
and
so
what
we
see
on
the
build
side
is
that
you
know
our
aim
was
50
communities
by
2025
over
the
over
the
period
of
you
know.
C
Here
we
are
in
the
midterm,
we've
got
49
so
far,
so
seems
pretty
good.
We
seem
to
be
pretty
much
on
track.
Similarly,
you
know
if
we
look
at
the
promotion
sort
of
approach,
we're
trying
to
promote
the
model
as
the
preferred
model,
and
this
is
a
very
different
sort
of
thing
right.
It's
easy
to
count.
You
know,
okay,
we
wanted
to
go
to
this
many
communities
we've
gone
to
this
many
communities
seems
like
we're
on
track
much
harder
to
talk
about.
You
know
by
2025.
C
The
internet
model
of
networking
will
be
dominant
okay.
How
do
you
operationalize
dominant?
What
does
that
mean?
And
you
know
we
actually
seen
that
we've
got.
On
the
one
hand,
we've
got
some
positive
results
in
in,
in
the
sense
that
people
believe
in
the
internet
and
they
want
to
continue
to
work
with
it.
On
the
other
hand,
we
have
the
the
problem
that
the
internet
model
is
under
attack
right.
We
see
a
lot
of
places
where
people
are
skeptical
about
the
internet
model
or
attempting
to
undermine
it
and
so
forth.
C
So
this
is
a
a
place
where
the
you
know.
The
message
is
a
little
bit
more
mixed,
and
I
urge
you
to
have
a
look
at
the
at
the
report
to
make
sure
that
you
know
those
sorts
of
elements
are
are
are
being
addressed.
A
So
so
can
I
ask
kind
of
yes
here
that
in
in
what
you
have,
you
have
like
the
gene
coefficient
of
autonomy
right
and
that's
a
a
useful
measure,
but
is
anybody
measuring
the
attack
right?
So
is
there
anybody
a
partner
organization
or
other,
that's
actually
trying
to
measure
the
strength
of
the
attack
on
the
internet
model
in
different
geographies
or
by
different
things,
because
obviously
you're
trying
to
plan
what
your
response
is
and
if
you
focus
on
in
increasing
you
know
the
autonomy
of
asses?
That's
wonderful!
A
C
Yeah,
so
this
is
an
excellent
question
and
and
exactly
the
kind
of
question
I
was
hoping
this.
This
report
would
inspire
because
we
have
a
whole
group
of
people
who
are
who
are
working
on
exactly
this.
It's
like
an
internal
management
committee
called
the
future
group
and,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
working
on
really
hard,
is
to
come
up
with
measures
of
exactly
things
like
that.
C
It's
extraordinarily
difficult
to
map
like
strength
of
political
attacks
around
the
world,
that
that's
a
that's,
a
really
tricky
problem.
It's
actually
really
hard
to
measure
even
the
extent
to
which
something
is
trending
in
the
wrong
direction,
because
you
know,
like
the
number
of
mentions
in
an
international
meeting
of
you
know
we
don't
like
that
is
not
the
same
thing
as
the
frequency
with
which
legislation
is
introduced.
That
is
contrary
to
the
things
that
you
want,
which
is
not
the
same
thing
as
legislation
that
is
introduced.
C
That
accidentally
negatively
affects
the
things
you
want,
which
is
another
part
of
this
right,
and
so
we're
trying
to
model
that
we
we
engage.
For
instance,
this
year
we
engaged
an
economist
to
try
to
help
do
some
economic
modeling
of
the
ways
of
the
ways
the
internet
is
is
affecting
development
and
the
theory
there
was
well.
If
we
had
that
model,
then
we
would
be
able
to
to
use
that
model
against
actual
developments
and
see
hey
is
this
model
working
here?
Is
it
working
here?
C
Is
it
working
here
and
apply
that
across
different
different
economies?
We
don't
have
it
yet,
but
it's
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
develop
in
order
to
in
order
to
provide
these
measures.
So
I
guess
the
short
answer
to
what
you're
asking
is.
No.
C
As
far
as
we
know,
nobody
is
actually
doing
what
what
you
want,
but
we
are
super
keen
actually
to
develop
such
a
measure
or
even
like
a
model
version
of
what
such
a
measure
would
look
like,
because
if
we
could
even
come
up
with
like
a
simplistic
model,
it
would
be
a
big
improvement
over
what
we
have
right
now,
which
is
like
you
know,
everybody
panic.
D
It's
been
a
reasonable
time,
thinking
about
this
excellent
good,
so
I
would
be
happy
to
work
with
you
on
this
outside
of
this
meeting,
but
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
organizations
that
you
could
partner
with
on
designing
such
a
measure,
especially
on
trying
to
get
some
sort
of
more
generally
accepted
measure.
D
And
some
of
those
places
are,
you
know,
obviously
like
cdt
or
eff
or
mozilla
foundation,
but
also
there
are
researchers
like
at
nyu
that
look
at
things
like
freedom
of
information
on
the
internet
and
how
you
know
how
freely
and
accurately
information
is
available
in
different
parts
of
the
internet,
which
I
think
would
be
one
measure
there,
but
yeah
happy
happy
to
engage
if
that's
helpful.
H
Yeah
ted,
you
actually
raised
a
really
good
question,
and
that
is
how
do
you?
How
do
you
define
and
track
the
threats
and
that's
really
hard,
because
what
you're
looking
at
is
trying
to
figure
out
what
you
know
what
legislation
is
being
proposed
or
regulations
are
being
proposed
in
193
countries?
Now
you
can
sort
of
boil
that
down
right,
you
could
even
try
to
do
it
by
region.
You
know
we've
tried
to
do
that
on.
Obviously
you
know
some.
You
know
particular
issues.
H
H
It's
very
expensive
and
it's
very
spotty.
It's
not
thorough.
I
mean
you
can
see
these
things
and
you
know
if
a
proposal
is
a
proposed
resolution
at
an
itu
meeting.
Yeah
you
see
that
pop
up,
but
the
question
is
what's
happening
in
conversations
or
proposals
you
know
at
you
know
the
atu
meeting
or
the
clt
in
latin
america
or,
as
you
know,
legislation.
That's
introduced,
you
know
in
you
know,
korea
or
whatever
it
might
be,
it's
it,
but
but
there
needs
to
be
right.
H
Some
tracking
of
you
know
these
these
threats,
and
you
know,
had
the
conversation
of
you
know
sovereignty.
You
know
in
the
name
of
digital
sovereignty,
what
does
that
mean
for
the
for
the
internet?
And
this
is
something
that
we
may
want
to
do
as
internet
society
bring
together
other
regional
organizations
that
may
be
tracking
this,
but
to
have
you
know,
sort
of
a
sharing
globally,
because
this
is
not
being
done
and
so
therefore,
the
magnitude
of
the
threat.
I
don't
think
we
don't
sufficiently
understand
it,
whether
it's
a
small
or
large,
are
there.
H
A
couple
of
you
know
examples
that
everybody
you
know
gets
hair
on
fire
or
is
it
or
that
I
used
to
do
that
or.
