Internet Governance Forum Open Consultations 3 September 2007 Geneva,
 Switzerland

 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 3 September Open Consultations. 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.


 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Good morning, and welcome to Geneva.  This is the meeting of
 the open consultations, which we -- to help the Advisory Group with IGF, which
 has been constituted by the Secretary-General, to advise the Secretary-General
 on the way in which the Rio meeting should be organized. I would like to -- you
 know me, because I've been with you for many years now.  But I am very happy
 and delighted to welcome a co-chair so that the burden of -- I was about to say
 coping, but I shouldn't used the word "coping" -- the burden of having to find
 common ground amongst the way diverse opinions which get expressed here is now
 shared by the two of us.  And I would like to introduce here Mr. Hadil da
 Vianna.  He is from Brazil.  And the Secretary-General has named him as -- the
 two of us as co-chairs.  Me, of course, as a special advisor of the
 Secretary-General, and Ambassador Vianna as the person who would be
 representing the country which is hosting the Rio meeting. So in many ways,
 this is a process which brings the -- if you like, the presidency of the
 meeting and the Advisory Group to the Secretary-General closer together so that
 we are all working from the same sheet, if you like. Our joint job, as you
 know, is not really to decide things, but to advise the Secretary-General.  And
 our job, really, is to try and crystallize the opinions which will be expressed
 here in a form which will be useful for the people in the U.N. who are
 responsible for arranging and organizing this meeting. I don't wish to say much
 more at this point, but a word, first, on the logistics for this meeting. I'm
 afraid we don't have interpretation for this meeting.  And the reason we don't
 have interpretation is that we are not a budgeted activity of the U.N.  We are
 a non-budgeted activity.  We are, essentially, outside the framework of the
 U.N. budget. And so far, we have got these services on what is described in the
 U.N. as an as-available basis. We were very lucky.  We managed to hold our
 meetings at times when there were -- there was surplus capacity for
 interpretation in the U.N.  And we could get those services at no cost.
 Unfortunately, today, we cannot get these services, because there's a major
 U.N. conference going on in Madrid.  And the capacity available in Geneva for
 interpretation services has been deployed in Madrid.  So we have access to a
 room but we don't have access to interpretation services. I apologize for this.
  But this is one of the hazards that we have to live with as an activity which
 is not part of the U.N.'s regular budget, but something which is outside the
 framework of the budget. I will do my best to try and see how we can manage
 without this.  My hope is the fact that the full transcript of our proceedings
 is always available will be of some help to people in this area. Let me just
 say a word on what I believe the goals of our meeting will be, should be, what
 we should be trying to do here over the next -- today and what the Advisory
 Group should be doing over the next two days.  And later, and then after that,
 I will request my co-chair also to add his opening remarks to this. I believe
 that we have some -- it's not as if we are starting from nothing.  After
 Athens, we have had two rounds of meetings.  And even though those meetings
 were informal, or consultations were informal, there was a certain sense of
 progression and movement in the discussions there.  And this has been taken
 into account by the Secretary-General in his proposals on the constitution of
 the Advisory Group and the organization of the Rio meeting. In particular, what
 I would like to begin with is that I hope it is possible for us to take as
 given the starting point of the meeting which is the list of themes for the
 substantive program for the Rio meeting, which, as we read it and as has been
 indicated by the Secretary-General, who is the person who convenes the meeting,
 consists of six items, A, critical Internet resources.  B, access; C,
 diversity; D, openness; E, security; and, F, emerging issues. I hope we can
 take this as given.  But, certainly, if people have reflections, comments on
 what they would expect to see discussed under these different headings, I'm
 sure my co-chair and I will be more than happy to listen to those remarks. What
 I think we should focus on over the next two hours -- we have five hours
 available to us for discussion -- is, first, I think we can begin with a
 general discussion, because we -- I'm sure many of you have broader points
 which you will wish to make.  Most of you have participated in the Athens
 meeting and have some reflections arising from that meeting which you would
 like the others to hear. And I -- let's see spend a little time, maybe an hour,
 on that. Beyond that, what we need to discuss is the organization, structuring,
 scheduling of the meeting in Rio itself. This is where we can get into more
 detailed comments on what you would expect to see discussed under the different
 heads, how did you see the organization of the main sessions in Athens, what
 are the changes that you would like to see, any concerns that you have, this is
 the time to talk about these. After that, we would like to shift to a
 discussion of the issue of dynamic coalitions.  There has been a certain amount
 of discussion over the Internet on this issue of dynamic coalitions, what are
 they, what are the sort of guidelines, if you like, for the dynamic coalitions
 which will be, so to speak, considered a part of the follow-up of the IGF
 meeting.  As you know, this was one of the major products of Athens. I know
 many of you have some points and reflections on this.  And we can have a
 session -- part of our session devoted to that. We also need to go into the
 logistical arrangements.  This is mainly a matter of presentations by our
 Brazilian hosts.  But I'm sure you may have some more specific questions on
 logistics about the meeting in Rio. And, finally, we should start giving some
 thought to the Advisory Group, because the Secretary-General has asked the
 Advisory Group to make recommendations on its own constitution, rotation, et
 cetera.  And I'm sure this open consultation will have -- people will have
 reflections, comments on that aspect, which I'm sure that members of the
 Advisory Group and certainly the two of us as co-chairs would very much like to
 listen to. The -- finally, there is just a brief thing for information more
 than anything else. Down the line, before the five years are up, we also have
 to review the usefulness and desirability of the forum.  This is not something
 that we can talk about now.  We have only had one meeting of the forum.  It is
 premature for us to enter into that discussion. But this is more a -- an
 informational thing on how we should be going about that ultimate evaluation,
 because it's time we started thinking about these things, not because we have
 to come to conclusions now, but some of these things do take a little time to
 organize.  And so that is just a brief item at the end. We -- my co-chair and I
 have had a brief discussion yesterday on how to organize this.  And,
 essentially, we will be alternating by theme, not by session.  So the intention
 is -- and, of course, we will be working very closely with one another all the
 time.  But in terms of who has the responsibility of sort of, if you like,
 managing the flow of the debate, we would be taking turns, and we will begin
 with the general discussion, which I will chair.  The next discussion, on the
 organization of the Rio meeting, the subsequent -- what is it we expect to do
 there, what is it we expect to achieve, my co-chair will chair.  Then I will
 come again when we discuss dynamic coalitions.  Back to him for the
 presentation of the logistical arrangements.  Back to me for the discussion on
 the Advisory Group.  And, of course, the last session, we will both be there.
 We have five hours.  We have about five sessions, as I've outlined it, maybe
 five and a half.  Let's try and see whether we can stick to a discipline of
 around an hour for each. But we can be flexible.  But let's try and do that. So
 with this, I would like to turn to my co-chair and request --

 >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA:  Thank you, co-chair Desai, distinguished delegates.
 First of all, allow me to express my most sincere satisfaction in cochairing
 these open consultations in preparation for the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro.
 As representative of the host country, I feel honored to participate in this
 work. I can assure you that Brazil is willing to collaborate closely with the
 United Nations, governments, the civil society, and the private sector to
 ensure that the second IGF will be a successful event. I would like to take
 this opportunity to stress that in my country, issues related to Internet
 governance are taken up by the Internet steering committee known as CGI.BR,
 which, like the IGF,includes representation from all stakeholders.  In fact,
 CGI.BR is strongly represented in these consultations here in Geneva is
 offering full support to the preparations of the second IGF. I'd also like to
 take this opportunity to sincerely commend Mr. Desai's skillful conduct of this
 process in his active contribution to the implementation of the IGF mandate. 
 His straightforward style and able guidance have been decisive to the important
 achievements of the first IGF and to the preparations for the second. In this
 regard, I consider it important to highlight that the Athens meeting proved
 itself to be a successful event, and led to grounds for the important work yet
 to be done towards the full implementation of the IGF mandate. I am aware of
 the general expectation that Rio -- the Rio meeting will represent one step
 ahead in the incremental IGF process, in accordance with its mandate as
 contained in the Tunis Agenda. In this context, the U.N. Secretary-General's
 decision to invite Brazil to co-chair this preparatory process is welcome. The
 idea of having the host country as co-chair is a step further in gradually
 involving the stakeholders in the conduct of the meeting from a substantive
 standpoint. I accepted this task in good faith and I am willing to contribute
 to my best in order to meet all stakeholders' expectations with regard to the
 second IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro. We all are well aware that the IGF cannot
 be seen as a traditional U.N.-style conference.  Its format is in the forefront
 of multilateral policy-making and may set precedents for a renewed and upgraded
 style of multilateral conferences, therefore contributing to the evolution of
 the concept of global governance in an open, inclusive, and representative
 environment with the participation of all stakeholders. As we are touching
 uncharted grounds, we all need to be conscious of the many challenges.  The
 tools necessary for convening and conducting these events are not automatically
 applicable to this new scenario that we are building.  Such challenges require
 from us creativity and innovation with regard to the format as well as to the
 substance of IGF discussions. I understand that one of these challenges refers
 to the need for balanced regional representation according to the Tunis
 mandate.  I refer not only to government participation, but to the other
 stakeholders as well, in particular, from developing world. At this stage, it's
 worth recalling the U.N. Secretary-General's mandate set forth at the Tunis
 Agenda.  He was asked to convene the IGF and encouraged to, and I quote,
 examine the range of options for the convening of the forum, take into
 consideration the proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet
 governance, and, indeed, to ensure the full involvement, end of quotation. This
 mandate clearly entails the need of a collective work.  Although we are all
 acknowledge the competent work of Mr. Desai, of Mr. Kummer, and of his small
 but efficient staff, we cannot expect that they will come out with magical
 solutions to all organizational questions raised along the preparations for the
 Rio de Janeiro meeting and for the forthcoming IGF editions. The answers to
 some of these questions depend basically on policy decision-making.  I am
 therefore convinced that the work of a co-chair can add value to our
 activities. My intention is to work closely with Mr. Desai, the secretariat,
 and the Advisory Group in conducting the preparations for the IGF in Rio de
 Janeiro.  I invite you all to join us in this innovative and challenging
 activity.  It's not supposed to be Brazilian isolated task, neither a U.N.
 task.  It's a task that requires participation from all stakeholders with open
 and unprejudiced minds. I count upon your support and contributions to make
 sure that the Rio meeting will be a success for the benefit of the
 international debate on Internet governance. Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you very much.  May I just add one quick word to this.
  I began my international career, if you like, in Rio, where I was a deputy
 Secretary-General of the earth summit in 1992.  So I'm particularly happy to
 come back to Rio for this particular meeting. Before we begin, I thought I
 would turn to Markus Kummer, who can perhaps walk us through the sort of
 outline of the agenda that I presented, and perhaps also any further remarks
 that he has to guide us in our discussion. Markus.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you, chairman. Mainly, a few comments on the
 documentation. We had promised a revised version of the program paper on our
 Web site, but we only received very few contributions on that, two of them of a
 substantive nature.  So we thought there was not much point in revising it, but
 we will be able to discuss the program paper at the Advisory Group meeting
 tomorrow and on Wednesday. One contributions actually made a plea for
 reinstalling the speed dialogue which we had discussed in the May meetings, and
 at that time, it had not found the support of participants. So that is for the
 program paper. The other paper is the synthesis paper we had also promised. 
 You will recall that we had issued a synthesis paper of all the contributions
 received last year prior to the Athens meeting.  It was translated into all six
 U.N. languages. There again, we depend very much on the availability of
 translators within UNOG.  And it's not always that we receive the services for
 free.  Sometimes we actually have to pay for it.  Last time, we had to pay for
 the interpreters.  Last year we had to pay for the translation.  But the
 payment is only one issue.  The other issue is the sheer availability.  And
 this fall, it seems it's very difficult to get translators because they are
 very busy.  And that's why we -- somehow the deadline got postponed a bit. 
 We're still negotiating and we're not sure whether we will get translators to
 translate the document into all languages.  But we thought we would make
 available what we have.  And we have a draft working paper which is available
 at the back of this room.  And we can revise it.  And we thought we would
 revise it in light of these cautions today.  And we can also include
 contributions that come in at a later stage.  But it will depend, ultimately,
 on the fact whether or not we will get translators. If we make the document
 available in English only, then we can do that shortly before the Rio meeting. 
 If we have to go to translation, then the final cutoff date would be 17th of
 September. But your comments would also be welcome in this regard of what your
 preference would be, a later paper which would reflect more input, or an
 earlier paper which would be what is available at the back of the room,
 enriched by the discussion we're going to have today. These were all my
 comments.  And I think we will come back to the more technical details when we
 discuss the schedule and so on.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  May I now invite your participation in the overall review of
 what we did in Athens and what you would expect, without getting into the
 details about dynamic coalitions or the structuring of the Rio meeting or
 logistical issues, but the broader questions that you may have in your mind.
 The floor is open. Brazil.  Alejandro.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Co-chairman.  And please allow me to speak now on
 behalf of the delegations of Brazil and Argentina. The delegations of Argentina
 and Brazil are fully committed with the building of a people-centered,
 development-oriented and inclusive information society as envisaged by the
 World Summit of the Information Society and in conformity with the United
 Nations millennium declaration.  In this regard, our governments are convinced
 that the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum, along with all other
 initiatives mandated by the WSIS outcomes, represents a major step towards the
 construction of a multilateral, democratic, and transparent global Internet
 governance model.  While we recognize that, owing to its multistakeholder
 composition and innovative approach, the convening of the IGF poses unexpected
 challenges before us, we are well aware that Tunis Agenda paragraphs 72 to 78
 define the role and responsibilities of the IGF regarding participation, scope,
 thematic agenda, internal organization, and possible results.  Given these
 challenges, our delegations support the inclusion of a main session dedicated
 to the future of the IGF as an opportunity for the addressing of these
 fundamental issues in a constructive manner, with a view to the full
 implementation of the IGF mandate.  Both governments are confident that the IGF
 will be able to deliver on its mandate during the next four meetings already
 programmed, as expected by the international community.  In this regard, I
 would like to say a few words about the major tasks ahead. The figures
 reflecting the attendance to IGF's first edition in Athens, 2006, show that the
 participation of developing countries was low.  Notwithstanding, Tunis Agenda
 paragraph 78 provides for balanced geographic representation in the convening
 of the IGF.  In a multistakeholder and open forum, the accomplishment of this
 provision requires that specific measures be taken in order to ensure the
 adequate representation of developed and developing countries' views. We
 consider that balanced geographical representation is necessarily applicable
 not only to government representation, but also to other stakeholders.  In our
 view, balanced representation is an essential requisite for the legitimacy of
 the IGF possible results, as defined by the IGF mandate. This same balance
 should be observed with respect to the composition of the panels of IGF main
 sessions in Rio de Janeiro.  In this sense, it would be recommended that each
 stakeholder group appointed by consensus a representative with internationally
 recognized capacity to participate as panelist in each main session.  The
 secretariat could facilitate, through the IGF Web site, the receiving and
 processing of such suggestions. Similar principles could also serve as guidance
 to the United Nations Secretary-General in the convening of the
 multistakeholder bureau described in Tunis Agenda paragraph 78(b).  Taking the
 evolving nature of the IGF into account, and in view of the wide range of
 issues that need to be addressed, our delegations believe that the experience
 accumulated since the first IGF allows us to envisage the establishment of such
 a structure as a goal for the third IGF in India.  At the Rio meeting, in the
 absence of a bureau, the Advisory Group is expected to help the chairman to
 conduct business during the meetings.  The Advisory Group provides also a
 privileged locus to consider the creation of such formal structure. In Athens
 in 2006, the IGF proved to be a fruitful space for multistakeholder high-level
 dialogue on openness, access, security, and diversity aspects of Internet
 governance.  In Rio, the thematic scope will be widened so as to encompass
 issues related to the management of Internet critical resources, as provided by
 Tunis Agenda paragraph 72(j).  Our governments hope that, in the next three
 planned editions, the IGF can evolve into a results-oriented body so as to
 provide the international community with substantive recommendations on its
 findings and on the future of Internet governance as a whole. Thank you, sir.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have Alejandro Pisanty and then Portugal.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Chair, I will postpone my participation.  Is the
 microphone on? I will postpone my participation.  I was going to suggest that I
 would make a 50 Swiss Franc donation for personal names for the nongovernmental
 stakeholders, but I see that your habitual ability to foresee and forestall
 problems has made this donation unnecessary. We are late but still equal.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Alejandro, I am happy to accept the 50 Francs [ Laughter ]

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Portugal.

 >>EUROPEAN UNION:  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of the European Union.
  The European Union welcomes the renewal of the mandate of the IGF Advisory
 Group and congratulates you for your renomination as the chairperson. We would
 also like to welcome the Advisory Group new members, and in particular the
 representative of the host country, Mr. Hadil da Rocha Vianna. The European
 Union is confident that these broad based consultations will contribute to
 another successful forum. The European Union commends the Secretariat for
 having continued relevant preparations, in particular regarding the workshops.
 I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the government of Brazil
 for hosting the meeting and for having provided online information in a timely
 manner. We are confident that by all of us concentrating and working together
 for the same goal, we are able to make the Rio de Janeiro IGF meeting as
 successful as the Athens meeting was last year. Our consultations are an
 important step in the preparation towards the upcoming IGF. For the European
 Union, it remains a priority to see the IGF continued as a forum for
 multi-stakeholder policy dialogue as foreseen in the Tunis Agenda. The meeting
 in Athens fully met these conditions, and the European Union is convinced that
 the best recipe for success is to continue the forum along the same principles;
 namely, by promoting the interactive exchange of ideas among all stakeholders
 on an equal footing. At the same time we welcome that the forum will integrate
 new meeting formats such as those that support dynamic coalitions that emerged
 from the previous forum. In this context, I understand that our Italian
 colleague will make some remarks on Italian initiative on Internet rights. We
 also welcome that the IGF will build on the four main themes of the inaugural
 meeting:  Access, diversity, openness and security, and we look forward to an
 informative and fruitful exchange on the theme of critical internet resources.
 Learning about each other's concerns can certainly help moving towards
 identifying solutions for the issues currently at hand. The IGF provides a
 platform for representatives of different parts of the world and different
 stakeholders to gather and discuss in an open, informal setting, without the
 pressure resulting from having to achieve negotiated outcomes, thus offering
 exactly the right venue and setting for increasing global understanding and
 cooperation. Due to the Athens experience, and thanks to the commitment shown
 by you, Mr. Desai, and by the host country, the European Union is confident
 that the IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro will continue the rich multi-stakeholder
 dialogue on the various aspects of Internet governance. The European Union is
 fully committed to contribute to the success of the IGF in Rio. Thank you, Mr.
 Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I go to Italy.

 >>ITALY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Italy, of course, fully supports the
 position just expressed by Portugal on behalf of the European Union. As
 anticipated during our last meeting, my delegation is glad to confirm that
 Italian governments in the framework of the Internet Governance Forum process
 and in cooperation with the U.N. and with the IGF Secretariat has organized a
 dialogue forum on Internet rights that will be held in Rome on 27 September
 2007. The forum represents a follow-up to the international debate and the
 specific workshop on Internet Bill of Rights organized by Italy at the first
 Internet Governance Forum October 2007 in Athens. And is intended as an
 important contribution to the next IGF of Rio de Janeiro. The government of
 Italy has invited all stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil society,
 academic and technical communities, and international organizations, to attend
 the meeting.  And we are now pleased to inform you that many relevant speakers
 have already confirmed their participation. To register for the event and to
 contribute to the public debate on these issues, an Internet site has been
 activated at the following address: www.DFIRItaly2007.gov.it, on which a
 dedicated online forum is also available to facilitate the international
 multi-stakeholder discussion and the opportunity of defined shared rights which
 guarantee the open and multilateral character of the Internet. On the Web site,
 interested participants can find an updated agenda with a complete list of
 speakers and an (inaudible) on the issues that will be dealt with during the
 forum and practical information on how to register for the event and join the
 online discussion.  All these information are also on the table at the back of
 this room. We look forward to working in Rome with delegations from your
 countries.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have India and then Marilyn Cade on behalf of the ITA.
 Mike, mike.

 >>INDIA:  Thank you, Chairman.  On behalf of the government of India, I would
 like to thank Mr. Hadil da Rocha Vianna, Brazil, and Mr. Markus Kummer for
 convening the present consultations and making all efforts to make Rio a
 success.  We are pleased to provide all the possible support and cooperation in
 this effort.  In this connection, while moving forward, my submission would be
 to look at the IGF in the larger perspective.  It is imperative that we keep
 reassessing the direction that we are moving in.  There should be clearly
 defined long-term goals and short-term goals within the Tunis framework.  Our
 perspective should be proactive, futuristic, not to be confined to Rio IGF. 
 With the upcoming IGF events in India in 2008, thereafter in Egypt in 2009, and
 subsequently in yet another country in 2010, this is the time to formulate the
 strategies for achieving our goals.  What are we going to achieve in Rio and
 thereafter?  We need to crystallize our expectations. There are issues.  As the
 technology is moving fast and new applications are evolving in the Internet
 space, we are having to constantly adjust to the public policy domain.  How do
 we do the benchmarking of the issues and parameters from one IGF to another. 
 Is there any minimum set of recommendations and best practices which need to be
 applied to all?  Once we have addressed these and other similar concerns, we
 can move onto the next stage. There are issues of access, diversity, security,
 openness, critical internet resources, which need to be discussed so that it is
 clearly understood how these issues get interpreted differently in different
 context. Country-specific case studies, technical economic models and other
 similar exercises would go a long way in developing and understanding of these
 issues in proper depth. The varied and complex ecosystem of Internet space
 needs to be appreciated, and we need to acknowledge that the strategies need to
 be multifaceted.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you. I have Marilyn Cade from WITSA.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chairman Desai.  My comments are offered on behalf
 of the Information Technology Association of America and the larger
 organization, WITSA, that represents close to 70 associations around the world
 with more than 65% of our membership from developing countries. We have been
 longstanding participants and attendees throughout the WSIS process, and in the
 previous consultations, and we welcome this opportunity to participate and to
 engage and further the dialogue about the upcoming program. We thank Chairman
 Desai and the Secretariat, Markus Kummer and his staff, for the work that they
 have done to date to ensure that all can comment and contribute productively
 and pragmatically to the development of a program. We also thank the government
 of Brazil for their willingness to host the 2007 IGF and to welcome all
 interested stakeholders to Rio, as we understand the significant commitment of
 resources required to host such a meeting. And we welcome Minister Vianna as co
 chair and as representative of our host in Rio IGF. We are strong supporters of
 the IGF as a unique forum.  We believe that by fostering and enhancing and
 examining issues in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance issues, in a
 multi-stakeholder, with all parties on an equal footing, that we will be able
 to enhance the security, operation, access, stability, openness, and diversity
 of this thing we all call the Internet. The Internet will benefit from this
 dialogue that we are trying to have, and we think the value of the IGF is, in
 fact, it's open and informative nature which allows a variety of views to be
 expressed and the full range of experience and expertise to be shared so that
 all continue to learn, not only about each other's perspectives but about the
 benefits and the technologies that the Internet utilizes and brings. Our first
 recommendation is that we all work together to ensure that the IGF remain
 consistent with its mandate for facilitating dialogue and understanding. We do
 not support engaging in negotiations of formal documents or outcomes.  But we
 do support continuing and deepening our work together in understanding the
 issues. We also wish to support the importance of the IGF's focus on engagement
 with developing countries, and seeking ways to encourage participants and
 support participants from those countries to participate both in the
 consultative process and in the annual forum. We believe that it is important
 to build on the four main themes, and we welcome the exchange of information
 and views on critical internet resources. Generally, we support the addition of
 other new forums, such as the open and best practice forums, as new sessions to
 the program for 2007.  And we recommend that before any new approaches be
 turned into a concrete addition, that we evaluate the effectiveness of those
 new forums in a follow-on session early in January, as we evaluate the outcomes
 and the achievements of IGF 2007. I will reserve my further comments for the
 areas in which they apply.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I don't have any more speakers on the list, which is
 understandable -- yeah, we do.  One more, and then Matthew.

