*  >>BRAZIL: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE. I'D
LIKE TO ALSO START BY THANKING THE TWO CO-CHAIRS OF THE GROUP AND TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS INVESTED IN
THE PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL BEFORE US. WE THINK A LOT OF
WORK, EFFORT, AND REAL ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE SO MANY VIEWS WAS VESTED
IN THIS EXERCISE AND WE'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
      *  HOWEVER, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO, AS KAVOUSS ARASTEH HAS 
MENTIONED,
AND HE MADE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN HIS PARTICIPATION AND -- AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF IRAN -- AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GAC, I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO MAKE IN A SIMILAR FASHION KIND OF A DIFFERENTIATION OR CLARIFICATION
WITH REGARD TO OUR ROLE HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THIS BODY AND THE
POSITION OF THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE. *WE, OF COURSE,
COORDINATE INTERNALLY WITH DIFFERENT MINISTRIES AND INSTITUTIONS, AND
OF COURSE THE BEST EFFORT WE MAKE, WE HAVE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS TO MAKE
SURE IT IS ENDORSED BY THE WIDER GROUP. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE
MISLEADING TO SAY THAT BY SAYING YES HERE, WE ARE -- THE BRAZILIAN
GOVERNMENT IS SAYING YES. I THINK THIS IS THE WAY GOVERNMENTS
NORMALLY OPERATE.* AND I THINK MAYBE THIS WILL BE THE SAME WOULD
APPLY TO OTHER COLLEAGUES. BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS EVERYTHING
WE DO HERE (INDISCERNIBLE) REFERENDUM OF FINAL APPROVAL BY THE
GOVERNMENT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FULL AREAS INVOLVED. THIS IS ON
THE ONE HAND.
      *  JUST TO MENTION IN REGARD TO THAT, *OUR MINISTER OF
COMMUNICATIONS IS COMING TO TOWN TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEF HIM ON
EVERYTHING THAT IS TAKING PLACE. HE IS ONE OF THE MINISTERS INVOLVED,
AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONVEY TO HIM EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE
SAID HERE.*
      *  IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW 
REFLECTIONS
IN THE SENSE WE THINK IT ADDRESSES -- IT TAKES ON BOARD SOME CONCERNS
WE HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OTHER CONCERNS, IMPORTANT
CONCERNS WE HAVE ARE NOT DEALT WITH ADEQUATELY. WE HAVE INDICATED
THIS IN OUR COMMENTS WE SENT BOTH TO THE CWG STEWARDSHIP AND CCWG
ACCOUNTABILITY GROUPS.
      *  BASICALLY, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL, WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS
EXERCISE AS ONE IN WHICH THE DEFINED OUTCOME WOULD ADDRESS THE NTIA
REQUIREMENTS. THE (INDISCERNIBLE) WE ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE.
WE THINK THIS ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING, AND WE
DON'T SEE THERE ANY CONSISTENCY WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING, SO
WE ARE FULLY BEHIND THIS.
      *  AT THE OTHER SIDE, WE ARE ALSO ACCOUNTABLE, OF COURSE, TO OUR OWN
GOVERNMENTS AND TO SOME HISTORICAL DEMANDS WE HAVE IN REGARD TO
THIS PROCESS. FIRST OF ALL, WE STILL -- AND WE WILL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY OF
THOSE DAYS WE HAVE HERE IN BUENOS AIRES TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL
AND TO DISCUSS WITH THE CO-CHAIRS AND COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE WE WERE
VERY FIRMLY INTERESTED THAT AT THE END WE WOULD HAVE REALLY CLEAR
SEPARATION BETWEEN THE POLICY OPERATIONAL ASPECTS . *AT THIS POINT I
MUST SAY THE PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE -- SEEMS TO HAVE
SOME INCONSISTENCIES. ON THE ONE HAND WE SAY THERE IS A LEGAL
SEPARATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAY PTI SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY
ICANN. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AROUND THIS,
BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT IN THE END, THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WILL BE
REACHED.* AND I THINK MAYBE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM ABOUT THIS IS
THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING -- *WE HAVE NOT BEEN
WORKING ON A CLEAN SLATE OR A BLANK SHEET, HAVING ALL THE OPTIONS
BEFORE US. EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST OUR
PROPOSALS, OUR MECHANISM TO EXISTING STATUS. SO ANYTHING THAT COMES
FORWARD AS A PROPOSAL SHOULD ADJUST ITSELF TO THE FACT THAT ICANN IS
INCORPORATED AS AN ENTITY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION, AND WE
THINK -- IT MIGHT BE OKAY, BUT IT REFLECTS A SITUATION THAT WAS
PREDETERMINED AS WE STARTED THIS EXERCISE, THAT WAS IMPOSED. IT WAS NOT
AGREED BY THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, AND BY GOVERNMENTS AS PART OF THAT
COMMUNITY.* SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO ADJUST A NEW ERA TO THE
EXISTING FORMATS, WHICH -- AND WE ENDORSING THIS. SO FOR GOVERNMENTS,
I THINK IT'S A VERY HARD STEP TO TAKE. IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED THING, MAYBE.