H
A
I
think
you've
touched
on
a
couple
of
things
that
kind
of
relate
to
what
I
I
think
we
might
be
able
to
do
here.
And
the
metaphor
that
comes
to
my
mind
is
weather
right
at
the
moment.
We're
at
the
is
the
rock
wet
version
of
forecasting.
We
can
look
out
the
at
the
window
and
say
it's
raining
or
we
we
can.
You
know,
hang
the
rock
and
see
whether
it's
currently
swinging
or
if
we
touch
it,
is
it
what
we'd
love
to
be
in
the
many
satellites?
A
And
you
know,
good
weather
radar
world
that's
way
way
beyond.
Is
the
rock
wet,
but
the
interim
steps
we
can
take
there
functionally
create
clearinghouses
where
we
say
hey
if
you're
one
of
our
partners
in
many
ways
like
the
measurement
clearinghouse
right,
we
can't
gather
all
this
data
ourselves,
but
if
we
have
an
organizational
member
with
the
data
or
a
partner
with
whom
we
have
an
mou
with
the
data
that
can
send
it
to
the
clearinghouse
and
say
hey
a
front
is
coming
through
in
rwanda.
A
You
know
here's
what's
happening
and
then
once
you
have
that
you
begin
to
be
able
to
do
both
reactive
activities,
but,
more
importantly,
study
you
can
see
you
know
if,
if
it
gets
raised
in
mozambique,
does
cape
verde
follow?
Is
there
you
know
a
trend
among
the
francophone
nations
of
africa?
Is
there
a
is?
A
That
seems
like
a
pretty
big
undertaking.
It's
much
bigger
in
many
many
ways
than
the
internet
measurement
clearinghouse
right,
because
exactly
what
you're
measuring
is
so
politically
charged
and
it's
it's
not
going
to
be
the
same
as
saying
you
know
what
was
the
as
pattern
of
growth
in
your
in
your
area,
how
much
v6
versus
v4
those
are,
relatively
speaking,
value,
neutral
measurements
and
therefore
a
little
bit
easier
to
provide
a
clearinghouse,
but
it
still
might
be
very
valuable.
A
Since,
ultimately,
we
are
partisans
right,
we
are
for
a
particular
kind
of
internet
and
even
though
it
is
politically
charged,
it
is
still
worth
our
gathering
this
data,
because
it
also
helps
us
gather
the
allies.
We
need
to
make
the
arguments
we
want
to
make
because
we
can
then
hand
the
data
to
them
and
say
cdt,
here's
what
we
got
eff,
here's,
what
we
got
mozilla
foundation
here,
here's
what
we
got
and
each
of
them
can
then
speak
independently,
but
still
help
us
deliver
the
mission
yeah.
So
the.
H
H
Well,
yes,
but
yeah,
and
that's
that
that's
the
first
that
maybe
that's
where
we
start,
but
I
think
that
can
also
be
added
to
right.
And
so
I'm
asking
this
is
a
question,
not
his
recommendation,
but
I
want
to
hear
from
the
chapter
members
of
the
board
whether
they
think
and
then
andrew
whether
you
know.
We
think
that
that
could
be
one
way
to
begin
putting
together
this
database
or
you
know
the
the
trend
lines,
the
other
thing
in
terms
of
working
with
eff
and
cdt
and
so
on.
H
They
they
tend
to
be
us
or
european
centric,
and
they
they
don't
yet
cover
the
world.
I
think
so
we
have
charles
and
then
brian.
Yes,.
L
I
think
a
lot
of
the
discussion
so
far
is
very
similar
to
what
I've
been
finding
out
in
the
last
year
or
two
when
I
was
starting
to
look
into
these
issues
and
look
like
peppa
was
saying
a
lot
of
these
efforts
out
there,
whether
they
be
law,
firms
or
other
commercial
or
non-commercial
entities,
to
try
to
come
up
with
lists
and
lists
of
what's
been
happening
in
these
kind
of
all
the
countries
in
the
world.
L
It's
just
first
of
all,
very
difficult
to
keep
track
of,
and
secondly,
there
are
a
lot
of
details
in
the
in
country
that
doesn't
get
reflected
in
in
the
the
reality
isn't.
Just
simply
like
you
know,
you
read
the
title
of
the
law
and
then
you
think
this
is
what
it
is
so
a
lot
of
times.
That
gets
to
be
not
very
useful,
the
the
listings
and
the
compilation
and
so
on.
So
and
then
we
see
a
lot
of
organizations,
probably
coming
from
their
own
ideological
background.
L
You
know
they
might
be
a
an
organization
that
is
very,
very
concerned
about
democracy
or
human
rights
or
other,
and
then
they
sometimes
would
have
the
tendency
to
in
a
negative
way
about
in
the
negative
way
of
describing
it
jumping
to
conclusion,
to
say
that
you
know
look
at
this
and
then
this
is
bad
well,
most
of
the
time,
that's
true,
but
I
don't
think
they
create
provided
the
right
justification
for
their
for
their
conclusions.
L
I
do
do
believe
that
that
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
because
we
actually
can
help
them
in
some
ways
justify
or
not
what
they
are
claiming
that
these
some
these
laws
are
having
such
and
such
of
an
impact,
and
we
can
come
in
from
a
a
technical
or
even
you
know,
from
technical
to
economical
or
even
other
social
conclusions
to
draw
on
based
on
the
technical
or
the
internet
way
of
networking
kind
of
methodology.
L
So
I
think
that
is
actually
a
unique
opportunity
that
we
have,
and
I
think
we
do
a
lot
of
good
work,
particularly
on
issues
such
as
internet
shutdowns.
But
then
these
issues
are
very
broad.
When
you
don't
look
at
many
of
those
indexes
out
there,
they
might
be
looking
at
surveillance,
they
might
be
looking
at
a.I
and
so
on.
So
I
guess
we
also
have
to
think
about
what
are
the
issues
that
are
more
directly
related
to.
L
What
we
do
I
mean,
do
we
want
to
do
an
ai
index
is
that
what
ice
hockey
is
probably
not
right,
so
yeah
and
the
last
point
about
chapters
I
pepper,
I
totally
agree,
and
I
think
in
in
in
I
mean
now
in
future
we
really
should
engage
some
of
the
the
chapters
or
even
stake
on
the
ground
in
different
countries
to
get
the
local
feedbacks
about.
You
know
some
of
these,
even
some
of
the
the
internet
briefs
that
we
are
writing
right
now.
L
There
are
some
cases.
I
heard
some
of
these
chapters
saying
that
a
you
know
it's
about
my
country,
but
you
didn't
ask
me,
so
I
I
think
there
and
they're
an
asset
that
we
can
draw
on
to
try
to
get
more
insight
into
the
local
perspectives
of
these
developments
and
then
how
to
organize
it
among
different
chapters
to
make
it,
if
not
an
index,
a
snapshot
of
what's
happening
in
the
world
and
so
on.
Yeah.
M
So
we're
brian
and
then
laura
thanks
ted.
