Internet Governance Setting the Scene

15 November 2009 - A Main Session on Internet Governance Principles in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript
	Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during
	Fourth Meeting of the IGF, in Sharm El sheikh. 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.
	 Sunday, 15 November 2009  
	 Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
	 Good morning.
	 We managed to turn off the music so we can start the session.  This is an
	orientation session.  It is not the starting of the meeting proper.  It is an
	informal session that should help newcomers to find their way around the IGF, to
	understand what the IGF is, and also look a little bit at the program.
	 May I ask you to be seated so that we can start properly.
	 Please take your seats, ladies and gentlemen.
	 My name is Markus Kummer.  I am the Executive Coordinator of the IGF
	Secretariat, and I have the pleasure to co-moderate this session with my
	Egyptian counterpart, with Ms. Nermine El Saadany, who is the Director of
	International Relations in the Ministry for Communication and Information
	 Before --
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Before we start it's my sad duty to remember that a very
	active member of the IGF community passed away on the 4th of October.  And I
	would like to invite one of his many friends, Mrs. Divina Frau-Meigs to say a
	few words in his memory.
	 Please, Divina.
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS:  Dear colleagues, dear members of civil society, of the
	public services, and of the private enterprise, thank you for giving me the
	opportunity to say a few words in tribute to Francis Muguet, our comrade who
	died suddenly on the 4th of October.
	 Francis Muguet did not like farewells, so I will not speak with sadness about
	him.  I believe that we all think of him with sorrow.  Civil society will miss
	him.  The committee of engineers laments his loss.  The community of open source
	is also sad today.
	 The community of global licensing and the global listener recognizes his loss
	and that there will be a significant loss in terms of the approaches that might
	be found for Internet governance.
	 All of the facets of Francis Muguet are facets of civil society.  Many of us
	are like him.  We are seeking different approaches through our cultural
	diversity for freedom, for alternatives, for trade, that are nonproprietorial. 
	What is left from his legacy?  Something very important, and which all of you
	who have known him will keep in your memory.
	 He was an irritant.  He was a thorn in one's side.
	 He was someone who you recalled always to us within civils that we were
	supposed to be that thorn in the side, that within this tripartite approach of
	Internet governance, the private sector, the international sector and the civil
	society, we were -- it was our job to be this perpetual itch, this thorn in the
	 And he was this small flame of disobedience, this rebel.
	 So as you observe this minute of silence, Francis Muguet gives this to you,
	each of you, so that you can find one second that small flame of resistance. 
	And I thank you on his behalf.
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you, Divina for these thoughtful words.
	 May I invite all participants to stand up and to honor Francis Muguet's memory
	with a minute of silence.
	 [ Minute of silence ]
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you.
	 Let's now turn to this session.  I will begin with saying a few words on the
	IGF, what it is and what it is not.
	 The give, as most of you know, is a child of the World Summit on the
	Information Society.  It was decided in Tunis back in 2005 to give a mandate to
	the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convene a multistakeholder
	platform for dialogue on the issues related to Internet governance.
	 And the important word in this context is multistakeholder.  It is unlike a
	traditional U.N. meeting, which is essentially intergovernmental.  Here it is a
	meeting where all stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil society,
	technical community, international organizations, intergovernmental
	organizations, all sit down as equals in the room to discuss matters related to
	Internet governance.
	 And Internet governance is also based on the definition agreed on in Tunis that
	relates to policy issues with regard to the development and deployment of the
	 This year in Sharm El Sheikh, it is the fourth meeting of the Internet
	Governance Forum after Athens in 2006, Rio in 2007, and Hyderabad, India in
	 We have found our axis of discussion with five main themes:  access, diversity,
	openness, security and diversity, and also critical Internet resources.
	 In Hyderabad, we have begun to look at the interrelationship between these
	 The program is developed very much in a distributed bottom-up way.  The main
	group in this regard is the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.  They advise the
	Secretary-General in convening the meeting.
	 And we have, throughout the years, open calls for contributions.  We have
	planning meetings, open meetings, open to all stakeholders, and we have rolling
	documents that push the agenda forward.
	 The nature of the IGF is -- it's not a decision-making body.  It's not here to
	replace any existing organization, it's not here to take decisions.  But the IGF
	can shape decisions that are taken in other organizations.
	 It has not the power of redistribution, but it may have the power of
	recognition.  It can recognize issues.  It can put them on the agenda of
	international cooperation.
	 And the new phenomenon in this regard, and we look at it in the latter part of
	the session, is the spread of national and regional IGF-type processes.
	 One important part of this year's meeting will be the review session.  The IGF
	was originally given a mandate of five years with a clause to review it and to
	take stock.  And based on this report, the Secretary-General will then make
	recommendations to the U.N. membership whether or not to continue the mandate.
	 I will ask now my co-moderator to introduce the moderators, and they will then
	tell us what they got out of the IGF so far.
	 Please, Nermine.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:   Thank you, Markus, and good morning, everyone.
	 Let me first, on behalf of the Egyptian government, welcome you all in Sharm El
	Sheikh, the City of Peace.
	 This session today, as Markus has clearly mentioned, will help explaining what
	is the Internet Governance Forum, the process, the agenda, and highlight some of
	the key aspects that we're going to live together the following four days.
	 Today, I'm honored to co-moderate this session with Mr. Markus Kummer, the
	Executive Coordinator of the IGF.  And I am honored to have with me some friends
	and colleagues that have been very active in the field of the Internet
	governance for the previous four years, and maybe before, since the WSIS in its
	two phases.
	 I will go around the table quickly with introducing the names of the panelists
	together with us today, and then allow me to switch the hats between the host
	country perspective, the Egyptian host country perspective, and then the
	perspective of the panelists together with me that shares how they see the
	Internet Governance Forum, and we will continue the discussion afterwards.
	 We have with us today, Mr. Rafik Dammak from the University of Tokyo.  He will
	give us the perspective maybe from youth point of view of view.
	 Then we have Ms. Marilyn Cade, who has been very active and of course most of
	you will know Marilyn and know how she has been very active since the WSIS, and
	very enthusiastic about everything that happens here in this forum.
	 We have as well with us our Indian host who has been very generous in the
	previous year in Hyderabad hosting the Internet Governance Forum, and I'm
	delighted to hear his experience and look forward now that I am the host here
	and share his views.
