CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM TRANSCRIPT  OF
 AFTERNOON SESSION 17 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:  I posed a few questions at the end of the morning.
 And I hope some of you have had a chance to think about it and come back.
 I'm not sure we need to go all the way until 6:00, because we may just end up
 going over the same ground again.
 But I think we do need some timetable.
 I already have a set of speakers.
 I'm going to call on them.
 And then perhaps later turn to some of the sentiments of some of the others, if
 they have any suggestions to offer at this point.
 And then I'll try and see where we have ended up in the course of these two
 days and how we proceed further.

 So can I first begin with Fay Howard from the center of European national
 top-level domain registries, followed by Norbert Bollow of Bollow software and
 economics research, followed by John Mathiason of Syracuse University, followed
 by (inaudible) of ICC, and then Francis Muguet of ENSTA.

 Fay Howard.



 >>FAY HOWARD:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 CENTR, the Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries, represents
 42 ccTLDs in Europe and beyond and has eight associate TLD members.

 I must stress that we don't have a CENTR position here, but I'm speaking on
 behalf of four of our member registries who operate the .nl, .FR, .CA, and .UK
 registries, with a combined number of 8 million registrations or more.

 And we would just like to address a couple of the questions that you raised
 this morning.

 With regard to a program committee, we support the idea of a lightweight
 program committee with approximately 15 members, with a mechanism for renewing
 and changing the membership of that committee.

 We'd like to see multistakeholder, but only one committee as we believe that is
 the most effective way of balancing and engaging the interplay of the
 interests.

 And we need a balance between effectiveness, accountability, and
 representation.

 And we would urge that the committee is formed as soon as possible.

 With regard to the committee, we'd like to see if consultations could be
 continued online, so we're urging technological solutions for meeting.

 We think the committee should operate in -- excuse me, I have a lot to scroll
 down here -- should operate in a manner that is transparent, accountable, and
 inclusive.

 Decisions must be consensus-based and comparable with the principles of the
 Tunis Agenda.

 The committee should also be charged with ensuring meaningful participation in
 the forum of participates from developing countries, both with financial and
 other support.

 And we very much endorse your idea that there needs to be good reason to attend
 these meetings and that a learning process should be also in -- the reason for
 travel.

 And we can definitely vouch within CENTR, one of the main interests for our
 members is exchange of information and that learning process about good
 practices.

 We feel that the topics of the meeting should be initially on end user issues
 which merit discussion in the global context.

 We've heard some speakers identifying things such as spam and multilingualism.

 The forum should not avoid other topics, but, initially, it needs to build
 trust and consensus before moving on to those issues.

 And we endorse the statement of participation in the broadest possible sense.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   My next one was Norbert Bollow.



 >>NORBERT BOLLOW:   Thank you.

 I would just like to give a short follow-on to my statement this morning, where
 I spoke about giving leading technologists reason to come to the IGF.

 And during discussions over lunchtime, I found that there seems to be
 considerable interest and reason for having a small workshop either before or
 after the IGF, focused on the question which technologies can build a bridge
 over the digital divide.

 So I would very much like to invite everybody who thinks this is a great idea
 to get in touch with me, and we will get something organized.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.

 John Mathiason from Syracuse University.



 >>JOHN MATHIASON:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Just a short intervention on a subject that was provoked by one of your
 comments that one of the problems that the forum has is that funding is always
 going to be an issue.

 And one of the issues is secretariat funding.

 And I would just like to bring to everyone's attention that there are two
 secretariat functions.

 One is the technical secretariat that organizes things, which Markus Kummer and
 his colleagues have done with exceptional competence, integrity, and
 efficiency.

 And the second is substantive servicing, where the secretariat tries to provide
 information, ideas, and whatnot, that can provide the starting point for
 debate, move it along, and that sort of thing.

 And that's the kind of thing which usually costs the most in resource terms.

 Since the forum is a -- an innovative approach to issues of governance, we
 might want to think about an innovative approach to secretariats.

 And using a computer analogy, perhaps one might consider in terms of the
 substantive secretariat a kind of distributed secretariat, where organizations
 that are willing to provide the secretariat-like function, meeting the criteria
 that secretariats usually have of independence, neutrality, and technical
 competence, to provide a kind of analysis that would be considered a useful
 starting point for discussions in whatever issue is chosen for the IGF.

 The Internet Governance Project with which I work has tried to do some of the
 papers that we've prepared for the WSIS process and for this meeting with that
 philosophy in mind, in other words, that you have to have a set of documents
 that put the facts on the table, bring the precedents up forward.

 And in some respects, outline the different perspectives that could be taken on
 a given issue.

 This is something which you might consider as one of the innovations of the IGF
 process.

 And this could be something that the program committee could work on as a means
 of engaging more of the -- at least the academic community in this process.

 And it could be one in which you could achieve genuine partnership between
 institutions and scholars in developing countries as well as the usual
 developed-country people.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   The next was Ayesha Hassan from CCBI.



 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   On behalf of CCBI and ICC, I'd like to provide a few
 comments in response to the questions that you posed before the lunch break.

 On the program committee, we view it as an integrated program committee, with
 equal, multistakeholder representation from governments, business, civil
 society, and the technical community.

 We believe that these representatives should be selected in close consultation
 with stakeholders and would be looking to ensure diversity of geographic
 representation as well as experience in the representatives put forward.

 We view this in the context of making recommendations and would hope that the
 U.N. secretary general would draw from that list, recognizing the
 decision-making role of the U.N. secretary general.

 Business would put forward names of business representatives, along with
 biographical information, to reflect their expertise and experience to
 represent business interests, bring appropriate skills and diversity to the
 program committee.

 Part of the aim of the selection process should be to ensure that the
 representatives will be vehicles for outreach to each group, to increase input
 from the broader expertise in the business community, for instance.

 On the idea of multiple bureaus or program committees representing each
 stakeholder group, any one of the interested groups could always meet to
 discuss areas of mutual interest related to the integrated, multistakeholder
 program committee.

 On the possibility of a second round of consultations, which has been
 mentioned, I would like to reiterate a few key considerations in this regard.

 One, any further consultations must continue to be inclusive.

 They should be planned with sensitivity to the limited financial and human
 resources of all stakeholders.

 And the locations and dates should be selected so as to align them with other
 meetings on activities identified in the Tunis Agenda.

 Lastly, we have listened to the discussions and would like to add that we look
 at the IGF as an opportunity to progress development, participation, and
 capacity-building issues.

 And we support topics that could be constructive as an attempt to avoid
 controversy.

 Thank you very much.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.

 Francis Muguet of ENSTA.



 >>FRANCIS MUGUET:   Yes.

 I believe that there are two fundamental aspects that must be dealt with if we
 want to move ahead in our discussion.

 The first one is to know whether or not IGF, as part of a U.N. summit, has to
 obey the rules of procedure of the United Nations.

 That's the first point.

 And secondly, to know whether or not the terms, terms such as "bureau," must be
 taken within the U.N. sense or on the basis of perhaps a broader, more
 commonplace type of use or practice.

 Now, having said that, if there is a bureau in the United Nations sense of the
 term, well, this bureau must deal with matters of procedure, and, furthermore,
 the bureau must be a multistakeholder one.

 Now, when it comes to matters of content, and not talking about procedure, but
 content, we could envisage a program committee that would deal with matters of
 content.

 And this program committee also should be multiactor and multistakeholder in
 nature.

 And we should also make a distinction between the organizing committee for the
 first event looking at this forum on Internet governance.

 Then this committee, this same committee, could benefit, as I said earlier,
 from a scientific committee.

 This scientific committee would prepare the proposals for different themes and
 also keep the public abreast of different themes that are emerging.

 And when I say the public, I mean all the actors, it be the government,
 governmental sector, civil society, but also the private sector as well.

 And so I think that these are matters that should be set forth very clearly, on
 a very clear basis.

 And then I would like to make another suggestion.