I
think
charles
and
pepper,
actually
captured
some
of
what
I
was
about
to
say.
But
you
know
when
I
look
at
this
report
and
I'm
and
I'm
reading
about
you
know
like
the
the
the
genie
coefficient
or
measuring
autonomy.
M
M
D
So
useful
framework
that
we
use
a
lot
of
brazil,
which
I
think
is
directly
applicable
here,
is
when
you
set
up
to
do
something
like
this.
You
would
say
what
are
things
that
as
an
organization
that
we
are
uniquely
qualified
to
do,
what
are
the
things
that
we
can
do
that
other
people
can't
do
so?
What
are
the
things
that
internet
society
can
do
here?
That
other
organizations
can't-
and
I
think,
there's
two
strengths-
that
the
society
has
which
are
particularly
helpful
here
and
one?
D
Is
that
global
view
right,
because
a
lot
of
the
organizations
tend
to
be
like
in
a
single
country
or
specific
to
europe
or
whatever,
and
those
are
incredibly
helpful.
But
just
the
the
structure
of
isoc
is
that
you
know
we
have
all
of
these
chapters.
D
We
have
people
we
can
draw
on
all
over
the
world
and
the
second
thing
is
the
technical
strength,
because
certainly
some
of
the
organizations
in
this
space
are
very
technically
oriented,
and
some
of
them
are
more
sort
of
a
civil
society
socially
oriented,
and
I
think
we
do
a
good
job
of
spanning
both.
So
I
think,
there's
like
plenty
of
opportunity
there,
where
we
can
really
make
a
contribution.
H
How
would
we
know
it?
We
see
it
so,
for
example,
talking
about
this
yesterday
a
lot
of
the
domestic
proposals.
National
proposals
for
data
localization
are,
in
the
name
of
you,
know
security
or
privacy.
But
in
fact,
are
you
know
nothing
more
than
trying
to
you
know,
have
national
intranets
and
that
are
counter
to
the
global
open
internet.
So
the
question
is
what
or
again
we're
not
going
to
solve
that
here,
but
it
may
be
something
andrew
for
you
know,
staff
to
think
about.
H
You
know
what
are
some
of
the
indicators
that
would
be
a
red
flag
or
a
flag
that
you'd
that
would
when
you
saw
it,
it
would
certainly
raise
a
question
about
whether
this
is
and
could
be
a
threat
to
the
internet
way
of
networking
and
our
vision
of
the
global
internet.
You
know
that's
just
one:
there
are
multiples,
because
if
we
can
come
up
with
things
that
are
observable,
then
you
can
begin
to
see
them
and
maybe
measure
them,
and
I
don't
know
what
all
of
those
are.
H
C
So
if
you
have
a
look,
for
instance
at
in
in
this
report
in
the
p1
section,
promote
the
internet
model
of
networking
as
the
preferred
model,
what
we've
been
trying
to
do,
there
is
come
up
with,
and-
and
I
I
take
the
point-
you
know-
these
are
possibly
ambiguous
indicators,
but
what
we've
done
is
we've
come
up
essentially
with
some
proxies
that
are
that
we
think
are,
at
the
very
least,
leading
indicators
of
you
know,
potential
issues.
C
So,
on
this
point
about
the
genie
coefficient
of
autonomy
of
networks,
it's
true
that
you
could
end
up
with
just
like
centralized
coordination
as
opposed
to
centralized
control
there.
Our
theory,
however,
is
that
centralized
coordination
almost
always
leads
to
centralized
control,
and
therefore
our
theory
is
that,
on
the
autonomy
of
networks
is
actually
a
really
important
indicator,
and
if
that
coefficient
goes
in
the
wrong
direction,
we
think
that
that's
an
alarm
bell.
C
That
doesn't
mean
it's
a
fact
that
it's
it's
going
in
the
wrong
direction,
but
we
think
it's
a
pretty
good
indicator.
Similarly,
the
sort
of
shared
network
on
reachability
the
idea
here
is
that
we're
trying
to
figure
out
okay,
well
v6
adoption
is
actually
the
the
thing
that
we're
going
to
track
there.
C
Now
I
admit
that
there
are
lots
of
networks
where
v6
is
not
that
effective,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
we're
out
of
v4
addresses
if
you've
got
a
v6
only
address
and
something
else
doesn't
have
a
v6
address,
then
that's
a
pretty
good
sign
that
you've
got
problems
with
shared
network
reachability,
given
that
the
the
reality
is
mobile
networks
are
all
deploying
v6
only
and
then
they're
doing
some
kind
of
at
the
edge,
because
that's
the
only
way
that
you
can
actually
deploy
the
number
of
devices
you
need.
Okay.
C
Well,
then,
actually
v6
is
a
pretty
good
proxy
indicator.
It's
not
a
perfect
measurement,
but
it's
intended
to
be
on
that
kind
of
measurement,
and
you
know
I
could
go
through
the
rest
of
these
things.
C
But
this
is
the
reason
this
isn't
like
a
powerpoint
presentation,
because
you've
actually
got
to
read
all
of
the
all
of
the
details
of
the
of
the
pieces,
but
the
the
critical
thing
here
is
that
the
model
is
why
we
developed
the
internet
way
of
networking
on
theory
in
the
first
place
that
we
need
to
we
needed
to
have
that
model
and
we
didn't
actually
have
those
before
so
now.
We've
got
a
model
by
which
we
can.
C
We
can
do
this,
but
that
modeling
point
leads
me
to
something
that
occurred
to
me
only
in
this
meeting
and
I'm
going
to
try
this
out
now.
I'm
sorry!
This
is
a
thought
that
only
just
occurred
to
me.
So
don't
hold
me
to
it,
but
it
it
struck
me
that
what
the
the
analogy
that
ted
was
making
with
with
meteorology
was
a
good
one,
but
actually
gives
us
a
a
long-term
goal,
and
that
is
with
you
know
with
weather.
You
want
to
predict
like.
C
You
also
want
to
have,
like
you
know,
a
climate
model,
because
it
turns
out
that,
like
whether
it's
going
to
rain
tomorrow
doesn't
tell
you
whether
hurricanes
are
going
to
increase
in
frequency
in
the
future,
and
actually
you
want
to
know
both
things,
and
so
what
we
really
ought
to
be
doing
here
is
figuring
out
how
to
build
weather
maps,
but
we
need
to
build
weather
maps
in
order
to
feed
into
a
climate
model
of
the
internet
and
to
build
a
climate
model
of
the
internet.
C
We
we
need
to
build
these
kind
of
weather
maps
and
in
order
to
build
those
weather
maps,
what
you
need
to
do
is
build
measures
of
conditions,
and
this
actually
leads
us
to
a
bunch
of
different
things.
One
of
those
different
things
is
reporting
stations
and
reporting
stations
can
come
from
people
sitting
on
the
ground,
observing
stuff
or
they
can
come
from.
C
You
know
doppler
radar
or
they
can
come
from
satellites
or
they
can
come
from
all
of
these
different
kinds
of
things,
because
those
different
kinds
of
things
tell
you
whether
the
one
and
the
other
are
actually
reliable
things.
