I totally agree with Milton's comments and I would like, at this stage, to add some more thoughts to the Secretary's-General speech, which has caused more anxiety than it should have really. It is indeed an issue of power. The ITU, over the past few years and especially being the institution that orchestrated the Internet Governance debate, has seen a lot of its influence on the Internet being lost. It is not surprising, therefore, that they want to get back some of the power that they were holding and have a more active voice in the Internet Governance debate. They go though through the wrong channels. If the ITU was really interested in opening the channels of communication with ICANN or with any other of the stakeholders for that matter, they wouldn't choose the ICANN meeting to do so. Rather, they would address these issues to more appropriate forums, like the IGF, which was designed to air such concerns and where more stakeholders participate. I cannot really understand why the Secretary-General chose the ICANN meeting to make a blunt statement like "the IGF ...sometimes becomes a waste of time". Irrespective of whether this statement has indeed some truth in it or not, I don't believe that Mr. Toure is saying something that we do not already know. At the same time, Mr. Toure is categorically denying that the ITU seeks to control the Internet. In my ears, this is what exactly he is saying - let the ITU, which by the way is one of the oldest UN body to take over. Mr. Toure - years do not necessarily make experience and the current state of the Internet has proven that it does not respond well to hardcore and cumbersome government intervention. The strong sense of sovereignty and jurisdiction might actually create more obstacles than provide solutions and we have already seen that happening during the WSIS process and the IGFs. The current state of the Internet needs more voices and less bureaucratic proceedures. Mr. Toure's speech is a great advertisment of the ITU. It repeatedly states how old the ITU is, the involvement of governments and civil society and the job that it has done with other organisations to promote standards. But, the Internet Governance is not all about standards. It is also about more substantial issues that fall outside the ITU's mandate. Milton is correct in asserting that legitimization does not automatically derived from multi-stakeholderism. We need to ensure, taking the lead from the WSIS principles, that all actors participate in an equal footing. We need to establish which is the permissible scope of action of each of the stakeholders and then determine exactly what their role is within Internet Governance. We need to ensure that people entrust that all stakeholders in Internet Governance will work together - this is where legitimacy in multi-stakeholderism lies. Within the international context legitimacy is: “a property of a rule or a rule-making institution which itself exerts a pull towards compliance on those addressed normatively because those addressed believe that the rule has come into being and operates in accordance with generally accepted principles of right process” (T.M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy among nations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, 16). Finally, using the influence of GAC in ICANN as an example is a cheap shot. No one is saying that ICANN is perfect and that the US influence is not something of concern. But as Milton has very accurately described, the role of GAC has been increased over the past few years. The simple Internet user is not interested in any of these political agendas. The simple Internet user does not care who has the power; instead, they want to see a structure that will protect us and our children and will use the Internet for social and economic fruition. What I am trying to say really is that the ITU and ICANN should stop trying to show who possesses more influence. This is nor the time nor the place for excercising your power. It is a time to offer solutions.