 This suggestion is linked to the issues that I just raised, but which is
 different, nonetheless.

 And this is that following the first event of Internet governance, well, some
 players think that we're only looking at Internet governance, but it would be
 possible to look at also a world forum of digital solidarity.

 And this could be an event that would occur just after the first forum.

 I will not speak at greater length, because this is perhaps not within the crux
 of the subject that we're dealing with right now.

 Thank you very much.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.

 Adam Peake, and then I have Dominican Republic there.



 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Thank you, chairman.

 Adam Peake from Glocom.

 I'm speaking on behalf of a few civil society people who met over lunch and
 tried to come up with answers to the questions you posed earlier in the day.

 So this is just a brief summary of our thoughts.

 The first question, I think, was the membership of the program committee.

 And we did agree on the concept of a program committee.

 Quite simply, all stakeholders should be represented, we think equally, and as
 equals.

 All regions should be represented.

 We think we can learn much from the WGIG process in terms of selection and
 composition.

 There are certainly lessons there to be learned.

 But, essentially, more balanced in terms of representation than we saw the
 eventual WGIG, although that was very favorable.

 And we're very aware of the development perspective of the forum.

 So, of course, much stronger representation of developing nations than we've
 seen previously.

 We do believe that the program committee should not be an advocacy space.

 It's not something that people should lobby to get their pet issue taken up.

 A trusted group that works to consider suggestions from all stakeholders is
 what we were really thinking about.

 And we suggest that it should be a working-level group.

 I think that reflects an answer to a question that was in the questionnaire you
 sent around before this meeting.

 What should the actual meeting do when we meet in Athens?

 Well, we've been hearing some different ideas, really, about the idea of
 themes.

 Some people have been talking about the selection of themes and what that
 selection actually means against themes that emerge from discussion and
 deliberation.

 I think those are two distinct processes.

 Themes that evolve should be really what we're talking about, rather than
 trying to specifically select them.

 And we do have time for that kind of consideration, I think.

 We strongly suggest that horizontal issues should not be excluded.

 That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be taken up.

 But they should not be excluded as a matter of course.

 On issues of duplication and the idea of don't do what is being done elsewhere,
 we'd suggest that nothing is being done elsewhere, that absolute "nothing" is
 perhaps a bit too strong.

 What we mean is issues may be being addressed within the context of a meeting
 or process, but they are most likely not being addressed in a multidimensional
 way, not considering the cross-cutting issues, gaps, et cetera, that I think
 the Tunis Agenda refers to.

 So there is nothing that should be excluded.

 And, again, a sort of caveat to that is that doesn't mean that everything
 should be included.

 But there's nothing that should be excluded.

 In terms of controversy, basically, what's controversial for me may not be
 controversial for you.

 So solutions might themselves be controversial, but topics are not.

 Therefore, I think we're suggesting that nothing should be excluded simply
 because someone says, "Oh, this is controversial."

 So that's our answer there, I think.

 There was an issue about the development perspective.

 And we believe capacity-building is critical.

 And will you -- there have been some proposals from civil society members about
 this.

 However, capacity-building is not the be-all and end-all of this process.

 The focus of the forum should be on ensuring that developing nations are heard,
 developing nation issues are prioritized and led by people from developing
 nations.

 So I think that's the development perspective summarized.

 In terms of meetings and duration, we think the three days, as we understand it
 being suggested now, is probably too short.

 Very much recognizing the common sense of the proposal of the comments from
 Brazil in this regard.

 We're beginning a new process, and any pilot process may require more time
 rather than less.

 So we should take the opportunity of enjoying time in Athens.

 And a very specific suggestion is that if we actually begin the formal meeting
 on a Tuesday, well, you almost automatically have a day on Monday for
 stakeholder meetings, thematic meetings and other preparations.

 So there are all kinds of considerations to be taken into account when thinking
 about meeting timing and duration.

 Rushing through, second round of consultations.

 Yes, absolutely.

 So long as that they're multistakeholder.

 And we suggest held in conjunction with a meeting of the program committee.

 They should, we think, be supported by prior online processes.

 And we can learn much from the WGIG consultations in this regard, which I think
 were quite successful and certainly we can improve upon.

 About the United Nations and learning from experiences there and linkages, the
 only concern we really have is about the meaning and understanding of what a
 working group is.

 Our perspective from civil society is that it would be the light Internet
 community-type working group, not a very formal, bureaucratic group.

 These should be almost self-forming, thematic kind of entities.

 So we're thinking of a very lightweight group there.

 And I don't think that's quite what the U.N. often means.

 In terms of resourcing, we'd like to suggest the idea of considering supporting
 the secretariat through a distributed plan of work.

 And this is very much what John Mathiason was saying, I think, designing a work
 plan and then inviting people to support it through papers or whatever may be
 the appropriate means to support that.

 But I think you can get a lot of work from the rest of us by inviting us to
 participate.

 And I hope we'll be able to take up any challenge that you can give us in that
 regard.

 Finally, a definition of success.

 Well, I think we're envisaging this as a process.

 So success will mean not necessarily a report, but a continuation of that
 process.

 And that would mean ongoing discussions, perhaps groups working towards best
 practices, shared learning, and so on.

 So a continuation of the process, an acceptance of that process by stakeholders
 as being something worthwhile to continue would be the definition of success we
 would be looking for.

 Thank you very much.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Adam, yes, I think it will be -- your intellectual
 contributions will be very nice.

 But hard cash would be even nicer.

 [ Laughter ]



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   And --



 >> Philanthropic people, yes.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   I have the Dominican Republic.



 >>DOMINICAN REPUBLIC:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 This is the first time my delegation is speaking, so we would like to thank the
 secretary general of the United Nations for having called this meeting, and
 also, my delegation would like to add its voice to those statements made this
 morning and yesterday by the delegation of the G77 and China and Pakistan.

 Our delegation in this connection would like to put on the record a number of
 items regarding what we think the IGF forum should be.

 Our understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the meetings should be held on an
 annual basis and they should last three to five days.

 We say three to five days because this is the first time we'll be debating
 these various themes in a very open way, and for my delegation, it would be
 very important to involve many different themes in this forum.

 And also, it is our hope that there will be very wide participation as well.

 So in our view, three days would be a bit short.

 But five days, in five days, we should be able to deal with many themes and
 have a more constructive debate as well.

 Regarding the program committee that was proposed, that you proposed and others
 proposed as well, and seconded, this should be formed as was the case in the
 conference on information.

 But we think it could be a little bit more vast as well, that there could be
 greater input, greater participation, stronger regional participation so as to
 take into account the interests of developing countries and to have greater
 input and participation by developing countries.

 Also, we would like to agree with what was stated by the delegation of Morocco
 when it comes to regional events as well.

 This would be very important for us.

 It would be good to have working groups set up, and it would be good if these
 working groups could meet on a regional level and then also there could be
 conclusions on a multilateral level.

 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   I don't have more speakers, so let me try and bring this to
 some sense -- Raul, the head of the NRO.

 Then Australia.

 And the Worldwide Web consortium.

 Raul.

 First was Raul and then Australia.



 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I would like to express some comments regarding the questions that you raised
 this morning as the representative of the NRO regarding the setting up of the
 program committee, and as other speakers have stated already, as we see it, the
 experience of WGIG has been very interesting and we should draw upon this.

 I think that the way in which WGIG was set up was a format making it possible
 to arrive at a good balance in terms of regional representation and also the
 interest of the various positions, and also the various sectors as well.

 It's our hope and it's the hope of the NRO, that we can have as much
 participation as possible by the technical committee within the program
 committee.

 And we hope it'll be better participation, stronger than what we had in WGIG.

 And so in this regard, we would like to express our will to contribute as we
 have in the past as well.

 It's our belief that there should be a balanced, fair participation by
 governments, civil society, private sector, and also the Internet technical
 committee as well.

 As other speakers have said as well, it's very important that we have working
 mechanisms put in place on the basis of consensus.