Maybe
this
is
just
like
me,
nerding
out,
because
quite
by
accident,
the
other
day
I
was
reading
something
about
weather
reporting
and
how
it
affected
the
progress
of
the
second
world
war,
because
there
was
somebody
who
wasn't
really
allied
but
was
feeding
one
of
the
nation.
C
Yes,
I
know
I
was
trying
to
avoid
talking
about
which
country
and
so
forth.
I
think
they've
fessed
up
these
long
years.
C
So
so
ireland
was
reporting
weather
to
the
british,
and
you
know
to
the
allies
which
affected
the
sorties
that
they
could
run
and
so
on,
and
it
allowed
them
to
plan
a
little
better,
because,
basically,
the
fact
was
ground
observation
stations.
Long
before
doppler
radar
was
practical.
Possibility
meant
that
they
could
feed
something,
and
they
could
do
this
over
telegraph
until
you
get
this
kind
of
information.
Well,
like
we
have
chapters,
and
this
this
comes
to
the
point
right,
we
could
have
people
who
could
say
hey.
C
So
you
know
the
goal
at
the
beginning
of
this,
of
course,
was
to
report
on
our
progress
on
this
build,
promote
and
defend
model
that
we
have
for
2025,
but
it
strikes
me
that
the
the
gaps
in
the
in
the
model
that
we
have
here
point
to
future
work
that
we
really
ought
to
aim
at
about.
C
How
would
we
like
what
are
the
steps
towards
building
that
kind
of
climate
model
and
if
the
board
thinks
that
that's
a
useful
thing
to
do,
then
I
think
that's
useful
feedback
for
us
in
preparing
our
action
plans
for
the
next
several
years.
G
C
N
Can
you
hear
me
now:
okay,
just
a
comment
for
the
board
that
we
are
actually
going
to
send
out
a
survey
to
the
whole
community
with
this
report
to
ask
them?
How
well
do
you
think
we're
doing,
and
where
do
you
think
we
should
be
prioritizing
our
attention
up
to
2025,
so
just
to
make
sure
that
you
have
that
in
mind
as
well?
Thank
you.
C
So
I
know
in
the
in
the
board's
side
channel
that
brian
said
you
know
it
will
not
be
easy.
It
will
require
key
partnerships
and
I
you
know,
I
fully
recognize
that
the
thing
that
I
would
say
is
you
know.
I
don't
think
that
the
internet
society
should
do
only
comfortable
and
easy
work.
C
The
thing
that
has
been
striking
me
over
the
last
you
know
couple
years
is
is
exactly
this
fact
that
when
I
first
encountered
the
internet
and
started
to
get
to
use
it
and
so
on,
it
was
obviously
a
good
thing
to
everyone
who
came
in
touch
with
it
that
this
was
a
tool
that
was
so
evidently
a
tool
for
human
development
and
good
that
there
was
no
question
as
to
whether
you
should
you
know
you
should
do
something
with
it
and
if
you
look
at
the
drift
of
sort
of
interventions
by
governments
recently,
you
look
at
some
of
the
public
discussions
about
the
way
that
the
the
discussion
around
you
know.
C
The
development
of
the
internet
goes,
that's
no
longer
something
we
can
take
for
granted.
You
know
people
believe
that
the
internet
is
a
hostile
force.
You
know
people
make
jokes,
I
mean
they're
on
twitter
when
they
make
this
joke
about
how
the
internet
came
to
ruin
everything.
But
that's
not
exactly
like
it's
it's
you
know
funny
only
not,
and-
and
there
is
this
sense
actually,
that
the
internet
is
a
hostile
force
in
our
lives
and
that
it
ought
to
be
shut
down.
C
And
you
know
there
are
historical
examples
of
technologies
that
are
transforming
that
have
all
kinds
of
positive
and
negative
effects,
and
you
know
whole
countries
have
attempted
to
turn
their
backs
on
those
technologies,
and
I
believe
that
in
a
lot
of
cases,
that's
that's
a
negative
consequence
for
the
societies
that
tried
to
do
that
or
those
are
societies
that
then
become
just
buffeted
by
that
right.
That
they're
it's
easy,
for
instance,
to
ignore
the
the
potential
of
the
automobile
to
transform
your
culture,
and
one
way
to
ignore.
C
It
is
just
to
pretend
that
it's
not
a
problem,
and
then
people
buy
a
lot
of
cars
and
now
you've
got
a
nightmare
and
and
that's
those
are
the
kinds
of
possibilities
that
are
there,
and
I
I
at
the
same
time.
I
think
we
have
to
acknowledge
the
internet
is
a
marvelous
tool
for
human
development.
It
is
a
tool
that
gives
people
you
know
power
over
their
lives
in
a
way
that
no
other
human
society
has
ever
had
the
opportunity
to
have
I
the
last
couple
of
years.
C
It's
you
know
it's
great
to
see
you
all
in
person,
and
I
I'm
valuing
that,
and
I
think
it's
it's
marvelous,
but
the
last
couple
of
years
would
have
been
way
harder
without
this
technology,
and
I
think
that
we
have
to
acknowledge
that.
I
think
the
fact,
and
and
not
just
in
the
sense
of
like
social
isolation.
C
The
last
time
we
had
anything
like
a
pandemic
of
this
sort,
coordination
among
far-flung
countries
and
their
epidemiologists
in
terms
of
figuring
out
the
you
know
the
vector
of
disease,
the
speed
of
the
spread
and
so
on.
It
was
not
something
that
was
that
was
easy
to
do.
You
had
to
do
it
by
postal
mail.
You
had
to
get.
You
know
peer
review
of
results
before
anybody
would,
you
know,
put
them
on
paper,
whereas
now
people
are
willing
to
share
pre-publication
stuff
and
say
I
don't
know
whether
this
is
right
or
not.
C
Somebody
find
a
hole
in
this
argument
and
some
of
the
holes
have
been
rapidly
discovered
and
some
of
them
have
been
like
now
that
actually
jives
with
what
I'm
doing
and
we
were
able
to
develop
vaccines
in
a
speed
that,
like
nobody's
ever,
been
able
to
develop
things
responses
and
and
without
the
internet
without
the
speed
of
communication
that
we
have.
We
just
wouldn't
have
that.
C
So
I
think
that
you
know
we
have
a
responsibility
to
tackle
all
of
that
by
saying:
hey,
here's
this
thing
and
it's
good
and
if
you're,
if
you're
undermining
it,
then
we've
got
a
problem
and
so
we're
the
internet
society.
We
have
to
build,
promote
and
defend
the
internet,
and
I
think
that
sure
I'm
prepared
to
say
hey
hard
to
do.
We
got
to
get
a
lot
of
people
on
board.
We
gotta,
you
know,
convene
a
big
community
and
so
on,
but
I
think
we
should.
