Innovative Internet governance idea and approaches - Open Space for Sharing

16 September 2010 - A Workshop on Internet Governance Principles in Vilnius, Lithuania

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript

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

>> FOUAD BAJWA:  Good morning, everyone.  Welcome to the IGC, the internet governance caucus, innovative internet governance ideas and approaches, an open discussion space.  
Can everybody hear me on that side?  Can everybody hear me on that side?  The idea of this workshop was to test... 
(Looping audio)  
Just a moment while we fix the speakers.  Okay.  The speakers are giving a problem.  Test... test... test....

>> What is happening?

>> Test... test... test... test....

>> This is crazy.

>> Test... test... test... test... hello, testing.  Hello, testing... hello, testing... testing... testing... okay.  We'll have to bear with this while they fix it.  The idea of the workshop was not to have... discussion in an open environment where we can openly discuss our ideas... in the main session in the workshops at the same time.  
People's perceptions about internet governance vary from person to person.  And we might be able to find a commonality much ideas that we have about internet governance and how to have a better approach in the world in both developing and developed countries.  
So I will be, the format we have right now is that we will share comments and all you have to do is raise your hand.  I will give some stimulation questions.  Professor Dr. Wolfgang and most of the people who have been involved in internet governance, he was among the initial people with the working definition and so forth.  
To start, the question I had first from... the objective was, how is IGF going to change, internet governance.  Where does the internet... is it a market space?  Is it a space for socialization?  Is it a means of information and knowledge?  Is it a... 
(Echoing and looping)  
What does the internet mean to people.  So I would like to hear your ideas and what you would have as a suggestion as a better approach towards governing the internet.  Would you like to start on this?

>> Okay.  Good morning.  The promulgation... I can a see a lot of discussions going around in the IGF.  It already presumes we are going in the market structure.  Once you start from that point, down the road, you can't discuss much from a social... point of view because the primary purpose, many in the internet is already set.  
(Echoing and looping)  I think the point of departure is we have to look at what should be done.  
(Looping)  there are very unique circumstances... 
I will clarify the question, do you think the approach of governance today should be something different, what to do about it, how we can do it and whether... 
So as to know the system of internet governance.  So I would request people to share their ideas with us.  Thank you.  

>> FOUAD BAJWA:  Yes.  So any takers?  Anything, anything that you feel, solutions right now.  And as we move on, there will be some talking and focus on more topics.

>>  Audience:  I actually came here with one specific question that I asked myself.  How much we need to... approaches for governance.  Sorry.  That wasn't clear.  The question was... I apologize.  My name is Renna Shah.  So the question I was asking myself is, how much 
(Looping)  of internet governance... an approach to it.  If you want to have some things to attach it to.  The naming system    my people are here creates... specifically a domain is easily understood as a place or a space where those rules apply.  So the current approach that we have is just a few of them relates to the ability of people to organise themselves and have that organisation, have an identity within the organisation for those who participate in its governance... at the national level....

>> Audience:  Each domain has its own rules.  It can happen... (Looping) for industrial purposes.  Specific rules can apply and the governance can be organised... and then people are more interested... participate... more specific, maybe... easier to participate.

>>  This would be a suggestion that the creation of more smaller spaces so they can be governed better... than the internet space.

>>  Yes.  I think that would be an approach, each being a government unit by its own need of governing itself.

>>  VANESSA KRAFT: Hello.  Good morning.  I'm Vanessa Kraft from Brazil.  I am an ambassador.  I'm speaking on my behalf.  I enjoyed your first incentive question.  And I would say that the internet is everything you said and much more.  And that is why it's so important, so essential to our daily lives that you cannot let the business self regulation or we cannot let it address the issues with the internet are only technical community.  That's why we all have to come here and that's why there's a space that is open and frank space is so important that we can get together 
(Looping)  and sit down and we can get something from here.  And I really enjoyed the structure of the organisers workshop because I really think that sometimes the workshops get too formal.  And there's workshops that don't even have space for questions, but what's the point.  If we can't dialogue, there's no point at all.  That's all.  Thank you.

