Taking stock and looking another desirability of the continuation of the forum
 (Part II) Wednesday, November 18 2009 IGF Meeting Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during
 Fourth Meeting of the IGF, in Sharm El sheikh. Although it is largely accurate,
 in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or
 transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings
 at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


 [Gavel]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Let me call to order the
 session on taking stock and looking forward on the desirability of the
 continuation of the IGF.  Now, let the first one, let me say just a few words
 and I really appreciate the cooperation extended to the chair by adhering to
 the time limits.  And I have one particular request from a gentleman, Mr.
 Vladimir rad a know vehicle, representing the Diplo focus.  They asked for a
 display show of a short video which will last for 4 minutes 10 seconds, and if
 you have no strong objections, I will take it you agree.  Huh?  For them to the
 exceed 1 minutes 0 seconds so it's so decided. [Gavel]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Now, can I call Mr. Bill Graham to take the floor.  Mr. Bill
 Graham from global strategic engagement, the Internet Society.

 >>BILL GRAHAM:  Thank you, Ambassador Sha. The Internet Society has commented
 on the future of the Internet Governance Forum at every opportunity.  Most
 recently, in mid-July of this year.  And I refer you to those comments which
 are posted on the IGF Web site, and also on our own. I want to take this
 opportunity to elaborate on a few specific points. The Internet is successful,
 in part, due to its unique model, as our president said in the opening session
 on Monday. The model relies on processes and organizations that are local,
 bottom-up, and accessible to users around the world. Those processes all exist
 together in the Internet ecosystem, a Web of organizations that work together
 in a vital, responsive, and cooperative manner. We in the Internet Society
 believe that the IGF has become an important element in that ecosystem, making
 its own contribution to Internet governance. When we consulted our members and
 chapters all around the world earlier this year, they encouraged us to call
 upon the United Nations to extend the mandate of the IGF in its current form
 for another five years.  It was clear to them and to us that the value of the
 IGF is its ability to bring together people who might not otherwise meet.  The
 IGF inspires people to work effectively in support of people-centered
 development, a key goal of the WSIS. It feeds work in communities, in
 countries, in all regions, and at the global level. The two specific issues I
 want to address have come up repeatedly in the discussions here:  The question
 of outputs and the question of how the IGF is to be maintained. The Internet
 Society believes that we must learn to think in terms of outputs from the IGF,
 not outputs of the IGF. Outputs come from the IGF when stakeholders learn,
 build relationships, and return to their homes and organizations to work
 together in ways they would not have done without the IGF.  That should be true
 for governments, for business, and civil society at the local, national,
 regional, and global levels. I'd contrast that to outputs of the IGF. We should
 not lock the IGF into a traditional institutional structure.  That would
 necessitate creating new bureaucracies, new structures, and new processes, and
 would certainly make the IGF less adaptable, responsive, and ultimately less
 effective. The IGF should remain flexible, able to meet the evolving needs of
 the Internet stakeholders. Finally, I want to comment briefly on the vital
 question of how the IGF can be maintained. There are significant costs to
 making the IGF a success.  Our IGF country hosts have made huge financial
 contributions at each successive IGF and I would like to take advantage of this
 opportunity to thank Egypt for the wonderful arrangements that they have made
 for this year's event. Some not-for-profit organizations, including the
 Internet Society, make regular contributions to the Secretariat, as do some
 businesses and a handful of governments. Others provide in-kind donations or
 support attendants at IGF meetings.  We recommend that this voluntary and
 multistakeholder funding model be continued into the next mandate of the IGF.
 The Secretariat must have greater stability and assurance in order to do its
 job, and we call on all others from all stakeholder groups to help sustain the
 IGF in this very material way. So in closing, on behalf of the Internet
 Society, I want to thank you, Ambassador Sha, for the opportunity to
 participate in this formal consultation.  We appreciate the opportunity given
 to us to collaborate with governments within the U.N. family and with all other
 stakeholders interested in truly making the Internet for all.  Thank you.
 [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. Graham.  Next, Mr. Waudo Siganga, from WITSA,
 Vice Chairman for Africa, Chairman, Computer Society of Kenya. Mr. Siganga,
 please.

 >>WAUDO SIGANGA: Thank you, Under-Secretary-General Sha.  My name is Waudo
 Siganga speaking on behalf of WITSA, the World Information Technology and
 Services Alliance.  The WITSA has been an active participant at each of the
 annual IGFs right from the inaugural meeting in Athens.  Thus, we are
 well-positioned to provide comments on the continuation of the IGF, and the
 impact the IGF is having. WITSA members are from 72 countries representing some
 90% of the world ICT market.  Over 50% of our members are from developing
 countries.  WITSA supports the continuation of the multistakeholder IGF beyond
 its initial five-year mandate.  WITSA also spirits maintaining the plenty IGF
 structures and processes with all stakeholders interacting on an equal footing.
 WITSA believes that all stakeholders should continue to utilize the IGF as a
 mechanism to identify and focus on priority issues that highlight the
 fundamental building blocks of an Information Society. WITSA members are
 committed to working with other stakeholders to deepen and broaden the
 participation from developing countries. We also believe that the IGF has
 already demonstrated that it is flexible enough to allow for change.  For
 instance, the emergence of national and regional IGFs illustrates that the
 structure and processes are adapting to the input and needs of the
 multistakeholder community. As has been aptly demonstrated over the past four
 years, the value of the IGF lies in its open and informative nature, allowing
 all views to be expressed, and the full range of experiences and expertise to
 be shared. In this way, all can learn, all continue to learn more about how to
 use, growing, expand, and protect the key communications and information
 resource that the Internet has become. The IGF should will he main consistent
 with its original mandate for facilitating dialogue and sharing best practices
 and exchanging learning and ideas, and should not engage in the negotiation of
 formal documents or outcomes. Moreover, WITSA supports the continuation of an
 independent IGF Secretariat with appropriate staff and with funding that can
 support the IGF events and maintain continuity between its annual meetings.
 WITSA applauds the current Secretariat's efforts to serve all stakeholders
 fairly and equitably through their consistently excellent output, including the
 provisioning of online content, Webcasts and audio casts, as well as real-time
 transcriptions from the IGF sessions. By focusing on these priorities issues,
 the IGF continues to create a meaningful framework for demonstrable progress
 toward the long-term sustainability of a truly global Information Society.
 Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of WITSA.
 [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you.  Next, I give the floor to Ayesha Hassan., senior
 policy manager, e-business, I.T. and telecoms, ICC.  Madam Hassan, please.

 >>MS. AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the members of the
 International Chamber of Commerce and our BASIS initiative, the Business Action
 to Support the Information Society we welcome this opportunity to contribute to
 this important consultation. ICC members include companies and associations
 from across sectors and geographies and of all sizes.  Hundreds of companies
 and associations support this business input. Business around the world fully
 supports the IGF with its current structures and we urge for its continuation.
 The IGF is addressing the items in its mandate in Paragraph 72 of the Tunis
 Agenda and facilitating multistakeholder dialogue that is inclusive and
 meaningful. It has also continually evolved and improved.  I would like to
 highlight some of these items and incorporate by reference the comprehensive
 ICC/BASIS input to the review questionnaire. Substantive discussions have taken
 place on all issues, including those that foster the sustainability,
 robustness, security, stability, and development of the Internet, and
 accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing
 world. Critical Internet resources, security and privacy issues, and the use
 and misuse of the Internet. The IGF is, in and of itself, an excellent human
 and institutional capacity-building opportunity.  On a wide range of complex
 policy issues, bests practices, and the policy approaches and choices that
 impact them. And every year, new issues are being brought into the process. One
 cannot help but come to an IGF and leave having gained insight and knowledge. 
 Every IGF brings together organizations engaged in cross-cutting international
 public policy issues and participants learn about their work programs and
 activities, the status of discussions on particular issues, and those on the
 horizon. A wide range of stakeholders who connected at the IGF are now actively
 involved in the work of other organizations.  This is an important value, a
 value-add for all. It's not easy to measure, but still very real.  Many
 stakeholders have commented that this is a one stop shop for them to get
 information, make contacts, share experiences, and develop their understanding.
 Excellent outputs include the real-time transcripts of the sessions, the
 chairman's report, substantive inputs, and the synthesis and background papers.
 This unique forum offers us all a chance to speak, but also to listen.  It
 allows us to discuss all relevant topics candidly.  It maximizes all
 participants' time by increasing their understanding instead of negotiating
 texts, which is a major strength. The IGF is also a catalyst for change.  We
 have become more receptive to each other's perspectives and concerns.  As
 participants have adapted to this open environment, we have seen rhetoric
 reduced.  In turn, we benefit from more informed decision-making by all. We
 believe that the IGF processes and structures are effective, and address the
 tasks at hand.  We commend the leadership and hard work of Mr. Nitin Desai, Mr.
 Kummer, and the IGF Secretariat. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that
 ICC/BASIS members support the continuation of the IGF with its multistakeholder
 approach that leads to more informed policy choices and business choices. The
 IGF is having impact.  It has real outcomes.  The IGF is valuable for all
 stakeholders, and it provides a unique opportunity for us all.  Thank you.
 [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Ms. Hassan. Next, Mr. Richard Beaird from the Deputy
 Coordinator, Department of State, United States.  Department of State.

