Internet Governance Forum 2 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 15 November 2007 Taking Stock and the Way Forward Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the The 2nd Meeting of the IGF. 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). >>NITIN DESAI: First, let me apologize for the fact that we are starting this session 45 minutes after we were supposed to so we have to be very efficient in the use of our time. Second, the -- In the sense, the content and theme of this session and what we will be doing at 2:00 in the emerging issues session does have a certain degree of overlap. So do not feel sort of deprived if the lack of time constrains you a little in this session, because we are going to have a session at 2:00 on emerging issues. And I suspect that the way forward and emerging issues really cannot be fully separated. So I apologize for the delayed start. It was -- The reporting in, because we combined everything in one session for the reporting in, did take much longer than expected. I really don't wish to say much to start with. I will reserve my remarks for I hope till the end where I hope to draw some lessons from what is stated here. This session is co-chaired by me and my colleague, Mr. Hadil da Rocha Vianna. And what we have decided is that I will do the listening and he is going to do the talking. So let me pass the mike to him. >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you, co-chair Desai. I promise I will be very brief in my introductory remarks. I would just like to say that I consider this session one of the most important ones in our Rio meeting. It has to do with the work already done, it has to do with the perspectives of IGF work. It includes, as well, the role of our multistakeholder advisory group that we both co-chair. So in this context, I think it would be very useful to recall what Mr. (saying name) said in the opening ceremony, and I am quoting him. On the agenda item of taking stock and the way forward, I hope you will be able to reflect upon the issue of selection and appointment of the advisory group and the possible ways and means of financing for IGF. I'm just underlining this remark in order to call the attention for the importance of this subject. Mr. Co-chair, while I have the floor I would like to offer very brief personal remarks on IGF current achievements and on what I believe should be the way forward. At the outset, it is worth recalling that the IGF was conceived as a space for multistakeholder dialogue, for the debate of cross-cutting public policy issue. For the facilitation of discourse between organizations responsible for different aspects of Internet governance. For the identification of emerging issues, for bringing these issues to the attention of the public and for making recommendations when appropriate. The IGF should meet for an initial series of five sessions and balanced geographic representation should be observed both in its convening and in the constitution of its supporting structure. I am pleased to note that a great deal of this mandate has been achieved up to the second meeting. And I am confident that the IGF will be able to fulfill it in all aspects until 2010. I am also confident that the IGF will prove to be a fruitful experience. In Athens, one of the innovative elements of IGF mandate was fully accomplished. A numerous audience held deep discussions on high-level issues such as openness and security aspects of Internet governance in a truly multistakeholder environment. Rio built upon the experience accumulated by providing a main session dedicated to the debate on Internet critical resources as established in Tunis Agenda, paragraph 72j. Rio also represented a further step towards the fulfillment of the IGF mandate as far as the number of participants is concerned. More than 1,300 participants from 109 countries, across all stakeholders. Another innovation worth mentioning was the connection of workshops with issues targeted in the main sessions and collusion of open fora and best practice fora in the program of the second IGF. As we all expected, Rio proved to be Athens plus. The present session should debate on the incremental evolution on the IGF. It should also suggest targets to be met during the preparatory process for the convening of the next meeting in India. Rio then would have helped Delhi to be Rio plus. In this sense I would like to point out some innovations that I think could bring us closer to the full accomplishment of the IGF mandate. Tunis Agenda paragraph 72f states that the IGF should strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries. Taking this goal into account, the adoption of financial and other mechanisms to stimulate the participation of representatives from developing countries in all stakeholder groups could be considered. I am convinced that this balance should also be observed in the structure that will advise the United Nations' secretary-general in the preparation of this third IGF. To conclude, I would like to point out that the respect for balanced geographic representation and the participation of representatives from both developed and developing countries within in stakeholder group is essential for the legitimacy of any action that the IGF may recommend to the international community. In this context, I recall that the world summit process envisages a multilateral, transparent and democratic Internet governance model involving all stakeholders and their respective roles. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: I forgot to mention one thing, very quickly. Those of you who have questions, there are these little pieces of paper which the ladies there have. You please note your name, affiliation, and the question that you have and pass it to the table there. And because otherwise it's very difficult to orchestrate this. With this, I pass the baton to my colleague. >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: I believe we could invite the first panelist, Mr. Bertrand De La Chapelle, a special envoy for the information society, French Minister of foreign affairs. Each panelist will have four minutes to present their points of view. Thank you. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. It's a great pleasure and privilege to be here. I would like to share with you a few ideas regarding this IGF and how it could move forward. The first thing is to start with great disappointment. Something that has been widely shared among the participants is the difficulty of finding time for lunch and for meeting people randomly. And it's a disappointment that is the counter point of an incredibly dense IGF, and fruitful. Everybody has gone into many workshops, according to their own field of interest. But if there is one thing on the negative side that I would find that can be improved next year is to balance the number of activities and the space for informal interaction. But I started with the negative dimension just because the rest can be a more positive feedback. And indeed, it was a very -- it has been, as far as we are concerned, a very good IGF. I would mention two dimensions. One on themes and issues, and the other one on methodology. On themes, the first element is that there -- we initiated a new thread here on critical internet resources, a new thematical thread which was a new thread, and also several workshops. And the main lesson I