>>  HENRIK HANSEN: My name is Henrik Hansen, doing work on mostly computer law.  To the initially question, I have two parts about the internet.  I think it is (Looping)  to more or less to quote a U.S. supreme court judge when he was having to decide something about the internet said that he could not hear us today, decide what was going to happen tomorrow.  So we really had to be really careful about what they were deciding.  And I think that is the very wise words of how the internet... I still remember being in Silicon valley when the NAFTA case had popped up and nobody had thought about this as something popping up.  And I think 
(Looping)  with all respect of the participants and myself of the age, I think we haven't got imagination enough or what the youngsters, the kids are going to see when they're sitting in schools and colleges and figuring out new systems and new environments, Facebook and whatever.  So I think we should be... anything about what this media can cover.  
The second part is about the IGF.  I think that a way to split up or try to narrow it was maybe to 
(Looping)  make it... with the stakeholders and one that's dealing with the companies, dealing with maybe consumers... I think a lot of discussions are going about what are the state's responsibilities, the businesses, the companies which will do whatever they feel.  But what about the individual, who is going to defend those?  There are consumer groups, but there might be a little different.  When you are a consumer but also the individual person that is sitting at home, a single mom could be using Web sites for searching for business.  So I don't think that person... a businesswoman or a consumer.  So I think it would be... that the consumers are always being cheated by the business people.  I think it's just as well to a single person, a single person consumer that is... trying to... to copyright issues for the individual consumer is cheating the company, one single person... so I think that those four categories maybe should be the way that you build up the IGF and then, of course, there has to be forums, groups exchanging thoughts.  But if you try to make workshops... at least I feel from an international perspective, human rights, I think these issues....

>> Can you repeat the four groups?

>> The states or the government.  We have different types of societies.  That's my reason for that one.  Then there is the business and companies, gaining profit, making money.  And then the consumer, because that is the protection, minus the internet users that know so much about it, the parents that doesn't know how to protect the children.  And then there's the individual cyber... and I mean considering what happened in Russia when the Russian government didn't like some comments that some people were making, so the government decided to by law enforcement to seize the individuals's computers under the claim that there was IP copyright issues and illegal software on the computers and on behalf of Microsoft, they would seize the computers.  
It is how do the individual... to some extent... mention maybe there needs to be something like that locally where there are people.

>> Would you be suggesting the building blocks about the discussion... should be based on these categories.  Two things, you are feeling that the individual seems to be... number three, at the local level or at the level of where the user is accessing the internet, who does he go to or she go to for support.  At an individual level, there's hardly any sort of legal support available.

>> To the last thing, that was what... yesterday, one group suggested that there was these fire brigades where an individual couldn't make contact if they had a virus attack or other issues.  I think it could be... I know that they have tried something in Japan, I was told.

>> Mitsumi.  Yes?  Please go ahead.  Introduce yourself.

>> MARY ANN FRANKLIN:  Good morning.  My name is Mary Ann Franklin.  I'm here as an academic but I'm also involved in the individual rights.  I'd like to return to the much more open question.  The internet is all these things.  It's many things to many people but it is also an idea.  It's an idea about the future, an idea about what kind of future we would want, the means by which that future is going to be attained and on whose terms.  
And what I see every time with government's discussion, governance is about control inevitably in some way or another; good control, bad control.  It's these ideas that I find lacking in IGF.  So I'd like us this morning to think ideas, this morning and to think less about control.  Thank you.

>> I was about to respond to the intervention of the gentleman on my left... talk about both.  
(Looping)  the classic internet is not only... strong association... the way we look at this idea.  I'm not really sure because I don't want to... the lower class, gender... in this manner, and then got together or initiated society.  In the manner in which it was... I've spoken on many of the social conditions in which people live 
I'm uncomfortable, we have...(Looping) in this new system of governance and... the lines of social hierarchy.  And those issues do not come up at all.  
Any opportunity... there is a defense... between each person and a purpose.  It may actually benefit... I do not consider governments... a form of control... an organisation of system to devise new forms of control.  Governance is a... and that as we... and there's been... for ideas and....

>> Can I respond?  At the risk of continuing the ongoing debate, to say that governance is about control is to not contradict... my point is, you're talking about competing ideas, competing plans.  The thing is, come being to the governance forum 
(Looping)  the world is changing.  The whole wide world, the internet... this is chasing the ball that's way down the pitch.  We're way behind the ball.  I'm not talking about control.  I'm talking about... get back to what is the idea about the future.  So the minute things get... we lose sight of the fact that we are using the internet for various things and somebody to de    some decide I don't want to use it at all.  I'm here to try to open things up.  The details are important but... the infrastructure, cities... a long list of....

>> Anyone else?

