Taking Stock the Way Forward

2 November 2006 - A Main Session on Other in Athens, Greece

Agenda


Internet Governance Forum Chairman' 2 November 2006 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. - Chair's Summing Up - Taking Stock The Way Forward - >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Good morning. We now come to our session on the summing up of work in the IGF at this session. And I just want to begin with a word on what is the nature of the summing up. And then I will ask Markus to give a certain overview of the whole process, and then we will open the floor up. We have three hours. We have lots of time. And I would really welcome strong feedback from all of you on this. And at the end, I will try and see whether we can bring some thoughts together. The essential point to realize is that this is a multistakeholder forum. It is an open-door forum. It's not a forum with a fixed membership. It is open to anybody in the stakeholder groups who has an interest and a basic bona fide competence in this area to come and enter and join the meeting. It's in that sense more like an open meeting rather than a fixed membership group. In that sense, it's not possible to speak of anything as being a product of this meeting. So it would be misleading to say that there is any such thing as an agreed conclusion or a product of this meeting in the strict sense of the term, because there is no defined meeting. The meeting is the people who are in the room. And -- at any given point, which will vary from time to time. So I would urge you to keep that in mind, that when we speak of a summing up, we are not trying to come at some agreement or conclusion on what came of a report at this meeting. What we have been presenting are essentially secretariat summaries. And they will remain secretariat summaries, which we do need for our internal -- just simply for record-keeping. But more than that, you will have a full verbatim record of the discussions in the main session available online. You are not dependent on any summary. There's a full verbatim record which you have been seeing here which is available on the Web site of the IGF. And will continue to be available. So if you want to go back, refer to something more specific, the full record is there. So as far as the workshops are concerned, which were organized by different groups on their own authority, you have the one-pagers, which are available -- one-page reports, which are available outside. I wanted to say this so that we recognize that what you are going to listen to now is just simply a secretariat summary of the IGF, and not in any way a -- sort of any form of a report which commits any one of you to what is being said in that. But, hopefully, we, as the secretariat, are sufficiently sort of objective to be able to reflect a sense of what has happened here. And you have been hearing reports from Markus on the specific sessions that we've already had. So this is -- these are my remarks to start with, so that we know what we are doing in this summing up session. And then we can move on perhaps in an integrated fashion into the way forward discussion. So with this, I will now turn to Markus. >>SECRETARY KUMMER: Thank you, chairman. And I would like to add that this is a very rough summing up, as we did not have the time to produce a polished paper. So bear with us if we don't distribute a paper. But you will be able to read it on our Web site in the transcript taken down by our scribes. We have had seven sessions so far. We started with an opening ceremony which followed an initial format. It was inaugurated by the prime minister of Greece, Mr. Karamanlis. We had a number of different speakers representing all stakeholders who presented their views. And it would be impossible to summarize these speeches. And we also listened to the two men known as the fathers of the Internet, Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, and Dr. Robert E. Khan. A common thread through all the speeches was the recognition that the Internet is now the backbone infrastructure of the global information and knowledge society. And also, all speakers emphasized the importance of multistakeholder cooperation. After the opening session, we moved into the format we have seen through the past two and a half days. We had five panel sessions in an innovative format of interactive, multistakeholder panels with questions and comments from the audience. We also offered the possibility of remote participation via blogs, chat rooms, and e-mail. We had some hiccups with the e-mail, with the Internet connection at the beginning, but I think it -- by now, it works moderately well. And we were actually overwhelmed with the response, so that our server broke down yesterday. But also that has been repaired. One of our moderators called the panel sessions a giant experiment and a giant brainstorming. And he also recalled the Secretary-General's comment that the IGF entered uncharted waters in fostering a dialogue among all stakeholders as equals. The innovative format was generally accepted and well received, and some commentators called it a true breakthrough in multistakeholder cooperation. In parallel, there were 36 workshops that were held in parallel to the main sessions. And the reports, as our chairman mentioned, some of them are available in written form. And if submitted to us, they will all be posted on our Web site. Let me now turn to the first panel, "setting the scene." It covered a very broad range of issues. The moderator himself recalled that ten years ago, a similar gathering was mainly attended by engineers and academics from North America and Europe, while this meeting now had a much broader range of participation, both in terms of geography, as well as stakeholder groups. One panelist made the remark that four years ago, many people assembled in the meeting room would not have spoken to one another. All of them emphasized the importance of multistakeholder dialogue. Several speakers noted that the IGF is not the beginning of this process, but the middle of it. Much has already been achieved in the WSIS and WGIG processes, and the IGF must build on that. It was remarked that all stakeholders have roles to play in the IGF and that we need to share experiences and perspectives, need to talk to one another and listen to one another and share best practices. Many of the speakers remarked on the fact that technology moves at a pace that is difficult for policy to match. Those working in policy areas should be as creative as those who created the technology. There were also many comments that expressed the hope that the IGF would not be a sequence of five meetings held in beautiful locations, but the process where the meetings would serve as a check point in that process. Perhaps most importantly, the theme of development was emphasized, with several speakers asking what the IGF could do for the billions who do not yet have access. The main message maybe was that no single stakeholder could do it alone, and therefore we all needed to work together on Internet governance issues in development. And for the IGF to have value, we will have to leave Athens with a clear view of how to move forward. The second session was devoted to the theme of openness, with a focus on free flow of information and freedom of information on the one hand, and access to information and knowledge on the other. Much of the discussion was devoted to finding the right balance, the balance between freedom of expression and responsible use of this freedom; and the balance between openness and protecting copyright. Some panelists pointed out that the two themes are linked and that for developing countries, issues such as better access to the Internet and access to knowledge is more of a priority. One panelist called the possibilities offered by the Internet to create content "a new form of free speech." He referred to the creative use made of the new medium by young people, which under today's legislation, can be illegal. While all panelists emphasized the importance of freedom of expression, two of them reminded the audience that this freedom is not absolute and that freedom of speech is not without limitations, and that the Internet is not above the law. Hate speech, for example, is illegal in both the on- and offline world. It was generally felt that the Internet has greatly contributed to the spread of free flow of information and freedom of expression. However, it has also created an in-built institutional apprehension or fear of new popular empowerment and the curve on freedom of expression. It was remarked that freedom of expression can be under threat in all countries. The session addressed different types of freedom, such as freedom from government surveillance, free access, and the link to human, social, and economic rights. The session turned to the role of the private sector and looked at the relationship between market laws and market forces and human rights and looked at the responsibility of the private sector. The question was asked whether major corporations should use their bargaining power to promote freedom of expression. It was pointed out that many of them do so as a way of engagement. Some pointed out that systems could be used to encroach on rights and repress freedom of expression. Others highlighted that many systems are multipurpose and the same systems can be used for positive purposes, such as the protection of children and, on the whole, the positive aspects of increasing Internet access outweighed the negative ones. For instance, the use of the Internet increases transparency, and this is a value in itself. The session also looked at the relationship between national regulation on freedom of expression and the borderless Internet. As its second main theme, the session examined the balance between openness and protecting rights, the balance between the citizen's right to information and rights of the copyright holders. There was a recognition of different treatment for materials created by using public finance and those created with private financing. There was also a recognition of different business models. Some business models required copyright fees in order to continue production. Some speakers called on governments to enable free access of information on the Internet. They drew a parallel to libraries. Governments bought books for citizens to allow them to gain access to information and knowledge. Should governments do the same with the Internet and remunerate the creators and owners of content? The session discussed various questions with regard to the effect of businesses protecting their copyrights and battling piracy. Among these questions were the following: Should copyright protection take into account different cultural traditions, given oral cultures and different notions of knowledge? Was there a need to find business models that work with open information, software and standards? The third thematic session was devoted to security. There was a generally held view that the growing significant of the Internet in economic and social activities raised continuing and complex security issues. One of the key issues here is the way in which responses to growing security threats are dependent on the implementation of processes of authentication and identification. Such processes can only be effective where there is a trusted third party that can guarantee both authentication and identification. This raised a debate about who could effectively act as a trusted third party, the state or the private sector. There was a debate as to whether a bottom-up model centered on the role of users was more effective than a top-down model driven by formal government actions. It was widely accepted that the perpetrators of security breaches are intelligent adversaries, constantly adapting their behavior to advances in security technologies and processes. There was a shared view that insufficient attention was being given to proactive and long-term actions to reduce security threats. There was a broad convergence of views on the need for cooperation at an international level. However, it was pointed out that one of the main obstacles to finding solutions was the lack of agreement at the very detailed level of what is a security threat and who are the key stakeholders. There was a very broad convergence of views that the best approach to resolving security issues is based on best practices and multistakeholder cooperation in an international context. However, there was concern about the degree to which information was shared in a timely manner and in a common format, and, in particular, with developing countries. At the same time, concern was expressed about the extent to which information and exchange was being achieved in a fully inclusive manner. The role of users and the opportunity to exploit the intelligent edge of the network was highlighted by many speakers. For some, the role of users had been undervalued in the implementation of enhanced security measures. Not only were better educational measures required, user choice should be respected more clearly. Thus, for example, the setting of clear expectations and principles, within a public policy framework, could enhance the power of consumers to address security measures. It was generally felt that security is a multifaceted issue and therefore it was necessary to involve coordination between different policy communities and actors. For some, this coordination needs to include a clear legal framework within which to operate. One example cited was the Council of Europe's convention on cybercrime. However, others raised the issue of jurisdiction and the particular need for intergovernmental coordination. There was a debate as to whether market-based solutions, which stimulate innovation, or a public goods model, would deliver better security measures across the Internet. For some, the public goods approach offered the opportunity for the widespread adoption of best practice across all countries. A counter view was that innovative solutions were required, and these could only be provided by market-based activities. There was a wide ranging but inconclusive debate about the role of open standards in shaping security solutions. The debate focused on the appropriateness of the open standards in the security arena. One of the key questions here was the extent to which free and open source software and standards would enhance the level of security for all users compared to market-based licenses for proprietary technology. There was a widely shared view that the IGF could play a significant and positive role in fostering greater debate and action with regard to security on the Internet. The role of the IGF in collating Bess practices, ensuring the widespread dissemination of information, and breaking down silo approaches to the problem were all highlighted. The ability of the IGF to support the development of a common language in the policy debate was seen as very significant. Yesterday's first session was devoted to diversity. At the outset, one panelist said the event was not about the digital divide, but called it the linguistic divide. The panelists' views on diversity in the Internet varied, but there was strong agreement that multilingualism is a driving requirement for diversity in the Internet. One participant said, like biodiversity is to nature, diversity on the Internet must reflect, and does reflect, the whole spectrum of human endeavor, both past and future. There was also a recognition that diversity extended beyond linguistic diversity, to cover populations challenged by lack of literacy in the dominating language or by disability. Audiovisual communication was one of the other forms of communication mentioned in this context. There was also a discussion on media for people with visual and other disabilities. Another theme that was mentioned involved the use of the Internet to relieve and someday eradicate illiteracy. The meeting guide the participants through a very complex set of distinctions in subjects covered by diversity. It was generally recognized that the WSIS outcome had put the issue of multilingualism on the agenda of international cooperation. There was a right to a multilingual Internet that preserved and enabled the diversity of cultures, including indigenous cultures. A number of panelists highlighted the many success stories about diversity, while also drawing attention to areas where improvements were needed. The representative