      *  USUALLY, AS A GOVERNMENT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN HAVING A
DECISION THAT WILL GO AGAINST OUR (INDISCERNIBLE) TO THE EXTENT THAT
WE'RE PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE PROCESS THAT WILL LEAD TO THIS
DECISION. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS TO -- ON THE BASIS OF SOMETHING
THAT WAS ALREADY THERE AND WHICH WE DID NOT PARTICIPATE, TRYING TO
REFLECT ON HOW TO IMPROVE IT BUT MAINTAINING THE SAME
CHARACTERISTICS. SO WE THINK IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING THING FROM A
PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENT. AND OF COURSE THIS IS NOT SOME THINGS -- A
DECISION WE SHOULD TAKE LIGHTLY.
      *  WE HAVE, IF I WOULDN'T LIKE TO MENTION, OUR OWN CRITERIA OR OUR
OWN RED LINES, BUT WE THINK IN THE END *SOME REFLECTIONS SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO THE ISSUE OF HOW ICANN WILL EMERGE FROM THIS WITH MORE
LEGITIMACY, VIS-A-VIS ALL STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, AND WE
DON'T SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS IS BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE
AT HAND.* SO BASICALLY WHAT I'D LIKE JUST TO INDICATE FROM THE START IS
THAT WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS EXERCISE IN THE -- WE THINK IN A
CONSTRUCTIVE MODE. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN THERE, AND FOLLOWING AND
MAKING INPUTS TO THOSE PROCESSES. BUT I THINK WE -- AND I THINK THIS IS
ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CO-CHAIRS; THAT WE HAVE -- WE
MUST HAVE THE -- AN APPRAISAL OF THE FULL PICTURE THAT WILL EMERGE FROM
THIS, THE TWO PROPOSALS COMBINED, HOW THEY WILL LOOK, HOW THE
PARLANCE OF THAT PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT WE
HAVE IMPROVED IN REGARD TO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND IT IS NOT SO CLEAR
FOR US RIGHT NOW.
      *  AND BASICALLY, JUST TO CONCLUDE, TO SAY THAT *THIS EXERCISE 
INVOLVES
DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CULTURES IN REGARD TO
GOVERNMENTS, CLEARLY THE CULTURE AND THE WAY GOVERNMENTS ARE
COMFORTABLE IN WORKING IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED. WE WORK UNDER RULES.
WE HAVE NOT DESIGNS. I SEE IN MANY DOCUMENTS THAT WE MUST STICK TO THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS WE ARE FORCED TO ADOPT. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY
STRANGE TO DO. IT'S NOT SOMETHING USUAL, AND WE'LL HAVE TO REPORT BACK
TO OUR GOVERNMENT AND SAY WE HAVE BEEN THERE, WE HAVE AGREED TO THIS,
AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T
MEET SOME OF THOSE VERY BASIC CONCERNS, IN THE END IT MIGHT BE
MISLEADING FOR US TO SAY HERE WE ARE GIVING FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXERCISE FROM THE
BEGINNING AS ONE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A NEW PARADIGM OF COOPERATION
BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED, ONE IN WHICH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND HAVE FULL LIBERTY TO DISCUSS AMONG
THE STAKEHOLDERS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DESIGN A NEW FORMAT FOR
COOPERATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DID NOT TAKE PLACE. WE HAVE BEEN
SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. I DON'T THINK THIS WILL COME AS A
SURPRISE TO YOU.* WE THINK THE -- *WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN A
STRAITJACKET, AND IT BECOMES CLEARLY EVIDENT WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME VERY
CREATIVE IDEAS THAT CAME TO THE FORE AND THEY WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE
THEY DO NOT ADJUST TO THE FORM THAT WE -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY
UNCOMFORTABLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENTS.* MAYBE, IN THE
END, WE MAY COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IT ADDRESSES OR IT IS IN OUR BEST
INTEREST TO ENDORSE THE SITUATION BECAUSE IN THE FINAL BALANCE, IT WILL
BE IN A BETTER POSITION, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE STILL NEED TO REFLECT.
      *  SO AGAIN, *WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH
YOU TO HAVE BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL;
HOWEVER, WE WILL LOOK AT SOMETHING MUCH MORE AMBITIOUS THAT WILL
PROVIDE REAL SEPARATION, REAL INDEPENDENT OVERVIEW. AND WE THINK AT
THIS POINT IT DOESN'T -- THE PROPOSAL*, AS IT STANDS, WILL NEED SOME MORE
DETAILS ON HOW THIS WOULD WORK. THANK YOU.