Access Session

1 November 2006 - A Main Session on Access in Athens, Greece

Agenda

 Internet Governance Forum 1 November 2006 Access Panel

 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 The Inaugural Meeting of the IGF, in Athens. 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.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  Okay, ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. I know the
 weather, for a change, was very nice today. But still, we have some work to do.
 So let's start this session on access. This is obviously a very important
 issue. And as you -- was several times mentioned at this conference, there are
 at this point about one billion worldwide users of the Internet out of six
 billion worldwide population. That makes it one out of six citizens and people
 in the world being connected to the Internet. I come from a country, Greece,
 that has an Internet penetration which is close to this average, a bit higher
 than this average, which could be very comforting. However, I don't want to get
 into the trap of a statistician that says that my head is in an oven, me feet
 are on ice, therefore, on the average, I'm okay. [ Laughter ]

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  My name is Vassilios Maglaris. I'm a professor at the
 national technical university of Athens. I welcome you here today. And let's
 please start on this very interesting session. Our moderator will try to
 orchestrate this panel on very, very tough and difficult questions.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, everybody, ladies and
 gentlemen. My name is Ulysse Gosset. I'm from France. And I belong to the team
 of television station called France 24, which is not on the air yet, but it's a
 new international channel from Paris which is going to be an alternative to
 CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera. Glad to be here to discuss the important issue of
 access. The bad news is we have five and a half billion people who can't reach
 the Internet. The good news is that the digital divide is reducing. I'm going
 to speak French today. It's important that we should protect linguistic
 diversity. So good afternoon to all of you. The good news is that the digital
 divide is being somewhat reduced now. But the bad news is, it's still pretty
 wide. And that when you look into the details, you see that when we're talking
 about broadband, in particular, the divide is enormous, it's an abyss. 60% of
 Americans and Europeans can have access to broadband. Only 40% of people in
 Asia. And 0.1% of Africans have access. So there is genuine lack of equality in
 access. Nevertheless, from 1994 to 2004, in one decade, the digital divide has
 been reduced by seven. It's dropped from 27 to 7, the divide between the
 developed and developing countries. So things are moving. And they're moving
 thanks to new technology, the development of networks, thanks also to the
 political will to act. So what we're here to discuss today is what
 possibilities exist, what are the issues, the major questions we have to ask
 today, so that we can envisage a future where there will be easier access for
 more people around the globe. We've got a very high-level panel of
 international representatives with us today. And so that the panelists and you,
 the audience, both those here in the room and those on the Internet, can
 communicate together and draw out this list of important questions, I would
 suggest that we start with a presentation, an introduction, from our panelists.
 I will start with our first panelist, Gabriel Adonaylo. He's going to introduce
 himself, he'll tell us who he is. And as all panelists, he will tell us if
 there is one single question, what is the priority point for him on this
 question of access today.

 >>GABRIEL ADONAYLO:  Good afternoon. Well, the moderator has just said, my name
 is Gabriel Adonaylo. I'm from Argentina. And I'm product manager for I.P.
 products in Comsat International. And I'm also chairperson of Internet exchange
 for the Camara Argentina de Internet. I -- I'm wondering today about how
 improving connectivity in Argentina, and abroad as well, to solve problems of
 access.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. If I can move now to our second panelist, Vincent
 Waiswa Bagiire.

 >>VINCENT WAISWA BAGIIRE:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator. My name is Vincent Waiswa
 Bagiire, from Uganda in east Africa. And I work for an institution called the
 Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa, charged
 with increasing the effective participation of African policy-makers in
 international processes such as this one. And my interest here is, how do we
 get independent and transparent regulation that can unbundle monopolies and
 duopolies to create competition and to achieve access in Africa on open access
 basis. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Jim Dempsey now, please.

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
 My name is Jim Dempsey. I'm policy director for the NGO Center for Democracy
 and Technology in Washington, D.C. And I'm also policy director for our Global
 Internet Policy Initiative, GIPI, which is a joint project with the NGO
 internews. And for us, working in developing countries, the major issue is the
 reform of national, legal, and regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to
 Internet development by reducing licensing requirements, by reforming
 telecommunications law mandating interconnection, and otherwise addressing
 barriers to expansion of the networks and access at the national level.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. We now have a panelist from Senegal, Mouhamet
 Diop. Thank you.

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  Well, let me respect tradition as well. We've got
 interpreters with us, so I'm going to speak French. I'm called Mouhamet Diop,
 and I'm from Senegal. And I am the Director-General of a group called Next, but
 I'm also Secretary-General of ISOC Senegal in civil society, and at
 governmental action level, I'm head of GRAPP, which is head of new technology
 under an accelerated growth strategy. What I am particularly interested in
 today is the question of interconnectivity, but from the point of view of
 differentiating between the historic model we've seen thus far, where all
 countries in Africa, everyone is seen as clients, whereas in other countries,
 we've got these peering approaches, where it's a different approach completely.
 Africa is committed to this diversification between the bodies, which means
 that in each country, a fee is paid for access to Internet, whereas if there
 was concerted access, it would trigger an economic system. So we should be seen
 as a continent as such, not as millions of different users. So we have one
 institution now which is on an equal setting with all of us around the world. 
 And we think it's high time things started to move. I'm also interested in the
 question of adaptability of interfaces. When you talk about access, we forget
 the fact that most people are -- a lot of people in Africa are illiterate. And
 we tend to lose sight of the fact that the tools we have now are going to have
 to be adapted if our people are going to be in a position to use this
 technology.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. The next panelist is George Greve.

 >>GEORGE GREVE:  Thank you very much, I thank all of you for being here. My
 name is George Greve. I am president of the Free Software Foundation Europe. We
 are a pan-European NGO, a nongovernmental organization, dedicated to all
 aspects of free software. And our central issue, really, is, and the central
 question that brought me here is how access to the digital age is determined by
 software freedom, ultimately. And I hope that we will be able to discuss that.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Hugo Lueders, please.

 >>HUGO LUEDERS:  Ladies and gentlemen, it's great to see here all of you,
 despite the sunshine outside. My name is Hugo Lueders, and I'm the
 Secretary-General of the European e-Skills Certification Consortium for eSkills
 improvability and competence development. I will discuss by priority the
 eSkills gap. And as everybody knows, the world doesn't stop at technology, but
 beyond access to technologies, there's access to content, access to knowledge,
 access to training, access to certification. And at the end of the whole access
 value chain, there is placement to employment. And I will hopefully have some
 time to address all these different issues. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Professor Milton Mueller, please.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:  I'm Milton Mueller, I'm a professor at the Syracuse
 University School of Information Studies and a partner in the Internet
 Governance Project. I believe very strongly that the key to closing the
 infrastructure gap is the mobilization of local capital and the organization of
 capital investment in the national policy framework. And I hope we have an
 opportunity to talk about that.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Michuki Mwangi, please.

 >>MICHUKI MWANGI:  Thank you. My name's Michuki Mwangi. I come from Kenya. I
 run the Kenyan ccTLD, K NIC.  And also president of AFTLD. In my opinion, the
 solution to the access issue lies at a national level, whether developed or
 developing countries. And I believe that we need to have -- come up with
 creative, innovative, and inexpensive ways at the national level to improve on
 access.  And this lies within stable infrastructure and also distributing cost
 services for there to be improved access to these services. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Mr. Park from Korea.

 >>KISHIK PARK:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I am from Korea, and I am in charge
 of IPv6 forum, Korea, and currently I am serving as the chairman of ITU-T study
 group 3. And my question is, how can we make or how can you harmonize and
 standardize a various way of using, providing, sometimes charging Internet
 usage to make this very important tool of Internet as globally available a
 means. That is my key question. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Sam Paltridge.

 >>SAM PALTRIDGE:  I'm Sam Paltridge from the OECD. I work in the area of the
 OECD that deals with policy and regulation, particularly as it concerns
 infrastructure and infrastructure development. I guess my key question is how
 we can further develop a very successful model that already works with the
 Internet and expand that and take down to the -- the barriers to that
 expansion. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Craig Silliman, please.

 >>CRAIG SILLIMAN:  Thank you very much. Good afternoon. It's nice to be here
 with you today. My name is Craig Silliman. I'm the deputy general counsel at
 Verizon business, which is one of the largest global carriers. In that
 capacity, I have responsibility for all legal and regulatory issues outside of
 the United States, which includes not just dealing with regulatory issues, but
 negotiation of all of our interconnection agreements, peering, and otherwise,
 internationally, and network expansion agreements. The number one factor in
 improving quality and price of access to networks is competition. So the top
 issue here for us today, I believe, is, why is there not more competition for
 access in many countries around the world? How do we identify the barriers to
 competition and how do we resolve those barriers? Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Parminder Jeet Singh.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator, and thank you all for being
 here. I'm Parminder Jeet Singh. I'm from a nongovernmental organization based
 in Bangalore. We do work on projects and policy engagements in areas of ICT for
 development and information society issues. And one issue which I would like to
 see addressed centrally here today is that when we talk about Internet access,
 we cannot look at only telecom access in isolation. And I think it comes back
 along with issues of software, hardware, content, services, applications. And
 this superstructure and infrastructure growth has to go together as a chicken
 and egg story. And it's -- and we often try to, you know, just extrapolate the
 telephone model, where the issue is probably just weighing a telephone line or
 making wireless available and it's very simple and low-cost treatment at the
 end of the wire which can be used. And the voice services, everybody knows how
 to use it. And we tried to extend that model into Internet access. But Internet
 access is about services development, about health services, education
 services, banking. And under those -- until those services develop, we cannot
 lead the development of Internet telecom access. And when we look at Internet
 access in this way, there is a very strong implication, a policy implication,
 of it, where the public expenditure becomes a much bigger part than when you
 are looking at it only as a telecom access issue. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. A lady now from Europe, Maria Simon.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  I'm the chairperson of ANTEL, which is a state
 telecommunications company, one of the few in the world, I would imagine. And
 deals with questions of competence. This question of access needs to be
 approached from various angles:  Technology, the physical access on one hand,
 including national and international and also fees and how they swing in with
 the level of income in the country. Also terminal access. You've also got the
 question of education, training people to use access. And, finally, national
 content creation. I hope we can discuss these issues.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Bill Woodcock, please. Excuse me, Jonne Soininen.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Good afternoon, everyone. I'm not Bill Woodcock, who is
 sitting next to me. I'm from Nokia, from Finland. Nokia is a manufacturer of
 network infrastructure, wireless network infrastructure, and also a
 manufacturer of mobile phones and terminals that are used to access even the
 Internet over the wireless links or mobile wireless networks. My interest here
 is to see what -- how we can use mobile wireless infrastructure and mobile
 wireless technologies and discuss about that to get access to the people who
 are not currently connected. And this includes technologies new and old. And
 I'm also interested to see that the -- discuss about the issues of regulation
 to see that there's a good environment where a sustainable model can be built
 to provide access to everybody. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. And now the last panelist, Bill Woodcock.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Thank you, and good afternoon. To those of you who don't know
 me, you may have gathered by now, I'm Bill Woodcock, the research director for
 Packet Clearinghouse. We're an NGO that supports critical Internet
 infrastructure around the world. I believe that the most important issue
 confronting access to the Internet at this point is monopolization of the local
 loop. I think we have a decreasing number of companies that are sitting on
 antiquated copper at this point. And I would really like to see the local loop,
 the right of way, opened up to access by those who would put in new fiber
 networks. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Well, thank you to everyone. We've got 15 panelists, and it
 covers a very broad range, very high-level panel, to get the discussions going
 and look into this question of access. As you know, this is an interactive
 forum.  There are four people in the team helping me to collect questions from
 the room.  Matthew Shears, who is here.  George Sadowsky, Raul Echeberria, and
 Peter Hellmonds. We also have the possibility of interacting with the outside
 world with people who are following the forum on the Internet.  And Jeremy
 Markham, our blogger, will be taking the questions from the Internet. It's all
 ready, we are all set, we have two and a half hours ahead of us to focus on
 what the genuine issues are. But we saw some pretty dramatic figures beforehand
 about this divide.  One million people connected, five billion not.  And I
 wanted to ask one of the members of the panel how many years you feel it will
 take to reduce this Digital Divide in a clear way and get 2 billion connected,
 for example, so that access can be easier.  How long will it take to get to
 that figure of 2 billion connected? Hugo, have you got any idea about this? 
 What do you think?

 >>HUGO LUEDERS:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  We are very careful with precise
 figures but I can share some data with you. Industry has heard the Tunis call
 for capacity building as the most important, single most important
 cross-cutting issue which was addressed at the Tunis event. And we have stepped
 in, have moved forward.  We cannot wait anymore that E.U. member state
 governments finally bring their acts together on a European level.  So we have
 moved forward to have a substantial inroad on the 20 million unemployed people
 we have in Europe. We are building E.U. chapter members, working together with
 a multitude of nongovernmental organizations, nonprofit organization, public
 agencies, community colleges of all kind.  And we are quite sure that over this
 period, we have defined for five years in Europe, that we will have a
 substantial inroad, and we will reduce the skills gap in Europe. We have
 presented -- Just one more sentence to that.  We have presented this project to
 other parts of the world.  Myself, I have spoken about this issue in Jakarta. 
 They were most interested in this.  They have simply asked, "When are you
 coming here and doing the same thing here?"  Because they have exactly the same
 need. So we will try to roll this out, a real global program.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET: Jim Dempsey, what do  you think about this?  How long do you
 think it will take to reduce the divide -- we saw this has been divided by
 seven over a decade -- to get from one billion connected now to the two
 billion, how many years is it going to take from the NGOs point of view?