	 As well, we are having with us Mr. Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.  Mr.
	Hibbard has been very active and we have been working together the previous year
	in mobilizing some of the activities that the Egyptian government has taken.  Of
	course, we have as well Mr. Jovan from the DiploFoundation.  The DiploFoundation
	is one of the key players in the capacity building as we are going to see
	together.  And I think their contribution to the process has been very well
	 We have as well Mr. Alex Ntoko, from the ITU, the International
	Telecommunication Union.  Of course, the International Telecommunication Union,
	as we all know, has been behind the WSIS and has always been a very reliable
	counterpart that we all rely upon and has very wide experience in different
	fields and areas.
	 Last but not least, Dr. Nii Quaynor, representing the African perspective, and
	definitely Dr. Nii has been very, very active since very early ages of the
	Internet.  And I'm sure that his contribution to this panel will be of great
	 So please allow to welcome with me all our panelists so that we can start our
	 Thank you.
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:   I will now take advantage of being the moderator and
	being here as well as being the host country representative and I would like to
	start with sharing our views, and then I will move the floor to our Indian host
	to share his views as well.
	 Today, we are hosting the fourth meeting of the Internet Governance Forum.  And
	as all know, that we will try to address some questions that will help you
	understand more about this forum this year, including its agenda, the various
	workshops, the differences in the sessions and the main panels and so on.
	 Further, I will be highlighting the honorary session on the 18th of November,
	on Wednesday, of the First Lady of Egypt, Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak.
	 I would love, actually, to encourage you all when we open the discussions for
	the Q&A to have more interactive discussions so that we can see how your views
	are and how we can move forward afterwards.
	 As you may remember, the IGF has evolved through the discussion of the WSIS to
	tackle the needs of the Internet policy issues and to help the developing
	countries in understanding more about these issues and aspects of the Internet
	governance, allowing them to engage in the discussion as well.
	 By hosting the IGF this year, Egypt wants to emphasize the responsibilities
	that both developing and developed countries are equally sharing.  Bringing the
	forum to the African and Arab region for the first time in this particular year,
	signals a message that this forum and the question of its continuation could not
	be completed without adding the opinion of the developing countries and tackle
	their needs.
	 We believe that the IGF is the only place that paved the way for the
	involvement for all stakeholders in the process and establish a healthy and
	productive dialogue between all parties involved.
	 This dialogue surely helps in creating a common background with regard to the
	different themes and issues.  You may join me in feeling the impact of this
	process on the different layers of our community on both national and regional
	 In this context, hosting the IGF enabled the Egyptian community to get more
	engaged in the discussions related to the forum and stimulated the national and
	regional awareness in regards to the Internet governance issues.
	 The Egyptian government has been investing a lot in mobilizing the community
	and coordinating different stances to ensure a successful event.
	 I would love to hear from our colleague from India, Mr. Ravi, to share with us
	his views in this part as the previous host of the IGF in Hyderabad.
	 Mr. Ravi, you have the floor.
	 >>N. RAVI SHANKER:   Thank you, Madam.  
	 At the outset, on behalf of the government of India and the people of the
	India, I would like to felicitate the government of Egypt for undertaking the
	onerous task of hosting the fourth IGF.  All good luck to you, ma'am.
	 We in India had the privilege of hosting the third IGF, and though it is very
	clear that the IGF is a non-outcome oriented event, taking a lot of learnings
	and lessons from the IGF, we have been able to stimulate a lot of activity in
	the I.T. sector and the Internet (inaudible) in the country.
	 The theme of the current IGF is very well articulated:  Internet opportunities
	for all.  And the development agenda is certainly getting into a lot of focus,
	and this is a laudable move, I would say.
	 Within the country of hosting the IGF, we have felt that the development agenda
	needs to be given a lot of trust, and moving apart from the fourfold ideas that
	emerged at Athens -- access, diversity, openness and security -- and dwelling
	onto the theme that evolved in Rio, management of critical Internet resources,
	the "Internet for all" tried to place a focus on a development agenda.
	 The theme today at this fourth IGF, which is the opportunities for all, really
	puts it at the center of it all, and I am sure that in this IGF, we would be
	moving towards the age of development where IGF would open opportunities for
	 I would like to say that outside of the IGF, a lot of things have happened in
	India, and I would like to just dwell on it for the benefit of our audience
	present here.
	 We, in our country, have launched what is known as the national knowledge
	network, which is basically democratizing education or trying to bring about the
	genesis of countrywide class (inaudible).
	 The initial phase has been launched, and the final phase is likely to be
	launched in about three months' time from now, and the project will take about
	two to three years to actually be put in place.  But that, I think, bridges a
	huge digital divide gap in the educational arena.
	 We also felt that as a nation the development agenda needs to be put into
	focus, and the common service center or the info kiosk, which we call it, this
	we have tried to take it to all the rural areas, and we have tried to broad-base
	activities.  Telemedicine and e-learning will be the important points that will
	be the focal areas of development.  
	 The agenda of the IGF, Internet opportunities for all, augers very well, and we
	wish you all the very best.
	 Thank you.
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>MR. NITIN DESAI:   Thank you, Mr. Ravi.
	 Part of the process of the IGF has been evolving, and one of the very
	important, actually, aspects that has been -- or considered to be the impact of
	the Internet governance is the capacity building.
	 In Egypt, in our endeavor to prepare for this Internet Governance Forum this
	year, we have been building the capacities of a group of experts to enrich the
	awareness about the Internet governance issues and themes.
	 In collaboration with DiploFoundation, the Egyptian task force of IGF organized
	a series of awareness workshops for the Egyptian community to introduce them to
	the themes of the Internet Governance Forum so that we can come here well
	prepared and can actually integrate in the discussions.
	 Therefore, the capacity building is one of the aspects that I think is very
	important and I would like, therefore, to turn to our colleague and friend,
	Jovan, from DiploFoundation, to share his views about this specific area.
	 >>JOVAN KURBALIJA:  (No audio.)
	 Can you hear me?  Good.
	 Well, when I was asked by Nermine to reflect on capacity building during the
	orientation session, I thought of using the visual association on the metaphor
	of a compass, because we usually need a compass to see where we are.  And I will
	use today two type of compasses.  One is to navigate evolution of capacity
	building in the IGF context, and the other one is to navigate our next four days
	at the IGF in Sharm.