 >>ETNO:  Thank you, chair.  Chairman, I should say.  And good morning,
 everyone. I speak on behalf of ETNO, which is the Association of the European
 Telecommunications Network Operators. ETNO consists of 41 operators from 34
 European countries. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Desai,
 for your reappointment as chair.  We look forward to contribute in the
 preparations under your chairmanship.  We would also like to welcome you, Mr.
 Vianna, as co-chair, representing the host country. We are certain your work,
 especially in the organizational and logistical issues will be most valuable.
 Also thanks to Mr. Kummer and the IGF Secretariat for the hard work so far.
 ETNO and its members are looking forward to the Rio IGF in which we will be
 actively engaged. We have submitted a written contribution on the draft program
 and schedule, which should be posted on the IGF site like all the other things,
 but until last night it was not and today we heard that it will not.  We hope
 that in the name of transparency, the problem will be fixed. In any case, there
 are some hard copies in the back of the room, and our contribution is posted in
 our Web site, which is www.ETNO.B, as in Belgium and not as in Brazil. We
 recognize that good progress regarding the preparation has been achieved thus
 far.  ETNO supports in general most of the modifications to the revised draft
 program regarding the format, although there is still room for some
 improvements.  As regards content, ETNO supports the four Athens themes and the
 two cross-cutting priorities as in the revised program. However, we note with
 concern the addition of critical internet resources as a fifth main theme, and
 we question the added value of a separate debate considering that there are no
 clear boundaries from the other main themes which also cover the issue of
 critical resources and have not been exploited enough yet nor is there point of
 entry nor a specific framework of discussion. Yet, ETNO respects the views of
 many other stakeholders who want the addition of critical internet resources
 and, in a good-will spirit, will participate in the debate. As business
 representatives we would like to stress that it is crucial not to challenge
 market-driven solutions or commercially negotiated agreements.  In the absence
 of critical internet resources definition, ETNO insists that in that session
 participants must have in advance a clear and common understanding which
 aspects of critical internet resources will then be discussed. By all means,
 the framework of the debate, of the debate should be clarified, bearing in mind
 that there will be no official outcomes, no re-opening of issues decided in
 WSIS, no duplication of efforts nor unjustified and obscure challenging of work
 of exist existing organizations. If the framework is clear and accepted by all,
 this session could act as a scouting one in terms of what the landscape is. 
 What has been done and by whom, aiming at a better understanding of critical
 internet resources, and boosting discussions on other relevant themes as in
 access and security. Moreover, ETNO proposes to discuss under that theme issues
 such as DNS security, IDNs, new gTLDs, IPv4 exhaustion. Regarding the emerging
 issues and the taking stock, if I may add, ETNO would appreciate further
 clarifications about these two sessions, especially whether the Athens approach
 will be kept, or if there will be another one.  In other words, if the emerging
 issues will be about how experts or youngsters see the future of Internet or it
 will be about what has emerged in the Rio IGF and should be taken on board the
 next IGF. ETNO can accept both approaches.  In any case, if the second one is
 chosen, then it makes sense to have the emerging issues session first and then
 the taking stock, which should consider emerging issues. Mr. Chairman, ETNO has
 remarks for other items of the agenda but for these you will allow us to come
 back when appropriate.  These remarks in any way are based on ETNO's belief
 that the multistakeholder balance achieved in Athens should be preserved, if
 not improved, and certainly not challenged. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I wanted to clarify that the contribution of ETNO will be
 posted on the Web site.  It may have been overlooked.  There may have been a
 slip some way, but I assure you it will be. Matthew Shears, followed by China.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, co-chairs.  Just a couple of quick thoughts about
 the learnings from Athens. One of the reasons why we enjoyed Athens so much,
 and it was deemed to be a success, was that we saw the multistakeholder model
 in action in an environment that provided for frank discussion of a range of
 important issues to the future of the Internet.  Athens was free of
 negotiation, arranged seating, and lengthy policy statements.  It was, as
 intended in the mandate, neutral, nonduplicative and nonbinding. In its
 novelty, it succeeded, more perhaps than many would have imagined.  What is
 clear is that the format of the event allowed for a dynamic and collaborative
 experience.  The discussion-among-equals approach made for a broader and more
 open exchange of views than would have been possible in a more traditional
 meeting setting. Within each of the four theme areas -- openness, diversity,
 security, and access -- many of the major issues facing developed and
 developing countries were addressed, both in the main sessions and in the
 workshops. The horizontal focus on capacity building and development was the
 glue that tied the sessions together, and we should not forget this, with many
 speakers raised the needs for skills development and supportive enabling
 environments. We also heard in Athens from those who are dealing with issues
 related to the four main themes at the local level.  What their concerns are,
 what has worked and what has not, how they have built communities and know how
 to address these concerns, and how they have leveraged the Internet for
 development. We must ensure that this useful and productive environment
 continues.  Steps that would take us away from this novel forum structure,
 steps that would seek to impose more structure on the IGF or the IGF Advisory
 Group would be contrary to the spirit of the IGF and would limit its value and
 potential to facilitate constructive change. The IGF is a new model, one that
 will grow in stature and deliver increasing value for so long as it encourages
 dialogue, best practices, dynamic collaboration, community building and
 experience sharing. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  China.

 >>CHINA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you Mr. Desai and Mr. Kummer
 and also the distinguished representative from Brazil for convening this very
 important round of open consultations. And this is the last round of open
 consultations before the convening of the real meeting.  And we believe that we
 should base our discussion here on the results of the previous rounds of
 discussions. And so we -- and we -- at this juncture we would also like to
 express our appreciation for the work of the Secretariat in the time between
 these two rounds of consultations. And we are quite satisfied with the paper
 prepared by the Secretariat.  In particular, concerning the substantive
 programs.  And it is our understanding that in the last round of consultations,
 we agreed upon the five basic themes, and we do not believe that we should
 re-open a discussion on whether one should be out or should be in. And I will
 not like to reiterate or to repeat how much importance the China attaches to
 the issue of critical internet resources.  And we only want to appeal to
 delegates here to -- not to re-open a discussion on that one.  In particular,
 in view of the -- in view of the fact that this is the last round of
 consultations. And another point I want to make is that although the IGF is
 called a forum, but we should try our best not to -- or to make it a little bit
 more than a talk shop. And so we hope that some concrete and practical results
 can be achieved from this meeting, from the IGF Rio meeting. And so we should
 design our method of work accordingly. So we would support the idea of having a
 sort of a final document to reflect the work of the Rio meeting. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  ICC.  Ayesha Hassan.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Chairman Desai.  I just wanted to briefly, on behalf of the
 International Chamber of Commerce and its initiative, Business Action to
 Support the Information Society, join others in congratulating you on your
 reappointment and also expressing our appreciation to the host country Brazil
 for all the work that they are doing to prepare this important event in Rio in
 November. We'd also like to express our appreciation for Mr. Vianna's comments
 about the importance they place on collaboration and cooperation with other
 stakeholders. That said, we'd also like to say that ICC/BASIS believes that the
 addition of a co-chair from the host country of Brazil should be considered an
 experiment.  And we believe that a link with the host country and the Chairman
 to provide logistical and organizational support will help in the planning for
 the IGF in Rio. We believe that the co-chair from Brazil can play a productive
 role in providing a link between the host country and the Advisory Group on
 these matters, and that there may be a logic in creating a co-chair with
 responsibility for logistical arrangements, which our Greek host performed so
 ably last year and helped to make the first IGF a real success. We do support
 the role of the Advisory Group that Mr. Desai, you, have provided in the past. 
 And we believe that you continue to be an important guide on the substantive
 issues as the U.N. secretary-general's special advisory for Internet
 governance. We would also like to just reiterate our support for Mr. Kummer and
 the IGF Secretariat, and all of the substantive support that he and his team
 and you, Mr. Desai, have provided as we prepare. With that, I just want to also
 take this opportunity to reply to a few comments that were made by others this
 morning. We realize that the novelty of a multistakeholder dialogue discussion
 forum is challenging for some, but we believe that it's very important to
 continue to focus on the multistakeholder on an equal footing principle that is
 the IGF in all of its aspects as we continue the organizational planning and
 discussions here today. With that, I thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Alejandro Pisanty.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Thank you, Chair.  After your kind offer to accept my 50
 Swiss Franc donation --

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  On behalf of the U.N.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  I absolutely understand that you wouldn't do anything but
 an institutional reaction. The -- several of the comments I would like to have
 made have already been made, for example, most recently by Ms. Hassan's on
 behalf of ICC/BASIS.  I have also expressed some of them, I have some concerns
 about the organization role, rules of operation, and so forth in a note that
 was distributed to the Advisory Group but was -- had also a number of
 participants outside the group copied, while we establish what will really be
 the application of Chatham House Rules and so forth.  I'm glad that people are
 telling us that despite their formalistic concerns, they are very open to
 dialogue in this multistakeholder environment. Those of us who have been
 participating in multistakeholder environments for years with equal footings of
 the government sometimes very unequal footing, as governments have been
 somewhat adverse to a few of the actions that were needed to build the Internet
 in many countries, we don't see so much of a challenge in listening to many
 different parties and to coming out from forums with what don't seem as
 concrete results because they are not uniform for everybody. I will only
 address now the point of concrete practical results. Knowing the weakness of
 analogies and metaphors, I will still make one. The Internet Governance Forum
 is first and foremost a learning experience for all participants.  As has been
 said from the WSIS process on, it's an occasion for learning from others'
 experience.  I completely agree with the ETNO view that this is not a forum to
 establish best practice, but to find out what other people have identified as
 lessons learned from their experience.  And we will each go back home with our
 lessons learned, with our understanding achieved, and with our views of what
 others are doing.  We will not necessarily go all back home with the same
 thesis paper, as we would not expect all students living at university to have
 written the same thesis. Nor will we expect all students to have achieved the
 same grade.  And in this case, each person that attends or each organization,
 corporation, or government that attends the Internet Governance Forum will go
 back home with the lessons learned and be subjected to the tests of reality in
 their own environment.  We expect already from WSIS and not only on the
 Internet governance front, that companies, governments, academics, NGOs, and so
 forth, will test themselves against reality and will be graded by their
 constituents.  And this is what I think will happen also in the field of
 Internet governance.  People will go back and will be achieving something or
 not with the lessons they have learned in the environment they will face.  And
 there will always be a social accountability for their learning.  And that
 won't be represented by any single paper.  That will be represented by action
 in the national and international arenas for the years to come.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Louis Pouzin from Eurolinc.

 >>EUROLINC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Louis Pouzin, from Eurolinc. 
 I am one of the founders of the Eurolinc Association. I wish to use this
 opportunity to announce the creation of a new working group in civil society. 
 This group is called Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks
 Governance.  So why create another working group on Internet governance?
 Indeed, there is already a work called Internet Governance Caucus. from our
 observations, there is a strong presence of the Internet community.  They have
 ties with some governments, with the business sector, with the NGOs, and also
 with the domain name milk cow.  Quite a few people in the civil society do not
 share these interests.  As a result, there is no majority for a consensus on
 the significant reforms of Internet governance. It appears that it would be
 better to draw clearer lines, let the Internet community lobby for its own
 turf, and have a civil society working group with a distinct agenda. What
 agenda? What it is, to identify and promote enablers of societal development,
 taking full account of existing diversities, for example, culture, language,
 geography, political systems, and so on. To adjust governance structures to
 people's needs, rather than the opposite.  In short, implement the Tunis
 Agenda. What structures do we propose? This working group is now created as of
 3rd September, 2007.  It is international.  Its chairman or coordinator,
 whatever term the group prefers, is rotated every six months.  The first one is
 myself, LOUIS Pouzin.  The group is multilingual, starting with English,
 French, Spanish, and other languages when it becomes practicable.  There shall
 be an ethics committee in charge of evaluating potential conflicts of interest.
  Additional mechanisms are needed, for example, for nominations, votes, events,
 and so on, and so on. They will be defined by the group. Participation is open
 to everyone abiding by the group rules and not involved with the Internet
 community. A discussion list is open.  Anyone may subscribe. The URL is
 gov@WSIS-GOV.ORG. People interested may join in now.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you.

 >>:It's not GLD.  GOV.  GOV@GOV.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Okay. Let me try and conclude this part of the open general
 discussion. If I may just draw a few bullet points from this. One, I think, is
 everybody has stressed the importance of the multistakeholder environment, an
 effective multistakeholder environment.  In some ways, this was the success of
 Athens. At the end of the Athens meeting, when I spoke with some of the people
 who came there, the basic message I got from them was that, look, as groups, we
 meet separately, the Internet community, governments, NGOs, and so on.  What
 was unique about the space in Athens was that we were meeting together.  And I
 got this basically from the Internet community people, who were, at the end of
 the meeting, did welcome that experience, because, in a way, it got them out of
 the relatively narrower -- well, the same groups that they would tend to meet
 in in their own meetings, into a much wider meeting where they were exposed to
 people in governments responsible for this policy, people in industry, people
 in other NGOs who were not part of the Internet community, and so on. So I
 would say this was, in some ways, the uniqueness. And I must say, there's a lot
 of interest in this, not just in this group which is involved in the Internet
 Governance Forum, but also lots of people outside who see in this a potential
 for a model for other areas of governance, a point which my co-chair referred
 to very clearly in his opening remarks. The second thing is that with perhaps
 some occasional reservation, by and large, people have accepted the structuring
 of the themes as have been put forward by the Secretary-General.  I would like
 to stress, it's already there.  This is not something that we are being asked
 to advise on.  People, of course, people will have questions on what we
 discuss.  And some of you have mentioned that aspect. In terms of the way in
 which the meeting is organized, I hope the next round of discussions will lead
 to more concrete suggestions.  But certainly the broad point about balance,
 geographical representation, which has been raised, is something which we need
 to note and ensure when we get into the Rio meeting. A basic theme that I have
 heard from several people here is for the need for us to have a certain vision
 on how the IGF will evolve, that the sense is that you can't just keep on
 repeating a dialogue forum year after year in the same format, the same themes,
 because it would then become somewhat tedious for everybody.  And this is a
 message that I clearly get from what several people have said.  We must have
 some conception of how this forum is going to develop. And as part of this, one
 of the issues, two issues have struck me, listening to you.  One is for a more
 active engagement of stakeholders in managing the process.  And two is for the
 process to be result-oriented.  How is a bold question in a process like this.
 Some aspects of this will perhaps come up a little in our discussion of the
 dynamic coalition.  But these are some of the broad lessons that I draw. My
 suggestion is that we close this general discussion and we move on to the
 specific themes.  And the first of these is the organization of the Rio
 meeting.  And at this point, I will hand over to my co-chair.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Well, thank you very much, co-chairman Desai. At the
 outset, I'd like to thank all the nice words that were addressed to me for my
 appointment as co-chair, as well as the words addressed to the Brazilian
 government as host of the second IGF. Well, as you can notice, our second item
 of the agenda refers to the schedule of the Rio de Janeiro meeting itself, much
 more practical issue to be dealt with. I think we should take into account that
 this is the last opportunity we have before Rio to come up with proposals,
 ideas, suggestions, comments, and opportunity to express concerns with the way
 the meetings in Rio are scheduled. I understand I resort to Mr. Markus Kummer
 that there is displayed in Internet a schedule, and it's updated.  And I think
 what you have to do now is to take a look at this schedule see what changes you
 think should be done. But before passing the floor on to you, I would like to
 ask Mr. Kummer to tell us what's the situation of the schedule and what are the
 possibilities of changing. Thank you.  Mr. Kummer, you have the floor.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will recall that we have
 posted on our Web site -- and it's still there -- a tentative schedule for the
 Rio de Janeiro meeting, which is by and large based on what we had in Athens.
 In Athens, we ended up, I think, with 36 workshops.  But there we had the
 perfect match between supply and demand.  We were able to accommodate each
 proponent of a workshop with the slots we had prepared. This will not be that
 easy anymore in Rio de Janeiro, as we have a demand overhand.  Yet, all in all,
 for the various types of meetings, we counted more than 120 requests for
 meeting rooms.  And that clearly cannot be accommodated in the draft schedule
 we had proposed and discussed, which was a comfortable schedule with the first
 meeting starting at 9:00, having a lunch break, and finishing at 6:00. Now, we
 have, I would say, three broad options.  One would be to stick to the original
 schedule and be very tough with all the people who want to stage a meeting and
 say, "Sorry, there is no space for you," which I personally think would be a
 bit hard when we have people who put a lot of effort and work into their
 proposal and we do have rooms in Rio to say, "No, we keep these rooms empty
 while we're having lunch." The second option will be to use all the rooms
 available and to squeeze in as many meetings as possible.  And then I think we
 might be able to accommodate all requests.  However, that would be at the cost
 also of some free space, as we are planning to have a meeting point for --
 where people can exhibit themselves.  Somebody called it a village square.  I
 think last year we call it a plaza, but plaza being a Spanish word, we think it
 would not be appropriate for Brazil. But -- so the middle way could be that we
 try to expand the schedule a little bit, that we start with slots early in the
 morning, maybe already at half past 8:00, that we have slots over lunchtime,
 which, by the way, proved very successful during the PrepCom, the WSIS PrepCom
 in Geneva.  We had many workshops at lunchtime, brown-bag lunch-type workshops
 where people went in with a sandwich and took part in a workshop.  And before
 they went back, then, to the negotiations.  And we could have a last slot also
 after 6:00.  And in that way, I think we could easily accommodate some 70, 75
 different type of meetings, which would be a very dense program, but which
 would allow for a quality control so that not absolutely everybody can reckon
 to have a meeting.  And that would be, in a way, sort of the middle way, which,
 to ask the secretariat, would seem the reasonable way forward, with also having
 some comfortable physical space for the meeting space. And there, to pick up on
 our correspondent who wanted to reintroduce the speed dialogue, we could, in
 one of these rooms also have a table for ad hoc sessions, very informal, where
 participants could sit down and discuss anything. Now, I would not assume that
 this large meeting will go into the details, but I think it would be helpful to
 get a little bit of feedback which of these three options would be the most
 welcome one, the very rigid option with not enough workshops or the very open
 option with meetings from midnight to midnight almost, where all the room is
 used, or a kind of middle option, where we expand on Athens and have roughly
 twice as many parallel events as in Athens, but at the same time, we would tell
 some people, "Sorry, no, your proposal does not fit into the program." Thank
 you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer. Well, I would like, then, to open
 the floor for comments on the three possibilities raised by Mr. Kummer. I
 recognize -- I don't know the name, sorry.  I still have to know you better. 
 But my colleagues will identify the speakers for me.

 >>:Marilyn Cade.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair. On behalf of ITAA and WITSA, I would like to
 offer a comment about the importance of balance and adhering to our commitment
 to maintaining multistakeholder participation in all of the events that are
 part of the IGF. I think that, of course, there are many interested parties who
 do wish to participate and offer their views at the IGF.  And that is, of
 course, both interesting.  But our view, from ITAA WITSA is that
 multistakeholder must be a baseline criteria.  It may not be feasible for each
 workshop to have all five of the categories represented, but our thought is
 that there must be a minimum of at least three. While it may be possible that
 best practice sessions are about a single country, for the rest of the
 workshops, the thematic sessions, the open sessions, of course, will be about a
 single international organization.  But other than that, we believe that there
 must also be geographic diversity. And I think that by establishing and
 adhering to those foundational criteria, that it will be possible to perhaps
 guide some of those parties who have put forward an interest in speaking but
 have not yet built the broad support and participation geographically and from
 other stakeholders that may encourage those parties to combine together and
 thus consolidate. So our suggestion at this point is, we do think that there
 needs to be this fundamental baseline criteria, multistakeholder, and
 geographic diversity.  We also think that there is significant value to
 enabling interaction outside of the formal workshops and main sessions, and
 that some time must be incorporated for that mingling and interaction.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Well, thank you very much for your comments, for sure very
 much valuable.  Your reference to the need to maintain a balanced
 representation is -- I consider, myself, very much important, as well as to
 maintain the multistakeholder format. Then I would like to offer the floor to
 ICC.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Chairman. I would like to support my colleague, Marilyn
 Cade's, input on behalf of ITAA/WITSA, and also build on that on behalf of the
 International Chamber of Commerce and its BASIS initiative. We still remain
 concerned about the number of ongoing events all at one time.  In general,
 ICC/BASIS believes that reducing the number of events going on at any one given
 time should be a priority as the schedule is revised, and we wouldn't support a
 sort of 24-hour schedule expanding as one of the options that was outlined. We
 note that there are 31 open workshops at this time and suggest that where
 appropriate, a few of them should be considered as the thematic workshops in
 order to reduce the overlap in the schedule. We would also suggest that there
 be no additional workshops, open workshops, added to the schedule. In addition
 to the 31 open workshops, we should all remember that there are also five main
 sessions.  There are going to be a dozen best practice forums, all of which are
 very important.  And an undefined number of open forums, as well as possible
 meetings and dynamic coalitions, not to mention the morning reporting sessions.
 This is a very full and complex schedule which really may be very difficult for
 some people to maximize the opportunities and choose where they should really
 be at any given moment. From the business community's perspective, here
 represented by ICC, it's going to be a challenging schedule for us to ensure
 that there are business experts and business participants in the room for each
 of these events in order to both take advantage of the opportunities and the
 learning opportunities, and also to share their expertise and experience.  And
 we imagine that this is a challenge that will be faced by many other
 stakeholders as well. For those of us who have been closely involved in the
 development of the schedule, it might not be that confusing.  But there are
 first-time participants who are taking a look at this schedule who find it very
 confusing and quite overwhelming about making choices for the schedule and
 where they should be. We also wanted to emphasize our members believe that
 informal discussions and the sharing of information and experience that will
 occur at this meeting and in the meeting place, in the hallways, are really an
 important part of the IGF that should not be ignored in the scheduling.  We'd
 encourage and look forward to receiving information about the meeting place and
 encourage the schedule for Rio to remain sensitive to the need for participants
 to have enough time to fully take advantage of what has been described as this
 opportunity to meet and interact and learn from and exchange with people that
 they may not have other opportunities to do that with. Thus, from our
 perspective, attention to not overburdening the program is essential, and we'd
 also like to strongly urge attention to be given to make sure that events have
 a solid audience, which several overlapping events will really, clearly, not
 achieve that objective. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, ICC, for your comments.  For sure we'll take
 note of them.  Very valuable for our planning. I'd like to give the floor now
 to the Council of Europe.