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  Well, I think that the next 500 million will be easy because
 they will all come from China, which has certainly a dedicated effort to
 develop the Internet. I think that the other 500 million of the second billion
 will be spread around the world.  I'm afraid to say that I worry particularly
 about Africa being left behind here. I do think that the wireless technologies,
 including wireless broadband offer perhaps the greatest promise in that regard,
 both in terms of the last mile. So I think the second billion, we are certainly
 going to see a sharp curve, and then probably a long tail to get closer to the
 third billion. But I think that the -- the hard problem, in my view, is Africa.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Well, the floor is always open for the audience, as you know.
  So I'm turning to you now.  You can ask questions of the panel at any moment.
 So are there any questions? Yes? If you could stand up, please, and introduce
 yourself.  Give us your name and tell us who you are asking the question to. If
 you could stand up, please. So this is the first question from the floor.

 >>MALCOLM HARBOUR:  I am Malcolm Harbour, member of the European Parliament.  I
 just wanted to add to a question, and Jim Dempsey spoke as I was writing this
 because he was the first person to mention wireless.  So the first question I
 would like to ask the panelists, in terms of the next -- I accept his view
 about 500 million for China but let's say another billion beyond that.  What
 proportion of those are going to be enabled by wireless connections of
 different wireless devices?  Will that spread of wireless devices require
 different approaches or similar approaches in terms of access rules and
 regulations? And finally, I think in response to your neighbor, who is sitting
 next to you, Mr. Diop, who said about the problems of access for people who
 don't have literacy or people skills, again, do wireless devices or next
 generation wireless devices free users from some of those constraints, so they
 really will be one of the keys to delivering the connectivity that we want to
 see in enabling those citizens in the future?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you.  Professor Mueller, please, on this question. 
 Back to the panel.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:  Yes, I don't want to get into a game of predicting when
 something is going to happen.  I think what is more important is the point
 raised by the last question which is how does the nature of the technology
 affect the possibilities for expansion. So the point I made in my opening was
 that it's all about the mobilization of local capital and open entry into
 markets so that people can respond to these needs without having to get
 approval from governments in a top-down fashion.  And in that respect wireless
 dramatically changes the nature of the complexion.  And if certain things
 happen right at the standardization level and the spectrum allocation level, we
 can see very dramatic progress because wireless allows the much smaller
 investments to be made, while retaining certain kinds of connectivity,
 intercompatibility be. For example, unlicensed spectrum allows people to enter
 the market with new kinds of equipment without having to get licenses.  That's
 very important. It allows people to create local kinds of connectivity. One
 point I want to -- a question I raised to the other panelists is I heard a lot
 of talk about regulating the local loop or requiring interconnection.  Clearly,
 you can't regulate a loop if there is no loop.  And for many parts of the
 world, the question is not how do we regulate the local loop.  It's how do we
 build a local loop. And frequently you can build obstacles to the creation of
 infrastructure if you focus on exporting western models which presume a
 monopoly, universally covered infrastructure and you are trying to regulate
 access to it to allow competitors to enter, you have a completely different
 problem when there is no local loop and you have to build one.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you, and on this issue of the local loops, maybe I
 could turn to our friend in Senegal, Mouhamet Diop.  What do you think about
 this?

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  Thank you.  What we've seen over recent years in terms of
 Internet development is that there has been a whole change in paradigm, people
 who worked in developing Internet in Africa were the ISPs, Internet service
 providers.  That is now changing and the new players we have seen pushing for
 Internet development are telephony operators who have a lot of cash, who have a
 lot of money.  And this brings me back to what Vincent was saying.  He was
 saying that we needed investment capital. But mobile phones have proven that
 viability of telecom investment is at stake.  And they are now mobilizing funds
 to push for Internet development through the mobile, from the mobile side. But
 we have it take an overall view of this.  We're not only talking about an issue
 within a given country. Look at Africa as a continent, a whole continent. 
 Access for operators doesn't apply only to one single country. Let me give you
 an example to illustrate what I am saying. Somitel is a subsidiary of France
 Telecom, and it now provides internet access to more than four other countries
 using sat 3.  But all these countries pay for the telecom connection -- the
 land transit in other words, to access the loop -- but they also pay for access
 to Internet through local transit in France. So all this is going out of Africa
 for a service which remains in Africa.  And that's something which should give
 us food for thought. We are in a worse situation as introductors for all the
 other continents.  We shouldn't have to pay any more to connect to the global
 network, because, you know, it's a question, a line of logic of peering.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  On this point specifically, we are talking about cell
 telephony and two and a half billion cell telephones very quickly, very soon. 
 And to be able to connect to Internet with mobile telephony.  So I now turn on
 this to somebody who specializes in this field.  Jonne, Jonne Soininen, can you
 come in on this and talk about some of the role played by this particular type
 of link up.  Thank you.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Yes, thank you very much.  And I would like to address this.
 So like you said, we have now about 2.5 billion users, mobile phone users, and
 we are coming close to 3 billion soon in just a couple of years. This means
 that half of the people have access to telephony already.  But this doesn't do
 much for Internet yet. However, I think that this can be used as a basis of
 providing, also, Internet access.  The same technology that is used to provide
 the mobile access can be also used to provide Internet access. However, this is
 not at broadband speed.  But I would think that it is better to start with
 lower band if broadband is not available in that area yet just to get access to
 the Internet. In addition, there is, in the future, and also already what is
 available in developed countries as technologies on mobile wireless networks,
 broadband technologies that can give same kind of data rates as the DSL
 networks.  And those can be also used to provide, then, better access in
 developing countries.  And I think they will also play a major role to connect
 the people to the Internet.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. I turn to the room.  Willie Currie has a
 question.  Are you there?

 >>WILLIE CURRIE:  My name is Willie Currie from the Association for Progressive
 Communications.  I wonder, just to pick up on one point, whether it is a
 problem of the local loop.  Rather that it may well be that it's a backbone
 infrastructure that is missing, and that if the backbone were there, then
 creative solutions could be found through wireless broadband put in the local
 loop.  And then the issue that I raise is, well, infrastructure is one thing. 
 Then there's also the matter of the costs of international Internet
 connectivity.  And we have heard that there might be solutions possible by
 completing the communication policy reform in developing countries, that there
 should be Internet exchange points. But what I would like to ask is, is there a
 probability for an international agreement on reducing the cost of Internet --
 international Internet connectivity through a body such as the WTO?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Well, I think that Bill Woodcock might attempt an
 initial approach on this.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  There were several points there, and I think the two main
 ones were about the local loop and whether it's really the local loop that's
 the problem or the international backbone.  And number two, whether there's a
 role for, say, intergovernmental or international agreements with regard to
 connectivity to the international backbone. So the important thing to realize
 here is that there is no international backbone.  The Internet is made up of
 many, many, many Internet service providers in different parts of the world. 
 Some of those happen to be located in the United States, or Europe.  Some of
 them happen to be located in Africa.  They all connect to each other on a
 peer-to-peer basis. And those connections tend to be very large.  There are
 many, many, many terabits of connectivity at that level. The real problem, I
 think, is in the local loop. We have, in some of the most developed countries
 in the world, we have local loop connectivity that is less than a megabit.  You
 know, in the United States, for instance, we're falling, every year, further
 and further behind other countries. This is because the local loop is typically
 controlled by an individual company.  And they have -- as long as that's true,
 they have very little incentive to upgrade it. I think that the question of
 whether there's room for intergovernmental action in mandating how Internet
 service providers connect with each other internationally, I think you have to
 ask yourself what form will that take?  Are you going to tell one private
 company that it needs to bear the cost of international transport on behalf of
 another private company simply because of the country of incorporation?  These
 are not intergovernmental matters if these are not governmentally owned
 incumbent phone companies. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Craig Silliman, do you think that you could speak to this
 issue on regulation?  Do you have a view on this?  Might there be international
 agreements and how would that be formed?  Is it realistic?  What's your view?

 >>CRAIG SILLIMAN:  Absolutely. First, I agree strongly with almost everything
 that Bill just said.  I take exception with one thing.  As someone who
 currently lives in the UK but used to live in the U.S. where I had a 15 megabit
 Internet connection into my house, I actually think that there's been a great
 model in the U.S. for competition and upgrading the local loop, largely because
 of competition between the cable industry and the telecom industry. I only wish
 I had that sort of connectivity currently in the UK, and I think most of us
 would anywhere in the world. I think on the international cost issue, I think a
 couple things to keep in mind.  First, we should not lose sight of the fact
 that the Internet, as Bill rightly pointed out, is a network of networks.  And
 in many ways, I would argue that it is far and away the most successful
 interconnection model in the history of any networked industry. In a little
 over ten years, purely through private commercial negotiations, you have over
 20,000 autonomous systems, individual networks around the world, that are
 directly and indirectly connected to one another.  Which means that I can start
 an ISP in any country in the world, connect it up to a network and be able to
 reach any site, any e-mail address anywhere in the world. When you think about
 it, that is an extraordinary accomplishment, something that probably could not
 have been architected or engineered by any single group or body, no matter how
 well meaning or foresighted. The cost of the international interconnection
 links I think bring a couple things to bear. First of all, I think we need to
 look at the model there, and again I echo Bill's comment that the Internet is a
 network of networks, which means when you are buying interconnectivity on a
 global basis, you have a choice of literally dozens of providers in a market
 that is intensely competitive.  We have seen prices drop in this market by over
 90% over the last couple of years which is almost unheard of in any industry
 for any service or product.  So I would argue this is a market that is
 characterized by intense competition and prices that are moving very close to
 cost. The comments that you hear, for instance my colleague commented on
 traffic from one African country to another that transits through Paris, I do
 agree that when you look at that it seems illogical and you identify a problem.
  But I would suggest to you that the problem is not the cost of the
 international bandwidth, but, rather, the cost of the domestic access. What you
 are seeing there is an economic incentive to route traffic internationally
 because the international links are actually cheaper than domestic. If you go
 back five or six years in Europe, traffic use -- the majority of Internet
 traffic between Paris and London used to transit through New York.  And that
 was because the circuits between London and New York and Paris and New York
 were cheaper than those between London and Paris. When Europe liberalized in
 1998, lease line prices immediately dropped, the traffic flows immediately
 shifted removing those international transit costs from the European network
 providers.  Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. In the room there is a very specific
 question from Africa, from Alex Corenthin.  Are you there, Alex?  Could you
 speak to the microphone and give us the African view.

 >>ALEX CORENTHIN:  Alex Corenthin is my name, and I am from ISOC Senegal.
 Referring to access, the issue of access and what happens in the rural world,
 don't forget that a high proportion of the population in Africa is actually
 rural population without any sort of network linkup.  They only have a minimum
 service which they have. And that comes under the national regulation of each
 country. But we do have this target population which is not being served and
 doesn't have access to technology because of the economy aspects which have to
 be taken into account in terms of providing this technology to that population.
 So my question is, how can we ultimately arrive at a situation where you solve
 the issue, thinking, perhaps, a little of the model which was taken for mobile
 telephony.  There are certain limits there, because an African cannot, in fact,
 pay for a mobile telephone.  And we now have this technology growing. We need
 to give technology a chance as well.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much.  Perhaps I can turn to Gabriel on this. 
 Perhaps you can come in on that.

 >>GABRIEL ADONAYLO:  Well, basically, taking up this question, perhaps I can
 give you a specific example of what has happened in Latin America. Because we
 do have zones and areas of Latin America which are rural areas, where there's
 no real network infrastructure.  So what is happening in the area where you
 have, between Brazil and Colombia, a network which has been financed by the
 state, so you have a universal service, it is called.  And that is a way of
 establishing some sort of infrastructure in areas which are not financially
 viable. So it's an infrastructure which would be made up of users who don't
 really have the resources, and they are areas which are really economically
 disadvantaged. SHSAC {sp?} one of them in Brazil and this is a service to the
 citizen with thousand of access points where citizens can actually have access
 to educational material and other sorts of technical information.  e-learning
 possibilities and other implications. Brazil we also have another program,
 Compartele is its name, and it does have also several thousand access points
 where you can have access to the service.  And a lot has been said about
 wireless technology, but we do have broadband access possibilities here where
 you have this infrastructure in place.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much.  Perhaps we could move to our Korean
 friend on this, on the same question, please.

 >>KISHIK PARK:  Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Let me explain a very short
 story of Korea.  In Korea, already more than 71% of Korean people, they are
 using the Internet daily, and also more than 70% of household, they are
 connected to the broadband Internet. But some of the panelists already
 indicated competition is the best way to solve that kind of access problem. 
 But I don't think in that way, because I believe this Internet tool should be
 treated as food or housing.  Because Internet there is not just a means to
 communicate our ideas or something like that.  This is kind of daily
 infrastructure for every citizen.  And it will be in many countries in the
 future years. So we think about some collaboration before competition.  If we
 emphasize competition only, in that case, some of African colleague indicated,
 many world citizens, they cannot pay for this very, very convenient and useful
 tool. So it does mean, actually, inaccessibility. So we should think about the
 practical affordability or accessibility for Internet usage.  That is very
 important point. We cannot discuss any kind of new technologies to give us some
 very convenient access without thinking of price or cost.  That's my very short
 remark. Thank you [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much.  On this same subject, Maria Simon, head
 of the Uruguayan telephone service.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  Thank you.  I would like to refer specifically to several
 points here. First of all, technology, whereby you can have access as a user. 
 And then when it's talked about the various loops here and the local loops. 
 But in Uruguay for example, the majority of broadband technology is through
 loops.  And given that this infrastructure is on the basis of very good
 technology, you can, in fact, have good access to this broadband possibility.
 Now, in those few areas where you cannot have access, you have Wi-Fi technology
 available, and also linked up to cellular possibilities. And that's all well
 and good, but we must bear in mind here the concept of how mobile telephony can
 really actually reach each and every citizen at whatever level.  That's
 important, because we really need to get to people who are economically
 speaking in a backward situation as well. The user really does not care whether
 it's Wi-Fi, local loops or wi-max.  So what the user is interested in is the
 actual cost, the cost to access this technology.  So in this sense, we do have
 very clearly different cases between the different countries, and the
 interconnectivity is important for those who pay.  And perhaps we ought to say
 here that telephony does that a convention where, in fact, each country pays
 for half the access but, otherwise, in smaller countries where you don't really
 have that access possibility, it does have implications for them.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. I turn to the room, because Pierre
 Dandjinou has a question. I think he's with us. I think -- yes, if he's here,
 please do come forward. The role of the private sector, you were asking, in
 terms of access possibilities. Can you perhaps submit your question to us and
 please introduce yourself. Thank you very much.