>> I think to say today what would happen in the future, this famous IBM guy that said when somebody came and suggested to make a PC, that he didn't really see what was the use of it.  And I think we haven't got any idea of what the future will bring.  Facebook suddenly turned up.  I think we cannot imagine what's going to happen in the next four or five years.  Silicon Valley, they say anything over six months is aged.

>>  Combining what both of you are saying, I think you are making sense but I want to 
(Looping)  figure out to which end.  Okay.  I'll take your description.  Let's talk about the idea of the future.  The idea that we can go in homes, businesses or other ideas and pursue them but I would be here for the idea of the selective future.  If the idea of a collective future 
(Looping)  the very idea has to be constructed together and which actually we need to figure out how to do things collectively.  We can't know what's going to happen.  She says we should pursue what's going to happen.  Both of us, the idea of the future is a difficult one to form.  
In all this talk driving toward... collective thinking which is my biggest problem, my problem is that we are not making enough collective decisions.  
As this... it's not a mutual decision.  It's not a political decision.

>> You're absolutely right.  That's not the point I was making, but I think I just need to intervene now.

>>  Active participation for our collective future or passive participation and let the world do what it's already doing, that is a good question, was it a good question because in the formulation of ideas and approaches, it matters whether the decisions are for today or the decisions are for tomorrow.  We have a... in the world when we see how people are approaching this issue.  Developing countries are looking at how the internet is affecting them today and what they need to do for most of the time the future.  They are already trying to tame the beast because it is really getting out of hand with them.  Certain ideas and approaches, they can be around human rights.  They can be around businesses.  They can be around electronic commerce.  They can be around a number of things but we shouldn't miss out that we also have 
(Looping)  the future of the education on the internet.  We have the future of stem development.  We have the future of rights management and gender balance.  
I would suggest that we also discuss or also stimulate ideas on this.  Any more suggestions of ideas, anyone?

>> Audience:  I want to bring another element to the equation when we talk about internet governance.  Sometimes we forget, technology is very complicated for a lot of people.  I never hear enough in these debates going on actually the issue of the digital divide.  Of course, we have to make a difference between like younger generations growing up with technology.  But even then, we have a lot of younger people living in areas where they still don't have their basic needs like fresh, clean water.  
So when you're talking about internet governance, you should also accept the idea that some people are maybe not willing to access the internet for various reasons.  Either they don't have the technology capacity, either they don't have the basic financial abilities to be    to access the internet.  
And when government is taking measures on eGovernment issues.  So things that are only accessible through the internet, by the internet, we forget that a lot of people don't have even access to the internet, are not capable of using technology.  
And I make a very simple analogy.  When we are talking about video games, most people just use the basic recording function.  Once they saw the video, it was okay.  But once    most videos have a lot of features which used by most people because it was too come plated.  Today technology is still complicated.  
We should think about informing people how to use technology, how to improve security, and also accept the idea that some people don't use this technology but still need to be able to access information in general.  And I think this is an important element in the equation when we talk about internet governance.

>>  Thank you.  Sir, introduce yourself.

>> ANDREW MACK:  My name is Andrew Mack from the U.S.  First of all, I very much agree with what you just said.  I'm sure I'm using the full 15 percent of the capacity.  I've often thought that it's not just a question of the technology but a question of how much of the technology people actually know how to use.  I think it's especially through as you move out from the OECD and into some of these emerging markets.  
You talked about the idea of emerging markets focusing only on access and of the more developed market, the more emerging markets thinking about taming the beast.  I can tell you, I spent an awful lot of time working between these two worlds.  The beast is well alive in an emerging market.  Spam is more of a problem the more your bandwidth is low.  Phishing, pharming, those are all problems where people are newer to the technology.  
I think we do a disservice by make ago bright line distinction between the needs and goals and aspirations of the more developed markets versus the needs and goals and aspirations of the more developed market.  
We have a responsibility taking what we have learned, spending time on the web and share that.  What we can use can trip other people up.

>>  This is    your reply, Andrew, is very similar to what we are facing in the IPv6 in the developing world.  The technology is there.  The trend is already coming that hardware come to go the market is secondhand which is IPv6.  
The new software, operating systems are... but still the knowledge is there.  The transition isn't happening.  
This is also an example of that.  The idea as you said, from my own experience while working with Gary Morgan Foundation, emerging markets in Africa and the Pacific, Asian, Latin America, Caribbean, what we witnessed was that we were the ones that had to build the schools first, get power there, get our computers there, the laptops, and then educate the teacher and children there.  First we had to create the basic necessities and then the transition started towards understanding what digital technology is and what the internet is and what it brings for their communities.  
Three years after that project, we are in the position to say that we have some level of awareness with those communities, say in Rwanda, that computers exist.  People are talking about, in order to get to them, we had to use boats down rivers and then build their schools.  Even these schools took four times more time to build than the traditional school in the usual centre.  This is a very well process.