	 One of the conceptual fathers of the Internet said that we often underestimate
	what can be done in one year and underestimate what can be achieved in four
	years.  And the IGF capacity building is a good example what can be achieved if
	you work in a bit longer time span.
	 In four years, the IGF achieved a lot in capacity building, mainly for
	inclusive participation.  It was one of the highlights of the last IGF in India,
	and I think Egyptian hosts made additional step forward in this direction.
	 Now, let me illustrate this revolution of capacity building with a story based
	on my personal experience.
	 Prior to the start of the IGF, back in 2005, I was one of the members of the
	Working Group on Internet Governance.
	 At one point during the meeting, I asked the other members of the working
	group, 40 of us, if they could explain to their friends and relatives what they
	were doing.  Very few could do it.  I wasn't among them.
	 The IGF was a new topic.  There were many acronyms.  Many friends of mine, they
	are telling me, "Jovan, well, you are dealing with computers.  Could you come to
	my home to fix my printer?"
	 And I said, "Well, I can try, but it's not exactly what the Internet governance
	 It was in 2005.
	 Today, my friends are approaching me and asking, Mr. Jovan, that what you were
	spending your time on, Internet governance, could it help me to control what my
	children are accessing on the Web?  Or could it help me to control my Facebook
	account and privacy status of the Facebook account?
	 In four years' time, there has been enormous evolution in general understanding
	about Internet governance and need for Internet governance.
	 If I can use climate change metaphor, the foot fingerprint of the Internet
	governance has increased enormously.
	 With more people being aware of I.G. issues, there are more questions.  They
	need answers to the practical issues:  Facebook, child protection, and other
	topical themes.
	 Many of those answers must be provided on the national level, and on
	international level the place where the answers are discussed, and some of them
	are provided, is the IGF.
	 Another major change over the last four years has been I.G.-related capacity
	building.  International organizations, including ITU, UNESCO, World Bank, have
	trained many people in I.G.-related issues, including infrastructure and
	 International organizations such as ICANN have also trained huge number of
	 Internet society is one of the most prominent players in capacity building,
	especially on national level.
	 In this period, there have been more specific targeted capacity-building
	programs in Internet governance.  Summer schools are organized in various
	regions, even during the winter.
	 My organization, Diplo, runs capacity-building program involving training,
	research, and policy immersion.  An increasing number of universities worldwide
	are introducing I.G. in postgraduate studies and undergraduate curriculum of
	their programs.
	 The IGF has galvanized those developments.  And this has made the IGF as the
	natural host of capacity building in all the field of Internet governance.
	 Let me briefly return to the second compass, and compass that should help us
	navigate the next four days.
	 Today, we are at the very beginning of the fourth IGF.
	 The IGF is a great learning experience, providing context for exchange of
	knowledge and acquiring new skills.
	 I'm sure that each participant in this room, and more than 1,500 people, will
	have their unique stories about experience from Internet Governance Forum.  For
	many, the IGF will be the first exposure to Internet governance.  Some have been
	in this process for a long time, and the IGF will help to fine-tune their I.G.
	knowledge and understandings.
	 Others are involved in specialized area such as privacy or data protection, and
	IGF will help them to make links with other fields, to move beyond their policy
	silos, to see what has been done in other areas.
	 How to navigate this richness of the program over the next four days?
	 Let us use the metaphor of the compass.
	 First, I suggest the compass will direct us to workshops and panels where you
	can listen to the leading experts.
	 Second, it will point to I.G. village, where you will be able to meet people,
	chat and learn by, what you can say, osmosis.  This is capacity building by
	 And I think probably the title I.G. bazaar, intellectual knowledge bazaar, will
	be close to the description of what will be happening in I.G. Village.
	 Third point in which our compass will direct us is, especially if you are
	digital migrants as I am, to visit digital dive booth at the youth corner where
	digital natives, young people will help you to understand their role and new
	challenges of the governance.
	 The fourth and the last direction that at least my IGF compass will point to is
	debating club, where you be sharpen your arguments and listen to young people
	arguing on the key Internet governance issues.  To conclude, take your IGF
	compass, open your radars, and be prepared to enjoy and learn.  Thank you.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thank you, Jovan.  Actually, part of the activities as
	Jovan has mentioned that we will be witnessing this year in IGF in a more mature
	way, if I may say, is the inclusion of young people and some youth activities
	that is very, very impressive, and I think all of us will be engaged somehow,
	because we're having about 60 youth around the corner will be interviewing you
	and asking you questions and printing newsletters on a daily basis and so on and
	so forth.  Young people inclusion are the future users of the Internet and I
	think we cannot deny their rights to listen to their views and know how they are
	thinking and what are their needs and fears and so on and so forth.
	 I would love to hear Rafik and his perspective of the young generation
	inclusion on the civil society basis and so on.  Rafik, can you share with us
	your views, please?
	 >>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Thank you, Nermine.
	 So I want to talk about youth involvement from my own experience, so, in fact,
	my first experience was in IGF Rio de Janeiro as a kind of youth representative
	with some fellows to present what we had done on an online roundtable and to
	participate and to voice our vision for youth on Internet governance, so our
	main participation was during the emerging issues session, it was a main
	session, and I think it was enough energizing for continuing the experience and
	following up to the next IGF edition.
	 So the next step was to organize a first youth workshop focusing only on youth
	issues, with a fair presence of young panelists.
	 That work was done by a formal team of volunteers from the old online
	roundtable and the new people, and all of us were youth representatives.
	 So to have such a specific workshop provided us a rich opportunity to talk
	about youth issues by people who can really be aware about youth problems and
	vision, and more able to understand them.
	 So it was from youth to youth.
	 This year, in IGF Sharm El Sheikh, I am really happy that we will organize
	again a youth workshop with only young panelists.  So we have even a speaker in
	his beginning of his 20s.  And this workshop is organized with partners like
	DiploFoundation and Cyber Peace Initiative and Net-Aman from Egypt.
	 So just for information, this workshop is the Number 230, and will be held
	tomorrow afternoon for more than two hours in Sinai room, and everybody is
	warmly welcome, especially young people, but others too.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thank you, Rafik, for sharing with us the future
	activities of -- in the coming few days, but I would love to listen to your
	impressions of the previous IGFs and what did you get out of it?  If I may.