from UNESCO drew our attention to the universal declaration on cultural diversity, mentioning that the purpose of this convention was to support the expressions of culture and identity through the diversity of languages. In terms of content, multilingual and local content were widely seen as necessary to bring all people into the Internet. When talking about local content, a distinction was made between international content that is translated into local languages and content developed locally. There are issues with both. For translated content, there are royalty or copyright fees as well as import fees. For truly local content, there are sometimes difficulties with finding the way to express that content. There is also a need to protect that content. The discussion also touched on the value of audiovisual applications available on the Net, especially in communities where cultures are not recorded in written language. There was a recognition of the importance of content that supports those who are not literate and those who are not illiterate in the dominant language. Participants raised the issue of software, pointing out that market forces were sometimes not strong enough to provide countries with software in the languages they required. During the discussion on Internationalized Domain Names, it was generally felt that internationalizing these domain names without endangering the stability and security of the Internet remained one of the biggest challenges. Part of the discussion related to the technical details of IDNs. The discussion included an explanation of Unicode character sets and how language communities need to be involved in making decisions about the code points. The session also looked at the work being done in the technical bodies on improving IDN and on testing IDN in the root zone file. There was a general understanding that the support of IDN involved more than the DNS. It was noted as a positive development by participants that all browsers now supported Internationalized Domain Names. There was a discussion of what the follow-up to the meeting could be. One suggestion was to establish multistakeholder cooperation between the various institutions dealing with these issues, such as UNESCO, ITU, ICANN, and others. Another suggestion related to support of multilingual content that is not commercially viable. Many techniques were suggested and may be explored in initiatives emerging from the Athens meeting. The last session yesterday afternoon looked at the issue of access. Many interlocutors said, pointed out that access maybe was the single most important issue to many participants in developing countries. And the debate, in general, accepted the idea that access remains one of the great challenges facing the Internet community. The last session yesterday afternoon looked at the issue of access. Many interlocutors as said, pointed out that access maybe was the single most important issue to many participants in developing countries. And the debate in general accepted the idea that access remains one of the great challenges facing the Internet community. The nature of the Digital Divide was seen as being multifaceted and the focal point for public policy responses. A wider range of policy initiatives was discussed but the strong theme was that the introduction of competition and the removal of blocks to competition were of fundamental importance. It was recognized that Africa faced particularly complex problems with regard to access to the Internet. It was also stressed by many speakers that the issue of access was not solved by a specific and narrow focus on telecommunications sector reform. However, it was recognized that telecommunications sector reform was a necessary condition to establish the appropriate framework for increasing access. Key issues highlighted in the debate over telecommunications sector reform included independence and transparency, removal of monopolies, and licensing of new players; competition as a key issues, and what are the barriers to competition and the removal of these barriers; the need to establish interconnection regimes that reinforce the competitive market; the need to develop innovative policy measures such as universal access regimes, through, for example, reverse auctions, to harness market-based solutions to structural issues. For some, the emphasis was not on the detail of regulatory frameworks but on the need to establish market structures which would stimulate investment, especially from local capital, and the construction of local solutions, such as peer-to-peer interconnection arrangements through Internet exchange points. It was also observed that increased local-based activity would increase reliability and integrity of the network. Several examples from Kenya and Senegal were quoted how local IXPs and local routing enhanced Internet connectivity, access and reliability. The comment was made that it was important not to simply import regulatory frameworks from OECD countries but to focus on frameworks that were tailored to local conditions. Hence it was stressed the need in many countries is not local loop unbundling but the building of local loops and ensuring adequate power supplies. The issue of interoperability and adaptability was debated. It was recognized that the plug and play facilitated greater access. Likewise, it was widely recognized that open standards are critical to underpinning greater access for all communities. It was stressed that open standards are, for example, critical in allowing those with disabilities to reformat material into more accessible format. Actions by governments and firms could lead to a reduction in access for key groups in society. The role of enhanced capacity building was discussed extensively. In the debate, the issue was not just focused on the needs of policymakers but in enhancing the level of skills within a country. The debate reinforced the key messages of the Tunis Agenda. For some, the investment in ICT capacity building within an Information Society is tantamount to investing in basic training and education. Without such an investment, the issues of access can never be addressed. There was broad agreement that the most appropriate level to address issues of access is the national level. It was suggested that key stakeholders and the main locus for policy development and implements was at the national level. The debate focused on the role of governments arcs the key stakeholders in ensuring and enabling environment for greater access. The debate highlighted the role of governments as the single largest customer in any given country, and the stakeholder with the ability to link across many policy debates, such as the provision of other infrastructure services such as electricity or access to other government services -- for example, health care and education. Linking policy debates and creating enabling environments was seen as critical for increasing access to the Internet. There was some discussion on the role of new emerging wireless technologies in providing increased access. It was widely accepted -- expected that wireless technologies could change the access market landscape. But for this change in the landscape to become a reality, some of the appropriate spectrum regulatory and wireless technology standards issues need to be addressed. Many speakers raised the topic of rural access and the problems associated with it. It was emphasized that there is no "one size fits all" solution, but knowing the best practice cases would help increasing access in rural areas across the world. The debate also focused on the role of government policies in facilitating increasing access in rural areas. For example, encouraging investment or the government playing a role as a key enabler. The speakers emphasized the issue of affordability from two perspectives, end user and carrier perspective. Many speakers commented that for the end user, the affordability of access device is decisive in using a service. Many contributors highlighted the discrepancy in initial connectivity charges. The relative high prices for international connectivity were noted. For example, the prices on the London/New York route, the most intensely competitive and largest market for international connectivity in the world. Several speakers gave indicative examples such as the price of north-south traffic in the Americas that is 60 times more expensive than London/New York. And last but not least, the session turned to the role of the IGF. It was felt that the significance of the IGF as an initial initiative to put on the table the multistakeholder debates surrounding issues of access and the Digital Divide was of some importance. The ability of the IGF to exchange best practices in promoting access between various stakeholders should help address the issues of inequalities of access. With this I conclude my report, and I apologize if it was a bit on the long side. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: It was long meetings [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: That is Markus's report, and a Secretariat report, which as we have come to expect from Markus, is fair, balanced, and you don't have to debate it, but if you have comments, I'm sure Markus would welcome them. I think that what we should do now is to really open up and let there be a certain feedback. A couple of things I thought I would put before you, before you -- suggestions as to how we should proceed. One, Markus has covered, of course, the ground on the main sessions that we have had. We have heard from people in the workshops during the morning sessions, 9:00 to 10:00, yesterday and today. But I also understand that there are certain cases where groups of people have come together in order to continue the work of the IGF. In order, in certain cases, to prepare for the next meeting. And I would actually welcome any of them who wish to take the floor and would like to say a little bit on what are the types of the coalition of the willing. But before that, I need to give the floor to two country representatives who wish to make an announcement. First I would give the floor to Lithuania. Can somebody please -- There's no mike here. Can somebody please bring a mike here? Then I will give the floor to Azerbaijan, and then we will come to the others. >>Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests. First of all, on the name of all the Lithuanian delegation, I want to thank to the Greek government for the hospitality of the Internet Governance Forum and also I want to thank to the United Nations and all stakeholders and speakers for valuable discussions during this forum. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a big pleasure and honor in the name of Lithuanian government to announce that Lithuania recognizes the importance of outcomes of World Summit on Information Society in Geneva and Tunis. Recognizing the importance of Internet Governance Forum, decided to host the Internet Governance Forum in 2010 in Lithuania. We hope in such way we will contribute to the development of Information Society. We will contribute to the discussions on development on e-governance issues. And I want to say that Lithuania is ready to host IGF in the year 2010. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: As the chairman of the advisory group for the IGF, I thank you very much for your generous offer. May I now give the floor to the -- someone from the delegation of Azerbaijan. Yes. >>ILYAS NAIBOV-AYLISLI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, distinguished participants, as the government of Azerbaijan officially offers to hold the Internet Governance Forum in the year 2010 in Baku. [ Laughter ] >>ILYAS NAIBOV-AYLISLI: Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is recognized internationally as a major oil and gas producer. However, ICT is the second biggest priority for the country. We see ICT as the main economic and social driver in the post-oil era. In a recent major ICT event held in Baku, Azerbaijan in October, where some of the participants also were present, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, stressed that the commitment to hosting major international ICT fora in the country. Azerbaijan is a country at crossroads of civilization, connecting east and west, south and north. Azerbaijan is famous for its traditions of hospitality. And I can assure you that Azerbaijan will spare no effort to organize the IGF meeting at the highest international standard this distinguished forum duly deserves. Once again, on behalf of the government of Azerbaijan, I would like to offer holding IGF meeting in Azerbaijan in 2010. And please allow may to use this opportunity to thank the hosts for the warm hospitality and congratulate the organizers and all the participants for success of this very complex multistakeholder forum. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Again, on behalf of as the chairman of the advisory group, I thank Azerbaijan for its generous offer. I must say, when we began the meeting, the children who had posed questions to us, the first question they posed was what will the Internet be like five years from now? I have been asking people. Nobody has a reply. But now one bit after reply I can give them, five years from now we will either be meeting in Lithuania or Azerbaijan. So at least one bit of the reply I do have for the children. But clearly, this is something not to decide here. It is a long way off, 2010, and I'm sure the United Nations and the advisory group will look at both options and come to a suitable conclusion. We have time for this. Now let's open up particularly for the statements -- Can I first ask the people who wish to say something about some new initiatives, like coalitions of the willing which they are proposing to launch, because we should get that out of the way before we get into the discussion. I understand there's three or five. There is one there. Is yours also one of the initiatives or general comment? If it's a general comment, just wait. It won't take more than a few minutes. One there. You also wanted to mention something on an initiative? Or a comment? Then we'll come to that. We just require a few minutes. Will you do that 1234. Are there others? >>RALF BEUDRATH: Thank you very much. My name is Ralf Beudrath. I am with the University of Bremen in Germany, and I am happy to announce that a diverse group of stakeholders has agreed over the last few days to launch a dynamic coalition on privacy which will address emerging issues on Internet privacy protection such as digital identities, the link between privacy and development, and the importance of privacy and anonymity for freedom of expression. We will initiate an open process to further development, clarify the public policy aspects of privacy in Internet Governance in perspective of the next IGF meeting and further on. Participants here in Athens in particular agreed that there's a need for greater public participation in technical and legal standardization processes that have a global public policy impact on privacy. They also emphasized that it's important to better include perspectives from developing countries in these processes. This dynamic coalition on privacy is a direct outcome of the two workshops on privacy we had on Tuesday that were jointly organized by the University of Bremen and the LSE information systems group, but it also reflects discussions here in the main session on security in the workshops on the Internet bill of rights and on freedom of expression and anonymity. And it builds upon several months of preparations among a lot of stakeholders. We have more than 30 entities who have endorsed or expressed interest in joining this coalition now, which is really impressive to me, just within a few days. Just to name a few -- >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I don't think you need to. You can probably put something out there because that will take us much too long. You put a piece of paper out there on naming them. Was there -- do you want to say something? Yes. Can a mike come here, please. Wolfgang, while you are waiting. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: I want to announce or make known that we have established already on the eve of the forum an academic network which is called GIGAnet, Global internet Governance Academic Network. The "A" is for academic, and that's a big "A." The offer of the research community is to produce serious material which can then be considered in the meetings of the forthcoming gives. We had the symposium with 120 participants. We get a lot of -- got a lot of encouragement by different groups here in the forum, and I will announce that we will have the second GIGAnet symposium on the eve of the Rio meeting in the year 2007. In between, we are going to have some smaller initiatives, like summer schools, small regional seminars, and we also plan to have publications areas and we will use the Igloo Web site as the communication platform for the discussion among the researchers. And researchers are invited to join. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Are there any other for this specific announcements? Specific announcements. Yes, here. >>RAFI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Rafi from Malaysia. We will be hosting the world Congress on I.T. in May 2008. That will be a platform where industry players are supposed to converge and therefore provide solution. Our intention is to complement that Congress with a development initiative to address solution-oriented services and applications for development communities. So we hope that people will come in and participate or partner with us to be able to build that as a platform of solutions, and, therefore, provide that sort of tool kit that I talked about yesterday. Second announcement, we are also trying to start up another initiative and partnership on something we call cyber development co-op among the model of a Peace Corps but also linked to policy formulation. So that's an initiative they're trying to promote help catch up development through concrete action and activities, linking communities' activities to policy formulation. Thank you. Those interested can always contact me. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Sure. I would prefer that announcements are of things which have already taken shape. Because I think we start getting into broader issue. Can the mike go there, please, and then to Parminder at the end. >>NORBERT BOLLOW: This is Norbert Bollow of Swiss Internet user group. There are some people here who are interested in making the web accessible to persons with disabilities, and we have a meeting tonight at 6:30 at the panorama restaurant. Everyone is welcome to join in, but please let me know after this meeting so that I can tell the restaurant how big the table must be. And this should result in some work, and then at the Rio meeting that we can present what has been achieved in the meantime. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I'd request people to be snappy in their comments because we need to get into the main discussion fast. I really have to cut this off in another five, seven minutes. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I have a very short announcement. Some stakeholders at the workshop day before yesterday on exploring a framework convention on the Internet, a workshop report is available on the Web site but it's available outside the room. And many of the participants agreed to get together to form a dynamic coalition on frameworks of principles for Internet Governance, and we are talking with other workshops which are held around similar issues like one on bill of rights. One on open standards which is going on, and content regulation, and progressive communications bill of rights on the Internet. So we are all getting together to form a coalition and we will be working from now until Rio on this issue. And everybody is welcome, of course, to participate. Thanks. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Hello. I just wanted to reiterate the announcement that after yesterday's announcement on the Internet bill of rights, a group of stakeholders have formed a dynamic coalition on the Internet bill of rights to further the discussion and come with some advances. So I am inviting all of you who are interested to join this coalition. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: There is a lady standing there. >> Good morning, I would like to announce and invite everyone, yesterday we had a meeting of gender advocates and we are setting up a dynamic, the most dynamic coalition that will come out of this IGF of gender advocates. We have observed that -- we had a panel yesterday and a contribution to the discussion will add value to the discussions around the forum. We would like to call on more parity in the level of participation in the IGF. We are willing and able to provide expertise, to contribute to setting the agenda of the IGF. Following on to Rio we have gender advocates who met in Costa Rica who are willing to contribute to the process, women and communication activists and we hope this will be open and we invite people to come and join news the gender coalition. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. I see we certainly added a new term to the debate, the "dynamic coalition." I come from a country where there are a lot of coalition governments, and it's a good concept. Any further announcements? Thank you. So I think we can get down to business. I have a gentleman there from Saudi Arabia, and then Adama Samassekou. I had Mr. Subenat, I think you wanted the floor. We will go three at a time. We have time. We have two hours. >> Thank you very much. I am (saying name) from Islamic Republic of Iran, not from Saudi Arabia. Although both nations are brother to each other, but I should say the truth according to. Okay. According to -- thank you very much for the government of Greece for preparing this kind of room for its hospitality. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and hose who are panelists and those who are moderator during these four days. And also, I should mention that if we want to regard to the concept of multiculturism, it is good for IGF to pay more attention to the values of other cultures according to the concept I have mentioned. Because if we want to come to an agreement, it should be a kind of respective, to respect the other values of the other nations. I am from Islamic Republic of Iran, one of my colleagues from Indonesia and the other colleagues and I have discussed during these days, mentioned that during that we have values that not pay attention to them, so many in this room, unfortunately, because the panelists who were selected by secretary-general, they are not so shared by the other countries, like Iran and Indonesia and the other countries. I would like to ask the IGF group and the countries who are coming from the other conferences and other rooms to take share more from the countries who has some kind of values, maybe very special values for the other nation. We don't want to push the other to accept our point of view, but we would like to have the opportunity to introduce our point of view and introduce that special values which we, as a culture, as a big culture, as a culture who many countries accept that and encourage us to introduce that kind of values to the others. We were supposed to be one of the panelists in the IGF, but unfortunately, we missed it, and I would love somebody to explain for us what does this point happens. And I also -- this criticism doesn't mean that I -- that I do not appreciate the efforts that has been made up to now, but I should add this point and ask the others, especially secretary-general of U.N. and the other parties who chaired the IGF to, according to multiculturism, to pay at mention more to these kind of values. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you [ Applause ] >>ADAMA SAMASSEKOU: Good morning, everybody. I'm going to speak in French, chairman, secretary-general. First of all, I would like to thank the government of Greece for the very warm hospitality extended to us over the few days we have been here, and that, of course, comes as know surprise since we are in Greece, after all, in this country which goes back to ancient times, a country of openness and contacts. I also would like to thank UNESCO for having invited me to participate in this forum and to thank the Secretariat of the forum for involving me in the overall debate in the forum. I would also, before I actually come to my proposal, to say that I find that the forum in its structure does dovetail with what we basically wanted to have the world summit on telecommunications and information to be. It is, in fact, a multistakeholder approach which I think would enable us in the future to try to have government partnership and to be able to have regional and perhaps world partnership. I think we have to bear this in mind and to remember of what other people have said at the world summit of the fact that when dreaming, we can move towards reality and to have a multistakeholder world partnership. I don't want to be too long on this but I do have a proposal. I thank Markus Kummer for his report, and I would like to also specify here that the proposal that you have made as concerns multilingualism should, in the report, include those various bodies that were cited, instead of just saying "others," for example, I think you to in fact to say this is the world network for multilingualism. It's a world partnership including UNESCO. All of those other organizations which, in fact, have been involved in this, especially the world association for multilingualism. Now, you have said yourself, chairman, that we may not have resolutions, but we may look at the reports again. Sometimes there are terms they are in where it was said "it was agreed that." But therein, perhaps there is a question of wording that should be revised in the report somewhat. Having said that, and I will finish on this, chairman, by your leave, I was just wondering as to the actual format of the forum in terms of overall results. Now, I do understand that the Tunis mandate has been discussed, and I am wondering today whether we ought to be looking towards 2010, -11, -12, -13, but I do want the actual spirit of the summit to take place within a format, with a formula whereby you would be able to come up with specific, with tangible results. After the wonderful discussions we've had, why shouldn't we have something specific come out of it, after all of these wonderful discussions? And I don't want this simply to be an event and just a meeting and looking at different aspects, but really to think here about the international that dreamed of the summit, and see this as a success in the spirit of international partnerships, to be able, thereby, to find a follow-up mechanism for the summit in order for us to say this was not just yet another summit meeting. Sometimes one tends to think of that, maybe if you did not come to Geneva, but many came to Tunis. So I think that's important. And certainly the United Nations should take this opportunity to make sure that the various elements in terms of specific actions that would actually change how one interacts between governments, NGOs, and other organizations. There have been directions and orientations given. In Geneva, in fact, we were in the course of actually, in reality, experiencing a real partnership. I'm sorry to have been so long. But I do think that this ought to have been heard. And I think that until Rio, we should see how we can make specific use of the outcomes of such meetings and to be moving towards more specific and real interactions between the various bodies here. And as we say in my language, sympathy, or being able to move together is what we need. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I was generous because he is the person who started all of this as the chairman of the PrepCom for the Geneva summit. And he has a certain responsibility for the whole process, which justifies a little relaxation. But I would urge the others to be a little sharper and quicker. >>KHALED FATTEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For these who don't know me, my name is Khaled Fattel, chairman of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. I would like to pay a attribute to you, Mr. Chairman. For a forum that is meant to be nonbinding, nonnegotiating, I can tell you, you have achieved or at least allowed for a lot to be achieved, far beyond what you may have expected. And I'll tell what you that is. And secondly, I would like to pay tribute to Greece, its people, its government, its warm hospitality, and for making this possible. The success that I think has happened is -- pertains to something that many years ago, when MINC used to call for a multilingual Internet, a lonely voice in cyberspace, there were many who didn't understand what that meant or its implications were. But also, there were some who said, no, go teach them English. Look where we were. Look where we are today. As a matter of fact, you may recall a couple of years ago at the U.N., one of my interventions was that multilingual Internet is actually a prerequisite to any form of good governance, because without the participation of the local people in their own local language on issues that pertains to them, their language, their culture, chances are, we're not going to be able to have the type of Internet governance that is necessary for it to be democratic and expressive of the local community. In that sense, I think this achievement that the IGF has made possible is that today, we have a new faith that everybody has adopted. And that new faith is called multilingual Internet and information society. And I think only through the Internet are we able to achieve this kind of success in such a short period of time. But now we have a new challenge, and this is where originally my point was not a proposal, but also thought-provoking and a challenge. The challenge is the following. What kind of multilingual Internet are we talking about that we want? Some may dress it up in new designer clothes, some may want it to actually do a lot more. The challenge I present is the following: Do we want a multilingual Internet that helps local community become empowered, to become representative, to harness their identity, their language, and their culture? Or do we just want it to be a forum or a mechanism for selling products and services? With that in mind, and without further ado, I will leave that challenge in your hands, in your wise hands and the wise hands of the -- the participants, and leave you with this last initiative, which is, MINC will be calling for a charter for this multilingual Internet, so at least we all start discussing what needs to be agreed on what is supposed to be its objectives and its goals. Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May we have the -- ambassador. May I suggest we just keep -- (inaudible) (No audio.) >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you. I have one comment and one question. My name is Jean-Jacques Subrenat, a former ambassador, now a consultant. My comment: Over the last two days, in the plenary, I have said that because of its nature, this IGF should be able to provide a specific added value. And I think that's now the case. We are moving towards the next stage, Brazil, which is going to be very important. So my question is specifically related to this. And it is the following: In order to best prepare, from a technical point of view, and also in terms of the content for the meeting in Brazil, I would like to ask if it will be possible for the various workshops which have met over the last few days, maybe not for all the workshops, but at least for the ones where the organizers think it would be feasible and desirable, and this brings me back to what I heard and saw in this summary of yesterday's work. I think it was Dr. Chung talking on behalf of this group on the question of cybersecurity. He took things a little bit further, because on behalf of yesterday's group, he announced the preparation, the drawing up of standards, a document. Now, I am aware in saying this that it's not the job of this forum to step into government's shoes and substitute them. But having said that, I think it's all well and good that various different IGF bodies should be able to come up with some form of a document. Here, we were talking about standards. Well, it could also refer to issues from other workshops which have dealt with some very important questions. I would like to hear the views of the organizers on this. Thank you. >> Thank you, chairman. Just to follow suit all the previous speakers, first of all, from Malaysia, we thank you, the Greek government, and, of course, the organizer, for having this event and this opportunity to speak. I will be very specific in terms of what I think (inaudible) is appropriate and also the secretariat, to consider moving forward. Number one, I think we may be looking at imposing a conventional structure into a new model. That's my assumption. As a result, I think one of the things as an outcome of this sort of forum like this, where we get input on framework and structural review, maybe one of the output from this is a global institutional reform that we could suggest, an existing institution could consider. I know ITU and all the various bodies are going through reform. Those input from here could be useful so that they can guide into their own reform, which would result in regional (No audio). Okay. So I think that will be useful, because we are thinking of a new model of development based on knowledge-driven economy. We should be thinking differently and maybe are suggesting existing conventional structures and legacy systems to be dismantled. That's number one. So it's a bit dangerous. I thought maybe this is one step forward you could consider, instead of just talking, making a concrete suggestion on institutional reform. Second is what I suggested yesterday, was a bit more structure in our discussion besides just policy debate. Maybe we put some sort of a structure in terms of specific recommendation. And I use the model of Internet engineering task force or the IETF, as a way for us to think about how to structure the discussion in specific areas, whether it's multilingualism, security, or even policy issues. So maybe we can adapt that, but we don't overlap with them, such that their effort will also be strengthening what we are doing. Maybe a group called the Internet task force and will fill in the gaps. And therefore use the RFC or request for comments, as a mechanism for implementation and adoption, especially for application on the business side for which it will be useful for them to be able to -- The third one was to consider the iNet or ISOC program that evolved, in particular, the developing country workshop, for which every time we attend a forum like this, there is a specific takeaway on best practices or tool kit, and also hand-holding for these countries to come and catch up instead of just discussing about the issues. Some of them are very raw and they need more hand-holding. So we may want to do this as a result of these workshop outcome. The fourth one is for us to consider the promotion of creating a global project, a global infrastructure, that seems to be lacking today, maybe to suggest where we can projectize programs, where there's a global Internet gateway for Africa, for Egypt, for central Asia, so some of those programs can get along where IGF can be the seeding organization or seeding programs. And, finally, I think we should not forget that the key issues that we started all of this was about DNS. And maybe the roadmap to really realize our aspiration of what we want to globalize the DNS is being suggested all the way to 2010. So at the end of the day, we will know we will get the thing that we started off delivering anyway. So thank you. >> Thank you very much, indeed. My name is Agrabi, and I am an NGO coordinator in Africa. I come from Tunisia. Now, I would first and foremost like to very warmly and respectfully thank the government and the people and the civil society of Greece for having hosted this forum. I would also like to thank the United Nations and the United Nations bodies for having chosen the subject and content of this forum. In the course of our discussions, we have seen that a large number of participants were not invited, for various different reasons. And I do hope that in the future, these stakeholders will be represented. I hope that their participation will be encouraged. I'm talking here about women, people with disabilities, and those with special needs. Now, as a representative of civil society in Tunisia and in Africa, we have together put forward two recommendations. We asked the UNESCO and the African Academy for Multilingualism to come up with a dictionary to simplify I.T. terminology. And also, with an eye to involving all of those stakeholders who were in Tunis, we feel that they should be invited to be able to cover, to take part in all of these events following on from the World Summit. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May I clarify -- may I clarify one thing. There is no individualized invitation to this meeting. There is an open door. Anybody is free to attend. Nobody needs an invitation to attend this meeting. The real issue, however, is the capacity to attend, where will the resources come from. And I think that is something that we will have to address. It's not enough to say that the door is open. We also have to address the question of how do people actually get here to be able to attend such a meeting. But I would like to just confirm that this is an open-door meeting. There is no need for an invitation to come to this meeting. I have a string of names here. I'm going to read them out in sequence, four of them. And there is (saying name) from the -- wants to say something on behalf of -- from the economic commission for Africa. Simon Qobo from south Africa. I have -- and then ambassador Lansipuro of Finland. Can I first have (saying name) from the Economic Commission for Africa. Where is he? Please stand up, because we can't find you unless you stand up. Where are you? Ah, there you are. >> Thank you very much, gentlemen. I will speak in French. I wanted to inform you of the outcome of the African group's meeting, which took place in the course of the work of this forum. And the presidency of the Egyptian minister, the president of the conference of African ministers responsible for ICT matters. A preparatory meeting was held in the African region in Egypt last September. And the aim of the meeting we had here in Athens was to get all of the African representatives and participants together to see what we could implement in order to ensure that Africa's concerns could be taken on board within this fora. Two major decisions stemmed from this. Firstly, the setting up of an African regional forum, which will be got up and running in February 2007. The list of subjects for discussion will be opened within the economic commission for Africa to try to define the subjects, the resources, and the priorities for Africa so that we can best prepare the ground, technically speaking, so that we can come up with the best possible results, similar to what we heard from Brazil. Another decision that was taken was to draw up a letter on Internet governance behavior for Africa for the coming five years. That was the major outcome from the African group meeting. Before I close, I would like to thank all of those bodies which supported the participation of delegates from Africa in this forum, particularly the Francophonie organization. Thank you very much, indeed. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: For now, may I, on behalf of our Greek hosts, accept your thanks, without your having to state them. And certainly on behalf of the U.N., accept your thanks without your having to state them. That will save us a little bit of time. Because we need -- we have a lot of speakers, and I think it's very important we hear as many people as possible in the course of the morning. So I had Simon QOBO from south Africa. Simon, please, can I request that people stand up rather fast, quickly, so that the mikes can get to them. Simon QOBO. >> Simon QOBO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I wanted to make an observation with regard to the composition of the panelists, in particular, access, connectivity, policy, and cost. I think we should have been, in fact, included. Perhaps (inaudible) institutions in the panel. Because they deal also with matters of development. For an example, most of the representatives from the developing countries spoke about the bread and butter issues of infrastructure development, which is very important for us. And also, in this regard, if we had them represented in the panel, we would have perhaps gotten an opportunity to explore how, perhaps, the poverty reduction strategy papers could be used in terms of mainstreaming the ICT infrastructure. And also, there is -- there is (inaudible) from these institutions, including the (inaudible) outcome with some kind of conditionalities and regulations. So perhaps we would have asked them, how do we deal with that to deregularize or deconditionalize these particular resources in order to mainstream infrastructure development. Lastly, I would like to also major an observation. I think with regard to policy and -- yesterday, most of the proponents focused on the policy formulation and design at the national and the local level. And I think for the future meeting, we need to spend a lot of time looking at the policy perhaps formulation and kind of design with regard to international resources. How do we begin to harness the international resources for infrastructure development, in particular, to the developing countries? Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: After that, I had ambassador (saying name). >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to share with you some impressions we have discussed among colleagues from the E.U. member countries here in Athens. The IGF has been a new type of experience, and it will take some time to digest them and come to conclusions of what it achieved and what the way ahead should be. Nevertheless, let me offer some preliminary conclusions. With its variety of themes and topics, IGF was a good demonstration of the fact that Internet governance covers, really, a vast area of issues. One of the questions to ponder when we go forward is whether it will be time to go deeper on fewer issues. This has been a good example of genuine multistakeholder dialogue, a free-flowing discussion among stakeholders who just a few years ago would hardly talk to each other. But this didn't happen by itself. This is a result of four years of the WSIS process, from Geneva to Tunis to Athens. Now, when the road continues from Athens to Rio, on the road, we already see these groups traveling together, building dynamic coalitions, and forming partnerships built on synergies found here at the first IGF. So let's hope that in Rio, in addition to continuing the discussions, we also see and evaluate perhaps the first practical results of these partnerships that were begun in Athens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think that's an interesting thought, which is that certain coalitions, et cetera, are being announced, there are partnerships of some sort. And one thing we could do is to simply, one year from now, ask ourselves, okay, what did we do over the past year. Can I, I before I move, I have a gentleman who's within waiting for the floor for a long time. >> JEREMY MALCOLM: It's great to hear about all these dynamic -- Jeremy Malcolm is my name, by the way. And one possible danger is that we might lose track of them all. A facility that is available for all of the dynamic coalitions that are forming to make the information available in a central location is on the IGF 2006.info Web site. There's a new main link on the left-hand side of the page called "dynamic coalitions." And by simply clicking on that and then editing the page that you see, you can add information about your dynamic coalition there. It doesn't mean that you can't have your own Web site somewhere else, and your own mailing lists and so on. But at least you can link to them from that page. That would be a good thing if you did that, because rather than asking the secretariat to add it to the official Web site, the secretariat is very busy, and you can do it much quicker yourself from the IGF2006.info Web site, which is not a -- an official site, but it is endorsed by the secretariat as a place for the community to come together and discuss and post information. So that's the first point. The second point is that another way for all of us to keep in touch after we go home is via a mailing list, an official mailing list has been created, which is plenary@intgovforum.org. The link is also available via the IGF2006.info Web site. If you click on forums, you'll see a number of forums listed there. One of them links to the official plenary mailing list, which I would encourage you to join, no matter which stakeholder group you're from. A third point is, regarding the dynamic coalitions, there isn't yet any clear understanding of their relationship with the IGF. In a sense, they're totally independent. And yet, there's been comments from the floor today that we want to see some tangible outcomes going forward from what we've been discussing in our workshops and what we will be discussing in our dynamic coalitions. So I suggest that we might want to think about criteria by which the dynamic coalitions can attain an affiliation with the IGF, something like a formal affiliation with the IGF, what might those criteria be. They would have to be multistakeholder composition, openness, things like that, so that we know that the output of a dynamic coalition corresponds to the values of the IGF as a whole, of its multistakeholder process. I would suggest that if those criteria are agreed upon, it would then be possible for the output of a dynamic coalition to be formally relayed back to a session of the IGF as a whole and thereby attained some sort of concrete status. So that's just an idea for people to think about. It would tie in the output of the dynamic coalitions to the group as a whole, and thereby give their output a more solid status. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: That's very helpful. I have Raul Echeberria from LACNIC, and then Mr. Tariq (saying name) from the government -- Let me just announce three at a time. Raul Echeberria, followed by Tariq (saying name), government of Pakistan. And then Mr. David olive, the WITSA policy chairman. >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Is this working? Well, I'm going to speak Spanish. I have to say that the first thing that comes to mind is that we've been working very hard at the IGF here, and we also worked very hard at the working party in the chateau outside of Geneva, well, I can't remember the name, but we also worked very hard there. And it makes me very happy to see that the ideas from there are now being put into practice. We have a proposal, and it was heard at the Tunis summit as well. Because after that, at the conclusion of that summit, we thought we had achieved what had been possible at that time. And I think that things have evolved since then, because at the working party outside Geneva, we thought, "Let's go for something more. Let's set up a forum for dialogue on an international level. Let's try and move forward." So I was here for the opening session, and our chairman said something very important which I've been thinking about since. And he said up till now, we've been working in parallel worlds. On the one side, we have governments, businesses. And then on the other side, we have civil society, NGOs. So this was a completely different meeting. We've had the opportunity to meet people we hadn't known, people who had never heard of us, met us. And since Monday, every day, I've realized that what Mr. Desai said was really quite correct. Over these few days, we've managed to find what the important themes are right now, because governance is of crucial importance for the majority of users and people. So I have to say that we all have different motivation. But we still have the same objectives. Our objective is to give a solution to the problems arising from the governance or lack of governance in the Net, and also to give a voice to developing countries. So what shall we aim for in Rio de Janeiro? We should discuss the themes that we've decided are very important: Freedom of expression, interoperability, access, local content, as our African colleague said. I think they are very important. Protect privacy, security. These are the issues which will be of importance for the future. There are other things as well we should be discussing. But I think that these are the main points. Now, what is the main challenge for us? It's to go back home and continue and prepare texts and go to various fora. And then when we go to Rio, we should do it having sort of ample -- broad scale of possibilities to offer. So it all depends on what we do. We need to take all key elements from this meeting in Athens and prepare them over the next year and, actually, go to Rio with concrete proposals. We need to forge consensus. And that's the only way to move forward over the next few years, because the consensus we've had since Tunis has allowed us to achieve results here. So I'd like to thank everyone and congratulate the secretariat and the chairman for their excellent work. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: And we thank Raul. As you know, it was not just the work of the chairman and the secretariat. It was also very much the work of the advisory group, which has become a support group. Which has actually taken on tasks and responsibilities surrounding this meeting. So I really want people to understand that the so-called advisory group has actually become a very practical support group, and people are doing all sorts of work, including some very mundane work, pushing chairs around, Xeroxing things, getting coffee for somebody, et cetera, et cetera. So I really am very -- truly grateful to the spirit in which the advisory group has pitched in and helping and running the logistics of this meeting. I have Tariq Badsha, followed by Mr. David olive. May I request people, I think it's going to be easier if people send slips. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to keep track of people I spot and people -- and people who are sending slips. So it would perhaps be prudent if you wish to take the floor just to send a slip of paper so that I have -- I know that it's there, and that's much easier than for me to call so that I don't miss anybody. So I don't miss anybody. Tariq Badsha. >>TARIQ BADSHA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I am Tariq Badsha from the Ministry of I.T, government of Pakistan. I hope everyone forgives my foot sitting on the chair. I would like to congratulate the government of Greece. I would like to use this opportunity to thank the government of Greece for the hospitality and the IGF Secretariat for the support. It is not easy on the undertaking to break new ground, and IGF is no different. It is not only due to the breadth and complexity of the subject at hand but also due to the diversity of the stakeholders. This poses an interesting challenge. On the one hand we want to incorporate the views of various stakeholders, which is one of the fundamental requirements of a multistakeholder forum. On the other hand, we expect tangible outputs in the form of concrete recommendations, and implementation guidelines in a limited period of time. Hence, it seems that the conventional model of operations would not suffice, and we would have to come up with more creative ways. Perhaps we could build on the philosophy of open distributed contribution, albeit in a more organized fashion such as the Internet engineering task force. The idea would be the platform where these four working groups can work towards a holistic solution. While we recognize that solutions to Internet Governance issues are not as cut and dry as the technical problems, there could be a set of solutions to certain issues, giving choices for implementations. In some rare cases, we may even end up in a deadlock. However, it is important that the terms of reference for these working groups would be to come up with recommendations for implementations as much as possible. Another idea that the role of the IGF could play would be in capacity building. The idea being IGF would be one-stop-shop was brought up during the conference. We support this proposal. In addition to the information generated by IGF, the Web site could have links to other resources. For instance, the anti-spam tool kit, the open and free software, the successful models in ICT for development and so on. Mr. Chairman, in the past three days, some very useful information has been disseminated, and even though some parts were a reiteration of the Geneva and Tunis principles, it would be unfair if we walk out with the impression that this seminar has purely been dealing with highly generalized issues. I think a lot of practical information has been disseminated. Our delegation has gathered very useful information in terms of Spam, in terms of security, and some of the other areas. So I would like to congratulate you and your Secretariat for the contributions that have been made. In the end, I would also hike to quote what commissioner Viviane Reding so aptly said in the opening plenary that the IGF would be an important pillar of the new model of enhanced cooperation between all stakeholders agreed upon in Tunis last year. It does not replace negotiations between governments on the enhanced cooperation model, but it is a complementary process. I would like to reiterate that while the IGF brings a unique value to the Internet Governance landscape due to its multistakeholder nature, there is still a need to have a platform for intergovernment negotiations. Thank you very much, sir, for your attention. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. May I now turn to David Olive. After that, if I may just give a few names. I have Vittorio Bertola who has been waiting a long time. Miguel (saying name), the deputy representative of Ecuador who has been waiting quite a long time, and then Bertrand De La Chapelle. Can I turn to David Olive. >>DAVID OLIVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Olive, and I am representing the World Information Technology and Services Alliance, 67 national I.T. associations around the world. Our group works with many other groups, and yesterday you heard from Robert Rogers, GIIC, about the joint workshop that we sponsored and the results from that. We would like to make some comments here. We greatly appreciate the multistakeholder approach of the IGF. We noted that it is a truly unique forum, very interesting and valued opportunity for members of WITSA to be a participant. At WITSA I might say we did not find all totally an opportunity to have multistakeholder interaction so we came to Athens somewhat cautiously but optimistically. We are pleased with the outcomes today and all of the sessions. Our optimism, not our caution, was rewarded, Mr. Chairman. The dialogue among different stakeholders was a very important and valued contribution for our business members. We also found important the opportunity to participate in main sessions and workshops, and we have some ideas on how to contribute perhaps of the evolving nature of these sessions going forward. Capacity building, information infrastructure access, and security remain very important to our members. We would like to see more business participation here and WITSA will be reaching out to all of our members to be here and part of this. We also host some conferences in 2007 and '8, the global public policy conference in Cairo in 2007 and our Malaysia colleagues talked about the world Congress in 2008, and we will use those forums to promote the elements of the -- elements of the IGF. Finally, we are committed to the IGF, consistent with the mandate from the WSIS, and we trust even more in Rio in 2007. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May I have Vittorio Bertola followed by (saying name) from el Salvador and then Bertrand De La Chapelle. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how to affiliate myself. I am an engineer, an entrepreneur, I am with civil society. I advise my government. So I don't really know how I fit into this. But I first wanted really to congratulate -- >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: You are a walking multistakeholder. [ Laughter ] >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: I think so. I don't know why I am here, perhaps. But.... I think this was really great, actually, so yes, there were maybe some practical shortcomings, maybe, for example, there should be better way for online participation, maybe less luxurious setting may have helped more people to come in. Maybe workshops should have more time for discussion and less for presentations. These are just random discussions. But these are minor things. I think that in the end, this was a success because we actually met. Everyone in the beginning was wondering whether this would work or not, and I think this has worked. This has worked very well. So I think most of the people, I think all people here are actually happy about this. Anyway, I just wanted to remind, however, that there are some parts of our mandate that still need to be implemented. And specifically, for example, part G of the paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda which was agreed in Tunis and which tells us we do have to -- not just to identify the issues but also to make recommendations. Those other parts of the mandate talk about, for example, assessing and embodying these principles in Internet Governance processes and I was a member of the WGIG, I was one of the people thinking about this, and these were since the beginning very important parts of the mandate. I think the reason why we are not doing it here in Athens is because it is too soon. We still have to understand how all of this works. I think at the same time we can take it as a commitment to Rio that we find a way to implement them. And I wanted to reassure the people in the room, I know there are people in the room that think we should not make recommendations, or are afraid of the fact that we can actually have some agreed results of these forums. I think that you have to understand that, first of all, we are not going to make decisions, because there is no power here, so we have no power to bind anyone to make anything. The only thing we can do in a true Internet spirit is to bring everyone at the same table and have an agreement, in the end, for the way that the Internet works. The agreement is beneficial to all the people who participate in it. And that's the way the Internet has been growing since the beginning. The technical standards of the Internet were never decided, were never formally adopted or binding either. They are just there and everyone abides by them because it's beneficial for everyone to be able to talk to everyone. And that's what we can get in this forum. So I feel a bit like, in Tunis, we saw these uncharted waters, as someone else called them and now we have put our first foot in the water. And we have to decide whether we want to swim or not. And I think we should dare to swim. We should not be afraid and just stay on the beach. And the last point I wanted to make is a substantive point. I have already said about the work we are doing on the bill of rights. I want to stress it, because I think it's symbolic of the value of this forum. I have heard many workshops talking about security and growth and business, which is fine. Actually, it's very important. But I think that the real important mandate of this forum is to build common grounds for the Internet to grow and Information Society to grow. There is a need in the world for people to start talking to each other and understanding each other rather than confronting one another, especially different parts of the world, different cultures, and I take this as a responsibility. We can actually build common ground. We can build the -- the idea of the bill of rights is to build a meaningful level of mutual understanding and respect that allows all of us to talk to each other. And I think this will be a huge contribution, not just to the Internet but to the world. And this is why I am committed to this process. And I hope that the entire forum can commit to this process and to this idea. Because I think it can really change the world in a way. And the last thing, I remember that when we started the work in the WGIG, Kofi Annan told us to dare to be creative, to be imaginative, not to be afraid. And I took that very seriously. I think this is really a very important thing to do and this is why I am pushing these things that might seem maybe high level or maybe abstract. But I think they could be very important, much more important than other things we are doing here now. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Miguel. >>MIGUEL ALCAINE: Thank you. I am Miguel. I am the attache from the embassy in El Salvador. The people from the Caribbean and South America would like to thank the Greek government for their hospitality and also hosting this IGF. We with would also like to thank the secretary-general of the U.N., Mr. Kofi Annan, and also his special representative, you, chairman, and also I would like to thank Mr. Markus Kummer who is the head of the Secretariat, and also the staff working for him. I would also like to thank the interpreters and all those who have participated here, and all of the Greek organizers, men and women. This first IGF became a forum for substantial dialogue, and it followed a multistakeholder approach. We are convinced that many of the ideas which have -- which are the result of our discussions will reappear in other fora in order to fulfill the commitments we have undertaken at the summit in Tunis and also in Geneva. We believe this first IGF has been a great success, and that we are following the correct direction. So allow me to conclude saying that we expect you at the second IGF, which will take place in Latin America in 2007. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Can I just read a few more names out? After Bertrand De La Chapelle, we have (saying name) senior program of the international women's structure. Mr. (saying name), and Jamie Love. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you very much, chairman. I am Bertrand De La Chapelle. I am special delegate for Information Society in the foreign ministry. And I'd also just like to make a few comments here. First of all, I think the format of this four-day meeting is something which would seem to have been a natural format of all the participants here. But I do think it's been a success because, as has been said before, we all, of course, have reason to be happy here. I would like to take up what was said by Mr. Desai and to extend my compliments and my congratulations both to himself and to the Secretariat, to all the members of the advisory group who have undertaken this enormous effort here. The second point is that I'd like to point out that France is very happy to, in fact, participate in the dynamic coalition and to look at the issue of personal data and identification and digital identification, I think is one of the emerging issues, basically, as has been indicated by the Tunis Agenda. And there is another element on that agenda which hasn't actually been mentioned very frequently, but Mr. Desai has mentioned it. It's basically important, as we said, within IGF to look at what's happening in terms of digital identity. We said that this is something which may affect someone's everyday life, and France would like to join you in that initiative. Also, we are talking about a dynamic coalition. We don't have any sort of rules of procedure for this dynamic process, but methodology as for IGF is something which happens in the making. We just identified the stakeholders. We identified the events which are organized by most of you which deal with the issues of personal data and other issues. And the idea is, of course, to be able to collect information on that issue and to reach as many people as possible. So France is very happy to have invited the participants to this dynamic coalition, and we'll meet in Paris during the course of next year to actually take stock of what is happening, what can be prepared for Rio, and to make, thereby, our contribution for the Rio forum. And now, perhaps to move to the suggestions in terms of methodology, and we can work from now to Rio. This concerns the agenda and the meetings for next year. I think basically it's going to be a matter of special sessions which could bridge the plenary and workshop sessions which would enable the coalition just formed to take stock of what's happening and to thereby indicate a state of play, how they could advance and what should be done in the future. Also, two final points very quickly. It's going to be necessary, and I think that the discussion certainly has (inaudible) over the past few minutes to perhaps stop and take stock of the forum, to actually take note of what has been done, what we have accomplished and how we are functioning. And I understand that at the beginning of next year, or at least as soon as possible, we are going to have a meeting possibly with members of the advisory group. And I would be most happy if on that occasion if, as has been done for the preparation for this forum, to have open consultations had, so that the individual stakeholders can thereby bring in their proposals as they see the overall process. And one final point. One final point because I don't think it's been raised sufficiently and I think it's the time to do so. I think it's important over the forthcoming months to better study the articulation between the various subjects that are discussed with the framework of the forum, and to look at the process of implementation based on decisions coming out of the summit and how some of the stakeholders can facilitate that process. And I do think that this articulation is an important issue. We will be looking at that in the forthcoming months, as I said. And once again, with my thanks for the remarkable quality of this meeting. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Can I call on Maria (saying name). Where is she? Where is she? From the international women's -- there you are. Oh, there you are. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sorry, I didn't hear you very well. I just would like to stress again the centrality of gender in the discussion on Internet Governance and all ICT policies in general. There are two key issues that need to be on the agenda, and these are violence against women and pornography in the Internet. Without jeopardizing the open boundaryless and free nature of the Internet, how do we counter violence against women and pornography? These are issues that concern us all: Governments, private sector, civil society. But how come that in this forum, only civil society, particularly women's organizations who are raising these issues? And we're a very small minority in this forum. I reiterate the call to ensure women's representation and participation in all upcoming forums, in Rio, in India and in Egypt and on all discussion spaces on Internet Governance. We are here, we are ready, and we are more than capable to engage in the dynamic coalition that we have been talking about. Only with women's active participation that we will be able to move forward successfully in using the Internet as an effective development tool. Thank you. Mavic Cabrera-Balleza from the women's center. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Can I turn to (saying name) from the government of Indonesia and then Jamie Love. >>MAVIC CABRERA-BALLEZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think that as a representative of the government, we see that the objective to have multistakeholders meetings, the IGF, as mandated by Tunis was achieved here in ATHENA. I thank the Greek government for hosting this meaning, and I would also like to thank the secretary-general of the IGF, Mr. Markus Kummer, secretary-general of the U.N. and special representative Mr. Nitin Desai who chairs today. And we shouldn't forget by saying last but not least that we also have to pay tribute to the secretary-general of the ITU, Mr. Utsumi, who initiate this WSIS Tunis since a couple of years ago. So I believe. This was very successfully done. And now the challenges we are going to face ahead that we now as multistakeholders need to be more closer in more sincere and contributive manners, and better to have a consensus so that we can have an implementation in this process. So this also will make that what we means to attend this expensive meetings is useful and productive. Back to the content. The message is echoed by our distinguished delegate of Iran that we need to discuss also the cultural aspect in the next IGF meetings, which I believe that in the couple of three days, in the last three days, we heard that the discussion on the ethical dimensions will not only cover the area of the local value and the local rights, and also the other aspect. So this can be discussed in the future that can link to the aspect of the security and privacy that I believe, with this aspect of discussion, will help much to reach what's called accountable and responsible governments. And last but not least, we also support the statement made by the previous speakers, which we need also to discuss on the issue of the pornography on this very important forum. And also, I'd like to support the work of the advisory groups need to be more extensive in the work to come. And also to suggest that in the future work of the advisory group, that this group have to -- have to get more reach out to the multistakeholders, especially in the respective regions. So then this is to ensure the participatory of all multistakeholders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think that's a very useful thought. We should keep that in our mind that the advisory group has generally met with -- in open consultations in Geneva, but I take you to mean that basically these consultations should also reach out at the regional level. And we have to figure out how we can do that better. And maybe we can give a little thought to this, as to how this could be done. Maybe we could have -- maybe the relevant regional members from that region can do more concentration. That's a good thought and let's see how we can work it in. May I now turn to Jamie Love. After that, I have Peter Hellmonds, Steve Ballinger and Vassilev from Russia. >>JAMIE LOVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Markus and the Secretariat. I would like to echo the positive sentiments that other members of this audience have offered about this event. I think that this -- this format has worked well. I think that one thing that is on the mind of many people is the connection between the conversations in the room and the activity in the room and outcomes. And I think that the -- our understanding is that the early approach in the Internet Governance Forum is one where the emphasis is on the self-organized dynamic coalitions to focus on things such as best practice or areas of consensus or information sharing as opposed to sort of focusing on a sort of top-level norm setting activity. I think that that's a different approach for a lot of people that are familiar with the U.N. system, but it has a certainly amount of value in the context of the Internet and the way a lot of things -- the Internet has developed. And I think it's early, but I think if that is the process by which people coming here affect things on the outside then it's worth spending some time on how these bottom-up, self-organized dynamic coalitions work, how they fit into the IGF. It was very welcome to hear from the Secretariat that there be an effort to integrate within the Secretariat Web page the activities, the dynamic coalition site. I think the conversations from France about the privacy dynamic coalition I think are very interesting. I think that there may be some learning process about the sort of best practices of dynamic coalitions in some of these issues. I think some people are not quite sure what the limits are. I think many people would be comfortable with thinking forward, maybe toward Rio, a little more structure on this process. But I must say the idea you had of starting with almost no structure at this meeting has its value, because we have a lot of diversity and experimentation, and I think that's going to be very useful to everyone. So I'm trying to be as positive as possible about what you are doing now in the meeting because I feel very good about it. I'm involved in the organizing of the access to knowledge dynamicdynamic coalition, which I should be at right now. And the open standards dynamic coalition. The approach in both of these, I think, is to be inclusive in terms of membership, maybe requiring some transparency of people who join the coalition to -- as sort of a hurdle, which I think is a reasonable obligation. And then to create a space so that the group will seek to reach consensus and best practices in these areas of their interest, which will be as concrete as possible in terms of things governments could do, corporate sector could do, and private individuals could do. But then in areas where there's no agreement, to work toward permitting groups that have different points of view to also express multiple views within the same dynamic coalition so that there could be a -- identified with the sort of the endorsers or the people that more or less approach one approach versus another approach. It's an inclusive approach. The value is if you get more consensus. But sometimes forcing consensus can come at the expense of detail and richness of proposals. So I think if they are going to try and strike a balance between encouraging as much consensus as possible, but not to the point where they don't allow different models to be presented and put forward. And also to work concretely on some of the information sharing in the areas between what practices are before we get to state practice. So I think that this forum suits this purpose very well. And we look forward to participating. And I'm sure that the number of people participating in the next forum will be greater than this forum, because I think many people were skeptical of the value of this forum, because they didn't understand it. They were told by many people it would be all talk and no action, that there was this sort of negative talk that people said. And I think that what's emerged in this meeting, I think, and the feedback you'll have outside the room will be very positive, that people see this as sort of the right thing to do at the right time with the Internet, to sort of start very inclusive, to start discussions, to start in sort of relatively soft norm setting. And that's really sort of a confidence-building step and building the institution. So my thanks for the opportunity to participate. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I have Peter Hellmonds, Steve (saying name) and Mr. (saying name). >>PETER HELLMONDS: Do we have a microphone? Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Peter Hellmonds from Siemens in Germany. And I would like to offer some brief remarks on behalf of the international business community, organized through ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce, and BASIS, the Business Action to Support the Information Society. I wanted originally to thank everyone specifically. But now, for the sake of brevity, I will just thank everyone all together who has already been mentioned. I would, however, like to thank the bloggers specifically for bringing the voices from the outside into this meeting room. That has been one of the experiments that -- or one of the creative elements of this exercise. It was part of this first IGF event, which was very experimental in nature. And I must say, that experiment has worked remarkably well. In fact, much better than expected. We have had here an experiment of multistakeholder openness and inclusiveness that probably has not ever been tried before in any other U.N. process. I'd also like to recognize the various new coalitions that have been announced today, which, while not being an official part of the IGF, are, however, inspired by this event. I would like to mention in this respect also our business initiative, BASIS, the Business Action to Support the Information Society. BASIS is open to all businesses from around the world, whether they come -- regardless of whether they come from any sector of business or what size they are. Through BASIS, its members, associations, and companies will be reaching out and raise awareness among the global business community. And we'll also be reaching out in cooperative efforts with other stakeholders. I'd like to emphasize that business is committed both to the WSIS and its callout, in general, and to the IGF in particular. As to the suggestions to move ahead, business believes that the following issues will continue to require our focused attention on a priority basis. Access, well, basically, to connect the next billion users, which, as we heard quite often here, will come from the developing world. That means infrastructure, both fixed and mobile, and as a complement also, the necessary enabling environment. That includes the issues of competition, liberalization, the rule of law, et cetera. Those things that promote a positive investment climate which is necessary for infrastructure we put in place. Also on a priority basis, security, among other things, network security, which promotes the stability of the Internet. Again, underlying all of the themes that I just mentioned should be our attempt to further the mutual understanding and the ability of all people around the world to participate in activities and organizations and fora related to Internet governance. The goal should be that we enhance the socioeconomic development through the use of the Internet. Before stopping here to allow other business representatives to add to this, I would like to just make a practical suggestion as we move ahead. It would be useful that we have a schedule for the next event way ahead of time. So I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Chairman to set and announce a date and the schedule way in advance for the Rio meeting and solicit written input from all of the stakeholders around the world. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Mr. Kummer for helping us all to see the benefit in this inclusive and open process, which I believe can serve as a model for other similar events. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May I just interrupt the list of speakers for one second. I understand that Brazil is in a position to announce dates. May I request somebody from Brazil, if they would be willing to announce -- indicate the dates which you are contemplating. >> We are suggesting the date of 12th of November of 2007. That's a Monday for the beginning. And then we have 12, 13, 14 for the days of the meetings. And so that's the date we are suggesting for the meetings. The location's Rio de Janeiro. It's on what are called (saying name). It's a very nice place. It's been prepared -- all of the infrastructure today of the -- the site is prepared for a big event that has occurred there for the pan-American Olympics in Rio. And so I think we will have all the necessary infrastructure in hotels and transportation and security and so on in this area. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I just thought since the dates were fixed, it's better for people to know right now, so you can start planning. It's just about a year from now. After that, I will get back to the list. I had Steve Ballinger, from Amnesty, followed by Vladimir Vasilyev, from Russia. Steve. >> STEVE BALLINGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve Ballinger from Amnesty International. There's been a lot of questions raised here at the IGF and Amnesty International is very pleased to be part of the process that's looking for the answers. One thing that I wanted to report back from several of the panels and workshops is the recognition that there is a set of globally agreed standards that already exist and that can give us guidance and direction when it comes to the Internet. And that is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These would not only protect legitimate free speech, like peaceful political dissent, but also provide an agreed way to determine which speech is not protected, the content that causes people so much concern about the Internet, such as child pornography, incitements to hatred, and violence. And so in this way, human rights can make a real difference in keeping the Internet free from unwarranted interference in the future. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: (No audio.) >> VLADIMIR VASILYEV: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak Russian. First of all, I would also like to thank, on behalf of the Russian delegation, the organizers and the hosting country for this opportunity to exchange opinions. During this forum, we heard very interesting and positive views. One of them was, man is always thinking about the future. And we feel that one of the most important things for the future is international governance for names and domains. We have talked to lots of delegations from various countries about this, and it's of interest to all of them, so we would like this issue to be on the agenda for the forum in Brazil. Security as well is a very important issue. And a lot was heard at the session devoted to security. So I'll give the floor to Yliana Batoiva (phonetic) from the foreign ministry to give her view. >> Good morning. I'm Yliana Batoiva (phonetic) from the ministry, foreign affairs ministry in Russia. Now, I have a point to make on security, because I think ICT security should be on the Rio agenda. Perhaps for Rio de Janeiro we should construct our dialogue on a different basis, because we should see how Internet users feel about security on the Net. And we should discuss the three levels of security for the Internet user and also for governments. We have to find a common language. Because sometimes when we talk about security issues, we haven't been using one voice. On certain occasions, we have been understanding each other. But sometimes there's a lot of miscomprehension. In Athens, we've decided on a lot of matters, and we've heard very interesting views. But we haven't got a recommendation coming out. So my wish for the future is, in Rio, the experts on security should try and adopt recommendations which will be addressed to both the private and the public sector, the individuals, and governments. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: -- followed by ambassador Trevor Clark, and then (saying name) of Diplo. Can we -- you need to be a little more accessible for the mike, I think. Sorry. You're running away from the mike. >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Izumi Aizu, I'm a member of the ICANN at-large advisory committee, among others. It's an ad hoc proposal. One of the differences we observed between the Tunis summit and here in Athens, IGF, is, I think, there are less numbers of participants from the developing countries, even though the overarching theme of this IGF is Internet governance for development. So I'd like to sort of submit an ad hoc proposal to form a dynamic coalition, to join the term, on funding of IGF with a special emphasize or focus on supporting the participation of or from the developing parts of the world. This includes, of course, the people from the developing countries, but perhaps also such relatively marginalized people as those having higher barriers to participate, such as persons with disabilities, youths, or sometimes NGOs and civil society, even in the developed parts of the world. I think the -- all efforts should be made -- I know Markus has been working very hard to get funding of all IGF, not only for the developing countries' participation. But we call on governments of the north, all the countries, international organizations, in charge of the development, or in charge of Internet governance, bodies such as ICANN, ITU, WIPO, or any others, to provide some adequate funding to bring more people from developing countries to make this as a real multistakeholder or all stakeholder participation for the next IGF meeting in Brazil. A number of individuals, mostly within the civil society groups and Internet governance caucus, have already expressed their interest to join this. We will be functioning as perhaps a conduit to facilitate this implementation of the funding to support travels or conducting workshops, which sometimes includes dirty work as arranging the tickets or arranging the business in the last minute, or to make selection accountable and transparent. That is not an easy job. We have done several times for people to come to Asia for Tokyo meetings and stuff like that. So I have certain experiences with such. And so, I'd like to again appeal to these governments and the international organizations to operate your next year's, 2007's budget, so we have more organizations to support, or the private sector, such as Keidanren in Japan, or ICC, or Siemens, or Microsoft, or Amazon, or Google, British Telecom, you name it. But this, we are really trying to make a voluntary dynamic coalition. So if you can join, please join. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: As you can see, this is a very welcome -- it's a very welcome initiative. May I now turn Trevor Clarke. Ambassador Clarke. Ambassador Clarke? Not here? I don't see him. He's probably just stepped out. We'll come back to him later. I had the gentleman from Diplo, Lupio Giorginski (phonetic) where is Mr. Giorginski? >> Yep, I'm right here. This is another ad hoc recommendation. And it also addresses funding. It came to me actually yesterday while we had the panel on Internet governance and the millennium development goals. Within the next few years, in many countries, and probably the developed countries will do this first, we'll start adopting IPv6. As we know, IPv6 has 3.4 times 10 to the power of 38 number of I.P. addresses, which is an unlimited number after the four billion that we have right now, which also means that the price of that will fall to almost -- well, to nothing if we keep the same symbolic price that we have for the package of an I.P. address and a domain name, which is, say, $10, which it is in most countries. It can be forever, it can anybody a transition of ten years, and orient that money towards something, either, I don't know, solving a Millennium Development Goal or getting funding for Internet governance processes, since we do have a lot of problems to do this. It could be a very effective way to get funding from very invisible source. I know the reaction from many is that this is the imposition of a tax, such as previous propositions from earlier times of a tax on e-mail. But it really isn't. It doesn't enter into the structure of the network at all. It's actually just something that we have right now. Everybody still pays $10 for the package of an I.P. address and a domain name. It will be a continuation of that with the difference that all of a sudden now you have I.P. addresses which have cost something until now, because they have been limited, and they will cost nothing at the moment when IPv6 is addressed. Anyways, it's an idea thrown in the ground. We will open the discussion on this in Diplo, and you all are welcome to participate. And perhaps it is something that we can develop within the next year until Rio. Thanks. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Ambassador Clarke, I think you're back here. Can I give the -- the mike can go to Ambassador Clarke, who is right at the back there. >>TREVOR CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and apologize for my delinquency, which is very frequent. Just to share with you and the members a very brief impression from Barbados. I think we have had a very successful, well-attended first effort of the IGF. Lots of information has been shared, and, indeed, we have all learned something. And I would wish to say that we have all learned a lot. Recognizing, however, that there will be no formal outcome, we hope that the forum has nevertheless contributed to persuading those who have the greatest influence on the cost of access problem, which we in the Caribbean also share. Let me use this opportunity to inform participants that the Caribbean is today holding an Internet governance dialogue on the island of Grenada. And some of us here in Athens will be meeting with that group in the Caribbean online at 1:30 p.m. today. So the people of the Caribbean do take Internet governance seriously and will continue to make the connection between the IGF activities and other international dialogue so as to inform our regional and national processes in the Caribbean. Finally, we do hope that more of us now better understand that freedom of expression comes with a serious responsibility. I would implore you in planning for Rio that we continue dialogue on this particular issue. I thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much, Ambassador Clarke. Can I turn to Paul Twomey, the president and CEO of ICANN. Is he here? There is Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, chairman. I just wanted to first of all say thank you and congratulations to you for all the great work that you have done, and to Ambassador Karklins, Ambassador Markus Kummer -- we're full of ambassadors here -- for the great work that you have done on preparing for this conference. And as we have gone through the whole WSIS, the IGF, the whole process, I think this has been a great success. I congratulate you on your work. I wonder if I can make an observation as someone who has been involved in the founding and evolution and continued management of one of the world's first multistakeholder organizations. They're not easy to put together and to manage at all. And one of the observations I would make, particularly for people who are thinking about progress between this year and next year is to keep testing the question, is everybody engaged. And I'll be a little heretical here. I will particularly challenge business and civil society in the dialogues that many people are talking about as they go between here and Rio. The test I'll put to you is, are you sure that the governments are engaged in the dialogue? It's a very important point. It can be very easy to get involved in what you think are multistakeholder structures and find that what's happened is it's become a civil society structure or a civil society and business structure. And so it's an interesting test in all the discussions that take place between now and Rio. And I'd ask all people who come to really try to take advantage of this unique institution under the U.N.'s auspices to keep that test in minds, are all voices participating, and what do you need to do to ensure that all voices are participating. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May I now request the people who come to -- there are quite a few -- to try to be as quick as possible. Because we are running out of time. I do need to come to some sense of closure on this whole process. So I do need about ten minutes. But may I just request the people who are now coming in, I have about -- quite a few, to be sharp, crisp, and I'd like -- you know, like Paul was, so that we get the essential point. I am Jim Dempsey of CDT and the global Internet. Delphine Nana, the ACSIS, Malcolm Hutty, of LINX. Can I go to Jim Dempsey. >>JIM DEMPSEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Again, congratulations for a very successful meeting. You've proven here, we have all proven the -- that multistakeholder dialogue works. And I have a concrete suggestion, which is that between now and next November, that each of the countries represented here convene their own national-level Internet Governance Forum. We've heard reference already to an effort in the Caribbean. And this should be not merely a one-time meeting, but a series of dialogues locally to build a consensus. And I think the guiding principle for those local IGFs should be the following: Think globally, and act locally. You've all heard this expression. And it's particularly apt to this Internet, where many of the solutions are at the local level. This is what we've been doing in our GIPI project, and it's a model that can be proliferated in other developing countries. Specific identification of barriers, specific identification of solutions, and identification of the institutions that can implement those solutions. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Can I turn to Delphine Nana. >>DELPHINE NANA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now, I am Delphine Nana, and I belong to all African countries, president of ACSIS. With your permission I would like to make a comment to remind you that Africa is, in fact, one of the largest countries within the ACSIS, and the idea of the Internet governance forum has been supported by the African countries in general. And of course we have been involved in the various phases of the WSIS and this forum is very promising for the future. And we have representatives in the working group in the IGF, and we also are part of the advisor's group as concerns IGF. But this is, I think, a reflection of our willingness to take into account all those issues that we are very concerned with, and to be able, ultimately, to come to a consensus which will help us worldwide. Looking at the various issues of governance on the Internet. And we do open that for the Rio phase something could, in fact, be done in the right direction. ACSIS is also part of the whole processes and mechanisms which are in place which have been put in place for the Athens forum. Perhaps we can thank the Greek government on this occasion, and also the people of Greece who have extended their warmest hospitality to us. We also would like to thank the United Nations who wanted to actually give visibility to us today, and I do thank you for that. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Once again, I have a problem. I have more people than I can accommodate. So try and be as brief as you can. I'm not sure we will be able to go through absolutely every single person who wants the floor. I think after that, I have Malcolm Hutty of LINX, London. Anybody who can be less than a minute gets a chocolate. >>MALCOLM HUTTY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to congratulate you and Mr. Kummer on what I think is the extraordinary success of the conference and thank the host for their hospitality and generosity here. I would like to make a few comments on the distinctions between the workshops we have had here and the previous intergovernmental processes. And what I would lake to suggest this means for the process going forward in terms of implementation and the steps towards Rio. The intergovernmental processes are often, not always but often very much characterized by the speaker saying this is my problem and this is what I would like you to do about it. And that inevitably leads to a process of challenges, difficult negotiations and compromises, and all that has to happen before there can be any attempt at any form of implementation. I noticed in the workshops have taken not always but very much a very different form of conversation the form of conversation the speaker has said this has been my problem and this is what I have done about it, and if you would like to join me and take part in that, please come and join me. But if you don't, if you disagree, if you have another method, then that's okay, you do your thing. Join me if you can. And that allows us to move to implementation now, and I have seen the economic coalitions that we have got forming in an intergovernmental context will be announced today with great fanfare, it's an achievement to have formed them because we are already moving toward implementation. What intergovernmental processes can really move as fast toward implementation as we have already seen at this conference. Moving towards Rio, Mr. Chairman, I believe you will hear many voices saying we have had some interesting discussions in Athens, but we need a process for agreeing universal declarations common consensus global statements. I urge you to resist those voices because that will retreat towards that tortuous process of negotiation before implementation. And I suggest you focus on how you can support and how the organizers can support the dynamic coalitions and make them more visible. I also would like to agree with a comment made by Mr. Twomey about bringing governments into this. They need to see, they need the visibility of what these dynamic coalitions are achieving and I think that is something that the organizers must focus on rather than changes in structure as we proceed towards Rio. Thank you for your attention. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Now can I just give a list of names, and let's see. Karen Banks from EPC, then I have Thomas Schneider from the Swiss government, and Purcell. Karen. >>KAREN BANKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At a workshop on capacity building which was held this morning, a multistakeholder group of organizations agree that capacity building is fundamental and that it should not only remain on the IGF agenda but be given greater priority at the next IGF. These organizations which represent different stakeholder communities and have a wide range of complementary competencies agree to explore cooperation in the areas of mutual interest. The group of organizations consisting of the Internet society, the international chamber of Commerce and its initiative business action to support the Information Society, the Association for Progressive Communications, the DiploFoundation, the Number Resource Organization, Center for International ICT Policy, (listing names) and collaboration on international ICT policy for East and Southern Africa. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Can I now turn to Thomas Schneider, and then Ms. Purcell, then Mr. Riazi. >>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, chairman. In fact, it was three years ago in 2003 that the Swiss team facilitated, in trying to facilitate negotiations, didn't think that three years later on there would be such an open discussion on an issue which is a very difficult subject to arrive at a compromise on. So that's why I would like to join with the others who thanked you for the organization of this event. I can't go through the whole list of people for lack of time. But I just want to say for us, too, it's been a success, chiefly because we have been able to have a multistakeholder discussion which has been a very open discussion. And also we have touched upon many different subjects which had to be examined and been able to, on a number of subjects, actually, got to go into depth. And also, to look at the format of the forum. I don't think that we should change it too much. I think perhaps we should not be too formal about the format because I think that really is one of the reasons for which the discussion was so open, and why basically people weren't afraid to actually take up a position on the various situations or the various subjects, as is usually the case within the United Nations. Now, two things which I think we ought to try and improve as has already been said by a number of other speakers. I really do think that we need to improve participation of the developing countries. I'd also like to support the proposal extended to try and find financing, because the idea, basically, of perhaps having a nominal amount charged, say $10 per country, but I do think perhaps we could do this on a voluntary basis. And anybody who would want to rent a Web site and perhaps sort of hand in some sort of money for the IGF, and that might just be an idea we could entertain on that. I think, also, we -- in order to continue, we ought to do three things. First of all, very importantly, this dynamic coalition that we have been talking about, here we ought to find links, but not formal links but very narrow links with the IGF so that everybody can, in fact, really have this reaching government ears. And I take on board what Cortani {sp?} was saying about the implication and the involvement of governments and that's important for IGF, but also for other existing mechanisms, talking about Internet Governance. Also, perhaps I can just remind you that we ought to try and reinforce our links that we have between the broad directions being taken, the lines of action, and to avoid any sort of overlapping what we're doing but to create a synergy by rallying our forces together between what is being done in the United Nations, UNESCO, and other central organizations. My final point, I do think that we're very happy to see the progress within IGF and to hope that there will be further visible progress for other processes which were started in Tunis. Cooperation which will be stepped up will reinforce cooperation which we have seen not too much progress on. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: (Saying name). Is she here? >>FUATAI PURCELL: Thank you very much. I want to first of all congratulate you, Mr. Nitin Desai and Kummer of the ICT -- >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:Congratulations we take for granted. >>FUATAI PURCELL: Well, for making this event a reality and it's been very successful. I have two observations. I wish to make a suggestion, the way forward to Rio and to the other four IGFs. Paragraph 16 of the WSIS states we shall continue to pay special attention to small island developing states, landlocked countries, et cetera, et cetera, and since I am from a small island developing state, I would like to suggest to please the small islands in the IGF in Rio, because I notice that during the whole process here, all the panelists were all from highly populated developing countries and large organizations. And our needs, and the needs and issues that are unique to small island developing countries are not heard. So we'd like to promote that. And secondly, I would like to just remind you that one of the key issues in developing ICTs in our region is transportation. For example, Kilabat {sp?} is just above Samoa, but if I want to got to Kilabat I have to go to Fiji, Australia, (inaudible) and then Kilabat, and that is one of the key issues regarding participation. So I welcome the suggestion by Izumi. Please, Izumi, keep in mind that we have a big issue in terms of transportation. For example, in this forum, there are only two countries being represented here, and that is Samoa and Fiji. Thank you very much. >>ABDOLMAJID RIAZI: I want to say thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and congratulate you for managing the decision, if there is such a thing. We also commend the government of Greece for hosting the IGF, and appreciate the IGF Secretariat for the preparation. I had some comments in previous sessions, and you suggest I emphasize it in this session also. The IGF to catch up with the key elements of its mandate should opt for a balanced approach toward addressing all issues of concern during its first five years life span. IGF should strike that balance. IGF should avoid pushing back exchanges on particularly issues of priority to its last moments. To meet and to help stakeholders to get prepared in advance for reflecting on substantive items on the IGF agenda, we propose that the first IGF to devise a pre-established multiyear's program of work. (Inaudible) need such a program of work, that we suppose it is already an effort to answer the question of what should be the substantive priorities of the IGF for the next meeting, considered for their decision on the conclusions and the way forward. We therefore, and recalling the WSIS privileges on the Internet governance as well as developments, orientation of the whole process, propose the Rio de Janeiro meeting to take up other things the IGF mandate on issues relating to critical Internet resources as well as to strengthen and enhance the management of stakeholders in existing or future Internet Governance mechanisms. Particularly those from developing countries. We would meanwhile welcome discussions on how to promote and access to an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance process, which is part of the IGF mandate. We are particularly interested in the assessment part of the exercise. We remember well that according to the paragraph 75 and 76 of the Tunis plan of action, the UNSG would report to you and member states, particularly on the operation of the forum, as well as to examine the desirability of the continuation of the forum in the formal (inaudible) which forms participations within five years of its creation. And to make recommendations to the U.N. membership in this regard. The entire membership of the IGF to our view would prefer a situation where the U.N. member state concludes that the report does in a comprehensive way cover accurately, adequately all items on the IGF mandate. Thus, a truly will balance substantive agenda for the forum would meet that end. Moreover, we have taken note with great interest of the recommended outcome for the IGF on duration dynamic coalition emerging from Athens. For example, a group of people who agree to pursue and initiative started at the inaugural IGF meeting. In our view, such coalition, if and when informed and advanced on the recommended substantive agendas for the next IGF meeting can better contribute to the discussion. There should be no worry on allowing a well balanced agenda for the IGF which covers key elements or issues of priority to the Internet Governance. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I'm sorry, there are four or five speakers who are still left but I do need to stop. It is my responsibility as the chair to put some sense of closure to the discussions that we have had, and I am afraid I have to try and rush it through in about five minutes, which is what I have. Let me say that this session was, as many people have said, an experiment. I will not try and summarize what -- say much on what it did on substantive grounds. We will see what Markus's report has said. I can give you my broad sense of what I -- the signals that I got and where I felt that added value. You could say in many ways this forum that we had could essentially to have been largely about issues of equity and freedom. In fact, it remarkable. In most international meetings I have been to you can almost group the discussion around the classic French revolution heads of liberty, equality and fraternity. On this one, the focus was very much on equity. And many other things we talked of, Internet users in developing countries, the questions that were raised about users in remote areas, the questions that have been raised about gender, about indigenous people or people with disability, I will say even the discussions that we have had on local content and IDN so it is more accessible to people whose natural language is not English, natural script is not Latin, the question of access cost which came up very sharply. And the frequent references to the 5 billion who are not yet on the Internet. All of these are essentially discussions about equity. And the broad message I get is this is a wonderful thing that has happened, but essentially we do have certain issues of the equity of access to this fantastic tool of communication that has developed, which we need to address. And in many cases, there were, of course, suggestions on how they could be addressed. The second broad theme under which one could put much of what came out of our discussions is essentially under the freedom head. The questions about the -- what some would consider to be wrong suppression of expression in certain cases. But also issues about how do you reconcile these questions with the issues about digital identity and so on that are a emerging from the security nexus. These are some of the broad sense of things that we did discuss with a strong focus on the issues of equity and freedom in the Internet. In terms of modalities, a great deal of the discussion centered around this tension between the market -- relying on the market and focusing on the public good nature of the Internet. I'm not sure that we have resolved this tension. There was a sense where you could argue that because this is a medium unlike so many others where the innovation takes place at the edges, you have to keep a structure and modality of management which allows this innovation at the edges and does not have an excessive amount of central control. Otherwise, the media will stop developing. There was also a sense where people would have argued that this is a low-cost (inaudible) business, anybody can get in, but because of the nature of the business it's also a winner-takes-all business. It's something where a particular application which is just, say, 20% better than every other, because it can reach out to every corner of the Internet at no cost, can swamp the others. There is this winner takes all issue. And so there are issues of competition policy which will arise if you were to depend on the market. And where will that be handled? Where would issues of competition at the global level be handled? So there are questions which arise from the way people approach the modalities of management of the net which I think we still need to look at. There are many other things one could talk about, but let me focus a little on process. Many of you have focused, spoken about this today. Very much of the discussion has been on this issue. This particular session was an experiment. It was an experiment in a multistakeholder environment. It was an open-door experiment. There is no membership in this forum as such. And I will say that the broad assessment is that it has -- in a broad sense it has worked, but we need to do many things to improve it. Amongst the area of improvement which I think people have been focusing attention on, I would -- certainly there are the technicalities, online participation, more time for discussion, et cetera, one could take care of this. But beyond that, we also may have to look at format and structure, the balance on the panels as to whether they are really representing all points. But I would say the most important thing is how do we prepare for this. We have an advisory group, and one interesting idea which has emerged is the notion of a network very much like the Internet engineering task force where you put out a request for comments, people comment on it, there is a procedure for aggregating these comments, taking them into account and a rough consensus becomes the basis and basically that's how it proceeds. And I know several people are thinking in terms of working on this concept and sort of knowing of a network which prepares for these types of things. And of course as in the case of IETF, the success of such a network would depend on the extent that the product gets use. That's really where the success of the network would come. The real issue here is the policy discussions are more complex than engineering discussions, and there has to be a certain protocol which has to be observed. And the protocol that you have to observe is you cannot argue against a proposition on ad hominem grounds. You cannot say that, "Oh, I reject that proposition because XX said it" or that particular sector said it. No engineer dismisses an engineer proposition because the engineer is tall, short, dark, fair or whatever. It looks at the substance and the content. That basic protocol of discussion has to be maintained. And I think it's very essential that you maintain in any such exercise, and most important of all in this forum itself. Looking at the forum, I would say that it's worked but there have been issues, if you like, of the three cultures coming together and all three have to make an adjustment. I speak now as a person who has sympathies with all three, and I would urge all three to reexamine. We have the world of the U.N. with its diplomatic culture here, which has certain secretary statements, a certain protocol about how you talk about other countries and which often is reactive rather than proactive. You have an NGO culture which at least in the U.N. context has been an advocacy culture, has been a culture which likes to state its views strongly, vigorously, because that's the only way they can get that view heard. And you have a culture of business, which is very uncomfortable with generalities which still defers to focus on immediate practical partnership type exercises and applications. I think in all three cultures we need a little adjustment. I think governments will have to accept that in a multistakeholder forum will be a little more frank than a normal democratic conference would be and that they have to participate in it in that spirit. Equally, I believe civil society has to accept that if the purpose of this exercise is ultimately to lead to joint action, then a certain degree of restraint -- they have to approach this in a different way. If you want to work with somebody, you are not going to be able to work with somebody if you start calling that somebody names straight away. So you have to also re-think how you approach an exercise like this whose purpose is at least partly to get people working together. And equally, industry has to accept that in a new area like Internet there will be a certain amount -- I apologize to the interpreters. I will just take a minute more. You have to accept a certain degree of discussion of principles and so on. These cultural changes are required. Let me just conclude by saying that this is a very first exercise. In my country, when people get married, we have arranged marriages, and usually the first meeting between the boy and the girl, they are scoping each other out, so they tend to -- the conversation tends to cover everything, you see. And at the second and the third meeting they start talking about more specific things, what are your tastes in this area or that area. And it is some time before they actually start holding hands. So let's just treat this as a first meeting where people have just gotten to know one another and maybe it will lead to marriage. Thank you very much, and thank you to the interpreters. [ Applause ]
Related Sessions

Main Session in Rio de Janeiro on Other

12 November 2007 | 1127 views

Main Session in Rio de Janeiro on Other

12 November 2007 | 1233 views

Best Practice Forum in Rio de Janeiro on Other

12 November 2007 | 852 views