can take from this, and I hope you will share this with me, is the way we interacted, all of us, on those issues has somewhat evolved. And in particular, in the main session on critical internet resources, the amount of laughter in the exchanges was relatively unanticipated. And this means for me that people are stepping back a little from the traditional fight on those issues, and they begin, we begin to consider those very delicate and important and contentious issues as a common problem. Not as a fight among us, but as a common problem we have to address. And I think it's an encouraging element, because the IGF is about understanding the different perceptions before we move forward to finding solutions. The second thing is I was impressed by the emergence of a second thread around Internet rights in general. You had several workshops, dynamic coalitions, on freedom of expression, on privacy, on cyber crime on the other side, on the Internet Bill of Rights, and many others that touched more or less on this. I think this is a thread that is becoming a general question, and this means addressing the implementation and enforcement of existing rights and also the balance of the different tools to do this, and also the formalization of some new different types of rights, related to the infrastructure, for instance, or at least that is what is proposed. Those two threads, in my view, are very interesting for the future structuring of our work. Now, second point on methodology. It will probably be mentioned again, but I think we are touching on a very interesting element with the articulation between the workshops and the plenary or the main sessions. In particular, I believe that in the future, as it has already been mentioned in some of the reporting, using the main sessions to present more thoroughly the feedback from the workshops might be an interesting avenue to explore. And in that respect, we attach great importance to this innovation of the dynamic coalitions. We consider in particular that they have been, almost by accident, very useful in shaping the workshops and I believe the workshops are even better, more coherent, than the ones in Athens mostly because the ones among co-sponsors and participants has been prepared within the dynamic coalitions in an almost informal manner. It is likely to be going on further in the future. Weeks expect in particular that the dynamic coalitions or groupings of actors have streamlined the process of reducing the number of workshops so that we can save time for the informal interactions. We need to have a balance, and it's a delicate element, between the very good openness of the agenda setting of the IGF which allows anybody to propose a workshop and the need to have a limited number of workshops to save time to interact informally. And the dynamic coalitions in that respect might be a useful tool for this in the future as well as for intersessional work. Finally, concluding element. I want to share with you the fact that the IGF is a very innovative and fragile experiment. And we may have, all of us, frustrations about what it should be. About where it should go. How more this or more that it should be. But just take into account the fact that if each of us is frustrated, this means we're going to the right direction. If some were very satisfied, I would be very afraid, because this would mean that it is biased. So the key question is how do we navigate the critical path forward between two dangers: too much informality, and too rigid structure too early. It's a very narrow path but it's just like a boat sailing out of a harbor. You go slower when you start and then afterwards you accelerate. I hope that in February we will have useful discussions on the working methods and the lessons that we draw from this second IGF. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to share those thoughts. >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much, Mr. De la Chapelle, for your very useful comments and ideas. I would like to invite now Madam Fatimata Seye Sylla, chairperson of Bokk Jang, Senegal. Madam, you have the floor. >>FATIMA SEYE SYLLA: Thank you. I am the chair of the coordinator of access in Senegal. Access is the African civil society organization dealing with the civil society. I am also a member of the advisory committee at large of ICANN. I would like to begin by thanking the organizers of this forum, thanking them for having given me this opportunity to speak on behalf of African civil society. As an African woman involved in the struggle against the digital divide, I will focus my comments on a point which I find essential for Africa's participation in Internet governance. I am referring to access, because I believe that you cannot get involved in the governance of something which doesn't exist or almost doesn't exist. I'm not going to give you the statistics because you all know the statistics. We come at the bottom of the scale for every measurement of access: Infrastructure, capacity, content, et cetera. Africa, through its various potential stakeholders -- the government, private sector, civil society, and the development institutions -- take into account the agenda dimension, of course, as well as the needs of youth and people with disabilities has already taken stock of the situation in Africa with the World Summit on the Information Society, the Tunis commitment and the Internet Governance Forum from process. It's now time to start implementing with more active participation by Africa, because only Africa can defend Africa's interests. And it is in this spirit that the Kigali meeting on the theme of connecting Africa showed that access is vital for Africa's participation in Internet governance. Let me just remind you of a few commitments made by the African community to get access to Internet, which by definition today is a rare resource, but a critical resource for Africa. Let me just give you a few major points for specific action to be undertaken in the coming five years. First of all, we need to develop backbone infrastructure and access networks in order to interconnect all African capitals through broadband by 2012. All African villages need to be connected up by 2015. Human capacity building, production of adapted local content and services through a participatory process . Of course, thinking also of tele services, content in local languages and so forth. We need to develop a regulatory and policy framework at the national, subregional and regional levels which will be investment friendly for the well-being of our peoples. During the Kigali summit commitments were made by the consortium for 50 billion over five years. The World Bank committed 2 million. But of course to have access to those funds we need to put forward bankable projects. How are we going to do that as Africans? For implementation, public/private partnerships. But unless they are drawn up and implemented by Africans themselves, sustainability will always be a problem because these projects will never be owned by the people themselves. I would therefore recommend that African civil society should continue to play an important role, not just in strategy setting and in developing plans of action but also in project implementation. Yesterday I was following the workshop of the United Nations economic commissions, and I noticed that almost all regions came to the same conclusion, including