>>  AUDIENCE:  Thank you.  My name is Ismaiz from Tokyo.  I have two hats.  Some of the talks, if I may, I feel kind of a danger of the internet or technology as if that's the centre of our focus or centre of the world.  In the... 
(Looping)  so as much as I agree to say bridge the digital divide is an important thing, I went to Nepal to help these schools with some $100, $200 computers and all the things which is seemingly working in some areas.  
But going back to Japan, our ministry and the minister declared that we should have 100 percent high speed broadband to be used by all citizens by 2015, which means to put some money of the rest of 10 percent because now we have 90 percent of the high speed coverage nationwide already.  That's perhaps the highest in the world.  Crazily, our minister was saying, give all the light to the rest of 10 percent.  
We reacted, wait a minute.  Does it really solve the real problem of these remote, rural areas where there is a beast coming to bite the crops, it's a real problem, or they don't have any shopping mall within two hours of their places now that amazon or all the nice things are, getting rid of the book store and even the local groceries.  
For me it's more important how... can really solve the real life, reality of these programmes.  To me the Twitter or Facebook is fantastic if you live in the city side mostly.  Of course, there are some local people using it from the remote areas.  Most people there feel like it's a yuppie thing.  It really doesn't give much value to their day to day lives.  I have promoted... broadband.  And I went to these remote areas.  Of course, education is very important.  Just putting the technology, and I know you are not arguing like that, doesn't really solve the problem.  That's why only less than 30 percent of the people in Japan are actually using high speed broadband, even if it's available, it's affordable.  
But so what.  It's sort of a fundamental question we are grappling.  I think it is perhaps saying....

>> I agree with you that, that's why I want to hear more about after this, because that's important.  
(Looping)  the government is:  And so what is important.  I did try to start this discussion by staying our starting points... I know how difficult it is because we are already in the middle of a discussion for societies as emerging markets.  I have an objection to it.  We are not an emerging market.  We are a society.  Unless we stop talking about internet governance and start talking in these meetings about emerging markets, mature markets, emerging markets, that is not the issue.  I know we can do it.  I can do whatever I want to do at IGF.  
Markets don't address people and citizens.  Markets address consumers.  Consumer address... markets exclude the... depending on how emerging it is.  And let's listen to what is being propositioned here carefully.  We are a society first.  A part of that society is a market.  Internet is society's instrument of whatever we're trying to do.  It is not a market.  
When they were talking about constructing schools, schools are not the market.  Are markets going to build the school?  You're answering a question which is framed in terms of emerging markets.  There's such a hierarchy, there's no option because we accept it because people... to discuss the emerging market.  
I think these are the points.  Markets are important parts of society unless we stop... we're not going to make any more progress.  And there is the idea of... just similar problems that are you talking about.  But the problems at the bottom... I can assure you because I worked my working life.  It's try to figure out what difference it is... and I mean, again, I'm sorry but I'm going back to the old point, it has to be addressed... the market, how it can... 
(Looping) .

>> What exactly do you mean, the danger of making it into the market, emerging market.  I just have not been able to understand.  Can you explain a little bit more?

>> We are talking about developing societies.  If somebody is talking about the emerging market, the person is talking    and there's nothing wrong with it.  So we are a part of the market.  
And this is... market... we're talking about society.  Are you trying to do something.  You are not addressing market elements here.  You're looking at social governments.  The language is not... 
If I'm not so clear, we can carry on the discussion.

>> I really read this interesting approach that internet, market, internet society.  Before I pass it on to you back, Peter.  Please introduce yourself.

>> Peter, the chairman of the board of ICANN.  I'm happy to use any terminology you like in relation to markets, societies or cultures.  What I'd like to hear is a discussion about internet governance.  I'm not hearing about the application of the technology to developing communities.  If we're going to have a discussion on internet governance, that, I would find interesting.

>>  Anyone else?  More comments?  People on that side of the floor.  
(Looping) .

