Taking Stock the Way Forward

02 November 2006 - A Main Session on Athens,Greece

Schedule


Internet Governance Forum Chairman' 2 November 2006 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the The Inaugural Meeting of the IGF, in Athens. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. - Chair's Summing Up - Taking Stock The Way Forward - >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Good morning. We now come to our session on the summing up of work in the IGF at this session. And I just want to begin with a word on what is the nature of the summing up. And then I will ask Markus to give a certain overview of the whole process, and then we will open the floor up. We have three hours. We have lots of time. And I would really welcome strong feedback from all of you on this. And at the end, I will try and see whether we can bring some thoughts together. The essential point to realize is that this is a multistakeholder forum. It is an open-door forum. It's not a forum with a fixed membership. It is open to anybody in the stakeholder groups who has an interest and a basic bona fide competence in this area to come and enter and join the meeting. It's in that sense more like an open meeting rather than a fixed membership group. In that sense, it's not possible to speak of anything as being a product of this meeting. So it would be misleading to say that there is any such thing as an agreed conclusion or a product of this meeting in the strict sense of the term, because there is no defined meeting. The meeting is the people who are in the room. And -- at any given point, which will vary from time to time. So I would urge you to keep that in mind, that when we speak of a summing up, we are not trying to come at some agreement or conclusion on what came of a report at this meeting. What we have been presenting are essentially secretariat summaries. And they will remain secretariat summaries, which we do need for our internal -- just simply for record-keeping. But more than that, you will have a full verbatim record of the discussions in the main session available online. You are not dependent on any summary. There's a full verbatim record which you have been seeing here which is available on the Web site of the IGF. And will continue to be available. So if you want to go back, refer to something more specific, the full record is there. So as far as the workshops are concerned, which were organized by different groups on their own authority, you have the one-pagers, which are available -- one-page reports, which are available outside. I wanted to say this so that we recognize that what you are going to listen to now is just simply a secretariat summary of the IGF, and not in any way a -- sort of any form of a report which commits any one of you to what is being said in that. But, hopefully, we, as the secretariat, are sufficiently sort of objective to be able to reflect a sense of what has happened here. And you have been hearing reports from Markus on the specific sessions that we've already had. So this is -- these are my remarks to start with, so that we know what we are doing in this summing up session. And then we can move on perhaps in an integrated fashion into the way forward discussion. So with this, I will now turn to Markus. >>SECRETARY KUMMER: Thank you, chairman. And I would like to add that this is a very rough summing up, as we did not have the time to produce a polished paper. So bear with us if we don't distribute a paper. But you will be able to read it on our Web site in the transcript taken down by our scribes. We have had seven sessions so far. We started with an opening ceremony which followed an initial format. It was inaugurated by the prime minister of Greece, Mr. Karamanlis. We had a number of different speakers representing all stakeholders who presented their views. And it would be impossible to summarize these speeches. And we also listened to the two men known as the fathers of the Internet, Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, and Dr. Robert E. Khan. A common thread through all the speeches was the recognition that the Internet is now the backbone infrastructure of the global information and knowledge society. And also, all speakers emphasized the importance of multistakeholder cooperation. After the opening session, we moved into the format we have seen through the past two and a half days. We had five panel sessions in an innovative format of interactive, multistakeholder panels with questions and comments from the audience. We also offered the possibility of remote participation via blogs, chat rooms, and e-mail. We had some hiccups with the e-mail, with the Internet connection at the beginning, but I think it -- by now, it works moderately well. And we were actually overwhelmed with the response, so that our server broke down yesterday. But also that has been repaired. One of our moderators called the panel sessions a giant experiment and a giant brainstorming. And he also recalled the Secretary-General's comment that the IGF entered uncharted waters in fostering a dialogue among all stakeholders as equals. The innovative format was generally accepted and well received, and some commentators called it a true breakthrough in multistakeholder cooperation. In parallel, there were 36 workshops that were held in parallel to the main sessions. And the reports, as our chairman mentioned, some of them are available in written form. And if submitted to us, they will all be posted on our Web site. Let me now turn to the first panel, "setting the scene." It covered a very broad range of issues. The moderator himself recalled that ten years ago, a similar gathering was mainly attended by engineers and academics from North America and Europe, while this meeting now had a much broader range of participation, both in terms of geography, as well as stakeholder groups. One panelist made the remark that four years ago, many people assembled in the meeting room would not have spoken to one another. All of