Montevideo statement, what is it and how did it come about? This is a short statement signed by the leaders of ten Internet organisations (RIRs, IETF, IAB, ICANN, W3C), expressing concern over surveillance revelations, calling for IPv6 transition, accelerating globalization of IANA, and underlining the importance of multistakeholder discussions in the Internet governance space. There are probably different views on the reasons why it came about. This is my perspective. These Internet organisations have been meeting each other for several years, mainly in an effort to keep each other updated on what is happening. The Montevideo statement is the first time we have made a public message from our meetings. People have assigned maybe more meaning to the message than it had. I am glad we made the statement, and I think it has been received positively. But at the time we wrote it, we just tried to make a factual message that represented the topics that we had discussed. We just had a hundreds of messages in IETF lists about the concerns over surveillance. We had discussed steps to globalize IANA for a couple of years, and, for instance, all IETF RFCs and agreements on the topic have been pretty clear about how the Internet community had evolved to handle the tasks perhaps originally envisioned for NTIA. I should also clarify that the four topics in the statement are not necessarily connected to each other. Surveillance and management of IANA are not technically connected at all, for instance. Netmundial, what are your observations and what are the next steps? To begin with, however, I should say that we as IETF have no official opinion about NETmundial. But in my opinion, a good meeting and a result that indicates very strong support for the multi-stakeholder model from almost everyone, including most countries. Governments participated as stakeholders in the same way as other participants. I am very happy to see that multi-stakeholder, open, consensus processes are at the centre stage in Internet governance discussions. The outcome document seems to me to be on the whole a reasonable one. It includes many good things, starting from the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, recognition of the role and rights of end users, open standards and so on. But it also has weak points. For instance, in my opinion the mass surveillance text was rather weak, network neutrality was not handled, and provided little protection for intermediaries such as ISPs.