CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM TRANSCRIPT OF AFTERNOON SESSION 16 FEBRUARY 2006 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Consultations on the Convening of the Internet Governance Forum, in Geneva on 16-17 February in Geneva, Switzerland. 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.) >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Good afternoon. Sorry we started a little late, but we were trying to get a few things organized. I have a long list of speakers. I had posed some questions, and even though most of the speakers are relatively new in the sense they were not there in the morning discussion, I do hope we can start focusing on some of these questions and move beyond the broader questions of the nature of this forum, because I think we've had a good discussion, and I sense a fairly general agreement on that it is a multistakeholder forum, that it must be guided by multistakeholder group of some sort, et cetera, et cetera. But there are issues about what exactly -- how exactly do we work them. So I'm going to start and the first one I'm going to call is from CCBI, Waudo Siganga from Kenya. >>CCBI: Thank you. Hello? Is it working? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the members of the CCBI, and that includes the private sector from the developing countries, I would like to offer some of our ideas in response to the points and questions that you raised before our lunch break. First, for the private sector, multistakeholder participation on an equal footing is a fundamental principle that shall guide all aspects of the IGF, including participation, representation, leadership, access, operations, all dimensions. Second, the format for the IGF event should be shaped to meet the clear objective of facilitating the exchange of information, experiences, best practices, and I would add the important component of making human contacts. A few ideas include a format, for instance, with an opening session and plenary to set the stage on the event topic, interactive and expert panels on focus issues to attract the key experts that were suggested by the chair before the lunch break. We should take -- we should take care to ensure that discussion focused on the various aspects of the topic being considered. Finally, a wrap-up plenary, perhaps on the last day of the meeting, could be useful. Mr. Chairman, on the representatives to be selected for the bureau, we would like to stress the importance that these representatives be selected in close consultation with all stakeholder groups and that diversity of expertise as well as geographies are key considerations. On the question that you raised regarding the outcomes of the IGF event, the tangible outcomes should be neutral summaries of the discussions, and in addition, we should consider that a real outcome is the actual exchange of information. That is the process of open, interactive multistakeholder exchange and discussion is the outcome in many ways. On the question of how to actualize the full and effective participation of all stakeholders as required by the Tunis agenda, including those from developing countries, it is important that the program committee or any other group that would be charged with the task of preparing the meetings formulate the agenda and related documentation in a way clearly indicating the relevance of the discussions to all stakeholders, particularly those from the developing countries. Wherever possible, use of online tools should be encouraged in order to maximize the interactions online and minimize the need for expensive traveling. The IGF event should be webcast or broadcast so that stakeholders who cannot attend in person will have another means of participating or following the proceedings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. And I have a long list, so maybe I should start giving you a sense of the sequence. I have bill Drake and Milton Mueller, then Chantal Lebrument or maybe it's Louis Pouzin, from France. Chris Disspain, the chair of the country code organization. Maybe let's stop at this point. Because -- so bill Drake, Milton Mueller, then Eurolinc from France, and then Chris Disspain. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having listened carefully to the interventions this morning, I'd like to make points on three matters. And, unfortunately, my phone is ringing. So I will promptly get rid of it. Okay. So -- that was not very helpful at all. Well, what could I do? Okay. The first point pertains to the substantive focus of the forum's discussions. Since early in phase 1, the WSIS principles have been routinely repeated and endorsed by participants in the WSIS process, those principles are, again, that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent, and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations, IE, multistakeholder. The Tunis Agenda gives the IGF an unambiguous mandate to promote NSS on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes within existing Internet governance mechanisms. This kind of a horizontal assessment of the existing arrangements and issues that arise within them is essential to promoting a more effective, inclusive, and broadly supported Internet governance activities. The forum could play a very important catalytic role by taking a holistic view of the range of governance mechanisms, fostering understanding and participation in them, and raising awareness about possible ways in which governance might be improved. This implies ongoing monitoring and assessment of developments in those mechanisms and close working relationships with them. The Tunis Agenda is equally clear on these points. When it says that the IGF is to, and I again quote, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policy issues, interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview, facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, and identify emerging issues and bring them to the attention of relevant bodies, and where appropriate, make recommendations. Presumably, when governments carefully negotiated this text, they meant what they said. If that is the case, then there should be no controversy, one would think, about establishing a process under the IGF to carry out this mandate. Nevertheless, as I listen to the interventions this morning about what the forum might focus on, the focus has been pretty much on what, in the WGIG context, we referred to as vertical issues, sort of individual segmented issues, rather than these horizontal, cross-cutting issues that arise with regard to all governance mechanisms. And so I'm just curious, the mandate is quite elaborate in saying that this is something that the IGF is supposed to do, and yet we have not talked about it doing that. I am wondering, is that, then, something that we no longer support? Was the Tunis Agenda not really a consensual document reflecting the views of all the participants? My second question pertains to the nature of the forum. I have heard the forum referred to this morning as an "event" or "a meeting," which sounds like a series of one-off sessions that would be held on an annual basis, sort of like the ITU's world telecom forums, with some online dialogue in between. I've also heard it said that there should not be any subsidiary bodies related to the IGF. From the beginning, civil society participants have understood this differently. We have long thought of the IGF as a process, not as a series of one-off meetings, but as a process that would promote collective dialogue, learning, and mutual understanding on an ongoing basis. The IGF in this formulation would be an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a bottom-up basis by concerned stakeholders. One possible formulation in that regard would be to create working groups. If there is a set of actors who have a particular interest, they could form a working group. They could have online dialogue amongst themselves. If they had resource and a desire, perhaps they could have an actual face-to-face meeting. And perhaps they would generate some sort of report or text or recommendations which might be brought into the annual large-scale meeting. In that context, I would suggest, for example, and in light of my first point, the possibility of creating a working group on application of the WSIS principles in Internet governance. There are other types of initiatives that one can imagine related to the forum as well, and these are envisioned both in the WGIG report and in the Tunis Agenda. My colleague Wolfgang will mention later, but some of us are planning on forming an Internet governance research network that would bring together scholars who work in a social science tradition on Internet governance issues, and perhaps that's something that could plug into this more dynamic, flexible, ongoing process kind of conception of the IGF. I think this is particularly important if the Secretariat itself does not have an independent research capacity, somewhere, ideas are going to have to be generated and brought to the table. Otherwise, we're going to have simply, again, a series of sort of one-off meetings with not a lot of connective tissue and cumulative collective learning. The last points I would simply reiterate, and this is, again, in response, I think, to some of the points that have been made, civil society and the Internet governance caucus has always argued that the Internet Governance Forum ought to be convened under the authority of the U.N. secretary general, and I think that we also believe that it should be coordinated by the United Nations as the appropriate inclusive forum that brings all stakeholders together. So those three points I thought I would simply put on the table. The substantive question of what we're talking about and whether or not the Tunis mandate is really the mandate for the IGF. The notion that the IGF should be thought of more as an ongoing and multilayered process than simply a series of one-off meetings. And the question of how it might be convened and coordinated. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:. >>MILTON MUELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Milton Mueller from Syracuse, university. I think -- >> Microphone, please. >>MILTON MUELLER: Can you hear me now? I said I'm Milton Mueller -- >> Lost you again. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: The light's on. >>MILTON MUELLER: The light's on, nobody's home. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Every time you look at your computer, we lose you. >>MILTON MUELLER: I will lean over like this. Is that all right? Mr. Chairman, -- [ Laughter ] [Applause] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Now we can hear you. >>MILTON MUELLER: I don't have to read it. I'll wing it. I'm complimenting you or trying oon the masterful job you did of summarizing questions and putting the topics on the table. Many of the questions you gave us dealt with the questions of institutional design. I want to note that the Internet governance project issued a paper addressing many of those questions. That paper is available. In general, we proposed a specific structure with a defined role for a plenary, a program committee or bureau, and a process for recognizing topics, a BOTTOM-UP process for recognizing topics for IGF activities. We envision, like Mr. Drake, the IGF as an ongoing process, with annual meetings as simply a capstone. I want to spend most of my intervention on one of your statements, Mr. Chairman, that I took issue with. On the issue of the themes, that is, what topics should the IGF address, you said there seems to be reasonable agreement. And in my reading of what happened this morning, I heard an important disagreement. It wasn't just that different people proposed different or similar ideas, but that speakers raised fundamentally different principles regarding what should be considered a suitable topic and what should not be considered a suitable topic. For example, some commentators would like the IGF to take up the unfinished business of WSIS, such as public-policy principles for coordination of Internet resources. Others claim that the forum should not discuss divisive issues and that there should be no overlap with other organizations. In my opinion, and in that of most of the civil society people that I talk to, a well-organized forum is a way of bridging divisive issues and finding solutions to those issues. If we attempt to prevent the forum from discussing those issues, first of all, where will those issues be discussed? Secondly, how will they ever be resolved? If -- in addition, if we attempt to prevent the forum from discussing anything in a domain of another intergovernmental organization, what will be left? Will there be anything left on its agenda? I think that what will happen is that instead of multistakeholder cooperation, you will invite constant struggles over turf. You will tell -- you will engage in constant struggles over whether this particular topic is in the domain of another organization or not. Now, it seems to me that the WSIS agenda provides a very clear mandate for the forum to take up precisely the kinds of issues that some people are saying we should not take up. In particular, let me read the first bullet point under paragraph 72. The forum should, quote, discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. It does not say "some key elements." It does not say "nondivisive elements." And I would point out that because the forum has no decision-making authority or legislative authority, what is the reason to prevent it from discussing anything? If people do not come to an agreement, then they will not come to an agreement, and the forum will not succeed in producing anything on that topic. But if there is a chance that they would come to an agreement, why should they be prevented from discussing it? So, to conclude, there is no reason to prevent the forum from discussing any topic in Internet governance. What we really need to do is define a process, an open process, a generalized process, for establishing topics that the Internet Governance Forum will take up. The nature of those topics is clearly defined in the WSIS agenda. We must not allow specific topics to be suppressed. We must instead define a BOTTOM-UP and flexible process for prioritizing its agenda. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: From (inaudible). Eurolinc, please. Eurolinc. There they are. All right. >>LOUIS POUZIN: Is the sound okay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking for Eurolinc and also for another institution, called the nATIVE language consortium. Eurolinc has been created about three years ago for promoting the use of natural languages in the Internet, including domain names. And on the other hand, the native language consortium is a more recent creation, which also intends to promote the use of a specific methods for using natural languages in accessing the Web. So this is already working in several countries, like Korea and turkey, for example. Others are coming behind. So the issue of multilingualism is not just a matter of character codes and keyboards. Languages are a fundamental element of cultures. First the cultural diversity means multilingualism; it also means regional habits, regional customs, jurisdictions, and also religions. We can't ignore those realities in the Internet. For the forum to meet -- to be constructive, we believe that there should be regional consensus in the first place. Some issues may be essential at the regional level, but may be unessential or irrelevant at the world level. But we think those issues should be much better sorted out and discussed and agreed at regional level before they are brought to the world level. And probably it will be an idea to organize the IGF work so that in between the annual or biannual meetings, which are contemplated for the IGF, there could be also regional meetings in which the various stakeholders discuss together their positions and the way they plan to introduce them in the world level. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. And now Mr. Disspain from the country-code support organization. After that, El Salvador, South Africa, then Mr. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. And then Nominet U.K. Mr. Disspain. >>CCNSO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the focusing questions that you asked at the end of this morning's session. I spent some time during the lunch break focusing on the focusing questions, and I have some suggestions specifically in respect to the structure of the Internet Governance Forum meetings. I've had to make some assumptions in order to make these suggestions, and my assumptions are that the meeting will take place over three days. And I've also assumed that there will be three topics chosen for discussion during the meeting. Now, these are only examples, but for the purposes of this intervention, I'm suggesting spam, multilingualism, and capacity-building might be three topics. But whatever they are, I would suggest that they should be as diverse as possible to encourage as many people as possible to attend the meeting. The suggested structure would be that after a brief opening session, day one and day two be devoted to sessions on the three topics, and day three be a plenary session. The idea for days one and day two would be to run parallel sessions on each topic. And I would suggest that those parallel sessions follow a format using panels wherever possible. The first part of any session should be basically education. You take spam as an example, the first session on spam should be an introduction -- an introductory session providing basic information on the topic for that session. What is spam exactly? What do spammers do to make sure that their spam gets through? Who's impacted by it. That sort of thing. The second part of the session should be an agreement on goals. The goal might simply be to stop spam. On the other hand, the goal might be more complicated. Thirdly, there should be a presentation on existing initiatives for the topic. Then a general discussion on the topic itself, a brainstorming session, if you like. And, finally, that can all be pulled together to prepare a report or discussion document to be presented at the plenary session. On day three, each of the three streams would deliver their presentation, and there would be open discussion, hopefully leading to consensus, on a series of next steps for each of the topics. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you for that input. We will structure a model which I hope some of you will react to. San Salvador. >> El Salvador: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. El Salvador would like to express its satisfaction to see you leading these consultations to establish the Internet Governance Forum. We trust that also in relation to the reform of the commission on science and technology, open consultations will take place. Going back to the question that you raised, Mr. Chairman, regarding to the outcome, El Salvador hopes that the Internet Governance Forum will come up with recommendations built on consensus on specific issues. The process itself of the forum also represents in itself an outcome, a result. El Salvador believes that the open consultations of the working group on Internet governance can be a model for the forum. We believe that the forum should be a preparatory body made up of experts similar in that respect to the way other expert groups operate in the area of the environment, human rights, and other areas. As a form of experts, these would act in their personal capacity, these experts, the governments would appoint the experts to take part, and they would convey the points of view of the governments. Similarly, for the rest of the sectors, organized civil society and private sector and the academic world, et cetera, the same method would be adopted. A yearly meeting lasting between three to five days seem to us to be appropriate. The interaction, synchronized and unsynchronized of the Internet users, would be important, in our point of view. The democratic consensus of the forum is very much linked to a pass and bottoms-up approach rather than a representative approach. The forum should be open for all those who want to take part in the work thereof, as well as the other working groups that derive from the same. A challenge for the forum is to seek actively that universal participation and isolate any disruptive behavior expressed towards it. El Salvador considers that the forum will need a bureau as well as a Secretariat. The setup of both should be multistakeholder in nature. For us, the decentralized structure that appears in the Tunis Agenda could refer to the working group that would then report to the forum. The forum, as a body of experts that generates nonbinding recommendations, should have the ability to refer to any issue linked to Internet governance. The recommendations themselves that arise from the forum will be assessed by another mechanism in accordance to its merits and its inclusive nature. The recommendations of the forum should be adopted by consensus. The vote should not be used, because whilst it could speed up the work, on the other hand, it could give rise to actions that undermine the credibility of the forum or the merits of the recommendations themselves. Mr. Chairman, we have also taken note of the recommendation whereby we should look at the cross-cutting issues as well as the horizontal issues, the vertical issues. El Salvador recommends that one of the priorities at this time should be the treatment of spam. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: South Africa. >>SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, chairperson, for giving us the floor. South Africa would like to indicate that we've always been proponents of an approach that removes issues of Internet governance from the purview of a small minority to that of a broader, more representative and transparent constituency. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that we support the establishment of an Internet Governance Forum that aims to facilitate discussion on key issues related to not only Internet governance, but awareness and capacity-building. Prior to the lunch break, chairperson, you gave us this process, a specific direction on the areas of emphasis and the spheres with which each delegation should actually make input on. We shall therefore restrict our input to those specified areas. These, in our understanding, specifically are multistakeholder participation, the themes, and the intended outcomes or expectations from this process. In our view, there are various elements that fall under this subheading of multistakeholder participation. Firstly, we need to define the exact participants that we envisage. In our opinion, we believe that the broader that is direction to participation, the more effective and far-reaching the outcomes of the process would be. Therefore, all the groups that have been identified by previous speakers as potential participants, such as governments, civil society, and private sector, are endorsed by our delegation. It is, however, important to emphasize that such participation will be on an equal footing, always bearing in mind that governments are the custodians of public policy, as has been emphasized in the Tunis Agenda. In terms of the cross-cutting issues that were mentioned, especially on Internet governance issues, that impact internationally, these, in our view, would be more appropriately dealt with at the level of the U.N., as outlined in paragraph 61 and 62 of the Tunis Agenda. Secondly, having identified the stakeholders, it is also equally important to outline the nature of participation by such stakeholders. We believe that the participation should be geared towards ensuring maximum output. And how do we do this? Well, we would propose a kind of multipronged approach that will be a combination of plenary with round table discussion and also workshops. I think that one of the areas of emphasize was the fact that we would like to have this forum being more developmental oriented. And if one is to do that, then one has to have the different dimensions. At the same time, we find the idea or the concept of a plenary quite useful in the sense that you could have that on the first day and also on the last day so as to consolidate the diverse positions. We believe that the approach could be -- that is, on the first leg of the process -- convene a very short plenary and then proceed to the themed workshops that will focus on the development agenda. I don't think that we need to go into the specifications as to what would be the direction that different workshops take, because already they've been outlined even in the WGIG and also in Paragraph 50 of the Tunis Agenda. I think we've got a fair idea of the type of topics one would deem as developmental topics. The participation at such workshops would be structured in a manner of encouraging attendance and participation from all the different regions so that you have (inaudible) representations by the relevant regional organizations, also by people from academia, from civil society, and other interest groups that can, you know, participate in such workshops. The outcomes, then, would set the theme for the roundtable discussion so that they can be pressed further. I think that in our view, the roundtable would be something, in a way, based on a model like the world economic forum, but not quite as high level in terms of -- that is, the global, which focuses on CEOs and heads of state. It would be more people who are geared towards -- who have an interest in terms of the Internet governance, you know, issues that we've been talking about. This would mean that in the end, the plenary session at the IGF would then have the effect of consolidating the views from the various discussions of the roundtables, and thereafter, all countries in attendance would be able to endorse this as the outcome of the meeting. The subsequent report would be submitted to the SGS, the instructions of the Tunis Agenda, paragraph 75, which, of course, outlines the fact that this is not in any way binding, since there will be a process which would take place as well as outlined in paragraph 61. Lastly -- sorry. Before I go on to the last part, I think that I am not sure whether I actually emphasized the issue of the geographical representation and the distribution in terms of composition. The simple purpose, of course, is to ensure that as broad a scope of views as possible is facilitated, and also to ensure that when we are talking about the developmental agenda, we do hear from those who actually come from the developing countries rather than assuming that the expertise actually comes only from the developed countries. Just lastly, we believe that the WGIG report has some -- especially within the first chapter -- some useful suggestions as to some of the themes. And I think we've already indicated that clause 50 and its subbullets actually do begin to give us a sort of direction or suggestion as to the kind of outcome that you would like to get at the end. Thank you very much, chairperson. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. We have Wolfgang Kleinwaechter and then Nominet, and then followed by Trinidad-Tobago, and then Jeanette Hoffman. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. I'm a Professor at the University of Aarhus, but I'm also a member of the Internet governance caucus of the civil society. We've heard from Milton and bill, and you will later hear Annette, Karen, from others. We have a rather vibrant discussion on this list about the future of the forum. So we feel it as a responsibility of civil society to bring added value to the process. So our motivation is really to move one step forward and to make a concrete contribution. But I'm speaking here not on behalf of the caucus; I'm speaking as a researcher from at university. The Internet Governance Forum enters new and unknown territory. Cyberspace is still a terra incognita. A lot of new things remain to be discovered. The list of issues which needs clarification is growing. It's a "terror incognito." [ Laughter ] >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: I said -- I'm sorry. It's my English pronunciation. It's a terra inCOGNITa. [Applause] >> Speak English! >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: It's not English? I am -- I'm sorry for that. But as a German researcher, sometimes you use Latin terminology. Anyhow. A lot of new things remain to be discovered, and more will come. The list of issues which needs clarification is growing. Ten years ago, the United Nations had no idea that domain names, spam, or WI-max in Africa are issues for public policy discussion. And what we know today about the agenda of the years 2010 or 2015 probably only little. Innovations with regard to the use of the Internet will produce new problems. Take as only one example the challenges of video over I.P, which may be much bigger than voice-over-IP and will go even beyond I.P.TV, Internet television. Millions of private and public video clips and photos will be on the Internet, a great challenge for search engines like Google or the new European project (inaudible) which have started to develop capabilities for video recognition. One of the consequences of such a development could be that biometrical data of individuals could become a public resource for search on the Internet. What happens now on airports could take place anywhere in your home. I take the biometrical data from a photo of my friend, start a search, and we will find all the photos and videos of him available on the Internet. Probably this could become a problem. Such issues need (inaudible) public discussion and should not be discussed in small technical circles or closed governmental negotiations groups. The forum could become the ideal place where the consequences of such new developments are discussed. The forum could write Internet history by functioning as a laboratory or as an early warning system. It would miss an opportunity and will fail if it would restart the battles of yesterday. Since it's certainly a challenge for all stakeholders, governments, private sector, and civil society, but is in particular a challenge for the global research community. Academicians and technicians have been involved in the development of the Internet from the very early days, and they will have to play an even more important role in the future. May I use this opportunity here to inform you that a group of academic researchers has started already a process which we have called enhanced communication to improve the networking and collaboration among existing academic research institutions on the globe. The vision is to develop a global decentralized network of researchers which would improve the flow of Internet-related research results both among the researchers themselves, and among academic researchers and the main stakeholders. Such a network could produce food for thought for governments, private sector, and civil society. It could become something like a flexible and decentralized think tank behind the forum. If the forum is designed as a BOTTOM-UP policy development project, the chance to find the right answers to the new challenges will be higher. More knowledge will probably help to create more wisdom. The groundwork was done just last week in a very inspiring conference which was organized by the DIPLO foundation in Malta. The results of this meeting has been distributed here during the forum. And let me inform you also that the international association of communication, ICA, and the international association for media and communication research, IAMCR, two global organizations representing more 10,000 academic researchers from around the globe, will organize another small joint symposium this year in (inaudible) where we want to develop a more concrete framework for such a new process of enhanced communication. Hopefully, we will produce already some results for the planned forum in Athens in October 2006. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Nominet. >> Nominet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of Nominet, the not for profit registry for U.K. We have 4.6 million registrations and over 3,700 registrars. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak to one of the questions that you posed just before the break, which is how to make the forum attractive for people making a difference. There are four points I'd like to make, very briefly. Firstly, picking up another of your points, I think flexibility is the key, by focusing perhaps on one or two issues, so that the people involved can shift and change as the issues change as well. Secondly, to be attractive, the forum must be effective and be seen to be so. And perhaps in this instance, we can learn by doing rather than starting first to build elaborate structures. In our view, the vision should be of a lightweight, dynamic space for dialogue, and that over focus on procedural matters or organizational issues will pull against this, leading those people that you want to engage to disengage. Thirdly, identifying issues that will truly benefit from discussion in an international, rather than a national, forum. And perhaps the suggestions of Spam and multilingualism are good starting points here. Perhaps also, the forum can build on initiatives and processes at the national level which could pick out and draw on examples of best practice and emerging issues which could then be brought to the international table. And lastly, the forum will only be attractive to people making a dinners if they have heard of it. And perhaps we can consider the role of the press and the media in bringing these issues to the wider attention of the stakeholder of the global community, the national community. And in this way, bring people to the table who might not otherwise have heard of the issues or be engaging in the process. Thank you very much. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: We now have Jeannette Hofmann. >>JEANETTE HOFMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also speak as a member of the Internet Governance caucus but in my own capacity. I'd like to address the question of agenda he setting in the context of the forum. For the forum to succeed, it must be free to choose the issues it addresses as the participants consider appropriate. No matter whether or not those issues touch upon the mandate of other existing organizations. The forum should choose its issues and application of its missions and mandate as defined inter alia by paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. This implies that the task of agenda setting should be regarded as an essential element in the implementation of the forum's multistakeholder approach. The agenda setting should be organized as a bottom-up process with all members being given the opportunity to suggest issues. Likewise, no single group of actors should be allowed to block the discussion of topics. One of the issues the forum should address concerns the issues of enhanced cooperation, and in relation to this, the development of globally applicable principles and public policy as defined in paragraph 69 and 70 of the Tunis Agenda. The forum on Internet Governance should be part of the environment that facilitates the development of public policy principles. First of all, open discussions in the multistakeholder context of the forum give affected parties, among them users and the Internet industry, a chance to contribute their expertise, but also to make their concerns known. In this way, a multistakeholder environment can enhance the effectiveness of any policy principles designed for shaping Internet Governance. Second, the forum can add to the overall legitimacy of any enhanced cooperation, and thereby increase the chance for compliance to those principles by all involved or affected organizations on the Internet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Then I have Trinidad and Tobago followed by Senegal. >>TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two points. One, we agree that a flexible bottom-up approach is required in terms of setting the IGF's Agenda. However, there needs to be some sequencing of issues that will be discussed to ensure the forum has some type of focus. all issues cannot be discussed at the first time, not if they are to be given the consideration they deserve. Secondly, we also feel strongly that an important element of the IGF process is the inclusion of regional or subregional consultations, especially if the meeting is to be held annually. Participation in these meetings will of course will be multistakeholder in nature. In Trinidad and Tobago's view, this will give greater focus to the IGF outcome while building on existing mechanisms. For groupings such as the Caribbean community, this is a key element. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Senegal. >>SENEGAL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. As it's the first time I take the floor, I would like to congratulate the organizers of this meeting for this very welcome initiative which is due to lead us to set out the roadmap enabling us or the forum on the Internet Governance to reach the objectives it has been given in accordance with paragraph 72 and 73 of the Tunis Agenda. Our idea on the forum is that we share everything that was said this morning on the multistakeholder approach and the transparent and democratic approach to the Internet. However, the forum, though it's a consultative body, should be able to take decisions involving all the stakeholders. With regard, as far as Senegal is concerned, we are heading toward this bottom-up consensus through a national forum on the use of the Internet with the involvement of the government, the civil society, and the private sector to deal with all problems of public policy. The results we reach should enable us to share the results at a subregional level and African group level. Furthermore, we believe the Internet must be managed from a single space that is identified and recognized by the international community as it is today so that it doesn't become chaotic and annihilate all the efforts of streamlining it which have been broken until today. With regard to the IPv6, I think this will settle de facto the issue of the Internet protocol addresses. We think the international community must speed up the adoption of that technology and invite migration from IPv4 to IPv6. We believe that the coming of age of IPv6 will give rise to considerable trade stakes, and we suggest that the WTO become involved in the discussions on the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you very much for your attention. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Mr. aizu followed by Karen banks. Izumi aizu, and followed by Sebastien Bachollet. >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Again, my name Izumi Aizu and I am a member of the civil society, Internet Governance caucus, but this is my personal observation. We expect this forum to act as a catalyst for possible improvement or reform of existing Internet Governance organizations. From the multistakeholder perspectives we have been talking about, we like to see this to be one of the main activities of the IGF in making ICANN or ITU or any other bodies to be more open and inclusive to all stakeholders to participate on equal footing. And I emphasize this, on equal footing. It was in Tunis at the very last minute in the negotiations, the participation of all stakeholders on equal footing on certain paragraphs were just deleted without much debate, as I observed. But I hope that this spirit will come into implementation again. We also like to emphasize the need to implement and support a multistakeholder approach at the local, national, and regional level as was agreed in the Tunis Agenda, in conjunction with this IGF process. This could mean, following the brazilian approach of setting up a multistakeholder Steering Committee at the national level or hold open consultation process by a government body in charge with private sector and the civil society in the national level. In a more explicit, transparent, and accountable manner, which is not necessarily exercised in many countries to date, including my country. We see this often in many developing countries, this problem, but sometimes even in the (inaudible) countries. So why we like to emphasize the importance of multistakeholderism. Often the civil societies in developing countries are effectively excludeD, so we really need to address this issue. And especially to have this multistakeholder dialogue in a meaningful manner at our own country is much more important, perhaps, than we think, and it will provide real inputs to this IGF process. Finally, in the same spirit, we have some serious concern about the enhanced cooperation process, which might become the old-fashioned way of closed-door in the government negotiation. If anything is to happen under this enhanced cooperation process, we urge the governments to open the door, allow the participation of all stakeholders in the spirit of multistakeholderism as agreed in tunis, and make relevant bridge between that process and this process at igf. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Karen banks. >>KAREN BANKS: Thank you, chair. I'm just checking I have power here. I wanted to focus on responding to some of your questions. But they are all very closely linked if we look at the issue of the general development orientation of the IGF. So I want to look at what we mean in terms of issues, participation, capacity building, and then a final comment on the nature of the program committee. Specifically, we'd like to focus on the issue of access and the broader question you mentioned around digital divide, and we think this is probably going to be one of the most challenging elements of shaping the agenda of the IGF, and that we should resist attempts to delegate it too completely to other bodies or processes. We think that the work of the IGF should be informed by rights-based approach and this involves different types of rights and the rights to access and the freedoms to make use of that access really have to feature in the work of the IGF. Whilst we acknowledge that access is obviously a huge component of the broader information and communications development framework, and it is and should be integrated in other areas of work and processes, for example, by the ITU, by the proposed global alliance for ICT policy, UNESCO on culture diversity, the access to knowledge movement around WIPO, et cetera, it should also be addressed by the IGF. And we would recommend that one issue on the igf's inaugural agenda be universal internet access as a human right and that we form a multistakeholder working group to explore that in the IGF's first cycle. The question of what do we mean by multistakeholder participation, I have some very similar comments which support the intervention from South Africa. An important element of it is the identification, a systematic process of stakeholder identification. Particularly, I think, in relation to new and emerging issues where obviously it's fairly easy for us to identify stakeholders who have been involved in the WSIS or the WGIG process, but there are many who are tangentially engaged. One of our experiences have been, for example, with librarians, an incredibly important group, consumer groups who