 And this was also stated in the comments that we sent before this event and
 which are on the Internet Web page on Internet governance.

 Furthermore, I'd like to say that the size of the program committee should not
 -- well, should not exceed 20 people.

 And we consider that the secretary general of the U.N. will find the best
 format, along with you and Mr. Kummer as well, and so in this way, there should
 be a good balanced makeup of the program committee and it should be one single
 committee.

 Thank you.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Australia.



 >>AUSTRALIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Australia generally concurs with what appears to be the emerging consensus on
 the structure and the operation of the IGF, namely that it be an open and
 multistakeholder, focused on an event of three days and that it's Secretariat
 be guided in its preparation by some kind of multistakeholder committee.

 In terms of the format for the meeting, we think there is sufficient experience
 on this question not to make it too problematic.  Our initial views on some of
 the finer details of the forum are set out in our responses to the
 questionnaire which is with the Secretariat.  To a large extent these views
 stand, though we are, of course, listening carefully to the ideas coming
 forward and we will be reviewing our position accordingly.  In this
 intervention, however, in response to your request this morning that we engage
 in an interactive dialogue, we would like to give our reaction to some concerns
 and proposals that have been made yesterday and today.

 Concerns has been expressed that issues are being put forward as priorities for
 discussion in the IGF which are not cross-cutting enough or are too readily
 being consigned to silos.  I'm not quite sure that we would agree that Spam,
 security, and cybercrime, for example, are not cross cutting.  They seem to
 raise implications in a range of areas and to warrant responses from a range of
 areas and institutions.  But I do not really want to ponder on the meaning of
 cross cutting.  I would observe that many issues lend themselves to be tackled
 in a cross-cutting manner from a multidimensional perspective, and we consider
 that is what is important.  In addition, while there is a general statement
 that there are many cross-cutting issues, paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda also
 identifies particular functions and themes for the IGF which may not always be
 easily reconciled with this idea of cross-cutting issues.

 Concerns have also been expressed that to call for IGF discussions to be
 nonduplicative will unnecessarily limit discussion.  I do not think the point
 here is really to rule out particular issues.

 To try to do so would not sit well with the IGF's mandate for, for example, to
 facilitate discourse between bodies and to interface with appropriate
 intergovernmental organizations.

 The point here, and the reason the words were included in the Tunis Agenda, is
 to recognize there are some established expert bodies where certain issues can
 be discussed and are being discussed, and the substantive work of these bodies
 need not be duplicated, and to do so would waste the scarce resources of the
 IGF.

 Another point that was -- was that divisive issues should not be quarantined,
 and conversely, there is little value in discussing issues on which there is
 agreement.  The reference in particular was to the development of public policy
 principles for Internet Governance and the process for enhanced cooperation.

 Our view is that parallel but separate process has been established to progress
 these matters, and that is the best process to use.

 To duplicate that debate in the IGF will give stakeholders an excuse not to
 constructively engage in the other process.

 Moreover, as we saw in WSIS, it will see the sidelining of the issues that,
 yes, everyone agrees are problems, but no one rarely goes any further to deal
 with.

 Surely, Internet users will appreciate some solid action in areas where there
 is an agreed problem, where progress is more likely, the benefit more certain,
 and there is not a parallel process.

 Several speakers have also emphasized that we should take a flexible approach
 to the IGF, to see how it goes and be prepared to adapt as appropriate.

 We would endorse this view.  As Singapore has said, it makes sense to start
 small and to get bigger as the IGF is proven.

 Now, to turn to some procedural issues, and I apologize for the time taken, but
 obviously we've covered a lot of ground, and it's a long flight here.

 [ Laughter ]



 >>AUSTRALIA:  There have been proposals that the IGF (inaudible) meeting but
 rather an ongoing, online policy discussion process or cycle that culminates
 with each annual IGF meeting.  Various models have been proposed and comments
 and contributions.  We Fully support the use of ICTs to maximize preparation
 for and participation in the IGF.  We also understand the attractions of such
 proposed online policy discussion processes, but we think the proposition needs
 to be considered carefully.  A key concern from our perspective is the actual
 human resources such processes would require on an ongoing basis if all
 stakeholders are to participate in them in a meaningful way.  We are concerned
 such processes may not receive the substantive commitment that they would
 require.  It would also need to be clear what exactly those processes would
 produce.  The issue of language also arises.  We tend to see, in contrast, a
 focused annual meeting as a more resource efficient and effective means of
 proceeding.  As such, we do not see online processes being mandated from above
 as an integral part of the IGF, but rather being encouraged as bottom-up
 initiatives.

 On the composition of any advisory group, we consider that if there is such a
 group, there should be only one and that it should be multistakeholder.  That
 is, there should not be separate groups for separate constituencies.  There is
 a tension between having a small manageable group and a larger one which
 provides for a diversity of views.  This is something on which the chair may be
 interested in expressing his views given his WSIS experience.

 On reflection, a slightly larger group than what we propose now contribution
 may be better.  Key stakeholders should be included, including from the
 Internet community.  This may mean that the secretary-general should select the
 members in the first instance.  We stand by our view, however, that this
 group's member should have expertise, seniority, and the networks needed to
 fulfill their functions.  This should be true, too, of any government
 representatives.  They should have these qualities, not simply be there to
 reflect political considerations.

 We agree that the development focus of WSIS suggests this, too, should be taken
 into account in composing the group, but does not necessarily mean weighted
 representation from developing country governments. It could mean people with
 expertise in the developmental area from both developed and developing world. 
 We think it is very important that the group operate transparently and consult
 widely.

 On the question of duration of meetings, brazil has made some good points,
 particularly that if a large number of issues are discussed, there will not be
 much substantive discussion.  And this is not something we would prefer.

 Our solution to this, as we have said here and in our submission, is to focus
 on a key theme or issue and treat it in depth.

 We would see these meetings being based on substantive inputs prepared and
 possibly published in advance by relevant experts, experienced practitioners
 and interested stakeholders.  Here we support the comments of Switzerland and
 others made this morning.  Further, we consider substantive discussion is the
 way to attract the high profile stakeholders which in turn will make the IGF a
 success.  And a successful forum will also make it easier to attract funding.

 On the issue of whether forum meetings should rotate geographically, Australia
 sees both advantages and disadvantages with this proposal.  The positives
 include facilitating access to meetings, particularly in developed countries,
 and sharing costs.  The negatives potentially include logistical difficulties
 distance for missions with subject experience and additional cost for the
 Secretariat.  I'm sure these debates are all well-rehearsed within the U.N.
 system.

 This is an issue on which we are flexible, but on the assumption the first IGF
 will take place in Athens, we do tend towards the view that our meetings should
 be in a single geographically convenient location.  But as I said, we are
 fairly flexible on that.  We do, however, think it is important for the
 secretary not to rotate for cost and continuity reasons and for it to remain in
 a single geographically convenient location.

 The issue of further consultation has been raised.  For its part, Australia
 welcomes consultation on key issues.  If there is to be further consultation
 before advice is provided to the secretary-general, we would find it helpful if
 some outline of the state of thinking were published to which we could respond.
  We would also support this consultation being undertaken online.

 Fortunately, in conclusion, Australia would like to reiterate its view that the
 IGF can be a very valuable mechanism for ongoing innovation, development, and
 expansion of the Internet, particularly with regard to the concerns of
 developing countries.  And here we welcome the contributions from developing
 country stakeholders as to their particular priorities.

 We need to ensure that the IGF is organized and operates in a way that
 addresses this.

 This includes a commitment of all stakeholders, including government, private
 sector, civil society, and the technical and academic communities.

 And thank you and I'm sorry for taking so long.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.

 I have the WorldWide Web Consortium.



 >>WORLDWIDE WEB CONSORTIUM:  Thank you.  So my name is DANIEL Dardailler.  I am
 representing the World Wide Web Consortium, W3C, and this is the organization
 defining THE FORMAT THAT is used on the Internet, LIKE HTML OR XML or Web
 services AND things like that.