 >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And congratulations
 on your reappointment. I would like to start by welcoming Mr.  Hadil Da Rocha
 Vianna as co-chair of this meeting.  I'd also like to thank the IGF secretariat
 for its organization and preparation of this year's IGF so far, including the
 synthesis paper, which provides a clear and comprehensive overview of many
 concerns and issues regarding the governance of the Internet. The Council of
 Europe supports the draft program for the Rio meeting and welcomes the addition
 of the theme on critical Internet resources, which has important aspects
 touching upon international human rights law. Mr. Chairman, giving a voice to
 the Council of Europe in the IGF means, in effect, giving a voice to what we
 believe to be at the core of Internet governance, the need for a
 people-centered Internet which is safe, open, fair, and democratic. In this
 regard, Mr. Chairman, you may be aware that the Council of Europe has made a
 considerable contribution to strengthening the security of the Internet with
 regard, for example, to the Convention on Cybercrime, or the Convention on the
 Protection of Individuals and the Automatic Processing of Personal Data, and so
 on, more on which is to be found in our written submission to the IGF. Now, as
 an addition to this acquis, I am pleased to announce the adoption of a new
 international standard to strengthen the security of the Internet, with
 particular regard to children, the Convention on the Protection of Children
 Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, to be opened for signature in October of
 this year for all states, both European and non-European.  This convention
 inter alia requires states to criminalize conduct such as knowingly accessing
 child pornography on the Internet and the soliciting of children for sexual
 purposes, also known as grooming. Mr. Chairman, the security of the Internet
 and the protection of children to this end is a priority for the Council of
 Europe, and we want to make this a central focus of our open forum in Rio de
 Janeiro.  As part of the solutions to the issues that arise from the use and
 misuse of Internet, of particular concern to everyday users, the Council of
 Europe has also recently produced a practical information guide on
 pharmaceutical products and counterfeit medicines which shows how to
 distinguish doubtful from reliable medical information, and warning about risky
 behavior regarding the purchase of medicines through the Internet. We are also
 currently developing a new standard on public service value of the Internet,
 understood as people's significant reliance on the Internet as an essential
 tool for their everyday activities and the resulting legitimate expectation
 that Internet services are accessible, affordable, secure, reliable, and
 ongoing. Mr. Chairman, as we all become more and more dependent on the
 Internet, states and other stakeholders need to be alert to the reality of the
 challenges that our second lives are having on our lives and freedoms as the
 line between these overlapping multiple lives, offline and online become
 increasingly blurred.  The public service value of the Internet is a way
 forward for the IGF in developing the public policy of the Internet and is a
 developing acquis as the Council of Europe, which we plan to present and
 explain in Rio. Mr. Chairman, we are very proud to play a very active role in
 the upcoming IGF, in organizing, co-organizing, and participating in numerous
 workshops and other events in order to share expertise and present and explain
 our international standards as part of the mission to secure people's enjoyment
 of a maximum of rights and services, subject to a minimum of restrictions,
 while at the same time seeking to ensure the level of security that users are
 entitled to expect. Thank you for your attention.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, the Council of Europe. I would like to
 give the floor now to Mister -- I would like to ask Mr. Pisanty if he has
 called the floor -- I represent Mr. Peake and then ETNO.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I'm a researcher at a
 university research institute in Tokyo and a member of the Advisory Group and
 speaking as an individual. Looking through the schedule at the moment, I count
 there are 60 slots for various meetings, workshops and other meetings.  That's
 in addition to the main sessions.  And I do think that it would be good to
 accept as many other meetings as possible, lunchtime and others.  But at the
 moment, we are, I think, ten weeks away from Rio, and we do not have speakers
 arranged for the main sessions.  We don't have an idea of how the thematic
 sessions will build into and link into the main sessions.  And I think it would
 make sense to focus on getting the 60 slots we have at the moment right and
 getting the sessions organized and understanding how those thematic sessions,
 those thematic workshop sessions, will lead into the panels.  That should be
 our priority. And if we can, in addition, add people's sessions at lunch-time,
 then do so.  But, please, let's focus on getting Rio organized.  Because it
 really is ten weeks away, and there isn't a program in place. And this is
 important, because people won't plan their trips to Rio on an empty program.  I
 can't imagine people from the private sector being able to go to their bosses
 and asking for a plane ticket when there is an empty schedule.  And the same
 for governments, and the same very much for developing countries, and, of
 course, for civil society, which I'm a member of. So we really must focus on
 getting this schedule, well, together.  And it's not at the moment.  So let's
 focus on the 60 we have and the main sessions.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Peake.  Indeed, I totally agree with you,
 that our intervention must be very much focused on what's going to happen in
 Rio.  Actually, I need your help to know what's going to happen there. And I
 notice some difference of opinions, not very much different, but there are some
 emphasis on the need to accept the most -- the largest number of proposals,
 others that it should be more moderate. We totally depend on your opinion to
 organize the works there. I would like to give the floor to France with asking
 France to be very much practical in addressing these questions of -- of the
 work that's going to be done in Rio, the schedule of Rio. And, I'm sorry,
 before I give the floor to France, I recognize ETNO that has raised his flag
 before France.  ETNO, the same suggestion.  Thank you.

 >>ETNO:  Thank you, Chair. I could have spoken after France.  It's all right.
 Anyway, on behalf of ETNO, we support the views of ETA and WITSA as well as
 ICC, and of course we were very happy to hear Mr. Peake, because he expressed
 our concerns as well. So we would like to make the following remarks on the
 schedule, especially on the workshops and best practice forums.  There are a
 large number of points which raised many concerns. As there will be five main
 themes in the Rio IGF, three thematic workshops per theme are no longer viable.
  And a new theme besides the four Athens themes should not be treated
 necessarily as the first four but according to its nature and maturity. 
 Therefore, ETNO suggested the critical internet resources theme is treated
 differently than the other four themes and that there are no thematic workshops
 on this fourth theme.  Of course it should be clear that open workshops can
 take place on critical internet resources. In general, when it comes to the 12
 thematic workshops, as they link to the main session, for us it is essential
 that the IGF secretariat, with the help of the Advisory Group, takes
 responsibility for their selection and has a last word on them. The organizers
 of the thematic workshops should be under the supervision of the IGF
 Secretariat.  As regards workshop reporting or results, ETNO suggests to keep
 the workshop template developed in Athens, who participated, what issues were
 discussed, what were the main points, which worked very well. And of course,
 the number of workshops needs to be limited. Regarding the best practice
 forums, indeed their number is above expectation.  It should clear that the IGF
 itself does not sponsor nor recommends any best practice. We strongly believe
 that the best practice forum should not go further than an exchange of ideas,
 but about the practice that has worked well or not well and why. ETNO stresses
 that best practice forum should be about lessons learned rather than about best
 practice and they should not promote the views of a sole stakeholder or the
 views of certain stakeholders of the same interest. In principle, there should
 be a straight distinction amongst the best practice forums, thematic workshops
 and main sessions. We believe that the number of best practice forums on
 certain chosen topics must be very limited.  Best practice forums must be
 chosen on the basis of taking stock from experience and must foster
 discussions. ETNO would appreciate further clarifications on the criterion
 selection process.  To conclude on this issue, we believe the number of
 workshops and forums must be limited.  This way participants, especially those
 from small delegations, will be able to attend the events they want and at the
 same time it would be easier to maintain a certain quality of multistakeholder
 balanced dialogue and efficiency of debate. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, ETNO, for your clear-cut remarks. I'd like to
 pass on the floor to France and then to Mr. Katoh, and I will be recognizing
 another flag later on. France, you have the floor.

 >>FRANCE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  A few concrete remarks, as you suggested. The
 first thing is that in as much as we would all like to have as many sessions
 and accommodate as many workshops as possible, it is obvious that one of the
 main advantages of the IGF is the intermingling and interaction that was
 mentioned both by Marilyn Cade and Ayesha Hassan before. So it's a delicate
 balance.  And we all know that it's very difficult to handle the two
 contradictory objectives. In addition, we all know that did he beginning of the
 morning, usually a lot of groups are meeting before the discussion of the day,
 either to prepare the workshop or to prepare their positions and what they are
 going to say. So in as much as I would like to support the notion of extending
 the whole schedule in the beginning and in the afternoon, it's true that it
 would probably prevent this kind of an interaction. Another element is that, if
 I understood well the number of workshops or proposals and time slots that have
 been requested of 120, if I understand Markus correctly, it means all types of
 events, including the sessions on best practices and so on. What I was
 wondering is whether, among the workshops that have not been accepted -- I
 mean, beyond the 31 -- whether some of the proponents were actually proposing
 workshops mostly to raise awareness on a given issue. If that is the case,
 maybe they do not need or they do not want as long a session as other workshops
 who really want to discuss in depth issues that have already been raised
 before.  And in that respect, maybe there's a possibility to introduce
 something that would be an equivalent of a posit session whereby in the period
 of two hours, slots of five minutes for a certain number, or ten minutes,
 whatever, for different actors who want to raise awareness on a specific thing
 or a specific activity that will take place during the year, would be allowed
 to do so. That maybe could take some of the subjects and some of the workshop
 proponents out of the whole list. Another element is the question of the
 reporting templates or the different workshops.  I think it is a very good
 element that was used in Athens.  And maybe there could be some minor
 refinement to the format. The reason why I raised this is, first of all, it's a
 good discipline for all workshop organizers.  It allows a better description of
 who are the promoters of these workshops.  And it also provides some short
 documents that could be used in the future for the publication of the
 activities of the forum. Two last points. I agree that the question of the
 thematic workshops is a little bit too fuzzy at the moment.  It occupies 12
 slots.  And it is not really clearly defined. We believe that there is an
 interest in using some of those slots maybe for reporting back of the different
 open workshops, so that an in-depth discussion, but in a more compact manner,
 can be done to feed into the main sessions. We have 31 concrete workshops, 12
 slots for thematic ones.  And maybe this is the opportunity to converge
 progressively to the main sessions. And the last point is we understand fully
 the financial constraints that put a burden on the Secretariat regarding, in
 particular, the question of translation and so on.  It would surprise nobody
 that we believe that it's an important element that will have to be addressed.
 I must confess that in as much as I would like to say right now that we are
 able as France to put as much money as is needed for a contribution, I
 unfortunately didn't manage to do that so far, but it will be necessary to
 address this issue in the question of next year and the perspective of the
 forum, because the multilingual dimension of the forum is a very important
 element, both in the main event and in the sessions like this one.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, France, very much for your comments.  Especially
 those related to the need to avoid duplication of treatment of issues. That's
 something that seems quite logical, but practically, it's not that easy to
 address. And I really appreciate your comments on the template that a previous
 speaker had touched as well.  Something that I find very useful, and will be
 examining the possibility of maintaining the same practice in Rio. Before
 giving the floor to Mr. Katoh, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Kummer,
 some reference he would like to make with regard to France's statement.  Thank
 you.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Also some previous speakers
 referred to the distinction between what we had on our Web site, thematic and
 open workshops.  But this distinction was made well in advance, when we
 actually made a call for workshop proposals.  And then it was overtaken by
 events.  As it happened, we had many workshop proposal referring to the five
 main themes of the Rio meeting.  And then we had some proposals we classified
 under the heading development capacity building, which is the big, overarching,
 cross-cutting priority.  And the few others, which we put under "others,"
 because they did not feed into the other main themes, such as workshops on
 multistakeholder cooperation and so on. So the new schedule will reflect these
 new categories.  So in a way, we can forget about open workshops and thematic
 workshops, as they all have some kind of theme and some kind of heading.  And
 by scheduling, we will have to take that into account. Also, allow me, Mr.
 Chairman, just a quick reaction to the last comment on translation. This is not
 only a financial issue.  It's also a question of capacity of the U.N. and also
 of the freelance translators that are available here in this area.  And
 sometimes due to a heavy schedule, they are all taken up by working for
 meetings that are on the calendar of the United Nations. We are not.  So we
 always come last.  Even if you have the funds available for paying, it depends
 whether the services are actually available and whether we can hire the
 services with the quality control of the United Nations. That is always
 included when you actually get U.N. services, you get a U.N. quality control,
 which was the case last year, for instance, for the input document. So it's not
 just a question of funds.  It's also a question of availability of services.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer.  Now I would like to give the floor
 to Mr. Katoh, and then Mr. Francis Muguet.

 >>MASANOBU KATOH:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Masanobu Katoh
 with Fujitsu Limited.  Today I am representing the Nippon Keidanren, one of the
 major industry organization with more than 1600 corporate members in Japan.  I
 am serving as subcommittee chair of ICT related international issues at the
 Keidanren.  I am also deeply involved in the Global Information Infrastructure
 Commission, GIIC, a senior level private sector initiative to foster the
 deployment of ICT infrastructures all over the world. First of all, we highly
 appreciate all the efforts by the IGF Secretariat, especially Mr. Desai, Mr.
 Vianna, and Mr. Kummer, to organize the event. I would like to reiterate the
 importance of multistakeholder participation. You might recall that the private
 sector represented only 13% of the number of participants in Athens, with
 government accounting for 28% and the civil society 29%.  Considering the role
 that the private sector has played in the deployment of the Internet, we think
 this number is too small. We observed very few number of company CEOs in Athens
 while I saw several top leaders from other sectors.  To encourage greater
 private sector participation in process of the IGF, we need to attract the
 attention of CEOs to the Rio meeting. The Nippon Keidanren in collaboration
 GIIC, ICC/BASIS, ICANN, the Japanese government a civil society like GLOCOM
 held a Tokyo IGF event in May this year. We thank Markus Kummer again for his
 excellent keynote address there. In this event, the Chairman of Toyota motors
 and also the chairman of Fujitsu limited attended the meeting, and emphasized
 the importance of active private sector involvement in the IGF process.  This
 event raised the awareness and positively changed the mindset of Japanese
 industry. As a result, Nippon Keidanren will send a delegation to the Rio
 meeting and will be part as joint organizers of two thematic workshops on
 access and security. Asia accounted for only 11% of all the participants at the
 IGF Athens.  The Nippon Keidanren would like to pursue more promotional
 activities in the Asia region where the IGF 2008 will be held in collaboration
 with other groups, such as GIIC. The Nippon Keidanren submitted written
 comments to the IGF on August 10th.  I would like to briefly introduce a few
 issues to be discussed in Rio. Nippon Keidanren acknowledges access as one of
 the primary issues especially for developing economies. Here we would like to
 emphasize the importance of education as well as infrastructure development
 itself.  We believe developed countries should contribute more in times of in
 times of human resource by providing materials, technical know-how and so on.
 Security is one of the major concerns of ours, too. Raising user awareness
 about Internet security is very critical. The Nippon Keidanren believes that
 national or reasonable efforts cannot respond to all the problems effectively,
 because the Internet goes beyond national boundaries. Therefore, it is very
 important to share know-how and the best practices on a global basis. From this
 point, we believe Computer Security Incident Resource Teams, CSIRT, is an
 effective framework for providing rapid notification of security incidents and
 for adopting measures against current and future threat. Education on security
 is a key for developing economies in order to build secured infrastructures for
 people to access the Internet. In this respect, developed countries should
 consider providing assistance to promote access and security in parallel. Thank
 you very much, Mr. Chairman.  We all look forward to seeing you in Rio.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Katoh. I would like to offer the floor to
 Mr. Muguet.

 >>FRANCIS MUGUET:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I am Francis Muguet from ENSTA, a
 French educational and research institution, and the Chairman of civil society
 working group on scientific information, co-chair of the group on patent and
 copyright, member of the Civil Society Bureau, member of Eurolinc and the most
 important group WSIS dash gov, and speaking in my personal capacity. First, I
 would like to welcome the appointment of Brazil as co-chair of this meeting of
 the Advisory Group. The main point of my contribution relate to the emerging
 issues session, but before I would like to stress the following procedural
 point. As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked to enhance the
 transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow of
 information between its member and the various interest groups.  A continuous
 flow implies transparencies of ongoing groups meetings and, therefore, on the
 basis of the decision of the secretary-general, we kindly request from the
 co-chair that all (inaudible) meetings should be open to observers. Chairman
 Desai spoke at length about good faith.  Good faith implies that all
 stakeholders accept the full extent of the IGF mandate and do not try to
 indulge into renegotiation.  The question is not if, but how.  Eurolinc already
 has proposed a four-continent multistakeholder bureau, a supported view
 reiterated by Brazil, of a multistakeholder bureau which is required to better
 solve procedural issue. The emerging association is one of the most important
 session of the IGF and more time should be allocated to this session, because
 the IGF is mandated to make recommendation on issues that are emerging for the
 forum. As a constructive procedural proposal, we propose as first step that
 thematic workshop and (inaudible) session propose a limited number of draft
 recommendation.  Then, only a full and well prepared recommendation should be
 submitted to the emerging issues plenary session. Please, it is kindly request
 from all stakeholders of good faith not to make answer before question because
 there are procedural concern of membership.  It is a procedural issue that may
 be overcome with imagination and good will.  And from learning from the
 experience of multistakeholder international organization such as ISO.  (Saying
 name) to the attention to all stakeholders, the ISO international workshop
 agreement for a careful examination for a basis for IGF innovative procedure.
 Lastly, and this is a separate issue, on the (inaudible) of linguistic
 diversity during the session and at the IGF, it is suggested to rely on a
 multistakeholder Secretariat with the help of volunteer translators and
 consultants. In this regard, we kindly request from the Secretariat to disclose
 the list of existing consultant to the Secretariat. Thank you for your
 attention.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr.  Muguet for your suggestions.  We will be
 taking note. I wonder if there are any other flags raised.  I'm sorry, Brazil. 
 I didn't see Brazil. Brazil has the floor.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just would like to build upon the
 comments that were made in previous interventions regarding the possibility of
 using a template as a reference of what will be discussed in each workshop. And
 I would like to support this idea. And bear in mind that we are learning
 lessons from Athens and we are in an incremental five-year process. I believe
 it is also important to note that in the case of the first IGF in Athens, the
 workshops were not direct -- were not selected based on their relevance to the
 forum and issues that were in the thematic agenda, but it was, rather, a free
 opportunity for all those who wanted to prepare workshops and not necessarily
 linked to the four themes. And now, we believe that the difference in Rio will
 be that workshops are being selected in light of their relevance to the five
 thematic clusters that we will have. And in this case, it will be -- the
 workshops will be much more linked to the main sessions discussions that we
 will have in Rio. In this sense, it seems to us that it is a good idea to ask
 that each workshop prepares a brief summary based on a template to be
 previously distributed.  Such template might have some basic information about
 the title, the description of the theme, brief reference to the ideas
 presented, including the diversity of opinions that were presented at each
 workshop, suggestions for possible actions by various stakeholders, and
 possible conclusions in all recommendations, as well as a list of participants.
 I think we should also consider the possibility of putting together all those
 templates as an annex to a final chairman's summary to be presented at the last
 -- at the closing session of the IGF in Rio. That could constitute a good
 reference, future reference for what was discuss -- what will be discussed in
 Rio, and could be regarded, perhaps, as a Rio message for future events. Well,
 if we are able to do that, we are also paying attention to the fact that we are
 progressing towards the full implementation of the IGF mandate according to the
 Tunis Agenda, with a view of the five years' term, five years term of the IGF
 as mandated by Tunis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Brazil. Thank you for raising this
 idea of having an eventual chairman's summary, a summary on the responsibility
 of IGF chairman.  And the idea of having as annexes templates regarding the
 other events.  This is a useful idea that for sure the Advisory Group will be
 considering. And I'd like now to give the floor to Mr. Malcolm Hutty of LINX,
 and then I would like to recognize Mr. Pisanty's flag. You have the floor, Mr.
 Hutty.

 >>MALCOLM HUTTY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would like to say few words, if I
 might, on the subject of participation in the forum as a whole and in the
 workshops in particular as we are on the subject of the workshops. Nobody yet
 has mentioned the subject of remote participation so I hope it is not out of
 order to be raising it now but I think it is important to the ongoing success
 of the workshops, that we build upon this. In his closing remarks for the last
 session, Mr. Desai mentioned that the risk that may be this whole event, if it
 does not evolve could become, I think in his words, tedious, now my
 recollection from Athens is that it was flowing very far from tedious.  That it
 was a very, very worthwhile exercise where people came together and exchanged
 information and knowledge in a way that had never been such a great opportunity
 to do so before. But many of those workshops were, indeed, comprised of quite
 small rooms of people.  And small rooms of people, for the first time, is a
 useful starting point.  But I think it can be built upon. If over the course of
 successive years we have nothing more than the same small rooms full of the
 same people, then I think there is, indeed, a risk that Mr. Desai's rather
 dismal prediction could come true. Of course that is to be avoided if it is at
 all possible. So how might we evolve the format of the workshops over the
 course of time so as to avoid that outcome, which I think, worse than tedious,
 it poses a risk of degenerating, of deteriorating into a process of
 disagreement and argument and political grandstanding which very much has been
 what the IGF has not been about. And in order to avoid that, and building on
 the principles of multistakeholder, I think remote participation is extremely
 important. But if we're to have that remote participation, we need the
 logistics and infrastructures to support it. At the last meeting, I'd like to
 pay tribute to the efforts of the organizers for what they did to start off
 that process.  There was wireless network access, although it was a little
 flaky, there was wireless network access throughout the facility.  And the main
 conference was Webcast.  That is a good starting point. But having paid tribute
 to that, I think we can all recognize that the facilities there were fledgling.
 If we can build upon that for future years, and particularly in Rio, by
 providing far better infrastructure to support both the communications within
 the forum, and within the workshops, and to provide better facilities for the
 workshop organizers to have Web-based discussion forum and document
 repositories online to support remote participation and advance organization,
 and ideally -- and I say this knowing the deep practical difficulties that this
 will give you, Mr. Chair -- ideally, high-quality, high-bandwidth webcasting of
 all workshops would be an ideal thing to aim for. Now, we have the opportunity
 now of a co-chair from the host country who can have particular reference to
 these kinds of logistical issues.  So, Mr. Co-chair, I would urge you to
 investigate what may be done in that area, because I think that if you could
 provide a step change in the level of remote participation, then your
 co-chairship would be judged a remarkably successful experiment.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Hutty.  One more responsibility, anyway. 
 But thank you so much for your suggestion, being serious, it's something that
 we will check back home, what possibilities of resorting to remote
 participation and simulating webcasting. Now I would like to give the floor to
 Mr. Pisanty.  And I don't recognize any other flag.  So I intend to close the
 list after Mr. Pisanty. You have the floor, Mr. Pisanty.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Thank you, Mr. Vianna.  I notice I have made an omission
 of -- publicly, as also I have already done in the Advisory Group mailing list,
 to congratulate you for taking up this responsibility. I see that others are
 taking up the idea of loading you with additional aspects of responsibilities,
 like making everything webcast and available internationally and so forth.  And
 I -- having been to technical meetings that have been organized in Brazil by
 the Internet steering committee, I am sure that there is the capacity out
 there, and I only hope that the demands don't overwhelm the organizers. Coming
 to the point of the summary papers and the results papers, again, I would -- I
 find it necessary to reiterate what -- and bring together several different
 strands of thought that have already been expressed along the several years
 that have preceded this meeting. The summary papers that can be produced after
 three hours of a workshop or after 60 or 120 events are bound to have numerous
 imperfections that make it very difficult for them to carry the weight of
 anything other than the narration of the events that have taken place. If they
 have to carry -- if anyone aspires for summaries of a single workshop or the
 whole 120, 60, 30, 15 sessions, there will necessarily be parties that feel
 that their points of view are not adequately weighted, have not been properly
 translated into one or another official U.N. language, and so forth.  We know
 this process very well from all the technical and nontechnical bodies in which
 you have taken part.  As I look around, I see even the youngest members of this
 -- the youngest people present in this room, no one has less than ten years,
 and some people have 35 years of experience in decision-making bodies, many of
 them in a multilanguage environment. I think that we will have to choose, and
 this will be a very hard choice. How do we want to spend and how do we want to
 invite people to spend their time in Rio and in the further sessions of the
 Internet Governance Forum?  Do we want to spend the time in dialogue, formal
 and informal, informal sessions, and in coffee shops?  Local or international? 
 Across time zones?  Across cultures?  Across languages?  Do we want this
 dialogue and this time spent, this energy and intellectual investment, to be
 made in learning, in transferring knowledge, in let me call this massaging
 ideas, in the collective construction of knowledge that is so much proper of
 the modern information society environment?  Or do we want to spend it
 hammering text, making sure every paragraph represents in a balanced way all
 the points of view and still means something, it doesn't only report in the end
 that there were frank and open discussions, which people will understand were
 close to coming to blows, or even more frank and open discussions, which were
 not close to coming to blows?  Do we want to really have people spend their
 time that way?  Do we want in the Rio forum and later on to have everybody
 arguing before a screen like this whether a comma, a colon, or a semicolon is
 indicated in order to provide the balanced views of all the participants?  Or
 even worse, do we want to convene a small committee whose representativeness
 will always be questioned to spend the night, as the saying goes, in a
 smoke-filled room, hammering out the text, only to be disavowed by a third of
 the participants and cause the disrecognition of the forum later on?  Do we
 want to risk the credibility of the Internet Governance Forum, its acceptance
 in the broad community, by having people tell themselves, "I won't go next
 year.  I will step -- I won't wait to be there to step out.  I just won't step
 in, because I fear that my points of view will be represented in such a way
 that it will be detrimental to the very growth of the information society"? I
 think we should not stick such a magical value to the summary document.  They
 are an unachievable task and they are not only a waste, but actually a terrible
 misuse of the time and intellectual energy and emotional energy that will be
 convened in Rio.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Pisanty, for your very reasonable remarks.
 What I could tell from the chair is that I understood from the statement of the
 Brazilian delegation that there will be a suggestion of a summary of the
 chairperson of the whole IGF meeting on this person's own responsibility.  So I
 understood the Brazilian statement is that the element, negotiation of text,
 would not be a blunt to limiting Rio.  And with regard to templates, then I
 would need some more information if templates would require negotiations. I
 totally agree with you, I don't see the Rio meeting as a moment for
 negotiating, as we usually do within the U.N. system or in other international
 organizations.  I totally agree with you. Our nature, the nature of IGF,
 multistakeholder, is a nature that will, at this stage, at least, would not
 welcome this type of negotiation. But, anyway, these are things that we should
 keep talking.  And I thank you very much.  Your point of view is important to
 counterbalance other ideas that were put on the table. And I would like to give
 the floor to Mrs. Emily Taylor.  You have the floor, madam.