would be critical in any discussions around freedom of expression. And then there are many groups who are not engaged at all. Particularly, I think, at grass-roots level. And we could look at, for example, commissioning research for a comprehensive mapping of key stakeholder groupings on any issue that the IGF took up. Moving on to participation. Izumi focused on the need to, I think, look at this at the national level, and we would strongly support any initiatives that helped to build multistakeholder national level platforms. I think this is really a critical component in contributing to a successful global forum. We've had good experience, certainly, in the UK, very, very useful consultations that we hope will build into a kind of standing platform, if you like, a permanent multistakeholder platform, and that we can work together throughout the cycles of the IGF. But a huge part of this, I think, is capacity building and we had the benefit of several people being together last week at a very useful conference that Diplo organized and emerging from that is a concrete proposal on sort of an Internet Governance capacity building support mechanism for the IGF. And this is building very much on the findings of the louder voices study, which came out of the dot Force in 2002. And one of the key findings being that although there are undoubtedly many problems particularly for developing country delegates in the way international institutions work, such as holding of meetings in high cost locations, scheduling meetings in concurrent sessions and providing either too much or too little information on issues and procedures, these were seen to be less significant in limiting participation than weaknesses in national policy-making processes, and the lack of useful information resources which would enable them to play an active part in the negotiation and decision-making processes. We have identified three components of a capacity building proposal. It is available on the IGF Web site. I have some hard copies here. It includes largely mapping activities, clear objective accounts of meetings and processes, as well as reaching out to, we hope, individuals from all international organizations who are involved in Internet Governance in its broadest possible context to build a kind of networked Wikipedia type of resource that could support the IGF as we move along. I think the IGF annual meeting itself could provide a very important anchoring for providing clearinghouse around capacity building and research, a platform for bringing together the different capacity building initiatives and identifying new needs. And also, we think very, very important, to build the capacity of actors in developed countries; to understand and address the challenges of Internet development and regulation in developing countries. We think that's just as important as all of our initiatives to work with building capacity in developing countries. Just a final note on the bureau Secretariat question. We don't see a need for a bureau in the context of the WSIS or other U.N. processes. And we feel it raises questions of representivity that are very difficult to address in the context and spirit of the IGF and feel more comfortable with a trusted chair, a resource Secretariat, and the support of a multistakeholder program committee advisory group and working groups. And thank you very much. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: I have Mr. Ronald Koven, representative of the world press freedom committee. >>RONALD KOVEN: Thank you. Excuse my voice. Speaking for world press freedom committee, I would like to say how happy we are to see the Internet Governance forum is to be -- excuse me -- an unrestricted multistakeholder -- excuse me. Unrestricted multistakeholder environment. I will give you my statement in writing. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: We look forward to getting your statement in writing, Mr. Koven. Thank you. I have Sebastien Bachollet of ISOC France many. >> Somebody is going to read it for him. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: If somebody can read the statement. Could you read the statement? >> Yes, I will try to help out here. >>RONALD KOVEN: Sorry. >> I'm starting from the beginning. Speaking for the world press freedom committee, I would like to say how heartened we are to see that the Internet Governance Forum is to be an unrestricted multistakeholder effort where all the players are to be on an equal footing. During the WSIS process, we said on a number of occasions, as did the media caucus of civil society, how disappointed we were that the news media and news practitioners were not represented as full-fledged players in the discussions of Internet Governance, despite the fact that they are central to the development of the Internet. There were, for example, no news media representatives in the working group on Internet Governance. We have been the unrecognized fourth estate of cyberspace deliberations. Rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that we will now encourage the representative organizations of the world news media to take their full rightful places as partners in discussions of the future of the Internet and the role it can and should play to expand the benefits to our societies of freedom of expression and the free flow of information. Thank you very much. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. And now I turn to Sebastien Bachollet, ISOC France followed by Saudi Arabia and then Vittorio Bertola, then Annette. Annette Muehlberg, and then -- I have to read the name out. His handwriting is terrible. Can I have Sebastien Bachollet and then Saudi Arabia. >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't repeat what we have put in our written contribution because I think this is also a way of making use of the Internet tools available to us. We organized a meeting on 7 February on the creation of the Internet Governance Forum with representatives of the civil society and the private sector. The objective was mainly to exchange information rather than to arrive at common positions. And many people who were there are here today. One of the important elements that emerged from that meeting is the need to have at the national level consultation -- I wouldn't say a structure, but an organization such as the Internet Governance Forum at the national level. We also think that it is absolutely essential that we have this at the European level. I would like to stress a number of points. One of the problems, I think, of all of the participants but in particular of representatives of civil society is time, money, and resources to participate in various meetings. And one of the ways of reducing the cost is to organize a meeting of the Internet Governance Forum on the Internet and then at a national level. And of that we could discuss, after the meeting, we could discuss with various organizations to organize this, I think. It's essential, I think, also, to -- also that this forum should use the tools of the Internet, the preparation of work, discussions, should be conducted with the media that we're discussing; otherwise, what's the point of talking about them if we don't use them? But I think we should go farther than that and create -- in creating the Internet Governance Forum. This will force us to think about setting up specific tools, and perhaps this would also be a good opportunity to launch an appeal for tools enabling us to work together at the international level. We also think it would be useful to have reports about what's being done in the various organizations which discuss the Internet, because it's impossible for each of us and each of our organizations and each of our enterprises, and even each of our governments to attend all of the meetings which might take place on this. And the IGF might be a place where all this work could be reported on to enable us to get an overall view of what is going on as far as the Internet and its governance. Reference has been made of best practices. I think that what's important is that we should exchange practices. Some practices may not be good for everyone, and it's important that all of these practices should be expressed and discussed, and this would enable all of us to establish his own best practices; at least, we hope so. As others have said, it's essential that this forum should be created in a flexible manner. It's relatively easy to imagine who should participate. In short, to put it briefly, everyone who wants to. Now, if we organize groups on decisions or a group to organize this, the question of representivity is and will remain complex. But these compromises should not be carved in stone, and can be reconsidered at various times during the forum. Also, I think it's essential that we regularly ask whether the forum is useful and consider its operations and whether we really still need it. Today it seems that we do need it, but perhaps three or four years from now, or five years from now, things will have changed and it won't be necessary anymore. But if we ask the question, I think it's probable that this forum will remain alive for a long time because it does exist. Thank you for your attention. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia believes that the success of the first meeting of the IGF would lead to the success of the subsequent meetings. So in the context of the preparation of the first meeting of the IGF, we should focus on the main access of the -- of this meeting. And they could be identified by the stakeholders. And we suggest that we should form virtual working groups through the Internet. And these groups would submit their proposals to the Internet governance in order to deal with such subject matters. And this would lead to the support of further participation by all the relevant groups. In this connection, the IGF has to identify the actors that would receive such recommendations in order to make them more practical. For example, the question related to public policy issues, it could be dealt with by the enhanced cooperatives that could be initiated by the secretary-general with all the relevant organizations by the first quarter of 2006 in accordance with the Tunis Agenda, paragraph 71. We also believe that it's very important to find a way to identify the priorities of the subjects that would be discussed by the IGF because there might be too many subjects and time would not be sufficient to discuss them all. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much, and also for the written contributing which the kingdom of Saudi Arabia had sent on this subject. I now have Mr. Vittorio Bertola followed by Annette Muehlberg and followed by Francis Muguet. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by the concept that was agreed in Tunis Agenda about forum based on authoritativeness and not on authority. I think this implies that participation and inclusiveness are vital elements to get support and for a forum to be effective. And this leads me to my first very specific point which regards rules for accreditation and participation in the meetings. I think it is very important that there are no barriers, there are no obstacles for anyone who wants to participate in these meetings. It should be very simple online-based registration system. In general, you should make it possible for any stakeholder who wants to participate to join the meetings. And this, speaking for what regards civil society, does not just include accredited or established NGOs but also includes informal groups, online campaigns, and even the individual users participating as individuals. And then the most important point I wanted to make I think we all want this forum to have an impact. I think we want this forum to be able to solve issues; otherwise, it will be useless. And so I would like to reiterate the idea that the IGF should be seen as a process and not as an event. And the reason is clear. I think that -- I mean, can you solve issues by meeting once a year for three days, maybe discussing 10 or 15 different issues, maybe in a room filled up by 500 people? I think it's clear that you can't. And so if you want to change the Internet, I think you need to do it the Internet way. You need to encompass the flow of spontaneous initiatives that are born every day on the Internet to solve the issues about which all the users of the Internet care. And so, my proposal, you need working groups. You need to have open, online collaborative initiatives that are started by the people who care. So all stakeholders that care about the specific issue can gather and form an online discussion forum and start to discuss and build consensus and actually work out best practices and recommendations. And then at the same time, I think you need some coordination among all these different working groups. And this is why I think you also need a steering group. Not a bureau, but a steering group that can advance the work and oversee the advancement of this work, can adopt the documents and the recommendations that are prepared and agreed by the different working groups, and also can take care, of course, of the program of the meeting. And I think this should be a sort of moral leader of this entire process, a group of people coming from all the different stakeholders that are spears in their individual capacities, that are broadly respected and are especially open minded. And possibly, these people should be self-selected by the different constituencies and stakeholder groups. But perhaps just to advance the work at an interim stage, I would suggest that they are appointed by the secretary general. I think that we need all of these elements to meet the challenge at this point in front of us. And to conclude personally, I would really like to spend a word of support for the excellent work that the former WGIG Secretariat and chairmanship has been doing and are still doing. I think that many people here hope that they would be allowed to continue in the IGF. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Annette Muehlberg. >>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: I'm Annette Muehlberg. I'm a European member of the at-large advisory committee to ICANN, a member of the Internet caucus, governance caucus, and in normal life, I'm the head of e-government of the united services union, dealing with issues of public policies. Here I speak on my own capacity. In the at-large advisory committee, we want to strengthen civil rights and consumer protection in Internet-related issues. And I think the Internet Governance Forum is a great chance to get users with their interests and knowledge involved. And I would like to answer some of the chair's really precise questions. First, on an organizational basis, we need a Secretariat which takes care of technical facilities. And we need a program advisory group, I think which should help to develop proposals for issues and speakers. We want to have a multistakeholder approach on equal footing, and we want to work efficiently. In this case, the procedure of finding rough consensus is probably the best, not straight consensus, but rough consensus, without veto. We have to assure the participation of developing countries, of people with little budget. And, of course, we have to apply the WSIS principles. Another question of the chair was, how do we attract all the scholars, the thinkers, the innovators? I'd say by sharing best practices and by discussing the crucial issues, which imply some conflicts. We have to build up on the outcome of the WSIS. We should focus on those key issues where clarification is needed, not on issues no one has a problem with. The WSIS already defined certain issues as very important for Internet governance, and there is a need to find a policy for their implementation. One of these issues should be, how do we translate the human rights principles like freedom of expression, privacy, access for all to infrastructure and content of the Internet? How do we implement the human rights principles in Internet governance mechanisms? Here, too, sharing best practices is important. To understand and bridge divisive issues should be our aim. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. We have Francis Muguet from the open access publishing. >>FRANCIS MUGUET: Good afternoon, my name is Francis Muguet, I am the coordinator of the civil society group on certificate information and a co-coordinator of the civil society group on patents and copyright. I'd like to say first that instead of concentrating on a struggle for power concerning existing structures, as was the case both as WSIS and here, we should take a look at the future, which is very soon going to be the present. It is striking to note, almost schizophrenic, in fact, that most of the questions concerning the net itself, which went before the Internet, or, rather, after the Internet, are unknown. So I'd like to cite a few examples, very simple examples, which are very important, for example, perhaps the audience doesn't know that Microsoft, with its Internet Explorer decided not to respect the specifications, the (inaudible) HTML specification for navigator, which means that many producers of Web sites have to have two versions. Well, that's an extremely important issue, because this is the net. On the other hand, there are questions, for example, digital object identifiers and also there are problems of P to P, and there are search engines. All of this is completely unknown. It is true that an online forum which is based on free software, which will be based on free software, in fact, is a necessity, fully agree. Only it's necessary to give the forum a structure. Otherwise, it'll be chaotic and not very constructive. As a practical suggestion, today's discussion -- for today's discussion, I would suggest that it should be structured with a specific unit dedicated to the study of emerging technologies which are building the Internet of tomorrow, which will soon be today's Internet. The reason is to have a more serene atmosphere to get away from political debates. Who would be in this unit, this scientific unit, devoted to the future of the Internet? From civil society, I think it should be scientists and free software developers. Now, on the practical level, this unit should have the moral authority, mandate, and also the financial resources to bring experts in, because if experts don't come in, there won't be any constructive opinions, and also, another important thing, the representatives of the unit should be able to attend scientific events concerning the Internet, and also events organized by the software makers concerning the Internet. Because it may seem incredible, but those who are building tomorrow's Internet are not at all involved in this forum here, and vice versa. In the conferences on the web, for example, we don't talk about governance at all. So there is a problem. We have to over-- to cross the gap between two worlds if we want to ensure that this forum on Internet governance should have a particular unit. This unit should also report in the simplest possible language to everyone who is not an expert, in other words, all the stakeholders, governments, civil society, and small -- and businesses. So they should be aware of the problems before the problems arrive, and that it should be a tool to lead to a constructive and inclusive debate at the world level. In addition, it is unrealistic for complex subjects to be evaluated in only three days. So these three days of events are events which summarize these discussions and the dialogue, both among the experts and among the public. And, in addition, it would be pointless for this meeting not to end in recommendations at the political and technical levels, because, otherwise, if it's simply to have a summary of the discussions, it's difficult to see how useful this forum would be. Thank you for your attention. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. I have India, followed by Association for Progressive Communication, and the representative of consumers international in Geneva. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I will restrict India's comments to two points out of the 12 questions you so succinctly posed this afternoon. We endorse all that was said in the G77 and China statement this morning. And I would just raise two issues. One of them was the question you posed on how do you attract more and more countries to attend the IGF. And there we feel that IGF should be a platform for interchange of best practices and active capacity-building. And here, Mr. Chairman, when I mean "active," we talk in terms of some value proposition for those who attend, especially from developing countries, maybe in the form of hand-holding exercises. On the second point, we endorse your flexible paradigm, a word which only you could have found and so beautifully placed in today's context. The ITU secretary general's address this morning also raised the point where he said that the lines dividing technology and public policy are getting increasingly blurred, and therefore, a public policy analyst would -- in order to keep abreast with the latest in technology, required to attend these forums from time to time. And maybe the flexible approach will help him in keeping abreast with what is happening in technology. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Now the federation for a free information infrastructure. Norbert Bollow. >>FEDERATION FOR FREE INFORMATION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus my comments on a single but very important point. Several speakers have said that the multistakeholder process should be, quote, Democratic, unquote. Now, I would point out that this is a very ambitious project to have a Democratic multistakeholder process, since in a country like Switzerland, where every citizen is the same, we have only one kind of citizen, and so there's a lot of effort involved in creating democracy. So I would say the minimum requirement for integrity of the Internet Governance Forum is, in fact, a bit lower. It would just be that no stakeholder can get undue influence through any way of spending a lot of money, like some stakeholders have very limited resources, but others have plenty of money. And if they can sponsor an event and then they have power to get passages removed from the report that they don't like, that is not integrity. Also, all decision-making processes must have genuine transparency. That is also an essential element of integrity. On the other hand, if we claim that this forum is democratic, then we have higher standards to be met, which involve that, for example, every controversial decision could be challenged to a voting. And then you have to have a voting procedure which is really representative of the wide variety of stakeholder interests so that you don't have rich companies sending just 100 delegates to get 100 votes. An alternative to this difficult thing of democracy would be what Australia has proposed in their written proposal, that ISOC could be entrusted with running the Internet Governance Forum. I believe ISOC has earned this trust. But, of course, ISOC would need to get funding for this work, for example, from the United Nations budget or from other donors which would not attach any strings to the money. So my conclusion is, either let's have genuine democracy or some other way of ensuring at least integrity. Any steering group or Secretariat should be lightweight enough so that you can observe its decision-making processes to make sure that they are at least with a reasonable standard of integrity. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. I have Thiru Balasubramaniam of consumers international. >>CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. From a user perspective, it has been interesting to hear proposals made by governments today on substantive items to be addressed in Athens, particularly the interventions made by the European Union and Brazil flagging spam. One concern of ours is the (inaudible) of the Internet Governance Forum, especially on matters concerning content. In light of this, I have two points. Would the Internet Governance Forum be amenable to discuss such topics as open document formats in the context of government procurement policies? And a propose treaty on access to knowledge which has been raised by the friends of development countries at the world intellectual property organization? Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Let's get the next few ones now. I have -- Danish institute of civil rights. Cisse Kane of African society for information society. And then I have Catherine Gabay of MEDEF. Can I ask Jorgensen. >> Danish institute for human rights: Thank you, chair. My name is Rikke Frank Jorgensen. I am from the Danish human rights institute. I am part of the WSIS human rights caucus and also the privacy and security working group. Both groups have made written contributions to this meeting, which I won't read out aloud. But I would rather pick out a few points to reflect on the discussions that we have had today. I was thinking this morning and also this afternoon during the discussion, what is it that's really special about this forum compared to other similar spaces, policy spaces we have? And I think there are two things, at least, that are very special. One is that we actually, with this forum, have a space that can provide policy analysis across existing issue-specific arenas. I mean, this was stressed when it was set up. And I think this is important to bear in mind. And another specific aspect of it is that it is a child of the WSIS commitment to actually use ICT to promote development and human rights. In other words, this space entails a commitment to actually advance the issues that was raised during the WSIS process and which is spelled out in detail in the political documents from Geneva and Tunis. One of these issues that we have discussed again and again in the WSIS process is human rights compliance of future Internet governance mechanisms. Another, more general, issue is the one of promoting an information society which actually enhance human rights protection both at national and international level. And what we, as human rights caucus, would like to see advanced through the forum is that this so-called human rights-based approach to Internet policy develops into something that is more concrete, that we move forward when we say that we need to assess -- to use the human rights standards as they are spelled out in international law as actually assessing these policies. If we look at the Internet policy arena globally from -- with human rights glasses on, there are a number of developments that are very worrying, most obviously in the field of privacy and freedom of expression. It is no secret that in the current political climate that is so much driven by the so-called war on terror, international privacy standards, they are under the strongest pressure that they have been on since their adoption some 55 years ago. And they are currently being restricted in a number of areas with little or no legal safeguards to ensure checks and balances. With regard to freedom of expression, it is also well documented and well known that online freedom of expression is violated around the globe. This is both in the form of outright censorship, but it's also by more subtle measures that include privatized censorship, filtered information access, commercial censorship of search items, and criminalization of content that is completely legitimate under international freedom of expression standards. So these are just de facto policy developments, and they are not easy to address, they are very politically sensitive. I am very much aware of that. But, nevertheless, they are crucial to address if we really mean it when we say that we want an information society respectful of human rights. So what I would like to see as concrete studies of working group under this forum to address some of these issues and to advance the discussion on them would be two studies, actually. The first one would be on how human rights principles, as they are laid down in the international human rights treaties translate into Internet governance mechanisms. How do we transform them into concrete policy recommendations which protect and uphold and respect these standards? And this work should, of course, involve the relevant U.N. bodies, not least, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights. Another area would be privacy impact assessment of the regulation that's currently taking place in the field of cybercrime and counterterror. To evaluate its compliance with human rights privacy standards and data protection guidelines. And this work would involve the global network of privacy commissioners and could feed into the ongoing considerations in other fora for international legal standards in the privacy field. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. I have (inaudible) for information society access. >> African society for information society: I represent the African diaspora for the Information Society, speaking on behalf of the African civil society. We welcome the massive participation in the world summit that took place in Tunis, which was a success, according to all. And we thank all those who contributed in making our participation a massive one, especially the economic commission of the United Nations for Africa, the ITU, and the Tunisian government. We also welcome these consultations in Geneva on the IGF and the meeting in Greece in 2006 also. On the principle, our organization would like to continue to contribute actively and effectively on the IGF and all the monitoring mechanisms from the WSIS. As you see, Mr. Chairman, the members on the field weren't able to take part in this important meeting. What (inaudible) on as -- to ask that the financial and logistical and administrative support, I'm thinking about visas and other issues that are necessary to be granted to the African civil society and the developing countries in general to enable them to fully play their role in a process which is open and BOTTOM-UP with the IGF. We naturally are in favor of the setting up of a committee to organize the forum and its monitoring. And we propose that it is comprised of representatives of governments, civil society, and the civil society -- private sector and civil society. It should be decentralized at country level in Africa and every other country, as suggested by the Accra meeting on Internet governance. We are very concerned about the respect of traditional and African values in the Internet governance to guarantee the economic, social, and cultural development of the continent. Finally, the IGF should concern itself with the reduction of connection costs and funding the activities that are linked to it on the African continent. I will submit this oral communication in writing to -- I'll leave it on the table for those who want to have access to it. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. The next few, Catherine Gabay from MEDEF, followed by council of Europe, followed by World Tour of Information Society, Denis Marion, and then the Dutch -- the Netherlands ccTLD, and followed by the Ubuntu forum. Catherine Gabay. >>MEDEF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Catherine Gabay speaking. I speak on behalf of MEDEF, it's a French business confederation. We represent 750,000 companies in France from all sectors, industry and services, and all sizes. 95% of our members are (inaudible) I wanted to emphasize on the need for the IGF to be fully multistakeholder and to emphasize, of course, on the fact that businesses must have their own place in this process. MEDEF also thinks that links to the U.N. should be kept at minimum for the IGF. As we can only dedicate limited resources, businesses can only dedicate limited resources to all the different organizations and forums on ICT, we would favor only meeting per year two to three days at most. And we would like it to be focused on one subject in order for it to be more effective. One subject we are particularly keen on is information system security. In MEDEF, we have a written guide for businesses on this subject, and we have widely made it available on the Internet. And it's very successful, meaning that there is a need among business users to have information and solutions for this issue. So we would believe this subject could be a first good subject for the first IGF, mostly because it is an international subject. Cybersecurity should not be treated only at national scales. It makes no sense. It's an international problem in its nature. And also because it's an issue where awareness is very important, and we believe that the IGF could play a good role of awareness of Internet users, businesses, and nonbusiness users, about Internet security, where to find solutions. Not in order to fight on people, but in order to make people using in a much more secure way the Internet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. The council of Europe. >> Council of Europe: Chairman Desai, Mr. Kummer. The council of Europe thanks you for convening this very open and inclusive consultation meeting so that we may focus our minds on, as you say, chairman, getting the IGF off the ground and by discussing what we expect to see from the IGF, with reference to possible outcomes N this context, the council of Europe sees itself as an active partner in the IGF process, in particular, in bringing the results of the WSIS documents to life. The council of Europe welcomes the chance to be one of the intergovernmental organizations referred to in Paragraph 72 (C) of the Tunis Agenda document, in order to discuss matters under its purview with the purview of this organization being one in which the rule of law, human rights, and democracy prevails in both offline and online environments. Indeed, many of you have already touched upon some of the council of Europe's work and values indirectly when you refer to the misuse and abuse of ICTs, to cybersecurity, and, of course, to cybercrime, in particular, you referred indirectly there to the council of Europe cybercrime convention, which, incidentally, will -- the parties and signatories and other interested persons will be meeting to discuss the convention's operation and functioning in Strasbourg on 20 and 21 March, 2006. Many of you already referred to human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy, which are contained in the European convention on human rights, and shaped by the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, which incidentally, the court is beginning to deal with a number of cases of human rights violations on the Internet. Certainly there's a need for us to think about one of the themes of discussion for this IGF as being the human rights culture for the Internet, I would say. On this basis, on the basis of the council of Europe's expertise, and not wishing to reinvent the wheel, and in response to your question, chairman, regarding what devolved and lightweight structure for the IGF, we should consider whether the council of Europe as a working multistakeholder organization comprising 46 member states, as well as other observer states and states who are making important contributions to our work, such as in the preparation of the cybercrime convention, whether we need to consider the council of Europe as a platform, even a meeting place, for dialogue to discuss public policy issues and to promote and assess WSIS principles. Thank you, chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Next I have Denis Marion of the World Tour of Information Society. >>WORLD TOUR OF INFORMATION SOC.: Yes, good afternoon. Denis Marion. I'm with the World Tour of Information Society. And we look at use in France for three years in preparation with the World Summit on the Information Society. The Internet use are observed not in the big towns, even less in Paris, but rather, in the provinces and small villages and little-sized towns, which enables us to have a different outlook from the outlook that you have when you look at big towns. When organizing the world tour, which is a consultation involving 40 countries so that we can see how other people use the Internet, because it's important, indeed, for everyone to see what use of Internet is made by his or her neighbor. Concerning Athens and the governance issue, at the end of Tunis and at the end of Geneva, we had said to ourselves, well, after Tunis, there will be no more WSIS. And I was told, well, no, there won't be. And now I see that at the end of the day, there is a desire once again to meet, and perhaps in a more targeted fashion. Athens is on Internet governance. But I think it's a very difficult technical issue on which experts will be able to have a debate. The civil society and its role. Well, it's to monitor, to follow the debates. Because if the debate is very technical, at the same time in the civil society you need experts. And the more you are an expert, perhaps the less you are part of the civil society. I don't know. But at any rate, we need to be vigilant when it comes to everyday use of the Internet and the Internet users of everyday. And I am one of them. Some of the words didn't used to appear a few years ago, like partnership, and multistakeholder partnerships. It is right that these terms can now be used. And we welcome that development. Regarding Athens, to be useful and to properly use means and money, I hear that the costs will be met. It's not easy to travel. It costs a lot. And why not also add to the topic of Internet governance other issues that were debated in Tunis so that we don't go to Athens just to discuss one issue, but for the other caucuses, be it agenda, education, PCT, et cetera. So that we can consider other issues, other themes, so we can have a complementary forum. All the more so, given that Athens makes one dream, and beyond ICTs, Athens is also the world of art. And we don't hear much reference made to art. And, yet, international artists meet within ICTs, within -- on the Internet. Why shouldn't we also encompass the arts in our approach? And let me also add this: A lady has asked me to read a text. She's not here this afternoon. She's sick. Her name is CONCHITA PUCCINI. She reminds us that behind the caucuses and human rights, there's also GENDER equality. Equal participation of women is essential, in particular, in the decision-making process that includes all the forum that will be established beyond the WSIS and beyond the issues that the Athens forum will deal with. We need, therefore, to enhance capacities and focusing on the participation of women in shaping the World Summit on the Information Society at every level, including developing policies, infrastructures, financing and technological choices people can make. There is a need to make a real effort and to commit oneself to transform a masculine culture rooted in the current structures and speeches on the information society which contribute to enhancing disparities and inequality between genders without a full participation for the principle of gender equality and the nondiscrimination of women, the vision of an information society which is fair and equitable cannot be reached. There you are. You have it. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. I have the (inaudible) followed by Iran. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first briefly introduce myself. My name is Roelof Meijer. I am the CEO of des idn, THE REGISTRY FOR .NL. We HAVE 1.8 million registered domain names. We are the fourth ranking ccTLD in the world. We have about 2,000 registrars. AND WHILE I cannot say that I speak on behalf of all of them, I'm sure I speak on behalf of quite a few of them. I'm going to make some of the points which previous speakers already have made, so I apologize for the repetition. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of power in repetition, and it can also be good to help us see that we are reaching consensus on some of the subjects. On the IGF, I think that the Tunis Agenda sums it up pretty well. So I'm not going to quote from that. But I think definitely that we should not go back to the (inaudible) discussion before the Tunis meeting. But we should use the agenda as a starting point to move forward now. Points on the IGF, I think, or I feel -- in fact, I am convinced that all stakeholders should be represented and should be able to operate on an equal footing. The IGF should have a structure that is lightweight, flexible, consists of professionals, and thereby is effective and efficient. The rules under which the IGF should operate should accommodate those two points I made before. And therefore I think that the applicability of U.N. rules is questionable, to say the least. I feel the IGF should not contemplate technical issues, but should focus on end user issues, topics, thereby, that merit coordinated global attention. It should strongly avoid duplication, but on the other side it should integrate existing initiatives. Examples have already been mentioned this morning and this afternoon. Cybercrime and E-security, and what we could call access 4 and contribution by all. Interests could indeed be addressed by ad hoc working groups. It could then be finalized during an annual meeting of the whole IGF. Results should include, but should not be limited to, exchange of expertise or exchange of experience, but in fact the main objective should be clear-cut proposals and recommendations for improvement or further development of the Internet in general and Internet Governance in particular. And I think in this way the IGF should be able to preserve the Internet of today. Furthermore, it should also be able to contribute to the development of the Internet of tomorrow. Thank you very much. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. (inaudible) didn't want the floor, so can I go to IRAN straight away? >>: Mr. Chairman. I am trying to respond to some of the questions that were raised before lunch, but also making a previous comment, I would like to say the following. A rich debate like the one we have been having causes me to think about a particular sentence that we had this afternoon. There is the danger, indeed, whereby the forum or the Internet Governance Forum might end up writing the history of Internet. I think a university professor said this afternoon. I think this really would be an interesting result for the forum. But we can't go after the events. We want to anticipate the events and define the elements of the Internet Governance Forum. But any rate, we must locate ourselves where we should be. We must imagine a forum on Internet Governance which is strictly prospective or that tries to foresee the future and foresee the problems of the future, because we wouldn't succeed, and there is no science that would enable us to do that, at this stage, at any rate. Therefore, we must not write history before it happens. Neither must we go to the other extreme. We must try and define what Internet society wants. Why does society want to use Internet? How can it help to meet the challenges of creating a better society and a better world? And that is where we should govern, where we should anticipate. My second comment, my general comment is this. It has to do with whether the forum has to be a forum made up of experts or representatives. Well, I think experts are not a super species of humanity endowed with special gifts. They have, of course, their vision, their gifts, their ideas, their policies. So I'm not saying they shouldn't be experts, and I'm convinced that most of the people who have come to this meeting are already more or less the experts or they are as good as the experts that the governments have, or as good as the experts that the NGOs have in their field. And therefore, we mustn't make the -- turn the expert into a sacred figure. Because this is essentially a political activity and, therefore, of course, the people who must take part are the ones who know the issue, but also not only the technicians but the people who can anticipate what kind of governance we want, what kind of Internet we want. At any rate, I think this is a delicate issue, sensitive issue, but if we have to have some kind of monitoring, experts, representatives from the various interested parties, I think it should be transparent and for every sector. For every sector. And of course the various balances, checks and balances should be respected, and territorial balance, gender balance, et cetera, following the general U.N. principles. Thirdly, I would also like to underscore, to add my voice to those who have said it will be a mistake to think that the IGF is just a three-day meeting every year. We must underscore the fact that this is a process. There must be working groups. There must be a virtual forum. Because if we do not come to the physical yearly meeting with pre-established documents, well, then we would not be having a rich dialogue. Finally, on the issue of -- or the issues to be debated should be, first of all, I would say that we shouldn't choose a small number of topics. That would be a serious mistake. I think that the forum, I understand, will be established at the Athens meeting, and if there we only have three issues to debate, then we'll have a very biased idea of what the future work will be over the next five years. Therefore, of course I understand that we won't be able to discuss all the issues in the depth that they deserve, but I think we should have a broad agenda that deals -- that touches all the interested parties and that generates within society the idea that the IGF is focusing on their issues. Not just cybercrime, Spam, and those limited -- that limited list. I don't want to be exhaustive, but I think the Tunis document gives us five or six general items, and I think we should -- and it's from there that we have to -- it's from there we need to anticipate and think about what we need to build the construct we want to have. For example, article 42 encourages us to disseminate more broadly information, and create more creation in the Internet. So how are we going to achieve that? How are we going to govern all of that? TO FOLLOW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. And article 49 says we must bridge the digital divide and the digital opportunity. How do we do that? With what specific tangible proposals do we do that? With which policies do we do that? I've said this before, I agree with this, the emphasis on the creation of capacity building with ICTs for development has to be a fundamental cross-cutting issue of the Internet forum agenda. I also agree with what was said on the fact, on multilingualism and multi-culturallism through Internet, but be careful. Internet can be harmful to them as well. Of course, there is the issue of how the implementation of human rights can find its place in the Internet world, and how the Internet can contribute to the improvement of the satisfaction of human rights. And I venture to make a last specific proposal which perhaps hasn't been heard as such today. Of course, I'm very concerned, like everyone, about freedom of expression. But I'm, every day, more worried about the freedom of information in the world because day after day, the information in the world is in the hand of fewer and fewer people. I was in the -- we are very worried about this. And, therefore, so that we don't go towards a single thinking world, a Google world, we need to change Internet so that it becomes a place where there are guarantees that citizens of the world can have real information. I thank you for your attention. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Iran. >>Iran: Thank you very much, mr. chairman. Good afternoon to you and to all colleagues, and it's a great pleasure to see you in the chair. Let me start with expressing my gratitude to you for raising those very formative and time-saving questions. With regard to those questions, Mr. Chairman, if you let me, I would like just to give my own reflection from my own perspective from what I've seen since morning. Having listened to the previous speaker, I decided to modify a little bit what I wanted to say. But I wanted to say that what I feel is that what we get here is really, in principle, a multistakeholder approach, but never equal footing. I was just listening to colleagues and to all those who are present here and are giving their valuable inputs, and I have benefited from them all. But at the same time, the more I listened, I felt more alienated as a developing country because I am lost and I don't know when we all emphasize on equal footing what and if we are supposed, for example, to give a recommendation, as has been reflected in the document of Tunis, then what kind of a balance would there be when different constituencies, supposedly from developed partners, from civil society, from private sector, are giving their inputs, but very few representation from developing countries perspective is here to be reflected. Of course, there is no physical obstacle and mental obstacle fortunately, but there is, of course, financial and other capacity building and structural problems that we don't see them being represented here. So multistakeholder process is here, and we all support. But I don't think equal footing would be there. I was thinking of equal, what is probably the most progressive body in which there are different constituencies being represented is maybe one of them is ILO. I was thinking even there there is a representative from labor, a representative from employer, and two from governments, being developing or developed. In this specific case that we are in, even I think if we give two to governments and one to each other, constituencies, still developing countries would not fairly be represented because developed partners, and in private sector and civil society the same, would dominate if there is supposed to be any fair balance. I don't think we would be able to have any fair balance or any equal footing. With regard to the report, Mr. Chairman, I have a very specific question which I think answering to that question might be informative, too. I see in paragraph 75 of the Tunis outcome that U.N. secretary-general, I think in this case it would be through you, would report to you and member states periodically on the operation of the forum. And then at the end, in 76, we ask the U.N. secretary-general to examine the desirability of the continue weighing of the forum in formal consultation with forum participants within five years of its creation and to make recommendation to the U.N. membership in this regard. I would like to ask clarification. I think this is very important to know that who is this membership, U.N. membership. Is this general assembly to which we would give our input? Do we get any feedback from them, or it is only a forum for being a forum, for the sake of a forum? If we think that it's only a forum for the sake of a forum, then I think we are just engaging in a, let's say, no matter we are pro choice or pro life, but we are engaging in an aBORTive process. At the end of the day, i think we would be left with no decision and no, let's say, decisive and conclusive decision and outcome. So this is very important how we construe and interpret these two paragraphs. That U.N. membership to which you would report and to which you will ask or recommend desirability, who is this U.N. recommendation? and on the basis of your recommendation, they are supposed to decide. So at the end of the day and at the end of the tunnel we are seeing the U.N. membership as the one who will decide. So I think these can, in a way, interpret what kind of roles governments will play in this forum, specifically with regard to what I said as developing countries are concerned. Their concerns have already been partly reflected in the statement of G77. This is capacity building, financial matters, as distinguished colleague from Pakistan said and distinguished colleague from Brazil said, public policy issues and for entering each other important issues like Spam, like Internet security, like cybercrime, cybersecurity, which are all important, per se, developing countries would need capacity building before. I thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. On your last point which has been raised for the first time, my understanding of that would be that the -- there is a reporting process specified for the whole summit to the ecosoc and the G.A. For the whole summit, there is a reporting process which has been specified. And I presume what you are referring to in paragraphs 75, 76 would follow the same structure. That's my understanding of that particular provision. There is a general provision which requires this overall review. I now have Mr. Bret Fausett of cathcart, Collins & Kneafsey. And then Jovan KurbalIja, followed by Honduras. >>BRET FAUSETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bret Fausett, and I thank you for opening your meeting today widely to all persons. I am not a part of a government delegation. I am not a member of a recognized NGO, and I am not a part of the nonprofit sector that has identified itself as civil society. I am here because I use the Internet and I care deeply about its future. I hope you will always have place for me and people like me who wish to participate in the activities of the IGF and lend their time and expertise to its work. Mr. Chair, before the lunch break you asked several questions. I would like to address two of them with very concrete suggestions. You asked what should the Steering Committee look like, who will pick the members of the Steering Committee, what is the process for their selection. For this first year of the IGF, I would like to recommend that shortly after the close of the meeting tomorrow, we issue an open call for expressions of interest to serve on the IGF's program committee. I would also like to recommend that you, Mr. Chair, who has established himself as a respected, trusted leader of this process select from among the statements with the assistance and input of secretary Kummer. I also would recommend that you supplement the list again with the assistance of secretary Kummer to balance it in terms of geographic, cultural and economic diversity and expertise. You also asked should the IGF have a perpetual virtual meeting online and what sorts of virtual forums should the IGF create to enable participation? Yes, the IGF should always be open for contributions and always be open for discussion of the issues affecting Internet users. Interested persons should able to contribute on their own time and in their own language. To manage this process, I would like to recommend that you appoint Internet rapporteurs or list managers to manage and steer the online discussions so they move forward productively. Unmanaged, open forums unread by the leadership of the IGF can quickly become black holes for public comment, creating the illusion of participation while providing no meaningful access to the IGF. These rapporteurs who would work with the Secretariat would participate in the online forums and help define areas of consensus and highlight areas of disagreement for further work or discussion. Building an effective model for online participation will not be easy, but i believe that the IGF will be able to measure its long-term success by how well it uses the very internet resources under discussion to move its own work forward. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. I have Jovan KurbalIja and then after that Honduras and then China. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank you and Markus Kummer for keeping wgig spirit alive, spirit of open and inclusive dialogue between the end of the WSIS in Tunis and the start of the Internet Governance Forum. In my intervention, I would like to focus on the recently held international conference on Internet Governance. It was held in malta between 10 and 12 of February, attended by 80 participants representing various stakeholders. And the main objective of this event was to have a brainstorming discussion, the first discussion before the more intensive debate on Internet Governance forum will be launched. As a matter of fact, we optimistically named the conference "Internet Governance, the way forward, from Tunis via malta to Athens." It was some sort of Mediterranean itinerary. But as we can see there will be many more stops and many more events on roads to Athens. And this is one of the important stops. Well, most of the points that were discussed were already raised by those who participated in Malta conference and other participants, and I will try to avoid repeating the points that were already mentioned. One of the important element in Malta discussion was that procedural solution and organization solution should be very flexible. One procedural solution cannot fit all needs and issues. Therefore, it was stressed that procedures and working matters should be adjusted to concrete issues as much as it is possible, as organizational structure allows. It was also highlighted by many participants in Malta that there are already necessary ingredients for future Internet Governance forum. It was mentioned that we can learn a lot from OECD, global knowledge partnership, IETF, and other initiatives in the field of international cooperation. The main challenge will be to find the right balance and to make a proper blend which will make hybrid structure of Internet Governance forum functional and effective. It was strongly indicated and strongly recommended by almost all participants at the Malta conference that Internet Governance Forum should be process based. It should integrate processes as much as it is possible, not only in its deliberation, but also in a sort of side activities, including research, capacity-building, and information-sharing. Participants at the Malta conference also stressed the need to have trust-building and to start deliberation, if it is possible, with issues for which there is a shared