 >>PIERRE DANDJINOU:  Pierre Dandjinou is my name. I'm from Africa as well. I'd
 like to thank you very much. But my question is to the panelist as to the role
 that some of the local private enterprises might undertake. One does see that
 the private sector is referred to often on the international level. But we also
 have local private enterprises. How can we perhaps move ahead in order not to
 reduce them simply to becoming sellers of equipment and perhaps you can give us
 some sort of example of success stories here in terms of distribution of such
 facilities at a local level.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Sam Paltridge, perhaps I can hand over to you, OECD.

 >>SAM PALTRIDGE:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator. It's a very good question. I'm glad
 you raised the role of the private sector. I think I very much agree with those
 panelists that have emphasized competition and the role it can play in building
 access. And the question asked for a positive example in that area. And I think
 you might remember who won the Nobel Peace Prize this year, the founder of the
 Grameen Bank, which provided a microcredit scheme in rural areas in Bangladesh.
 Now those of you who know Bangladesh know that it has one of the lowest GDP per
 capitas in the world. And where they went to serve were the areas where the
 incumbent telecommunication carrier did not want to serve, said was uneconomic
 to serve. And Grameen Bank went in there, Grameen Telephone went in there and
 provided telephone service and provided a local entrepreneurial model where
 village telephone ladies provided service, where the incumbent monopolist would
 not provide. And they did that in a country that has, I would say, one of the
 worst interconnection regimes in the world, because there was no settlement
 payments that went to that telephone company, Grameen, to provide that service.
 So the point I would make is, if you would open up the market, if you give
 people a chance, you will find new ideas, new ways to provide service, ways to
 take advantage of the type of innovation that some of the panelists, like Nokia
 and so forth, would provide the tools. And the first thing you need to do is
 get a commercial core network built out, with competitive principles, and then
 the government can, in an economical way, provide connectivity to schools and
 libraries and health centers and so forth. But if you try and put the horse --
 the cart before the horse, if you try and do a universal service type buildout
 from day one without that commercial support already being there, it will be
 too expensive.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Very quickly, please. Craig Silliman.

 >>CRAIG SILLIMAN:  Very quickly, just to add to Sam's perspective, from the
 private sector perspective, there are business people, entrepreneurs in every
 country in the world that are constantly looking for every day constantly
 looking for business opportunities. What we hear from this panel and the
 audience is that there are opportunities and needs that are not being met.
 Those are business opportunities. If those business opportunities are not being
 filled, we have to ask ourselves, what are the barriers that are getting in the
 way, how do we remove those barriers.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Maria Simon, very quickly.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  Well, I just wanted to give you a few examples as concerns what
 has been done in terms of public association in Paraguay.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  We'll come back to the examples later on in the second
 section, if we may.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  Yes. I do agree with that local industry certainly can help on
 this. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  I think it's important that we ought to perhaps have from our
 Indian panelist here some information as to what happens with local loops and
 local capital. Can you perhaps, from your point of view from Bangladesh, could
 you tell us what happens in terms of local access by local communities which
 don't necessarily have the I.P. technologies available.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  I will have to pull together a couple of points which
 all go together and impact this issue. I made a point earlier that we tried to
 take the telephone model and extrapolate it to the Internet. I like to hear
 examples. And would just like to say that I think the local entrepreneurship
 model is very important. We know Grameen Bank example.  Telephone is different
 from Internet. This is the point I have been trying to make. Telephone has been
 around in Europe for decades now. You didn't call it "information society"
 then. You called it "information society" when Internet came in, when
 Internet-based services came in. It's a completely different ball game. We
 tried to extend the telecom paradigm, and tried to say that all the
 Internet-based services, the way we access services, the way we do banking, the
 way we collaborate, social networking, everything will change. And the same
 when the telephone was brought to everyone by a private-sector paradigm. And I
 have a problem with it. I will give you an example from my own village. I often
 go to a villages have from a relatively well off or average well off part of
 the country. And one day, I accidentally found out that there was Internet in
 the dialup access. There was dialup access to the Internet. I never knew about
 it because nobody talked about it. I took my laptop and tried it. And it was
 very good. I could do video conferencing over it. But no one in the village
 knew about it. When I tried to tell people about it, they heard, and they found
 it's novel, and then that's where it stopped. People don't use Internet. I
 would like to hear an example where people have actually used Internet in that
 manner. And I think in this aspect, we need a lot of public investment. And I
 support my Korean friend's point that we have to take it as the same kind of
 infrastructure the way we invested into education. All the developed countries
 invested into public education many decades ago because they knew it was
 central for economic and social growth. I say this is also key to growth. It
 can lead the village. But wherever there is a gap, we can't keep waiting for
 the markets to go in and public investment should go in. That's the point.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Fine. That's very interesting. Before we give the floor back
 to the panelists, let us have something from Jeremy Malcolm from the floor.
 What are the questions that we have from the Internet, Jeremy.

 >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  We have six people in a chat room talking -- listening into
 this discussion by the webcast. One of them is Michael Nelson. And he has a
 question for the panel. I'll just read it out. Craig Silliman is exactly right.
 The genius of the Internet is that it is a network of networks, built using
 open standards. Universities, government agencies, companies, and NGOs can all
 build a network and plug it into the global Internet. Unfortunately, new
 government regulations for data retention and filtering, for instance, could
 make this much more difficult and expensive. Furthermore, some proposals for
 next-generation network standards would also hinder this end-to-end nature of
 the Net. In five years, do you think it will be as easy as it is today to plug
 private networks into the global Internet?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Quickly, answer.

 >>CRAIG SILLIMAN:  I think Mike identified it perfectly right. I think he's
 identified the dangers. I will take the optimistic stance and say in five
 years, it will not be harder, but I'm counting on the fact that the problems
 he's identified will be resolved and the governments will do the right thing
 and not hindering the Internet with unneeded regulation.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Hugo.

 >>HUGO LUEDERS:  Just quick point. If you speak about access improvement on a
 local level, I think you have to be more precise. What you're talking about
 here is about technology access improvement on local level. And, hopefully,
 we're coming back later on to the real issues beyond technology access. There
 are the real challenges for the Internet, society we are facing. There will be
 tremendous changes in the whole domain of education, training, work force
 development, et cetera. And hopefully I'm coming back to that later on.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Mouhamet Diop.

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  Thank you, very much, moderator. The question in terms of the
 private sector, if I may just go back to that, it's a very, very short answer
 to that. But I do differ on one point with the person who spoke to this issue,
 saying that the (inaudible) can only come from the private sector, which is
 going to regulate the rural problem in terms of regionalization in Africa. We
 have to understand that in African, this is a very special case, and we have
 been able to observe that the private sector cannot take on board directly the
 needs for establishing regional needs. Same thing for the rural level. Because
 these are not financially viable ventures. So the governments would have to be
 involved in some way. And as concerns regional infrastructure, no
 telecommunications operator will be interested, basically, in what's happening
 in terms of interconnectivity within the country. This is important, because
 there's very high potential there, and you yourselves said that you have, in
 fact, a very high percentage of the population involved. So there is this
 tremendous potential there. So why should you go into a very remote area,
 whereas you could act within the smaller areas? So the companies have called
 for, say out only at the city level, where they can have a maximum cost-benefit
 result. So the government would have to take on board implementing and
 establishing the infrastructure, and also have perhaps PPRs established there,
 too.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. Jim, perhaps on the same subject, very
 quickly.

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  Yes. I think I would propose what I think is a very simple test
 for the questions that we're considering now. That is, what is the role of
 regulation? And what is the role of government? And I think the simple test
 that I would propose is, does the regulation or the intervention of government
 expand access and innovation? Or does it constrain access and innovation? And
 in some respects, the removal of regulation, the removal of licensing
 requirements can open up, expand access by permitting more innovation at the
 edges of the network. We're seeing globally, in both developing and developed
 countries, somewhat of a recent trend towards government intervention or
 regulation that is actually intended to limit innovation and to limit the
 expansion of access.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. A question from Juan Fernandez from Cuba
 in the room. Are you there, Juan, in the room? I can see you. Yes, there you
 are. Thank you very much on this issue. Introduce yourself, please.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Thank you very much, moderator. Juan Fernandez is my name.
 And I am, in fact -- I work in the informatics and communication industry in
 Cuba. And I was a member of the working group on Internet governance of the
 United Nations. And I am a member of the Study Group 3 of ITU as to the
 connection costs issue and member of the Strategic Council of Global Alliance
 for Development in the United Nations. Now, before I actually submit my
 question, I'd like to remind you here that the main obstacles to access to
 Internet is hunger, lack of education, discrimination, and exclusion. So those
 who are ill, those who are hungry, those who are illiterate, and those who are
 excluded from everything also would be excluded from new technologies and from
 the Internet. Also, poverty and underdevelopment, to which a large part of
 humanity is, in fact, condemned, has an effect on the basic infrastructures in
 place, such as drinkable water, utilities, such as electricity, and also the
 social conditions within which people live. So I do think that the necessary
 first step in order to improve and democratize Internet is to try to eliminate
 those obstacles I mentioned. But once the underdeveloped countries have
 undertaken this tremendous effort and sacrifice to create the minimum
 conditions for them to be able to connect up to the Internet, then they find
 themselves confronted with a situation whereby they have to pay for the
 connection up to the Internet at the same level as the developed countries,
 even though this might also be a channel used by users in the developed
 countries, which means that, as has already been mentioned before, you can have
 technical means whereby you can do away with this paradox. And these poor
 countries seem to be financing Internet by this system. So my question is to
 this specifically, what can we do to change the situation in favor of those who
 are less advantaged so far? Because it must be said that to one of the replies
 here that was given in terms of reducing cost, because costs are, in fact,
 dropping, but we have to see how we can in fact try to not only reduce costs,
 but to make sure that we can share the costs. And I don't know whether the WTO
 can be called in on this as somebody said or whether we could call on the ITU
 or what we could do.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Well, before we go any further, the question on Cuba -- for
 Cuba. What is the number of people who are connected the on Internet in Cuba
 today?

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  What?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Today, how many people in Cuba, what percentage of the
 citizens are connected to the Internet in terms of the overall population it
 might be interesting to get some figures.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  Well, I really didn't want to talk about Cuba, because I
 didn't want to politicize this forum too much. But you asked me, so I'll tell
 you. As an awful a lot of you will be aware, Cuba is a small country. Fifty
 years ago, it underwent an economic war waged on the by the most economically
 powerful country in the world. Now, look at Google, for example,. If we try and
 get onto Google, we're told that we can't have access, we can't buy software
 from Microsoft. We don't have access to fiberoptics. All of our Internet over
 the last few years has had to go through satellite channels. And they're very
 expensive. And what we are doing about this, because the cost of connection is
 very high, we have social appropriation of the Internet.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  I was asking about the percentage of Cubans who were
 connected.

 >>JUAN FERNANDEZ:  We don't count this in terms of individuals who, depending
 on the money in their pocket, cannot have access. People have connection to
 Internet, wherever they are, in the mountains, in the schools. More than a
 thousand schools have only maybe one pupil, because when we say 100% in Cuba,
 we talk about 100%. So a lot of these schools have to put up solar panels so
 they can have connection. 100% of our universities have Internet. All of our
 research centers and companies that need it can have Internet access. We don't
 prioritize individual use of Internet, not because we don't want that; it's
 because we can't, because we don't have the access, the network, because of the
 embargo imposed on us by the United States. But thank you for the question. I
 hope I've answered it. If you need further explanations, I'm sure I can give
 you them.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Well, we've gone beyond the first hour of our discussions. I
 think this has been very interesting.  And it's always interesting to have
 specific examples about Internet access. So in daily reality, what's going on.
 Before I give the floor to a couple of members of the panel, let me put the
 question first. In their countries, in their daily activities, what examples
 can they give of what they've been able to do to encourage Internet access, or
 examples of what they're trying to do but didn't work, what were they not able
 to do. Bill Woodcock asked for the floor. And then we're going to deal -- hear
 from the panelists and see what they have to say.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Actually, I was hoping to respond to the question about Cuba.
 Shall I do that?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Please go ahead. But I just wanted to let you know that I
 wanted to ask this question. And I would like -- in fact, if each panelist
 could say in his own country what is the access today to Internet. I could tell
 you, in France, for example, in Paris, you have 125% access in Paris. But if
 you go down to the countryside, you go down to 50% access. Even in the
 developed countries, we have our own difficulties. So it's very interesting to
 have a view. Please, your answer to Cuba.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Let me preface this with, first of all, an apology for my
 government's longstanding policies. I'm from Berkeley, California, and as many
 of you who are familiar with the politics in the United States know, this means
 that I am pretty much 100% for Cuba with regards to the embargo and so forth.
 Now, with that preface, let me answer the question about what percentage of
 Cubans are connected to the Internet. Remember that the Internet is an
 end-to-end model. Zero percent of Cubans are connected to the Internet. The
 Cuban government operates an incumbent phone company which maintains a Web
 cache. Cubans who wish to use the Internet browse the government Web cache.
 They do not have unrestricted access to the Internet. And the question about
 whether there is an inequality in Cuban access to the global Internet, ask
 yourself whether a Cuban Internet service provider would face any challenges in
 connecting to a network in the United States or in Europe. And the answer is
 that, no, these are unregulated markets. They would face exactly the same costs
 as anyone anywhere else in the world. Whereas an American or British or French
 Internet service provider wishing to sell Internet access in Cuba would find
 themselves precluded from doing so by government regulation. So at that level,
 there's a basic incompatibility between heavy government regulation and the
 free market model upon which the Internet is built. And I understand that this
 is a choice of each country, and I don't make a value judgment about that,
 simply stating that the Internet has come into being in one environment, and it
 doesn't necessarily make itself --

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  What is the percentage of connection connecting people in
 California?