them emphasized the importance of multistakeholder dialogue. Several speakers noted that the IGF is not the beginning of this process, but the middle of it. Much has already been achieved in the WSIS and WGIG processes, and the IGF must build on that. It was remarked that all stakeholders have roles to play in the IGF and that we need to share experiences and perspectives, need to talk to one another and listen to one another and share best practices. Many of the speakers remarked on the fact that technology moves at a pace that is difficult for policy to match. Those working in policy areas should be as creative as those who created the technology. There were also many comments that expressed the hope that the IGF would not be a sequence of five meetings held in beautiful locations, but the process where the meetings would serve as a check point in that process. Perhaps most importantly, the theme of development was emphasized, with several speakers asking what the IGF could do for the billions who do not yet have access. The main message maybe was that no single stakeholder could do it alone, and therefore we all needed to work together on Internet governance issues in development. And for the IGF to have value, we will have to leave Athens with a clear view of how to move forward. The second session was devoted to the theme of openness, with a focus on free flow of information and freedom of information on the one hand, and access to information and knowledge on the other. Much of the discussion was devoted to finding the right balance, the balance between freedom of expression and responsible use of this freedom; and the balance between openness and protecting copyright. Some panelists pointed out that the two themes are linked and that for developing countries, issues such as better access to the Internet and access to knowledge is more of a priority. One panelist called the possibilities offered by the Internet to create content "a new form of free speech." He referred to the creative use made of the new medium by young people, which under today's legislation, can be illegal. While all panelists emphasized the importance of freedom of expression, two of them reminded the audience that this freedom is not absolute and that freedom of speech is not without limitations, and that the Internet is not above the law. Hate speech, for example, is illegal in both the on- and offline world. It was generally felt that the Internet has greatly contributed to the spread of free flow of information and freedom of expression. However, it has also created an in-built institutional apprehension or fear of new popular empowerment and the curve on freedom of expression. It was remarked that freedom of expression can be under threat in all countries. The session addressed different types of freedom, such as freedom from government surveillance, free access, and the link to human, social, and economic rights. The session turned to the role of the private sector and looked at the relationship between market laws and market forces and human rights and looked at the responsibility of the private sector. The question was asked whether major corporations should use their bargaining power to promote freedom of expression. It was pointed out that many of them do so as a way of engagement. Some pointed out that systems could be used to encroach on rights and repress freedom of expression. Others highlighted that many systems are multipurpose and the same systems can be used for positive purposes, such as the protection of children and, on the whole, the positive aspects of increasing Internet access outweighed the negative ones. For instance, the use of the Internet increases transparency, and this is a value in itself. The session also looked at the relationship between national regulation on freedom of expression and the borderless Internet. As its second main theme, the session examined the balance between openness and protecting rights, the balance between the citizen's right to information and rights of the copyright holders. There was a recognition of different treatment for materials created by using public finance and those created with private financing. There was also a recognition of different business models. Some business models required copyright fees in order to continue production. Some speakers called on governments to enable free access of information on the Internet. They drew a parallel to libraries. Governments bought books for citizens to allow them to gain access to information and knowledge. Should governments do the same with the Internet and remunerate the creators and owners of content? The session discussed various questions with regard to the effect of businesses protecting their copyrights and battling piracy. Among these questions were the following: Should copyright protection take into account different cultural traditions, given oral cultures and different notions of knowledge? Was there a need to find business models that work with open information, software and standards? The third thematic session was devoted to security. There was a generally held view that the growing significant of the Internet in economic and social activities raised continuing and complex security issues. One of the key issues here is the way in which responses to growing security threats are dependent on the implementation of processes of authentication and identification. Such processes can only be effective where there is a trusted third party that can guarantee both authentication and identification. This raised a debate about who could effectively act as a trusted third party, the state or the private sector. There was a debate as to whether a bottom-up model centered on the role of users was more effective than a top-down model driven by formal government actions. It was widely accepted that the perpetrators of security breaches are intelligent adversaries, constantly adapting their behavior to advances in security technologies and processes. There was a