 >>EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the floor. And congratulations to
 Mr. Desai on renewal of your mandate. Thank you to the secretariat for your
 continued excellent work against the backdrop of tight constraint on resources.
 Welcome, Mr. Co-chair.  And I look forward to working with you, as a member of
 the Advisory Group, and to echo the comments of ICC/BASIS, look forward to the
 logistical link that you will provide with the host country. Like Katoh-San, we
 were struck that, given the -- given the contribution the private sector has
 made to the development of the Internet, that there was rather a low turnout of
 only 13% of participants in Athens.  And so reflecting on that, we started to
 make steps within the U.K. to create a national process which would engage with
 business in the U.K., and other stakeholders as well. And I just wanted to
 update you on some of the things that we are doing, with the hope that we can
 bring those experiences to the Rio meeting, with the hope of giving ideas on
 how this process can evolve. We have formulated a best practice challenge aimed
 at encouraging business and others to give examples of what works, perhaps
 challenges that have been faced, and as part of that, have been engaging with
 parliamentarians at the national level and are hoping to support and encourage
 a cross-party delegation of MPs to go to the Rio meeting. On the October the
 11th, we will be holding a meeting in London to try and formulate messages that
 we might bring to the Rio meeting on behalf of the U.K., a multistakeholder
 meeting it will be. So there was one question posed by Mr. Kummer that I wanted
 to respond to, and that is how to manage the vast number of workshop proposals
 within limited space and time. The analogy that struck me was with the
 Edinburgh International Arts Festival, which is a completely chaotic, bottom-up
 type of approach, which shouldn't work, but sometimes -- somehow does.  And
 that is, I think that the choice that the secretariat and all of us face is
 whether to go for a controlling, top-down approach, quality control, how do we
 get the right focus.  And, of course, we want focus.  But equally, I think that
 there is a lot to learn from these sort of chaotic events where, somehow,
 participants vote with their feet and choose to participate in issues and
 events that are of interest to them. And perhaps the one thing that we should
 learn is that what they need in order to make informed decisions about what
 they're going to do is timely information about what is happening. And that
 leads me to a second idea, which is a question, really, Mr. Co-chair, for you. 
 Please, could you update us on what's happening with the exhibition space which
 has been suggested as part of the early papers?  Because this, again, may
 provide an environment, echoing the thoughts of France here, in which people
 can participate perhaps by way of poster exhibitions and so forth, which could
 perhaps reduce the strain on workshop rooms. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Miss Taylor.  Thank you for your messages. 
 Thank you for your ideas. And since there are no other flags raised, I would
 like to pass on the floor to Mr. Kummer for some comments and some answers. I
 think, Miss Taylor, Mr. Kummer can reply to your last question.  And then will
 make some final remarks. Mr. Kummer, you can have the floor.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe a brief word to begin with
 on the template and the reporting. We tried that in Athens.  As you will
 recall, we handed out this template.  But for some reason, it didn't work.  The
 organizers just didn't fill in the template.  They did not report back.  And we
 -- after the event, we chased some of them, and we got some reports and posted
 them, but not of all of the events.  So I think this is one of the lessons
 learned.  There was not a great enthusiasm to fill in the form.  If we want to
 do that, we need to have some enforcement of the system.  And there may be the
 Advisory Group members could be helpful that they would be the watchdogs and
 make sure that these forms are filled in.  But I think this is something we
 will have to discuss also tomorrow. The other question I very much like the
 analogy with -- and I suppose that's the Edinburgh fringe festival where
 everything happens in a chaotic way but still happen.  And I think the
 bottom-up would be a better approach when it comes to some Internet-related
 event. But I think we can accommodate with the given space we have and with the
 given space slots a significant number of events.  And we will prepare
 something we can present also, then, tomorrow, a possible schedule. The
 question I thought we were going to address this afternoon about the exhibition
 space, but I can already give an answer.  No, there will not be a commercial
 exhibition, because there was not enough response to that.  Our Brazilian host
 tried to get it together.  But they had to give it up.  Which means we will
 focus on the noncommercial exhibition space.  And we can also expand a little
 bit on that.  And this is one of the remarks I tried to make when I introduced
 this.  We can give a little bit more space to it and also have an extra room
 where we could have a table, as the delegate of France suggested, have poster
 sessions.  This was very much what we had in mind, that we could have ad hoc
 meetings, which would take the pressure a little bit for the more formal
 meetings and would be more convivial, more informal, where people would get
 together. But there, the architecture is not yet ready, and I think maybe we'll
 get more information on how this will look like in the presentation of the
 logistical arrangements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer. Well, -- one more request for the
 floor. Senor Echeberria.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Due to the time constraint, I will not speak now.  But I
 think I would like probably in the afternoon to come back to the issue of the
 reports and the templates.  So just to say that.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you.  Thank you for your comment. Well, I would like
 to thank you very much for all the contributions.  Really, I find them very
 useful.  We have such important issues.  I heard reference to the need to
 maintain the multistakeholder format, the need for maintaining balanced
 representation, the challenge of maintaining representation, accommodating
 requests for participation in events, this important question of the chair's
 independent summary was raised, the question of templates that I think is also
 something that we should pay a lot of attention to.  There was an important
 reference to the possibility of remote participation and a strong position on
 the idea of not bringing to the meeting the ideas of negotiating texts,
 something that I am very sure you have already talked about. And I must
 guarantee you that as representative of the host country, I would hope that
 very much different ideas would not contribute to turn Rio into a chaotic
 event, but, anyway, all your contributions will be taken for sure to Advisory
 Group and will help us to architecture a good solution for the Rio meeting. 
 It's 1:00.  I think we should break and resume at 3:00.  Thank you very much. 
 It's over. (Recess) (Gavel).

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Distinguished delegates, let's resume our work. In the
 morning session, we will have gone through items 1 and 2 of the agenda. Before
 going to item 3, I was told that some participants would like to take the floor
 on issues regarding item 1 and 2. Since this is the last consultations we have,
 informal consultations we have, we will open this exception in order to allow
 for these interventions. I really hope these interventions will be brief. It's
 a quarter past 3:00 in the afternoon.  We are supposed to stop working at 6:00.
  So we still have some more important items of the agenda to go through. I
 would like, then, to invite those participants that would like to take the
 floor, on some specific aspects of item 1 and 2. The floor is open. I recognize
 ICC. You have the floor, ICC.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Chairman. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to add on
 the main session topics.  I would like to give an idea of what ICC/BASIS
 members believe should be discussed in each of the main sessions, and I will be
 providing some input on critical internet resources followed by my colleague
 Peter Hellmonds who would like to provide input on the remaining sessions. With
 that, on behalf of ICC members, business associations, and companies from
 around the world, I would like to provide some input that complements the
 written input that we've already provided which is on the Web site of the IGF
 as well as in the back of the room and the ICC Web site. Business believes
 strongly that certain key principles should be the foundation for the
 discussions at the IGF in Rio, and the shaping of the program. All of the
 sessions and workshops at the IGF should promote the objectives, specifically
 facilitating the exchange of information and best practices, strengthening the
 engagement of stakeholders in Internet governance issues, particularly those
 from the developing world, contributing to capacity building for Internet
 governance in developing countries, promoting and assessing on an ongoing basis
 WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, and helping to identify
 solutions to issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet. As
 critical internet resources are discussed for the first time at the IGF in Rio,
 we should be guided by the definition of critical internet resources identified
 in the report of the working group on I Internet governance. Paragraph 13(a)
 outlines four key Internet governance related public policy areas and makes it
 clear that issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical
 internet resources include, one, the administration of the domain name system
 and Internet protocol addresses, the administration of the root server systems,
 technical standards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications
 infrastructure, including innovative and convergent technologies, and
 multilingualization. We believe the discussion on CIR should focus on all of
 these different but important issues. The discussion must also include the
 perspectives of business, government, civil society, and the technical
 community, which may vary. In this way, we can all learn and benefit from the
 perspectives of others, which is an important component of the success of the
 Athens model the IGF used last year. For example, panelists should reflect
 diversity of Internet resource management experiences from around the world,
 and case studies could emphasize countries and businesses which have been
 successful and identify challenges experienced to share the lessons learned for
 more people. This session can useful be organized into three parts.  First,
 exactly what are critical internet resources.  Drawing on the WGIG work, this
 discussion can set the stage for all participants and allow for a productive
 discussion. Second, the discussion should provide information about the range
 of issues involved, including the DNS and regional management activities, IPv4,
 IPv6, and transition, digital object identifiers, electronic numbering, radio
 spectrum, telecom infrastructure, and highlight what is being done by different
 actors on these issues, including the state of play, achievements, relevant
 forums, et cetera. Third, the discussion should emphasize skills development
 and other resources that are necessary to get the world online. ICC/BASIS
 members believe that the following principles and approach should be adopted
 for the discussion and preparation of this session. A, the focus of this
 session should be on creating greater understanding of the landscape of issues,
 organizations addressing them, experiences and challenges.  The discussion
 should not be duplicative of ongoing work on processes under way in any other
 single organization or forum. B, the moderator of this session should be
 knowledgeable about the substantive and political issues and not promote any
 particular viewpoint. C, the panelists selected should contribute to laying out
 the landscape of critical internet resources issues and the balance of
 panelists should cover the key issues and organizations involved in them. To
 ensure a productive and comprehensive discussion of critical internet resources
 in this session, we believe that it should focus on setting the stage.  Who is
 doing what, and how can stakeholders contribute and participate. A few points
 on the structure of this session.  We believe it should be slightly different
 than the proposed structure on the other main topic sessions, with more time
 for panelists to provide remarks and perhaps a larger number of panelists than
 the other sessions in which we have envisioned five to seven panelists, so in
 this one it would be better if there were more. These recommendations that we
 have laid out would ensure that in this first discussion on this topic area,
 the viewpoints, expertise, and dimensions are adequately explored. Thank you
 for consideration of our input on this session, and if you permit, I would turn
 it to my colleague to outline on the others.

 >>PETER HELLMONDS:  Thank you, Ayesha, thank you, Chairman.  I am Peter
 Hellmonds, I work for Nokia, Siemens networks, but here I speak on behalf of
 the international business community as represented by the International
 Chamber of Commerce. On the other four main sessions other than the critical
 internet resources session that Ms. Hassan has commented upon just now, ICC and
 BASIS has provided specific edits in our written contribution, and requests
 that they be integrated in the next revised program. We would like to highlight
 a few points to complement those edits.  On the access issue, the main session
 on access issues should raise awareness about the responsibility of governments
 for ensuring an enabling environment to improve access.  And the importance of
 involving business and other stakeholders in making this environment a reality
 at the national level. To have a comprehensive, informative discussion,
 ICC/BASIS suggests the following additions to the program. In order to
 emphasize the legal, policy, and regulatory conditions that enable private
 sector investment and innovation, promote competition and foster
 entrepreneurship which in our opinion are essential to establishing the right
 enabling environment to promote access to the infrastructure and the Internet.
 We believe that having panelists who will share different perspectives and
 information on case studies regarding economies that have created successful
 enabling environments, contrasted with examples of challenges and approaches
 that were not successful would be an essential part of this session. Panelists
 and participants should be encouraged to discuss concrete examples of local
 build-out, and case studies that promote the exchange of best practices and
 experiences regarding improving access for an increasing number of people. We
 recommend that part of the access discussion should also be on access to
 education, information, and knowledge, and that it address the cross-cutting
 theme of human capacity building. All of these issues are important for
 development along with diversity, openness, and security. Turning to the next
 session, the diversity session, ICC/BASIS believes that the current formulation
 regarding the role of user-generated content and software in developing local
 content can be strengthened and clarified by focusing the discussion on the
 ability of the Internet and ICTs to enhance diversity with limitless capacity
 to transmit content. The role that user-generated content plays in advancing
 cultural diversity and the promotion of cultural diversity through intellectual
 property protection and standards that facilitate the creation of new software
 applications and tools such as translation technologies. Government and
 business initiatives, to stimulate development of local content production and
 providers of online services for the local market, including, for example,
 establishing seed funding, training incubator services, and the exchange of
 best practice and experience could also be included. Further, efforts that are
 under way to introduce Internationalized Domain Names and existing
 technologies, policies, and capacity-building efforts that increase access to
 disabled communities, women and other communities that may benefit from focused
 attention to increase the diversity of participants in the Internet and
 Internet governance issues. Regarding the openness session, we believe that it
 should be revised to put forth issues in a balanced way that allows all
 stakeholders to voice their perspective and share their experiences. Some of
 the current formulations start from an assumption that it is not balanced. So
 the discussion and description should emphasize the roles the Internet and ICTs
 play in promoting access to information and how governments, business, civil
 society and other organizations can work together to maximize openness,
 interoperability, and the free flow of information on the Internet. It should
 also highlight how to build human and institutional capacity and raise
 awareness about how existing intellectual property right regimes foster the
 free flow of information on the Internet. Increase consumer confidence and
 strengthen security and encourage cooperation between stakeholders, to promote
 the dissemination of legitimate content and services. And finally, the session
 should also include information about strategies for maximizing access to
 content, while protecting intellectual property rights which is a critical
 issue for many stakeholders. We have two more sessions so I apologize if it's a
 little lengthy.  On the security main session we suggest adding the following
 discussion points. First, a point on the work ongoing in private and public
 sector bodies with substantial expertise in network security, to improve
 practices in the area of security, with a special focus on work that is
 relevant to small- and medium-sized enterprises and emerging economies. Second,
 one of the roles of governments, businesses, and other stakeholders in adopting
 authentication technologies to promote trust online. And third, these points
 would build on the first security main session that we had in Athens, and focus
 on critical elements for addressing security issues as we are going forward.
 Finally, on the emerging issues session, we support the approach to this
 session that would be a combination of inspiration from experts that help
 people think about the issues that are on the horizon for the coming five
 years, selecting panelists who can give perspectives on questions like how do
 we bring the next billion users onto the Internet, and what will the Internet
 look like and how will it look. Those are issues that we think should be in
 that session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you, ICC. Thank you, Mr. Hellmonds, for your
 contributions, very much detailed, are useful. I recognize Japan followed by
 China, Mr. Echeberria, and Senegal. I wonder -- I see one more flag being
 Russian Federation. I wonder if there will be more requests for the floor?  I
 see Dr. Bill Drake, and I intend to close the list.  One more over there, Mr.
 Muguet. I see a third one, so I won't close the list. [ Laughter ]

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  China, you have the floor. Sorry, I should have said Japan.
  Japan will have the floor.

 >>JAPAN:  Let me briefly present our comments.  First of all, Japan highly
 appreciates the efforts that Mr. Chairman, Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer, and the staff
 of the Secretariat have made for the preparation of the IGF meetings. We have
 two points to make. First, we appreciate and agree with the draft schedule
 presented by the Secretariat.  Today, we would like to add one thing on the
 arrangement of the second IGF meeting. We will continue supporting the open and
 interactive method of dialogue among multistakeholder participants which has
 been working so far -- so well so far. In addition, we believe that the IGF
 should draw more attention from people who have so far not demonstrated much
 interest in the IGF. In this regard, most speeches in a formal manner should
 also be included, especially in the opening ceremony, where we he feel
 distinctive speakers in the IGF who speak on the Internet governance issues
 from broad perspective. This would make the IGF more visible to people,
 organizations, civil societies, and governments around the world. We wish this
 idea to be taken into serious consideration. Second, we reiterate our
 appreciation of the Secretariat efforts and we strongly believe that such
 efforts are crucial for the success of the Rio and future meetings. We also
 recognize the importance of capacity building which is one of the priority
 issues in the IGF. With these recognitions, we are pleased to announce that
 Japan will enhance its support to the IGF and the Secretariat by contributing
 10 million yen or about $87,000 U.S. dollars at a recent exchange rate for the
 future facilitation of preparation process of IGF, as well as capacity
 building, such as fellowship programs for developing countries. We hope that
 this will contribute to the effectiveness of IGF and related meetings. Thank
 you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Japan, for your statements, especially
 your announcement.  Very generous. And now I'd like to give the floor to China.
 China, you have the floor.

 >>CHINA:  Thank you, Chairman. As regarding to the agenda 1, China has some
 comments. In general, we are of the view that the second IGF meeting should
 focus on the public policy issues related to Internet governance in accordance
 with the mandates of IGF as tasked by the Tunis Agenda of the World Summit on
 the Information Society. As regards to the critical internet resources of the
 first main themes of the IGF Brazil meeting, we think that the discussions
 should focus from under four sub-aspects. The first one is we think that the
 capacity building in administration of critical internet resources.  It is
 agreed that in the second IGF meeting, the development and capacity building
 should be cross-cutting priorities in honor of the main sessions. According to
 that definition, that is defined by the WGIG report, CIR should include the
 domain name system, IP address, and root servers, et cetera. The WGIG report
 has already described the current status of the administration of the critical
 internet resources.  And also, paragraph 65 and paragraph 72(f) of the Tunis
 Agenda underlines the need to enhance the capacity building in developed
 countries and to strengthen the participation of developed countries in
 Internet governance. We believe that IGF has provided a useful platform for
 developed countries to share experience and enhance capacity building.  And we
 would encourage that those organizations such as the ICANN and also the ITU
 would be involved to Brazil the status quo of the administration of the
 critical internet resources, including the mechanism, the structures, the
 successful experience, and the problems, as well as the measures for the
 enhancement of Internet security and stability. We think that this process can
 enhance the capacity building of the developed countries in Internet governance
 for the benefit of all the countries, especially for the developing ones. The
 second item we think should be included in the CIRs is the enhanced -- the
 participation of governments in critical internet resources. As described in
 the paragraph 29, paragraph 58, and also paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda, the
 demonstration of critical internet resources is one of the significant public
 policy issues of Internet governance. And it is urged that the governments to
 carry out their roles and also responsibilities in public policy issues
 pertaining to the Internet governance on an equal footing. It also said that
 this responsibility shouldn't be relied on the day-to-day technical and
 operational management. So it is suggest and our contribution that all the
 stakeholders, especially the governments, should take full advantage of the IGF
 platform to discuss the issues so as to reflect fully the principle of the
 multinationalism, democracy, and transparency of Internet governance. The third
 bullet we think should be included in the CIRs is the allocation of IP address
 during the transition of IPv4 to IPv6. As we all know, that the current
 situation, the current allocation mechanism of IPv4 address is mainly based on
 a first come and first served principle. This principle has promoted the
 development of Internet on one hand but wire on the other hand, it has
 adversely resulted in the shortage of IP address, IP resources, and this
 continues to have IP address blocks for countries that are less developed in
 Internet.  It is recommended that the relevant stakeholders discuss within the
 IGF framework how to ensure the equitable access by all countries to IPv6
 address resources and how to promote the balanced development of future
 Internet in all countries, particularly for the developed countries during the
 transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The fifth item of the CIRs we suggest it is the
 global applicable principles for the administration of generic top-level
 domains, gTLDs. In accordance with the Tunis Agenda paragraph 64 and 70, the
 administration of gTLDs is one of the significant public policy issues
 pertaining to the Internet. The addition, deletion and adjustment of gTLDs have
 a profound impact on every day -- on every country, including their economic,
 cultural, religious and social aspects. It is therefore advisable for all the
 stakeholders, including governments, to work together to explore the
 possibilities on developing globally applicable principles regarding this
 issue. These are the four items that the Chinese government suggest to include
 in the CIR issues. Thank you, Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, China, for your suggestions and
 contributions. While I have the floor, I would like to call the attention of
 journalists Brazil in the room to the important announcement made by Japan. 
 The question of support for the -- financial support for the participation of
 developing countries in IGF meetings was raised in the press conference at
 noon.  And so I think it's very much important to make public this important
 announcement made by Japan in this regard. Thank you. I'd like to give the
 floor now to Mr. Echeberria. You have the floor, sir.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, the number resources
 organization, the NRO -- sorry, I will introduce myself. I am Raul Echeberria,
 I am the C.O. of LACNIC.  LACNIC is the international registry of Internet
 addresses for Latin America and the Caribbean.  A member of the Advisory Group,
 I am a member of the executive council of the NRO, and I am here speaking on
 behalf of the NRO, the Number Resource Organization. The NRO would like to
 congratulate Mr. Desai for your successful leadership of the IGF and the
 Advisory Group and your appointment to the co-chair of the Advisory Group at
 our Rio meeting. We think that under your leadership, the community has largely
 achieved the objectives that were outlined in Tunis 2005 regarding the IGF. We
 also congratulate Mr. Da Rocha Vianna as we sincerely wish both of you all the
 success in your work at Rio that will not be very easy. I am a bit lost about
 what we are discussing now, so I would take advantage of having the floor for
 making comments on several things. My first intention was to comment regarding
 the proposal of producing any kind of formal reports on the IGF.  Then I would
 like to remark that the Number Resource Organization doesn't agree with the
 proposal of having any formal report as an outcome of the IGF. It includes
 summary reports of the workshops. We support that the Chair issue a narrative
 report like last year, and also that workshop organizers could issue their own
 reports about the workshop that each of them organized.  If we think each
 workshop is organized in a multistakeholder fashion, then we consider that for
 producing those reports, different stakeholders would have to participate, so
 their reports will be by fact, we expect very well answered. Any other kind of
 report would mean to recreate the process of the negotiation of the WGIG and
 the WSIS, and this is not the speed of the IGF. The IGF should remain based on
 the principles and speed of the Tunis agreement, which, by the way, in our
 sense, the reason of the success. One of the most valuable things about the IGF
 meeting last year was the fact that all stakeholders met for the first time to
 discuss many important issues without the pressure of negotiating any text,
 producing any formal recommendation.  So it allowed us to focus the discussion
 on the content, on important things, and not on the accordance and exact
 specific words to include in the text. For those of us who participated in the
 -- all the negotiation process in the summit know that many times we lost the
 importance of the things that we were discussing for prioritizing the
 discussion about the text itself. Some could think that the -- that if there
 are not formal recommendations, the IGF is useless.  But those of us that daily
 work in this business know that as a consequence of all this process, starting
 with the WGIG, that our level of collaborations and interactions and
 multistakeholders as never has happened in the past.  So IGF and other
 processes around IGF make many things happen outside the IGF itself. This is
 not a matter of convincing or imposing our view to everybody.  So there are
 different opinions, and it is very fine. It is just a matter of understanding
 and respecting the principles on which each of us is willing to continue
 participation and contribution in IGF, in the understanding that only with the
 participation of all of the stakeholders, the IGF will continue producing
 benefits for the worldwide community. By the way, I didn't think to speak about
 that, but based on the importance that the chair is assigned to these kind of
 announcements, I want to announce also that the Number Resource Organization
 has committed again this year our financial contribution to the NRO as we have
 been doing for -- since the beginning, and also with the WGIG process.  So we
 are contributing with -- making a contribution of $25,000.  But let me, Mr.
 Chair, with abuse of your indulgence, continue making some other comments,
 because having heard the comments from the Chinese representative, I would like
 also to make some comments on that. The NRO, the Number Resource Organization,
 has seen with very interesting position expressed by the Chinese government
 relating to I.P. addressing matters.  So allow me to stress that it is not
 accurate to say that the current management system of IPv4 addresses has
 resulted in a shortage of I.P. resources and the discontinuity of I.P.
 addresses blocked for countries that are less developed on the Internet. In
 fact, we see that with great interest, because it was the NRO who brought to
 the attention of the governments the issue of IPv4 consumption and the
 transition to IPv6. For several years, the NRO and the individual RIRs have
 made many presentations in different forums, including ICANN meetings,
 intergovernmental forums, and others with governmental participation.  We have
 also had many meetings with other stakeholders -- mainly with governments --
 exchanging ideas and positions.  We have given numerous presentations to the
 ICANN Government Advisory Committee, the GAC, and have presented in every GAC
 meeting since the Marrakech meeting in 2006 about this matter. Our hope and our
 intention through these kind of activities was that government actively
 participate in these discussions and act in coordination with existing system
 of I.P. address management, including the RIRs themselves, to express the
 concerns and view through their open forum. In recent years, in fact, the issue
 of IPv4 consumption and the transition to IPv6 are among the most popular
 topics under discussion in all the RIR public forums.  In all RIR regions, a
 range of policy proposals are being discussed through the respective open,
 transparent, and participative policy development process that are in some or
 other way related to the consumption of IPv4 and the transition to IPv6.
 Looking for the basic scenarios for a smooth transition to IPv6. I can assure
 you that many different views are being expressed, representing different
 perspectives, different interests, and different needs in those proposals.  And
 I expect that some of these already reflect the concerns of the Chinese
 government.  If they don't do, then such views will be very welcome, along with
 proposals which address their concerns. Thousands of people representing the
 worldwide Internet community, and when I say thousands, I am saying, really,
 thousands of people, are participating in the discussion, including, of course,
 a good number from China.  In fact, exactly at this moment, some of the
 proposals are being discussed in the APNIC meeting in Delhi, where the Asian
 Pacific community is meeting today to discuss those issues and many others of
 interest of the regional community. Since some of the proposals are meant to be
 global policies, the process will include the necessary ratification of the
 policy by ICANN.  And while I cannot speak on behalf of ICANN, I am sure that
 ICANN will include in the ratification process consultation with all the
 stakeholders, including governments, through the GAC, as they have done in past
 occasions.  The IGF is, of course, a good place for bringing concerns and
 positions regarding every issue related to Internet.  And, in fact, it is the
 own NRO who is promoting the workshop for discussing of all the stakeholders
 the issue of transition to IPv6. But in those cases, like this, in which there
 are well-established and successful open and transparent policy development
 process, the best way to influence the decision is to participate through those
 processes. So I invite all of you to participate in this proactive discussion
 by subscribing to the RIRs public forum list.  If -- I can assist any of you in
 doing that if somebody needs some help.  Or also, in the case of governments,
 either participate in the RIR public discussions or expressing their positions
 through the Governmental Advisory Committee in the ICANN environment. Thank
 you, Mr. Chair.  And excuse me for the long time that I have spent.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Echeberria.  Thank you for your detailed
 contribution.  Thank you for the reference you made to NRO contribution to the
 participation of developing countries in the IGF process. I would like to give
 the floor to Senegal.  I have on my list Mr. Bill Drake, the Russian
 Federation, Mr. Muguet, Mrs. Cade, Mr. Kleinwaechter, and Mr. Pisanty.  I
 wonder if -- one more.  Sorry.  Mr. Shears.  I wonder if I could close the list
 now. One more.  Sorry, I can't read -- Mr. Al-Shatti, and the last speaker will
 be Mr. Al-Shatti.  The list is closed. I'll give the floor to Senegal. Madam,
 you have the floor.