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  I'm not positive now. I would guess somewhere between 80 and
 90%.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay. Let's go to Korea. Mr. Park, what is the connection
 percentage in Korea, South Korea, today?

 >>KISHIK PARK:  Mr. Moderator, let me use a few seconds just I will be very
 short.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay.

 >>KISHIK PARK:  Firstly, I fully agree with the interventions made by Cuban
 delegation. And I don't think we can discuss about this kind of accessibility
 without thinking of some charity. Because if anybody can provide some amount of
 money to Korea, with current technologies, we don't have any problem to provide
 all the facilities for every Koreans and any other countries for them to access
 the Internet very easily. That's financial and some affordability. So we should
 be very clear. And in Korea, the penetration rate is 71.9% as of 2005 July. And
 households, 70.8% of households are connected to the broadband Internet. And my
 government is doing some special considerations for some aid to people or some
 young infants, and also including some education to use Internet. So I don't
 object to use some kind of competition to establish some infrastructure or
 something like that. But also, we should think about some kind of collaborative
 spirit to share with some disadvantaged or disabled or weak people. That is
 very important to increase the Internet accessibility, I believe.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Mwangi from Kenya, could I
 have your reaction, please.

 >>MICHUKI MWANGI:  I'll start off by saying that Kenya has an Internet
 penetration of 3.1. And this has gone to.1% over the last five years -- 3.1%
 over the last five years. This is because of liberalization. I would like to
 look at it as a marketplace. If I go to market, I buy the cheapest product. If
 your market is produced, you have no subsidies to produce your market, that
 means it's expensive for you to bring your products to the market, then your
 products will definitely cost more, so no one will buy from you, you will
 always buy from the one who is able to produce products cheaply.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Professor Mueller.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:  We may be getting lost in the detail and overlooking a
 bigger issue. We're basically talking about universal service, about the
 classic division between the dynamism of the market and the distributional
 effects of government. And it seems to me the obvious answer to this is that
 you have to rely on the dynamism of the market to get you about 80% of the
 construction of the infrastructure, and that there is always a role for
 governments and subsidies and redistribution and filling out anywhere from the
 final 2% to the final 20%, depending on what kind of a country you're dealing
 with and what kind of an economy you're dealing with. Just to give you an
 example in the United States, which invented the term "universal service," we
 got to about 90% coverage of the country because of competitive market
 conditions in the 19th century and early 1900s, and the Scandinavian countries
 also had competition during that period. Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, to
 this day, it is the United States and the Scandinavian countries that still
 lead in infrastructure penetration. Furthermore, as an academic, I can say that
 you can do statistical correlations.  Many, many statistical correlations,
 about what factors, affect Internet penetration in a given country. And you'll
 find again and again that the degree of telecom liberalization is a
 significantly positively correlated factor. So you have to rely on the
 commercially self-sustaining business to mobilize the massive amounts of
 capital needed to construct an infrastructure, and you have to rely on
 competition to drive the costs down and to develop new service contents. But,
 of course, there's room at the end for redistribution, which extends it to
 high-cost areas, to poor people, and to people who couldn't get it otherwise.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  And if you are speaking about infrastructure, there is a
 question from our blogger, if you can give him the microphone, we are going to
 be -- from -- Alice (saying name).

 >> Yes, Alice has sent in a question by e-mail. She's the national coordinator
 of catalyzing access to ICTs in Africa. And she's also involved with the
 Association for Progressive Communications, and she says, access to the
 Internet requires reliable backbone infrastructure at both national and
 regional level, accompanied by affordable, cheap connections to the
 international network. Could the panel discuss how Africa can develop fast,
 affordable Internet backbone. We have many ISPs that would find creative
 solutions into the loop if they had affordable access to broadband backbone.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  The same field, there is a question from the room. We can mix
 it with this question from Jean-Jacques Subrenat up at the front. He is giving
 us a question.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:  Thank you. My name is Jean-Jacques Subrenat. I'm a
 former ambassador and now a consultant. Well, two bottlenecks. I've picked out
 two. There are an awful lot more. Mohammed Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize, as
 we heard. And I would like to know whether there is the use of micro-credit in
 Africa in terms of Internet use. Are there any specific examples of this?  And
 if so, I would like to hear about them. The second bottleneck now is a link
 between the electrical network and access to the Internet. Electrical,
 centralized electrical provision does not always work.  And that's a genuine
 bottleneck. In Africa in particular, have there been specific examples for
 local Internet access to use photovoltaic energy as a solution.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Do we have a panel member who can give a technical answer as
 to the electricity grids? Vincent?

 >>VINCENT WAISWA BAGIIRE:  I thought I was going to answer Alice's question.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Go ahead.

 >>VINCENT WAISWA BAGIIRE:  Alice has asked a very important question, but all I
 can say is there is an initiative and there are several other initiatives
 within the region of improving the infrastructure in the region. And the one
 that is most known is the East African submarine cable system. However, that
 particular initiative I think will need perhaps divine intervention, because as
 it is right now, there are lots of controversies surrounding the project and
 there is a high possibility it may not come to fruition as fast as the industry
 needs it. So that's one of the projects that might assist the region in terms
 of getting cheap and affordable infrastructure.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay.  Who can answer the question about using the electrical
 distribution network to promote Internet access?  On the panel.  Is there
 somebody?  You could, Bill?  Or -- yeah, please.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  So there are several ways that that can be done. One way that
 many people are familiar with is sort of in the home, transmitting electrical
 -- transmitting data signals over electrical wiring.  And this sort of works in
 the scope of the home. The high voltage electrical, long-distance transmission
 systems are not very well adapted to that.  However, they already have right of
 way staked out with big towers and high voltage wires. Russia, particularly,
 has been innovative in getting fiber wrapped around those high voltage
 long-haul distribution lines.  That's really the best way to use them, is to
 just use the existing right of way and power cable to wrap fiber.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you.  Jim Dempsey.

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  I will just say that I think we misunderstood the question. 
 The question was what do you do when there is no power system. So far, I
 haven't heard an answer to that.  I don't have one.  That's a question we are
 thinking about.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Can you answer the question?

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  No, I can't.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay. Please.

 >>MICHUKI MWANGI:  I think to the best of my knowledge there are projects that
 are actually going to try to develop computers that actually use low voltage
 power.  And one is currently in test at the University of Oregon that is
 through NSRC.  And it is basically something to use low voltage power that can
 be set up in a box and shipped out to these kind of remote places.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay.  Well, we're going to ask the panelists, maybe not all
 of them, but those who have a real good answer to provide to the audience, we
 are interested to know in your field, what concrete example -- some have been
 given already about the (inaudible), but those who have not spoken yet on that
 field.  And we can start maybe with Gabriel, if you have a concrete example of
 what has been done in your field to promote the access to make accessibility
 better.  Is there one concrete example you can give very quickly?  And then we
 will go all the table.

 >>GABRIEL ADONAYLO:  Well, the example I am going to give you doesn't really
 add an awful lot to what we have just been saying about the cost and
 international connectivity.  Mouhamet was talking about that and the previous
 speaker as well. In Argentina and the rest of Latin America, as in Africa,
 we've got long-haul, back haul, and transit through the United States as well.
 Now, we don't know when this is going to change, when we will be able to share
 out the cost of the infrastructure.  But what we are doing to try and buffer
 the high costs, and I will try to give you an example in Latin America, the
 average cost of access through the cable system, the submarine cable system,
 will be about 15- to $20,000, which would be 155 megabits. Now, comparing that
 with the developed world, if I can put it that way, the same capacity between
 -- or the same cost, put it this way, $15,000, between London and New York
 would give you a capacity of ten gigabits. So we are talking about 60 times
 greater capacity for the same price. So in order to get around this issue, what
 we're doing at a domestic level, since '98 we have been working on setting up
 the exchange points between Argentina, Brazil, and other countries in the
 region so that the local content and local traffic can stay within the region
 and doesn't need to go through the international loops or pay the transit cost
 through the United States, when we are talking about communication within the
 region. The -- What the (inaudible) have done, basically, has been to retain
 the local traffic, reducing the costs and improving service efficiency.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you.  Well, that's very specific.  Yes, we know what
 this means for you in daily terms. Could we have a quick example from Vincent,
 please.

 >>VINCENT WAISWA BAGIIRE:  Yes, what we try to do as CIPESA, which is a
 regional organization, is as a means of increasing access, and I mean
 meaningful access, in the region, we try to encourage governments to be users
 of the technology because if you look at the way Africa is structured,
 government, like anywhere else in the world, government is all over the --
 governments are all over the countries.  But you find that they don't use the
 technology.  So as a result, you find it hard for the service providers, the
 private sector to deploy technology when actually the governments who are
 biggest recipients, especially in Africa, (inaudible) funding budget supports
 do not consume technology and rely on old methods of communicating and dealing
 with other communities. The other issue then is advocating for -- informing and
 advocating the masses in East and Southern Africa of the importance of rallying
 behind the East African submarine cable system to ensure they understand what
 it is all about and how much money it can save the continent in terms of money
 used for international traffic, and also around the area of meaningful
 participation in activities such as these ones to the effect that as Africa, we
 should not look at the governance, the actual aspect of governance of the
 Internet and look at, perhaps, the development of the Internet and how it can
 consume the Internet in light of the various problems that face the continent;
 i.e., lack of electricity, content that is all over the place but not mobilized
 and organized in a coordinated way, among other things.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you.  Jim Dempsey, still on GIPI.

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  Our GIPI project has had several successes.  One actually was
 in redelegation of country code top-level domain names.  And I think three of
 the countries we worked in, those names were held by outside companies, foreign
 companies who were not responsive to the local Internet community. We
 successfully petitioned ICANN under the guidelines they set out and succeeded
 in having those domain -- Country Code Top Level Domains redelegated to the
 management of a local -- locally constituted non-profit entity and that
 immediately resulted in price reductions. I could have others, but only one.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  No, no, just one. Mouhamet Diop, Senegal, if we could have an
 example, please.

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  If the chairman can allow me, it will be my last
 intervention, maybe, but if you can give me two minutes and I will be happy. My
 first intervention will be to give you an example about network that have been
 set up in order to allow a better penetration of the Internet services is the
 example of the national IP-based network in Senegal that was a very successful
 example where the target was not to give IP connection only to get access to
 the Internet but to provide high-speed bandwidth network in order to allow
 local services. So it was the basis for any company to get access. The second
 one is the postal office, who is one of the most important office in the
 country in terms of numbers of office.  So they are trying also to develop new
 services to the local community based on the fact that they are able to get
 supplied connection and very high-speed network to the country. The last point,
 and I really just want to elaborate one minute and after that I give the floor,
 is that at the early stage of the Internet, the private agreement was the
 initial basis for anyone who wants to get access to the Internet. So in my
 country, the telecom operator have a settlement agreement with another
 operator.  That can be MCI ten years ago.  So they pay for the connection.  And
 any single ISP is doing the same. In Europe it was the same at the beginning. 
 But what happened?  The European countries talked together and built a network
 in which all of the telecom operator have access to that high-speed network and
 it become part of the global network and they stopped paying a fee to anybody
 else. This happened because all the system of the Internet is based on private
 agreement between the one who want to get connected and the other one who going
 to help you to get access on that. But this paradigm has not changed for the
 African countries.  It remained the same over 11 years, since the first
 Internet interaction. What I am saying is if we did not do anything in order to
 help build regional infrastructure, help build also exchange point that is
 going to make the African networks seen as part of the global network, that
 will be part of the global network but they still have their individual
 agreement where they pay a fee to get access to the cable and they pay a fee to
 get access to the Internet. This model has to change.  And I truly wanted to
 share with people, if they want to get deep explanation about how we can do it,
 this is the challenge that Africa have to face for the coming years.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  What is the access today in Senegal is what?

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  The access in Senegal is 1.2 gig.  And in the 1.2 gig they
 offer connection to other countries behind us, like Burkina-Faso gets access
 through there.  We've got Burkina people here.  And they pay for the cable,
 they pay for the (inaudible) and they pay also to get access to open transit. 
 It's too much.  And this cost comes back to the user and that's why the cost of
 the Internet is still high.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  And how many users do you have today in Senegal?

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  500,000.  It's not accurate but we have 30,000 DSL
 connection, so it's not much.  So we have, I mean, a good infrastructure to
 expand.  But as I told you, we don't need to expand if we have enough money
 with the customer we already have.  That's the reality of the market.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  One question from the room before we take up the specific
 examples.  Sylvia Caras wants to speak to the issue of diversity for people
 with special needs.

 >>SYLVIA CARAS:  My name is Sylvia Caras, I live in California.  I am the ICT
 link for the International Disability Alliance which is eight global
 organizations. What I found is that the access issues for most left-out groups
 are similar. Most resources for participation on an equal basis. For instance,
 despite the leadership of the web accessibility initiative, W3C, for those with
 reading related disabilities, screen reading software is apt to be legacy. 
 Most of us are low-income.  Rendering only text and doc files, and browsers not
 even installed. Inclusion of people with disabilities cross-cuts the foreign
 themes, yet there are few of us here, I have only seen two, with visible
 disabilities. How can we better reach out to welcome people with disabilities
 to the Information Society? Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Moderator, yes, a very important question. Over to you,
 Georg.