 >>RICHARD BEAIRD:  Thank you very much, Ambassador Sha. The establishment of
 the Internet Governance Forum was one of the key outputs of the World Summit on
 the Information Society. The United States of America takes this opportunity to
 reiterate its commitment to the results of the WSIS, and in particular to the
 convening of the IGF. We appreciate the opportunity to -- afforded by the IGF
 Secretariat to submit comments and views on the possible continuation of this
 forum. We will also submit our support in writing to ECOSOC through Under
 Secretary Sha. The IGF has proven to be a valuable venue for information
 sharing and international dialogue on topics critical to global economic,
 social, and political development.  This flexible structure used at the IGF,
 which includes open forums, workshops and main sessions, have evolved into
 dynamic mechanisms that effectively facilitate exchange of information and best
 practices among and between all stakeholders. Consequently, the United States
 supports the continuation of the IGF beyond the initial five-year mandate. We
 believe that the current work methods of the IGF are fully consistent with
 principles as agreed at the WSIS in Tunis, and contained in the Tunis Agenda.
 The United States commends the Secretariat, as well as current and past
 multistakeholder advisory group members, for their tireless efforts.  We hope
 that the cross-cutting themes of developments and capacity-building find
 renewed emphasis in the IGF process. Finally, we wish to congratulate our
 Egyptian hosts for this, the 4th IGF.  It has been a great success.  Thank you
 very much. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Richard, for your statement.  Next I'll give the
 floor to Vladimir Radunovic.  They are going to screen a short film, not more
 than 4 minutes 10 seconds. [Video begins]

 >> It's a wonderful meeting and we are very grateful for our hope, our Egyptian
 government, for hosting this great event.  And now -- and I think this is a --
 Internet is the relevant for everyone, and in particular for the young people,
 because the young people represent the future of mankind and it is in your
 hands and we count on you.

 >> I think Sharm El Sheikh is a major milestone for the IGF process because it
 is where -- it is here in Egypt that we will shape the future of IGF and see
 how we can either go forward, review, or improve on the current mechanisms for
 Internet Governance Forum.

 >> I think it's an amazing collection of organizations -- public, commercial,
 civil society, government -- coming together to debate the complexity of the
 future of the Internet.

 >> Okay.  I think it's -- it's a good opportunity because it's a place where
 the IGF is going to be decided for a continuation of the IGF, and we are
 supportive of the continuation, and I think it's been a solid meeting, except
 for something like the youth corner, so your corner, it's a great initiative,
 so compliments to IGF Sharm.

 >> Well, I think IGF Sharm El Sheikh is one of the greatest things that has
 happened to Africa in terms of networking.  It's the first time that such a
 major (inaudible) meeting has occurred on the continent, and the leadership and
 organization played by Egypt in getting us here is one that will impact all of
 the (inaudible) in Africa, and therefore I think it's an extremely important
 result that we have, and we value that very much.

 >> The Sharm El Sheikh IGF is one of the best that we have had, and every IGF
 is something special and I think what will be special about the IGF in Sharm El
 Sheikh will be the way in which young people have been involved, the way in
 which their issues have been recognized and the way in which their issues have
 been addressed.

 >> My impressions of the IGF here in Sharm El Sheikh are very positive.  It's
 been a very useful set of meetings, very well organized by our Egyptian hosts,
 people in the ministry, Dr. Kamel and his colleagues are to be congratulated
 for an excellent meeting and I'm looking forward to hearing Mrs. Mubarak and
 her discussion of particularly online protection matter.

 >> The IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, it's been the best yet.

 >> This IGF so far, we had more people than ever before.  We had excellent
 organization.  I think everybody is very happy.  We enjoyed the Egyptian
 hospitality and we appreciate very much the organization's skills. Apart from
 the high quantity of attendants, we also enjoyed the high quality of
 discussions and high quality of participants.  We had ministers, we had CEOs,
 we had heads of international organizations, we had some of the leading figures
 of the Internet, inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee.  One of
 the coinventors of the Internet, Robert Khan is also here.  So we can indeed be
 very pleased of all the aspects of this year's meeting.

 >> Well, IGF Sharm El Sheikh is a special event.  I have attended the previous
 IGFs, and to be frank with you, this IGF is, the way I see it, is the best for
 several reasons.  One, because it is in Sharm El Sheikh.  Because of the
 excellent organization that is done by the Egyptian administration.  It is the
 nice atmosphere, so frankly speaking, this is one of the best IGFs I have ever
 attended.

 >> From what I've experienced, IGF in Sharm El Sheikh is another advancement to
 the previous IGFs.  We have more participants from a broader group of
 stakeholders, and that is a prerequisite for a very good conversation and
 exchange of best practices, ideas, knowledge, and we, the global business
 represented by the ICC, very much appreciate this and Nigeria being here,
 annual it's a wonderful location. So from that perspective, I think it's a big
 success.

 >> So this year's IGF in Sharm El Sheikh I believe has been extremely
 successful.  You can just see that in the number of people who are here.  It's
 almost 1800 people.  So people from all over the world are coming because they
 recognize, number one, the importance of the IGF for the ability to talk to
 people -- all kinds of people, not just government, but there's also private
 sector, there are academics, there's the youth, there's the civil society, and
 everybody gets to talk to each other in very informal ways, as well as having
 opportunities to have, you know, discussions and learn about things that they
 didn't really know about in the past. Second, Sharm El Sheikh is just an
 incredible place to have any meeting.  The hospitality is fabulous.  The
 location is great.  And for those of us who come from places where it's
 starting to get cold, it's nice and warm, so -- [Video ends] [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Obviously it's longer than 4 minutes and 10 seconds, right.  We
 need to time to figure out what they stand for.  My impression is that they are
 for the continuation.  Right? Right. Next, I'll give floor to Mr. Parminder
 Singh, representing I.T. for Change.  Mr. Singh, please.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  Thank you, Mr. Sha. Respected Ambassador Sha and IGF
 participants, I speak on the behalf of I.T. for Change, which is an NGO from
 India.  We are of the view that the IGF is an innovative experiment in global
 governance.  We would like the IGF to continue beyond its initial five-year
 term.  However, we also believe more efforts are required to ensure that the
 IGF fulfills all parts of its WSIS mandate. The inclusion of nongovernmental
 actors on par with governmental actors is a key principle of the IGF and we
 feel that under no circumstances should this be diluted. We are also of the
 opinion that the present support structure and institutional location of the
 IGF should not be disturbed.  At present, the IGF structure is able to maintain
 a fine balance not only among stakeholders, but also among different
 institutions in the complex Internet governance ecology. The UNDESA has given
 fine support to the IGF and helped maintain its independence and neutrality. 
 Moving the location of the IGF into any of the institutions directly concerned
 with Internet governance will disturb this delicate balance and may harm global
 public interest. We firmly believe that a global public policy institution like
 the IGF should be funded by global public funds -- that is, U.N. funds -- and
 should not rely on private funding or even on funding from a few countries,
 since a considerable number of global Internet governance issues entail
 geopolitical contestations. We agree with the Under-Secretary-General's
 statement in the opening statement that the IGF should not make public policy,
 but that its activities should feed into legitimate global policymaking
 processes.  However, to effectively feed into these processes, the IGF requires
 significant structural improvements while keeping within its Tunis mandate. We
 suggest the following improvements in the IGF structure. One, there should be a
 clear identification of key issues to be handled in an outcome-oriented way
 every year.  A broader set of issues, however, can continue to be handled in
 the workshops. Two, these key issues should have dedicated working groups that
 can do intensive preparatory work throughout the year.  We can, for instance,
 have such groups on child protection, network neutrality, and these kind of
 issues. And IGF intersessionals can also be held for this purpose. Three, with
 adequate preparation, including through research and background papers, these
 key issues should be taken up in a focused manner at the annual IGF meeting.
 Four, taking from the IGF meeting, there should be adequate follow-up work on
 these issues, which could then come out in the form of some kind of outcomes.
 Five, the multistakeholder advisory group has to transform from a program
 committee to a relatively more empowered entity which can interface with other
 organizations and advise, as well as make recommendations, as per the Tunis
 mandate on the basis of the proceedings of the larger IGF. The working and
 output model of the working group on Internet governance can be a good example
 to look at for this purpose, and, therefore, we think it is timely as we leave
 you, the IGF, to explore the necessary structural changes and evolutions in the
 IGF to address these unmet mandates.  Thank you, Chairman. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. Singh.  Next, Mr. Andrew Miller.  Member of the
 ubiquity Parliament.

 >>ANDREW MILLER:  Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this morning while many
 of you were in bed, I was having my eyes opened.  I was swimming off the reef
 and saw things in Sharm El Sheikh that I didn't believe existed.  It was a
 fantastic experience. Topped this week by the privilege I had of participating
 as a panelist in the youth events here, and I do apologize for the colleagues
 that were in the room next door that had to suffer all the noise made by the
 panelist -- the people that were so heavily involved in what was a fantastic
 project, bringing together Net Aman and Childnet, and Mrs. Mubarak should be
 congratulated for the work she's done in helping to support Net Aman and I
 congratulate the people in Childnet as well. My plea to my friends in the
 organizing committee is to say these young people have demonstrated that they
 have a serious contribution to make, so in the future let's bring them into the
 mainstream and make -- and really reach out to the next generation and work
 with them towards finding some of the solutions for the world in which they
 will going to live. I'd want to thank my friends in Nominet, the U.K. domain
 name company, for coordinating a lot of the U.K. contribution to this, but
 actually for reaching occupant to many other people, and I think that's a good
 example of how, in this world we live in, it's so important to have people from
 organizations like that stretching well beyond their own boundaries, helping
 people in other countries to develop resources that they need to get the best
 out of the technologies around us. I firmly believe, as does my delegation, in
 a continuation, a new mandate for IGF.  We want to see it continue. We want to
 also thank Nitin Desai and Markus and his team for a fabulous job, and also our
 hosts here in Egypt.  Just ones small criticism, if I may be so bold, Mr.
 Chairman.  One of the problems with the planning is that we all end up trying
 to get to much in, and I regret to say that I have to leave this room to now go
 back to the panel that I've got to address in a few moments' time.  A minor
 criticism, but a fabulous event and let's look forward, not just to Lithuania,
 but let's also look forward to Kenya. [Applause]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, Mr. Miller.  Your comments, including criticism
 are taken into account, have been noted. Now, next Mr. Konstantin Kladouras,
 from ETNO, chairman ETNO, IGV working group, head of the regulatory strategy
 section. Please, you have the floor.