>> My name is Sean from Nepal.  I have some comments regarding the process, especially the... process.  I understand that IGF is not meant to be a decision making process, decision making body, but I've also... past proceedings, it appears that there are certain things that are... there's no clear process.  
So even though IGF is not a decision making body, but is it possible for us to look into innovations in decision making and use IGF as a... every year we have a test, a different kind of decision making process that also encompasses... what I want to know is, okay, what is the innovation in this process.  How different is it from 
(Looping)  other decision making bodies?  
So since we are talking about internet, I think it would be nice if IGF would come up with some kind of innovation so that we can include more people and so on.  I want to know what kind much innovation this is.

>> Can I ask again, are we going to have a discussion about internet governance or are we going to have a discussion about how to change the IGF?

>> PJ, you came in late, and we were looking at innovation.  Innovation starts at the basics.  You start in a different manner.  That would be the... in which it emerges.  We started talking about... you said you were happy to use any terminology.  There's cities, consumer, society.  
The problem is that when you say that... by definition, any economic theory citizens, people, humans 
(Looping)  of society respectively are considered equal.  If your internet governance identifies it differently, then you start from a different point.  That was the reason there was an early discussion on, what do we start:  And I am positive in my opinion that a change which has to be done is to orient more to society and the citizenship, the global citizenship.  And it's too much of a market consumer framework which we address governance problems.  We do a lot of work on specific... which address internet governance from this framework.  We are talking internet governance from my point of view.

>>  I'd like to rise to the challenge.  I'm quite happy to talk about the governance of internet, trying to find an appropriate way of government but also a means of govern, also.  I don't think you can separate the two.  By concentrating on the internet, the object is where we need to govern, we forget there's also a means of governing in various ways.  So I know it's complicated.  It's like to try to not separate those two out.  And that's the intellectual conceptual problem we have, constantly try to restrict our debate to problem solving categories.  
(Looping) .

>> In response to Sean's question, the process of innovation in terms of every year the issues and the subjects have changed and that emerging issues would be treated.  As it goes with most international processes that I have seen... the university process, more participation from the citizen, from the people, global citizenry, took ten years to be complete.  
And then in 2008....  in Korea that they would look into having this kind of activity again in five years.  But the IGF has an open space for dialogue.  This in sort of a different way, that some issues are so important that they're being discussed on a continuous basis and at the same time within the workshop all the stakeholders are formulating certain ideas and topics.  Yes, the IGF does have a political net which is what the multistakeholder.  This is where the issues of the stakeholders are tabled and then the debate goes on for a considerable amount of time during the year to which should make it to the main sessions, how can we help more participation.  It's not a mature process.  It's an evolving process.  The secretariat has currently opened up certain questions until October where people can publicly comment through the Web site about how the MAG should be changed or modified or improved or what its status should be and so forth.  
So these are ideas, these are small innovations.  For example, this year today in the afternoon you will be able to attend for the first time a session called "Internet governance for development."
Interestingly, development was the main focus... but it never made its way in the past three years where it was discussed, it existed in workshops but it never actually made it there.  Now that idea space has been opened up in the IGF.  
We are looking forward possibly to an IGF in Kenya, a change, where the ICANN meeting was there earlier this year in Kenya.  That was really interesting of how the stakeholders participated in that process in Africa.  
Yes, it is in the process of innovation.  It's taking time.  It's evolving.  We are looking forward to an improved IGF forum.  Thanks. 

>> FOUAD BAJWA:  Any more comments?  Any ideas?  To further stimulate the discussion, we heard initially that there was sort of interest toward more individualized approach.  The individual gets more support.  Interestingly, a question that I have from Dr. Wolfgang is, is there a need for an internal stakeholder internet governance mechanism within social networks when they are used by millions of users.  Any ideas with regard to social networks from the floor?

>> You call a social network any group of people who spend time interacting with other using web based technologies.  I'm talking about the old fashioned discussion forums.  So they already moderate themselves in many ways.  There's already a form of governance at grassroots.  Some are very effective.  Some are unpleasant.  Some are struggling with it.  It doesn't necessarily mean to be a top down mechanism, now you're going to direct each other this way.  Some have provided us with revolutionary models, Wikipedia, for example, and they become more sophisticated.  You go down to any discussion group for someone that wants to contact and deal with people, immediately deal with how we're going to moderate.  This is already happening.  We're not needing to reinvent the wheel.  We need to find out what people are actually doing and find good practices there.  They exist.  Bad practices as well, of course.

>>  So would you say that moderation in ordering social networks is sort of, like the governance is already there.