C
J
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
maybe
an
obvious
statement,
but
the
it's
a
lot
of
the
people
who
defend
and
benefit
from
the
internet
or
themselves,
people
who
are
involved
in
undermining
it
with
misinformation
and
that
sort
of
thing
it's
all
it's
a
difficult
balance
all
around
and
we're
have.
We
all
often
have
conversations
about
how
to
deal
with
misinformation
on
the
internet
and
manipulation
via
the
internet,
and
things
like
that.
J
E
No
just
one
comment
so
to
your
share
your
point:
do
you,
when
people
think
of
the
internet
being
bad?
Do
they
have
a
hard
time
disambiguating
things
you
can
do
on
the
internet?
That
might
be
bad
versus
the
internet
itself?
I.E,
I
don't
know
another
analogy
outside
of
weather.
Is
power
right?
Power
is
good,
but
if
you
fire
up
a
bunch
of
coal
stations,
that
might
be
bad,
but
if
you
can
figure
out
how
to
do
wind
and
solar,
that's
good.
E
Neither
of
those
are
intrinsically
connected
to
the
fact
that
we,
you
know
we
use
energy
power,
power
generation,
etc.
So
I'm
wondering
if
there's
do
we
need
to
disambiguate
those
things
or
is
that
we
just
have
to
live
with
that,
because
a
lot
of
these
things
that
you
know
I
know
people
think
are
bad
about.
The
internet
might
actually
be
the
way
a
service
works
on
the
internet
or
because
it's
not
really
mapped
to
the
actual
internet
itself
from
a
basic
construct.
C
So,
first
of
all,
yes,
of
course,
that
conflation
is
is
a
central
challenge
for
us
all
the
time,
but
it
is
in
fact
part
of
the
reason
that
we
developed
the
the
internet
impact
assessment.
C
So
the
the
very
idea
of
the
impact
assessment-
and
I
don't
remember
who
originally
came
up
with
this
term,
but
it
would
it
somebody
in
the
staff
did
and-
and
it
was
a
it-
was
a
moment
of
clarity
when
he
or
she
said
it's
like
environmental
assessments,
and
it
like
it
was
a
really
great
insight
because
it
was
this
opportunity
to
say
you
know,
look
at
this
when
we
build
a
dam
or
a
road
or
anything
like
that.
C
We
don't
just
try
to
assume
you
know
our
well,
I
mean
some
people
maybe
do
but
most
people,
you
know
they're,
not
gonna,
assume,
like
only
the
benefits
or
anything
like
that.
Instead,
you've
got
to
look
at
what
are
the
consequences
to
the
overall
overall
system,
and
the
same
thing
is
true
here:
many
of
the
things
that
people
are
trying
to
tackle
are
indirect.
C
You
know
only
indirectly
attached
to
the
internet
and
when
I
started
in
this
job,
one
of
the
things
the
board
was
very
clear
about
was
that
it
didn't
want
us
to
be
the
everything
society
right.
It
can't
be.
Anything
that
connects
to
the
internet
is
part
of
our
scope
of
work
because,
like
pretty
soon
that'll
be
like
all
of
the
things
in
the
known
universe,
and
so
we're
going
to
have
to
like
scope
this
somehow
and
the
way
we've
been
scoping.
C
It
really
has
to
do
with
this
global
network
of
networks,
but
you
know:
there's,
there's
a
very
strong
desire
and
a
very
strong
desire
on
public
policy
make
on
the
part
of
public
policy
makers,
but
even
on
the
part
of
our
own
of
our
own
members,
our
own
staff
and
so
forth.
To
have
like
a
a
black
and
white,
you
know
binary
condition.
C
Is
this?
Is
this
an
internet
issue
or
not?
Is
it
the
infrastructure?
Oh
you
only
work
on
the
infrastructure.
The
the
problem,
of
course,
is
that,
because
of
the
architecture
of
the
internet,
there's
no
such
thing
as
only
infrastructure.
Anything
can
be
an
application
and
transport
at
the
same
time
as
we've
seen
over
and
over
again
any
you
know,
things
can
be
encapsulated
and
so
forth.
So
each
one
of
these
things
is
a
kind
of
spectral
condition
and
we
have
to
be
able
to
understand.
C
Okay,
to
what
extent
is
the
is,
that
is
our
intervention
going
to
affect
this
entire
set
of
set
of
things
and
that's
actually
the
hard
the
hard
hard
work
we
got
to
do.
I
Thanks
andrew,
I
I
agree
with
this
perception
that
the
internet
can
be
good
or
bad,
and
we
know
that
tagging
things
as
good
or
bad
has
been
very
is
dangerous
and
it's
not
very
evolution.
Thinking
the
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
recognize.
Is
that
also
there's
a
discussion
still
if
the
internet
is
just
infrastructure,
as
you
were
saying,
or
it
defines
a
new
channel
of
communication
as
a
whole?
I
Yes,
if
we
go
into
a
very
basic
community
linear
communication
model,
even
it's
in
in
a
network
style,
but
the
if
we
look
into
history,
every
communication
means
develop
new
technology,
new
media.
I
Yes,
so
when
you
got
printing,
then
you
ended
with
newspapers
and
newspapers
became
a
political
issue,
either
a
positive
to
the
to
show
people
what
was
going
on
and
political,
maybe
on
the
bad
side
as
a
weapon
to
organize
people
into
certain
ideologies
that
happens
as
well
with
the
internet
and
that's
as
as
soon
as
you
get
closer
to
politics,
then
things
became
to
become
labeled
as
good
or
bad
yes,
and
that
that
is
not
possible
to
put
into
a
map.
Yes,
because
we
have
the
layers
of
the
of
our
open
systems:
interconnection
model.
I
Yes,
we
have
the
layers,
but
we
still
need
to
find
it
to
see
the
the
context
and
a
very
important
part
of
that
context
is
the
politics,
so
the
I
think
we
we
have
been
on
the
right
path,
just
being
sometimes
closer
to
politics,
discussion,
most
of
the
time
being
away,
looking
ourselves
as
a
technical
community,
but
also
there's
a
lot
of
interesting
community.
What
are
we
doing
in
public
policy
as
comparing
with
the
recent
past?
Yes,
and
they
said
no,
you
should
go
and
fight
for
the
internet
in
the
politics
forum
elsewhere.
I
Yes-
and
I
think
it's
it's
the
right
path
now,
but
the
and-
and
we
should
promote
people
to
avoid
this
discourse
of
bad
and
good.
Yes,
because
that
is
not
going
to
help
anyone.
It's
like
saying.
Well,
newspapers
are
now
good
because
nobody
takes
them
into
their
political
considerations,
but
in
the
past
they
were
considered
bad
because
a
lot
of
people
were
following
the
headlines.
I
You
know
thank
you.
So
we
have
laura.
D
I
think,
as
we
think
about
this
there's
a
you
know,
a
lot
of
analogous
things
that
we
have
to
think
about.
You
know
the
engine
obviously
is
a
complex
system,
we're
all
systems,
people
yeah,
but
you
know
I
think,
there's
analogies
to
public
health,
the
environment
of
climate,
as
you
talked
about,
where
it's
it's
very
easy
to
say
this
is
so
complex.