 SO we are not really on the agenda of the IGF yet, but like other consortia
 like IETF and others, we are completely open to your participation, and of
 course we are ready to participate in the IGF, whatever format it takes, and to
 our level of expertise and resource, of course, because I think we have things
 to say as technician and in project like the web ACCESSIBILITY initiative, for
 INSTANCE, FOR defining technology for people with disability, like blind user
 to use the Internet and the Web.  And we also have activity on privacy and
 security.

 So the W3C is open to PARTICIPATION today, and we have a lot of international
 participate in that level already.

 So I think what I would like to do for the IGF, what I would like to see
 happening is that the -- it use operationally the full power of the Internet,
 of the Web, and HYPERTEXT system.  It's kind of difficult today to browse the
 document because they have usually not used the full power of links and things
 like that.

 So I would like to encourage the IGF, whatever format it takes, is that the
 outcomes are presented in open, nonproprietary format that are used on the web
 everywhere else, like HTML.

 Thanks.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  I have Khaled FATTAL from the MINC, and then
 Francophonie, and then the U.S., and then Milton Mueller.



 >>MINC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Khaled Fattal.  I am THE CHAIRMAN
 AND NCO OF MINC, Multilingual Internet Names Consortium.

 I would like to START BY payING tribute and I am feeling very humble. 
 Yesterday's intervention and today's intervention from many parties, in
 comparison with some of the interventions we used to hear two, MAYBE three
 years ago and especially at the formation of WGIG, the EDUCATION process has
 REALLY TAKEN A MAJOR LEAP FORWARD, AND I THINK THIS IS a VERY positive thing. 
 You will recall the issue of multilingualism at that time may have been picked
 up by a few interventions.  It really needed further highlighting.  Yesterday
 and today I observed that many of the interventions have actually made this as
 a key component.  As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly,
 Brazil, China, the E.U. seem to have all put it as a major priority.

 Something else I would like to add.  So in that sense, I feel a lot of the work
 that MINC and other groups have been undertaking in highlighting this issue
 have actually reaped some fruits and to a large extent, repetition also has
 been good.

 So it has really fermented that issue.

 Something else I would like to add.

 I did have a prepared statement.  I'm going to break away from that for the
 interest of time.  But it's important for us to lay out what really is at
 issue.

 There are many ways to measure successes and failures.  In ONE sense the
 international community has been debating and demanding equal access to the
 Internet for years.  As emphasized by the secretary-general of the United
 Nations, Kofi Annan, CULTURES AND COMMUNITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD, WHEN THEIR
 NATIVE LANGUAGES USE NEITHER ENGLISH noR Latin-based character sets have been
 left out of the Internet.  As a result, more than 4.5 billion people remain at
 the margins of the information society and cannot really benefit from the
 Internet as a tool for enlightenment and education.  They are disenfranchised
 from the Internet.  In December of 2003, the WSIS declaration of principles and
 action plan adopted in Geneva by the representatives of some 172 countries,
 civil society, private sector, worldwide, clearly identified, multilingualism
 as a key objective, necessary for an inclusive information society.

 It was also recognized that multilingual Internet access, including through
 URLs in local languages, was a vital element in Internet Governance.  Good
 governance, Mr. Chairman, of the Internet requires active and inclusive
 participation by all stakeholders, including the 4.5 people still left out.

 Two years later in November 2005, the world summit concluded its final phase in
 Tunis, despite great efforts, very wide participation, and hundreds of millions
 of dollars in cost.  There was no SIGNIFICANT process to eliminate the digital
 divide that everyone seems to be calling on for continuously.  Those
 COMMUNITIES are still disenfranchised and left out.

 So now the IGF is discussing the next step forward, which we fully support and
 we actively wish to participate in.  In that sense, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion
 what i would like to add is that you will need all the help that you can get to
 succeed.

 And for that, MINC is undertaking some major initiatives in 2006.  One of them
 which is in support of the Tunis declaration, paragraph 71, which specifically
 relates -- states relevant organizations should commence a process towards
 enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as
 possible and responsive to innovation.

 The announcement and formation in order to facilitate the coordination with
 local language authority.

 We would like to offer the IGF that MINC will be -- has announced and will be
 further informing the public at large the formation of the MINC coordination
 mechanism council.  It's the MINC ICMC, it's a coordination mechanism council. 
 In its process it aims to work with all interested stakeholders and parties so
 that we can actually bring this digital divide to a close as soon as possible.

 And with that, Mr. Chairman, we offer whatever capabilities that MINC can
 present to support IGF and your leadership so that we can bring the
 disenfranchised into this Internet phenomenon.  Thank you.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Francophonie.



 >>OIF:  Thank you, chairman.

 We've taken the floor again to reflect the special interest that we have in
 your comment on the participation of developing countries in the IGF process.

 You rightly said that it was important for these countries beyond any
 negotiations should learn something, should benefit from their participation in
 the IGF.

 And this question of developing country participation was raised by several
 delegations here.  It's a core issue.  But it's also complicated, because there
 are financial problems, financing which hasn't yet been found.

 So in the light of what we have discovered in Africa when preparing the Tunis
 phase of the summit, we would like to recommend that there be a regional
 approach, particularly under the U.N. secretary-general based on the regional
 organizations.

 Now, on the world summit, between the first and the second phases, thanks to
 the various regional preparatory measures which occurred in Africa and which
 were supported by international organizations such as ECA, UNESCO, of course
 Francophonie and others, all this made it possible for Africa to strengthen its
 contribution to the world summit.

 And we think that in the IGF, that sort of process, if it were proposed by the
 secretary-general through his recommendations, and if it were supported, could
 allow the various regions, and particularly developing regions, to prepare well
 before the holding of the forum.  Activities, for example, could occur on the
 fringes of regional activities which already take place, and with the support
 of various organizations would allow the various topic adopted to be broached.

 This would, at lesser cost, allow for greater participation, because the few
 people who could attend the forum in Greece could then spread the word
 throughout the region and ensure that the forum be as inclusive as possible.

 That then was the proposal we wanted to put before you just to add to the ideas
 that you raised this morning.

 Thank you.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.

 The United States.



 >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just want to reiterate
 a few ideas I expressed yesterday on behalf of my delegation.

 The United States would like to see as light a process as possible with as few
 cumbersome procedures as possible.  We would like to see a multistakeholder
 process.  We would encourage the adoption of just one multistakeholder program
 committee which would include participation from both developed and developing
 countries.

 As far as format, we would anticipate a forum of two to three days, using a
 combination of plenary sessions and expert panels, as suggested by other
 speakers.

 Thank you.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.

 Milton Mueller.



 >>MILTON MUELLER:  Can you hear me?



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Yes.



 >>MILTON MUELLER:  This is Milton Mueller.

 I appreciate the direct response and dialogue that was contained in the
 Australian delegate's discussion just a few minutes ago.  So I'd like to
 continue that process and respond to certain parts of that.

 The clarifications regarding what he considers to be duplicative issues and his
 expansions on the notion of cross-cutting issues I think are useful and
 helpful.

 I was a little bit more concerned about the intervention about there being a
 parallel process, and that was a reason for excluding a particular topic from
 the forum.

 We are unaware of any officially declared parallel process.  And if there is
 such a process, we'd like for it to be identified and for the rest of us to be
 told how we could participate in this process and provide input into it.

 Otherwise, one gets into a somewhat strange situation in which the forum's
 legitimacy and its capacity are undermined by decisions to take what certain
 governments consider to be the really important issues out of the forum and
 exempt them from discussion in a fully multistakeholder environment.

 I'm sure the Australian government can understand the concern that civil
 society would have about this, that we are told that we cannot discuss
 something in the forum because it's already being discussed possibly in an
 invisible process we don't know about that we cannot participate in.  That
 doesn't sound like a viable response to our concern.