 >>SENEGAL:  Thank you, chair.  I will not be long, because I just have -- I
 just want to ask one question. And thank you for giving me this opportunity to
 ask my question on how facilitating evaluation of IGF process from year to
 year.  My intention is not to reopen the debate.  But at this stage, at the
 last round of discussion, I wonder if it will be possible to have a sort of
 communique at the closing session of the IGF, since we will not be a consensus
 text or a resolution, but a kind of memo, like the GAC communique on ICANN
 meeting, which will give in one or two pages the major focus and achievement of
 the second forum and which can be used as a reference for the next meeting,
 that will allow also host country and policymaker to know what happened in the
 Rio meeting. This could be a manner to have a base of following up and
 evaluation of the progress made by the forum from year to year out of the
 creation of coalition network and so forth.  Because we got every time one
 question from our policymakers and also governments.  They say to us, "What are
 achievements in the forum?"  And most of the time, we didn't have anything to
 answer. Thank you for your attention.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Senegal, for your intervention. If I
 dare to answer to your question -- it's a very sensitive one -- what I have to
 do is the -- what I would reply is the following:  This is a quite delicate
 question.  You have been listening to other participants, to other delegates on
 the idea of having documents in the end of IGF meetings.  And what I can tell
 you, that this matter will be dealt with in the Advisory Group tomorrow.  So I
 think we'll have to wait some more days in order to have an answer. But thank
 you very much for your contribution and your concern. I would like to give the
 floor now to Mr. Bill Drake.

 >>BILL DRAKE:  Thank you, Mr. co-chairman. I'd like to make three points about
 the main sessions. The style of discussion that we had in the main sessions in
 Athens was very useful, particularly for a first event, in getting people into
 the tent and thinking about the kinds of questions that are important today. 
 But it was also, in some ways, a fairly general discussion at times that
 focused, really, on sort of broad issues rather than more specific, in my view,
 problems. And I'm wondering, if we were to repeat that approach in Rio, if it
 wouldn't start to feel like deja vu all over again.  After a while, we might
 start saying the same things, you know, openness is good, security is
 important, et cetera, and people might start to feel like this is all a little
 familiar, which raises, then, the question of how you would carry that forward
 to the next one in India and so on. So with an eye towards perhaps increasing
 the takeaway and specific knowledge and information that people get from these
 meetings, I'd just like to make a suggestion.  Recognizing the time constraints
 of a 90-minute session and what can be achieved there, I wonder whether
 wouldn't it be possible rather than just discussing general Internet issues, to
 discuss more Internet governance issues, by which I mean, for example, rather
 than noting that there are growing security challenges in the world and there's
 problems with spam and phishing and all of these other types of things, perhaps
 the discussion on that theme could discuss concrete policies and programs
 adopted by the relevant intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder
 organizations and networks that are involved in security and governance,
 whether that's the computer emergency response teams, the forum for incident
 response teams, the Council of Europe intervention, even policies that have
 global reach like the policies adopted by the U.S. Department of Homeland
 Security.  If we had a little bit more focused discussion on some of the actual
 institutional arrangements that shape security, access, openness, and so on, it
 might be, I think, more productive in terms of having people come away with
 something concrete in terms of new understanding, rather than sort of repeating
 the general point that these are challenges that are out there that we have to
 all work through. Now, I recognize that trying to do that would require a more
 structured agenda of topics in order to have a coherent conversation that got
 into those kinds of institutional practices.  And perhaps one could do some
 prior coordination between the moderators, panelists, and even secretariat to
 identify a few themes that would be particularly worth focusing in on. But I do
 think that bringing more of an emphasis on governance, per se, as it was
 understood in the WSIS process, into the main theme sessions might be
 productive. A second point I'd like to make has to do with the treatment of
 development. In my view, development is a very important cross-cutting theme. 
 And if I had my own preference, this would be treated alongside the five
 existing themes as a major thematic focus, because I tend to think that unless
 one does that, it's easy for the development dimension to get lost in the
 conversation.  While certainly in the main sessions in Athens, people did
 address development points from time to time, a lot of the discussion was not
 development-focused at all.  And so one way of dealing with that, of course,
 would be to hold development parallel equal to those other sessions. But I
 recognize that it's a little late in the game to be trying to suggest
 structural changes to the main sessions.  So recognizing that that's the case,
 I would simply suggest that as we think about how to do the five main session
 themes, it would be really, really useful if we could strongly encourage the
 moderators and the panelists, perhaps again through some prior coordination, to
 ensure that development aspects get really frontally built into the treatment
 of each of the five themes. That's to say, if we were to talk about the
 governance aspects with regard to security, with regard to openness, and so on,
 we would then ask, how do those governance mechanisms impact development in a
 positive or negative sort of way?  What are some of the best practices we might
 identify that would be helpful in trying to help developing countries move
 forward in these arenas?  That would be, to me, very useful. We are going to
 try to do a little bit of that in a workshop that is being organized on a
 development agenda for Internet governance, but I'm suggesting that it's also
 an orientation that could be brought to bear in the main sessions itself. By
 the way, also, I would like to point out that there's a session in the global
 Internet governance academic network symposium which will be held the day prior
 to the conference, which focuses on this.  So there's two events on the
 development agenda, in fact. And I think my colleague Wolfgang will say more
 about the Internet governance academic network later.  I should just flag,
 though, that we have put together a very nice symposium that will be held on
 that Sunday.  It was very competitive.  We had about 40 people submit paper
 proposals.  And we have selected about 13 or 14 of them for presentation.  So
 we hope people will be interested to come to that. The last point I'd like to
 make very quick simply echoes what Ayesha Hassan said about the moderation, the
 character of the moderation. I would really hope that we do have moderators
 that are truly expert in the subject matter of the five issue areas to be
 discussed in the main themes.  And I would hope that they would be truly
 neutral as well.  It's not -- we don't want them to be neutral between fact and
 fiction, but we do want them to be neutral in their treatment of alternative
 solutions to particular problems that are being promoted by different
 stakeholders, and not sort of seeming to lean towards one approach or another.
 So I think that that has to be taken into account when selecting moderators as
 well. I'll stop there.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Drake, for your comments.  Very down to
 earth concerns with regards -- especially with regard to development.  Very
 useful. I'd like to give the floor to the Russian Federation. You have the
 floor, Russia.

 >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Russian Federation supports
 results achieved during our last consultation in May.  On the agenda of the
 forthcoming forum, there are five main issues, including a new one, critical
 Internet resources. As to critical Internet resources, I support the statement
 made by the Chinese delegation and other speakers that this issue should
 include the discussion of the administration of the domain name system, I.P.
 addresses, root servers, transition from IPv4 protocols to IPv6 protocols, et
 cetera. It's vitally important that in this process, the developing countries
 should be involved. The second remark, I hope that the Rio meeting will give
 brilliant possibilities for the representative from the ICANN, ITU, GAC, and
 other organizations to express their visions towards this process. As to
 security, it would be useful to discuss the problems of international security,
 cybercrimes, cyberterrorism, cyberextremism, and the fight against child
 pornography. As to workshops, I'd like to say a few words. There are a lot of
 proposals concerning the workshops.  But from my point of view, it would be
 important to concentrate, to focus on, first of all, to the 15 workshops which
 are directly related with the main session issues.  And as to proposals
 concerning the final reports, I suggest the proposals which were made at the
 last session that the statement of chairman of the IGF forum could be taken as
 a result of the forum. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Russia, for your comments. I'd like to give the
 floor to Mrs. Cade, Marilyn Cade.  You have the floor, madam.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like, first of all, to
 associate myself with many of the comments made by ICC/BASIS, and so I will not
 elaborate on too many of the points that were made there.  But I would like to
 just reinforce, on behalf of ITAA and WITSA, the importance of the scope of the
 session on critical Internet resources. The Internet is much more than the DNS,
 although it does, of course, incorporate the DNS.  And so from our point of
 view, we wish to ensure that the session does include a discussion about the
 underlying infrastructure, the role of the backbone providers, and the ISPs,
 along with the discussion and the points that have been raised earlier about
 the DNS, the transition to IPv6, the security and stability of the root server
 system, the role of multiculturalism, IDNs, and domain names. I will just go on
 to say that I would like to -- I hope I'm supporting a point just made by our
 Russian colleague when I say that it is very important to focus on finalizing
 the structure and the focus of the workshops to ensure that very quickly, the
 sponsors are completely identified, the speakers are completely identified, and
 the focus is completely identified, and that information is made public so that
 we can all work hard to ensure that there is broad and diverse participation
 and attendance in Rio. Right now -- and I did an analysis of what is publicly
 available last week while I was in Vietnam at a cybersecurity workshop -- and
 there are, to me, too many unfilled or uncompleted gaps.  And I know we all
 feel the urgency.  So I would ask the advisory committee and our two co-chairs
 in your next two days to consider establishing a firm deadline by which the
 workshop providers and sponsors would complete the rest of their information. I
 will also associate myself and ITAA WITSA with a comment made by Raul
 Echeberria of the NRO about the importance of not spending our time on
 negotiation, but spending our time in dialogue and discussion. I do think that
 a simple chair's report and workshop -- the workshop organizers issuing their
 own report will help to document and provide the kind of feedback that
 crystallizes the exchanges that do take place. I do think that it is very late
 in the game to make major structural changes in the approach.  So to those who
 have proposed such changes, I would ask the advisory committee and the
 co-chairs to consider capturing those thoughts, holding them until after this
 IGF 2007, and considering in our evaluation session in early 2008 how changes
 might take place and how relevant such proposed changes are for IGF 2008. Thank
 you, Mr. Chairman, and to all of the rest of the delegates here.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mrs. Cade, for your suggestions. 
 Very reasonable.  Your message sent, and I hope we will be able to reply soon.
 I'd like to give the floor now to Mr. Kleinwaechter.  I have Mr. Pisanty and
 then Mr. Al-Shatti. Mr. Kleinwaechter, please.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Wolfgang
 Kleinwaechter.  I'm a university professor from the University of Aarhus, and
 I'm also a special advisor to the chair of the IGF. You know, I want to make
 just two quick points.  The first one is, you know, we should understand that
 the IGF was designed as a process and not just as an event.  What it means,
 what we discuss in the event, as such, has a prehistory and will be followed by
 a continuation of the debate.  So that means the discussion in the Rio meeting
 are embedded in the process of discussion, you know, which has a history
 already and goes on, you know, for months and years and will continue.  I think
 this is important, that we will not change the world, you know, with one
 meeting.  But, you know, this is -- has to be seen as a contribution to an
 ongoing debate on a very high level.  And I think that to have this
 understanding is rather important. And this refers also to the debate which has
 just been mentioned here in the last couple of statements with regard to
 enhanced cooperation and critical Internet resources. I remember in one of the
 last meetings, there was said, okay, nothing is happening with regard to
 enhanced cooperation.  We organized an academic symposium just four weeks ago
 in Germany with 40 participants from 28 countries, especially surround --
 dedicated to the issue of enhanced cooperation. And we discovered that enhanced
 cooperation is already moving forward, but more bottom-up than top-down,
 because you have a lot of new developments here.  There are joint committees,
 there are working groups, relevant international organizations are working
 together.  You know, you have liaisons among a lot of organizations, which is
 not so spectacular, but which shows, if you look deeper into the real
 activities, that a lot of things are going on which can be seen as a
 contribution to enhanced cooperation.  Even the terminology is rather
 confusing.  Because if you go through the paragraph from Tunis, it's not so
 easy to find out, you know, what is the meaning of "enhanced cooperation." And
 in this workshop, we discussed various dimensions of enhanced cooperation.  And
 we came out, you know, with the conclusion that enhanced cooperation is much
 more than just only a formal agreement.  And it includes enhanced
 communication, or it starts with enhanced communication, will lead to enhanced
 coordination, and finally can come to formal or informal arrangements.  And so
 we produced a formula, which is called now EC3, that means, you know, like
 enhanced cooperation has these three dimensions of communication, coordination,
 and cooperation.  And probably the Rio event is a great opportunity to deepen
 our understanding of what we mean or what we understand about enhanced
 cooperation, and what the role of the management of the critical Internet
 resources in this process is.  And so far, I think we shouldn't expect that the
 Rio meeting will make any -- you know, any decision on this issue, but it's a
 contribution to a debate which has already started and will continue.  And I
 think if we approach the Rio meeting, in particular, with regard to the
 discussion on critical Internet resources in this spirit, then it can be very
 constructive and can help to improve the understanding. You know, as Bill Drake
 has already said, you know, we will have a special meeting of the GIGAnet
 before the IGF starts.  The GIGAnet is a result of the whole process.  It came
 out from the WGIG report, and the academics came together, and they are ready
 to make a contribution and to clarify the concepts behind that, and probably,
 you know, this GIGAnet Symposium in Rio could be another place where we can
 help that stakeholders understand better what the language means, you know,
 which has been adopted by the Tunis Agenda. And if I have the floor, I can also
 inform you that we have created not only a network for researchers, but we have
 now created also a summer school for Internet governance.  The first summer
 school took place in -- this summer in Germany in a small city called Meissen. 
 And we had 21 students from developing and developed countries, from 18
 countries.  And it was seen as a great success.  We had great faculty.  I have
 distributed here a flier.  And probably I would be very thankful if the summer
 school could get first the support, because what we do in the summer school is
 to create the next generation of experts, which will then help, you know, to
 manage the Internet in the next ten, 15 years. Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much for your comments.  I'd like to give
 the floor now to Mr. Pisanty, followed by Mr. Al-Shatti and by Mr. Shears.  Mr.
 Pisanty, please.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Thank you, Mr. Vianna.  Is the microphone coming through?
 I will make this brief statement from the position of an Advisory Group member
 who has to keep eyes and ears open to all positions coming, so more than
 statements, they are trying to gel around them some very specific responses
 from participants that we need to understand better in order to do our work
 well tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in the group. I see a lot of support
 in this meeting for an idea that I will express in a different way concerning
 the reports of -- coming out of the forum and the take-home value, to use this
 very American phrase. It would seem that the achievement of the forum, first of
 all, is that the forum takes place.  That's a very significant achievement. 
 It's not that it's difficult to get 1,000 people to go to Brazil.  We all go
 willingly to Rio.  And we all go willingly to discuss in the environment of
 freedom and knowledge that is available for this sharing in Rio and in Brazil.
 But every person will take home a different value.  Every person will have
 attended different numbers of sessions.  They will have attended them at
 different levels of expertise with different concerns from back home, from
 different legal traditions, from different development stages of the country
 and the regions inside your own country, so the take-home value has to be
 highly individualized.  And we must make sure, as others and myself have
 expressed already, that we concentrate on the take-home value, to heighten it
 at the most. There's a difference -- and I'm sorry that Mrs. Diop is right now
 not in the room, making reference to a statement by Senegal.  There's a
 difference with, for example, the communique that is admitted by the GAC in the
 ICANN meetings, because the GAC is feeling its part and, indeed, an
 increasingly significant part, and increasingly active participant of the
 policy development process within ICANN.  But that is an organization that was
 built, structured, and has rules to operate to solve specific problems, which
 is the operation management of the centrally coordinated identifiers of the
 Internet.  That has, of course, to be expressed through a communique, because
 its a consensus position or even a potentially voted position from the
 governments coming together.  In a multistakeholder environment, this cannot be
 easily extrapolated. At the risk of sounding naive, I think that we should
 think more of what would we ask a physics professor who comes back from a
 meeting, from an academic meeting of physics or even an operational meeting of
 a physical society, or we could do it in social sciences as well. We don't
 expect this person to give us an overview of all the brilliant cutting-edge
 conclusions of all the fields of physics, we expect our solid state physics
 professors to tell us what are the latest advances in the calculation of
 electronic structures, perhaps, we expect our nuclear physics professors to
 tell us about the ongoing experiments and so forth.  And this applies in every
 other field. And this is much more what we expect to happen for the IGF to have
 value.  People will go back home with value for what they need most.  And
 therefore, we can expect also that they will attend the sessions that feed more
 their needs. Other than that, they will have a narrative summaries that have
 been suggested by Mr. Echeberria of what was discussed, and they will have the
 submissions papers, recordings, and we hope that there will be an online video
 recording kept for a long time so that people can actually download it and
 revise the sessions they were not able to attend. Some members of the Advisory
 Group, as I mentioned before, have to be in a very careful listening mode.  In
 order to understand better their requests, I would like to explore some of the
 questions or requests that have been made here. In particular, among other
 countries, China and the Russian Federation have asked that there be a
 presentation by intergovernmental organizations, international organizations,
 and governments on how they fulfill the Tunis mandates, and I am using the
 plural here for mandates because there are many. It is not impossible, if there
 is a session like I envisioned while the representative of China was speaking
 where you will have ICANN, the ITU, maybe UNESCO and many other international
 bodies, some national governments coming up to the floor and expressing what
 they are doing in Internet governance and how they are fulfilling the Tunis
 mandates, that academics, journalists, consultants, professionals,
 representatives of other governments will be taking notes and comparing.  And
 the result will be, of course, that there could be the publication of a
 comparative rate sheet which said how are each of you fulfilling the WSIS
 mandates. I would like to know if this is a desirable outcome for the
 governments that have made this proposal.  Up to now, if I have collected my
 notes well, it has only been government representations that have made this
 request.  And I would be very concerned that we would suddenly find ourselves
 providing food for journalists in each country to actually create a scandalous
 press by saying how poorly, for example, their own country or the neighboring
 or competing country is complying with the WSIS mandate. This indirect result
 may be avoidable by carefully managing the way you want this to happen. This is
 one of those cases where one should be very careful with what one asks for. A
 very similar thing applies to critical internet resources. We have all heard,
 and we have been -- I mean, for years, discussing how the domain name system is
 managed, how the root server system is managed, how the IP allocation system
 operates and is managed, because there are proper forums that have been, in my
 opinion, successful in opening, evolving, so continuing to be involving more
 participants and creating a success of this administration. There is no such
 forum for what we and Raul shied away from using the term that I will use, we
 people in the trenches were actually operating and providing Internet services
 for, in my case, several hundreds of thousands of direct constituents in the
 national networks I serve.  The critical resources for us are first and
 foremost fiber.  The fiber that continues to transmit information, satellite
 links, microwave antennas, a spectrum within the cities and among the cities. 
 This is the first thing that is critical.  That's the thing that if it stops
 for even a little bit more than a millisecond our clients and our students and
 our professors and NGOs and hospitals we serve lose their connectivity, have to
 restart sessions.  It creates a huge mess. The domain name system at the
 central level is not creating a new gTLD every day, does not affect our
 operation. That the fiber is cut, that an organization creates a denial of
 service in some of our infrastructure, those things really hurt the hospitals
 and the people and the students and everybody else. And I wonder if the
 proposal to discuss all critical internet resources in a fair, balanced manner
 going through the whole list that we created -- that we identified in the WGIG,
 does that then mean that we will also have discussions on how these large-scale
 arrangements take place in each country?  Again, we will be able to provide the
 journalists with food for articles that say country A has a lousy agreement
 because it has a very concentrated network with a single point of failure,
 whereas country B has a very broad com of connections to different countries
 with different technologies, and therefore this country's users are much more
 safe against interruptions in the critical internet resources. And since we are
 looking at cross-cutting issues, and it has already been mentioned by previous
 speakers that critical information -- critical internet resources are
 cross-cutting, they cross against -- across openness, diversity, access, and
 security, will there be a discussion, do we want -- the proponents of these
 discussions want them to extend to, for example, see how the architecture of
 national networks, their resilience against denial of service attacks or
 against fiber cuts, all these layers, how they affect the openness and access
 to information.  Should we want to make sure that the discussion includes
 saying, you know, a country with a single point of failure is also a country
 with a single point for censorship. These are the things that the Advisory
 Group will have to reflect upon in the coming two days to shape the discussion
 in a that is productive, not politicized that doesn't create hostility during
 the forum and that doesn't have the unintended consequences of creating nasty
 press for some of the participants who arrive there in good faith. I think I
 speak for all of the members in the group that with these deep-cutting
 questions we will be in a very open mind looking at all the concerns that have
 been expressed in the comments made online and in today's consultation.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Pisanty. Now I give the floor to Mr.
 Al-Shatti. You have the floor, sir.