 >>GEORG GREVE:  Thank you very much for that question because it kind of brings
 me into the game.  Ultimately, access is not a binary issue.  We have talked a
 lot now about how to get the basic TCP/IP access, if you will, the cable from
 which the Internet comes.  But there is much, much more behind that.  Access
 doesn't stop there.  It's a multi-step procedure.  And what you are asking is a
 little higher up the chain, and it's a little more where I am actually working.
  And we have even heard from our colleague in India that you can have 100
 percent cable and zero percent access if people don't know how to use it. The
 disability question is a very big one.  And in fact, I think it goes even
 further, and we even see a deterioration, right now, in various ways, in
 particular in how the Internet works. One example that comes to mind
 immediately for me is the proprietary flash standard which is, you know, a very
 nifty graphical something that many Web pages these days are made in, but often
 unaware that it is not possible to see this in another way, in another format,
 in whatever form people with disabilities would need it. There is no way for
 them to actually access the Web page. There's also no way for people who, for
 instance, prefer to use other browsers or prefer to use some other software to
 access these Web pages.  So people with disabilities are actually not the only
 ones excluded but they have even less choice in finding different solutions.
 The only good answer that I know to that question ultimately are open
 standards. We must have open standards that allow people with disabilities to
 reformat whatever they are provided with in the way that they can access it.
 They must be allowed to reformat.  They must have that ability, that
 possibility. And, in fact, I would like to point everybody to a workshop that's
 going to happen tomorrow morning, 9:30, of the dynamic coalition on open
 standards, that we started here at the IGF.  It's a group with industry
 support, with governmental support, NGO support.  And if you are interested in
 that topic, I think that would be a good place to go, because everybody is
 welcome. This is an open group. So tomorrow morning, DSOC. That, I think, is a
 very important starting point because we want to bring together people who see
 that problem, who see that issue. The second problem that I see for you, and it
 is for me as well, and that is of technical protection measures, TPMs, because
 they are, by nature, very often the opposite of an open standard because they
 seek to prevent certain things.  They seek to prevent, you know, further
 processing of the data in ways that whoever provides this did not foresee. That
 is a major issue.  If we are not careful here, we will create yet another
 access barrier instead of creating access. These are two issues that I think
 are very focused, very fundamental on that issue. So I think this is really
 where we have to go, and this is quite central, at least in my view.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. At this juncture of discussion, I'll
 hand over to our chairman, Mr. Maglaris, who I remind you is president of the
 European national European research and education networks policy committee.
 Can you at this point give us your thoughts on what we have heard this
 afternoon by way of summing up?

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  Let me say first of all, let
 me answer your question about penetration and the state of the Internet in
 Greece. As I mentioned in the beginning, it's on the global average of 25%. 
 That's global average and we are not very proud of it. So what are the reasons
 for that?  In my view, and to speak personally not as a chairman, not as a
 professor, not as the Greek government, nothing, personally I believe one big
 problem is there is that there is a vertical quasi monopoly that does not allow
 for competition and vital services to be developed. This vertical monopoly,
 that's the incumbent, of course, had some input, and there you can see we do
 have the monopoly bottleneck for the access loop.  We do have also backbone
 structures also owned by them, but backbone structures now have been
 duplicated, duplicated and so forth by others. So the main bottleneck that
 still exists is the local access, the local loop. It might be like they did in
 the UK and like the commission now proposes a solution, not necessary -- not a
 sufficient condition but the necessary condition might be to have a structure
 split sort of between something which is quasi common and that's the
 infrastructure, the access part of the infrastructure, and service, by nature,
 is competitive and should not be struggled by monopoly bottlenecks.  My
 personal view. Let me say a few things about how things evolved. One of the
 major, I think, boosts that pushed the Internet up in Greece was the
 development by the academic community, and I am speaking now as a professor who
 has also been involved in that, in building exchange points between providers. 
 It is not true what was mentioned that the Internet is distributed kind of
 interconnected networks.  There are tier one providers, with tier two
 providers, tier three providers, and in many cases, interconnection is done
 through tier one providers and that is expensive. So what we did is we
 implemented, as academic community, neutral points, third trusted parties
 exchange points that allowed tier two, even tier three providers to
 interconnect without going through tier one expensive upstream provisions.
 Another thing that we are trying to do, and we might be successful in doing so,
 is trying to see if we can implement within the universal service obligation
 the user basket.  Like in telephony.  The user basket as it is right now
 defined at least in Greece includes only telephony, fax and so forth. We are
 probing into putting into that also Internet.  And I am wondering whether this
 body could come up with a conclusion to include in use around the world, also,
 Internet access for the world. Just an idea. And finally, since we're talking
 about multistakeholders, we're here.  Indeed, multistakeholders, I represent
 the academic and research community of Europe at this point, and I can give
 many examples of inequalities and how the Digital Divide exists within
 countries, between countries.  Even between families.  You know very well what
 I speak.  A colleague of mine from the University of Scopio {sp?} once said the
 Digital Divide is a fractal phenomenon.  And it is fractal, self-similar.  It
 propagate itself from family to city to school to campus to country to
 continent, to the whole world. So it is a fractal phenomenon, and I can give
 you examples.  I heard the example before between costs in connecting Argentina
 and connecting either United States or central European countries.  I can give
 you numbers if you wish. To have a ten gig connection between the UK
 (inaudible), between the UK and New York, it's about 120,000 Euros. If you want
 to interconnect Istanbul to Athens, it may cost you more than 2 million Euros
 for just 620 megabits per second. So you can see the cost in the Digital Divide
 even within Europe and within the periphery of Europe.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much, chairman. I would like to continue with
 specific examples, each of you in your specialized field. Perhaps we can start
 with Michuki Mwangi.

 >>MICHUKI MWANGI:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  Specifically in Kenya, what we
 managed to do is we do have an exchange point.  We do have a ccTLD in the last
 five years operating in Kenya.  But what we also did is brought one of the root
 servers operated by F-root and I-root into Kenya.  That mean the resolution
 process is not dependent on the international connections. That means if any of
 the international links does break down and you are browsing or trying to send
 mail locally that, the process of finding -- resolving and finding the
 destination address is not affected by the fact that the links are down. So
 that, I think, was the most important things we did by bringing the root
 servers in Kenya.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Fine. Mr. Park, do you have any specific examples to give us?

 >>KISHIK PARK:  I don't at this time because I already explained the Korean
 experiences, so let me explain some about the charting and accounting for
 international telecommunication services because I am currently serving as
 chairman of (inaudible) 3, and my group is specially dealing with charting and
 accounting principles or guidelines for international telecommunications
 services.  So let me just take one example for you. Usually, several years ago,
 some international interconnection rate set, we remember about 5 billion U.S.
 dollars every year developed countries that they paid to developing countries. 
 But at that time, mostly we were using some accounting rate system.  And today,
 about 20% of this kind of sediment system are using accounting system, and
 instead of ALS, they are using some international interconnection rate system.
 What happened these days? Now, about 3 billion U.S. dollars every year,
 developing countries are paying to developed countries. Some of the gentlemen
 from the floor in the beginning requested some international charting
 arrangements.  So this kind of example can show us some international charting
 arrangement guidelines.  It's very essential for the improvement of Internet
 access globally.  So this is a kind of international policy (inaudible), not
 domestic policy related to Internet.  Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Sam Paltridge, please.

 >>SAM PALTRIDGE:  As I have already given an example, I will be like my
 colleague and take up the settlements issue that he raises. If you look at the
 most recent data, and for those of you that don't follow this particular area,
 there is actually only one country in the world that provides good public data,
 and that is the United States of America through the FCC's data on
 international payments. And if you look at the most recent data, it shows
 payments outpayments increasing to a number of countries, and to Africa as a
 whole.  And I believe that is probably because of the growth of mobile
 communications in Africa. And if you have a growing customer base, I think you
 will start to see some surprising developments in some areas. You will start to
 see more international infrastructure being connected to that continent. You
 may even see outpayments continue to increase. I'm not sure about that. But
 certainly the most recent evidence we have is that outpayments are increasing.
 Having said that, there was never actually a strong relationship between
 telecommunication development and the amount of settlements that were paid.
 There is a much stronger relationship for development with reform to
 telecommunication markets. If you get the policies right, there are commercial
 solutions that would deal with many of the concerns that have been raised both
 here today and in WSIS. I would add one footnote to that. For those commercial
 solutions to work, you need capacity-building, you need the skills to make them
 work. You need the sort of people who do work like packet clearinghouse and
 Bill Woodcock going to developing countries, helping the capacity-building to
 set up Internet exchange points to make this system work. But I will say, it is
 a very successful system, and if we can build on that, then I think that is
 going to get us to the second and third billion Internet users.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Before we go on on the panel, there's a question in the
 audience from Iran, from Mr. Riazi. Is he -- yes, would you please introduce
 yourself.

 >>DR. RIAZI:  In the name of God, the benificient, the merciful, I am Riazi,
 Deputy Minister for I.T., Ministry of ICT, Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you,
 Mr. Moderator, for giving me an opportunity to give some comments. We have
 taken note with great interest of this session on Internet connectivity policy
 and cost and the related issues on interconnection policies and costs,
 interoperability and open standards, availability, and affordability,
 regulatory, and other barriers to access, as well as capacity-building to
 improve access. Internet connectivity in terms of policy and cost, in
 particular, at the international level is a central element to attain
 sustainable connectivity in the information society, a society which is
 contingent upon universal sustainable (inaudible) use and affordable access to
 ICTs. According to paragraph 48 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles,
 reaffirmed later in Tunis, access is an issue which is directly linked with the
 question of the Internet as a global facility, and this medium is governed
 according to the language of the paragraph, obtaining access for all depends
 much on a multilateral, democratic, and transparent management of the Internet.
 This entails that access to Internet governance mechanism, in particular for
 developing countries that are left out of the existing governance system, is an
 important way of facilitating access for all. Moreover, the question of access
 is linked in paragraph 48 to ensuring equitable distribution of resources. To
 that end, access for all would be achieved if resources are distributed
 equitably. On the subjects of the availability and affordability, regulatory,
 and other barriers to access, paragraph 19 of the general declaration of
 principles entails a commitment that all stakeholders should work together to,
 among others, improve access to information and communication infrastructure
 and technologies, as well as to information and knowledge. To fulfill that
 commitment, policies governing access to the Internet at the international
 level should follow the principles of universal sustainable, ubiquitous, and
 affordable access to ICTs, as promised in the WSIS. On the barriers to access,
 discrimination against access to infrastructure technology, technologies, and
 to information and knowledge, with the aim of serving particular interest or
 policies creates major impediments to achieving a truly universal and
 nondiscriminatory information society. Users in my country are facing new
 discriminatory practices over the provision of information and knowledge and
 related software exercises by some private entities, mostly located in a
 certain geographical jurisdiction. This practice is mostly followed by those
 who are in control of the existing Internet governance mechanism. That clearly
 violates the agreed principle of the universal, nondiscriminatory,
 people-centered, and development-oriented information society as well as
 responsibilities of such entities referred and agreed to in the WSIS
 (inaudible) in the past WSIS era. We, on our part, would seek every single
 opportunity to highlight this negative, unhealthy, and damaging trend with the
 potential of being replicated somewhere else, subject to certain interests,
 during the WSIS follow-up process.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Do you have a question for the panel?

 >>DR. RIAZI:  Just a moment. One minute. One minute. On the subtheme of
 capacity-building to improve access, we have taken note with appreciation that
 capacity-building to improve access appears at the bottom of the list of the
 relevant issues to access. While we strongly believe that capacity-building is
 an ongoing process which should be targeted when the choice made on subsequent
 issues is indicative of the fact that capacity-building will be meaningful if
 and when other requirements for universal access are met. In that case,
 capacity-building to improve access to decision-making processes of the
 Internet governance infrastructure, related technologies, as well as
 information and knowledge would be of great assistance to developing countries.
 Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Can I ask you, what is the number of users in Iran, as you
 are here?

 >>DR. RIAZI:  Yes. The number of users in Iran, 1100 at the moment. And 16%. I
 mean, 11 million. 11 million users, around 16%. And we are planning to increase
 in the next two years to 13% -- 30%.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  30%. Okay. Thank you.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  Mr. Moderator, Professor Mueller wants to leave, so he
 might give -- get his chance to give you one minute.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Go ahead.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  His conclusions or whatever.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:  Yes. I'm sorry I have to leave. I have a workshop on the
 root zone file to moderate at 5:30, and I have to go set it up now. I
 appreciate the statement from the gentleman from Iran, and I would like to
 encourage a dialogue rather than statements, so that maybe we could talk about
 this point later on, after I'm off the platform. And just to sum up my
 perspective on what we've heard so far, I think that we're still sort of stuck
 on this dialectic between market efficiency and distributional equity, and that
 I would hope that we can recognize the value of both of these principles and
 draw upon the rich empirical experience we have with liberalization processes
 and not try to recreate the old system of telephone monopolies that was based
 on a settlement system of the ITU. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. So perhaps we can continue with our roundtable.
 Craig Silliman, perhaps you can take this up. Can you give us a specific
 example, if you have one, as to how you were able to improve access.

 >>CRAIG SILLIMAN:  Sure. Well, at Verizon, we are a communication services
 provider. So enabling access to communications is what we do. We're extremely
 proud of the innovative services we are constantly rolling out in all the
 countries in which we do business. We are providing access to communications
 services in over 60 countries around the world today, and I believe that you
 would find that if you looked at the countries in which we provide access,
 those are the countries with some of the highest levels of access to the
 Internet and the most innovative, high-quality, and best-priced services. I
 wish we could claim credit for that. Unfortunately, I think the conclusion you
 draw is that the countries that allow companies like ourselves to come in and
 provide services on a license basis are those who is there, in general, laid
 the foundations for proper communications policy. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Mr. Singh, please.