>>  Absolutely.  I don't think in that sense there's enough research that understands that stuff is already happening.  It's very much top down modeling using very familiar frameworks of thinking, which is fine.  They are appropriate scenarios.  Let's say I want to broaden the term, social network to involve any kind of socializing and interaction on the web, back down to Burns when they started out.  He and his mates worked out a way to talk to each other.

>> Any comments on this?  From this side of the table, left side, anyone?  
Okay.  Let me move on the discussion.  This is going to go into a bit of like what post of the people    at least I know a certain segment of stakeholders want to hear this, how transferring can be strengthened in government organisations dealing with internet issues.  
This is where the difference where we have that, the IGF has open space with discussion.  The decisions that actually affect people, for example, yesterday I was in a workshop on freedom of expression where we were discussing this that the policies being made in other parts of the world are actually being used for regulation in our parts of the country.  So when we look for a source, where did this policy framework come from, we tend to find out that it wasn't evolved on the basis of our society or the internet society but it evolved from the global society.  
So any suggestions on this, how do we improve the accountability for internet governmental organisations?  Why, because organisations like UN, UNESCO, WTO, WIPO, ITO, European Union, all of these organisations are discussing issues and building policies which are going to affect us as users and individual users of the internet.  
Your suggestions and ideas.

>> VICTORIA:  Clarification, you want us to think about how those organisations can be more accountable?

>> I think the idea was to have, what are possible ways that they can become more transparent because I know from the ICANN experience, when I was outside the ICANN, I had a totally different idea.  Since the day I have walked in, I realized a clear difference between the ICANN and IGF.

>> Victoria:  Tell us more, please.

>> One of my experiences has been, which is interesting, is that how you engage with ICANN and the impact of that engagement and the ways of influencing certain decisions making activity, for example, my last experience from Nairobi from March early this year was the issue about new GLD's and the value, increase in applications.  
I would never have considered that just entering into a forum like this, space like that, we could actually influence the decision making of the board of ICANN.  Something we discussed when the meeting started and five, four days after that when the Board sat down, they actually trashed the idea of the evaluation... because I think 
There was a price set, that when the application was submitted.

>>  We work on this working group so we actually know way too much about this.  They did initial price calculation.  I think they came up with 185,000 to get in with the new GTLE.  And there has been and there is ongoing discussion about, is that the right number and where we should go from there.  
One of the things that you say, it is absolutely true that there was a lot going on in Nairobi.  This is something that's been building for a long, long time.  I think one of the things we see as a real positive here is that there are different kinds of organisations that do different kind of meetings that do different kind of things.  Right?  And this has a totally different purpose that you couldn't get accomplished in a way that a small organisation like ICANN is run.  That's why this is so important, to try to have them do all the same thing is actually a disadvantage.  Those things take really long time to build.  What I'm hoping is that we can have the other kind of conversation here where we're talking about the broader issues that really are the future.

>>  My question actually comes from the university experience.  When I was at the OICD, I heard things and saw things that I had never done when I was in Pakistan, which is pretty amazing, the developed world was engaged in so many things and the way their outlook for internet innovation works was an amazement for me.  Most of the world, most of the developing world, I would say, stays away or is kept away from these innovative discussions and talks.  We actually end up when technology is there, not when the policies are being built.  
We only get the end product.  We are never in the main activity, main policy publication activity.  That's what I was referring to, that within the ICANN, it has come in such a way that even people in developing countries are participating and they do have an impact on decision making which is affecting the future of the internet.  
Similarly these organisations within their respective    for example, the open access issue was a developing country issue which moved to the west, came back as a more... solution.  So this backward and forward approach in certain organisations not existing... I think there still exists as a major barrier to ideas.

>> What you're saying, multistakeholderism is good?

>> I still don't have a stance on that.  What we have    we've seen it in the work that we're doing but we've only seen it, my own business work mostly with emerging markets.  Everywhere that this technology is exploding, it is a kind of coalition between government, civil sector, society.  That's what is making it grow.  Nobody can make it grow on their own.  If these groups don't get along very well, if there is not good communication, they're not on the same page, then it grows slow.

>>  Please....

>> What I don't understand, how you can compare ICANN and IGF.  You said ICANN, you can....  IGF, there is no decision.  In IGF, there is even no recommendation.  So what do you want to do in the IGF?