Europe, when it came to giving access to the underprivileged. Awareness, promotion, access points, capacity building, financial resources and so forth. But the difference in Africa is in Africa's own resources that are mobilizable. Government, civil society and the partners need to come up with specific action in order to put their actions into practice in order to promote access in Africa. One thing that can be done immediately by each of the countries in Africa by the various stakeholders without help from outside is to start building on our own resources, on our own capacities, wherever they may be found. For example, today we could already start capacity building on Internet governance. We have the necessary local human resources to do that in Africa. For the financing mechanisms as well. We have the digital solidarity fund, and I believe that African countries can demonstrate their commitment by contributing to that fund and by undertaking action by themselves. It's just a matter of will and determination by our policymakers and decision-makers. The friends of Africa would be all the happier to work with us in full respect of (inaudible) Africa and for a better world if we were to do that. Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, let me once again repeat an appeal already made to our political decision-makers and to the international community. You must give civil society its due role in building the Information Society in order to improve the living conditions of our peoples. Thank you very much [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much, madam, for your words on the special needs of African countries. That must necessarily be taken into account in the planning of the future work of IGF. I would like to invite now Mr. Mr. Juan Carlos Solines from Ecuador to take the floor. >>JUAN CARLOS SOLINES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Although I will need to speak slower in order to facilitate translation, I will address the floor in my native Spanish and I will be reading my statement in order to be brief. We made progress. This words may be translated into several words, in Athens, because new topics have been included in our discussion, we made progress because several of our multi-sector approach is possible and there was a civilized confrontation of ideas and positions. So we made progress because our audience has increased, there are more young people, activists, researchers involved in our work. We made progress because the workshops and the dynamic coalitions dealt with concrete topics clearly related to the governance coverage of the Internet. But this is not enough. The main challenge is not to stop because in an Information Society, as dynamic as ours, to stop would be to go backwards. And we need democracy, transparency. And we have to move forward constantly. The IGF is a five years process without a precedent and it responds to a revolutionary reality which is unique and marvelous and I say potentially because the impact of telecommunications still don't reach everyone in the world. And the elections and free votes are not democracy in themselves. What we have now is not yet a more inclusive and democratic infomatic society. The principles of the Internet, multisectoriality contained in the Geneva Declaration are not a goal but a philosophy, an attitude and a dynamic way of living. If we became more democratic in Rio, we should become even more democratic in New Delhi and we should become even more transparent. And if a growing number of people from several sectors participate in these discussions, then in 2008 we shall be enriched by more contributions and participation. Everyone present here had the privilege to participate in the forum, had the opportunity to contribute with their ideas and knowledge. And first of all, we are representatives of the majority of inhabitants of the planet, which is a very important responsibility. In the coming months, it's not just to find funds to be present in India or to publish reports on the discussions here. Our true challenge is to get closer to people and understand what people need to benefit from the technology and knowledge. We believe the next forum will be even better than this one that we carried out in the charming city of Rio, and we have to ask ourselves if we are truly representing our organizations. And we have to ask ourselves if our organizations represent the interests, concerns, not of our staff, but, rather, the interests of the communities we serve, for whom we have to work and be more democratic. The IGF, with its secretariat and the multisectorial groups carried out an impartial task. We have to recognize the importance of the reports that were used by us as basis for the discussions held here this week. There will always be room for improvement, but changes must be the result of reflection and analysis, and all players should be consulted for these adoptions. We shall try to consolidate other principles, such as alternability, plurality, and meritocracy. This is the only way we will be more transparent. If we use electronic means to allow for the participation of people, we must now worry that all of them should use the tools, should know how Wiki works, they should access webcast, and they should simply reply e-mail. If they don't do that, we have to work to understand their reasons. Maybe they cannot have access, they don't know the topics they are being consulted about, they don't know about the Tunis Agenda, and they may even ignore the rights reserved for them by their own institutions. And only by working on this we can become more democratic. We shouldn't just have sectorial, regional, and gender balance. First and foremost, we have to have a balance on visions. The challenge will never be -- have panel members and speakers, et cetera. The true challenge is to find what enriches the wealth and knowledge of all the others. We should look for balance not just with other sectors, but also with the participation of private and production of players in developing countries, intellectual property, and encouragement to investment. Everyone has a way to participate. And the interests of states should find a balance before the interest of other states and peoples. The opinion of an American or European academy or university should be balanced with the opinion of a researcher from Africa. It's only if we look for this permanent balance that we shall become more multisectorial. Finally, new topics in this forum that stayed on my mind are public policies, interglobal exchanges, open access, and the importance of accessibility, data protection, et cetera, including cybercrime. In New Delhi, let us try and be more concrete and focused than we were in Rio. Public policies are varied and dynamic. But beyond the quest for the public good, we must constantly look for the public values. What public values do we want to have in a globalized world? Critical resources should be used in every country to facilitate new services. Fiberoptic and other technologies should be shared to avoid the duplication of investment. Small players should be identifying, rendering services in remote points of the world. And all countries of the world should have access to underwater cables. Rights to privacy and protection of private acts are unknown in most developing countries. What declaration of universal rights are we talking about, then? Standards concerning access to free access seem to hide the interests of large corporations. What is it we want, more standards? Less standards? Or tool kits and tools to allow us to implement interconnectivity and interactivity? We don't have here the main enemies of the Internet, but we also don't have the main defenders of the Internet. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much for your intervention. I would like to introduce Jeanette Hofmann. I would like to tell all the speakers that we should observe the four minutes' time allowed, since we must finish our work before 1:00 in the afternoon. Thank you very much. >>JEANETTE HOFMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. It has been a very rewarding experience to participate and to contribute to the IGF. But, as always, there's always -- there's also some room for improvement. I want to address a few points. The first concerns gender balance. I'm sure most of you must have noticed this, there has been a striking discrepancy between the share of women in the audience and the share of women on the panels. There have been quite a few panels where there was not one single woman included. Can't we do better? The IGF is supposed to be an innovative space. This should also include the diversity of experts we invite to our panels. Second point. Diversity of stakeholders. I think we are doing quite well in terms of including several stakeholders in the organization of workshops and also in terms of including them on the panels. But this does not always mean that we also have a diversity of views. Several stakeholders can still have the same opinion. My sense is we should be more courageous and not be afraid of diversity of opinions, and make sure in the following years that we also invite people with different opinions. My third point concerns some complaining and moaning I've heard over the last days about lack of structure, too many workshops, too much duplication between workshops, and overlapping topics. First of all, I think what is very positive is that most of the workshops attracted a big audience, and people really stayed and asked questions and contributed. What we've seen this year is much more emphasis on the workshops than on the main sessions. People are interested in discussing details and specific points. It's really a working atmosphere we've seen here, and this is really, really good. When it comes to lack of structure in the workshop space, this might be an unavoidable consequence of the great freedom that comes together with this bottom-up process of suggesting workshops from several people. We might take for granted something that is so unusual in the U.N.'s whole structure, that we can propose topics, that we can propose speakers and really discuss the issues we find interesting. History shows that most organizations over time show a tendency of ossification. The longer an organization or process exists, the more difficult it is to change the process. So far, we still enjoy a lot of freedom in terms of discussing new structures and formats and new topics. We should not take this for granted, but be generous where it shows sort of drawbacks and might even -- and where it doesn't work so 100% well as we would hope for. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much, madam, for your constructive comments. I'd like to invite now Mr. Art Reilly, representative of the private sector, to take the floor. You have the floor, sir. >>ART REILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to have the opportunity to hear from those who are the other participants in this conference, so I will try to be brief and make a few points. First, I would like to extend my appreciation to the Brazilian government and people for meeting facilities and their warm hospitality in this very unique U.N. forum. The IGF is one of the few places within the U.N. system where one can see representatives from civil society, business, governments, intergovernmental organizations, the Internet community, working together on an equal footing in the type of intense, substantive, and frequently very candid discussions that we witnessed this week in Rio on an expanding array of issues. This inclusive and egalitarian, multistakeholder IGF structure, agreed to at WSIS, reflects the real world of the Internet, and thus is critical to the IGF's continuing success. The WSIS and the IGF have the objectives to bring the benefits of the information society to people around the world and build a more inclusive, people-centric information society. Consequently, the success of the IGF and its -- the collection of activities of all the stakeholders cannot be overstated. So in taking stock and in considering the path forward, the open, transparent, multistakeholder, and democratic properties of the IGF are an imperative. During the taking stock session, I look forward to hearing the comments from my other participants, these valuable inputs to the process. However, I believe the interval between now and the open public consultation that will be held in January or February 2008 will provide a valuable opportunity for us to do homework. It provides an opportunity for stakeholder groups, organizations, individuals, national, and regional groups to do outreach to others. It provides an opportunity for data gathering and analysis on participation patterns, including those participating online. And it also provides for a follow-up on collaborative opportunities that may have been identified by the participants at this meeting. Most importantly, people and organizations will have a chance to carefully assess the significance of what they learned here and how it applies to them and their organization and activities. They hopefully can lead to the additional ideas as to how the IGF can be improved to promote a more inclusive information society at the global, regional, national, and local levels. To assist in this, one thing that I might recommend is the contribution by the International Chamber of Commerce, BASIS, which outlined a number of questions that might be helpful in each of us doing our assessments back home. Therefore, given the significant amount of homework, while the valuable contribution will be provided following this panel's discussion, I believe it's premature to attempt to evaluate the IGF and its mandate here in Rio de Janeiro. We are only in the midst of the second IGF, and the full impact of the Rio IGF has not been realized. Instead, evaluation discussions should take place during the open public consultations to be held in January or February, that can benefit from not only today's input, but also from the extensive set of inputs that will be available then. In closing, I believe that the IGF advisory group and the small secretariat support staff have done a fine job of taking on the many challenges that have existed in framing the issues for discussion here at the IGF. The advisory group is a valuable, cost-effective, and very flexible resource not only for providing advice in the preparation of the IGF program, but also in assistance to the IGF operation. And many of you may not be aware, but the advisory group members are assisting the secretariat in many of the operational activities here. Nothing can be done that would provide -- nothing should be done that would provide any one stakeholder group with more influence than others in reviewing the structure and activities of the advisory group. Having one stakeholder group dominate would be counter productive to the IGF and its important objectives. I applaud the efforts of the IGF advisory group and the secretariat in working with our Brazilian hosts towards the success of this IGF and look forward to New Delhi and IGF number 3. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much, Mr. Reilly. I would like to call now our last speaker, Mr. Colin Oliver, from the department of communications, information technology, and the arts, of Australia. You have the floor, sir. >>COLIN OLIVER: Thank you very much. And like Art Reilly, I'm more interested in hearing what comes from the floor, so I'll be quite brief. I must say, though, that I've enjoyed this forum. I think it has been -- very insightful contributions have come in a number of sessions and I was able to myself to participate in some interesting areas, such as malware and child protection, this reflect some of the issues that are in the newspapers at home. And as a government official, I have to say, governments pay attention to what is in the newspapers. For us, it is access in the rural areas, child safety, security, privacy. This second IGF has seen people coming with a much clearer set of common expectations than we had in Athens, where many of us came with divergent expectations. That led to a certain amount of excitement as we worked things out. But I think here, we've enjoyed more of a common form of discourse, with less cross-communication. And that's a positive. On the negative side, there's also a danger as we settle down that things become a little stale. So we need to think about that in preparation for the third meeting. When I'm talking with people about how to be involved in the IGF, I always encourage them to think in terms not of making policy statements or making demands, but of making contributions. To my mind, the success of the IGF is contributions in, collaboration out. So have we seen, given that, I think, the numbers from Athens suggested there was a relative preponderance of people from civil society, smaller number from government, and perhaps smaller again from the private sector. Have we seen any change at this meeting? And should we monitor that more closely? My own feeling is that because we have, as I say, a common form of discourse, it's encouraged some shy government officials like myself to be a little more forthcoming in meetings. And perhaps we have the same with the private sector. I think this needs encouragement. It could certainly be better. And I wonder if we could do more to encourage more private sector participation, not just from developed countries, but also from developing; not just from suppliers, but also from users. I think, in fact, that uptake of the Internet is often led by businesses in both developed and developing countries. And I'm not sure that we really engage with that as we should. It seems to me also that while some of us seem to have an interest across the wide range of issues here, many of us also come with very specialized interests. And maybe some of us have a very intense interest in, say, 15% of the agenda. And how do we manage that? For some people, ICANN issues are central. For others, it is security or access, or child protection, or privacy, or freedom of expression, technology, academic research, or something else. In fact, I would say there's even a group of specialists who actually specialized in IGF processes. And that's a little bit worrying. Can we manage better cross-fertilization? I want to tell you that I spent some time here with people with an interest in child protection. And there's a very encouraging story here, because child protection people were here for the first time. Most of them were not in Athens. They really saw a need to reach out to people who are concerned about freedom of expression. And so they invited a common meeting. I'm not aware of this having happened before. But I think that is a very positive development and one that we should respond to. In fact, although we speak of workshops as being a bottom-up process, I do wonder, in fact, I think it's an issue for the next advisory group to consider, is should we actually be inviting, not compelling, not imposing structures, but inviting more cross-fertilization of that kind? I think we need to avoid negotiation, as has been said before. But I think we can also move beyond simple information-sharing. And that could be encouraged by, again, inviting contributions of more structured information. For example, on access, the point that was raised earlier. That's clearly a primary issue. But also on new forms of usage, connectivity, multilingual applications, sources of security threats, sources of child abuse images, the extent of legislation across the world to deal with these problems. Structured information may actually raise some problems. I understand the secretariat may have difficulty, and there are all kinds of issues to be managed. But I think it would add to our discussions if that could be done. And we do have partners who are present here who could be invited to assist. I must say that all of this would require longer lead times than were available for this meeting. We had very short lead times, and it's remarkable, really, what the people concerned have been able to do in the limited time available. Finally, I want to say that I think it is premature to institutionalize too many arrangements. We're dealing with the Internet, one of the most dynamic agencies in our world. I don't think we should be making rules. I don't think we should be making rules for dynamic coalitions, for example. But many other aspects, I think we should be prepared to encourage evolution, give space to participants to make things happen, and admit that we're learning as we go. Many different points of view need to be heard. Those who've taken a back seat need to be encouraged to come forward. And the biggest challenge of all, I think, it's coming back to a point, is that Bertrand made right at the beginning, is that we have to take advantage of the opportunity to make new friends. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver, for your comments. I would like to take this opportunity to thank, again, all the speakers for their very valuable inputs. And now I would like to open the floor for comments. Before going to this second phase, I would like to invite Mr. Bill Drake to report on the workshop that was held this morning on the fulfilling of the IGF mandate. I would urge all those who will speak in this second phase to be very brief, not more than two minutes, in order for us to finish our work in time. I would like to give the floor now to Mr. Bill Drake. Mr. Bill Drake, please. >>BILL DRAKE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me find a place on the floor to report from. It seems a little out of sync to report on a workshop at this stage, but I will just make a couple of quick observations. Did have a very interesting workshop this morning on the -- fulfilling the mandate of the IGF, with a very substantial turnout and very lively discussion that went over by about a half hour. And, essentially, what the workshop was reflecting on is the fact that we had a mandate agreed at the Tunis summit for the IGF that entailed 12 functions. And since then, there hadn't been any real public discussion about what those