	 >>RAFIK DAMMAK:  So my experience from previous IGFs is that IGF is really the
	place that people should be present to understand all IG issues and to find the
	opportunity to talk to the other side, because this multistakeholder aspect, so
	it's important to be inside the IGF, rather than outside.  Thank you.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thanks, Rafik.  I will turn now to Alex.  Alex, you are
	representing a key organization in the field of communications and have been
	always there for helping member states in different areas.
	 What do you see and what are your views regarding the IGF and what did you get
	out of it so far?
	 >>ALEXANDER NTOKO:  Am I on?  Is it?  Okay.
	 Good morning, everybody.
	 I will start by asking a question, basically.  Today, the 15th of November,
	2009, why are we here?  Why are we in this room?  Why are we in Sharm El Sheikh?
	 A process was launched in 2003 where world leaders thought that it was
	important for us to see how we could accelerate the achievement of Millennium
	Development Goals using ICTs.  And it was also for the first time that we had
	all four stakeholder groups -- governments, civil society, international
	organizations, business -- all functioning on an equal footing.
	 In fact, we like to say in the ITU that it was -- WSIS was one of the --
	probably the first forum where civil society was not demonstrating outside,
	because they were inside, on the same footing as everybody else.
	 And we think that this is a unique opportunity because it brings -- it creates
	this environment where people can discuss, on an equal level, share ideas, and
	these ideas are now in line with the spirit of WSIS and could be fed into more
	formal processes.
	 WSIS and governments, the role of governments, intergovernmental organizations,
	what have been our experiences?
	 You see WSIS is a forum -- sorry, IGF is a forum, and a forum is where people
	discuss, but the people discuss because there are problems behind, because there
	are problems that they need to address.  They are trying to arrive at some
	common understanding or a shared vision on how to look at some of the solutions
	to these problems.
	 But these ideas which have matured to a certain extent need to be followed up,
	they need to be followed up through the current arrangements and mechanisms a
	little bit more formal.
	 I am with the ITU.  I am working for the ITU, and we are an intergovernmental
	and a treaty organization with 191 member states.  For us, the IGF gives an
	opportunity where we can get some of the ideas and see how they can mature and
	be fed into some of the processes which are formal in ITU.  And I will mention
	some of the key roles of ITU.  We have development, and I see the director of
	the BTD sitting in front there, Sami Al-Basheer.  We also need to develop
	standards, global standards, to be able to make sure that, you know, this
	Information Society which is all what this IGF is all about, is built on global
	and interoperable standards, and I also have my colleague, Malcolm Johnson from
	the director of the standardization bureau, so IGF has been something which is
	unique.  It has been something where we would be able to, you know, see -- we
	meet people that in most cases we normally would not meet in our own normal
	organizations where we function, so we believe that IGF is an experience which
	is unique.  It is unique because you have all four stakeholder groups working on
	an equal footing.  It is also unique because it doesn't arrive at decisions.  So
	we see IGF, and, again, in line with the spirit of WSIS, as an interface to
	existing mechanisms so that some of the discussions that have matured enough can
	be fed into formal processes, so we should never forget that the reason we are
	here and the reason we met at Tunis and in Geneva and then in Tunis was because
	there was a need for ICTs to try to contribute towards meeting the development
	 So for me and from ITU, IGF is something that needs to be seen within the
	broader picture of WSIS and the agreements that were undertaken -- that were
	arrived at by world leaders both in Geneva and in Tunis.
	 So I think I'll end my remarks at this point.  Thank you.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thanks, Alex.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Ladies and gentlemen, I think you will all share with me
	that the IGF is a multistakeholder process, and I come from the government and I
	know that all of the government and what should be done on a governmental level
	but I would love to hear from Marilyn the perspective from the private sector. 
	What do you think, Marilyn, about the multistakeholderism of the IGF?
	 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Nermine.  It is indeed my pleasure to be with so
	many new attendees at the IGF, but also so many parties who I have met in the
	number of years and experiences that I've had in paying attention to this
	concept of Internet governance.
	 I'm going to talk about what multistakeholder means within the IGF, but also
	perhaps put it into context in thinking about the role that all of us play in
	using and influencing and building and enhancing the role of the Internet.
	 So there are three words, really, that make up the title of Internet governance
	forum and all of us understand the value and importance of the Internet and
	enhancing how it reaches people and brings access to information, knowledge,
	resources, and to other people.
	 And we all want to enhance the role of the Internet.
	 Governance does not mean government.  It means governance.  And without going
	into great detail, there was an extensive discussion over a six-month period in
	a multistakeholder environment that defined "governance" very broadly, to
	include the acts and responsibility of each individual person and each
	individual sector.
	 In thinking about "multistakeholder," I see "multistakeholder" within the IGF
	as something that we have built so far, but must continue be to build.  So I'll
	make a concept here, if I can, about how "multistakeholder" in the IGF means
	that each of you are an expert, but in a different way than you are an expert in
	another intergovernmental organization or in a national organization.
	 "Multistakeholder" here comes with the modifying phrase "interacting on an
	equal footing," so here each of us individually is entrusted with respecting the
	perspectives and the role of each other person and each other sector.
	 Civil society and NGOs, the business community, the technical community, the
	governments with more than one ministry involved -- and I think that's an
	important message as well -- and the intergovernmental organizations are all
	contributing to this unique multistakeholder environment where we're all
	interacting on an equal footing.
	 When I interact in other intergovernmental organizations and in national
	organizations, I also find other varieties of multistakeholder behavior or
	 But "multistakeholderism" within the IGF is different and very reliant upon the
	participation, active participation.
	 So one of the things that you have to do within this environment is not just
	listen, but actively participate and raise questions and get to know the
	different stakeholders that are from the other settings, and their perspectives.
	 That means when you come to the IGF, it's a lot more work.  You don't just come
	to attend a workshop session; you actually have the opportunity to build a
	workshop.  And one of the real contributions that I've seen throughout the very
	-- the four years of the IGF is that the planning and organizing of each of the
	sessions, in and of itself, is also multistakeholder.