shared view that insufficient attention was being given to proactive and long-term actions to reduce security threats. There was a broad convergence of views on the need for cooperation at an international level. However, it was pointed out that one of the main obstacles to finding solutions was the lack of agreement at the very detailed level of what is a security threat and who are the key stakeholders. There was a very broad convergence of views that the best approach to resolving security issues is based on best practices and multistakeholder cooperation in an international context. However, there was concern about the degree to which information was shared in a timely manner and in a common format, and, in particular, with developing countries. At the same time, concern was expressed about the extent to which information and exchange was being achieved in a fully inclusive manner. The role of users and the opportunity to exploit the intelligent edge of the network was highlighted by many speakers. For some, the role of users had been undervalued in the implementation of enhanced security measures. Not only were better educational measures required, user choice should be respected more clearly. Thus, for example, the setting of clear expectations and principles, within a public policy framework, could enhance the power of consumers to address security measures. It was generally felt that security is a multifaceted issue and therefore it was necessary to involve coordination between different policy communities and actors. For some, this coordination needs to include a clear legal framework within which to operate. One example cited was the Council of Europe's convention on cybercrime. However, others raised the issue of jurisdiction and the particular need for intergovernmental coordination. There was a debate as to whether market-based solutions, which stimulate innovation, or a public goods model, would deliver better security measures across the Internet. For some, the public goods approach offered the opportunity for the widespread adoption of best practice across all countries. A counter view was that innovative solutions were required, and these could only be provided by market-based activities. There was a wide ranging but inconclusive debate about the role of open standards in shaping security solutions. The debate focused on the appropriateness of the open standards in the security arena. One of the key questions here was the extent to which free and open source software and standards would enhance the level of security for all users compared to market-based licenses for proprietary technology. There was a widely shared view that the IGF could play a significant and positive role in fostering greater debate and action with regard to security on the Internet. The role of the IGF in collating Bess practices, ensuring the widespread dissemination of information, and breaking down silo approaches to the problem were all highlighted. The ability of the IGF to support the development of a common language in the policy debate was seen as very significant. Yesterday's first session was devoted to diversity. At the outset, one panelist said the event was not about the digital divide, but called it the linguistic divide. The panelists' views on diversity in the Internet varied, but there was strong agreement that multilingualism is a driving requirement for diversity in the Internet. One participant said, like biodiversity is to nature, diversity on the Internet must reflect, and does reflect, the whole spectrum of human endeavor, both past and future. There was also a recognition that diversity extended beyond linguistic diversity, to cover populations challenged by lack of literacy in the dominating language or by disability. Audiovisual communication was one of the other forms of communication mentioned in this context. There was also a discussion on media for people with visual and other disabilities. Another theme that was mentioned involved the use of the Internet to relieve and someday eradicate illiteracy. The meeting guide the participants through a very complex set of distinctions in subjects covered by diversity. It was generally recognized that the WSIS outcome had put the issue of multilingualism on the agenda of international cooperation. There was a right to a multilingual Internet that preserved and enabled the diversity of cultures, including indigenous cultures. A number of panelists highlighted the many success stories about diversity, while also drawing attention to areas where improvements were needed. The representative from UNESCO drew our attention to the universal declaration on cultural diversity, mentioning that the purpose of this convention was to support the expressions of culture and identity through the diversity of languages. In terms of content, multilingual and local content were widely seen as necessary to bring all people into the Internet. When talking about local content, a distinction was made between international content that is translated into local languages and content developed locally. There are issues with both. For translated content, there are royalty or copyright fees as well as import fees. For truly local content, there are sometimes difficulties with finding the way to express that content. There is also a need to protect that content. The discussion also touched on the value of audiovisual applications available on the Net, especially in communities where cultures are not recorded in written language. There was a recognition of the importance of content that supports those who are not literate and those who are not illiterate in the dominant language. Participants raised the issue of software, pointing out that market forces were sometimes not strong enough to provide countries with software in the languages they required. During the discussion on Internationalized Domain Names, it was generally felt that internationalizing these domain names without endangering the stability and security of