Changes

Five '''Working Groups''' were formed to draft and finalize a Summit Declaration to the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf</ref> The subjects for the working groups were chosen via a survey of the entire [[At-Large Community]] between December 2008 and January 2009. The summit participants were assigned to the working group that they selected as of most interest to them, and then the groups were balanced regionally and according to language needs. All five working groups began working together in February 2009 in advance of the Summit and met twice during the summit to finalize their statements.

Five '''Working Groups''' were formed to draft and finalize a Summit Declaration to the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf</ref> The subjects for the working groups were chosen via a survey of the entire [[At-Large Community]] between December 2008 and January 2009. The summit participants were assigned to the working group that they selected as of most interest to them, and then the groups were balanced regionally and according to language needs. All five working groups began working together in February 2009 in advance of the Summit and met twice during the summit to finalize their statements.

The five topics were: 1) '''at-large engagement''', 2) '''the future of ICANN''', 3) '''New gTLDs including IDNs''', 4) '''security issues within ICANN's mandate''', and 4) '''transparency and accountability'''. The general sentiment was that participation was poor; the future of ICANN depended on safeguarding against capture, which was defined as unilateral decision-making and favoring vested interests; there were unnecessary barriers to entry for a broad variety of gTLD applicants; and <ref>https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf</ref>

The five topics were: 1) '''at-large engagement''', 2) '''the future of ICANN''', 3) '''New gTLDs including IDNs''', 4) '''security issues within ICANN's mandate''', and 4) '''transparency and accountability'''. The general sentiment was that 1) participation was poor; 2) the future of ICANN depended on safeguarding against capture, which was defined as unilateral decision-making and favoring vested interests; 3) there were unnecessary barriers to entry for a broad variety of gTLD applicants; 4) DNS security needed to be stricter; and 5) ICANN needs to be more transparent for Internet users who want to participate and needs to balance operator/business interest with ALAC/GAC. <ref>https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf</ref>