	 Active participation within this environment, I think, is something that we
	have really benefited from, and the opportunity we have in multistakeholderism
	here, Nermine, I would say, is to keep reaching out and defining
	"multistakeholderism" within the IGF, and calling it that, and making sure that
	participants understand the uniqueness of how we treat multistakeholderism here.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thanks, Marilyn.  Actually, I agree with you that the
	multistakeholder approach has been very well recognized in this process, and we
	were supposed to have Ginger Paque from Venezuela actually on behalf of the
	civil society, but unfortunately she's not here physically, but thanks for the
	technology, she will be participating remotely, so I will ask the technicians,
	our colleagues there, to start the intervention from Ginger, please.  Is she
	there already?
	 So I will move on to the next speaker until maybe you can find Ginger online,
	 So Dr. Nii, the next billion users will be coming from our beloved continent,
	Africa.  Could you share with us your views of the IGF?
	 >>NII QUAYNOR:  Thank you very much, Nermine.
	 I think IGF deserves some appreciation for getting African issues close to the
	global community, so that we can at least address those as well.  And I think
	that has been very helpful for us.
	 As you may know, the technical community started a journey about ten years ago
	from Cape Town, and we ended up finally going through different countries, ten
	different countries, and arrived in Egypt just this past May, and once again,
	our appreciation to the government of Egypt for that level of support and
	commitment throughout our entire journey, which is over a decade.
	 Now, I'd like to start by commenting that discussion is good.  Whether you have
	a problem or not.
	 And so to associate the need for discussion when we have issues to solve may
	not be the right perspective for an African who is trying to join the rest of
	the world, given that there is a digital divide.
	 Now, I believe that the cross-cutting themes of multistakeholder and
	capacity-building did create a very great learning environment for Africans --
	myself in particular -- and if you add the portion about "nonbinding," it really
	creates a very good environment where, you know, sort of the sensitivities are a
	little lower, and that really helped us.
	 Given that, I'd like to make a quote of the chairman of the advisory group,
	Nitin Desai, who often said that IGF brings people who would ordinarily not
	meet.  And I think it is still true, and that has been of benefit for some of us
	in terms of our access to people who will normally not be working with, who we
	need to at least learn from and interact with.
	 Now, the power of the multistakeholder process, you know, need not be
	underwritten.  In fact, it's something that we should all try to take back home,
	in the sense that every organization we are in, we should make an effort to
	leverage the other parts of the community who will certainly have input, and you
	can still decide what you want but it's extremely important you hear what the
	other sides are concerned about, what they are thinking about.  And that open
	process, you know, brought more Africans in to the IGF, and I think that is very
	 It's, however, very important that when you are creating these
	multistakeholder, you know, communities, pay attention to things being locked in
	reality, in the sense that we need to be practical as to the thoughts that we
	 So if one is working on issues relating to, let's say, child protection, then
	you must make sure that the relevant groups that deal with that issue are within
	the community.
	 Likewise, if you are discussing infrastructure-related issues, you better make
	sure that the technical community is well represented, so that the discussion
	can be rooted in some reality.
	 Now, the best thing to -- for a participant to get the most out of it is a bit
	of immersion.  There is so much going on, and in fact, you might say that the
	workshops somewhere become even more important than the -- you know, the main
	sessions.  And that means that you have to immerse yourself in the community and
	really chase all the issues that seem exciting and interesting for you, and
	you'll be able to get more out of it.
	 Of course the issues of access still remain an issue, a major concern for, you
	know, Africa and the developing world.  We'd like things to be much more, you
	know, let's say affordable, and also more readily available, and we'd like to
	encourage the necessary investments and the promotions of the investment to make
	that realistic.
	 Now, regarding special issues facing the African community, one can put it
	really in the three ways that were mentioned from the Hyderabad environment. 
	Meaning the access, the diversity, and the security.
	 Of course we face a major challenge of capacity-building, and the
	capacity-building challenge is significant and, therefore, leveraging on the
	skill set within the community becomes important.  I mean, it's more difficult
	building of capacity in one organization, but if you can have a matter of
	leveraging it across organizations, which the multistakeholder process brings,
	that makes it possible for us to make some progress.  Overall it's been very
	beneficial for me as an African, and I believe the same is true for my
	 Thank you very much.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thank you, Nii.  I'm referring now to the Council of
	Europe to present, our friendly, and he's coming from a very diversified council
	with many issues.  How do you think about the IGF and how do you see it, Lee, so
	 >>LEE HIBBARD:  Thank you, Nermine, and hello, everybody.  I'd like to start
	with a personal remark about the IGF and my passage through the IGF over the
	last years.
	 I come from an intergovernmental setting, a governmental setting, governments
	talking to other governments, in a pan-European space with 47 members talking
	about human rights, role of law, and democracy.  
	 And then I arrived in Athens for the first IGF, and things started to change. 
	In my own perspective.
	 Of course the word "multistakeholder" came to mind, and I think myself and my
	colleagues in the Council of Europe quickly realized the importance of
	multistakeholder dialogue, and that talking between only one stakeholder group
	isn't enough, particularly when you're dealing with things like the Internet
	rights and freedoms, which are without borders, often.  And it became very clear
	for many of us, and also I think with the member states in a governmental
	setting, how important it was to talk to other stakeholder groups, talk to
	businesses, talk to civil society.
	 And if you like, the analogy I'd like to make is with what happened, we were
	celebrating in Europe the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 20th anniversary of the
	fall of the Berlin Wall, and it reminds me of an event we took part in last week
	in Berlin with Google.  Which was an event called "breaking borders," and in
	many respects the IGF is about breaking borders, another type of border.
	 But simply bringing people together to talk.
	 I think decisions are one thing, intergovernmental settings decision-making is
	one thing, but the value of face-to-face discussion with youth, with persons
	with disabilities, with many stakeholder groups, you know, is invaluable.
	 We have to -- you know, we have to use that dialogue to make better Internet
	governance policies, whether that be a standard, whether that be a tool, a
	guideline, whatever.  I think it's very clear in the council that's very
	 And I think on a personal note, without the Internet Governance Forum over the
	last years, I don't think that the Council of Europe would have been able to be
	as reactive in developing many tools and guidelines in the field of human
	rights, for example, as it has been.  And I think if the Internet Governance
	Forum wasn't there, we may have not produced certain texts at all, and I'm
	thinking of one in particular which is a standard on Internet -- on the public
	value of the Internet, the public service value of the Internet, where 47
	governments agreed on the importance of the public value, that the Internet has
	a public value, has a public interest.