 >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator. And getting on the point
 which we colleague was making, probably those are the countries which are the
 richer countries, as such, have more capacity to pay. And also, among the other
 countries, they do address sections of the population who have the capacity to
 pay. Coming back to the question which was posed by the moderator, I would
 speak about what we are doing to improve access in a different sense. What my
 colleague from the Free Software Foundation said, the higher-value links
 access, beyond the telecom access. And we believe that this infrastructure, the
 cost-benefit ratio is so favorable that if you're working on the benefits, the
 cost doesn't matter much. And I think if you compare it with other softwares,
 like (inaudible), traditional infrastructure, the cost is very low. The issue
 is, do people really benefit. And the other multiple layers people can benefit
 from this infrastructure. And if that increases, the demand gets built, and
 infrastructure follows. So what we do, really, is that we work with communities
 and try to build systems of value, superstructures of value over this
 infrastructure which makes connectivity valuable for them. So a couple of
 things which we are doing. We work with very poor women who are organizing
 (inaudible). And we put government information on the Internet. There's been
 recent government reform that I.T. information in India which is very valuable
 reform. A lot of people want access to government information which is one of
 the primary demands. We put information on the computers. We put health
 information, we build health-based databases on the computers, which are used
 to interface with the public service providers both to help them and to extract
 accountability about education-related stuff. We do advocacy with development
 content providers to put their content on the Internet under open licenses so
 that it's freely available for people to download, people who are illiterate
 who could use it in the development processes. So we're trying to work on those
 kinds of things which could improve the value of the Internet. And I must say
 that all these things take a long time to build, because trying to create
 institutional systems around it, and it takes a lot of public money to invest
 in. And that's the next issue that the role of initial public investments and
 building the systems to bring it to maturity where the markets can take over is
 very important. That was at the local level. And at the international level, we
 take the same philosophy and we think the default ICT policy globally has been
 set to a private sector default. And that's something which concerns us. And we
 want to bring back the balance between the public and the private in ICT
 policy, because I think that's a very important issue for development and
 proper role of the public investments and public regulation has to be
 established. And the issue which is about the international -- interconnection
 charges, I agree with the gentleman who raised the question, and my Korean
 colleague, that if the -- the systems remain as discriminatory as they are
 today, and I don't -- some kind of public policy infrastructure should look
 into the charges.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. There is an important and interesting question in
 terms of access vis-a-vis content. And the Tunis summit did indicate and
 recommend that one should provide free access to scientific information. And
 today, a number of researchers are wondering as to how one can actually give
 more access to scientific information, especially for researchers in developing
 countries, so that they are able to follow the whole course of research in
 developing countries at the same pace as in the other countries. And that's
 important in terms of sustainable development and scientific research. So it
 should have real-time information on matters. So it's a question of access,
 therefore, and contents. Maria Simon.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  As I can see, the majority of the public is not using
 translation, I will speak in English. I will give up. I use English in order to
 be understood. Having been the dean of the engineering school in my country,
 this question is very sensitive for me. In fact, in this aspect, we are twice
 in a difficult situation, because in addition to high cost of interconnection,
 my Argentinian colleague has spoken about, we have also to pay to access
 important sites in scientific aspects. Developing countries have really the
 need of being included in scientific community. And every effort in this sense
 will be very important and very sensitive for having the scientific community
 well integrated around the world.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Quickly, if possible, Jonne Soininen, one example to follow
 the panel of what you have done or what could be done.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Yeah. We have done many things. And we are going to do also
 many things in the future to enable the next billion of users to come onto the
 Internet. But I think one of the key things that we have done is that work
 together with regulators, local operators, local companies, and tried to open
 up the regulation -- telecom regulation in the countries to -- and to enable,
 enabling regulatory environment in those countries so that there's a
 competition and the cost of the services can come down in the countries and
 that they would be more affordable for the users.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. And the last member of the panel with a good
 example, Bill Woodcock, please, concrete actions to reduce the --

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Education is the investment which always produces the highest
 return. So that's why we teach a lot of workshops. We do typically 30 to 50
 workshops a year. That's -- they've been in more than a hundred countries over
 the last 15 years, on Internet routing for network operators, regulatory policy
 for communications ministries, Internet economics for treasury and taxation and
 --

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  One example? Specific.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Education workshops.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Do you have an example somewhere where it's working now
 today?

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Well, to take one of the examples that was brought up before
 is Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, we went through about a three-year program of
 training up Internet service providers. There's an Internet exchange there with
 more than 40 ISPs. The exchange itself is diversified into two locations, with
 separate management, so there's redundancy there. The policies have allowed
 those ISPs to run around installing fiber all over Dhaka and now other cities
 in Bangladesh as well.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay. Well, thank you very much. Just one --

 >>MARIA SIMON:  Something is missing.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Yes, because you didn't take the occasion. Can you give us an
 example, please. Go ahead.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  But I can give, I think, an interesting example. Because we are
 a country which is in the middle, in between poorest and richest countries. In
 our country, this is a very small country, we are only three million people,
 from which 40% do use Internet, and 23% users individually, I mean, they have a
 business in their home. We are developing two different plans, one for
 community access, for social programs, and another for individual access. In
 community plan, we have in this moment about half of schools connected to
 Internet, and we plan to have at the end of the next year 100% of schools
 connected to Internet. We have also collective centers of access to the
 information society, which are only about 200 in this moment, but growing. And
 regarding the individual access to Internet, we have some public-private plans
 about the finances, purchases of PCs, and also we are making a big effort in
 lowering the prices of the connection. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Before going back to the panel, there is a real
 question here about access and new technologies. A lot of people are saying
 that with new technologies coming and development of new technologies, it would
 be possible to reduce very quickly the divide, the gaps. So in what way and
 which technologies are you seeing for the future that will give this access
 more possible? Do you have concrete example? Can you quote some examples of how
 the development of the research will have an impact on the access? Would you
 like to answer, anybody here? One, Mr. Park.

 >>KISHIK PARK:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator, because I'm working for the
 electronics and telecommunications research institute as a vice president. And
 we just developed Wi-Pro. It's a kind of mobile WiMAX. So in the future years,
 I think some personalized or some mobile, very convenient mobile devices will
 be adopted definitely. That's my opinion. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Jonne Soininen.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Yeah, thank you. Trying to elaborate on that a little bit
 further as well. I think that it's very important to see the emergence of
 different wireless broadband networks and wireless narrow-band networks as well
 in many countries. And also see that there's new development of technologies
 coming along. I think the very important thing to remember when choosing
 between these technologies is the total cost of these technologies. So seeing
 what the costs of network, what it costs in deployment, what it costs on
 operation, and what it costs for the user. And this is a combination of
 multiple things. And what is the most important thing I think that I would like
 to highlight here is the cost of scale. When you have a lot of equipment and
 when you have -- and it's sold all over the world, you get the scaling factor
 which enables you to bring the cost down. So it's very important in these cases
 to use technologies that are based on open standards, that are proven in their
 use, that have a large global users' base.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Emmanuel Ramos is in the audience. Would you like to make a
 comment? Please, go ahead.

 >> EMMANUEL RAMOS:  Thank you. Emmanuel Ramos from the European Space
 Technology. Modern satellite technology combined with Wi-Fi wireless, for
 example, can provide competitive access to groups of users. Now, providing an
 immediate, let's say, fast solution to covering large areas. Of course, this
 needs to have a large market as a target. So one might consider that some of
 the regional development funds, for example, in Africa might be devoted to
 develop such a satellite system to provide a startup solution to a digital
 divide problem. So would you like to comment on that, please.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Any comment on the panel on this specific point? Okay,
 Mouhamet Diop, please.

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  Thank you. This time it's a one-minute comment. So I think
 that to answer specifically to that question, we need to answer the question
 related to two points. The first one is to bring the signal, the Internet
 access, to a point. This can be done using a variety of technology. And we have
 seen the CDMA become more and more technology used, because we want to cover a
 more sparse area and you don't have a very dense area and you need people to
 get connected through something like 30 kilometers from one point. So the
 investment is not high enough. And when they want to use the Internet access
 around these things, they do a mix of CDMA and Wi-Fi, or WiMAX and Wi-Fi, or
 satellite and Wi-Fi. All these mixtures are used, depending on the nature of
 how the population are distributed in the area. But the second point is
 regarding the interface. When you bring a computer in a place where people
 don't have -- are not literate in -- I mean, in an environment that the
 computer you bring to them, the ultimate -- the problem you're facing is you
 bring tools, people do not have the interface, the adequate interface to
 interact with that tool, and there are a lot of problems. Why the mobile and
 the related technologies to mobile are so easy to deploy, even for the
 Internet, is just because the user interface is friendly enough, even if the
 person is not literate in English or French, even if he's literate in Arabic,
 it will be very easy for him to use that interface, because it did not ask him
 to change his knowledge or to educate himself in another way in order to use
 that technology. One point that I just want to conclude on is to make a linkage
 between all what we were talking about relating to access to MDG, the
 Millennium Development Goals, because we're talking about services for health,
 for education, for poverty reduction. Why do we take the example of Professor
 Yunus, it's because we have seen that these technologies can be used in order
 to tackle some real problem of development that we are facing. And we cannot
 talk about access without tackling the problem of the funding. We can talk
 about access for days and days, but who's going to fund the access in we can
 initiate it from the private sector. We have initiated from donors, bilateral
 and unilateral corporation. We get funding from some international fund like
 the Digital Solidarity Fund that has been set up, or any other resources that
 people need to put in place in order to help this access become a reality.
 Woodbank can answer that they have $440 million they just put on the table to
 help African countries to get their -- I mean, any regional project they want
 to set up. But until now, they've got no project on the table in order to help
 them doing that way. Thanks.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. Michuki Mwangi, please.

 >>MICHUKI MWANGI:  Thank you, I wanted to add on to what Mr. Diop has said.
 Basically, when you're looking at new technologies, the question is, we need
 what we call client premised equipment. How cost-effective is it for it to be
 deployed in a region like Africa, where we know what the income household is
 per month. If we were to get mobile phones from Nokia and the others for less
 than $50, can we get cheap client premise equipment as opposed to where we have
 to use satellite equipment which needs 5- to $7,000 for initial investment.
 That's the only way we can spark the growth. Because we'll take the mobile
 approach where the devices that need to interconnect the end users are equally
 as cheap. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  There was another question in the audience from Richard
 Kweskin. Could you give the gentleman the microphone and introduce yourself.

 >>RICHARD KWESKIN:  Yes. Speaking about costs, I was interested in hearing from
 the member of the panel from the foundation -- software -- Free Software
 Foundation, Mr. George Greve, insofar as he is aware, as I am, of software
 which has certain freedoms attached to it which help a great deal in cost. And
 I thought that he might be able to mention that. That was all.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Please, Georg, could you answer.

 >>GEORGE GREVE:  This all fits pretty well together. I've been trying to catch
 the microphone to give my concrete example. But this can all be combined into
 one. Because as we've just spoken, it's incredibly important that you have the
 freedom, for instance, to adapt your software to your local cultural context,
 through your language, that you can change it so the users in your country can
 actually use it. And that is one of the fundamental freedoms that free software
 offers you. I mean, free software is defined by the four freedoms:  Unlimited
 use for any purpose, the freedom to study, to modify, and to distribute. And
 while I was thinking about the concrete examples, you know, I was wondering
 what I should bring up, should I talk about our DRM, that info platform where
 we explain to people why digital restrictions management can be difficult, you
 know, should we talk about other issues, about one of our activists who's
 currently in Malawi helping local people set up their network, training them,
 because education, ultimately, I think, is the key? But then I decided I'm
 going to give you one project very specifically which we have with partners
 throughout Europe, in India, and Latin America. It's the scientific education,
 learning, and freedom project, self. It is supported by the European
 Commission. And it is about creating a free software platform, a platform based
 on free software and open standards, that is going to contain free educational
 material, so anybody anywhere in the world can take it, can use it, can modify
 it, can build university courses on it, can teach from this material, and we're
 going to start filling it up with educational material about free software and
 open standards, because that is what we know best. But we're going to put this
 software out there, then, so other people can put their courses on there, other
 people can put their knowledge in there, so we can actually have a network of
 servers worldwide at some point where people can access that knowledge. Because
 I believe education is the key. Education is one of the biggest barriers to
 access. So that was the one concrete example that I really, really, really
 wanted to make. That was why I was anxious to get the microphone. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Well, you did it. Thank you. There is a question in the room
 from Miriam Sapiro. Is she here?

 >> MIRIAM SAPIRO:  I'm Miriam Sapiro from Summit Strategies International in
 Washington, D.C., and I also teach part-time at New York University. I'm very
 pleased that the panel is getting into some of the critical development issues
 that the forum is supposed to focus on. It's very hard to speak of development
 without also thinking of empowerment, empowerment of individuals. So my
 question, really, a two-part question for the panel is, first of all, are there
 societal or gender impediments to access? And if so, what do you think that we
 can do about them? And then a little more specifically, are there incentives
 that local governments can offer to make sure that groups that might otherwise
 be marginalized, such as women, will be able to have access to the hardware and
 the software that is necessary for us to even speak of Internet access? Thank
 you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Maybe an answer from Maria Simon, please.