 So I hope that this could be clarified also.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.

 I have Switzerland, then followed by Dr. Jeremy Beale from the confederation of
 British industries, and then ISOC.

 Switzerland.



 >>SWITZERLAND:  Thank you, chairman.

 I'd just like to take up the appeal you made at the end of the morning session
 on a number of issues and give you our impressions.

 On the Program Committee, I think we want to keep it simple and practical.  And
 one single committee, with all the various participants involved, government,
 private sector, civil society and international organizations, would be enough.

 On the topics for discussion, I don't think we should engage in self-censorship
 and exclude any given topic or topics, but we must be aware that there are
 topic where we can already see a fairly consensual approach to allow for
 progress.  We've heard a lot about Spam and cybersecurity.  And then there are
 other rather more delicate and difficult topics.

 And for us to have a properly structured forum which can make progress, I think
 we need both consensual and maybe more difficult -- a more difficult topic.  We
 should realize that enlightenment comes from dialogue.  We can get solutions in
 that way.  And we shouldn't be afraid of any topics.  We should also be aware,
 though, that some topics are already being discussed in other fora with other
 partners, and that we have to avoid duplication.

 We would be doing a disservice to the forum if it were to deal with topic which
 were already dealt with in depth elsewhere.

 I think people might get tired of that sort of thing.

 So we need some sort of balance.

 On the rules to be applied, the IGF is a rather special sort of entity.  It's
 an ELIOD (phonetic) as you would put it, as legal experts would put it in
 Latin.  It's not what you can classify on what already exists.  It's not the
 U.N., as most speakers have said, but some U.N. rules could apply.  For
 example, languages, a matter raised several times.  It's very important for us
 to be able to use the six U.N. languages.

 Whereas, it's also been frequently said that we don't want the overly rigid
 U.N. rules involving participation, in particular because of the inclusive
 nature of the IGF.

 So I think we have to be creative, take some of the U.N. rules but not forget
 that the IGF was something -- was intended to be something autonomous.

 Thank you.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  I have Dr. Beale from the confederation of
 British industries.



 >>JEREMY BEALE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I will make what I hope is a short
 but pertinent point.

 It's in regard to the question of working groups, and of a Secretariat with a
 research or paper generating capacity that was raised a few moments ago.

 Given the points that you raised before the lunch break about the question, if
 not the problem, of funding, it would seem to me that it might be both more
 efficient in terms of use of resources if we actually didn't go down that path,
 but actually allowed all the constituent parts of the IGF to be able to submit
 their own papers.

 We have, I'm sure, many areas of expertise within civil society, the business
 community, and amongst governments.

 It would also allow regions to be able to define their own positions as was
 suggested earlier, but also it wouldn't mean that every region had to feel
 obliged to do that.  So it would be more flexible and it would allow the
 development of a more lightweight operation, which is a stated goal in many
 respects.

 So I would just think that we could take that more sort of less cumbersome
 organizational approach.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.

 Can I turn to ISOC.



 >>ISOC:  Chairman, thank you for giving us the floor again.  I promise to be
 brief.

 We would first and foremost like to commend you and the secretary on
 shepherding us through this meeting.  As usual, you have done so with humor,
 fairness, and great skill.

 We would also like to address one of the questions you left us with before
 lunch, that of the forum as a learning forum.

 One of the Internet society's core responsibilities is education, and the
 importance of education to Internet deployment and capacity building and
 economic development.

 It is with education and learning in mind that we, along with the Internet
 community, will continue to support increased participation by developing
 countries in the Internet Governance forum.

 We will do so through our ongoing and recognized education and policy-related
 programs, roundtables and workshops around the globe.

 We also commit to provide the technical expertise to the forum, as is
 appropriate and necessary, to ensure the fullest understanding of the
 fundamental technical aspects that underlie the issue areas that will be
 focused on in the forum meeting.

 Chairman, we stand ready to exist and to making the forum a success.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Bill Drake.



 >>WILLIAM DRAKE:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I also wanted to speak to the question of working groups very briefly in
 response to a couple of the comments that were made.

 Concerns were expressed about the cost and personnel requirements, if all
 stakeholders were to participate in a meaningful way, about mandating from
 rather than -- what would be produced by them.

 On the first point, I think there's perhaps a little bit of a disconnect in how
 some of us are thinking about this could be rather easily bridged.

 In the U.N. setting, perhaps a working group sounds like an invitation to a
 large, compulsory type of event in which all stakeholders would feel that they
 must be represented and must weigh in and must issue a lot of inputs and so
 forth.

 We certainly in civil society were not thinking of it in that way.

 We were thinking of it much more in the manner of the Internet engineering task
 force, a fairly decentralized process, a light one.

 It doesn't have to have a heavy administrative I don't know head at all.

 Some people identify an issue that they think is important and compelling.

 They perhaps formulate a problem statement that would be made available to
 other potential partners through some central mechanism, perhaps the
 secretariat would have an e-flash or something where they make people aware of
 things that are being debated.

 Maybe it would be on secretariat Web site, whatever.

 There would be a call to participate.

 Anybody who wanted to join could join.

 You would have, then, some electronic discussion and sharing of ideas.

 And then the group would decide whether, A, it wants to do anything beyond that
 in terms of physically meeting, or perhaps holding a meeting on the day prior
 to the official forum itself to carry on other discussion.

 And then, B, they could select what kind of output, if any, they might want to
 have, which might then be input into the larger plenary session.

 That might be simply a short position paper, a more elaborate study of some
 sort.

 Recommendations.

 It could take a variety of forms.

 But the point is, it need not be overly standardized, overly rigid.

 And it need not involve a great deal of resources.

 It would be an opportunity under the umbrella of the IGF for those people who
 have a shared interest in a topic to discuss it in a nonbinding way.

 It's come as you are.

 If you want to be there, you are.

 And if you're not -- you're not interested in being there, you're not.

 So, to us, that is very much a bottom-up process, and the product would be one
 that is potentially something that could enrich the larger dialogue.

 The larger plenary then could designed whether, hmm, this is an interesting
 matter that's been brought up by this working group.

 Perhaps this merits further conversation in a larger, more structured setting,
 et cetera.

 Or they might just look at it and say, "Thank you very much for your efforts,"
 and do nothing with it.

 But either way, the vehicle is there to provide people on a multistakeholder
 basis to have a dialogue that they can't have anywhere else.

 And that would be, I think, quite useful.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   I have (inaudible), the president of (inaudible).



 >> Thank you, Chairman.

 I'll be speaking on behalf of African civil society.

 And, in particular, I wanted to support two positions, that of Francophonie,
 just now speaking of decentralization.

 I think it's important to note that very few developing countries are
 represented here.

 And as long as the structure is centralized here in Geneva and everything
 passes through Geneva, obviously, developing country participation will be low,
 because people just can't afford to go to Geneva every time to take part.

 So the idea of decentralizing structures, in particular, working through the
 United Nations economic commissions seem to me a basic idea.

 In any case, African experience has shown the extremely important role in terms
 of logistics and preparation of content and substance on the themes dealt with
 by the summit.

 It's an almost irreplaceable role played by ECA, in particular, by regional
 meetings and other ensuing meetings.

 So I think there's a real concern for decentralization which must be shared by
 people in charge of the IGF.

 Even if you have to set aside room for expert committees which might be freer
 to work and which could add expert input to the subjects to be dealt with,
 that's something we think is important to support for African civil society,
 which, as you know, doesn't always have the money to come to Geneva or Europe.

 Secondly, on Athens, the site for the time being is only in English, and it
 seems very important for the future for things to be posted up at least in
 French as well, given the importance and the numbers of French-speaking
 participants.

 Those are the two points we wanted to underscore, repeating the interest that
 African civil society has in taking part in this session, and we hope in
 continuing to contribute to consideration in sessions yet to come.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Mr. Kleinwaechter.



 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:   You can keep a lot of trouble out if you give the
 Program Committee only a limited mandate.