	 And this is something which is still being discussed now in many different
	 So that means where are we today?  Well, today, the Council of Europe is
	working with not just Europeans now, but we're working with many non-European
	actors here in the Internet Governance Forum and outside, which is wonderful. 
	And it means that today we have 21 people from the Council of Europe, we're
	organizing seven different events and co-organized with other actors in and
	outside of Europe, and we are involved in at least 13 other roles in panelist
	roles in other events organized by other stakeholders.
	 So it feels very much like I came from a European space and I ended up being in
	a global space, sharing many different things, and in terms of what has really
	happened in the Council of Europe, I think the Internet Governance Forum has
	allowed us to encourage signatures and ratifications of certain international
	treaties, it's helped us to cooperate outside of Europe.  It's helped to put
	human rights on the map with regard to Internet governance.  That's very
	 We've developed many policy documents, as I've mentioned.  We're working more
	with the private sector than ever before, thanks to -- partly to the Internet
	Governance Forum and back home, even in the very formal settings where there's
	lots of protocol, ministerial conference settings, for example, we're applying
	the multistakeholder principle.
	 So for the first time back at the end of May in Reykjavik, we had ministers
	sitting around tables, as they do normally, but they associate -- many had
	associated youth delegations to their delegations, so we had youth sitting next
	to ministers, and we had -- we had a civil society and we had private sector
	actors talking together with ministers.
	 That was quite an achievement.
	 And in addition, the Internet Governance Forum allows the Council of Europe to
	test work in progress, so we're developing different things, different fields of
	work, whether it's to do with new media, for example, or cross-border Internet
	traffic and what that means there a human rights perspective.
	 So it allows us to test ideas and a work in progress before they're realized,
	before they're completed.
	 And of course when things are completed, it helps us to share with all of you.
	 And as Nii said, I think, it's also a great place for capacity-building and we
	have a workshop, for example, on this -- over the next days on cybercrime
	training for judiciary and law enforcement officials.
	 So overall just to finish, I would say that there's lots of value for us there.
	 I feel very much like a child growing up with the Internet Governance Forum,
	and I see things much more clearly with the word "multistakeholder" at the
	center of that understanding in an intergovernmental setting.
	 And long may it continue.
	 Thank you.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  Thanks, Lee.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:  I will turn the microphone to my partner, Markus, to
	continue the second question of this panel.  Markus?
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Nermine.  I take it that Ginger is not online. 
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  Not yet.  Well, we thought we might have some hiccups.  It's
	the morning session.  It's always a testing round.  But we do hope this year
	that we make more progress with bringing in remote participants, and Ginger is
	one of our panelists who is back home in Venezuela, and we hope we can establish
	a link and bring her in later.
	 Well, the second part of this panel was supposed to look at the program in a
	more down-to-earth way, but many panelists have already pointed out what their
	highlights are for this week.
	 I just would like to walk you briefly through the program.  I mean, not in
	detail but just in the broad lines.
	 First of all, thank our hosts for producing a printed program.  I think it is
	very helpful.  I see many participants looking at it and finding their way
	 Just a word of caution.  The deadline for the printed program was roughly a
	month ago, and there have been some changes since.  People had to cancel.  Some
	workshops are cancelled.  An open forum has been added.  So please also
	countercheck with our Web site.  The version on our Web site is the one that is
	 So on the whole, the program is solid, but there are changes, so please check
	the Web site.
	 It has been mentioned -- I mean, the main sessions are the backbone of the
	Internet Governance Forum, but I often say the Internet Governance Forum is like
	the Internet itself:  The value added is at the edges, and there's much value
	added in the workshops.
	 We have more than 100 events in parallel outside these main sessions.  They're
	all self-organized under the auspices, under the steering of the
	multistakeholder advisory group.  They're based on the principle of
	multistakeholder cooperation.
	 So in a way, we force workshop organizers to be happy and to endorse the
	multistakeholder principle, and that has been a very useful tool as a benchmark.
	 For a workshop to be accepted, it needs to be based on the multistakeholder
	 And through this cooperation, I think real partnerships have emerged.
	 We have -- You see in the program, we have color-coded the different workshops.
	 Each color corresponds to one of the main themes.  That should allow you to
	pick your interest.  If you are interested in security, you may just wish to
	fill your program with security workshops.
	 If you are interested in diversity, you can pick your workshops on diversity.
	 Looking at the main sessions, we have various formats this year.  We have some
	panels, such as we have this morning.
	 This afternoon, the opening ceremony will be more formal.  There will be a
	sequence of distinguished speakers.
	 Tomorrow morning, we will have a session on critical Internet resources.  That
	will be open debate, a moderated debate, but without any panel.  So we have very
	mixed formats.
	 One session I would like to highlight is the session on diversity.  We have
	there dynamic coalition on accessibility for people with disabilities.  They
	have worked very hard on presenting this particular aspect, which will be on the
	morning of the 17th November.  It will be linked to diversity related to
	multilingualism, and there will also be an access panel.  But here I would
	really like to draw your attention to this diversity session.  This is an
	important issue.  According to U.N. statistics about 10% of the world's
	population are people with disabilities.
	 There are U.N. conventions in place on this issue, on disability, their
	obligations.  And there are also the tools available.  So this is a session
	aimed at raising awareness.  And I understand the people organizing this have
	also prepared a message coming out from Sharm El Sheikh.  And there will be a
	follow-up workshop that will go into more details in presenting the various
	tools that exist.
	 One session I would like also to highlight, that is the session taking stock
	and looking forward, where we talk about the mandate of the IGF.
	 We have opened registration for this session on our Web site, but we have
	realized now that the interest is so great that we already have too many
	speakers.  And we did say on our Web site that we encourage speakers to group
	together from the various stakeholder groups so that one statement is on behalf
	not just of a single individual but of one important group within that group or
	a group of various institutions within that group.  But presumably, we will have
	to limit the statements to about ten from each stakeholder groups.  But we may
	also have to limit the speaking time, which we have now set at three minutes.
	 There is one special event, and for that I would like to ask Nermine to
	introduce the host country honorary session.  Please, Nermine.