understanding and common view that those issues should be addressed, such as spam and multilingualism. Development aspect was strongly highlighted in two main elements. Development is an issue that should be discussed by Internet Governance Forum, and participation of various stakeholders from developing countries. One of the issues which was discussed, and it was mentioned also by previous speaker, is the question of use of online tools. It is clear that there is a need to do more than to -- just to make online tools available. Yes, it's obvious there are already numerous online tools, including WIKI, discussion forum, well, simple E-mail. But there is a considerable difference between availability of online tools and their integration in working procedures. There is a gap that should be bridged in order to have proper integration of those online tools. It was obvious that, for example, civil society is much more familiar than other stakeholders in using online tools, and we are not referring here purely to the skills how to use WIKI or discussion forum. The skill level is almost established by all stakeholders and participants. The main challenge will be, and probably the main inhibition by other stakeholders, like government representatives, is to create the proper working environment for the -- considering online contributions. It includes the question of the status of online contributions and follow-up to each online contribution. There is a need for both training capacity-building, but also more reflections about the way how to use this online aspect of the Internet Governance Forum. The conference was ended by the meeting of the Internet governance capacity-building initiative, and Karen Banks already summarized a few major points at this meeting. We gathered close to 30 participants, representing the various stakeholders and institutions, in order to see how to make coordinated efforts in the field of Internet governance capacity-building. It was agreed that there are basically three areas, three main areas. One is training and courses. Second area is research, creation of the research network. And what Karen discussed in more details, information-sharing as support for the Internet Governance Forum. When it comes to training, it was highlighted, there is a need for three types of training. One which could be called just-in-time training, helping stakeholders to participate in the IGF-related meetings. Stakeholders mainly from developing countries, but not only from developing countries. It was also, as was already mentioned, highlighted that there is the need for awareness-building among some stakeholders from developed countries, mainly public policy aspects of ICT issues. The second type of training should be related to the capacity-building in medium term. And it was also highlighted that there is a need to integrate Internet governance into curriculum of academic institutions, postgraduate and graduate courses, in order to have more ongoing capacity-building, mainly in developing countries. It was agreed to have a follow-up discussion and to try to coordinate Internet governance capacity-building activities and the initiatives with the process of the formation and development of Internet Governance Forum. We'll use various online tools. The summary of the Malta meeting is available here on the distribution desk. You can consult them, and you can also indicate interest for the participation in the initiative on the other capacity-building activities. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. I think we have just a few minutes left. I have three -- I have Honduras, China, and Brazil. And after that, I have six or seven more people. But I think we will probably go into tomorrow morning. It will be better for them also. I suspect that there's a certain sense of exhaustion which is creeping in. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: So maybe we just hear these three and then we call it a day. Honduras. >>HONDURAS: thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, as it's the first time that our delegation takes the floor, we'd like to thank you for the active way in which you are guiding these discussions and these consultations on the IGF. Since I heard a number of our speakers refer to issues as varied as academic and technical, which, of course, have their place -- part to play in the IGF, I would like to underscore a little the developmentally aspect which was broadly supported by our delegation when we acted as facilitators of the G77 of the previous process. I make this comment, and dealing with some of your questions from this morning, namely, as to whether the development aspects should be dealt with specifically in this IGF or should it be dealt with in the overall WSIS process. Well, my opinion is that, as other delegations have said during today, we must deal with this developmental aspect in this IGF, not because Honduras wants that to happen, and not because developing countries want this to happen, but because this is something that is already agreed upon in the Tunis Agenda. And it is widely substantiated by the Geneva principles. I won't elaborate on this because I don't want to repeat what's already been said. But there are important elements which the -- which were mentioned by the G77 in their statement this morning. Let us recall, let us not forget, that in the Geneva declaration of principles, there was a key paragraph which says that this process, which includes the IGF process, must be people-centered, inclusive, and development-centered information society. In other words, this process must include the developmental aspect as something which is a priority, because it was defined as such in the principles. I would like to contribute this balance, because other speakers have focused on other issues. But for us developing countries, it is vital and crucial. We know that this is an issue which is a cross-cutting issue. But it pertains to not only -- the IGF not only in paragraphs 5, 49, 65 of the Tunis Agenda also, in which specific reference is made to what actions we must take when it comes to development, such as broadening the participation of developing countries, when it comes to accessibility, and also the equal sharing of resources. And that Tunis Agenda paragraph also speaks of the corporate responsibility and how that can be linked to development. And also paragraph 49 speaks of other issues, such as interconnectivity, capacity-building and transfer of technology. And these are priority issues for developing countries. So I would like to highlight this, because our delegation is flexible when it comes to the modalities, but we must consider what is substantively enshrined in the Tunis Agenda when it comes to development. That's why, though we are flexible, we recommend that this steering committee, which should be comprised of key committees, one of these key committees, perhaps the most important committee, from our point of view, the point of view of the developing countries, should be a working group in which are tackled the application of all of the elements in the principle of the Tunis Agenda related to the issue of Internet governance and the developmental aspects which I have said I already mentioned in the Tunis Agenda that they're black on white. We know what they are. And all we have to do is implement these elements which were agreed by us, all the countries represented. So I wanted to make that comment, because it's an important issue for which we developing countries fought in previous negotiations to ensure that there was equal fair participation of developed countries and developing countries. I think this would be a positive element. I don't think we need to debate this, because this was agreed upon by consensus in the Tunis Agenda. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: China. >>CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to see you chairing the meeting, and it's always a pleasure to see Mr. Kummer is still working very hard for this Internet governance. First of all, China would like to associate itself with the statement made by Pakistan this morning on behalf of the group of 77 and China. When we talk about Internet governance, China will look at paragraph 29 to 82, together, in the Tunis Agenda, because especially there's enhanced cooperation and the forum, we think there is some kind of interlinkage between these two very important aspects of Internet governance, enhanced cooperation and the forum. But as we are talking about the forum here today, we will look at paragraph 72 to 82 together, because paragraph 72 to 82 give us a clear picture that the summit asked the secretary general to set up a forum. Of course, the forum automatically will report to the secretary general. Or the outcome of the forum will come to the secretary general's office. Then the secretary general will report to the member states of the U.N. So this is how we look at the forum, the whole picture of this forum. And my third item is about this informal consultation. For the first meeting of the forum, now we have a Secretariat, there is an interim Secretariat, headed by -- I suppose, by Mr. Kummer. And now we have a host, which is our generous offer by the Greek government. But there is still something lacking, that is, the bureau, which also in the Tunis Agenda. And I think that we should start right away the organization of this forum. Of course, we have a lot of valuable points this morning and this afternoon. But I really would like to listen more about the practical arrangement for the forum. Because all of these substantive -- spam, cybercrime, security, I think these will be discussed by the forum rather than here in these informal consultations. So at the moment, I think we should focus on the arrangement or the structure or organizational work of this forum. And, to me, I think at this moment, the bureau or the steering committee is something very essential, because we do need somebody to start the real arrangement for the forum. Of course, our Iranian colleague has mentioned the possible model as IO. There might be some other kind of models, for example, the WSIS process is -- itself is a model. We have a governmental bureau. We also have a private sector bureau and civil society bureau. We have very close cooperation among these bureaus. And we are ready to listen to more opinions on those models or organizational arrangement for our first meeting of the forum. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: We have three minutes. Is that enough? Or do you want to wait until tomorrow morning. Three minutes is enough? Wonderful. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are not being very much helpful to our Greek colleagues here, because they are expecting us to give them some guidance on how to organize the forum. And we are not fulfilling our job up to now. That's my feeling. Then let me give you just in -- one, two, three, four, five topics, our suggestions and guidance to the Greek government and to the audience as a whole. On the mandate, the Brazilian government thinks that there's no discussion needed on the mandate. We just need to read paragraph 72. Full stop. On dates, we think that at least -- and I should emphasize at least -- at least five days we need to spend on this discussion. And I suppose the October date, around 24th of October, would be a reasonable date to do so. On the structure, we will be happy, Mr. Chairman, to see you there, along with Mr. Markus Kummer, sharing in taking care of the Secretariat. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is the bureau, how to select people to be there in the bureau. We heard some suggestions from Iran, from China. I think we have to keep in mind and discuss this tomorrow, how to do it. We have some ideas I am going to tell you tomorrow morning. On frequency of the meetings, we think that at least -- and again I say "at least," emphasizing -- once a year. Maybe we would need twice a year. And we think that we need to stick to our geographical rotation of these meetings, in different continents. On topics that we should discuss, this I would like to pay tribute to the excellent intervention made by Mr. Drake and Mr. Mueller at the beginning of this discussion when they said that we should not be afraid of discussion. If the idea is to be there in Athens only to discuss noncontroversial issues, I think there is no need for us and no point for us to be there. I think my three minutes are finished. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Applause.) >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think I'm not going to summarize. But I think I will just leave you with a story from a person in India and also central Asia. Mulla Nasrudin was asked to make a speech on a subject he knew nothing about. And he went to this meeting, and he asked the people, "do you people know what I am going to say?" And everybody in the audience said, "No." So he says, "How can I talk to people who don't know what I'm going to say?" And he walked off. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Mulla Nasrudin came the next -- again. And this time, they had prepared themselves. So Mulla Nasrudin says, "do you people know what I'm going to talk about?" And everybody said, "Yes." He says, "Then I don't need to talk to you anyhow." [ Laughter. ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: So they said "now what do we do?" So they called him a third time, and they planned. They said, "half say this and half say that." So actually when he said, "do you know what I am going to say?" Half said, "no," the other half said "yes." He says, "fine. Those who know tell the others who don't." [ Laughter. ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: That's exactly what I am going to do. Go for a wonderful reception which the Swiss are giving. As for tomorrow, let's get back to this. And it'll probably be in this the spirit . A word from our Swiss host. Switzerland. >>SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to remind everyone here that they are cordially invited now to a reception organized by Switzerland. It is taking place in the restaurant of the delegates in the central building where the conference center is located. So I'd be delighted to meet you there on the eighth floor for the Swiss reception. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: One second, one second. >>SECRETARY KUMMER: I was also asked to announce there's an EU coordination at 9:00 in room 27 for the E.U. (6:05 p.m.)