 >> Konstantin Kladouras:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
 address the forum.  I speak on behalf of ETNO which is the association of
 European telecommunication network operators.  ETNO represents in 36 countries.
  Substantial Internet operations. ETNO is an active participant within the IGF
 from the beginning of the process.  We have participated in IGF meetings, open
 consultations, and we have submitted many contributions in writing on IGF
 organizational issues, including the review on which we would like to highlight
 the following. The IGF is one of the key outputs of WSIS, and we can safely say
 that it is the most innovative U.N. process which started as an experiment but
 soon became an institution. In ETNO's view, the most important objective of the
 IGF is create a true forum for dialogue and exchange of information on Internet
 governance policy issues, and furthermore to establish a reliable global basis
 for a cooperative, pluralistic dialogue that embraces all stakeholders. Much of
 the success of the IGF stems from its open and inclusive character and its
 multistakeholder nature.  The success also relies on the nondecisive,
 nonbinding character of the IGF which allows all parties to explore difficult
 issues without political tensions and to speak freely. Such an approach is
 essential in dealing with the challenges the Internet faces and will assist in
 taking advantage of the opportunity it presents for further social and economic
 development. In our view, no other mechanism or individual organization besides
 the IGF can achieve all these or is more appropriate. ETNO believes that the
 IGF has broadly met its mandate although some may say that certainly issues
 have been not been dealt adequately, but that is not the issue or question
 today. Mr. Chair, given the nature of the Internet, but also the continuous
 need to discuss public-policy issues around Internet governance with the equal
 participation of all relevant stakeholders, ETNO and its members offer full
 support for the continuation of the IGF in its current structure, past its
 initial five-year mandate. And we kindly ask you, Mr. Chair, to take note of
 our view. Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you. Next I give floor to madam Olga Cavalli, advisor
 for technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina. Madam, please.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I am presenting this document in my
 roam of coordinator of the working group of Internet governance of the Latin
 American and Caribbean Plan of Action for the Information Society, eLAC, 2010. 
 This document was produced by this multistakeholder working group and is also
 supported by the IGF of Spain. The Internet Governance Forum has become a
 relevant space for debate about public policies and about the future of the
 Internet.  Each meeting is a reference for the evolution of the Internet, and
 it has also been the inspiration of national and regional processes that are
 enhancing the local communities' knowledge and building local and regional
 capacities. All stakeholders are able to debate on an equal footing and are
 also able to exchange ideas of how to make Internet move towards the principles
 of the Tunis Agenda of the Information Society. The IGF had exceptional role in
 becoming a space for deliberations and debate about public policy related with
 Internet governance, but there are some aspects that must be reinforced.
 Government participation, civil society, and private sector of developing
 countries.  This has been difficult due to the lack of resources and also a low
 awareness of this process. The IGF has proved to be very good and unique
 mechanism for enhancing the global discussion about public policy of Internet
 governance with a vision of the Internet which is people-centered, development
 oriented and inclusive, as stated in the Tunis Agenda of the Information
 Society. Although the IGF is coming to the end of its first mandate of five
 years, the working group of Internet governance of the Latin American regional
 plan of action of the Information Society, eLAC 2010 would like to express its
 desire of the continuation of the IGF beyond its mandate. The continuation of
 the IGF will allow keeping this only open space for policy debate on Internet
 governance that involves all interested stakeholders.  The IGF could also
 propose different ways to the stakeholders in order to enhance Internet access,
 especially in developing countries.  Like the IGF, this working group wants to
 support the enhancement of the existing multistakeholder participation system
 in order to have a wider participation base for broad consensus and agreement
 of decisions and debates. Thanks to the IGF Secretariat for all their hard work
 they are doing, and to you for giving us this opportunity of presenting our
 document. Thank you very much. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, madam Cavalli for your statement. Now I give the
 floor to Mr. Lambert Van Nistelrooij from -- a member of the European
 Parliament. Mr. Lambert.

 >>LAMBERT VAN NISTELROOIJ:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, president, ladies
 and gentlemen.  The European Parliament has supported the IGF from the
 beginning, actively by participating in all the summits, all the events.  And
 this time we were active via our members in several panels and in several
 debates. We are fully aware about the importance -- the important questions
 about the Internet governance in the future, the questions that come up and the
 impact. We embrace the new generation technologies, but also advocate, at the
 same time, strong governance principles. This is not a debate just for the
 public side, public actors or the private actors.  This is the domain that
 should be open to all actors interested.  The civil society from all the parts
 of the world. And the IGF method -- open multistakeholder, nonbinding -- is a
 laboratory for upcoming questions, and this method is unique and should be
 continued in its actual form. We should realize that the IGF is still young,
 and it has grown step by step in its content and outcome. And it deserves
 further steps, further growth.  And of course within the structure, the
 framework, we can take on board practical ameliorations. The European
 Parliament will participate in the IGF 5 in Vilnius, and we will stimulate a
 broader participation from other national and regional parliaments, directly
 elected people close to those important questions. Mr. Sha and Mr. Kummer, let
 me end in short, feel supported.  Go on; feel strong. Thank you very much. [
 Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. Lambert. Now, next I will give floor to Ms.
 Liesyl Franz, vice president, information security and global public policy,
 TechAmerica. Miss, you have the floor.

 >>LIESYL FRANZ:   Thank you, chair. My name is Liesyl Franz and I am with
 TechAmerica, a U.S.-based ICT industry association. I am making a statement
 today on behalf of the U.S.-based associations that are represented here at
 IGF, TechAmerica, the U.S. Council for International Business, Net Choice, and
 the Association for Competitive Technology. Many of our respective member
 companies are here at the IGF and actively participate in the process and the
 sessions here, and I am delighted to be here on their collective behalf to
 express the U.S. industry's viewpoint and our call for continuation of the IGF
 going forward. We have participated in all the Internet Governance Forums and
 we have seen the value of the forum itself and the benefits it brings to the
 global multistakeholder, multifaceted constituency of the Internet. We would
 lake to highlight three points for submission to the IGF review. First, it is
 precisely the multistakeholder nature of the IGF that gives it its greatest
 value.  There are no other forums where governments, civil society groups, and
 industry can meet and work together on equal footing on the important issues we
 have been discussing here in Egypt this week. The key words there, "are working
 together" as we saw in the video that we saw just a few minutes ago. In the
 full course of the IGF, from preparation to participation, each stakeholder has
 equal opportunity for input and engagement with their counterparts. Second, a
 benefit of the IGF is its ability to be dynamic and timely to address the
 pressing issues of the day which in Internet time evolve quickly.  In this way
 the IGF is a unique venue that enables information exchange and, in fact,
 knowledge transfer of technical expertise and policy experiences that
 participants can take home to their own national, societal and corporate
 environments. It am allows a bottom-up discussion that is fueled by the
 stakeholders with the greatest, well, stake in the stable, resilient and
 innovative Internet. And importantly, the IGF allows for open and candid
 discussions because it is unencumbered by negotiations over diplomatic texts
 which allows people to truly exchange views, experience, and expertise for
 mutual benefit. Third, the IGF has a far reaching impact in two important ways.
  First, it enables remote participation for those that are not able to be here
 at the IGF in person.  That helps embody and enhance the multistakeholder
 nature of the IGF and seems appropriate for a conference about the very medium
 that enables remote participation. Second, we have seen the emergence of
 national and regional IGFs.  Those kind of events allow for active and ongoing
 exchanges and help people to internalize and integrate what they gain from the
 IGF into their own particular circumstances. It is precisely due to the reach
 of the IGF that we respectfully suggest the invitation of statements to the IGF
 Secretariat regarding IGF stock-taking effort in written form from those that
 do not have the chance to do it during the session today, and over the course
 of a short, reasonable time frame to allow additional comments from the IGF
 stakeholders, and at the same time meet the requirements of the U.N. process.
 In my remaining second I would also like to give my gratitude to the IGF
 Secretariat, Markus Kummer and Nitin Desai, for their artful and graceful
 hosting of this event, and our Egyptian hosts as well. Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, madam. Next I will give floor to Mr. Seck
 Mactar, representing United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Mr. Seck,
 please.

 >>SECK MACTAR:   Thank you, Chair. ECA, the Economic Commission for Africa in
 the U.N., has called upon countries from Africa to apply the Tunis principles
 in the IGF process. We have analyzed the participation and the impact of IGF at
 the Africa continent-wide level.  And having done that, we can communicate to
 you the satisfying results.  Specifically, the impact was positive overall.
 More than 80% of African states have adopted an ITC policy or have integrated
 these technologies into their development policies and in their production --
 poverty -- excuse me, production strategies. Other interesting figures are the
 fact that 75% of African countries have initiated a public-private partnership
 approach for development of infrastructures. About 85% have unified their
 communication systems. With regard to implementation, specifically government
 health services, we can see that 70% of the countries are implementing these
 types of applications, and here I am not even speaking about the explosion of
 cell phone use, which we are seeing very high participation levels, and the
 increase, of course, of Internet access. So we can say that the impact of IGF
 in Africa has been clearly positive.  I have demonstrated this through figures.
  We also had an African Union meeting recently, and I think that the importance
 of IGF was clear. Following up on these activities, we think that IGF could
 come up with key ways which would allow for more active participation from
 developing countries, specifically African countries.  And this could be done
 through organizing subregional and regional IGFs; for example, an East African
 IGF or West African IGF. So I think this is a key part for the continent, for
 the African continent.  And having these subregional and regional IGFs would
 allow us to prepare before going to the general IGF. I think that this would
 allow us to examine key issues, such as security, Internet security,
 specifically protecting children online.  Also the key question of resources,
 capacity building, and also access to broadband infrastructures. So, Chair, I
 have to conclude by congratulating our colleagues in the Secretariat for the
 difficult work that they have complete over the last few days, and all of our
 partners who have supported U.N. ECA and helped developing countries, helped
 African countries specifically, specifically our partners in ICANN, the
 European Union, I.F., and other partners. So thank you, sir. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, Mr. SECK. Next I will give floor to Mr. Johan
 Ekman, the bureau member, Institutional Relations, Council of Europe, European
 Youth Forum.  You are really young, I noticed. You have the floor.