 The real work which has to be done by the Program Committee is to draft an
 agenda and to guarantee that the invited speakers are really representatives
 for the global Internet community, that means come from several countries, from
 all around the globe, gender-balanced and things like that.

 That means to have a very limited mandate for the Program Committee would make
 it much more easier and help to avoid conflicts.

 And it would make the life easier for the Program Committee if you would start
 soon.

 And virtual discussion process on the Web site of the forum so that the Program
 Committee can look into the discussion and can then get a feeling or a clue,
 you know, what -- in which direction the discussion goes so that it's not that
 the discussion will predetermine what the Program Committee will have to
 decide, but the Program Committee would be in a better position than to come to
 the final decision with regard to the agenda.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Okay.

 What I'm suggesting now is that we have a word, hear from Greece, the
 organizers of the first forum.

 After that, I will try to say a few words, to see how we proceed from this
 point.

 Because, clearly, we cannot close things now.

 So we have to -- I have to suggest how -- before Greece, my apologies,
 Bertrand.

 Greece, we can wait, Bertrand de la Chapelle, and then Greece.

 I will try to suggest what are the next steps, because I cannot say that we can
 close the issue at this space, and what's the sort of time line for the work.

 And then we'll see how it goes from there.

 Bertrand.



 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor.

 I am sorry for imposing myself on that.

 Just a few points.

 First of all, focusing the IGF, the annual IGF on a single issue would make
 this forum look like many thematic conferences of all sorts, business or
 elsewhere.

 Addressing a few issues is probably necessary, in a limited number, as I said.

 A correction on what I said this morning.

 The Brazilian delegate made a reference afterwards.

 But I want to repeat that the number of themes that I suggested is between four
 and six, and not more, so that we don't stay during two weeks.

 Another point is that in the debate between vertical issues and horizontal
 issues that you mentioned, in many cases, vertical issues, meaning precise
 themes, such as, for instance, Internet connection costs, can, in fact, serve
 to illustrate horizontal issues like accessibility and availability to the
 Internet.

 And, finally, two points.

 The format in six points for suggesting themes that I presented this morning
 is, of course, following a few private comments that I received from
 governments, not, and couldn't be, a compulsory format for submission, but just
 an attempt to propose a format that could be shared by actors who want to use
 it.

 And I will circulate something later on that.

 The last point is to support what Milton Mueller was saying earlier about the
 enhanced cooperation.

 I want just to remind everybody in this room that paragraph 71 of the Tunis
 Agenda says that the process towards enhanced cooperation to be started by the
 U.N. secretary general involving all relevant organizations will involve all
 stakeholders and should be -- and launched before the end of the first quarter
 of 2006.

 So we're a bit late.

 And, obviously, the process should be multistakeholder.

 And we're all looking forward to more information on how the two processes will
 be articulated one with the other.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Did you want the floor, Ayesha?



 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'd like it for my colleague, Peter
 Hellmonds, who's trying to bring his card up to you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Peter Hellmonds.



 >>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you very much.

 We appreciate it.



 >> Peter Hellmonds:  Thank you, chairman.

 This is the nature of these consultations, I guess, that you're in final rounds
 of talking to your colleagues.

 Anyhow, I'm Peter Hellmonds.

 I work for Siemens in communications, but here I speak on behalf of CCBI and
 ICC members, to provide a few concluding remarks from the business community.

 First of all, we'd like to thank you for so efficiently conducting these
 consultations and for the spirit of free information exchange.

 We can see the workings of the future of the Internet Governance Forum right
 here in action, already embodying some of the key elements that we from the
 business community and many others have stressed.

 Allow me briefly, Mr. Chairman, to elaborate on the idea of spirit by using an
 analogy to doing business, where, from my experience, there are two modes of
 dealing with business counterparts.

 First, there is what we can call a bizarre style of bargaining, where you drive
 each other down to rock bottom prices and conditions.

 This, however, is a style of one-off deals, because it often leaves one party
 sour.

 The other style is what the first could and should turn into, which is a more
 familiar style.

 Here, it is informing a continuing relationship between business partners where
 the emphasis is on keeping good relations between these partners.

 And I must say I'm pleased to see that we have in these consultations already
 begun very successfully to turn from the bizarre style bargaining model that
 perhaps we had more in the WSIS and PrepCom process leading up to the WSIS in
 Tunis, that we have changed that into the more familiar style of forging good
 working relations amongst each other.

 We can see that happening in the plenary interventions we have heard, but even
 more so in the bilateral and multilateral discussions that are taking place
 during lunch and coffee breaks and other occasions here in the Palais des
 Nations.

 I would like to call upon all of us to maintain this positive spirit.

 We are in this together because the Internet is here for all of us.

 We all should find that it works to our advantage to maintain the global nature
 of the Internet and make sure that all of the stakeholders, even those who are
 not here and who have not spoken out, can benefit from its positive effects.

 The Internet Governance Forum must provide the opportunity for all affected
 groups and communities to bring their requests and requirements to the table.

 In this regard, we welcome the notion that there could be self-forming
 information society initiatives or committees, whatever, on the national and
 regional level organized perhaps along the same lines of multistakeholder
 participation as the IGF, to help inform national representatives of
 governments, businesses, civil society, and other interested stakeholder
 groups, of their local interests.

 Let me now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, come back to the substantial questions that
 you sent us off with yesterday and today and conclude this intervention with a
 few final remarks on what we see here as the convergence or agreement around
 the IGF.

 On the one hand, it should be composed of all stakeholder groups.

 I think we agree on that.

 And they should be on an equal footing with an adequate regional diversity.

 Secondly, we prefer an integrated and not a separate program committee, and as
 such, it should be composed of a relatively small number of qualified
 individuals.

 Thirdly, a format that facilitates true information exchange and provides for a
 learning experience and support of human capacity-building and a development
 perspective, keeping in mind the goals of the World Summit on the Information
 Society.

 Needless to say that the business community looks forward to contributing to
 the continued definition and evolution of the Internet Governance Forum, and
 thus, we look forward to the next round of consultations.

 Finally, I would like to conclude by applauding chairman Desai and Markus
 Kummer for the considerable progress that we have achieved already in these two
 days of consultations.

 Thank you.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   If we have achieved progress, it's due to you, not to us.

 And may I now turn to Greece.

 Then I will say a few words.

 Then let's see where we are.

 Greece.



 >>GREECE:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I may be the last speaker, but I don't have the last word.

 You have been entrusted by the secretary general with the challenge of carrying
 out consultations aiming at extracting all the necessary elements needed to add
 flesh to the Tunis text regarding the IGF.

 In our view, the forum's character is unique.

 It should be multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic and transparent, as it
 emerged from delicate consultations involving all stakeholders.

 The secretary general's choice regarding your appointment couldn't have been a
 better one.

 You have prepared and carried out the implementation of more summits than most
 of us remember, and you have done it with masterful dexterity while remaining
 unruffled, even under the most pressing of circumstances.

 Next to you is Markus Kummer, a man who demonstrated remarkable organizational
 skills, and who, with his well-known Swiss caution, carried the heavy load of
 WGIG in an exemplary manner.

 On behalf of the Greek delegation, we thank you both for your efforts and
 pledge to continue our cooperation towards convening the inaugural meeting of
 the IGF later this year in Athens.

 Mr. Chairman, these consultations are a transition from a paper exercise
 towards the assembly of the building blocks of the forum.

 The cornerstone of the forum is basically everyone represented in this room.

 We are the forum.

 We are a very diverse crowd which has worked together in a cooperative spirit,
 building trust.

 And I hope we carry on in the same manner, even in what at times seem to be
 uncharted and troubled waters.

 Mr. Chairman, the successful organization of the Internet Governance Forum is a
 priority for the Greek government.

 While the ink was still wet on the Tunis text, the Greek government had begun
 to take a number of steps towards the first meeting of the IGF.

 Most of you already know the rest of the story.