	 >>NERMINE EL SAADANY:   Thank you, Markus.  We feel very honored to have for
	the first time in the history of the IGF, a high-level participation from the
	First Lady of Egypt, Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak.  Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak has been very
	active since her early career in many areas, and one of those areas is the
	helping people with disabilities and special needs and making their lives very
	easy and comfortable.
	 And the other issue that is very close to her heart and I think we all share
	the same care and the same importance of this is protecting children in
	 We are going to have on Wednesday the 18th at 10:00 a.m. in the morning her
	excellency the First Lady of Egypt in an honorary session titled "preparing the
	young generation in the digital age, a shared responsibility."
	 The young people, ladies and gentlemen, you will all agree with me, that these
	are the users, the future users of the Internet and we need to teach them to
	make use of the Internet and avoid the harm that they can face.
	 This session will tackle so many issues through distinguished panelists and
	discussion, and Her Excellency will give a keynote speech regarding her
	perspective in that area.
	 Thank you, Markus.
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you, Nermine.
	 We are, of course, indeed, very honored to have your First Lady to be with us. 
	It has necessitated some changes in the program.
	 We will begin all the workshops very early, at 8:00, so we can break in time
	for the session.
	 And then we will resume the normal program at 11:30 and the lunch break will be
	a bit later.  But it's all up on our Web site.
	 And there will also be heightened security.  But I trust you will understand
	that this is necessary and comply with requirements.
	 And I urge you to make sure that you are maybe a little bit earlier than you
	would usually be because the queues may be a little bit longer.
	 But I am given to understand that ginger is ready for her interventions, and
	can I ask the technicians to link to ginger.
	 Ginger, hello.
	 Please, you have the floor.
	 >>VIRGINIA PAQUE:   Good morning.  I am Ginger Paque, co-coordinator of the
	Internet Governance Caucus, speaking for civil society.
	 I am very fortunate to have this opportunity to interact with you in the
	orientation session today, speaking from Maracay, Venezuela.  Global
	participation is truly amazing.  I can perceive many of the benefits and impacts
	of the fourth IGF meeting even though I am unable to travel to Egypt and to be
	with you in person.
	 I join other remote participants, remote hubs, and remote presenters in
	thanking the IGF host, Secretariat, and community for making this possible.
	 Some of us are used to immediate connections and efficient tools, and we forget
	sometimes that remote participation is a complex process, as is the Internet
	itself.  To be here with you today in a session that starts at 3:30 in the
	morning takes a bit of planning.  It takes a lot, too.  I have to have
	electricity because although my laptop battery might last the whole session, my
	Internet connection requires a constant source of electricity, not only to my
	modem and my computer, but at the ISP site and on the path between us as well.
	 We need good weather, too, because if it rains, my Internet goes out even if I
	have electricity.
	 That was just the planning on my end.  The planning here in Sharm El Sheikh was
	much more complicated, as teams worked to set up a system capable of connecting
	11 remote hubs around the world and possibly hundreds of individual remote
	participation if this IGF follows the patterns of last year.
	 It is a well worthwhile as remote participation offers an alternate meets to
	inclusion that overcome financial, temporal and travel constraints, allowing for
	a more global impact, and enhancing the IGF's concrete measurable progress
	towards diminishing the digital divide through improved participation and
	 There are not many discussion forums in the world that can point to such
	 The impact of the IGF is one thing I am very aware of right now, as I have been
	part of the DiploFoundation team that has worked on the IGF identifying the
	impact report, which I hope you have all seen by now.  This is our first review
	of the impact of the IGF which we hope to study more thoroughly during this next
	 Trying to identify the impact of the IGF has turned out to be far more complex
	than I expected.  The IGF is a discussion forum.  It's a conference.  It's a
	meeting of minds and ideas.
	 It is words.  Words are reportedly mightier than the sword.
	 If this is true, we must be careful to word them well, and not to waste their
	 How can I identify or measure the impact of words?  I can see the immediate
	impact of my words in a responding facial expression, a smile, a nod of
	comprehension, or a puzzled face.  This is the instantaneous impact of isolated
	words and phrases.
	 Then I can put those words together and provoke an impact to this presentation
	in this orientation session.  So I must consider what should be the impact of my
	words to you now, during this session.
	 What impact do I want to make right this minute?  Well, I want you to realize
	the importance of planning what you want to take home from this IGF.  I want to
	you decide what impact this IGF, this investment of your time, energy, and
	money, will have on your life, your profession, your community, and your future
	 If we add my words to all the other words to be spoken during these four days,
	will we have an impact that is greater than the sum of all our words?  How will
	we know?
	 What is the impact of the discussion?
	 Even with the wide range of information available on an Internet search, I
	found very little guidance on how to identify or measure the impact of
	 Most impact is measured in terms of cost/benefit or in terms of the impact of
	environmental impact.  And I was hard pressed to find pertinent information to
	answer my query.
	 The most relevant report I found was an article on the acts for journals
	political analysis by Adam Simon and Tracy Sulkin called "Discussions Impact on
	Political Allocations - An Experimental Approach."
	 Their abstract reads in part, "Results indicate that the presence of discussion
	can generate outcomes that are perceived as more equitable and fair in some
	circumstances; namely, when a cleavage is present."  
	 These findings establish the utility of this paradigm as well as an important
	baseline for assessing the probable impacts of proposals to integrate
	deliberation into political decision-making.
	 In Spanish, we have a saying, (in Spanish), or by talking, people come to
	understand each other.  That Venezuelan analysis finds its foundation in common
	sense and agrees with Simon's and Sulkin's application of discussion to
	political decision-making.
	 Both applications, that of common sense and political decision-making, apply to
	the international policy discussions going on in Internet governance and
	indicates that a discussion forum is, indeed, the proper format for significant
	impact in Internet governance.
	 What is the impact of any meeting?  What is a typical conference outcome,
	professional or academic?
	 Publish.  Spread your ideas.  For a business conference?  Sell your
	(inaudible).  Sell your ideas.  For a government conference, enclose your ideas
	or negotiate a better position.
	 The outcome of a professional conference might be new techniques to study, new
	lives saved, extended families and professions affected.  The viral spread will
	be from colleague to colleague, from teacher to student, from professional to
	patient or client.