 >>JOHAN EKMAN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  First of all, let me express on
 behalf of the European Youth Forum, that is the representative platform of
 European youth organization, the support for the continuation of the IGF. I
 think this is a very good opportunity to bring forward the concerns, ideas of
 young people across the world. And let me also use this opportunity to thank
 the Council of Europe for bringing us aboard this process.  I would say that
 the Council of Europe, as an international organization, is a very good example
 on how youth organizations and young people can be brought into political
 processes at an international level. We welcome very much also the increased
 focus on youth in this debate and this discussion.  I think it's essential to
 include the opinions of young people when discussing IGF, in the IGF
 discussions. And I would have a couple of reflections that I would like to
 share with you also for the continuation of this forum. First, while it is
 important to talk about youth, you can never talk about youth without actually
 bringing the youth at the highest level into the debate.  No policy that is
 directed towards young people can be credible if not young people are strong
 stakeholder in the process from the beginning to the end. The second point I
 want to make is while safety and privacy issues are, indeed, a concern for many
 young people, we should not forget that political participation and freedom of
 expression should also be one of the priorities when discussing ICT in the
 future. So with these reflections, these ideas, I wish to see all in the
 future, next time, at the next IGF in Lithuania. Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, distinct representative from the youth forum.
 Next I will give floor to Mr. Peter Voss, head of division, international
 policy for information, communication technologies, federal ministry of
 economics and technology, Germany. Mr. Voss.

 >>PETER VOSS:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at the World Summit on
 the Information Society, world leaders asked the Secretary-General of the
 United Nations to convene the Internet Governance Forum. In an innovative
 approach, this forum was established as a unique platform for a nonbinding,
 multistakeholder dialogue on all Internet-related issues at the global level.
 It is, indeed, the only forum that allows a gathering of representatives from
 all geographical regions, across all stakeholder groups, to discuss all aspects
 of Internet governance on an equal footing. We feel that the lack of pressure
 to negotiate binding outcomes contributes to the frank and open exchange of the
 IGF. It is the opinion of Germany that the three or nearly four IGF meetings
 held so far in different parts of the world have demonstrated its values.
 Firstly, the number and diversity of the participants of IGF meetings, the
 impressive amount of workshops and best practice forums have shown that the
 forum continues to be perceived as useful. Secondly, the IGF has triggered
 follow-up discussions at the context of dynamic coalitions, and has inspired
 debates at regional and national level. Thirdly, the IGF is complementing other
 existing structures dealing with Internet governance issues. And fourthly and
 above all, the IGF has provided a space to address controversial issues and
 discuss possible solutions. Mr. Chairman, Germany therefore believes that the
 IGF should be continued beyond its initial time frame of five years and that
 its basic characteristics should be retained. However, Germany still sees room
 for improvement. Given the feedback that the mandate of the IGF was agreed at
 the level of heads of state, we think it would be extremely difficult to alter
 that mandate.  But it might be possible to interpret the Tunis outcome in a
 manner that could open up fresh avenues to explore. With a view to possible
 changes, we can, for instance, identify room for improvement in order to
 further strengthen the visibility of the outcomes of the IGF.  Firstly by
 creating an IGF database of good practices identified during IGF meetings, and,
 secondly, by promoting the use of effective remote participation. Thank you,
 Mr. Chairman.

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   You thank you, Mr. Voss. Next I will give floor to Mr.
 Anupam Agrawal, the chairman of Kolkata chapter of Internet society, India. Mr.
 Agrawal, please.

 >>ANUPAM AGRAWAL:   Thank you, Ambassador Sha.  Good evening, good afternoon,
 good morning to all the people all over the world. In the panoramic view of the
 world, life is as simple as thought.  And what the Internet has done is
 connected the dots together and made the world a linear world. And what IGF
 does is that it gives us a chance to sit back, relax and see what we have done
 in the past, plan for the future, and then move ahead with renewed vigor and
 enthusiasm. Mr. Ramadorai of PCS did mention in the opening session about
 Gopal, and I believe that for all the Gopals of the world, it is imperative
 that IGF should get an extension of another five years. I attended the last
 year IGF in Hyderabad as a simple Internet user, and I could attend because it
 was held locally.  And therein I picked up the theme of security. It gives me
 immense pleasure to announce that in the last one year we have formed the
 Kolkata chapter of Internet society and working extensively on data insurance
 which can be very relevant in the forthcoming year of cloud computing. 
 However, there are certain suggestions from my chapter. One, more participation
 from developing countries, emerging economies, should be encouraged and
 mechanisms for people from (inaudible) can be put in place.  Second, best
 practices case studies can be compiled from the IGF participants so that others
 can be benefited. Thank you all. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you. Next I will give floor to Monsieur Bertrand De
 La Chapelle, Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information, Ministèr des
 Affaires Etrangères et Européennes. It's typical Chinese, English, French;
 okay? Please, you have the floor, sir.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Thank you, Under-Secretary-General. ... and the
 answer is yes, five more years.  2015 is the timeline of the WSIS plus then
 review mandated by Article 111 of the Tunis Agenda, point one. Second question,
 improvements, yes again.  Because it has matured each year further, we are,
 France, confident that the IGF will continue to progressively structure its
 working methods each year. France has submitted detailed proposals for
 operational improvements in the online consultations.  France is looking
 forward to making additional suggestions. During the new -- the now traditional
 annual consultations in February in Geneva, the current working methods of the
 IGF are fully consistent with the mandate of paragraph 72, and the
 multistakeholder spirit of the WSIS.  We must preserve this.  And let's use the
 self-organizing capacity of the IGF to continue to improve its functioning.
 Finally, France is also looking forward to a first discussion in the CSTD in
 May of the U.N. Secretary-General report following this consultation.  And
 furthermore, to IGF 2011, hopefully in Kenya.  I tried to be short.  I hope
 this leaves some space for other speakers, business and civil society actors
 that, unfortunately, will not have much other opportunities to contribute.
 Thank you very much. [ Applause ]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. de la Chapelle.  Next, I will give floor to Mr.
 Willie Currie, from communications and information policy program manager,
 Association for Progressive Communications, APC.  Mr. Currie, please.

 >>WILLIE CURRIE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to contribute to
 this important review. The Association for Progressive Communications, APC, is
 of the view that the IGF has fulfilled its core mandate in terms of Paragraph
 72 of the Tunis Agenda to constitute a space for multistakeholder policy
 dialogue on Internet governance. As an international civil society network
 which has participated in the formation of the IGF from the beginning, APC
 wishes to express its firm view that the IGF should continue. We say this
 because we believe Internet governance is distributed across a broad number of
 organizations responsible for the Internet.  It is a unique form of
 participatory governance that involves all stakeholders. The IGF is also
 unique, a hybrid of U.N. intergovernmental and nongovernmental protocol and
 practice where individuals and institutions concerned with Internet governance
 and development gather together for open dialogue and debate. This unique
 hybrid is necessary to create a space where all stakeholders feel comfortable,
 to the extent that they can contribute meaningfully and openly in discussion,
 debate, and collaborative planning with other stakeholders. It is important
 that we maintain this hybrid culture, which sets somewhat in the middle of the
 intergovernmental and nongovernmental landscape. However, it is also important
 that all stakeholders understand the nature of this hybrid culture, the
 challenges it presents, and the negative impact and consequence of any
 stakeholder exploiting their access to this form or their positional power to
 control participation and determine outcomes. The purpose of a multistakeholder
 forum is to listen to others and try and reach common understanding instead of
 insisting on one's own point of view. Over the years of its existence, the IGF
 has developed as an adaptive ecosystem in which all stakeholders can interact
 on a basis of equality of input. This is an important dimension which depends
 on the adroit and careful shepherding of the IGF performed by the IGF
 Secretariat under the effective and diplomatic leadership of Nitin Desai and
 Markus Kummer.  The vital role of the IGF Secretariat in its current form to
 the success of the IGF should not be underestimated. We have heard a lot of
 corridor talk about the status of the Secretariat should be changed in some way
 and located more firmly in the U.N. system. We feel that the IGF should
 continue to operate under the auspices of the U.N., while continually aiming to
 enhance its multistakeholder nature. We have also heard a perspective that says
 that those countries who provide financial support for the IGF have more say
 over its annual program as a convince of their funding the IGF Secretariat.  We
 have not found this assertion to be true.  The IGF Secretariat needs
 independence from any form of undue influence.  If this is a source of concern
 to some stakeholders, terms of reference for donations could be put in place to
 protect the IGF Secretariat's independence. In view of the limited time for
 this review, consideration should be given to extend the time for written
 comment for three weeks, to enable those who have been unable to express their
 views today to make an input. We also feel the IGF should be allowed to evolve
 as a forum that can produce outputs and outcomes beyond those of a space purely
 of policy dialogue and deliberation.  The exact modalities of such outputs
 should be a matter for the stakeholders of the IGF to determine. One way of
 doing this may be to hold intersessional thematic IGFs during the year that
 discuss key issues related to Internet governance and which can feed the
 outputs of their deliberations into the annual IGF meeting. Regional and
 national IGFs are an example of decentralized IGFs that address national and
 regional priorities while also informing the main IGF, and what we propose is
 that consideration be given to doing something similar on a thematic basis.
 Overall, participation from developing countries should be improved from all
 stakeholder groups.  One way of doing this is to shift development from a
 cross-cutting theme to a major theme of the IGF. In closing, the IGF has an
 innovation and multistakeholder Internet governance.  It works.  It's evolving,
 and should continue.  Thank you very much. [Applause] .