 >>MARIA SIMON:  It is a very, a very nice question. In -- I think also as a
 panelist said, that education is a critical problem. Even if you put a computer
 connected to Internet on the table of each one, without education, he will not
 be able to use it for the -- for really perfect uses. This is mainly important
 for minority groups. In Uruguay, even though the literacy is very high, it's
 more than 98%, education remains a critical issue, because people know how to
 read but not how to use a computer or not how to use Internet. So in those
 collective centers, in those community centers, we put some helpers, some
 facilitators in order to approach the community to the Internet. Also in the
 schools, we will begin the effort with very young people. But we think we must
 face formal and unformal education. And regarding women in particular, there is
 a project which is undergone with the university for installing a wi-max
 network, a little wi-max network arranges experimental one in hand crafter,
 women who make handicraft.  And will be very benefited by this project. Thank
 you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  We will go first to Hugo Lueders, and then Bill and
 Parminder. Mr. Lueders.

 >>HUGO LUEDERS:  I don't know where to start because I would need two or three
 hours to give a little bit more detail on this very important last question.
 There are enormous details to explain here A lot of experiences, tested
 experiences. There are all kinds of incentives. We, by ourselves, we have
 developed a European model of law, developing a whole series of incentives of
 all kinds.  Tax breaks, public funding, whatever.  And I am happy later on if
 you want to give you many, many more details.  I simply don't have the time
 here. I am very happy at this late stage now we are coming to the real issues,
 what I perceive as the real issues beyond the cable. There is a world beyond
 the cable.  And there, I think, are the real issues.  There are the real issues
 to bridge the different universes we are having.  What was just mentioned,
 formal, informal education.  How to do that. Formal education in many countries
 of this world is a holy cow and it's very difficult to approach new solutions
 for these challenges ahead of us. Again, not the time to do this here. I would
 be more than happy to do that.  That's exactly the core of our activities and
 our engagement as far as the e-Skills certification consortium is concerned,
 not only acting in Europe but in other parts of the world. And again, Mr.
 Moderator, if you give me a little bit more time, I am happy to do that but I
 don't know how many more minutes you give to me here. We have, by the way, nice
 coincidence, we had here in this room, in this room in 2002, we had a big event
 developing all these issues. We have tried to identify the incentives that
 already exist.  In many cases, they are not known because local -- local
 governments, they don't like to share necessarily the best experience with
 other local governments, because they will lose their competitive advantage.
 There is one aspect of that.  This is only the European Union, and you have in
 other parts of the world very, very similar patterns. So in 2002, we agreed
 here in this room, the Athens e-skills declaration.  It is still available. 
 You will find many, many concrete examples. We had at that time discussed here,
 again in this room, a big comprehensive document of some hundred pages, just
 developing the incentives which exist already out there. So again, this is
 another issue. I would be more than happy to delve into these challenges. And
 again, moderator, I would say if we have anything to take away from this
 meeting here, it's we have to get organized.  We need platforms, workshops. 
 Perhaps in Rio or in Cairo, finally we have the opportunity to bring the
 experts in the room, to share the tested experience with those people who want
 to know about. When we talked about these issues here this morning and this
 afternoon, there are a lot of references to these things, but I don't see here
 the experts. The experts to these challenges are not present here. I think we
 have to bring them and to educate us on these challenges which we cannot run
 away from, which we have to address, and for which are, at least, a number of
 good solutions available at the moment. And again, moderator, if you give me
 more time, I will be more than happy to share more details with you. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much.  Let me remind everybody that the goal
 of this session is not to solve the questions but to put them on the table.  To
 identify the questions, to give some concrete questions to be studied from now
 on, starting today, to the next meeting. You mentioned that two years ago you
 had the same question on the table, that you have 200 pages report, and that is
 not enough to change the situation. So you see where we are.  We have a lot to
 do.  And thank you for saying it so clearly. Unfortunately, there are 15
 panelists and there are hundreds of people there and you cannot talk too much. 
 And I am even taking too much time now, but that's the rule of the game.  I
 want this panel to be animated and interactive.  And in fact, there is one
 question from the audience that seems to be interesting from Malcolm Harbour. 
 Are you around? Yes. About how to assist developing countries to develop their
 science and research capacities.

 >>MALCOLM HARBOUR:  Malcolm Harbour, member of the European Parliament.  Thank
 you for allowing me the floor a second time, but on a different topic. I was
 very interested particularly in the point Mr. Greve was making about adapting
 devices and software to local conditions.  And my question to the panel is
 this.  Are we giving enough priority to developing computer science and
 research capabilities in developing countries to enable them to do this work?
 Because that seems, to me, a set of foundation skills, building on the work
 that Hugo Lueders and others have been doing.  But high-level foundation skills
 that are needed to be able to deliver these sort of local solutions, and take
 and adapt and understand the technology.  And a second subsidiary question,
 which has a particular interest for me as a European Parliamentarian, is we
 have given a lot of support to the European Union's program to roll out a
 high-capacity backbone research network called GEANT which I think is now being
 expanded into a number of African countries as well as worldwide. The question
 is, are we making enough of that investment?  How many of you know about it? 
 And are there things that we should be doing to help exploit that
 infrastructure capability with the skills to be able to use it?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Mr. Chairman.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  Sir, I am the chairman of GEANT, so I could give you just
 a couple of reasons why GEANT was important, why it is really (inaudible) for
 the European Union, for European Commission, for the European Parliament. One
 is that it interconnects like you said.  All countries to the European Union
 plus.  So there are about 34 countries interconnected.  It promotes the
 interconnection at very high speeds between 4,000 research and education
 institutions, or possibly all universities in Europe are interconnected at that
 speed.  And also it has many satellite projects, satellite not in the terms of
 visa but satellite projects that support narrowing the Digital Divide within
 North Africa, in Latin America, in southeastern Pacific and so forth.  So I
 believe in GEANT we did a very good job and we are very proud of the job.  And
 one of the reasons I am here is because of this success.  It is a success
 story.  You know it very well.  I know it very well, and probably we should
 promote it better.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Georg Greve.

 >>GEORG GREVE:  Thank you for bringing up that question.  I mean, I really do
 -- I mean, now we are really talking about essentially what is described as
 access to knowledge, which, in fact, is one of the topics that we are very
 concerned about.  So concerned about, indeed, that this morning we launched a
 dynamic coalition here with industry participation, participation from
 governments.  And anybody who is interested in that kind of effort is very much
 invited to come -- come to us and get in touch because we want this to be an
 open group, to think about such issues. I mean, from my perspective, I have to
 say that no, we're not doing enough. I think we have to do more. I mean, the
 fact that we have to sit here and the fact that we realize the majority is
 still excluded from access to knowledge, ultimately, tells us that we are not
 doing enough. So we have to figure out what are our priorities.  How can we
 bridge that gap as effectively as possible. And from my field, I know that one
 of the ways to do this ultimately is free software.  Because that is software
 that people can really make their own.  As it's done in the Brazilian
 telecenters as it's done in other projects around the world, in the (inaudible)
 in Spain, in Europe.  We have many examples of this now where people take this
 software, make it their own and also thereby learn how to write software. This
 is I.T. education, ultimately.  Because I.T. education, you cannot learn how to
 develop software if you do not read software.  Software is something you have
 to read in order to know how to write it. It's just like any author of books
 needs to read many books. I mean, it's the same thing, ultimately. Therefore,
 we must have access to this.  We must deliberately help people access this,
 gain them access so they can learn this and help themselves. That ultimately, I
 think, is the only way we can really, for the long term, change anything. So I
 believe this access to knowledge question is very essential.  And I think,
 indeed, we could do much more in terms of focused initiatives to really bring
 that knowledge, create competence center where the people are who need that
 knowledge and help them gain that knowledge. I do know, for instance, Brazil
 has a cultural hot spot program where they try to do something of that kind,
 try to give people access, try to give people the technology, and let them, you
 know, do something with it in their local communities.  Maybe that's a
 reference that could be interesting for other people as well.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay.  Thank you.  Michuki Mwangi.

 >>MICHUKI MWANGI:  Okay, I think we need to do more.  Coming from Africa where
 significantly there's a need to build advanced capacity in building networks,
 building scalable services and scalable infrastructure.  There is a project
 that has been ongoing for the last seven years called AfNOG, Africa Network
 Operators Group which is similar to the North American Network Operators Group.
  But its main focus is on building high-end technical people who are actually
 able to work or, actually, build scalable infrastructure and services. In
 addition to that, what would be of interest for me to see is our regulators and
 governments being trained as well on how to understand the economics of the
 Internet, like the west.  And then we will probably be in a better position to
 understand really the impact it has for them to regulate it in a proper manner.
 Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you.  Mr. Diop.

 >>MOUHAMET DIOP:  I just want to give two examples related to this access to
 knowledge.  One is related to an in-house initiative launched by India that
 tried to connect all the 54 countries, give them access through four different
 points of presence in each country in order to allow a very strong exchange
 program between different doctors and medical research program in Africa. I
 think this is an incoming program. The second project is a probably similar to
 the GEANT product, and I want to congratulate someone in this room, George
 Sadowsky who is trying to push a lot on this project.  Which is a like an
 evolution of Internet 2 as it was built in the U.S. They start talking to all
 universities in west Africa, and the major goal is to be able to bring them the
 high-speed Internet connection for them to be able to share all the library,
 the knowledge they have online, and the remaining capacity will be used in some
 way with the private sector in order to see how they can make that program
 worthwhile in the future. Maybe George can elaborate a little bit.  But it's
 really a key issue regarding how we can develop the research program in Africa.
  We cannot do anything regarding the university or the development of knowledge
 if the access to the Internet at the high-speed is not available for our
 research and university.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:. Thank you.  Bill Woodcock.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  I think there is an interesting commonality between this
 question and the prior question about gender equity in Internet access.  And
 that's this.  The Internet is not a basket of potatoes to be divided equitably
 among a bunch of recipients.  It's not a collection of objects.  It's labor. 
 It's the collective action of many, many skilled engineers and scientists and
 people in industry who are working to provide a service to each other and to
 the constituency. And as such, it's disturbing to me to see, particularly in
 developing countries, fewer and fewer women every year entering that industry. 
 And it's been a delight.  What reminds me of this when I go to AfNOG meetings
 and LACNIC meetings and I am in a more gender-balanced environment, I realize
 that when I go to the same kinds of meetings, particularly in the United States
 and to a lesser degree Europe, it is almost entirely men.  And the reason this
 is really important is not everyone needs to be a mechanic in order to drive a
 car, clearly.  But it is the people who are doing the work, the people who are
 doing the engineering who ultimately will decide what direction the technology
 goes. And I think that it's very important that we get a balanced
 representation of people, both in terms of race and in terms of gender, in the
 people doing that work.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Hugo.

 >>HUGO LUEDERS:  I get the floor again.  Now we talk about access to knowledge.
  It's needed to get the full picture here. What we call the competence value
 chain, the competence access value chain starts somewhere with the cables, if
 you allow me this reference.  Or technology.  Infrastructure. It moves on to
 knowledge, to content.  Don't forget the next stage which is training,
 education. We have not yet talked about that. And at the end of this value
 chain, you have placement for employment. Now, just two examples here, and
 again, we need more time to talk about all these things. I give you two
 examples. We talked earlier about disruptive technologies. Now, with access to
 knowledge, you don't get this, what you need. About one among ten companies
 today ready to go to the market with RFID disruptive technologies.  Only one of
 them has sufficiently invested, has trained the management, has trained the
 labor force to be able to go to the market. Second example, this was mentioned
 already at the cyber security.  There's also a skills issue.  There is the
 issue of human capacity building. Our global market research findings and over
 a series of a couple of years now continuously shows that more than 60% of
 cyber security issues failure are based on lack of skilled labor force, is
 based on lack of human resource development. Now, to fill that gap you have to
 enter now what I mentioned, the training area. How do you get trained, these
 people?  Who is providing -- who is providing the qualifications? So that's
 another aspect of the full picture of the competence access value chain.  And
 every different step needs to be addressed in the required details. And I would
 strongly recommend, again, that if we go to Rio, that we take some time to
 allow us to bring experts to the floor who can share their experience with all
 of us. I think this would be very, very important to do so. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much.  We have a question from the blog. 
 Please, go ahead. While we are waiting for the blog question, there is another
 question from the room, which is asking the following:  If one might just
 elaborate upon the PPP question, the public/private partnership issue.

 >> Thank you.  We have two questions by e-mail.  I'm not sure if I can
 pronounce this person's name correctly, but it's Abi Jagun.  I'm not sure where
 she is from but she has two questions. Firstly, two panelists think that the
 developing world needed infrastructure or affordable infrastructure.  The
 question is asked within the context of the theme of the IGF for development.
 Would it be development if the poorest people in developing nations continued
 to spend disproportional percentages of their income on access and information
 infrastructures?  If the affordability of infrastructures matter then shouldn't
 the solutions reflect the realities of people in developing countries. The
 panel should be encouraged to address the real issues to affordable
 infrastructure rather than provide blanket recommendations on the virtue of the
 market slash private sector. And the second and slightly related question from
 the same person is, how many of the panelists actually use a mobile to surf the
 web?  The prices for mobile calls and connections are so high, the speeds are
 painful, you go blind from reading such small text, and at such high cost, is
 it really an affordable way to have access in developing countries?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Let's try to answer those questions first.  Panelists,
 anybody wanting to comment on that? Please.  Jonne Soininen.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Thank you very much, Mr. moderator. Two things.  I think the
 question of affordable access is a very important one.  We can say that we will
 bring broadband to the developing world and we are bringing them fiber.  But
 how many people can actually afford that?  How many people can even use that? 
 Do they have electricity at their house? So I think the question of affordable
 access is very important and should be addressed better. I personally think
 that we should use the same technology that we are now providing voice services
 to the users.  For instance, GSM networks that are deployed in some of the
 developing countries and the new growth markets already. However, then I come
 logically to the second question, which was becoming blind from reading the
 text on a mobile phone.  Sometimes these text screens are challenging,
 especially if you have to read them for a very long time. However, the
 technologies there have developed and are developing.  Their screens are
 becoming bigger.  And also, we are working hard to bring making the browsers
 better, making the e-mail clients better, making the user experience better,
 learning on that what we did on mobile phones when we used them just for
 calling. What comes to the tariffs or costs of mobile data?  That is a business
 issue that has to be addressed, of course.  And especially in developing
 countries.  To bring that to the affordable level. It is very important that
 the access to the Internet is affordable and people can actually use that. And
 I think that when we are looking at affordability of access and usage of the
 Internet, we have to look at two things.  And that can be combined as the total
 cost of ownership.  One is the cost of the service, and one is cost of the
 actual device, handset or PC, or whatever you are using to connect to the
 Internet. And those, both things are very important in the developing markets.
 Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. I would like to now turn to the room.  We have a
 question from Indonesia, Mr. Moedjiono, are you there, from Indonesia?  Are you
 still here? Oh, sorry, I didn't see. Can you please introduce yourself.