I
don't
know
how
to
reason
about
it.
D
I
don't
know
how
to
make
a
difference
here,
but
I
think
that
the
trick
in
all
of
this
is
having
enough
data
to
make
good
decisions
about
where
the
leverage
points
are
like.
What
are
the
places
to
apply
force
to
really
make
a
difference?
So
that's
why
I
think
we
need
to
do
this.
This
data
collection.
J
Kind
of
getting
is
what
victor
said
about
if
people
who
think
the
internet's
bad
wanna
and
wanted
to
shut
down.
When
I
was
a
kid,
my
parents
always
said
go
out
and
play,
and
now
the
kids
sit
in
their
rooms
with
with
instagram
or
whatever,
and
it's
a
lot
of
people
don't
like
that.
They
they
don't
want
that
kind
of
disconnection
by
connecting
or
whatever
I
took
this
this
picture
of
an
ad
on
the
london
underground.
J
It's
a
it's
an
ad
for
investing
in
barclays
bank,
regardless
of
what
your
risk
level
is
and
the
examples
they
give
of
the
risk
levels
is
swiping
right
versus
swiping
right
on
your
new
boss,
and
I
mean
it's
it's
a
change
in
our
culture.
That's
fundamental!
I,
my
neighbors
would
have
no
idea
what
that
means,
but
you
know
everybody
now
does
and
pete
resnick,
and
I
have
had
an
interesting
conversation
on
the
failure
he
caught.
What
he
calls
the
failure
of
democratization,
of
that
the
the
internet
has
failed
to
democratize
information.
J
A
It's
always
interesting
to
follow
somebody
who's,
encouraging
inflammatory
speech,
because
it
it
gives
you
a
lot
of
temptations
I'll
try
not
to
to
fall
into
them.
A
The
second
thing
that
andrew
said
was
that,
fundamentally
we
look
at
this
network
of
networks
and
we
figure
that
that's
something
we
have
to
defend
that.
That's
a
key
element
of
the
way
of
internet
networking
without
which
the
rest
of
it
will
fall
apart,
and
I
don't
disagree
with
that.
But
I'll
point
out
that
that's
not
our
touchstone
as
a
society
and
our
touchstone
isn't
the
internet
is
for
any
network.
A
We
can
fight
for
the
w3c
long
ago,
put
together
an
order
of
different
goods
within
you
know
who
should
a
specification
first
put
at
the
top
of
its
its
list
of
people
it's
trying
to
serve
and
the
users
at
the
top
of
the
list
and
the
internet
architecture
board
inspired
by
that
quite
bluntly,
has
written
a
document
that
again
points
out
that
the
internet
is
for
end
users.
A
Sorry
about
that
we'll
come
back
at
the
top
of
the
hour
and
if
you
have
topics
for
aob,
please
let
me
know
welcome
back
everybody.
The
first
thing
in
this
session
is
ronaldo.
Had
a
follow-up
question
to
the
discussion
that
we
just
had
that
you
wanted.
K
N
N
It
would
be
great
to
get
a
sense
from
you
on
where
you
think
we're
doing
great
and
where
you
think
we
should
decrease
priority
or
stop
doing
things,
for
example,
from
all
the
seven
objectives
and
targets.
You
would
see
that
under
build
the
internet,
we
have
essentially
met
the
target
and
we're
exceeding
it
with
the
continuation
of
the
two
projects
under
cns
and
ixps
this
year.
N
I
Luis,
yes,
rinalia
figures
are
very
good,
the
obviously
there
is
a
lot
of
room
for
improvement
as
in
any
project
of
these
characteristics,
the
I
feel
that
community
isoc
community
is
looking
for
results
on
public
policy
intervention
by
isoc,
not
specific,
but
which
foreign
forums
we
have
participated.
What
has
been
the
result?
I
Yes,
and
how
does
that
affect
the
internet
ecosystem?
Yes,
that's
one
thing
and
the
the
other
thing
is
the
I
I
like
in
the
report
that
andrew
just
presented
well,
this
started
discontinued
and
these
are
new
new
projects
regarding
to
community
networks.
But
how
is
the
state
of
those
community
networks?
Are
they
still
running
they're,
going
running
good,
they're
running
back,
maybe
some
sort
of
current
status
report
of
those
of
the
many
community
networks
we
have
around
the
world?
I
H
So
I
I
think
you
did
pick
up
sort
of
the
in
the
discussion.
Look
things
come
in
cycles
right
and
you
know,
I
think
what
you
were
hearing
is
that
at
the
moment-
and
you
know
andrew
reinforced
this
not
just
today,
but
and
also
those
blogs.
You
know
that
we're
now
in
a
period
where
I
think
we
have
to
do
more
defend
than
build.
H
We
can't
stop
on
the
build
side,
but
also
within
build
it's
shifting
in
terms
of
what
that
means
in
terms
of
the
internet
for
everyone,
but
right
now
the
and
it
may
just
be
the
lens
through
which
I
see
things
right-
what
I'm
engaged
in,
but
I
actually
see
the
threats
increasing
particularly
from
governments
that
want
more
control,
as
we
also
see
broader
global
trends
against
globalization,
you're,
seeing
globally
more
other
manifestations
of
this
right.
So
growing
trends
against
you
know,
immigration,
which
is
another
indicator
against.
H
You,
know,
sort
of
the
the
globalization
and
openness,
so
I
actually
do
think
that
we're
facing
and
we're
entering
right
and
increasing
period
of
threats
to
the
core
principles
and
goals
and
vision
that
we
have
for
the
internet.
So
I
think
you
know
it's
going
to
change
over
time
right,
but
right
now
I
see
that
for
the
next
two
to
five
two
to
four
two
to
five
years
is
the
biggest
challenge
to
our
mission.
J
Gary
yeah,
I
agree
with
with
what
pepper
said
my
spin
on
it.
Is
that
the
the
key
to
what
you
should
be
focusing
on?
Isn't
what
you
you've
been
sufficiently
successful
at
something
that
you're
done
with
it?
But
how
much
is
there
left
to
do
on
that?
So
I
still
think
building
there's
there's
still
a
lot
to
do
on
the
building
side,
but
I
agree
that
the
threats
are
increasing
and
the
defend
is
becoming
more
important,
not
that
the
building
is
becoming
less
so,
but
the
defending
is
becoming
more
important.
C
So
so
I
appreciate
what
what
people
have
just
said,
but
I
think
part
of
like
underlying
some
of
what
renalia
is
asking,
is
okay,
we've
got
fixed
resources
like
what
am
I
supposed
to
prioritize
here
and,
and
it
sounds
like
I'm
just
taking
a
sense
of
the
room
here,
but
it
sounds
like
given
the
progress
we've
made
on
some
of
these
and
the
bigger
threat
that
is
coming
from
other
things
like
defense
has
got
to
be
turned
up.
Is
that
is
that
the
sense
that
I'm
hearing?