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, please comply with the time limits but I was hesitant
 to use this gavel.  Next I'll give floor to Ms. Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves
 from -- as head of the international affairs knowledge society agency, UMIC,
 the ministry of science, technology and higher education, Portugal.  Madam you
 have the floor.

 >>ANA CRISTINA AMOROSO das NEVES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, regarding the
 three questions that you put tomorrow for us to think about, so I think that I
 can give you three immediate replies. Has IGF fulfilled its mandate?  No.  The
 task, the Tunis Agenda, is so huge that definitely we need more time and,
 besides, it takes time to change things and to change the paradigm. If it can
 be improved, yes, of course.  The IGF Secretariat, together with the IGF host
 countries, have shown us how much improvement we can get from the experience
 gained each year. Continuation of the IGF? Yes. And the reason why I'm here
 today and ask for the floor is to underscore the three very important features
 of the IGF that give us the evidence for its continuation. The first one:  The
 global conscience of the Internet and Information Society. Number two:  The
 strengths and robustness of the IGF movement. The third one:  The reinforced
 multistakeholder cooperation. Regarding the global conscience of the Internet
 and Information Society, IGF has been unique as providing a conscience to the
 Internet community.  This conscience is essential for the development of the
 economies and for societal improvement all over the globe.  It has become a
 network of the network -- capital N -- the Internet, providing an incredible
 robustness to this process. Number two, the strengths and robustness of the IGF
 movement.  One of the most powerful outcomes of IGF until now is the
 spontaneous (inaudible) and diversified national and regional IGFs all over the
 world.  They are the evidence that the IGF process is a great and powerful
 idea, because only a powerful idea would deliver such a result. And the
 possibility for these national and regional IGFs to become places to write
 ideas that can be brought up to the global IGF is a very interesting upshot as
 well. The history, as shown, is that when movements are spontaneous, it's
 because they are powerful, and they are meaningful for societies and for their
 citizens.  And it's exactly these movements that can change the paradigm. The
 third one, the reinforced multistakeholder cooperation. The IGF set up a
 remarkable variable and wide-ranging dialogue on cooperation geometry between
 different institutions, public, private, and not-for-profit organizations in
 countries and provided spaces where the individual, the citizen, the civil
 society, participating on equal footing along with more powerful entities. And
 these three features, they are not compatible with any hierarchical formal
 structure. Any existing structure of this kind has ever produced such
 deliverables, and IGF should evolve as creatively as it has been evolving since
 the last four years.  IGF is a unique platform that must continue for our own
 and future generations sake.  Thank you. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, madam.  Next I give floor to Mr. Giacomo Mazzone from
 the World Broadcasting Union.  Mr. Mazzone, please.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Thank you, Mr. President. I am here representing the World
 Broadcasting Union that gathers eight unions of broadcasters all around the
 world.  More than 600 broadcast organizations with a total average audience of
 more than 3 billion people a day. We participate to the WSIS in 2003 and 2005. 
 We have organized and hosted with other members of the group the EuroDIG this
 year.  We have attended the IGF from the first meeting and we have cooperated
 tightly with the IGF Secretariat since the beginning. We are committed to the
 results of this process, and keen to achieve what was asked to the IGF in the
 Tunis WSIS agenda.  We thank, of course, the Egyptian government for the
 organization of this excellent IGF edition and particularly I'm grateful to
 thank our members, the ERTU, that is providing the video services here, but
 having said so, Mr. Sha Zukang asked us to answer to three questions, so here
 are our answers. The first question:  Yes, the IGF has been very valuable and
 we expect it will be even more valuable for the future and we expect a lot from
 the next edition that will take place in Europe again, in Vilnius. This edition
 will have to deliver a report to the Secretary-General that will be very
 important for all of us because it will say something about the governance of
 the Internet. We wish that the Secretariat of the IGF will be strength for
 making better his job in the next year and for the succession in the future.
 The second question:  Yes, we consider that the IGF has achieved a lot in a
 multistakeholder environment, and this is part of the reason of the success,
 and this environment has allowed new actors like the media that I represent
 here to participate into the process -- in the process and to discuss with the
 others.  Links of trust and even friendship has been built around these years,
 and on this basis, we can achieve and build a lot. The third answer is:  Yes,
 but... As I've heard from other voices before me here today, the civil society,
 the Brazilian government, and even German government, we hope that the mandate
 for the next IGF will be enlarged and new tools made available.  We would like
 very much that the IGF would be able to provide recommendation, guidelines, and
 best practices.  We would like that it will become the place where many of the
 functions that ICANN and ITU cannot be responsible for could be implemented. If
 you remember what Mr. Pepper said in this room just a few hours ago, that
 videos will represent 60% of the traffic over the Internet in just two years,
 you can understand why we are so keen and so concerned about the topic of
 Internet governance and why we are so committed for its -- the results,
 positive results, of this process.  Thank you very much. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you.  Now I'll give floor to Mr. William Drake, the senior
 associate, center for international governance, Graduate Institute of
 International and Development Studies, Geneva.

 >>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would like to support the
 position that's been taken by many people here that the IGF has been a real
 success and deserves to be continued for at least another five years, pretty
 much in its current form. It has encouraged national and regional IGFs.  It has
 promoted dialogue and mutual understanding.  It has clarified issues that a few
 years ago were very complex and confusing to many people.  It has served the
 international community in all kinds of ways that are really unique and
 irreplaceable. It's also, I think, uniquely able to address a broad range of
 issues, including cross-cutting issues that would not fit under the mandate of
 any one organization.  Its design and operations are very forward looking and
 innovative, and they've brought positive attention to the United Nations from a
 wide variety of circles around the world. I think in particular, also having a
 small non-bureaucratic Secretariat that is open to all and responsive to all
 stakeholders has encouraged diverse participation by many people around the
 world who might not otherwise participate in a more formalized structure. So I
 hope that all those kinds of dimensions can be built upon. At the same time,
 clearly there's a need to undertake some targeted outreach, to enhance the
 participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors from the developing
 countries, and for the resources to do that with. I think it would be very
 useful to have a transparently administered program of travel funding for
 participants from least developed countries in particular. A second point I'd
 like to make is about the main sessions.  I think that the existing themes have
 proven to be very useful in the initial phases of the IGF, but it may be time
 now to consider some innovation and blending in some new types of topics that
 have not received as much attention as they might have. In that regard, I would
 suggest two possibilities in particular that have been discussed here before,
 and I'm thinking in particular of the session we had yesterday on the WSIS
 principles.  Development, I think, would be very much a useful focus for a main
 session on an ongoing basis, so that we could really begin to talk about how
 global Internet governance arrangements do or do not affect development and
 what is the real meaning of IG for D. There are a lot of complex issues that
 really require a lot of thinking through, and I think that this is the place
 that that could be done.  Similarly, it would be useful, I think, to have a
 session on the procedural aspects of the WSIS principles.  That is to say,
 looking at the transparency and inclusive participation of the different
 institutions involved in Internet governance and sharing good and best
 practices, identifying concrete ways in which organizations and networks have
 been bringing people in and making documents available to the world and so on.
 These sorts of things, I think, would really increase the value of the IGF to
 the international community. Lastly, I think I would like to say something
 about the format of the main sessions.  It seems to me that it might be useful
 to generalize the kind of model that we've followed with the critical Internet
 resources sessions.  The -- the model of having speaker after speaker
 increasingly to me is feeling a little bit worn, and I would be much more
 interested personally in more structured dialogues where, for example, a topic,
 a general topic like development was taken, and perhaps three main issues
 associated with it would be identified and then be the focus of a
 well-structured and moderated discussion. The Secretariat could even provide
 some paragraphs of background to contextualize and make sense, lay out
 different positions pertaining to each of these topics, or you could involve
 people in some groups, task groups, to try to prepare these questions. There
 are all kinds of things that could be done between sessions, indeed, to try to
 make the -- make the structure of the main sessions, I think, more responsive
 and interesting. At the end of the day, we might be able to get a real sense of
 the room, of what level of consensus exists on some of these topics, or at
 least identify more clearly where the areas of disagreement are that merit
 further consideration. So that would give us more sense, I think, of a takeaway
 and many people have asked for more of a sense of a takeaway if not
 recommendations. So we're trying to think about ways to make this experience
 more valuable to everybody, and I think that that might help in some regard. 
 Thank you very much. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. Drake.  I'm not supposed to make any comments on
 your proposals, but I'm really impressed.  Thank you very much.  Next, I'd like
 to give the floor to Mr. Thomas Schneider, the coordinator, International
 Information Society, International Affairs, Federal Department of the
 Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communications, DETEC, Federal Office of
 Communication, OFCOM, Switzerland.  Mr. Schneider.