functions really mean in practice, what was the thinking behind them, the extent to which the IGF is performing them now, options to pursue them in the future, and so forth. So it was with that in mind that we held this workshop. It was organized by the civil society Internet Governance Caucus to try to generate some constructive and practical ideas about options going forward to be able to mandate more effectively some of the functions that people think the IGF could be performing. Take, for example, the element in the agenda that suggests that the IGF should promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles and Internet governance mechanisms. That would seem to imply an institutional capacity for ongoing monitoring and analysis across multiple Internet governance mechanisms that simply isn't there yet. So, clearly, then, if we are going to actually try to address those kinds of issues, we have to have a different way forward, because, obviously, an annual conference comprising panels of speakers and so on can't perform that kind of a function. So we tried to do a little bit of brainstorming about what some of the options were. And I think, just to make it very brief, the one main point that I think came forward, the suggestion of a number of people, was that perhaps, as we look to the future, since the IGF per se can't do these things, and it's really up to stakeholders to take this role, we should try to figure out a way to create a facilitative environment in which the stakeholders could try to take on some of these functions more effectively, but also bring the results of their activities, of their efforts, to the wider community for discussion. One option for doing that might be to reconsider the main sessions. After two years of the configuration of openness, access, security, diversity, one could argue that doing the same thing again the next year might be of relatively limited value, whereas an option that some people thought was interesting was, what we could do is try to have essentially the dynamic coalitions and the workshops and so on able to percolate up from the bottom, from the edges of the network, as the chairman said, the -- some of the ideas, some of the key points that have come out of their work, bring that to the larger community for discussion in a plenary setting. One can imagine ways in which that would be complicated, obviously. And it would take some tweaking to define the precise mechanisms and modalities. But, nevertheless, if we were to do something like that, one could argue that at least then we're capturing the value that's embedded in the structure. Because, really, at the end of the day, the IGF as it is now, the real value is the bottom-up energy that you're getting from all these different communities in generating new ideas and having very vibrant discussions. And if we could find a way to leverage what they have generated and bring it into a wider debate, that would be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting the recommendations. It means simply addressing the issues on a broader basis, giving more people a chance to respond to the ideas, and so on. In this manner, also, those ideas might feed back, then, into other institutions and back to the national level. So that was sort of the thrust of one of the principal ideas that came out of the workshop. There were many others. But it was a very interesting conversation. Thank you. >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much, Mr. Drake, for your report. I would like now to open the floor for specific comments. I would like to invite Professor Pedro Veiga, representative of the Portuguese government, on behalf of the European Union. Professor Veiga, please, you have the floor. >>PEDRO VEIGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dear host country, dear IGF secretariat, dear participants, I am speaking on behalf of the Portuguese president of the European Union. The IGF meeting in Rio has been a very successful event. The European Union is particularly grateful to Brazil for having hosted the forum and to the IGF advisory group and secretariat for having ensured the good framework for dialogue and exchange. Both the number and diversity of the participants and the impressive amount of workshops, best practice forums, and dynamic coalitions, have proven that Athens was crucial for the start of this successful process, and Rio managed to bring an Athens-plus. The Internet is a platform of global value that should develop in the spirit of its pioneering times, offering ample opportunities for creativity and innovation to all users. It should remain open, people-centered, and multilingual, flexible to foster new technologies and users, preserve neutrality, inclusive and supportive of global, social, cultural, and economic interaction and development, but at the same time, meet the new challenges of today and tomorrow. Improving access to the Internet is a goal for us all, and freedom of expression and access to knowledge through the Internet stand as important democratic values to be preserved. The current arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic, and geographically diverse medium that it is today. The European Union remains fully committed to the IGF. We have shown this commitment by active engagement in the process, by hosting the first IGF, and by the financial contributions to the secretariat. This forum is an important tool for the implementation of the Geneva plan of action and of the Tunis Agenda for the information society. It will successfully establish a wide platform for stakeholders to contribute based on their specific expertise, knowledge, and interests. The multistakeholder approach of the IGF, allowing for sharing points of view and best practices among very diverse groups, stands at the core of its success. The European Union and its 27 member states have shown a strong commitment to the development of the information society in all regions in the world, more specifically, of the various regions, for example, the implementation was done through specific programs such as (saying name) in Latin America, (saying name) with the Mediterranean non-Europe countries, or Asia ITC in the Asian region. An important chapter of this cooperation is dedicated to the interconnection of the regional research and education networks, with the (saying name) network, currently achieved through projects like Red Clara (inaudible) in Latin America, (saying name) Connect in the Mediterranean region, (saying name) in Asia-Pacific region -- >>NITIN DESAI: If you could just complete, please. >>PEDRO VEIGA: I am about to finish, Chairman. A single cooperation scheme with sub-Saharan countries has been prepared and is planned to be adopted at the EU Africa summit to be held in Lisbon on the 18th and 19th of December and the Portuguese presidency. The European Union current initiative for the information society, i2010, can be a sort of inspiration for the World Summit follow-up. The working methods of the IGF also allows us to explore further improvements of its function, and contributions should be implemented of the World Summit on the Information Society goals. The European Union and its member states -- >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you, Professor Veiga. Sorry for interrupting you, but we need to pass the floor to other speakers. Thank you very much. You can make your speech available in printed form. >>PEDRO VEIGA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: I would like now to invite Mr. Vint Cerf from Google. Please, Mr. Cerf, you have the floor. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have just a few brief observations I would like to make about the IGF. It is a strikingly useful mechanism, and I want to underscore its value so far. I have been to the Athens one and this one as well. From the ICANN point of view, as I see it as the former chairman, the IGF framework has helped a great deal. In the ICANN world we have to make decisions, we have to come to conclusions about policy. That's sometimes very difficult. In the IGF world, it's a very open forum. The attendees are very diverse. There are a wide-ranging number of topics that are offered. It's a non-negotiating climate. I can't emphasize how valuable that is. Many different points of view are offered, sometimes people don't agree, and it's okay. It's, in fact, important to see the diversity and range of opinions and views about issues. They help inform other processes in other organizations, including ICANN, that do have to reach specific conclusions. The thing that I like the most about the IGF so far is that there is a huge opportunity for dialogue and for follow-up. I am leaving IGF with at least a dozen possible actions to take that I hope will continue to the continued growth and utility of the Internet. So I simply want to congratulate the organizers both of Rio and the previous Athens and encourage you to continue this process more or less along the lines you have structured it because I think it is strikingly valuable. So I thank you for that [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much. I'd like now to give the floor to Mr. Alun Michael, representative of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Thank you. >>ALUN MICHAEL: Thank you very much indeed. Can I congratulate you on the success of the event this year. It's been very successful indeed, but it's vital that the IGF process is actually seen to make a difference. So two questions. Firstly, because we need to see what the IGF process is achieving, will the Secretariat make a space available on the IGF Web site for commitments? We're not suggesting a traditional text. We're suggesting voluntary individual organizations or group or countries saying, "We're going to do X as a result of Rio," or we're going to do Y with others. From the U.K, we are making a commitment to establish a U.K. IGF to involve industry, civil society, and parliamentarians as well as government. And we're making a commitment within that to create a partnership to cut crime and nuisance online. And we aim to report substantial progress to the IGF next year. The second, in preparing for Rio we have changed our at approach in the U.K. Government and NOMINET have engaged industry and parliamentarians in the process. But it's clear that here in Rio, we're not yet living up to the multistakeholder ambition. So for next year, can we all aim to increase the engagement of mainstream industry, of NGOs, and parliamentarians at the next IGF. It's essential to see that mainstream industry engagement. The engagement of the child protection NGOs has shown what incredible value that they can bring. But to me the biggest disappointment is that only parliamentarians from Brazil and the U.K. and the European parliament and South Africa have come to Rio. How can we help you so that we do better in 2008? And if we walk the talk at a national level, isn't that the way to help to embed the IGF process and enable it to mature? [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much. I invite now counselor Everton Lucero. Please be brief. And my next speaker is Mrs. Margaret Moran, another representative of the parliament of the United Kingdom. >>EVERTON LUCERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is clear to us that the IGF is in the forefront of multilateralism within the United Nations system, and it may set precedence and contribute for review of other instance of U.N. policy-making. How can it do that? How can it achieve this? I think it's important to bear in mind that the IGF has to live up to the expectations of the international community on global public policy making. And there are certain improvements that I believe to be considered for the next session, or sessions, aiming at this goal. For instance, attendance at the main sessions. This is one of the main sessions with great attendance, but others weren't that successful. Perhaps because there were too many events in parallel and lots of people wanted to be, at the same time, in workshops which were considering more in-depth issues that later on would be brought to the attention of the main session. So perhaps one good improvement would be to have main sessions as single events or at least with few parallel sessions so that they will not be competing with workshops. Main sessions could be held, for instance, each morning or half morning. And the reporting back sessions, on the other hand, were even lower in attendance. I think they could be incorporated into the main sessions to make them more useful. And as I said, substantive and in-depth debate could be left to the workshops and dynamic coalition meetings. Main sessions would therefore receive reports and focus on discussing suggested actions, possible way forward. Let's see that the main question of -- the main question to be posed to each main session would be where and how this particular issue should be addressed. So there's no need to reproduce at main sessions the same workshop format of panelists and discussants that we already have at the workshops. We could also think of a possible rotational basis for chairing each of the main sessions among the different regions. Of course, the host country would continue chairing the opening, the closing, perhaps the emerging issues or one of these particular sessions, including taking stock, but it would be good, perhaps, to have a more diverse participation and geographically balanced. I think it's also extremely important to keep what we achieved here that the Secretariat continues to prepare the summary records at each session and the chairman should also continue to present his or her conclusions. That is related to compiled proceedings which is also in the mandate of the IGF. Just a final remark, Mr. Chairman. I would like to use this opportunity also to suggest that procedures for preparing the IGF should also be improved. The present advisory group has no rules of procedure, and the absence of rules is not necessarily beneficial to the process. There are no clear rules of participants, and not absolute transparency in its proceedings. So and we should also think of -- seriously consider the issue of financing. I believe that the United Nations Secretariat needs to have a budget that is free from the constraints of donors' priorities to avoid -- >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you. I would like to move on, asking madam Margaret Moran to take the floor. And I would like to inform that we are going to draw a line now and invite the remaining speakers, we have six of them, to take the floor in the afternoon. We still need to take these ten minutes that we have left to take some decisions -- I mean address the issues that are important during this session in the morning. Madam, you