A
A
There
are
other
organizations,
including
new
ones,
like
connect
humanity
coming
into
the
space
of
build,
and
I
think
the
models
that
you've
built
out
in
community
networks,
especially
in
some
of
the
most
underserved
ones
like
the
arctic
circle
or
the
nepalese,
where
you've
just
shown
the
world
how
to
do
that.
That
it
may
be
a
moment
where
you
transition
to
share
those
models
with
others,
so
that
they
carry
the
work
forward
and
we
focus
on
the
things
that
are
more
uniquely
internet
society.
A
The
way
the
internet
works
in
those
parts
of
the
world
and
I
think,
we've
seen
in
the
form
of
shutdown,
a
good
bit
of
fairly
raw
power
exercised
and
we've
seen
in
splinternet
a
willingness
to
lose
extraordinary
amounts
of
reachability
in
order
to
to
claim
control,
and
I
think
we
can
argue
against
those
promoting
the
internet
way
of
networking
to
some
extent
contributes
to
defense
here.
A
Trying
to
to
get
people
to
focus
on
the
impact
of
these
when
they
align
with
those
goals
is,
is
very
difficult,
and
I
think
brian
in
in
chat
mentioned
the
the
metaphor
of
the
roadways
right.
Would
you
shut
down
the
highway
system?
A
A
Oh
okay,
so
I
have
pepper
and
then
brian
and
muhammad.
H
So
I
agree
with
ted
with
what
you
said
and
I
think
we
also
have
to
be
to
two
things:
one
there
are
pieces
of
build
that
actually
go
to
defend
right
because
it-
and
I
think
community
networks
is
one
of
those,
because
one
of
the
things
that
we
saw
just
last
week
was
opposition
from
the
arab
states
against
community
networks,
because
it
actually
was
sort
of
distributing
power,
and
that
goes
so.
That's
actually
part
of
the
attack
against
the
internet
that
we
want
to
defend.
H
So
I
think
that
there
are
going
to
be
some
continuing
activities
on
build
because
they
also
support
the
defend
we
are
not
set
up
and
for
legal
reasons,
but
also
just
capacity
and
budget
and
bandwidth
issues
we're
not
a
lobbying
organization.
So
the
question
is:
what
can
we
do
again
as
internet
society
that
we
bring
that's
differentiated
and
I
think
it's
some
of
the
technical,
both
technical
architectural
arguments
and
then
some
of
the
work?
That's
been
done,
economics
that
isak
has
done.
H
H
This
last
two
weeks
on
the
ground
in
kigali
being
able
to
make
both
the
technical
arguments,
the
standards,
arguments
against
ipv6
plus
right,
it's
not
a
standard,
and
there
were
some.
You
know
and
it
was
very
effective
right.
The
plus
was
deleted,
and
so
it's
about
ib
v6.
I
think
those
are
the.
We
need
to
think
about
what
we
as
the
internet
society
brings
as
a
comparative
advantage
to
the
need
to
defend
the
internet
and
figure
out
what
we
as
a
you
know.
H
M
Thanks
ted,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
figure
out
how
pepper
is
actually
reading
my
notes,
but
I
think
the
big
thing
here
and
and
what
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
andrew
and
rinalia
and
and
sally
here
is
you
know
I
I
see
there
needs
to
be
two
things
one
is
you
know
the
thing
that
we've
developed,
you
know
figure
out.
How
do
we
hand
off
those
capabilities
to
other
organizations
that
can
then
expand
on
those
and
and
and
increase
the
reach
of
things
like
community
networks?
M
So
you
know
who
are
those
handoff
partners
who
do
we
need
to
set
up
those
relationships
with
to
make
sure
that
that
approach
moves
forward?
Even
if
the
internet
society
is
not
the
one
leading
the
charge
anymore,
the
second
one
is
is
is
really
focusing
on
that
evolution.
M
You
know
what
do
we
need
to
change
within
our
build
strategy
to
include
some
of
those
defense
strategies,
because
I
will
unequivocally
say
that
these
attacks
are
getting
more
subtle
and
we
need
to
start
taking
the
lessons
learned
that
come
out
and
defend
and
figure
out
how
they
affect
the
build
side
of
things.
So
you
know
with
with
that
kind
of
framework.
M
You
know
this
gets
back
to
you
know
what
pepperos
is
saying
you
know,
I
sock
has
certain
advantages
and
we
need
to
leverage
those
as
much
as
possible
and
I
think
those
those
changes
in
the
strategy,
how
how
we
actually
morph
them
into
a
you
know
a
2.0
or
or
whatever
kind
of
versioning
you
want
to
use.
There
is
going
to
be
really
important,
but
I
think
the
the
main
the
main
thrust
here
needs
to
be
on
the
defend
part,
and
what
does
it
mean
to
the
other
types
of
projects
that
we're
trying
to
run.
O
And
I
hope
clear
too
so.
Firstly,
I
want
to
tell
to
brian
that
pepper
has
some
service
on
you,
so
you
need
to
be
careful
well
regarding
questions
that
andrew
and
renalia
have
put
forth
before
the
board.
My
take
on
this
is
that
you,
as
we
were
discussing
in
the
previous
session,
that
internet
is
just
a
tool,
and
since
we
are
on
the
topic
of
different
analogies,
I
would
give
it
the
analogy
as
a
knife.
O
O
Internet
at
a
very
large
scale
is
a
household
thing
as
knives
are
so
you
cannot
regulate.
It
is
it's,
and
I
I
think
that
everyone
in
the
government
they
know
it
that
they
cannot
regulate
internet
now,
but
at
the
same
time
as
it
has
been
happening
as
a
student
of
history
and
international
relations,
I
know
it
that
societies
have
been
trying
to
regulate
tools
of
information,
communication
and
power.
So
internet
today
is
a
tool
of
power
at
first
and
then
information
and
communication.
So
you
cannot
have
people
trying
to
have
control.
O
So
if
the
context
is
clear,
then
we
would
be
able
to
to
formulate
clear
strategies
for
for
defense
and
in
that
and
it's
not
just.
I
would
also
like
to
point
out
here
that
it's
not
just
the
government
that
you
would
see
trying
to
exert
or
get
control
on
the
internet.
All
the
resources
that
formulate
a
form
of
the
internet,
so
you
would
see
different
cartels,
different
powerful
businesses
to
try
to
exert
control
over
this
tool,
so
the
job
of
the
internet
society.
O
I
see
getting
tougher
day
by
day,
and
I
would
like
to
build
upon
the
comments
that
that
brian
said
that
you
need
to
transcend.
You
need
to
transform
your
build
strategy
in
a
way
that
it
it
sustains
itself.
It's
not
stopped
there.
You
yourself,
as
an
internet
society,
cannot
stop
building
and,
while
building.
I
would
echo
the
the
comments
by
the
by
the
chair
that
he's
used
in
the
earlier
session
that
it
is
for
the
people
for
everyone
and
building
needs
to
be
for
everyone.
We
need
to
promote
that.
O
We
are
since
we
are
building.
We
need
to
build
it
for
everyone.