the Internet remained one of the biggest challenges. Part of the discussion related to the technical details of IDNs. The discussion included an explanation of Unicode character sets and how language communities need to be involved in making decisions about the code points. The session also looked at the work being done in the technical bodies on improving IDN and on testing IDN in the root zone file. There was a general understanding that the support of IDN involved more than the DNS. It was noted as a positive development by participants that all browsers now supported Internationalized Domain Names. There was a discussion of what the follow-up to the meeting could be. One suggestion was to establish multistakeholder cooperation between the various institutions dealing with these issues, such as UNESCO, ITU, ICANN, and others. Another suggestion related to support of multilingual content that is not commercially viable. Many techniques were suggested and may be explored in initiatives emerging from the Athens meeting. The last session yesterday afternoon looked at the issue of access. Many interlocutors said, pointed out that access maybe was the single most important issue to many participants in developing countries. And the debate, in general, accepted the idea that access remains one of the great challenges facing the Internet community. The last session yesterday afternoon looked at the issue of access. Many interlocutors as said, pointed out that access maybe was the single most important issue to many participants in developing countries. And the debate in general accepted the idea that access remains one of the great challenges facing the Internet community. The nature of the Digital Divide was seen as being multifaceted and the focal point for public policy responses. A wider range of policy initiatives was discussed but the strong theme was that the introduction of competition and the removal of blocks to competition were of fundamental importance. It was recognized that Africa faced particularly complex problems with regard to access to the Internet. It was also stressed by many speakers that the issue of access was not solved by a specific and narrow focus on telecommunications sector reform. However, it was recognized that telecommunications sector reform was a necessary condition to establish the appropriate framework for increasing access. Key issues highlighted in the debate over telecommunications sector reform included independence and transparency, removal of monopolies, and licensing of new players; competition as a key issues, and what are the barriers to competition and the removal of these barriers; the need to establish interconnection regimes that reinforce the competitive market; the need to develop innovative policy measures such as universal access regimes, through, for example, reverse auctions, to harness market-based solutions to structural issues. For some, the emphasis was not on the detail of regulatory frameworks but on the need to establish market structures which would stimulate investment, especially from local capital, and the construction of local solutions, such as peer-to-peer interconnection arrangements through Internet exchange points. It was also observed that increased local-based activity would increase reliability and integrity of the network. Several examples from Kenya and Senegal were quoted how local IXPs and local routing enhanced Internet connectivity, access and reliability. The comment was made that it was important not to simply import regulatory frameworks from OECD countries but to focus on frameworks that were tailored to local conditions. Hence it was stressed the need in many countries is not local loop unbundling but the building of local loops and ensuring adequate power supplies. The issue of interoperability and adaptability was debated. It was recognized that the plug and play facilitated greater access. Likewise, it was widely recognized that open standards are critical to underpinning greater access for all communities. It was stressed that open standards are, for example, critical in allowing those with disabilities to reformat material into more accessible format. Actions by governments and firms could lead to a reduction in access for key groups in society. The role of enhanced capacity building was discussed extensively. In the debate, the issue was not just focused on the needs of policymakers but in enhancing the level of skills within a country. The debate reinforced the key messages of the Tunis Agenda. For some, the investment in ICT capacity building within an Information Society is tantamount to investing in basic training and education. Without such an investment, the issues of access can never be addressed. There was broad agreement that the most appropriate level to address issues of access is the national level. It was suggested that key stakeholders and the main locus for policy development and implements was at the national level. The debate focused on the role of governments arcs the key stakeholders in ensuring and enabling environment for greater access. The debate highlighted the role of governments as the single largest customer in any given country, and the stakeholder with the ability to link across many policy debates, such as the provision of other infrastructure services such as electricity or access to other government services -- for example, health care and education. Linking policy debates and creating enabling environments was seen as critical for increasing access to the Internet. There was some discussion on the role of new emerging wireless technologies in providing increased access. It was widely accepted -- expected that wireless technologies could change the access market landscape. But for this change in the landscape to become a reality, some of the appropriate spectrum regulatory and wireless technology standards issues need to be addressed. Many speakers raised the topic of rural access and the problems associated with it. It was