 >>QUSAI AL-SHATTI:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chairman.  Qusai Al-Shatti,
 deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society. First, I would like
 to congratulate Mr. Nitin Desai for his new term as the chairman for the
 Internet Advisory Group and commend him, along with the Secretariat headed by
 Mr. Markus Kummer, on the notable effort that contributed to the success of the
 IGF so far. I would like further to thank the Brazilian government for hosting
 the second IGF meeting and welcome you, Mr. Vianna, as a co-chair of the IGF
 Advisory Group. On the management of the Internet critical resources theme,
 Kuwait Information Technology Society supports the ICC statement, especially
 with reference to the WGIG work, asserting the multistakeholder participation,
 setting the scene, and discussing the issues in general without pointing the
 specific processes or activities of a specific organization (inaudible) all
 geographical regions. We would like to add here that the critical internet
 resources theme should viewed within the broader context of internet
 governance, which should be linked also to national level and discusses the
 local management of critical internet resources as well. In our view, this will
 balance further the discussion and serves better the interest of the
 development world. On the workshops' organization, and based on our experience
 from the first IGF meeting, we have noticed how important and valuable are the
 topics that we're discussed in them. Remote participants, attendees of
 different workshops and others who could not attend the second IGF meeting or
 participate remotely will not be able to benefit from these workshops.
 Therefore, we would like to see an improved coordination with the organizers of
 the workshops to prepare summary reports that can be included in the chairman
 reports and be available to the wider audience of the Internet users. Thank
 you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Mr. Al-Shatti.  And now I give the
 floor to the last speak, Mr. Shears.  You have the floor, sir.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, Chair.  Much has been said on critical internet
 resources.  I won't belabor the point it except to express the following, our
 support for the statement made by the ICC and our support for the statement
 made by the NRO. And just to say briefly that if we were to try to craft such a
 session, let's make sure that it is incredibly valuable to all participants and
 not just some participants. We would suggest that the purpose of such a session
 should be to understand what these resources are and to understand the use and
 management of these resources in the context of Internet development,
 infrastructure, and access. The sessions should include, among others,
 representatives of those organizations that are responsible for Internet
 resources and should seek to understand the role that such resources play in a
 broader communications environment with a focus on how these organizations
 cooperate and address challenges that might arise. Participants should be
 encouraged to demonstrate how they work together to ensure some things that are
 critical to the Internet, its stability, its security, its continued operation
 and expansion. Just let me turn to another theme which hasn't been addressed
 much so far. Like the government of Japan, we also would like to reemphasize
 the importance of access in the discussion at the IGF.  During the recent
 Internet governance session at the Internet society's iNet meeting in Nigeria,
 access dominated the discussion.  The session focused on what can be done
 locally to address access issues. Including the implementation of Internet
 exchange points and national backbones, the incorporation of fiber into
 national infrastructure projects, encouraging transporter traffic and regional
 traffic, encouraging competition among service providers, and creating the
 right kind of regulatory and enabling environments. And access is not just
 about infrastructure and interconnection costs.  Much can be achieved through
 developing locally relevant content, through facilitating an environment that
 supports local content investment and business certainty, including an
 infrastructure to host local content, and the availability of content
 development training.  Building the communities to drive demand, whether they
 be consumer groups, business associations, or communities promoting and
 supporting education and training, will be essential. And finally in this
 conference in Nigeria, there was agreement that without the fundamental skills
 necessary to engage with the technology and to use it for productive ends,
 there would be considerable portions of the population that would never have
 access.  Therefore, to reemphasize points made by others, the importance of
 capacity building and skills development cannot be underestimated. We must
 recognize that access in all its facets is the greatest challenge that all of
 us face in getting the next billion online.  These issues are not going away,
 and are everyday concerns in many countries.  I also trust that the main
 session on access in Rio will address the challenges of mitigating the costs of
 access, building demand for infrastructure and services, and developing the
 knowledge and skills necessary to make the fullest use of the Internet once it
 is available. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Mr. Shears. Well, with this, we close
 the debates on item 1 and 2 of the agenda. I would like to move now to item 3
 on dynamic coalitions, and my colleague co-chair Desai will preside over. Thank
 you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you very much. We are now going to move to a
 discussion of dynamic coalitions, and we have a serious problem.  We are one
 and a half hours behind schedule. So may I make a particular request that we
 try and quash the discussion a little bit on dynamic coalitions.  I'm not sure
 this is something we need to discuss very long, because it is a follow-up and
 I'm sure there will be occasion for future discussions there.  So we can get on
 to the next two items which are important, the logistical presentations
 relating to the arrangements in Rio and the discussions about the Advisory
 Group itself.  Because we do need to advise the secretary-general on various
 issues about how it should be constituted or what we see in it, et cetera. If
 nothing else, you have to be very quick because judging from the sounds coming
 from outside they are demolishing the building around us. [ Laughter ]

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  So I don't know what's happening, but there are some
 extraordinary sounds coming in from outside. So can I then open the floor on
 the issue of dynamic coalitions. The basic issue really is this is one of the
 products which came out of the Athens meeting. The IGF itself is a
 multistakeholder process.  And one of the questions that has come up is what
 are the sort of guidelines?  Are we just going to have an open Web site where
 anybody can say this is my dynamic coalition on X and Y, or are they going to
 be separated.  And I was wondering, Markus, whether you could lead off the
 discussion with the concerns that you have.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Yes, thank you. We have basically a very liberal approach.
  I posted all dynamic coalitions on our Web site. We asked them to fill in a
 template to say who they are and what their objectives are and who their
 members are. And we took sort of a rough assessment, and our general feeling
 was that they should be as multistakeholder as possible.  And in our feeling,
 all dynamic coalitions that have asked us to be posted fulfilled this criteria.
 Now, when it comes to Rio, the meeting in Rio, we have two dynamic coalitions
 that asked for meeting space, and we said who are you, because we haven't heard
 from them before and they we haven't posted them.  And in one particular case
 we haven't yet had the feedback so we still don't know where they are.  In
 another case, we had the feedback.  And in our reading of the dynamic
 coalition, it did not fulfill the basic criteria of multistakeholder. And here,
 obviously, we would need some guidance from the wider community, what is a
 dynamic coalition, does it mean we need every single stakeholder group needs to
 be represented in one or does it mean just one stakeholder group plus one. 
 Does it also need geographical diversity?  And in addition, an issue that came
 up is there are organizations who say they are multistakeholder in nature as an
 organization, but obviously it doesn't seem to make much sense if an
 organization says "we are a dynamic coalition."  So presumably, there will be
 at least another partner needed or one or two more. So these are all questions,
 and what we would like to have are clear criteria, what are the checking lists
 we have to check so that we can actually post a dynamic coalition, and then
 also give them a meeting room. But as I said, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we
 will be able to conclude the discussion here.  This is actually quite a complex
 discussion. At the beginning immediately after Athens, I don't think there was
 a need to hold this discussion, but as we move into a second phase, there may
 be more coalitions emerging. So what are the criteria we are applying. These
 are basically my questions.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  The floor is open. Parminder Singh.  Bertrand De La
 Chapelle, Muguet, Marilyn Cade, ICC. Parminder Singh.

 >>PARMINDER SINGH:  Mr. Chairman, the case that was discussed by Mr. Kummer
 referred to a dynamic coalition which my organization, I.T. for Change, had
 proposed, but I will not speak about the specific thing and in general try to
 propose what kind of issues we think are important in deciding whether an
 initiative is multistakeholder or not. I think the simplistic formula of
 putting government, private sector and civil society and probably academic
 sector and the technical community does not always work because as we have seen
 in our interactions, often works to give a view to certain stakeholders who
 have relatively narrow -- have the political views on a relatively narrow band
 and have much more better resource (inaudible) to represent them. And it was
 against the civil society whose political views are on a very broad band. We
 know civil organizations which are more rightist than many business sectors and
 we know civil society organizations which are more interventionist than many
 governments. And therefore, their political views are on a very broad band. 
 Matters of representation and structures are underresourced, and they tend to
 lose out, and certain groups get a veto on what would go and what may not go
 into ICC spaces and whether there are workshops or dynamic coalitions. And I
 think what should be the Thai criteria is to see whether an initiative is
 serious minded, it has got openness to include other stakeholders and it
 represents enough diversity of views whereby the IGF spaces can be used as in
 value-add to develop views further and make some movement and that should be
 the broader way that multistakeholderism should take place.  And I think in
 this regard it is important to see whether the proposers are open to other
 stakeholders or other stakeholders are blocking participation.  And who is more
 open minded and participative, and whether the original proposal is made in a
 manner in which it is outward looking and is inviting participation and not to
 give veto to certain political views as such. I think, for example,
 geographical representation which came out in one of the statements, it's a
 very important criteria which misses out most of the times in this private
 sector, government, Internet community kind of a forum.  And you will see that
 many of the proposals accepted are predominantly not based and the
 representation from the south is very poor.  So we need to be playing with
 multiple criteria, the very broad application with them.  Seeing the intention
 of the proposal rather than just going by a formula. And I think another issue
 which is important is that we keep on talking about development as being the
 cross-cutting theme and being the most central theme.  And we can't do that
 theme properly until we get the development actors on. And development NGOs are
 not currently engaging in the IGF.  Our own organizations and networks have
 been trying to get more organizations from the development sector, the typical
 organizations which are involving the U.N. spaces to come over to the IGF, and
 these kind of things should be encouraged.  And all of these things together
 constitute the multistakeholder approach and not very tightly defined formula.
 Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you.. France.

 >>FRANCE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  A few points on this.  The benefit of the IGF
 is that it works a little bit in the opposite way that very structured
 intergovernmental processes work.  In intergovernmental processes, you discuss
 at length about the structures that are going to be established, and once you
 have agreed on what you want to establish, either you do establish it or
 sometimes you don't. But at least you discuss and agree before you establish
 it. The IGF has the merit in starting the other way around, allowing
 initiatives to emerge, and then afterwards, some trimming occurs. What I mean
 by trimming is that you reflect on what has emerged and you try to improve it
 and make it more sustainable, more predictable. I think that's the case we're
 facing here.  Dynamic coalitions have been a very great innovation that emerged
 there in Athens, and it is a central component in our view of the fact that the
 IGF is not only an annual event but it's also process. We see it as a component
 for the ongoing intersessional discussion. In that respect, we make a strong
 distinction that I would like to share with you between groups that are
 advocacy group or facilitation groups. I think one of the main purposes of
 dynamic coalitions is to facilitate the aggregation of actors that are
 interested in a given topic, to allow them to coordinate the different meetings
 that they have during the year so that a better reporting can be done at the
 IGF the next -- at the next annual event. In that respect, we believe that for
 dynamic coalitions, a clear presentation of whether they belong to one category
 or the other, it's not that we consider that advocacy coalitions should not be
 -- should not exist, but the dynamic coalitions of the IGF are more, in our
 view, facilitation coalition.  And in that respect, as Markus has mentioned
 earlier, it is very important that the information that is posted about the
 coalition is a relatively succinct but clear charter that takes into account
 the conveners in an explicit way, the members at each moment, the purpose, and
 precisely saying whether it is a facilitation coalition or something that is
 more advocacy in nature.  The membership rules, how open they are and what are
 the criteria for participating for those who want to join.  And certain
 transparency about the ongoing schedule of activities that the coalition is
 conducting so that external actors can know what is happening. In establishing
 those criteria, we believe that we need, on the one hand, to help progressive
 structuring, but keep the flexibility.  So the multistakeholder criteria is
 probably not an absolute rigid one.  Because there are some issues where some
 governments are reluctant to engage at a certain moment of time.  But the
 purpose of the coalition and the desire of its promoters to support the ongoing
 work of the IGF should be the main criteria, in our view. So keeping the
 flexibility, but at the same time, trying to get clear criteria is a balance
 that has to be achieved here. Thanks.

 >>FRANCIS MUGUET:  I'm speaking on behalf of the dynamic coalition for
 linguistic diversity, as one of the two IGF contact point of the coalition,
 along with (saying name). The coalition has been initiated by the world network
 for linguistic diversity, MAJA, provided by His Excellency Adama Samassekou,
 president of the (inaudible) of the WSIS Geneva space. Under the guidance of
 its president, the MAJA network is acting as a coalition coordinator.  The goal
 of the coalition are stemming from recommendation 29 and 53 of the Tunis Agenda
 in regard to Internet governance which are among them -- which we commit to
 working earnestly toward multilingualization of the Internet as part of a
 multilateral, transparent, and democratic process. The world network for
 linguistic diversity, MAJA, was also designated as a lead moderator for the
 linguistic diversity team within the action line C8 cultural and linguistic
 diversity of the Geneva plan of action. For reason of synergy, the action of
 MAJA, as one side on the two side, are gathered within the coalition. The
 coalition is therefore constituting the multistakeholder team, working toward
 the implementation of the team for linguistic diversity. The goals of the MAJA
 -- the goals of the MAJA network are the following.  The official goals.
 Encourage civil society, the private sector, research institution and NGOs are
 ways as governments and organization to adopt and implement measures and
 (inaudible) equitable multilingualism.  Promote mother tongue based on
 multilingual education that contribute to the value the capacity of free
 linguistic and cultural expression of the community in order to guarantee both
 social and gender equality. Promote software localization and equal access of
 all language to cyberspace.  Facilitate the empowerment of language community
 worldwide in developing and defending their own language and its usage. 
 Contribute to the creation and sharing of language resources, of (inaudible),
 the implementation of language policies, ensure technological monitoring and
 serve as a focal point for linguistic research project. Some of the (inaudible)
 members, there is a long list but I am just quoting part of them, are the
 African Academic Language, the E-Africa Commission of (inaudible), the
 Francophonie organization, UNESCO, the African Union, the International
 Telecommunication Union, the ITU, the Latin union, the -- yes, it's one of
 them.  Okay. So now, -- yes. The world (inaudible) for linguistic diversity
 MAJA, under the guidance of its president, is the coordinator of the coalition,
 and therefore members of the MAJA network are included in the operation in an
 operational way.  Coalition members are, however, not automatically members of
 the MAJA networks.  Registration to the MAJA network must be raid in accordance
 with the network status. Registration to the dynamic coalition is an informal
 process open to all intergovernmental organizations, governments, civil
 society, private sector, and all men and women of good will and good faith.
 It's suffice to register to the mailing list or to write to the coordinator.
 The Web site of this coalition is -- because, in fact, the IGF Web site has not
 been updated, is linguists L-I-N -- yes, linguists.TK. Which is -- yes,
 linguist.TK. So this is a world that does not belong to any language, so it
 belongs to every language. Current members of the coalition as, of course,
 MAJA, but Eurolinc, for example, the institute of Information Society in Russia
 and north organization.  So you refer to this site to register. The discussion
 list provides means of communication between members of the dynamic coalition
 for linguistic diversity. Now, in my personal capacity and in response to
 previous contributions this afternoon, I feel there is a need to clarify
 between imagined and emerging issues. The emerging issue session should not be
 confused with the foresight session, which, by the way, will be much welcome.
 What I heard from Dr. Pisanty, an ICANN representative, illustrated how the
 Internet community and industry are all mixed all together.  As we declared
 earlier, civil society must be clearly distinguish itself from such a
 technical, industrial complex. I support the analysis from I.T. for Change in
 their written contribution that is explaining very well how the very
 respectable issue of freedom of expression has been used shamelessly in the
 defense of private interest. Coming back, and concluding, coming back to the
 dynamic coalition, as I wish to conclude on this topic, it is expected that the
 coalition is going to draft recommendations that are going to be proposed at
 the emerging issues session for adoption by IGF in full compliance with the IGF
 mandate. Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  ICC.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  On behalf of ICC and BASIS members, I'm
 pleased to share a few points regarding dynamic coalitions.  And I will be
 brief this time. We support the need for some criteria to be developed for
 dynamic coalitions and propose that, for example, as an essential component,
 they should be, indeed, related to the IGF. A few examples of what criteria we
 might adopt could be next to the multistakeholder principle, that there should
 be some measure of -- that these dynamic coalitions are representative of a
 larger constituency and not just the outcome of a few individuals.  Indeed, the
 topic should be in line with the IGF mandate and the issues to be discussed,
 and there should be not pure advocacy groups.  I understand that some measure
 of advocacy might be necessary.  But they shouldn't be pure advocacy groups,
 but actually trying to move the agenda forward. And I believe one of the
 criteria could be that they issue a statement of the purpose. We would request
 that we set a deadline for these dynamic coalitions to update their
 information.  And as I am from the business community, I suggest to have a
 short deadline, because the IGF in Rio is approaching fast, so I suggest two
 weeks. In general, however, we believe that dynamic coalitions that emerged
 from the first IGF in Athens are still in the process of organizing themselves,
 and perhaps given that we have five years, at least, to run the IGF, we should
 give them just a little bit more time before we actually do a further
 evaluation. That being said, I conclude for the moment.  Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Marilyn Cade.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you. I guess I will support what has been said to date
 on behalf of ITT/WITSA and suggest that, in fact, I think the role of dynamic
 coalitions, as we've all envisioned them, is that they are about affecting
 further change and broadening the impact of the IGF.  So I would agree with ICC
 that the topics addressed by dynamic coalitions should be associated with the
 IGF topics that are being addressed. I do think that the term "dynamic
 coalition" has become a brand, so to speak, recognizable, so there must be a
 platform of criteria.  Perhaps it is not necessary that each dynamic coalition
 have all five regions or all five groups, but it must have some regions and
 some groups, more than a single Region and more than a single sector. It is
 early to know for sure where we want to go.  But I would ask that the Advisory
 Group and the co-chairs talk about making clear a general platform of criteria
 so that dynamic coalitions and others who wish to form them can assess their
 ability to fulfill that criteria.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Anriette Esterhuysen from the APC.

 >>APC:  I was actually wanting to address the next topic.  Are we able to move
 on?

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  We will come to the next topic in a moment. Can I -- China. 
 Is it on the dynamic coalitions? China?  Did you want to speak on dynamic
 coalitions?

 >>CHINA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And sorry for the -- for not being able to
 respond to you immediately, because I was receiving a very important telephone
 call. And on the dynamic coalition, we have the following points to make, that
 is, first, we support the principle of multistakeholder participation, and we
 have no problem making that as a principle for approving any dynamic
 coalitions. But secondly, the point we want to make is that we agree with what
 the French delegate has said, that it should not be a rigid criteria.  And, as
 a matter of fact, we think that that principle itself should be put in a very
 dynamic perspective. In our opinion, if certain -- if certain associations or a
 group of associations, so long as they are not exclusive to the participation
 of other stakeholders, even though at this stage they do not include
 stakeholders like stakeholders from the private sector, and they should not be
 deprived of the possibility of becoming a dynamic coalition simply because of
 that fact. So the third point I want to make is that we believe that I.T. for
 Change is -- has made a request to become a dynamic coalition, and with a very
 pertinent subject.  And we support that.  We hope that it can be approved as a
 dynamic coalition.  And we hope that the subject matters they are coming up
 with to be discussed at the Rio meeting can be given the due facilities by the
 secretariat. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Good, we seem to have caught up with time a little. I've
 heard all the contributions.  I'm not sure that we are in a position to
 completely finalize this. I take the point which somebody made that let's not
 be in a rush.  This is a very early stage.  It has just started as an
 experiment.  I never understood why that adjective "dynamic" got attached.  As
 Marilyn said, it's acquired a certain brand identity and there's not much we
 can do about it.  Though I failed to get a satisfactory explanation as to why
 the word "dynamic" is there from any of the authors.  But never mind.  The
 brand is there.  It doesn't matter.  It's like LUX soap or whatever it is.  I
 will just say let's not be overfussy about getting the criteria absolutely
 right or any such things straightaway. At this stage, to follow a relatively
 loose process -- yes, I think the intention should always be to have as open
 process, open to all stakeholders, where possible, with actual participation by
 multiple stakeholders from different regions. Second, that the goal of the
 dynamic coalitions was not just to provide a space for dialogue.  That is,
 after all, provided by the IGF.  The goal of the dynamic coalitions was to go
 beyond dialogue, into some form of action, not necessarily action in the form
 of doing a project in the field, but it may be action in the form of getting an
 agreement on something, agreement on a protocol, maybe agreement on principles
 or whatever.  But it has to be something which goes beyond the phrase
 "dialogue."  Dialogue, the space is available in IGF. So in that sense, I think
 we should be looking for some dynamic coalitions that are trying to do
 something more than what you can actually achieve in this -- in the IGF
 process.  It must be capable of doing something, it's IGF-plus, if you like. 
 Otherwise, what's the advantage of dynamic coalitions?  These are still fairly
 general as concepts. And I think my own suggestion is that we would request
 that Markus would do a little reflection on this, see whether some sort of
 guidelines can be spelled out, this can be put on the Net, people can comment
 on it in an open process, and then we can see whether, over time, we can evolve
 something.  But as of now, my own suggestion is, it's a very early stage, and
 at this point, you don't want to start being too rigid on these approaches. 
 But do look -- one thing, ideally, one person wanting to make advocacy is not a
 dynamic coalition. So -- whereas, you know, the IGF, which is -- a consultation
 like this is.  These are two extremes.  Everything else that will come before
 us is in between. My main suggestion is that we look for something which will
 add value to the IGF process, which in some ways is able to go a little beyond
 this in terms of it may be specific action, it may be capacity-building, it may
 be securing a more definite agreement on something.  These are some of the
 things that would allow us to say, yes, it is going beyond the IGF in its
 mandate.  And it must be open.  It must not exclude anybody who wishes to
 participate in that process.  Openness, intention, all of these, I think, are
 factors which can be borne in mind. We may at this point leave Mr. Kummer with
 the somewhat vague guidance and trust him to do the best. May I then, if he
 agrees, suggest that we close this discussion and that we move on to the next
 part, which is quite important, because we don't -- we are not going to meet
 before Rio.  So we do need to get to grips and understanding with the logistics
 of the process. I was going to suggest we spend maybe about a half an hour on
 that, and then we can move on to a -- well, again, I hope a somewhat sharp
 discussion on -- which is, again, first discussion, it's not something which
 ends the story -- which is on the whole issue of what people feel about the way
 in which the Advisory Group gets constituted, how -- what are the reflections
 that people have, what should we be looking for in the future as we look ahead
 for the next three, four years at the life of the IGF. So with this, let me
 hand over to my co-chair, because now this is the part where he will have to
 ask his people to tell us a little.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, co-chair Desai.  So let's move to item 4 of the
 agenda that refers to the logistical arrangements. I would propose to offer the
 floor to the Brazilian delegation that would make a presentation.  Then I would
 open the floor for questions.  Actually, this item is not for discussion.  It's
 for information. So I wonder if delegates would have questions to pose.  If the
 list becomes too long, I would suggest direct contact with the Brazilian
 delegation in order to solve more punctual questions. But I think the more
 important thing now is to have an idea of the situation, of the logistic
 arrangements in Brazil.  I will give the floor to Brazil. Brazil, please be
 concise and informative at the same time.  I don't know how.  You will do the
 work.  But, anyway, I would like to give the floor to Brazil, then. Thank you
 very much.