>> I was going to say that the IGF is an open discussion space.  It was not con struck in such a way at all to have any form much outcome.  We had a discussion earlier this year about possibility of messages like the European governance.  No one agreed to it.  So ICANN in a sense, I was he... like where the processes are being run in these other international organisations which are the spaces for decision making.  But IGF is a space where we can have this dialogue.  We can't have this dialogue... we won't even get the room to do it.  Similarly, as far as UNESCO is concerned, I have never seen the face of UNESCO in Pakistan.  I know it exists.  Try to look for it.  I never can engage.  It is interesting because they are the source of open access education material on the internet and for building access to universities, which is very important for our part of the world.  
There's a clear distinction.  What I'm saying is, organisations that aren't innovating their participation models.  ICANN is a very good example of how the    the multistakeholderism process is being innovated and how more and more they're opening.  If you see the current section of the Board members of ICANN, even the past, like when Africa, representative from Africa started to participate.  Now you have people coming in from the African, Arab world.  The model for them in this space where decisions take place even if it's small, it has multistakeholderism for which one has responsibility.  There is no    or a decision about decision making and so forth.  It does include people because when they go back home, they've have heard from a variety of people, a variety of perspectives.  I took something back from here for the national policy of Pakistan.  And that is where we thought that we should be more about internet governance.  
(Looping)  if we're going from one thing into another thing, this is my idea.

>>  I find that IGF is really... the way that the discussion is made is very helpful.  Everyone can express... I don't think that that will keep people from expressing themselves.  The problem of the IGF is the mandate, not anything else.

>>  Before you    please introduce yourself.

>> I'm not going to answer that question.  The whole mandate... I want to share some experience with you as we are talking about internet governance here and new idea and how we can... new idea about internet governance.  I just want to come back to some fundamental aspect of what we are calling internet governance because when you are talking about internet governance is how we can put in place policy being public policy or internet... policy that can allow the internet to continue to develop and continue to be people centric.  
The developing countries always come back into the internet governance debate because as you have said, developing countries people to like everything is being discussed and decided at a certain level where they are not participating.  And some of those decisions impact their way of using the internet.  A very simple example, before the existence of Afronet, most of the IP address allocations were discussed in a multistakeholder environment and decided by... original... difficult for them to understand.  Difficult for them to set policy that will have business in Africa to... we have been able to create the same environment where in the original they discuss about the issues that they are missing.  Why, because we have been able to adapt the multistakeholder environment.  I think that's where there is a complement between the forum process, the IGF process and the other process.  That has to be... the IGF environment for me is a good place to have a real multistakeholder approach where people from different categories, people from different level of control, of course, of understanding can sit together, talk about an issue without negotiating a... and think about that issue.  Then those thinking can be put into ICANN process, where people can go and say, well, now I understand how new... I was interested in doing this in... I want to do it for my village because I attended a workshop where we talked about that.  I understand it.  I can start sharing it back home and using it also to participate.  The feelings in developing countries, people almost look at governments    not because they don't want to but they don't have time.  They don't have the resources.  That is a fact.  But now they are getting their information    more they know that participate, even go.  Another thing that I can say with this small village.

>> I think the awareness aspect and capacity building at each level is very, very... developing countries because if we are not there, 
Nobody can change it for us.  It's for us to be prepared.  And that's why, for instance, look on IGF where people can take the culture, the approach from the internet governance likely.  We have    they have a very dynamic network.  

>> The government does not participate in that world.  Every parliamentary, they send... new law there just to hear what people are saying.  
So I think the participation of a developing country is very important.  Before we reach to, we need to raise more awareness.  We need to build capacity in the new stakeholder approach.  We are not used to that.  It's    you stole a lit bit of my thunder because I was going to come in and talk about the regional IFG's.  This is a concept I was somewhat skeptical.  We had one last year.  They started to have regional IGF's, sometimes when you're talk 
(This kind of thing is really very powerful.  I think its.

>> It brings an opportunity to bring policy makers to the table from different 
(Everybody I have talked.  Very, very valuable, if you don't think about this market, that's okay.  There is some    strength those big IGF's, little I

>> Have you also noticed that initially when the discussion was saying smaller spaces that have evolved have more.  For example, the number you gave is something similar to we did in Pakistan.  And that... policy making was done.

>> That changed to.  This is what we've been talking about the traditions of IGF.