We
need
to
change
our
strategies
and
then
I
would
also
like
to
state
here
that
if
internet
is
built
accessible
from
the
right
of
the
start,
it
and
it's
and
also
it
is
if
it
is
built
resilient,
it
would
be
difficult
to
to
control
and
to
disrupt
in
the
middle
of
the
wave,
though
there
would
still
be
attempts.
P
P
I
think
the
the
stress
on
on
defending
is
going
to
be
is
going
to
have
to
be
major
really
in
this
next
in
this
next
period,
as
pepper
suggests,
I'm
a
little
bit
more
pessimistic
than
he
is.
You
know
in
the
1990s
we
had
what
I'd
call
the
internet
spring.
Everybody
was
optimistic.
Things
were
growing,
we
we
saw
a
bright
and
brilliant
future
ahead.
P
You
know
in
a
way
that's
a
little
bit
terrifying
because
of
a
bunch
of
reasons
and
and
one
is
that
the
internet
is
and
really
always
has
been
a
mirror
on
real
life,
although
different
parts
of
it
and
so
behavior
on
the
internet,
shouldn't
shouldn't
surprise
us
that
behavior
on
the
internet
is
very
much
like
behavior
in
the
real
world.
P
If
you
look
around
to
what's
happening
in
political
trends
and
behaviors
in
the
real
world,
it's
not
an
optimistic
picture,
and
it's
one
that
I
think
is
is
likely
to
affect
and
perhaps
even
dominate
the
policy
issues
that
are
that
are
now
being
discussed
on.
The
internet.
Victor
made
a
very
useful
remark
on
the
disambiguation
between
the
internet
and
uses
of
the
internet,
and
I
characterize
this
as
a
of
the
internet,
which
is
really
for
the
for
the
most
part
administration.
P
But
governance
on
the
internet
is,
I
think,
the
major
issue
that
we're
really
fitting
real
life
into
the
environment,
of
a
very
disruptive
technology
and-
and
it's
not
fitting
very
well
and
and
what's
coming
out-
are
that
the
internet
allows
one
to
exert
power
and
to
make
money,
and
so
the
power
and
the
and
the
financial
aspects
of
distorting
the
internet
for
one's
own
for
for
one's
own
vision
of
the
future.
P
P
They
know
what's
happening
and
I
think
there's
some
kind
of
a
more
intense
cooperative
relationship
with
them
in
terms
of
giving
us
information
being
our
lookouts
and
feeling
that
they
really
are
a
part
of
of
this
of
this
program
to
defend
the
internet,
because
it's
it
it's
worth
defending
and
it's
gonna
need
defending
is,
is
a
really
important
thing.
So
I'd
emphasize
tying
the
chapters
in
to
an
intelligent
system
into
a
data
gathering
system
using
the
the
weather
model.
A
I
think
you
heard
very
strongly
that
we
believe
defend
needs
additional
resources,
given
the
limited
resources
of
society.
I
think
what
you
were
hearing
is
that
some
de-emphasis
of
other
programs
in
order
to
accomplish
that
is.
A
I
think
I
heard
from
pepper
in
particular
that
there
are
some
parts
of
build
which
speak
to
creating
models
that
help
defend
the
internet
and
that
retaining
those
is
useful
and
that
providing
the
models
we
have
created
for
building
community
networks
to
others
so
that
they
can
continue.
The
work
is
useful.
A
I
think
at
the
core
the
question
of
what
does
it
mean
to
defend
the
internet
comes
down
to
a
way
of
looking
at
the
internet
that
doesn't
treat
it
simply
as
a
tool.
Even
though
I
appreciated
muhammad's
analogy
to
a
knife,
I
think
it
requires
looking
at
it
not
so
much
as
a
disruptive
technology,
but
as
an
enabling
technology.
A
There's
a
quote
from
ultimately
thomas
jefferson,
passing
through
the
pop
culture
version
in
1776,
where
somebody
asks
him
why?
Why
write
a
declaration
if
you're
going
to
go
into
rebellion
and
the
quote
reads
to
place
before
mankind,
the
common
sense
of
the
subject
in
terms
so
plain
and
firm
as
to
command
their
ascent?
A
A
I
think
that
brings
us
to
the
close
of
this.
We
have
one
aob
that
will
go
into
executive
session
and
I
have
one
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
allowing
me
to
share
that
we
can
take
now.
A
G
Okay,
forget
to
unlock
first
okay.
Webex
keeps
reminding
me,
even
though
I'm
a
player.
H
So,
while
you're
doing
that,
andrew,
your
thomas
jefferson
quote,
which
is
very
appropriate,
the
21st
century
version
of
that
is,
it
has
to
fit
on
a
bumper
sticker
and
be
understandable
to
somebody
who
can
read
it
as
the
car
drives
by.
It
has
to
be
that
accessible
right
and
I
didn't
know
they
had
bumper
stickers
in
the
18th
century.
But
that
was
thomas.
A
A
So
I
have
a
bit
of
the
unhappy
duty
to
recognize
reality.
Never
a
pleasant
situation
when
reality
is
taking
away
from
you
such
an
excellent
relationship,
but
for
those
members
of
the
of
the
board
for
those
observers
who
didn't
know,
kevin
kramer
has
decided
to
retire
after.
D
A
Years
of
excellent
service,
he
was
originally
going
to
retire
immediately
after
this
meeting,
but
has
agreed
to
extend
it
to
help
make
sure
that
the
society
can
select
a
successor
and
it's
that
sort
of
dedication
which
has
been
the
hallmark
of
his
service
to
the
board
over
many
many
years,
and
then
we
wanted
to
recognize
it
and
therefore
I
put
before
you
the
following
resolution:
whereas
kevin
kramer
has
provided
outstanding
service
to
the
internet
society,
whereas
kevin
kramer
has
served
as
board
liaison
with
dedication,
integrity
and
distinction,
and
whereas
the
board
of
trustees
wishes
to
recognize
that
service
resolved
that
the
internet
society
board
of
trustees
acknowledges
and
extends
its
profound
appreciation
to
kevin
kramer
for
his
many
years
of
service
to
the
internet
society.
A
May
I
have,
I
will
move,
I
I
think
I
got
everybody
in
the
board
as
a
move
there,
so
I
will
we'll
put
it
down.
May
I
ask
by
acclimation
please.
A
Kevin,
we
are
very
sorry
that
you
couldn't
be
with
us
here
today,
so
we
could
thank
you
more
personally,
but
please
take
with
you
the
understanding
that
the
board
as
a
whole,
and
certainly
myself,
as
the
person
who
has
benefited
most
recently
from
your
expertise,
have
appreciated
everything
to
adapt.
We
really
cannot
express.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you,
ted
and
thank
you
all
on
the
board.
It's
been
an
honor
of
a
lifetime
for
me
to
work
with
all
of
you.
A
And
with
that,
we
close
the
public
portion
of
the
meeting
and
the
public
portion
of
the
agm
as
a
whole.
Thank
you
to
the
observers
and
we
we'll
go
into
executive
session
now.