 >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER:  Thank you.  In the view of the Swiss government, the IGF
 should continue to exist based on the way it has been developed during the last
 four years.  It should not be turned into something completely different.  We,
 the participants, and not only the governments must continue to develop the IGF
 year by year as we have done so far. In order to make the best use of the three
 minutes of the Swiss government, I would like to express our support to the
 statement made by our colleagues from the European Union with regard to why the
 IGF should continue. And not too many speakers have given concrete examples on
 how the IGF could be further improved.  I would like to give you a few
 examples. The first one:  Like others, we would like to see a more tangible
 outcome from the IGF, a written outcome, but any paper coming out of the IGF
 should not be negotiated.  What we propose to you is something that we
 successfully tested at EuroDIG, the European IGF, to produce a document
 containing messages.  Every multistakeholder team organizing a session at
 EuroDIG formulated in their personal capacity as organizers a few bullet points
 on what they perceived as were the keys issues discussed, including
 recommendations on which there was common ground but also stating areas where
 there were differences of opinions. Then we put all these key issues and
 recommendations together into one document and issued it in our personal
 capacity, clearly stated in the document.  You can have a look at this document
 called "Messages from Geneva" on the EuroDIG Web site EuroDIG.org.  So as a
 concrete proposal for the global IGF, we would propose that you consider
 identifying such instance for instance for the main sessions and ask the
 organizers to draft such a document. Point Number 2 is also based on the
 European experience.  We propose that the global IGF could try to have sessions
 and workshops with no panels at all involving the whole audience in a
 discussion from the very beginning of the session.  This would give -- would
 avoid that always the same people talk about the issues, would give more
 opportunities for people to speak and create more interactive discussions and
 maybe new ideas. A third proposal is touching the number of workshops.  We
 propose that before making a call for workshops, you define the maximum number
 of workshops.  For instance, 50, for the next IGF.  And then that would mean
 that you would maybe fix a number of maximum, five workshops, related to every
 main session and maybe 10 that were not related to any main session, and then
 when you receive 20 proposals for a main session, you usually these people to
 merge down onto five and that's it.  And we think that if this is what people
 want, then it will be possible. And the last point is we should continue to
 enhance participation of youth, parliamentarians, small businesses, and
 stakeholders from developing countries in general. These are concrete steps
 that can be discussed at a next open consultations meeting in February.  We
 will hand in our full position paper by e-mail until tonight. I would like to
 conclude by saying that Switzerland as one of the largest contributors to the
 IGF trust fund invites all other stakeholders to contribute into that trust
 fund, for the funding of the IGF Secretariat and the participating of
 stakeholders from the developing world.  Thank you very much. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. Schneider, for your views.  Next, I'll give the
 floor to Mr. Charles Mok.  There, okay.  Charles Mok is the chairman of the
 Internet Society Hong Kong.  Mr. Mok.

 >>CHARLES MOK:  Thank you.  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kummer, I wasn't sure that I'd
 have the opportunity to speak here until I saw my name on the screen a short
 while ago, so please forgive me for being a little bit brief. I represent the
 Internet Society Hong Kong, a civil society organization, which is also a
 chapter of ISOC, and we're a civil society organization of Internet users as
 well as I.T. and Internet professionals. And -- in the Hong Kong special
 administrative region of China. I am personally also a returning ambassador for
 the ISOC in here, coming to my second IGF. This year, we are working with the
 -- organization in Hong Kong called dot Asia organization, which is a nonprofit
 top level domain name organization based in Hong Kong and we've brought along
 with us six young people who are university students from Hong Kong, as well as
 from the China mainland, to join IGF for the first time under the mission
 Ambassador Program. We find that the IGF opportunity and its multistakeholder
 nature to be the most effective and useful forum for developing capacity in all
 aspects of Internet governance, in allowing equal participation from all sector
 sectors and levels, including for young people.  So I just want to say that
 Internet Society Hong Kong concurs with the global Internet Society that the
 IGF process should continue in its current format beyond the original five-year
 mandate.  Thank you. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, Mr. Mok.  Next I would like to give the floor to Mr.
 -- lady.  What a mistake.  Ms. Park, Delft University of Technology.  Madam,
 please.

 >>Y.J. PARK:  Thanks.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me an opportunity of
 contributing to Internet Governance Forum in a capacity of academia. As many
 previous speakers addressed, IGF has done a tremendous job of implementing
 multistakeholder principles under the leadership of ICANN and ISOC community as
 one of the U.N. WSIS mandates.  ICANN-like, private sector-led multistakeholder
 role without decision-making process, IGF became an international knowledge
 transfer conference on Internet role.  Indeed, IGF is a great place to transfer
 knowledge and policy from ICANN community to developing world.  Most actors
 from developing world, including governments, in the IGF process became a sole
 recipient of the knowledge transfer and learn the lessons.  As a cofounder of
 WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in 2003, I would like to remind
 you another mandate of this forum. As Mr. Gross, former ambassador of U.S.
 government, recalled this morning, many of us were heavily engaged with the
 negotiation of who controls the Internet during the U.N. WSIS process. Internet
 Governance Forum was created as a compromise between those who supported the
 status quo Internet governance institution under one nation's status provision,
 and those who requested for more balanced roles for governments under
 international supervision of the Internet. While IGF has achieved a great
 success of diluting of such political tension between those who have different
 views of how to institutionalize Internet governance, ironically Internet
 governance forum became a forum without governance.  The Internet Governance
 Forum has been a good exercise to identify global public policy issues on the
 Internet.  However, we also have to admit IGF failed to deliver another mandate
 of the U.N. WSIS:  Continuing discussion of how to design Internet governance
 institutions. As one of the main members, it has been always challenging to put
 institutional aspects of Internet governance discussion on the agenda of the
 Internet governance forum.  In turn, this practice once in a while invited
 accusations of IGF as a useless forum without another mandate of the U.N. WSIS.
 As of today, some stakeholders are content by IGF's networking function in a
 form of knowledge transfer conference and ask for a continuation.  Others think
 IGF is dysfunctional because IGF does not discuss another critical mandate of
 the U.N. WSIS like how to design Internet governance institution and ask for
 discontinuation. We have another IGF coming soon in Lithuania.  If 2010 IGF can
 deliver U.N. WSIS mandates in a balanced manner, both knowledge transfer and
 negotiation of how to design Internet governance institution, those who have
 different expectations on IGF as of today may be able to build a consensus. 
 Otherwise, I would like to propose IGF community should have different forum
 for different U.N. WSIS mandates.  The current IGF continues to function as
 knowledge transfer of ICANN's values to other stakeholders, while those who
 want to discuss and negotiate on how to design Internet governance institutions
 should have another platform for that specific U.N. WSIS mandate.  Thank you
 for paying your attention to my proposal. [Applause]

 >>SHA ZUKANG:  Thank you, madam park.  Next I'll give the floor to Mr. Zahid
 Jamil, the senior partner and barrister of law, Jamil -- Zahid Jamil.  Please.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:  Thank you.  Your Excellency, Ambassador Sha.  I also speak in
 part on behalf of PASHA, the sole Pakistani trade association of I.T. and
 I.T.-enabled businesses. At Sharm El Sheikh, we find travel funding in relation
 to Pakistan interesting.  The president of our I.T. association is funded by
 APC.  The telecom regulator is funded by ISOC.  An academic is funded by
 government.  And civil liberties advocate by a business, which is the ccTLD
 dispute resolution provider.  The discussions, dialogue, and cooperation for
 implementation of policies catalyzed by the IGF on the ground in Pakistan is
 truly unique. The interactions multistakeholders have had here have led to a
 change in the format and processes of discussions, dialogue, and engagement in
 Pakistan.  This has been very clearly in our recent dialogues on I.T. policy
 development, which chose to use IGF format and processes. It is important to
 note that contribution to this effort by Pasha, ICC/BASIS, and the continued
 engagement of APC.  IGF influenced the advocacy and introduction of
 internationally compatible cybercrime legislation in consultation with
 business, civil society, and legislators and even law enforcement agencies. The
 engagement of some governments and the CoE has been valuable in this regard. 
 Just yesterday, our federal investigation agency set up a cybercrime committee
 in the multistakeholder spirit of the IGF. IGF helps local stakeholders and
 also the direct engagement of ICC/BASIS and Oracle in the policy process which
 resulted in data protection recommendatory guidelines addressing privacy
 concerns, but also being business-friendly and thus enabling trade in I.T.
 services and outsourcing for Pakistan.  Very early on, it led to Nominet and
 DENIC exchanging best practices for the creation of what is now a successful
 domain name dispute resolution center, thus enabling Pakistan to demonstrate
 that implementing dispute resolution in line with best practices can be
 efficient in Pakistan's challenging environment, even as an online service. It
 has given us the model of multistakeholderism that has been injected within our
 ccTLD.  It initiated engagement by Pakistani stakeholders within ICANN not just
 for dot pk, but also to engage in policy issues related to gTLDs and IDNs. It
 has allowed us to sensitize international governments, businesses, donors, and
 civil liberties groups and initiatives about the need of business, civil
 society, media, and development sectors of Pakistan. Just here in Sharm, the
 Commonwealth IGF through frank and constructive exchange which is leading to
 some exciting products being initiated on the ground in Pakistan and other
 commonwealth countries has done marvelous work. IGF catalyzed these outcomes
 and many other efforts. In short, these would likely not have either happened
 or would not have been successful, but for the IGF. Developing countries at
 policymaking forums can find themselves polarized between extreme views due to
 politicization since language, outcomes, resolutions, and declarations need to
 be negotiated. The IGF provides a forum for policy dialogue and exchange of
 best practices relatively freer from politicization inclusive of business,
 civil society and government at an equal footing.  As such, we would strongly
 and even passionately request that the decision-makers work to ensure that this
 unique and valuable forum is continued.  Please do not take this opportunity
 away from us.  Please let this bazaar, as it was characterized this morning,
 continue. We also request -- and here's the list -- that we maintain the
 founding principles and this unique format of IGF being a place for policy
 dialogue. Ensure Secretariat independence which has worked hard under the
 effective leadership and careful diplomacy of Mr. Desai and Mr. Kummer. Keep
 IGF multistakeholder, giving an equal space at the table to all stakeholders.
 Make national and regional IGFs an imperative, but not at the cost of the
 opportunities of this global IGF being available on an annual basis. There are
 several people, Your Excellency, who are online or newcomers or have, for the
 first time, realized that it is necessary for them to provide feedback on the
 IGF since it is -- it may impact its continuance. In continuation of the
 opportunity for effective remote participation created by the IGF, I would
 plead with you that you extend time for submissions with respect to
 consultation by 14 days. Such transparent opportunity to contribute will add
 credibility to the consultations which credibility already has. On a personal
 note, I would just like to add, and this is where I conclude, we don't see this
 as a platform for capture of CIR.  It is not a CIR forum.  It deals with many
 other issues -- security, openness, privacy, stability of Internet and access
 -- which are values shared by us all.  Please, as we go forward let us see less
 of these politics. It doesn't help us, the users, be they business or
 individuals or civil society in the developing world, and instead puts the
 priorities of citizens and businesses on a back burner.  Your Excellency, we
 offer our appreciation and many thanks for this gracious opportunity. Thank
 you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, Mr. Jamil.  Now I give floor to Ms. Sue Baxter,
 head of the U.K. delegation, head of the E.U. and International Competitiveness
 Unit, Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills. Madam.