>> The individuals and the stakeholders have make it looks like those local people can be done and (looping)  
(Off microphone)

>> Comments about what he said regarding the regional meetings.  I believe that there is a great value on the regional meetings, but it's clear to me how these meetings fit into a broader internet governance umbrella.  What is their role in the IGF regime?  I think they could be even more powerful if they could be a step toward the IGF, if they had a chase to speed what their discussion is.  It's not one session that everybody takes a paper and reads one page because no one is listens...  
If we want people to make some recommendations or some general statement.

>>>  Achieving some kind of more common language that you would take to the IGF,  regional IGF or...  
It means that when those representatives, they come over to.  Why are there some meeting spaces being organised for the organisers or the, we can have more discussion, we can kind...

>> Down as a southeastern Asia and discuss our problems.  That issue can be:  Would you like me to note down about cluster idea?

>> I think.

>> IGF was set up to bring ideas together.  The goal is to debate into the project in a constructive way.  We could have the exact kind of conversation.  
And then there are other ways that we can go ahead and address those.  
The strength of the forum is that to see who...  
The strength of IGF that I see is that is not for...

>> I just want to that, one thing that must happen is that you requested if you split it up into different compartments, the whole idea is lost.  Then we broaden....

>> What I was....

>> The Latin American has one.  Asia has grounds.  I mean, people can almost.  That should...  different compatibilities that are each organized.  Everybody can come and everything is original.  I want to share my view on the original.  That...
We can bring down the.  They said the issue discussed at the... We discuss issues that matter to us, to our needs and discuss issues...

>> It doesn't impact everybody at the same time.  We have to express the culture share that... they also will have them, all those that we just saw.  
Where do we go from here.  This is political, civil society.  This is our... for me the idea the systematic affords.

>> Yes, in terms of concrete ways to enable greater participation I was thinking about the remote participation and reading the excited and energized reports from places like Indonesia, Palestine.  They've all coped with the various technological and these always have to neighboring it can be consciously by using the very...  
There are cultural artifacts, thinks of thinking about communicating.  What they were discussing as well and maybe there's a way of feeding their input into this forum...he is from... into our policy.  You may found the decision makers or governments. Before we move ahead to innovation, somewhere... our civil societies are not that strong and we do not have the... it's that comment without a strong foundation.  I guess you need to develop their own.

>>  I may be seeing something different, but I'm thinking, let's talk about child protection 
(Looping)  the beauty of the why the sector of the society... you have the first time, right.  And it takes a while.

>> So why don't we create some more wide space or open space, three hours of the second day afternoon should be back, just black.  Many it will be opposed by many.  Just black.  Fine.  Let's make the five groups everything for anything 
Of course, you need some kind where you can encounter with some occasion in the... receptions and stuff.  
The good friends will become more friends.  If you... may have more impact, perhaps take    
It happens all remotely at a minimum, cooperation is at a bare minimum.  The current state of what's going on in the    and the    I think it's kind of formal.  It was first established to bring the global    It would take another generation to actually evolve.  These have a very    those bits and bites of the world    what I've seen in    people like from the corporate    
We invited all stakeholders to join they have the means and the power to help us.  We are still at    assistant director, we use...  

>> I've got two points.  First of all, that...
I think that if they really need to have any, and encouraged this is exact   
I think we should not be too careful   

>> As I said in the beginning, this is a common area based on all over the...  it is the most interesting panel, so I have    the networking, I agree    
It is a really dynamic network of interesting    
If we can have a venue that has a lot of people around it    

>> They go back to their hotels and they, the acoustics   

>> I was a little concerned because I know it is not the first   I'm hoping, to make it easier 
I would like to see some of these things, especially in a more interactive project.  Some people are sending white papers.  We can do the video.  I'd like to see that.  The    

>> All right, start the    
[ Overlapping Speakers ]
Start using this token   I'd like to see Hughes, issues about computer    we need to see    that is just as realistic... We need to move    the education aspect, I think where will    
We probably also need to take that    
(Looping) And I said something yesterday    

>> Thank you.  My name is Landi.  The fact that we    we have a lot of    We have an already shared point of view.  Also another thing that would be, participants with    
Given that there has been significant    
It evolved out of the 

>> I had my own idea, I would have five or six people, like the idea I had because we were a small group, an open group and we used to talk interestingly.

>> I'm not going to change the structure.

>> We are ready to join the process,    when you go into "about" section.  But you should come in, all of you, of course    

>> Why all the other stakeholders    

>> Several things actually to add to my comment, there has been on.  

>> I was asked to chair the...

>> They want to make a primary language...  
There are other idea, if I get the 
Another version this is    another workshop is IAGC.
(End of meeting.)