	 But what is the outcome of an academic conference?  New research, new ideas
	will spread to colleagues and to students.
	 From a government context, which principally tends to be
	government-to-government accords.
	 But I think that in the idea process, we have the combination of all of the
	previously mentioned impact networks, multiplying within and between their
	spheres of influence.  Government to government, government to business, civil
	society to both, and academics sharing with all of us.
	 This generates a spread of discussions and ideas on a global network.  From
	there it moves down and outward to regional and national levels.
	 Very interesting, there is another level of impact.
	 Almost without exception, the interview participants in the impact study seem
	to assume that the IGF should and will continue.
	 They criticize the suggestions from the viewpoint of people committed to
	improving a process that they are invested in.
	 They were concerned enough about spreading the impact of the IGF that a strong
	majority of them were involved in taking home, sharing, and spreading,
	multiplying the impact of the IGF in their local communities.
	 Similar to this area of six degrees of separation, we have a chain of impact
	that we must take advantage of.
	 We must plan all year to prepare for maximizing the impact, to wield our words
	colorfully.  To collect words and ideas, and to take them home and put them to
	 We must plan for that.  We must do it on purpose, not just let it happen.
	 How long did we plan for this meeting?  More than a year.  This is a continuous
	process, not a four-day process.
	 We post mailing list messages.  We discuss.  We go to open consultation IGF
	planning meetings.  We plan workshops, all to create an impact during these four
	 We plan what to wear, how to control the impact of our image.  Serious,
	traditional, unconventional.
	 We plan the composition and content of our workshops, our presentations, and
	our meetings.
	 We must take one more step.  We must plan the spread of the impact.  We must
	plan to maximize this impact by using the required reporting from workshop
	panels to publicize the results of the workshops.  To maximize our connections. 
	To use viral spread and multiply the effects.
	 We must assume the responsibility of multiplying the investment made here and
	taking it from the international bubble we have formed in Egypt back to our
	regional, national, and especially our local levels.
	 This is not the responsibility of the IGF Secretariat.
	 Perhaps the most important thing I, personally, learned from the participants
	in the IGF impact study is that spreading this impact is the responsibility of
	each and every one of us.  And that is my orientation suggestion to all of you.
	 I plan on maximizing my investment, my time, and my energy by maximizing my
	impact in the IGF process from wherever I am, however I can.
	 Do you?
	 Have a great IGF.
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you very much.  What have (no English in Scribes'
	 [ Scribes have no English in headphones ]
	 >> So my question is how much IGF is considering equal opportunities for youth,
	access and youth of ICT and Internet governance?
	 The second question, 2010 has two meanings for us.  First, 
	 [ Scribes have no English in headphones ]
	 >>What is IGF role for gender use and access to ICT, knowing that Beijing plus
	ten is promotion of women's rights and coming from accounting of women's right. 
	And my First Lady Leila Ben Ali is the president of the Arab women organization
	to promote Arab women through ICT and through Internet.
	 So what the IGF is doing for gender and youth.  And let's hope during those
	four days we could come out with a strategy to implement Tunis Agenda in five
	years.  2015 is almost tomorrow.
	 Thank you very much.
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you for this question.
	 As you got from my co-moderator, young people is very much at the center of our
	attention, and we realize we maybe have not done enough.  And this meeting here
	in Sharm El Sheikh will deploy a special effort to bring in young people.  And I
	hope that after these four days here in Sharm El Sheikh, we can say we made a
	step further in that direction.
	 Gender, we also realize we have -- it's an area which is male dominated.  And
	looking at the panel here, we are not doing particularly well.  But
	nevertheless, we have two ladies here on the podium, and we had another woman
	intervening remotely.  And we do make a constant effort.  And there is also a
	dynamic coalition on gender, which has been a little bit dormant, but I hear
	they are revitalizing themselves, and they will be meeting this year in Sharm El
	Sheikh.  And I can only encourage you, madam and others who want to promote the
	role of women within the IGF and within Internet governance, to go to that
	meeting of the dynamic coalition on gender.  And I would very welcome if a
	strong message comes out of that.
	 I think we have reached our limit.
	 I would take this opportunity -- Would you like a last few words?
	 Thank you, Markus.
	 I will not take you long, but I would like to add to my previous intervention
	regarding the inclusion of youth.  And I would like to notify your distinguished
	delegates that there is a youth camp that has started actually two days ago. 
	And tomorrow, there will be a workshop run by the youth themselves starting 11
	years old until 17 years old for the first time in the IGF history that we have
	a panel discussion run by the youth about their own needs and thinking regarding
	the IGF issues.
	 So I think it will be very interesting if we can participate in this and
	encourage them even and listen to their needs and issues.
	 The youth corner as well, I would like you to go and have a look for this youth
	corner.  It's like the living area, and they will be doing some activities.  And
	let's see how the games will start, and how it will end.  And I would love to
	hear your views in the end of this conference or meeting.
	 Thank you.
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   I would also like to have a few practical announcements. 
	Apparently, there have been some questions, or there was some confusion as
	regards the numbers printed on the program and on our Web site related to the
	workshops, because they don't correspond to the numbers posted outside the
	workshop rooms.
	 But our numbers are ordinal numbers, the way we listed the workshops.  And what
	-- the printed schedule goes by name.  So if it says Sinai, go to the room Sinai
	and ignore the numbers.  We don't want to create confusion.
	 I would also like to highlight, we have two papers posted on our Web site as
	input into the discussions.  One of them has been translated in all U.N.
	languages.  That is a paper summarizing all contributions we received on the
	stock-taking process with regard to the IGF mandate.  And the other paper
	relates to the substantive agenda.
	 Unfortunately, the translations, they are being made by the U.N. in Nairobi,
	and we have not received all the languages in time.
	 We hope you receive it in the course of the week, but the English paper is up
	while we are waiting for the translations into the other languages.  And this
	paper provides a useful summary of the discussions so far on the individual
	 With that, I would like to thank all the panelists and invite you to join me in
	giving them a hand in thanking them for their contribution.
	 [ Applause ]
	 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   We will now have a very short break, just to change the
	panel for the next half of this orientation session which will look at the
	regional initiatives.  So I would like to ask you to stay in the room while we
	change the panel, and we will continue in two or three minutes.
	 Thank you very much.