 >>AUGUSTO CESAR GADELHA VIEIRA:  Thank you very much.  I would like first to
 compliment Mr. Nitin Desai for becoming again the special advisor of the United
 Nations Secretary-General; Mr. Markus Kummer for again doing this excellent job
 in organizing this event; and I should say that we are very happy to have Mr.
 Hadil Vianna, the director of the Department for Science and Technology of our
 foreign affair ministry, to represent us as a co-chair of this session. As a
 coordinator of the steering committee of Brazil for the Internet, of Brazilian
 Internet, the CGI.BR, I am very happy to say that we are doing the most efforts
 to make the IGF Rio to be a successful event. We have contributed -- the
 steering committee has contributed with more than one million Euros to this
 event.  And we are supporting all the expenses that are being taken in Rio, and
 also a permanent staff to assist Mr. Kummer here in Geneva for the organization
 of IGF. So we have not much limit to our desire to make this event to be very
 much successful. We have chosen a very new place, a very new hotel, which is
 very much well prepared for the most technological aspects and the best
 technological aspects for the meetings of such dimension. We have reserved 37
 rooms and floors for this event.  And there will be enough room for one session
 for 2,000 people.  So there will be no problems again, we understand, for this
 question. Wi-Fi for more than 2,500 people have been given.  And there is --
 how do you call? -- a link of more than 100 megabits per second which has been
 done -- let me just -- yes, one link of 100 megabits per second, and with
 another one ready for any contingency that comes up. Transportation from and to
 the airport as well as inside Rio among the hotels and the places of the event,
 of other events, parallel events, will be given.  Local security has been
 looked for an improvement in the federal, state, and municipal law enforcement
 organization has been done. So I think there will be -- all the organizational
 aspect has been looked for, and we hope that we will not be faced with any
 problems on that. So we are working hard that this will be a successful event.
 Actually, we are working hard to involve Brazilian society on the discussions
 that is going to be happening at this event.  And for that, we would like to
 see the IGF Rio meeting discussions, which will be quite more accessible to
 common people than nuclear physics symposium.  So we believe that we must face
 the challenge to comply with two aspects that seem to be in conflict.  On one
 side, to make the discussion take hold in IGF Rio, to have a broad audience,
 and to have more effective consequences than to the audience at the Windsor
 Hotel.  And to the other side, to understand and reflect its limit as a body
 that is still not structured nor has any mandate to forward conclusive
 recommendations. So this is something which we hope that the IGF Rio will find
 a way out, to have some consequences of what we are discussing.  And for that,
 I would say that even though Brazil is very much involved in these IGF events,
 with a large group of people that comes to the events, we had in Greece about
 15 people involved, that's not enough to make society in Brazil to really have
 the feeling of the importance of this meeting. In the same way, I think many
 cultures will have one or five representatives in Rio, and they will not be
 able to make their people aware of what is happening in this event.  And so
 something must be done so that they know what is happening and what are the
 conclusions -- not the conclusions, but at least the discussions that have been
 held in this event.  Otherwise, I think it will not have the same importance to
 each country every year that comes on. I would like to go on and pass the word
 to my colleague so that we can show a video on Brazil and the event that is on
 the side that is going to be held at the IGF Rio, please.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Probably some of you saw this video before, but we would
 like to repeat again with some new information.  We have a DVD ready for all
 the audience. (Video plays.)

 >>VIDEO:  Rio de Janeiro, entryway to Brazil, wonderful city that receives each
 and every visitor with open arms.  Rio of carnival, of the beach, of rivers and
 forests, Rio from January to January, land of happiness, love, and friendship. 
 Rio of the family.  Rio of the young and of the old.  Rio of samba, of bossa
 nova, of soccer.  Rio of the Brazilian race. (Music).

 >>:In Rio de Janeiro, the host country selected the Windsor Barra Hotel in
 Barra de Tijuca as the venue of this important event. It is being prepared to
 supply the most modern technical equipment to guarantee the success of the
 event, including wireless and wired Internet services available for all places.
  See more features about this hotel. (Music.)

 >>:To accommodate the participants, the host country has listed only the
 first-class hotels which offer highest quality and comfort, including daily
 shuttle for the meeting venue.  Windsor Barra, the meeting venue, is located in
 Barra de Tijuca, west side of Rio de Janeiro. In the neighborhood, you can find
 these options, Sheraton Barra Hotel with (inaudible), it is the nearest hotel,
 also with ocean view. Another option is Royalty Barra, only few kilometers from
 meeting venue Transamerica Flat Barra, located around four kilometers from the
 meeting venue. Barra first class. You can also find this hotel in Barra de
 Tijuca. Intercontinental, around eight kilometers from meeting venue, next to
 the Sao Conrado Fashion Mall. Sheraton Hilton Hotel Resort, between Barra de
 Tijuca and the famous beach for those people who prefer to stay at the famous
 beaches Ipanema and Copacabana, see the following options. Mar Ipanema Hotel.
 Hotel Sofitel Rio. Hotel Orla Copacabana. Hotel Miramar Copacabana, Pestana Rio
 Atlantica Hotel for more details, visit the host Web site. (Music).

 >>:Welcome to Rio de Janeiro. (Video concludes.)

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  To see the original, you need to come to Brazil.  Welcome in
 Rio de Janeiro, 2007.  I'd like to see you there.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Brazil, for the video. Any other comments the
 Brazilian delegation would like to make with regard to the logistics? If not,
 first, before opening the floor for questions, I'd like to know if the
 secretariat would like to say something with regard to the works that are being
 done.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, chairman.  No, I can say that we are very
 pleased with how we advance with the work, and we have an excellent cooperation
 with the logistical team.  I think the main open question at this stage is the
 security arrangements.  And there will be a planning mission shortly,
 hopefully, in two weeks' time.  And we really are well on track. The facilities
 in the hotel are excellent.  We have plenty of space there.  It's now a
 question of just finalizing it, and I think after the Advisory Group, after
 this meeting and the meeting of the Advisory Group, we also get a clearer
 picture on the final architecture of what meetings should be used for what. But
 I'm very confident that we can have an excellent meeting in these facilities
 you provide so generously for the meeting. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer, Secretariat. Well, in the video that
 was shown, we have information about things that you are not going to do,
 because you will be working. So beaches and -- carnival is in January so forget
 about it.  But at least you have an idea of where to stay and which beach to go
 to after the meeting, of course. I would like to open the floor for comments,
 questions, and if there are not many, I will draw a line for -- yes, for
 interventions. I recognize -- sorry, I forgot the name.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  William Drake, Bill Drake.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Yes, the speaker, please.

 >>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you. I have a question about getting to Rio.  It
 concerns visas.  I happen to be from one of the countries that has to have a
 visa. And I tried to go to the Geneva consulate, and it was a very difficult
 process.  The staff only spoke Portuguese.  They gave me several documents that
 listed competing requirements for necessary documents and different prices for
 what I should pay. I sent e-mails, I went through a lot of different things
 which I will spare you all of the gory details. Can I just make a suggestion.
 It might be useful if the host country could have on the Web site a printable
 document that we could take to the consulate that would specify the terms and
 conditions and so on in Portuguese for the staff to be able to make sense of.
 There's also a question about some of the passport requirements and so on.  I
 understand from colleagues, one has to give up their passport for several weeks
 while waiting, and for those of us who are traveling a lot, that's not
 possible. So I wonder if perhaps we could find some systematized approach to
 this because I don't know if anybody else is having any difficulties or not,
 but I contacted several consulates, actually, in the end was told that there's
 no standardization of the requirements across them.  That what the consulate in
 Switzerland requires is different from what the consulate in the United States
 requires which is different from so on. And so it would make the process
 easier, in the event that anybody else has difficulties as well, if some of
 this information could be provided on the Web site. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you.  I will ask the Brazilian delegation to reply.

 >>BRAZIL:  Yes.  Mr. Chairman, on the question of visas, we instructed all our
 embassies and consulates to follow a certain procedure regarding visas to the
 IGF. There might be specific situations in which the consulate or the embassy
 is having an interpretation of that instruction, and being aware of that, we
 are now sending a second, a reinforcement of the instruction to all our
 consulates. The question is that, normally, the terms and conditions vary
 according to the nationality of the person who is applying for the visa.  For
 many nationals, many people from many countries are not required to have visas,
 and those few, I would say, that are required, they -- even for them, the
 requirements follow a principle of reciprocity, according to what is demanded
 from Brazilians applying for a visa to their country of nationality. What we
 did in this case was that the basic document to be presented to our consulates
 is the letter of invitation.  And the invitation for the IGF does not come from
 the host country but, rather, from the United Nations. And I understand that --
 we talked with the Secretariat about that, and we managed to have as a
 solution, and what is in place now, perhaps we may try to adjust somehow, is
 that when you -- when you enter the Web site and then you enter your data for
 the credential to the event, then you get a reply from the Secretariat saying
 that you are accredited to the event. Perhaps in some of the consulates, what
 we might see is that they are not recognizing that document as a valid one.  It
 could happen.  And perhaps that's something that we need to adjust with the
 Secretariat in terms of having a letter that is -- that clearly indicates that
 it is an official U.N. letter saying that that person has been accredited, has
 been -- has gone through the credential for the event. Well, as I told you, I
 think that we are going to work with the Secretariat on these specific
 measures, and it is important for you to mention to us in particular where this
 is happening, because I understand that that might be some isolated situations
 that we might have to deal on a case-by-case basis.  And we are open to listen
 to your complaints and facilitate, to the extent possible, taking into account,
 of course, the need to respect the normal rules for visa issuance for Brazil.
 We are also -- I just would like to finish by saying that we are providing for
 the participants a special class of visa which is free of charge.  It is
 supposed to be free of charge. So perhaps if the -- in a particular consulate,
 the staff is not aware of that, then please let us know that we will reinforce
 that to them. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Brazil. I recognize ICC.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Chairman.  And thank you to the host country of Brazil for
 clarifying some of the things that have been put in place to facilitate the
 visas. If we can see movement on the letter in the near future, I think it will
 facilitate, particularly for certain developing country participants from the
 business community, I understand they have had problems.  And I can say myself,
 it's a challenge. So we'll be in touch on a case-by-case basis if we have
 problems.  We appreciate the invitation letter efforts. Three points I wanted
 to make.  One was that we will welcome further information about Webcast and
 remote participation opportunities.  This was maximized by some of our members
 in Athens and it was very much appreciated. Number two, further information
 about the TV studio.  This is of interest to members of the business community,
 and I'm sure other stakeholders.  And that would be of interest to get more
 information. And then there was also a -- the idea of a looping opportunity for
 people to make recorded statements.  More information about that in the near
 future would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, ICC. I recognize professor Kleinwaechter.  And
 there's one more request from the floor -- two more requests for the floor.
 Professor, you have the floor.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:  My question is with regard to accommodation.  I have
 seen the first class hotel which is really perfect and they are not only really
 good hotels, they are also very expensive. Speaking on behalf of civil society
 and academic community, these are groups which are traveling normally on very
 low budget, and they would be very thankful if you could offer additionally to
 the selection you have already made with first-class hotels, also some offers,
 you know, with low-budget hotels, with cheaper hotels.  And that you could
 provide, then, transportation between the cheaper hotels to the venue so that
 people could come in time to the meetings, you know, by living in a cheaper
 place than the Sheratons and Hiltons. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Brazil would like to reply.

 >>BRAZIL:  We can put on our Web site a selection of other options but these
 hotels all were approved by the planning joint mission.  But I understand your
 wish, and we can supply this in a few days.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Brazil. I have one more request, and I think
 it's the final one for the floor.  I'm sorry, there's two more. Yes, two,
 actually. I have the gentleman in the yellow shirt in the back of the room, and
 then Mr. Muguet.

 >> I'll be very brief, because it was the same question. People from booming
 economies in South America and south Asia tend to forget there are still poor
 countries like Switzerland.  So for us, it is a problem, but it was just the
 same question so I will not take more of your time.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. Muguet, please.

 >>FRANCIS MUGUET:  Yes, it was about the concern for civil society about the
 price of the accommodation.  And I will suggest that the committee might
 negotiate reduced rates with the hotels.  And also, we are well aware that the
 area in Brazil is -- there is a problem with security in Brazil, and we need to
 have, in fact, also the opportunity to have locus hotel, but with enough
 security. I will request also that the parking lot of the hotel will be freely
 available to those of the civil society who has to be in the hotel or other
 places which are far away from the location. So this is one thing. The other
 thing which is of concern to civil society is to allow the participation of the
 local civil society.  And one of the benefit of the itinerant nature of the
 IGF, in fact, it is to allow participation of the broader part of civil
 society. And in this case, I think the Brazilian committee should make special
 effort to reach out from the Brazilian civil society, and to have also promote
 participation in a way that also accommodation and travel from the civil
 society, not only from Brazil but also from all the Latin American and LAC
 area. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Muguet.  I understand Brazil could reply to
 give some information on what Mr. Muguet has just said, especially with regard
 to the participation of civil society. Thank you.

 >>BRAZIL:  Actually, let me just answer the first point he took that was on
 security. Very recently, we had the event of the Pan American games in Brazil,
 in Rio, and that was a main concern on the athletes and of the delegations. 
 And actually, after two weeks of the games, there was not one single occurrence
 which could call attention of the press. So I think that that proved that we
 are able to give security to this type of event. Actually, the point of the
 civil society and the hotels, we are looking at cheap places or very low rates
 hotels which could accommodate people from lower income society.  And in
 Brazil, we are inviting all over Brazil people to participate in this event.
 The government and also civil society have been promoting meetings around in
 Brazil to discuss the IGF in Rio.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Brazil. I have one more request for the floor,
 Mr. Echeberria. You have the floor, sir.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  In fact, what I want to say is to
 defend the host here, because I have been in Rio de Janeiro many times.  It is
 a very typical city for holding Latin American meetings. One of the good things
 that the city has is that there are very broad range of -- a very large number
 of hotels with a broad range of prices. The problem probably is that I have
 been in many meetings in many hotels, different hotels in Copacabana, which is
 the most common area for this kind of meetings, but as far as I know, there is
 no one hotel in Copacabana that fulfilled the requirements for the IGF
 meetings. So I think that this is the reason for having this meeting far away
 from that area. But this is exactly one of the reasons, because there are so
 many meetings in Rio de Janeiro, because there are a very large number of
 hotels with different prices.  It's a very good place for doing this kind of
 thing. So I would like to endorse also the comments of Mr. Gadelha regarding
 the security.  I had opportunity to be in Rio de Janeiro a few weeks ago. 
 Really, all the areas which the people will be transiting usually during the
 meeting is very safe. I had an opportunity to see all the security that were
 provided for Pan American games.  I was there for that time.  It was really
 magnific.  It was terrific. And I think I sent an e-mail to the Advisory Group
 from there saying that. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Echeberria, for your comments. Any other
 requests? So if no -- If we have just finished the information, exchange of
 information on item 4, we can move on to item 5 of the agenda.  And it refers
 to Advisory Group. Mr. Desai will preside over.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Yes.  We have done all the difficult things.  We will now
 take the easy thing up [ Laughter ]

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  The easy one is this is the last substantive item we have. 
 The very last item, 6, is simply for information because as I said it's rather
 premature to start discussing the evaluation of IGF and we have only had one
 meeting, but Markus will simply inform you about how it will be done, when it
 gets done. On the Advisory Group, the main thing that I would like to have a
 discussion, and which we will discuss of course more thoroughly in the Advisory
 Group itself, is that we do -- the process has been evolving.  And one of the
 things that the secretary-general would like feedback from us is that we have
 always talked in terms of rotation.  And at the moment, the process for the
 formation of the Advisory Group is some consultation with countries, groups, et
 cetera, but the burden falls entirely on the Secretariat and the
 secretary-general. And whether we have any creative ideas on the process for
 the constitution of the Advisory Group, keeping in mind the idea that there
 must be some continuity to ensure connection between the different years.  But
 at the same time, there must also be a turnover and a rotation so that the same
 group does not -- is not expected to continue forever. There is some change
 even in the new group which has been constituted directed to the old one, but
 the changes are on an ad hoc basis. So it's more to see how we can start
 thinking in a slightly more structured approach to the constitutional Advisory
 Group, which is what is wanted. I don't think we can finish this, given the
 fact that we have taken so much time over the others.  So I would urge people
 to give their immediate comments.  This is not something which is going to be
 finalized straight away or any such thing.  And it's largely a matter of
 passing on a range of views and opinions to the secretary-general. With this,
 the floor is open. Yes.

 >>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chair.  Anriette Esterhuysen from APC,
 Association for Progressive Communication.  Just some preliminary comments.
 Well, firstly, we are really pleased that the mandate was renewed of the
 Advisory Group, and of the Chair.  It would be useful to -- I think for people
 Brazil to get an update on what precisely the terms of reference of the
 Advisory Group is at this stage. And then some -- I think certainly for the
 future, it would be important not to again have a delay in the renewing of the
 mandate, because it has made your task so much more difficult. And in terms of
 renewal and rotation, we endorse the suggestion that there's some turnover of
 membership, but it's also important to have continuity. And we would propose
 roughly a process that would create some kind of nomination process to bring in
 about 30%, 30 to 40% of new people every year. And aside from a nomination
 process, a transparent process.  It might also be good to link this to
 assessment.  It might even be useful to ask members of the Advisory Group to do
 a self-assessment of how effective they feel they have been in fulfilling their
 role. I think that it would also be important to achieve better balance between
 stakeholders on the Advisory Group, particularly with the input of civil
 society and also regional diversity. And then to ensure that the Advisory Group
 that is constituted actually operates as such.  The issue of resources which
 have to be addressed. And as we know from the current Advisory Group, because
 there isn't financial resources to support participation, it becomes de facto a
 group of people that can afford to come or that are geographically close to the
 location of the meeting.  And that's just not good enough. I think that -- the
 nomination process, that's very important. I think the other principle we would
 like to endorse is the idea of the host country co-chair role.  It's a
 legitimate principle.  It's important that governments take the IGF seriously
 and that they participate.  And we have the president of Greece having played a
 really effective role in hosting. And at the same time, it is important to
 avoid the host country co-chair or the host country government having undue
 influence over the agenda and over who participates.  And we have to take a
 long view on this.  There are different governments who will host various IGFs.
 So while we feel as APC that too many rules is not a good idea, but at the same
 time let's avoid setting precedents that we might regret in the future. And
 again here, a review and assessment process will be very helpful after this IGF
 to look at the co-chair role.  And also maybe on a lighter note, it's quite
 good that there are two chairs because it's clearly quite a lot of work to keep
 speakers to the point.  And so I hope the two of you can provide one another
 with moral and logistical support. And then on the process.  I think whereas
 it's not a good idea from our perspective to create too many rules, we do feel
 that the work process of the Advisory Group should be more structured.
 Participation requires transparency, it requires good information and
 communication and flow.  It also requires accountability, and a little bit more
 procedure, time frames for submission on aspects of the Advisory Group's work. 
 Time frames for submitting content, comment on the agenda, names of speakers. 
 So to facilitate participation in that way. I know that virtual participation
 is very important, and we appreciate that, but it's not a substitute for a
 good, solid, transparent process that allows people over time to give input to
 the work of the Advisory Group. And then I think also to endorse perhaps what
 some of the other speakers have said, informality is very important.  And I
 think that -- I don't want to address the IGF itself, the process.  But I think
 it's important to not lose that role of the IGF where it creates spaces for
 people to just network.  And I think the Advisory Group needs to keep that in
 mind. I also think the process, the internal work process of the Advisory Group
 is very important, that there's clear communication within the group.  At times
 today, it felt like some of the Advisory Group members were speaking, because
 they needed to speak, when, in fact, ideally, they should be listening, because
 the closed consultation is the space for Advisory Group members to speak.  The
 open consultation is the space for Advisory Group members to listen.  But I can
 also understand why that has been -- it's been difficult for the Advisory
 Group, because you haven't really had an opportunity, perhaps, to work enough
 on this IGF. And I think, finally, just to look at the review and assessment
 process.  I know we'll come back to that later.  But that it's very important
 to use that and to have an approach of evolving the functioning, the rules of
 procedure, terms of reference of the Advisory Group.  And I think earlier, ICC
 used the terms "experimental" at some point.  But I think, yes, let's have a
 cycle every year where the Advisory Group can reflect on its own functioning
 and rules of procedure and build on that.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  There's one advantage of having two co-chairs.  It's the
 same as having two parents.  One when says "no," you can go to the other one to
 get a "yes."

 >>:Good cop and bad cop.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Parminder Singh.

 >>I.T. FOR CHANGE:  Thank you, Chair.  Actually, my work has been made simpler
 by APC's statement, and I endorse all the points made by Anriette.  I will not
 repeat them, just quickly mention, a certain percentage of members should be
 rotated and there should be some continuity.  There should be a nomination
 process where each stakeholder group is able to nominate their own
 representatives.  And a balance among the different multistakeholder groups is
 very important.  And in this regard, I would like to restate what I spoke about
 during the discussion on the multistakeholder principle, that we must do some
 amount of outreach and reach out to groups which have not normally been
 involved in these narrowly technical Internet processes and go over to other
 groups which would have public interest relationship with this area. I'd now
 make another point, which is related to the Secretary-General's communication
 and to the work of the Advisory Group but is not about rotation.  And this is
 about the mention in the Secretary-General's communication that the Advisory
 Group is advised or instructed to increase the transparency and the flow of
 information to the interested groups. And I think there's something which we
 can do about it.  There was a suggestion in the morning that all the meetings
 should be open.  It's good to make as many of the meetings open as possible,
 have some other meetings where there are observers who are not in the group and
 even those meetings which have to be closed, I would like the group to explore
 the possibility of giving a meeting report or a meeting summary.  Because,
 often, we do not have any document at the end of the meeting to tell us what
 kind of issues were discussed and what kind of discussions were taken.  And if
 some kind of summary is made out of the closed Advisory Group meetings, that
 should itself be very useful, because then the interested groups can approach
 the members and explore if some more information can come out of them.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  ICC.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Mike.

 >>ICC:  My work has also been made easier by my colleagues who have intervened
 earlier. I would like to say that on behalf of ICC/BASIS, we would support the
 idea that APC has put forward about the evaluation or assessment of the role of
 a co-chair from the host country.  We do recognize that the host country
 carries a very big burden and has a very special place in the IGF.  And an
 assessment after the IGF in Rio would be a useful way forward. To be very
 clear, ICC/basis members have supported the multistakeholder Advisory Group and
 would like to just clearly state that as the ideas for rotation and assessment,
 et cetera, are ongoing, we do not support the formation of a bureau of any
 kind. I'd also like to bring up the point that Parminder of I.T. for Change has
 just stated in talking about transparency and openness regarding the Advisory
 Group and the work that the Advisory Group does. We fully support ideas in that
 regard and would look forward to finding new and interesting ways to make it
 more interactive with the greater community. Another point I think that we all
 recognize as we're going into this second IGF, that the convening of the
 Advisory Group at a very late date has made things more challenging.  And we'd
 hope that as we do this evaluation for how rotation or renewal should be
 implemented going forward that we are very cognizant of the time involved in
 planning for the IGF event and the benefits of having an Advisory Group in
 place and convened by the U.N. Secretary-General at an early date. We also
 support the ideas of continuity and rotation which APC stated. We also suggest
 that some of the communities should be taking some time between now and the IGF
 in Rio to come up with some additional ideas and perhaps some kind of a public
 comment on proposals after the IGF in Rio to quickly get started on thinking
 about ideas, because each community may need to handle this in a different way
 in terms of the ways in which they recommend possible people to rotate in and
 out. As we've stated before, the critical thing is maintaining a
 multistakeholder balance and positive representation of all the different
 interests. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  ETNO and then Adiel.