 >>SUE BAXTER:   Thank you, Mr. Under-Secretary-General.  The question hanging
 over this whole conference has been should it continue beyond next year, but
 perhaps a more fitting question should be why think about stopping a process
 that has proved itself to be useful, popular and gaining in momentum. Over the
 last few days here, one cannot help but be enormously struck by the large
 number of people from so many walks of life and from all over the world to
 network, to share ideas, and to solve common problems. The sheer enthusiasm of
 everyone here is surely testimony to the value of such a forum.  And if people
 didn't find it useful, they simply wouldn't come. And they have come this year
 in record numbers. The reason the IGF is growing in momentum is due to its
 informality, it's nondecision-making format, and its open and inclusive
 participatory structure.  No time is wasted in agreeing text, and the debate is
 on substantive issues. The evidence speaks for itself. How many conferences
 offer an opportunity for teenagers to debate with senior statesmen and women
 issues which affect the lives of millions? How many conferences spawn regional
 and national models based on the same organizing principles? The answer is not
 ones which have run their course.  And that's because we believe the challenges
 which are debated at the IGF are the challenges which either already face us or
 will soon face us in each of our countries. And as long as those challenges
 persist, there will be room for an IGF. So it really should come as no surprise
 to you that the U.K. fully supports continuing the IGF mandate, and it fully
 supports continuing with an independent Secretariat, but funded perhaps by a
 wider range of stakeholders. Of course there is room for improvement.  The IGF
 could be more inclusive, in particular to developing countries and less
 developed countries. The agendas of the conferences could be more streamlined
 around core themes and more focused on emerging applications and we could have
 sharper and more accessible summaries of proceedings captured the diversity and
 range of views expressed, but not, I stress, conclusions or recommendations.
 However, we have made a great start, and I am sure that together we can make
 good progress. The significance of this conference has resonated throughout the
 world.  It has promoted the principle that the Internet is the future and the
 Internet is for everyone, and those are principles which the U.K. supports.
 Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, madam. Let me next give floor to Mr. Gao Xinmin,
 vice president of the Internet society of China. Mr. Gao, please.

 >>GAO XINMIN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Ladies and gentlemen, Good afternoon.
 I am Gao Xinmin, the Vice President of Internet Society of China (ISC). As a
 civil society, ISC has played an important role in the process of Internet
 governance in China. Meanwhile, ISC is also an active participant to the IGF
 that we have consecutively participated in the IGF for 4 sessions. With
 sufficient participation and exchange from multi-stakeholders, the IGF has been
 more clearly aware of a framework regarding to the issues related to Internet
 public policies, which will pave a substantial base to implement the principles
 of Internet governance set by WSIS. From the previous IGF, it is obviously
 realized that Internet has increasing impact on all aspects of social economy.
 At 2009 IGF, the Egyptian participant told me the Internet had played
 influential role on recovery from the financial crisis. It is similar to China.
 China¡¯s Internet industry still keeps in growth even though encountering the
 financial crisis. China not only keeps high growth of Internet users, but also
 had maintained a two-digit growth of the industrial scale this year. Internet
 has played an impressive role in promoting the growth of traditional economy,
 social development and raising the quality of people¡¯s lives. Thus, we are
 very concerned about the progress of Internet governance.

 IGF plays an active role in promoting the development of Internet, and we have
 learned much experience from, and are much inspired by the forum.

 However, we consider IGF should have made more tangible and practical results,
 for which we propose to make the following improvements.

 Firstly, it is proposed that IGF should concentrate on the main issues which
 are trans-national, and needed to be solved urgently in the process of Internet
 development, such as issues of critical Internet resources management,
 trans-national network security and privacy protection etc. It is advised to
 raise the priority to solve these issues and to propose to establish experts
 committee on related fields. It is proposed to raise solutions and suggestions
 from perspectives of legislation and technology on the base of fully discussion
 and common understanding among multi-stakeholders. Meanwhile, it is advised to
 set a timetable for these issues needed to be urgently resolved. Secondly, in
 terms of the issues related to national or regional perspective, such as a
 country¡¯s domain name management, management measures of illegal contents,
 Internet for development etc, it is proposed to encourage each country to
 formulate reality-based and effective governance measures on the base of common
 principle. In this process, it is necessary to fully respect the different
 realities in different countries, such as differences of Internet¡¯s
 penetration and application level, and to understand the diversities of
 national and cultural background. IGF should continuously play the role as a
 best practice exchanged platform to create more opportunities for participation
 from the developing countries.

 Finally, it is suggested that IGF cooperation with Internet-related
 international organization as IETF to set up a consultation-based and
 decision-making promotion mechanism. As for the policy proposals submitted by
 IGF, it is proposed to be included in related international law or regulation.
 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Whether the IGF should be improved or not, it's your view. 
 But in my view at least translation can be improved from Chinese to English.
 Now, next, let me give floor to Madam Lillian Sharpley from NRO, AfriNIC
 communication manager. Madam, please.

 >>LILLIAN SHARPLEY:  Thank you, Under-Secretary-General Sha, for giving the NRO
 the opportunity to share our thoughts on the continuation of IGF. Good
 afternoon ministries, Ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen. The Number Resource
 Organization consists of five Regional Internet Registries:  AfriNIC, APNIC,
 ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC, all of which are represented here today.
 Together, the RIRs represent thousands of organizations worldwide according to
 the multistakeholder model. The IRS have individually and collectively, under
 the NRO, participated with a high level of commitment in the IGF since its
 inception.  We have contributed our operational and technical experience and
 participated in all aspects and themes of the IGF. The RIRs were established by
 individuals and organizations from the community that operate the fundamental
 infrastructure of the Internet.  The perceptions and concerns of developed and
 developing areas have always been incorporated equally into RIR discussions.
 The NRO believes that the IGF, as a nondecision-making forum, has been and
 continues to be an important and positive environment in which all stakeholders
 can participate openly and equally. The NRO -- It has been clearly demonstrated
 that this model facilitates high-level dialogue and valuable constructive
 discussions which has been vital to the success of the forum. If the IGF moves
 away from these fundamental principles, it will affect the ability of various
 stakeholders to participate equally and openly. Four this reason, the NRO firm
 live supports the IGF continuing in its current form. Other alternatives will
 not satisfy all of the requirements of the IGF as defined in the Tunis Agenda.
 On the thank you the IGF will continue being an open forum, where no decisions
 are made, the NRO is committed to engaging with and financially contributing to
 the IGF as we have done for the past four years. At the same time, we call on
 other governments and organizations to join us in contributing financially to
 the IGF to guarantee its continued success. Finally, and on behalf of the NRO,
 I would like to thank the Egyptian government, particularly the ministry
 communications -- the Ministry of Communications and information technology,
 for hosting this very important event and for their warm hospitality. Thank
 you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, Madam Sharpley. Next I will give floor to Mister
 -- yes, Mr. Wolfgang -- well, we have some confusion here.  Could you please
 announce your own name and organization.

 >>WOLFGANG BENEDICT:  Certainly.  Thank you very much Mr.
 Under-Secretary-General.  My name is Wolfgang Benedict.  I am replacing my
 colleague, Ian Peter, who has obligations in a parallel event. I am a professor
 of international law from University of Graz, Austria, and head of Human Rights
 Center there. I am speaking on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus, the
 main civil society group with around 100 member organizations from all over the
 world. We have three short messages. First, the IGF has to continue because the
 process has been successful and still has a lot to deliver.  And I'm quite
 happy to see that this seems not to be so controversial anymore. Second, the
 multistakeholder approach should be deepened and enlarged as it has proven its
 value for open discussion and jointly seeking solutions for present and
 emerging problems.  In this context, I would like or we would like to underline
 the importance of the human rights dimension, which was once again confirmed in
 many sessions here in Sharm El Sheikh, and which should be further mainstreamed
 in future sessions. And third, the IGF Secretariat should continue in its
 present form as the (inaudible) Secretariat and ensuring the approach. Let me
 already on this occasion end with warm thanks to the Egyptian hosts and with
 thanks also for the good work of the IGF Secretariat. Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, professor Wolfgang. Next I will give floor to
 Mr. Jyrki Kasvi, member of Parliament, vice chair Committee for the Future,
 Finland. Mr. Kasvi, please.