have the floor, please. >>MARGARET MORAN: Thank you very much. I want to congratulate the IGF. In particular, on the way in which the issue of online child protection has been a major focus of this conference. It has, I think, had the ability to unite us across different sectors, whether we be industry, NGOs, parliamentarians, and across countries, because it is a serious issue that can only be addressed by international cooperation. And that part of the IGF I think has been very important and there will be some very important outcomes going forward. Most particularly it is of real significance to users and that is my question. How can we ensure that we have a greater voice for users within this process as part of a gathering of stakeholders? I think we have to ensure that the voice of the user is really heard so that they can be part of determining the outcomes from technological innovation going forward. And by that I do not mean existing stakeholders having new mechanisms, online mechanisms, for example, to have their voice heard over again. I do mean users that are usually not heard in forums like this. And I believe that we should be looking for mechanisms and a commitment to the IGF at various levels to establish mechanisms for public participation in the kinds of debates that effect all of us. That way I think there will be greater transparency, greater accountability and real outcomes from the IGF in the future. [ Applause ] >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA: Thank you very much. I'd like to inform that in the afternoon we will be inviting Mr. Tsukasa Makino, Frédéric Riehl, Nick Dearden, Raul Echeberria, Karen Banks, and Karen Banks. I would like now to invite my co-chair to say a words in the following up of the session here. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you very much. I think we are short of time. I will not try to do my usual which is to try to draw things to go. I will probably have to leave it for the closing remarks. Just two or three points which struck me listening to people. One, what struck me was the very real fact that in some ways what we have in the IGF is a representation of the supplier dimension. Often, the suppliers of Internet services, whether it's the Internet community, whether it is the NGOs, whether it is the industry. Or for that matter whether it is the government departments. It is essentially the people who are involved in supplying Internet services. We have not yet fully captured the interests of the users, of the presence of the users. One area where this did happen was in the child protection area and we saw how fruitful that was. So I think we will have to work a little harder in trying to see how the user interest -- and that's a lesson. The second lesson I draw listening to people from here is that we do need to think through a little bit more the connection between the main sessions and the workshops, dynamic coalitions, best practice workshops. And certainly this is something which we will have to address. The better structuring of the whole exercise. The third thing which struck me is that, yes, even though everybody accepts that this is not a forum for negotiation or concrete actions, people do expect to see where has it made a difference in terms of the way it operates. And one idea that was put forward was the idea of commitments. Not commitments by the IGF but commitments by groups, which is -- we call it a pledge-and-review system in international relations sometimes. Let's think about all of these things. I'm also very happy that most people have been welcome -- generally welcomed the way the IGF has been conducted and run, and I of course join everybody in congratulating and thanking the people of Brazil for the phenomenal effort they have put into this exercise. I really just want to conclude with my usual marriage analogy. I described Athens as the place where the boy and the girl were meeting for the first time and were scoping each other out. Somebody asked me how do I describe this session? I said this is the session where you met the in-laws, and it appears you passed the test. So maybe when we get to Delhi you will actually start holding hands with each other and we will get somewhere. So on that happy note on the prospect of holding hands in Delhi, I have just two quick things do. One, I want to invite head of the Indian delegation who wants to invite you to Delhi, and then after that a brief word from Nik Gowing who wants to tell us about the afternoon session. >> Respected co-chairmen, distinguished participants, at the outset I would like to thank the secretary-general of the United Nations for convening this IGF. Brazil deserves all accolades for successfully hosting and organizing this IGF. These four days have witnessed fruitful discussions on a very broad range of issues across the five themes. We must also thank Brazil for the gracious hospitality accorded to us. As you are all aware, technology has been and will continue to grow apace. It is important that policy issues are adequately addressed, along with advances in technology. The multistakeholder model has been emphasized throughout the discussions in Rio de Janeiro. The next IGF is scheduled to be held in New Delhi from 8th December to 11th December 2008. On behalf of the host country, it is my pleasant duty to invite all of you to India for the third IGF. We believe that the meeting in New Delhi would carry forward the comprehensive discussions that have taken place in Rio de Janeiro. The third IGF would build on the achievements at Greece and Brazil. The participants have emphasized that the IGF meetings should consider what can be done to extend the reach of the Internet to the 5 billion people who have yet to access. Keeping in view the spirit of the Tunis Agenda for Information Society, we look forward to an inclusive and development-oriented dialogue at New Delhi. We extend an invitation to all those present here that is representative of governments, of civil society, of the private sector and the technical community to come and participate in the New Delhi IGF to be held under the aegis of the United Nations. India is an ancient civilization and now is a modern society. With its multi-cultural characteristics, it is rich in diversity. India invites you with its traditional hospitality. India welcomes you again to the third IGF at New Delhi. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>NIK GOWING: Nitin, thank you very much, indeed. I want to underline to you that I am here to make sure that the last two hours build on that overwhelming momentum that's been -- we've heard in the last hour and a half to institute, to hear about emerging issues. Not the processes, but the issues which haven't been discussed in the overwhelming number of workshops. But can I ask you, please try to get back here by 2:00. That means ten to 2:00 plus ten minutes. And although Bertrand said he wants much more informal relationship, you can't all have lunch with him today. So please come back in 50 minutes and let's keep the momentum going. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you very much. We reassemble at 2:00, not 4:00. At 2:00. 2:00 sharp reassemble here. Apologies from us, the two co-chairs, not being able to accommodate all of the speakers but I hope it will be possible for the afternoon sessions to accommodate their concerns. Thank you.