 We have been ubiquitous.

 The minister of transport and communications, Mr. Mihalis Liapis, has set up a
 steering committee to tackle the various tasks required for the organization of
 the IGF's inaugural meeting.

 A Web site, www.IGF-Greece2006.org, has already been created specifically for
 the Athens meeting.

 As of recently, the Web site, and I stress this, is fully bilingual.

 The second language being French.

 It has recorded impressive hits, mounting in the thousands to this date.

 ICANN, GAC, the United Nations, deputy secretary general have been briefed.

 We have already reported the state of our preparations in meetings with the
 Group of 77 in Geneva, the western group, the eastern group, and CCBI/ICC in
 Paris.

 I have recently participated in the Diplo conference in Malta, which turned out
 to be a most useful brainstorming exercise.

 I have in my possession a first draft of a 60-page illustrated document giving
 a detailed analysis of our preparations so far.

 Mr. Chairman, distinguished participants, we have done all that without even
 having the dates for the meeting itself.

 We came to these consultations hoping that the SG will provide us soon after at
 least with a starting kit so we can move on with concrete arrangements and
 commitments regarding the preparations.

 The kit should contain firm dates for the inaugural meeting, the format of the
 meeting, and possibly topics to be discussed.

 Anything else, of course, in addition to the above will be most welcome to
 allow organizers to prepare in an optimal manner.

 On the issue of dates, we have already outlined a possibility, which, in our
 view, had taken into account possible conflicts with other similar meetings and
 religious holidays.

 Furthermore, the possible dates are in line with an indication to this effect
 we received in a letter addressed to us by the United Nations secretary
 general.

 Consultations are taking place on this subject and the results may come
 shortly.

 We remain hopeful that our expectations will be fulfilled soon and rest assured
 that we are ready to continue to work with you and with all stakeholders
 towards the next step after Tunis, the inaugural meeting of the IGF in Athens.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, Mr. Papadatos.

 I would say we are truly impressed at the commitment shown by the government of
 Greece for hosting this, the efforts which have already been put in.

 Let me try and suggest a way on how to -- a way forward from now, keeping in
 mind there are very clear indications that I have received from some of you
 that you do need a little more time to react to some of the ideas which have
 been thrown up here.

 So I will not try and give any sort of definitive summary or a sense of closure
 to the issues that are -- that we have been discussing.

 I think what I will try and do is first to say what is the minimum that we have
 to agree on, which I think we have -- it's acceptable so that we can at least
 start the process of -- with the government -- with our host.

 Because it's -- you know, we've only got, what, seven to eight months.

 And as Mr. Papadatos said, I've organized a lot of these things, and I can tell
 you, that's not a lot of time.

 So we need to start this process of discussion between the government of Greece
 and the United Nations sufficiently -- well, we have to start it, frankly, now,
 if we can.

 So what does this mean?

 What does this require?

 What is it that I think we can comfortably say?

 Certainly we are having the forum there.

 It will be in October/November.

 We hope the dates will be set in a few days, after some consultations which are
 going on.

 We will, of course, make sure through e-flash, et cetera, that all of you get
 to know this date.

 I'm sorry I could not announce them today, because the consultations are not
 over, and we do need to consult, because it's very important that these dates
 are consistent with normal international practice.

 You can't just decide them arbitrarily.

 But we hope in a couple of days that will be done.

 That certainly will help.

 We certainly see this as a forum which will be very -- in a sense, a forum open
 to open participation.

 And in terms of numbers, we are -- I have said that perhaps one should take the
 numbers who attended the open consultations for WGIG as a baseline.

 You should certainly expect at least that much, and perhaps mostly what we are
 looking at is at least 500 to 600 people attending this forum.

 It could be more.

 But this is the baseline that we work with, because, in a sense, we -- there is
 a general concept that it is more or less participation similar to the way
 participation took place in the WGIG open consultations, and we do need -- they
 need to have some idea of how many people they should be working for in terms
 of space and so on.

 I think we would, of course, have a -- have to have a host country agreement
 with -- between the United Nations and Greece.

 The summit is a product of a United Nations process.

 The secretariat support is being provided by the United Nations.

 And for legal reasons, we will have to have a host country agreement with
 Greece.

 I incidentally here mention that the very normal practice in the United Nations
 when you have a host country which is taking on the responsibility of
 organizing a meeting which the United Nations has been asked to convene, it's
 fairly normal practice to request the host country to provide the chair for the
 process.

 That has been the case with all the summits that we have run.

 And that also is a simple solution of the issue of who is the chair of the
 process.

 And it's a very common practice.

 It's then entirely up to the host country to decide whether it will be somebody
 from the private sector, somebody from the civil society sector, somebody from
 the government sector.

 It's their responsibility.

 But we don't -- as the United Nations, we don't get into that issue.

 I think we have not had an agreement, or I don't sense a consensus on the issue
 of the management structure for the forum.

 There have been various ideas which have been thrown out.

 I think terms like "Program Committee," "steering committee," et cetera have
 been used.

 Sometimes the terminology has caused confusion.

 Let's for the moment simply says a multistakeholder group.

 What that will be called we can leave open.

 And a multistakeholder group, what people have different ideas, A, on whether
 such a group is -- people want some time to think whether such a group is
 necessary.

 I think my sense is that a very large number of people here do believe it is.

 But, in fairness, we have to give people time to react to that idea.

 And second, how it will be constituted, whether it will be constituted as a
 single group, if so, how large, or whether it is constituted as multiple
 groups.

 So what I am proposing is that this is one of the issues on which we need a
 response relatively quickly, which is, let us say, ten -- about ten days from
 now.

 I don't think it's going to be possible within this time frame to organize
 another consultation like this.

 And apart from that, it would be very burdensome for a lot of people who have
 come from outside to come once again.

 I was going to suggest that we have discussed this.

 We have heard each others' views quite extensively.

 And I would suggest that those who feel they need a little more time to think
 about this take that time, and just communicate their views through Mr. Markus
 Kummer to the secretary general.

 To me and then to the secretary general.

 And I -- we will, of course, faithfully -- our job is to faithfully reflect the
 range of views that have been presented.

 I am stressing this because I think this program committee needs to get working
 as fast -- or whatever we wish to call it, if constituted, needs to get
 cracking as soon as possible.

 And as some people said, when it gets moving, perhaps at its first meeting
 there could be a round of consultations.

 But my experience is that even if we decide -- once and if and when we decide
 to constitute such a group, the very process of constituting it, getting names
 from regional groups or from various, you know, organizations or civil society
 and business will itself take a couple of weeks, and then trying to sort that
 out into a set of names will take time.

 And that's the reason why I am saying please, if we can have the views in about
 ten days, it will be very -- if we can then think in terms of having this
 group, if we were to constitute it, functioning hopefully before the end of
 March.

 I don't think we have to -- we perhaps had more of a discussion on what is the
 -- what are the themes which should be covered in the IGF than we needed to
 have.

 I say more because I started rereading the text.

 And the text does not rule out anything.

 The text does not say that this will be discussed and this will not be
 discussed.

 So I don't think the issue is at all, is this something that I -- you know,
 that this forum should discuss.

 I think it's more useful if, in your further comments, a second thing on which
 you may comment, I don't think the issue is should or should not the forum
 discuss this ever.

 Is this part of the work of the forum.

 But simply what do you think are the priorities for this October.

 That's all.

 Simply what are the priorities.

 Nothing to do with, you know, is this a part of the forum mandate or not.

 I would say the forum language is pretty general.

 And at this point, instead of a futile discussion on should this or should this
 not be discussed in the forum, just focus on a very simple thing.

 Given your political priorities, given your sense of what the mood outside
 there is like, what do you think are the issues?

 I would suggest that perhaps it'll be useful if those who wish to contribute
 were to fix their ideas on three major themes.

 It doesn't have to be -- it can be five; it can be six.