 >>MOEDJIONO:  Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  I am from Indonesia.  My name is
 Moedjiono.  As we know that Indonesia has a uniqueness that is a biggest
 (inaudible) country.  We have more than 17,000 islands.  That's why we have a
 big problem in bridging the Digital Divide. Of course, access to the Internet
 may be the single most important issue to most people to (inaudible) for this
 problem. Are there any thoughts from the panelists, maybe from the best
 practices, to serve this kind of problem?  Because we have tried a software
 model to solve the problem. The main problem is the connectivity prices and
 cost is very high, and if we use satellite connection, it's very expensive. So
 is there any kind of model, public/private partnership to solve this problem? 
 Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  So in our panel, perhaps I could put the question to you.
 Would you like to pick this question up, sir?

 >>CRAIG SILLIMAN:  I can't suggest specific technological solutions for the
 particular issue of Indonesia and the number of islands, but I think clearly
 what we have seen as we operate as a company around the world is that every
 market is different from a usability standpoint, from a regulatory standpoint,
 from a geographical standpoint. The core issue that we see is that when you put
 various technologies and providers up against each other, you push them all to
 be more innovative and to come up with more creative solutions.  And often the
 solution of picking a single technology and saying this is the single best
 technology and trying to run with it can have a very short life cycle because
 of the life spans of technology and the rapidity with which things are
 changing. And so as a general principle, I think we would see what we have
 found as a major, not only provider of access but a purchaser of access in
 every country in which we need to provide access to our services is that we
 always look for multiple technological options.  Put the providers up
 specifically against each other, set metrics for them and ask them to exceed
 each other.  And it's amazing, when you put two providers with smart engineers
 in competition with each other how quickly they can come up with new and
 innovative and cost effective solutions.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you, Craig.

 >>BILL WOODCOCK:  Specifically with respect to Indonesia, APGI, the Indonesian
 ISP association, has done a wonderful job in getting an exchange point going in
 Jakarta.  They have 110 Internet providers interconnected there.  It's one of
 the largest exchange points outside of the two or three -- well, five or six
 largest developed countries. And they are very eager, I think, to start trying
 to do builds down from Singapore which is where the largest undersea cable
 crossings in that region are. Obviously, that's a major construction project,
 and that's something that the government could help with by providing rights of
 way and infrastructure for that passage.  But I think the main thing is just
 deregulating enough to allow that private investment to take hold and solve the
 problem.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much. Jim Dempsey.

 >>JIM DEMPSEY:  Just very quickly, I heard a presentation yesterday at the
 building local access workshop by RAJNIS sing who is confronting this same
 problem.  So I hope you and RAJNIS can connect and learn from each other since
 he is across the Pacific islands confronting some of the same issues.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you very much.  I would like to remind the audience and
 the panelists that we are ten minutes now from the ending of this session. 
 It's going to be the time to ask the audience if someone would like to ask a
 question that was not addressed yet.  And that you would like to -- And so I am
 going to the -- and I think the chairman has a point to make.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  Just I wanted to ask if there is any time constraint from
 the interpreters or not.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  We have to conclude the session at 6:00 p.m. with the
 interpreters, and then we will finish it in English without translation, if I
 understand correctly. So please, if there are questions -- one here, one here. 
 Who else?  Three.  Four questions.  So let's go fast.  Please.

 >> (Saying name), International Federation for Information Processing. I'd like
 to just point out the following. I this afternoon have heard very interesting
 issues as to how to solve the issue of access and looking at infrastructure
 aspects, the affordability aspect, as it's called, as well as that of knowledge
 and literacy. We've looked at the quality and usage issues as well. Now, if you
 were to look at those five categories as a part of the eight variables of ITU,
 they would actually make up the digital access index and that is what was
 discussed in Geneva 2003. So I think it's no use, actually, starting back from
 scratch. But we ought to tap into that work that's already been done and see
 that these issues have been addressed to a certain extent in terms of access.
 That's the first comment. I think it's also interesting to note the following: 
 The use -- I think the uses issue is very important, and not necessarily linked
 up to development. And therefore I think that there was a resolution of the
 United Nations in 2001 in launching the world summit, was explicitly to try and
 dovetail in with the millennium goals. So I do think that this is something
 which could also be taken advantage of. Perhaps, to cite an experience that I
 have already, which is called Acshire (phonetic). This is something which is
 quite costly, but it does establish certain kiosks, which are called Kendras.
 Now, what is interesting in this particular experience, that it is a joint
 venture undertaken by the government and the private sector, and the costs are
 quite monumental, because it does in fact move into the hundred million Euro
 range, part paid by the government, three-quarters by the private sector. But
 this is for a small state, because we're talking about other cases, such as
 India, with its population count. So this is something which might be of
 interest. So thank you very much.

 >> Thank you very much. (saying name) from Tunisia. I am the head of a
 technology enterprise, and I am participating in a number of panels. I would
 like to draw your attention to specific aspects apart from the best practices
 and everything that is in terms of exchange of experience. But perhaps in terms
 of the recommendations, what are the programs implemented? 2015 is a deadline
 for all of the recommendations to be implemented. But I do think that this is
 fairly near already as a deadline. And we feel that we are discussing here and
 repeating what has been done since 2000 onwards. So we really must try to speed
 up in terms of the developing countries especially. Now, wouldn't there perhaps
 be recommendations in terms of development programs, those programs which are
 undertaken, in fact, by UNDP in terms of the digital divide being privileged.
 Are we talking about a development divide rather than that of a divide of
 knowledge or anything else?

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Before answering that, perhaps we can take another question.
 Madam, yes.

 >> Linda --

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  I want to take all the questions.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  It's 6:00. So let me thank the interpreters. Because I
 guess they have to leave. [ Applause ]

 >> CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  I should say this in Greek, because it is a matter of
 promoting multilingualism across the Internet. So the chairman kindly thanks
 the interpreters. Unfortunately, we have slightly overshot. But you have done
 excellent work. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  That was said in Greek. And thank you for the translation.
 Okay. There was one question here.

 >> Yes. This is now a rhetorical question, first of all because of the late
 hour, and secondly because several people have addressed it. But -- and it's
 also a bit open-ended, especially late in the day. I'm Linda Misek-Falkoff. I'm
 in the Communication Coordination Committee for the United Nations at
 headquarters in New York. Personally, I have been a computer programmer,
 educator, and user for 48 years. I'm eager to be part of this ongoing
 enterprise in any way that I can be helpful. And I would like -- I hope this
 would be a question for a panel for Rio. And this is what I wrote earlier. If
 township create a universal education package or tool kit for raising awareness
 on access and accessibility for everyone everywhere, what would be in it? What
 core topics and perspectives? Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Is there a volunteer for that question? Let's hear the last
 one over there. Gentleman over there, before we go to the panel.

 >> Thank you. I'd like to ask the panelists whether you think that the adoption
 of new technologies that could help the expansion of the Internet can be slowed
 down or inhibited by software patents. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Okay. First answers from George Greve, please.

 >>GEORGE GREVE:  Well, I mean, yes. The answer is very simple. Yes. Software
 patents are a huge problem. They create monopolies and barriers to
 interoperability that ultimately are the exact opposite of what we need in
 order to interoperate or to talk to each other. One of the reasons why the
 Internet, and, in particular, also the World Wide Web exists and why it is
 possible and why we can sit here and talk about this ultimately is that there
 were no software patents on this. And, in fact, even people who could have
 taken out patents didn't. And this is, you know, a relative, very central part
 of it. Software patents are a huge issue, especially when they are on formats
 and standards, which is also why the dynamic coalition of open standards in
 fact has industry players who have very great concerns exactly on that issue.
 So, yes, the answer is very simple. And we have that discussion not only here,
 but also at the WIPO, another fora. Software patents are a big issue.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. Jonne Soininen, please.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Yes. I would like to a little bit disagree with that notion.
 And I -- saying that it's not the patents themselves. It's, of course, how they
 are used that make certain technologies more expensive than others. And I think
 that more than saying categorically that patents are bad, we should look at the
 -- how the value of patents is addressed and how to make sure that it doesn't
 inhibit people implementing their technologies. It is -- our position generally
 on these kinds of things is that there's also an issue of enabling companies to
 invest in technology and making better technology. One question there is to
 make sure that they can somewhat get something back from that. Software patents
 at least give some protection, and -- in certain cases. But it's very important
 to see that the proportionality of the royalties and proportionality of the
 cost doesn't go overboard and the technology can be accessible for everybody.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  Thank you. I'm going to give the floor to the chairman to
 conclude this session. I just would like to remind you, because there were
 several questions or interventions about why are we talking again about what
 has happened five years ago or ten years ago. This forum here today and this
 session specifically was made to try to put you together, all actors together,
 to speak, to exchange, to communicate, to disagree or agree, but at least to
 establish a link and prepare the future. So even if some subjects have already
 been discussed before, it was important to give you a best comprehension of the
 different aspect of the access. And, of course, it's not perfect, and we need
 to organize better and to launch some platform, as Mr. Hugo Lueders said
 before. So there's been a lot of suggestions and ideas for the future. So we
 will really thank everybody to participate in this session. Before giving the
 floor to the chairman, we have an announcement for Mr. Markus Kummer, who would
 like to do some housekeeping announcement, or if you prefer, Mr. Chairman, we
 will conclude and we will wait for you after. What is better?

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Announcement better. It's proper usage that the chairman
 concludes the session.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  I have a few announcements.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Remote participation has really taken off. The bad news
 is, the traffic is overwhelming the server. Our Web site is down, and I was not
 able to send out an e-mail to the list of the advisory group members.
 Therefore, allow me to make an oral announcement. There is an invitation to all
 advisory group members and their friends at the hotel bar that is immediately
 left after the entrance of the hotel. The president of the Swiss federal
 commission for communications, Mr. Marc Furrer invites all members to drinks
 after this session. And last, but not least, the most important reception is
 hosted by the Greek foreign minister, Mrs. Dora Bakoyanni at 8:00 at the Astir
 Palace hotel. Buses leave from all hotels at 7:30. Thank you.

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  So we are really going to conclude with the chairman. But let
 me thank everybody here who organized the session, the interpreters of course,
 the group which supported the organization, the blogger, the steno typist, who
 did a great job. I think we should applaud them, because they really did a good
 job. [ Applause ]

 >>ULYSSE GOSSET:  And all the technicians, the cameraman, the light, operation,
 the sound people. And now, Mr. Chairman, your conclusion.

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. And thank you
 very much for the excellent job you did in putting those multiple stakeholders
 together to say what we believe what they believe, along with the audience, and
 the blogosphere, the Webosphere, everyone together to give an excellent forum. 
 And it is really the purpose of this group. Let me say that just 20 years ago
 or so I was in a similar panel where the chairman was Vint Cerf himself. So one
 of the -- when he started making his speech, he said, who owns the Internet?
 Question mark. It still remains a question mark. Now they call it who governs
 the Internet, things like that, but still it remains a big question mark. Let
 me just say, since I'm a European citizen, after all, what are the three
 pillars that the European Commission promotes for the Internet? And those are
 the openness, interoperability, and neutrality. Those are the three pillars
 that the European Commission is promoting. And, of course, I don't think there
 is any conflict with that with the patent issue or whatever, open patents
 versus or anything else. It is really an open environment. And as such it is
 being treated. It's just I would like to make a few -- I mean, I have three
 pages of notes here. But I cannot go through all of them, obviously. There was
 -- of course, you know, there was -- there were a lot of discussions on the
 role of government, on the role of private industry, the role of liberalization
 and deregulation, public-private partnerships and so forth, competition. There
 were lots of discussions on the role of wireless local loops that might break,
 the last bottleneck, monopoly bottleneck, on 2G, 3G, open and unlicensed
 spectrum, licensed spectrum, and so forth. There were discussions and many
 remarks that referred to exclude from poverty, developing countries are paying
 probably more or as much as developed countries do for the same service or even
 less services. Political isolation was mentioned also. Liberalization was
 promoted, especially by U.S., Korea, and some European states. And they showed
 very significant numbers in terms of penetration of the Internet. And we heard,
 however, from other countries in developed -- the developing countries, like
 Kenya also, and Iran, lower numbers. And here this is the main, I think, task
 of this group and the main task that was put in the Tunis WSIS agenda, how to
 promote the information society towards developed countries. Problems like
 power, problems like poverty, problems like the lack of education, so forth,
 were put forward by many speakers. On the digital divide, there were many, many
 talks about the digital divide, affordability, affordability of access, and
 good level of access was an issue that was brought up by everybody. There were
 very good and strong points made about access not only to the digitally
 enabled, but also to disabled people, to not only gender gap, as well
 unemployed, exactly, how to get the e-skills promoted around the globe, and so
 forth. Overall, I would like to thank you personally for the excellent job that
 you did, and also -- [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIRMAN MAGLARIS:  -- thanks to all the participants that stayed until so
 late for this very interesting session. Thank you very much. [ Applause ]

 

Tags