 >>JYRKI KASVI:   Mr. Under-Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen, with every
 passing year it becomes more and more evident that the IGF is the most
 concrete, most successful, and most promising outcome of the WSIS process. If
 there are still those who believe otherwise, who feel that the IGF has not
 shown enough concrete results, I would like to cite a well-known Chinese
 proverb:  A journey of 10,000 miles starts with the first step. We have now
 taken the fourth step, and Vilnius will be the fifth. Let's not stop here. 
 With the speed of the ICTs developed today, we continuously face new
 opportunities and challenges which need to be addressed together. There are
 already a number of topics which have not yet been adequately discussed.
 Consumer protection in cloud computing and freedom and responsibility of
 expression in new social networks are some topics of my personal interest, and
 new ones continue to emerge. The IGF in its current format, with its
 Secretariat in UNDESA, is well placed for such open dialogue. After every IGF
 meeting I return home with new thoughts and ideas.  For example, having been
 sensitized to the needs of people with disabilities, I have added a section to
 my political Web pages in so-called plain Finnish.  But moreover, my
 experiences in IGF have influenced my work in international parliament.  For
 example, concerning freedom of expression of blog writers. I cannot stress
 enough how useful the IGF is from national legislatures' perspective, because
 national legislation is not created in isolation from international context. I
 would like to give the IGF another five-year mandate to let it grow and mature
 and revisit the issue as we make the overall assessment of WSIS in 2015. For
 me, the IGF is the best demonstration of the enhanced cooperation since its
 invention as part of a compromise deal in the late hours of Tunis in 2005. The
 Affirmation of Commitments is another reason and promising example.  Giving
 governments a better chance to be involved. I think it is time we move on from
 the political deadlock which we have created around the term "enhanced
 cooperation."  Stop demanding the Secretary-General to initiate something where
 there is no agreement on, and concentrate on action and making progress happen
 ourselves. So let's get involved and engage.  We all have a role to play in
 Internet governance. Thank you for attention.  SHAKRAN, Egypt for your warm
 hospitality here in Sharm El Sheikh. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, Mr. Kasvi.  Now let's give the floor to Ms.
 Heather Creech, director global connectivity, International Institute for
 Sustainable Development, from Canada.  Madam, please.

 >>HEATHER CREECH:   Thank you, Ambassador Sha. IISD values the IGF, as many
 others have mentioned this afternoon, as an open space for the frank discussion
 of views. It is through these dialogues that all stakeholders work together
 toward an understanding of our shared responsibility in managing and supporting
 the infrastructure, services, and communities of the net. However, I would like
 to echo the comments of Mr. Kahn earlier today and many others.  This community
 needs to engage a broader community of stakeholders, in particular the major
 civil society and other organizations that are established and active in other
 domains.  The consumer associations, the environmental NGOs like WWF and ICUN,
 the development groups like Oxfam, save the children.  The rights and citizens'
 groups like Transparency International, accountability and CIVICUS to name only
 a few. It is true that the IGF is open and anyone can come, but the IGF needs
 to reach out and demonstrate the relevance of its issues, its domain, to those
 who need the Internet and who are trying to utilize it to solve the environment
 and development challenges of the day. And as the IGF begins to explore these
 issues of development, ICTs and the environment, and so on, these other experts
 and actors should be here. We are not going to get climate change solutions
 like smart grids without addressing fiber and cable infrastructure to the last
 mile and the addressing required for the Internet of things. We are not going
 to get to a green economy without the incentives for ICT innovation. We are not
 going to get a more informed and engaged global citizenry without addressing
 the challenges of access to knowledge, privacy, and digital accountability. But
 the stakeholders who work in these parallel domains of environment,
 development, and society, the stakeholders who need us are significantly
 underrepresented here. And the IGF does not have a presence in their forums.
 The absence of the IGF from the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, for
 example, is the type of disconnect that the world can no longer afford. The IGF
 is dealing with important issues, with serious issues.  It's mandate should be
 renewed, but that mandate needs to include a directive for broader engagement
 with other actors beyond the founding community of the forum. Thank you. [
 Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, madam.  Next, I will give floor to Mr. Frédéric
 Riehl, the chair of the United Nations commission on science and technology for
 development, and at the same time the director international relations, federal
 Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, the DETEC,
 from Switzerland. You have the floor, please.

 >>FRÉDÉRIC RIEHL:   Thank you very much, sir.  I will express myself in French
 to provide a little diversity today. Very briefly, I will describe the
 follow-up process within the CSTD, which is one of the ECOSOC commissions. A
 number of you wanted clarification on this process. The WSIS Tunis declaration
 in 2005 provides for giving the CSTD with a review of the progress for the
 implementation of the Tunis Agenda, and its resolution 2006, 46, in paragraphs
 4 and 6, the ECOSOCs provide the role for CSTD as a center for coordination of
 WSIS follow up. So as of 2007, we have regularly been informing ECOSOCs and the
 General Assembly on the progress implemented in the Tunis Agenda. In 2009, the
 ECOSOC asked us in its resolution 2009-7 in paragraph 46, that during its third
 session in May 2009, we organize a substantive discussion on the progress
 accomplished in the implementation of WSIS agenda. We, in addition to member
 states, also bring in the private sector, civil society, and other
 organizations. In May 2010, is to deal with the issues of the follow-up.  And
 this is to include the report to the Secretary-General on the consultations on
 the issue of enhanced cooperation, which ECOSOC didn't deal with during its
 July session.  This is in paragraph 19 of the resolution of the same ECOSOC
 2009-7. Also, we are to be talking about of the future of the IGF on the basis
 of the report which is transmitted according to the paragraph 18, 2007, 46. 
 This I think is important information to see what it is that we will be
 accomplishing in May 2010.  And as chairman of CSTD, I listened very carefully
 to what's been said here in Sharm El Sheikh, and I think that this will be very
 useful for us when we meet in May next. Thank you, sir.

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   Thank you, Mr. Riehl, for your observations. Next, and at
 the same time the last, by the Chinese culture last is always the best, well,
 the last speaker, Ms. Christine Arida from Egypt.  Ms, please, you have the
 floor.

 >> Christine Arida:  Thank you very much.  The IGF process has proved to be a
 unique forum which has allowed interaction among the various stakeholders in a
 policy dialogue on issues related to Internet governance. It has enabled
 discussions and exchange of information and experience, and thus is providing a
 great opportunity for capacity building pertaining to Internet governance. Its
 flexibility and dynamic nature in terms of topics and formats of discussion is
 helping promote it as a platform where participants can converse freely,
 highlight common points of agreement, and identify areas which need further
 discussion. It is also helping members of the different stakeholder groups to
 build common understanding of problems and explore ways forward. When looking
 at the experiment of the forum over the past four years, the government of
 Egypt believes that this process should continue to remain open and inclusive
 on the premises of the WSIS principles, and should always be directed to the
 attainment of the WSIS development goal. On the national and regional levels,
 we think that the IGF has had a positive impact, and is thus promoting policy
 dialogues on those levels and linking it to the global dialogue on Internet
 governance. The adoption of remote participation tools has had an increasing
 effect on broadening participation of stakeholders, yet the participation of
 stakeholders from developing countries is still low and needs to be further
 enhanced and strengthened at the IGF meetings as well as during the preparatory
 meetings. We equally believe there is a need for more localization of the IGF
 agenda with an increased focus on developmental aspects.  And there is an
 arising need to encourage more national and regional IGFs while exploring the
 possibility of extending institutional relationships among them and with the
 global IGF in the future. There is a need to revise the working modalities of
 the open consultations as well as those of the MAG, while exploring the
 possibility of enhancing the financial and administrative capacity of the
 Secretariat. The IGF should continue to play an important role in influencing
 decisions made within other relevant bodies by reaching out in different ways
 to other organizations and policy forums related to Internet governance. In
 conclusion, we would like to stress our support for the continuation of the IGF
 beyond its five-year mandate, while maintaining its dynamic nature and the
 legitimacy provided by the United Nations umbrella. Finally, I thank you all
 for your vivid participation and your valuable collaboration to this IGF
 meeting in Sharm El Sheikh. Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>MR. SHA ZUKANG:   So we have reached the end of the list of the speakers. 
 Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me thank you very much
 for your active participation.  And I really enjoyed this session, listening
 carefully to your open and frank exchanges of views in the spirit of
 multistakeholder approach, which has now become the signature statement of IGF.
 Although we have to conclude this session, I would like to remind you that you
 will be given the last chance to submit written statement to the IGF
 Secretariat by the end of the day, today. For those who are not present here,
 and for those who did not have the opportunity to speak, you may likewise
 submit your written statement online. I'm fully confident that our able scribes
 have accurately captured all your views expressed today. You might have
 noticed, due to technical reasons, there have been a couple of translation
 hiccups.  Those speakers, if you believe that your statement had been, in any
 case, not fully reflected, please check yourself with the Secretariat. As I
 mentioned, of course you know the translation -- I was trained as a translator,
 but I know how difficult it is to translate Chinese to English, so my
 sympathies to the translators. As mentioned, I will report to the
 Secretary-General of United Nations.  He will then make recommendations in his
 report to the General Assembly next year on desirability of the continuation of
 the IGF. Once again, I extend my thanks to all of you who participated in this
 consultation, both online and off-line. The formal consultation on desirability
 of the continuation of the forum is adjourned. Thank you very much. [ Applause
 ]

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Please, ladies and gentlemen, we have immediately afterwards
 the last substantive session on emerging issues.  It will take some time, few
 minutes, to change the podium and the panelists, I invite them already to
 install themselves here on the podium. And please, I think it may be best to
 remain in the room.  I think we will resume in five minutes or so. Thank you.