 >>ETNO:  Thank you, chair. I would like to present you some preliminary ETNO
 views on the Advisory Group.  And I start by saying that we, in general,
 support the views expressed by APC. And we would like to make clear from the
 very beginning that in ETNO's view, there's no need for a bureau, in the sense
 the term usually has in the U.N. context. As you have said, Mr. Desai, in the
 past, IGF is not a membership body and it cannot elect.  The issue of the
 bureau has been discussed thoroughly and resolved.  And I would like to make
 some additional comments.  ETNO, like many others, supports the continuation of
 the Advisory Group.  We understand that the members of the Advisory Group work
 on a voluntary basis under their personal capacities and that they have to put
 a lot of time and effort. However, if it is seen like a dirty job which someone
 might do, we support the idea that certain criteria under selection and
 rotation of members of the Advisory Group are established from now on. For us,
 it is vital that all stakeholder groups be represented in the Advisory Group
 after a call from the IGF secretariat, stakeholder, geographical and gender
 balance without rigged subquotas is a must.  There should be a maximum term for
 members, with a proportion of the membership being replaced every year, but
 reappointment should be possible on the same terms as for new members. These
 are just some first thoughts.  Because of the very short notice since the U.N.
 press release and the announcement of the agenda of this consultation, we would
 like to come back on the rotation of the Advisory Group members soon, probably
 after the Rio IGF.  In any case, we believe that the operations of the Advisory
 Group should be more transparent, and we request that the Advisory Group
 produces regular reports of its activities. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  And I have Adiel, then Wolfgang, and Mr. MUGUET, China, and
 France.

 >>ADIEL AKPLOGAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Adiel Akplogan of AfriNIC, member
 of the executive council of the NRO, and also of the Advisory Group. I am
 talking here in my capacity of member of the NRO executive council. We would
 like to express some of our concern regarding the rotation and the
 reorganization of the Advisory Group. As said in the communique, the Advisory
 Group should look at rotation mechanism for its own renewal.  We think that it
 is a good time also to propose some basic principle which to guide the
 composition and the structure of the Advisory Group.  We think that the main
 principle which come up from the WSIS, which are openness, transparency, and
 multistakeholder principle, should be the baseline. If we look at the Advisory
 Group today, we will notice that it is composed and it is vast majority of
 representative of the government, almost 50% of it comes from governmental
 organizations.  We would suggest that for the following year, much attention
 must be taken to make the group more balanced. Another concern that we have
 which is linked to this -- and for that I will clearly say that we have no
 objection on the appointment of Mr. Da Rocha Vianna, and we will also use this
 opportunity to really appreciate the effort that Brazil has put in place for
 the success of the upcoming IGF -- we think that the appointment of a
 governmental representative as co-chair of the Advisory Group adds to that
 unbalanced organization of the Advisory Group, as we said before. We think that
 the success of the IGF comes mainly from its multistakeholder organization, and
 we think moving further from that principle can jeopardize its success. While
 we will continue to support the IGF, we think the three principles, which are
 the openness, the transparency, and the multistakeholder principle, should base
 all of our actions.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  May I clarify that my co-chair is here as a representative
 of Brazil, not of the Brazilian government.  And there is no necessary reason
 why the host country chair has to be from government.  It could be an NGO.  It
 could be -- it is entirely up to the -- there is absolutely nothing -- there is
 no intention, ever.  But I would like this to be very clear so that this issue
 does not arise.  And, incidentally, I don't belong to any government.  So -- in
 fact, not to any stakeholder group, strictly speaking. But, nevertheless, I
 would like to clarify that my colleague and collaborator is here as a
 representative of the host country, not of the host country government.  And
 the host country government people are sitting there, down --

 >>:There are a lot of people there, too.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Can I just move on?  Did you want to come back?

 >>ADIEL AKPLOGAN:  I just want to clarify also what I am saying. I think what
 we want to express is that -- and as ICC said before, it could be seen as an
 experimental process which can be evaluated.  But it has to be done based upon
 a principle which all of us at the AG should agree on so that it's done in a
 very transparent way.  That is the main message here.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Mr. Kleinwaechter.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER:  You know, the unclarity of the status of the MAG,
 Membership Advisory Group, has produced in the last couple of weeks all kinds
 of conspiracy theories, as you probably are aware. When I was asked, I said,
 "There is no conspiracy.  The group has nothing to hide." And I think we should
 be really very clear that there is -- you know, that the group is part of a
 process.  It's embedded into the whole discussion, and has a service function,
 you know, to help the chair and to help the organizers to make this happen.  I
 would have no problem to come back to a procedural element we had in the
 Internet governance, the WGIG, where we had silent onlookers in the meetings of
 the group.  They means they have no speaking rights, then, because, you know,
 you have to work in a smaller group if you want to come to a certain
 achievement. But my impression is this group has nothing to hide and would
 benefit from openness and transparency.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have Mr. Muguet. Incidentally, when you mention
 conspiracy, I would like to you keep in mind, as a person -- as a civil servant
 of longstanding, that all beliefs in conspiracies by governments rests on the
 beliefs that governments are intelligent, efficient, and can keep a secret. [
 Laughter ]

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  All three propositions are wrong. And now, Mr. Muguet.

 >>FRANCIS MUGUET:  Yes.  In consideration of my first contribution, I will ask
 the Chair, the co-chair, as to whether they will, in fact, allow observers,
 silent observers, as suggested by Dr. Kleinwaechter to assist to the next
 session of the MAG.  So this is one question. Concerning the next composition
 of this Advisory Group, it is necessary to observe a balance between
 development, the business, the Internet community and the civil society. This
 means four class of stakeholders. Furthermore, we request that it will be a
 full disclosure of interest of all people that participate and want to
 participate into this Advisory Group. We regret that some stakeholders are
 trying to renegotiate the mandate when opposing the formation of a bureau.  We
 hope sincerely they will reconsider the issue without preconceived idea, and
 they will consider (inaudible) consequences consenting at the national public
 law.  We invite them to consider the bigger picture, that is the legal
 recognition of the multistakeholder process. So is it worth, really, to
 sacrifice the organization of a legal multistakeholder process for some cause?
 The Advisory Group should be prepared to evolve into one part -- on one side
 into a bureau, and the other part into a program committee. Separation of power
 is a condition of democracy and transparency.  All session of these two bodies
 should be open. Secondly, informality is good whenever no decision are taken
 are good for discussion.  There is no question about it. But formality is
 necessary to ensure transparency and undue influence by lobbies. The rule of
 the law and the good law is to protect the weak. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  On your first question, which was a very specific one, Mr.
 Muguet, the two co-chairs are not in a position to decide on their own on these
 issues.  The secretary-general has set up the group.  And I will convey this
 and see -- come back to you on this. But it's not possible for us to
 unilaterally change rules on our own. Because we are working under certain
 instruction, and a certain mandate which we have been given. But your point is
 taken, and several others have also mentioned that.  Several other people have
 also mentioned it, and I shall certainly convey it and come back on this
 matter. Right now our future is very much on the future constitution of the
 group.  We haven't, as I said, come to a fixed conclusion on this because we
 still have a meeting in Rio and it's really beyond Rio that this would be done.
 I now have China and France. China.

 >>CHINA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the Advisory Group, we have two points to
 make. One is that we hope that the future Advisory Group could be more balanced
 in its composition.  In particular, more representation could be given to the
 developing countries. And also, in choosing the advisors, more attention should
 be given to the diversity -- I mean the composition of the Advisory Group
 should reflect the diversity of views on all the issues concerned, in order to
 achieve a balance. And second point is transparency.  We hope that in the
 future, both in the selection of the advisors and also the conduct of the
 Advisory Group should be given more transparency.  And we may even venture a
 suggestion that in the future Advisory Groups, countries or stakeholders which
 are not members of the Advisory Group could be given the chance to participate
 in the capacity of an observer.  So that may help to ensure more transparency
 in the conduct of the Advisory Group. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have France, and then Marilyn Cade.

 >>FRANCE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  A few brief remarks. The first element is
 whatever the discussion on the name of this group, the most important element
 is the multistakeholder nature of this group and the fact that all stakeholder
 categories are comfortable with the architecture that will be put in place. 
 That's the first point. The second point is to pick up on the notion that in
 whatever group is formed, the contribution is on a personal capacity and not as
 representative of any group, whatever the selection mechanism is. The next
 element is that strangely enough, sometimes bad things turn out into good
 things.  For instance, not for the sake of being contrarian, I wonder whether
 the fact that the MAG was not renewed or not renewed early did not lead to a
 more fluid organization or non-organization of the IGF meeting in Rio than
 would have been the case if we had had a full-fledged MAG in place very early
 on. It would have probably then tried to structure a schedule in a very, very
 formal manner, selecting speakers and so on.  And maybe, in a certain way, the
 fact that it came later on allowed for more flexibility and rules that are
 easier to implement. So I would encourage not all the participants not to
 overburden the group with very complex task of selecting everything and
 structuring the process very, very formally. I want to go to the future
 elements. We noted with very much interest the mention in the message of the
 U.N. secretary-general renewing the MAG, the mention of a future open and
 inclusive process of consultations after Rio regarding the evolution of the
 Advisory Group and the articulation between the involvement of the group itself
 in discussing its composition and its evolution and the contribution of other
 actors in this process. We are looking forward to the discussions that will
 take place on that issue in Rio and afterwards in the perspective of the
 February meetings. In that respect, it is obvious that those consultations will
 have to address at least the four points of the role of the group, the
 composition of the group, the designation of the group and the chairmanship of
 the group, as an outline. Two last points, very quickly, regarding comments
 that have been made previously. I note with great interest, without getting
 into details, the interesting distinction that our chair Nitin has introduced
 about the co-chair being the representative of the country, rather than the
 government.  I still note that, nonetheless, the country representative is
 designated by the government in the Brazil situation.  So it's an interesting
 two layers of things.  And it's interesting to take into account the notion
 that sometimes governments can designate for certain functions people who are
 not government officials. And the last point relates to what Wolfgang
 Kleinwaechter was mentioning regarding the silent on lookers. Maybe there is an
 interesting way to explore, also according to what the Chinese delegate
 mentioned, of allowing silent on lookers with Chatham house rules applied for
 one major reason, is that for a lot of participants, it is not worth making the
 trip to Geneva for one day of consultations. I live in Paris, but I must
 confess that if we hadn't had the ITU meeting at the same time, it would have
 probably been harder to do the back and forth.  And I suppose it's even worse
 for a lot of people far away. So allowing the most motivated to have the three
 days, even if they cannot speak in the next closed sessions, is probably an
 interesting thing to explore. Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  France then Marilyn.  I'm afraid I have to ask people to be
 very, very telegraphic, because now it's not simply a matter of what time.  We
 will simply lose all services here, including lights. So be really fast.
 Marilyn Cade and then Brazil and then Raul Echeberria. And then Jeannette
 Hofmann.  But we will have to be telegraphic.  And then the Russian Federation.
  Five.  I am afraid more than that will be very tough before we lose the
 lights. Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chairman. Speaking for ITAA and WITSA, I will say
 that we had considered the idea of changes, and we support the view that it is
 premature to make decisions today or even tomorrow or the next day, but that
 this is a topic for consideration.  And we will discuss this further with the
 companies who are members of ITAA and WITSA. We do, of course, note the extreme
 importance and value of regional balance and balanced inclusion across the full
 set of stakeholders. We will support the view that others have made that we do
 not support the creation of a bureau, because we believe that the IGF is a
 unique forum and that it is important not to resort to U.N. procedures just
 because some may be particularly comfortable with that.  That is not an area
 that is necessarily generally agreeable to all stakeholders.  We think the
 unique status and approach of the operation and organization of the IGF should
 be supported. I will say something that may seem a bit strange coming from the
 private sector.  I actually question the idea that at this point we would
 create observers.  I think that we should instead focus on the IGF advisory
 committee increasing its transparency through publishing an agenda and through
 publishing a report at the end of its work.  And let's start with that. I think
 that the advisory committee members, although they act in their personal
 capacity, have adopted and accepted a degree of accountability and
 responsibility. We can't really apply that same metric to casual observers. 
 And I don't mean that I, as an observer, would be casual, but, in fact,
 observers would have to accept responsibility and accountability as well.  So
 let's start with improving the transparency before we start making other major
 changes. If we find we can't improve transparency, then I think we would be
 thrown into the idea that all meetings would be open to all players.  And it's
 very difficult to get planning done in that kind of situation.  And, in fact,
 the role of the advisory committee, working with the chair, is to help progress
 the work.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you. Brazil.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, first, the Advisory Group
 played a fundamental role in preparing for the first IGF. Second, it has been
 just reconvened and will meet for the first time tomorrow and the day after,
 and perhaps that will be the only face-to-face meeting of the Advisory Group
 before Rio. What we need to see is the broader context in which it is -- this
 discussion about a suitable rotation is included.  That is, the work of the
 Advisory Group has to be evaluated against its ability or not to assist on the
 delivery of the mandate of the IGF, according to the Tunis Agenda. And up to
 now, all things related to the composition and rotation or not and, let's say,
 gender balance, if that is a criteria or not, the presence of observers or not,
 all these questions are on the hands of the United Nations Secretary-General. 
 And why is it so? Perhaps it is because we lack a procedure for
 decision-making.  And I am not talking about substantive decision-making, but,
 rather, decision-making on organizational aspects and preparation of each IGF
 session. That is perhaps a question to be discussed during the next IGF.  And
 that's why I made the reference this morning in our joint intervention of
 Brazil and Argentina to the need of devoting some time in Rio to discuss this
 organizational matter as a whole.  That could be done at the session entitled
 "taking stock and the way forward."  That is, what is the procedure and what is
 the structure that the IGF needs in order to deliver its mandate at the end of
 this five-year-long period. So that is the question.  I don't think we should
 wait until after Rio to solve it, but, rather, use this session in Rio to
 discuss it. Now, there is also an immediate concern to my delegation, which is,
 what is the role of the Advisory Group at the Rio meeting? The Brazilian
 government hopes that the Advisory Group will be able to help the conduct of
 business, to advise the chairman.  And one good idea, perhaps, would be to have
 daily meetings of the Advisory Group during the IGF so that Advisory Group
 members could follow up on everyday conduct of business and then advise, as
 necessary, what are the next steps and where we are heading to. Now, what is
 more important to observe is that, in our perspective, some structure is
 needed, without which we may not reach the full mandate that we are supposed to
 do in this process. Thank you, sir.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Then I have Raul Echeberria, Jeanette Hofmann, and the
 Russian Federation.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak in my own capacity, in
 my personal capacity, and base it on my own experience, being a member of the
 Advisory Group and the predecessor of the Advisory Group that was the Working
 Group on Internet Governance. I think that as Adiel has said before, the most
 important -- more important than the implement a mechanism of rotation of the
 Advisory Group members is, what are the principles on which the composition of
 the Advisory Group should be based.  So I endorse what he said. And I think
 that this is the most important point.  And if, as a conclusion of the -- how
 those principles are applied, there should be some rotation in the Advisory
 Group, it is very welcome. But I think that neither the people should be
 obligated to leave the Advisory Group if they can be useful for the IGF, nor
 the people should be seated on the Advisory Group forever. I feel very
 comfortable with the idea of the Secretary-General continuing to appoint the
 Advisory Group as it has been done until now.  It has proved to be a good
 mechanism. As this is the wisdom of the Secretary-General and his team, in
 which I include all of you, this has been a good thing.  It has demonstrated
 that it has produced good results with the appointments of the Working Group on
 Internet Governance.  That was a very good experience.  The first experience of
 this new fashion of working, it was really successful. I can't remember any
 negative evaluation of the work of the Advisory Group last year.  That Advisory
 Group was appointed in the same way. This is important, because when the
 Secretary-General has the freedom to select some people, it's good, because
 some people could satisfy the expectations of more than one stakeholder's
 group.  So it is -- somebody has to have the ability of complete -- looking at
 the big picture, complete a group that as a group could be representative of
 other groups' points of view.  This is my personal reflection. I think we
 should continue in the same way, asking the Secretary-General for the hard work
 of appointing the Advisory Group for next year, taking into consideration all
 the comments that have been made here about the balance, about how the group
 should be composed, and, of course, based on the agreement that we go in Tunis
 as in 2005.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I'm sorry, I am going to be guillotine the -- any further
 discussion by Advisory Group members because they will have a chance to talk
 tomorrow and the day after. So we will have Jeannette and then the Russian
 Federation and then we need to end.

 >>JEANETTE HOFMANN:  Drawing on what Raul just said, I would like to point out
 a contradiction I see in the discussion about the requirements for selecting
 the members of the Advisory Group. On the one hand, most groups would like to
 have maximum freedom in the selection of members.  On the other hand, we all
 want to see a balanced group in terms of geography, gender, perhaps even
 political points of view. Whereas the first approach to give stakeholders the
 freedom to select their members calls for a rather de-central mechanism of
 selecting the membership, the other one really needs a central selection
 approach, because otherwise, balance in terms of gender and geography will
 never be reached. I don't have a good answer to that problem.  I just wanted to
 ask everybody to think what they actually prefer, a balanced group or maximum
 freedom in selecting the members. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Russian Federation.

 >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I will try to be brief. First
 of all, we support the principle of rotation.  We understand it's a vital
 principle of working of every group.  But at the same time, we understand that
 there is another principle, principle of continuity.  And we must ensure
 connection between our old and new members of Advisory Group. The second point,
 as to equal geographical representation, the balance between the representation
 of business, civil society, and so on and so forth, as far as I understand,
 it's very delicate and complicated questions, and nobody knows how to have this
 balance.  But nevertheless, it's nicer to try to achieve such balance. And the
 last one, concerning the idea of observers. I think it's a good idea.  Maybe
 it's necessary to create an institute of observers.  For instance, each member
 of Advisory Group could take an observer, and other people could take part in
 their meeting of Advisory Group as observer.  In this case, it will increase
 the transparency of Advisory Group. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I think we have reached the limit of our services that we
 have so we have to come to a conclusion rather fast. Let me just try and put
 some focus on the discussions. Let me say that in many ways, the origins of
 this Advisory Group lie in the experience of the Working Group on Internet
 Governance, which was a multistakeholder group which met and produced
 surprisingly a report which was unanimous, and which played a certain role in
 Tunis. And therefore, when the follow-up came in the form of IGF, there was a
 tendency to look toward that model. And to some extent, what we have done has
 been an interim solution.  That is, it has been done because the IGF had to be
 summoned, something had to be begun, and it's for that reason that we followed
 that model and continued with that process as an interim solution.  To some it
 has been broadly accepted because the United Nations itself is not a player in
 Internet governance directly.  And to that extent, the secretary-general is a
 disinterested party.  And to some extent I suppose somebody like me, who is his
 representative, is also seen as a disinterested party.  Not a representative of
 any particular stakeholder group. But we have never thought of that as anything
 more than an interim measure till the thing stabilizes. I don't have any clear
 answers as to what we can do, but I was going to suggest the following three or
 four things. First, in terms of the immediate thing, I would submit that
 certainly I think the very first thing the Advisory Group, tomorrow, must
 consider tomorrow is the whole question of transparency.  The point that
 Marilyn made.  Let the agenda be known.  Let outcomes be known.  Let the
 material that is looking at be known.  That the proposals that it is making be
 known before they are finalized. And I think this is something that should be
 taken up fairly quickly.  In fact, tomorrow itself, because that's something
 which I think we have the competence to undertake on our own. The second thing
 is the suggestion that has come from quite a few people, the idea of holding
 the Advisory Group meeting, so to speak, in a different form where the Advisory
 Group let's say sits in front here and anybody who wishes to be Brazil can be
 Brazil in the room listening. We could think about it.  I will have to consult.
  This is not -- this goes to a point which goes, so to speak, beyond the remit
 that I have received from the people who set up the Advisory Group.  But it
 certainly, given the range of suggestions, proposals that have come, is
 something which we need to consider and which we would certainly put up. The
 model I suppose we would end up, I don't know how well it would work.  Let me
 be -- It's a bit like this television program called "Apostrophe" which used to
 be there in French television where a group of people talked but another group
 of people could observe.  Let's see whether that makes sense. But certainly
 it's a suggestion which has come.  And this is in terms of immediate measures.
 The second stage that we need to decide and perhaps consider tomorrow itself is
 a point which has been made by Brazil which is the role of the Advisory Group
 in Rio itself. And this is certainly -- I would just say that in Athens it did
 play a role.  It was, in fact, a very vital part of the role, both on the
 organizational side as well as in other ways. But we can probably -- we could
 be more precise.  It was done on a very ad hoc basis, like Markus or I would go
 and just request X or Y to help out with that or this or that.  But what you
 had in mind probably was a little more focused and organized than that.  And we
 could certainly take this up also tomorrow. Looking beyond that, there have
 been a variety of suggestions for the next Advisory Group and how that should
 be constituted in terms of rotation, in terms of how nominations should be
 secured. The question that Jeanette has raised, how do you balance this desire
 for stakeholders to play a role in shaping the composition of the group with
 the need to keep geographical, gender, et cetera, balance. And that's a
 dimension which we could certainly talk about in Rio and elsewhere. And even
 beyond that are the longer-term questions which Mr. Muguet and others have
 raised, which is a much more structured approach to the process and
 decision-making, and the point that he made that that would, in a sense, give a
 certain legal basis to a multistakeholder process, which, at the moment,
 frankly, is not there.  At the moment, this process is constituted as an
 instruction to the Secretary-General to call a meeting and constitute an
 Advisory Group.  That's the formal status of this meeting.  It's a meeting
 called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I'm talking of the main
 IGF.  Because that's the way in which that mandate was specified.  But it is a
 long-term issue.  It certainly needs to be looked at.  So in a sense, there is
 a continuum of questions we should address. Immediate questions about our work
 and its transparency; a short-term question what is the role of the group in
 Rio; a medium-term question about what is our advice on the issues of rotation,
 et cetera, which have been mentioned in the communique which we are to advise
 the Secretary-General; and the longer-term issue about how does the process
 evolve, given the ideas about a much more structured approach which have been
 put forward by some people here. This is my reflections on this process.  But
 these are still early days, and we will still certainly consider T. There was a
 final item, which is review of the desirability of the continuation of the
 forum.  This is something we have to do before the end of the five years, which
 practically means at the end of five years.  But it is simply a matter for
 information.  It, frankly, is premature to start getting into this area.  But
 the idea is that when this process gets done, the starting point for the
 process should be provided by an independent evaluation of the functioning of
 the IGF in all its aspects by some outside group, if you like.  And that will
 be an input which would go in. And any reflections that people -- I will
 suggest that this is a fairly early stage, I doubt if we will get into this
 before next year or the year after.  So I would recommend that we address this
 problem by starting a discussion around our Web site on this issue of the
 evaluation of the IGF itself, which we will have to undertake at the end of
 five years. I don't have much --  We have five more minutes left, and I really
 should not say much more at this point, well, except that, you know, this has
 been a very useful and constructive dialogue.  And I would like to stop at this
 point and turn to my co-chair for his closing remarks.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Well, thank you, co-chair Desai.  Well, you have covered
 all the points that I would have touched.  But I just would like to express my
 satisfaction in having participated for the first time in an IGF meeting.  And
 I'm very happy to notice that a lot of ideas to explore, a lot of work to do. 
 I will be attending the Advisory Group meeting tomorrow and the day after.  For
 those who will not participate, I hope to see them in all in Rio.  Thank you
 very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you very much.  I will meet up with the members of the
 Advisory Group tomorrow, room XXIV.  Thank you. [ Applause ]