 But I would say three because of the fact that, you know, we have a certain
 number of days, a number of days, which is another point which we need to
 communicate fairly clearly.

 I would say that I have heard a lot of views, many different views, two to
 three days; five days.

 So I am subtly suggesting to our friends in Greece that they plan on the basis
 of a four-day meeting.

 Let's work with this.

 Including, you know, the opening ceremony, et cetera.

 And let's work on that.

 It's, frankly, very arbitrary.

 But we have to have some basis to start.

 We can't just leave it for April, May, June, or something.

 Because then it's too late.

 In terms of the facilities, structure of the meeting itself, many very
 interesting ideas have come up.

 Again, I don't think we need to -- we will not set the themes.

 The themes will come afterwards.

 In fact, my own personal feeling is that this has to be decided by the program
 group or whatever it is that is set up, rather than being set from New York.

 Why --   So I would not even try and summarize as to what it would be.

 But in terms of the physical facilities they need to provide, I would suspect
 that what we are looking at is probably a place for a plenary meeting, which
 will be, of course, used for the opening and closing, but will also be
 available for the major thematic discussions.

 I'm sure when you get down to it, when the management group is constituted,
 they will have some ideas on how this thematic discussion should be conducted.

 I have some ideas which I will certainly pass on to the management group from
 my experiences as to what would make it interesting.

 But a plenary space which would allow the entire -- all of the people
 attending, or a substantial portion of those attending, to participate in this
 -- the major thematic discussions over these days.

 And that's the space where we would have -- where we would request them to
 provide full translation facilities in all six U.N. languages.

 Around this, I think we will have to, perhaps, suggest to them that there
 should be space for smaller meetings, panel discussions, roundtables, working
 groups.  And we do not know what it would be.  This would depend on when the
 planning starts.  For lack of any better number, I would say that let us, as a
 starting point, I would suggest to the Greek authorities start with five, at
 least.  But if the room, the space that you have has more space there, that's
 better.  It's always better, because my experience is once you start this
 process, then a lot of people want to hold roundtables, panels and so on.  And
 you will find that the space gets used up pretty quickly.

 Then my third plea, which again requires some advanced work, is I do take this
 message of this becoming a learning experience very seriously.  And I hope that
 when you look at your site, that there is space there for the people who will
 be coming there not to participate in the debate but to showcase things, or to
 learn from other people.  Something like a learning space.

 I am very happy that ISOC has shown a strong interest in this, and I would
 suggest that perhaps this is something that, at a fairly early stage, we could
 perhaps -- there's no harm in their starting to think about this.

 So my suggest is that we treat this as our starting point.  We recognize that
 we do not have -- we have not yet come to any -- so I cannot report to the
 secretary-general that these are the range of views on issues like the
 multistakeholder management group, on issues like the themes, which should be
 discussed.  And I will say that people have sought time for this, and that I
 would communicate a sense of the range of views.  Because at the end of ten
 days, it's not as if everybody is going to agree, but I will have then a better
 sense of what the range of views is, and that I will communicate to the
 secretary-general on the basis of which he will take certain review, certain
 decisions, and we will proceed on that basis.

 I think I have covered most of what I need to cover in terms of getting the
 process moving and started.

 I think we've done many -- there's a lot of substantive discussion here which I
 -- for which it's very valuable but which is not immediately germane from the
 process.  And logistical decisions about things that need to start straight
 away.

 But I would say that perhaps the probative record that we have will be
 something that will be of great value.

 There has been a great deal of discussion on the motion that you shouldn't just
 focus on this event, but you should also be focusing on IGF as a process for
 things happening which will feed into the IGF.

 Certainly if it is a bottom-up process, it is not something which requires
 decision by anybody.

 There's nothing whatever which stops people forming a group to contribute to
 the IGF.

 I think one aspect of it which may require a little advanced work is a message
 I have heard very strongly from many people here, and that is the need for some
 type of regional process to contribute to this.

 And that's not something which can be done at the last minute.  You can't just
 say suddenly, you know, three months or four months before, "Oh, please get off
 the ground."

 So my own feeling is that listening to people here, it will not be a bad idea
 if one were to suggest -- in fact, i would suggest, to the U.N. that they may
 wish to get in touch with the regional commissions to see how, within the
 resources that the regional commissions have, they could start thinking about
 what sort of regional contribution they could make to this process.  Of course,
 it's very difficult till they know what the themes are, but at least one can
 start getting them to think about how they would do it.  And we are happy the
 ECA is here, and perhaps they will start giving thought to it straight away and
 communicate with their fellow regional commissions in this area.

 But in many areas I think it will be left basically to people to do it.  I
 don't think it requires a directive from anybody, least of all the
 secretary-general.

 One more -- besides -- one more point I would make here is the importance of
 getting certain things started at the national level.  Some countries already
 have multistakeholder processes, et cetera.  But I think it's very important
 that if the IGF at the global level is to work, it should have some -- there
 should be a process at the national level which can feed into that.

 Now, it's possible that it's perfectly fine in many cases for, say, the
 government to participate, for industry from that country to participate, for
 civil society from that country to participate on a totally independent basis. 
 That will be fine.  There's no harm in that. But My own sense, particularly in
 developing countries is, that much of this will be facilitated if there is a
 national process.  And I just leave this with you.  Again, this does not
 require any sort of decision by anybody.  It's up to each country whether they
 do it or not, and I simply leave it with you as a thought and as a reflection.

 And I think it's very important to -- I would like to -- the last thing I wish
 to say is I think it's very important that we place this on a basis which is
 structurally sound, which does not depend on individuals.

 I say this because I have heard too often, you know, about mr. Desai, mr.
 Kummer.  "You know, mr, Desai and mr. Kummer are mortal men."   and one of them
 at least is looking forward to putting his feet up.

 [ Laughter ]



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  So I would say we should put things on a much more
 structured basis.  And I would hope that when we finally end up with the IGF,
 it will be something that will be on the structured basis.

 So I think things are moving ahead reasonably well, and I wish we could have
 done a little bit more on some of these issues, but I'm not too worried.  I
 think ten days is not an unreasonable amount of time, and we can certainly get
 this thing -- some idea of what the range of views is so the S.G. can take a
 view and then I think we can be in business.

 This is more or less what I wanted to say, but before I conclude, I have a
 request for the floor.

 And it's a very valuable request for the floor, so I shall immediately hand the
 floor to Brazil.



 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Brazil would like to make an offer, and if you allow me, this offer is going to
 be introduced by the chairman of our Brazilian Internet national Steering
 Committee.



 >>BRAZIL:  Mr. Chairman, allow me to congratulate you and Mr. Kummer for the
 excellence of coordinating this wonderful meeting, which was a very productive
 one.  I would like to take this opportunity to offer the candidacy of Brazil
 for the neck meeting after Greece, next year, 2007, to be placed in Brazil in
 Rio de Janeiro.



 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I thank you for the offer.  This is of course something
 which will have been to be considered by the IGF itself, but it's very nice and
 I'm very happy that we have an offer of hosting for the second IGF already on
 the table, before we have got the first IGF.  But I thank you very much, and it
 also responds in many ways to the principle of geographical rotation which was
 mentioned earlier.

 I think this is more or less where we are.  I'm not sure it makes much sense to
 try and continue dialogue or discussion at this stage.

 As I said, I will await the comments on two key issues, the constitution of the
 -- possible constitution of the management -- multistakeholder management
 group, whatever it finally is called, and possible themes.  I'm suggesting
 three simply because excluding the opening, there will be three plenary days
 available.  But if three happens to become five, I'm sure there are ways one
 can be accommodated on that.

 So on these two issues, if within ten days you can communicate with Mr. Kummer
 or anybody here who feels they still would like to rethink -- many of you have
 already given your views on this, but those of you who feel they want to go
 back and think about it, any group or NGO or any civil society representative,
 please communicate this to Mr. Kummer.

 So thank you very much.  Have a good day, evening in Geneva, and see you anon.

 [ Applause ]