emphasized that there is no "one size fits all" solution, but knowing the best practice cases would help increasing access in rural areas across the world. The debate also focused on the role of government policies in facilitating increasing access in rural areas. For example, encouraging investment or the government playing a role as a key enabler. The speakers emphasized the issue of affordability from two perspectives, end user and carrier perspective. Many speakers commented that for the end user, the affordability of access device is decisive in using a service. Many contributors highlighted the discrepancy in initial connectivity charges. The relative high prices for international connectivity were noted. For example, the prices on the London/New York route, the most intensely competitive and largest market for international connectivity in the world. Several speakers gave indicative examples such as the price of north-south traffic in the Americas that is 60 times more expensive than London/New York. And last but not least, the session turned to the role of the IGF. It was felt that the significance of the IGF as an initial initiative to put on the table the multistakeholder debates surrounding issues of access and the Digital Divide was of some importance. The ability of the IGF to exchange best practices in promoting access between various stakeholders should help address the issues of inequalities of access. With this I conclude my report, and I apologize if it was a bit on the long side. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: It was long meetings [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: That is Markus's report, and a Secretariat report, which as we have come to expect from Markus, is fair, balanced, and you don't have to debate it, but if you have comments, I'm sure Markus would welcome them. I think that what we should do now is to really open up and let there be a certain feedback. A couple of things I thought I would put before you, before you -- suggestions as to how we should proceed. One, Markus has covered, of course, the ground on the main sessions that we have had. We have heard from people in the workshops during the morning sessions, 9:00 to 10:00, yesterday and today. But I also understand that there are certain cases where groups of people have come together in order to continue the work of the IGF. In order, in certain cases, to prepare for the next meeting. And I would actually welcome any of them who wish to take the floor and would like to say a little bit on what are the types of the coalition of the willing. But before that, I need to give the floor to two country representatives who wish to make an announcement. First I would give the floor to Lithuania. Can somebody please -- There's no mike here. Can somebody please bring a mike here? Then I will give the floor to Azerbaijan, and then we will come to the others. >>Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests. First of all, on the name of all the Lithuanian delegation, I want to thank to the Greek government for the hospitality of the Internet Governance Forum and also I want to thank to the United Nations and all stakeholders and speakers for valuable discussions during this forum. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a big pleasure and honor in the name of Lithuanian government to announce that Lithuania recognizes the importance of outcomes of World Summit on Information Society in Geneva and Tunis. Recognizing the importance of Internet Governance Forum, decided to host the Internet Governance Forum in 2010 in Lithuania. We hope in such way we will contribute to the development of Information Society. We will contribute to the discussions on development on e-governance issues. And I want to say that Lithuania is ready to host IGF in the year 2010. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: As the chairman of the advisory group for the IGF, I thank you very much for your generous offer. May I now give the floor to the -- someone from the delegation of Azerbaijan. Yes. >>ILYAS NAIBOV-AYLISLI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, distinguished participants, as the government of Azerbaijan officially offers to hold the Internet Governance Forum in the year 2010 in Baku. [ Laughter ] >>ILYAS NAIBOV-AYLISLI: Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is recognized internationally as a major oil and gas producer. However, ICT is the second biggest priority for the country. We see ICT as the main economic and social driver in the post-oil era. In a recent major ICT event held in Baku, Azerbaijan in October, where some of the participants also were present, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, stressed that the commitment to hosting major international ICT fora in the country. Azerbaijan is a country at crossroads of civilization, connecting east and west, south and north. Azerbaijan is famous for its traditions of hospitality. And I can assure you that Azerbaijan will spare no effort to organize the IGF meeting at the highest international standard this distinguished forum duly deserves. Once again, on behalf of the government of Azerbaijan, I would like to offer holding IGF meeting in Azerbaijan in 2010. And please allow may to use this opportunity to thank the hosts for the warm hospitality and congratulate the organizers and all the participants for success of this very complex multistakeholder forum. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Again, on behalf of as the chairman of the advisory group, I thank Azerbaijan for its generous offer. I must say, when we began the meeting, the children who had posed questions to us, the first question they posed was what will the Internet be like five years from now? I have been asking people. Nobody has a reply. But now one bit after reply I can give them, five years from now we will either be meeting in Lithuania or Azerbaijan. So at least one bit of the reply I do have for the children. But clearly, this is something not to decide here. It is a long way off, 2010, and I'm sure the United Nations and the advisory group will look at both options and come to a suitable conclusion. We have time for this. Now let's open up particularly for the statements -- Can I first ask the people who wish to say something about some new initiatives, like coalitions of the willing which they are proposing to launch, because we should get that out of the way before we get into the discussion. I understand there's three or five. There is one there. Is yours also one of the initiatives or general comment? If it's a general comment, just wait. It won't take more than a few minutes. One there. You also wanted to mention something on an initiative? Or a comment? Then we'll come to that. We just require a few minutes. Will you do that 1234. Are there others? >>RALF BEUDRATH: Thank you very much. My name is Ralf Beudrath. I am with the University of Bremen in Germany, and I am happy to announce that a diverse group of stakeholders has agreed over the last few days to launch a dynamic coalition on privacy which will address emerging issues on Internet privacy protection such as digital identities, the link between privacy and development, and the importance of privacy and anonymity for freedom of expression. We will initiate an open process to further development, clarify the public policy aspects of privacy in Internet Governance in perspective of the next IGF meeting and further on. Participants here in Athens in particular agreed that there's a need for greater public participation in technical and legal standardization processes that have a global public policy impact on privacy. They also emphasized that it's important to better include perspectives from developing countries in these processes. This dynamic coalition on privacy is a direct outcome of the two workshops on privacy we had on Tuesday that were jointly organized by the University of Bremen and the LSE information systems group, but it also reflects discussions here in the main session on security in the workshops on the Internet bill of rights and on freedom of expression and anonymity. And it builds upon several months of preparations among a lot of stakeholders. We have more than 30 entities who have endorsed or expressed interest in joining this coalition now, which is really impressive to me, just within a few days. Just to name a few -- >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I don't think you need to. You can probably put something out there because that will take us much too long. You put a piece of paper out there on naming them. Was there -- do you want to say something? Yes. Can a mike come here, please. Wolfgang, while you are waiting. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: I want to announce or make known that we have established already on the eve of the forum an academic network which is called GIGAnet, Global internet Governance Academic Network. The "A" is for academic, and that's a big "A." The offer of the research community is to produce serious material which can then be considered in the meetings of the forthcoming gives. We had the symposium with 120 participants. We get a lot of -- got a lot of encouragement by different groups here in the forum, and I will announce that we will have the second GIGAnet symposium on the eve of the Rio meeting in the year 2007. In between, we are going to have some smaller initiatives, like summer schools, small regional seminars, and we also plan to have publications areas and we will use the Igloo Web site as the communication platform for the discussion among the researchers. And researchers are invited to join. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Are there any other for this specific announcements? Specific announcements. Yes, here. >>RAFI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Rafi from Malaysia. We will be hosting the world Congress on I.T. in May 2008. That will be a platform where industry players are supposed to converge and therefore provide solution. Our intention is to complement that Congress with a development initiative to address solution-oriented services and applications for development communities. So we hope that people will come in and participate or partner with us to be able to build that as a platform of solutions, and, therefore, provide that sort of tool kit that I talked about yesterday. Second announcement, we are also trying to start up another initiative and partnership on something we call cyber development co-op among the model of a Peace Corps but also linked to policy formulation. So that's an initiative they're trying to promote help catch up development through concrete action and activities, linking communities' activities to policy formulation. Thank you. Those interested can always contact me. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Sure. I would prefer that announcements are of things which have already taken shape. Because I think we start getting into broader issue. Can the mike go there, please, and then to Parminder at the end. >>NORBERT BOLLOW: This is Norbert Bollow of Swiss Internet user group. There are some people here who are interested in making the web accessible to persons with disabilities, and we have a meeting tonight at 6:30 at the panorama restaurant. Everyone is welcome to join in, but please let me know after this meeting so that I can tell the restaurant how big the table must be. And this should result in some work, and then at the Rio meeting that we can present what has been achieved in the meantime. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I'd request people to be snappy in their comments because we need to get into the main discussion fast. I really have to cut this off in another five, seven minutes. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I have a very short announcement. Some stakeholders at the workshop day before yesterday on exploring a framework convention on the Internet, a workshop report is available on the Web site but it's available outside the room. And many of the participants agreed to get together to form a dynamic coalition on frameworks of principles for Internet Governance, and we are talking with other workshops which are held around similar issues like one on bill of rights. One on open standards which is going on, and content regulation, and progressive communications bill of rights on the Internet. So we are all getting together to form a coalition and we will be working from now until Rio on this issue. And everybody is welcome, of course, to participate. Thanks. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Hello. I just wanted to reiterate the announcement that after yesterday's announcement on the Internet bill of rights, a group of stakeholders have formed a dynamic coalition on the Internet bill of rights to further the discussion and come with some advances. So I am inviting all of you who are interested to join this coalition. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: There is a lady standing there. >> Good morning, I would like to announce and invite everyone, yesterday we had a meeting of gender advocates and we are setting up a dynamic, the most dynamic coalition that will come out of this IGF of gender advocates. We have observed that -- we had a panel yesterday and a contribution to the discussion will add value to the discussions around the forum. We would like to call on more parity in the level of participation in the IGF. We are willing and able to provide expertise, to contribute to setting the agenda of the IGF. Following on to Rio we have gender advocates who met in Costa Rica who are willing to contribute to the process, women and communication activists and we hope this will be open and we invite people to come and join news the gender coalition. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. I see we certainly added a new term to the debate, the "dynamic coalition." I come from a country where there are a lot of coalition governments, and it's a good concept. Any further announcements? Thank you. So I think we can get down to business. I have a gentleman there from Saudi Arabia, and then Adama Samassekou. I had Mr. Subenat, I think you wanted the floor. We will go three at a time. We have time. We have two hours. >> Thank you very much. I am (saying name) from Islamic Republic of Iran, not from Saudi Arabia. Although both nations are brother to each other, but I should say the truth according to. Okay. According to -- thank you very much for the government of Greece for preparing this kind of room for its hospitality. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and hose who are panelists and those who are moderator during these four days. And also, I should mention that if we want to regard to the concept of multiculturism, it is good for IGF to pay more attention to the values of other cultures according to the concept I have mentioned. Because if we want to come to an agreement, it should be a kind of respective, to respect the other values of the other nations. I am from Islamic Republic of Iran, one of my colleagues from Indonesia and the other colleagues and I have discussed during these days, mentioned that during that we have values that not pay attention to them, so many in this room, unfortunately, because the panelists who were selected by secretary-general, they are not so shared by the other countries, like Iran and Indonesia and the other countries. I would like to ask the IGF group and the countries who are coming from the other conferences and other rooms to take share more from the countries who has some kind of values, maybe very special values for the other nation. We don't want to push the other to accept our point of view, but we would like to have the opportunity to introduce our point of view and introduce that special values which we, as a culture, as a big culture, as a culture who many countries accept that and encourage us to introduce that kind of values to the others. We were supposed to be one of the panelists in the IGF, but unfortunately, we missed it, and I would love somebody to explain for us what does this point happens. And I also -- this criticism doesn't mean that I -- that I do not appreciate the efforts that has been made up to now, but I should add this point and ask the others, especially secretary-general of U.N. and the other parties who chaired the IGF to, according to multiculturism, to pay at mention more to these kind of values. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you [ Applause ] >>ADAMA SAMASSEKOU: Good morning, everybody. I'm going to speak in French, chairman, secretary-general. First of all, I would like to thank the government of Greece for the very warm hospitality extended to us over the few days we have been here, and that, of course, comes as know surprise since we are in Greece, after all, in this country which goes back to ancient times, a country of openness and contacts. I also would like to thank UNESCO for having invited me to participate in this forum and to thank the Secretariat of the forum for involving me in the overall debate in the forum. I would also, before I actually come to my proposal, to say that I find that the forum in its structure does dovetail with what we basically wanted to have the world summit on telecommunications and information to be. It is, in fact, a multistakeholder approach which I think would enable us in the future to try to have government partnership and to be able to have regional and perhaps world partnership. I think we have to bear this in mind and to remember of what other people have said at the world summit of the fact that when dreaming, we can move towards reality and to have a multistakeholder world partnership. I don't want to be too long on this but I do have a proposal. I thank Markus Kummer for his report, and I would like to also specify here that the proposal that you have made as concerns multilingualism should, in the report, include those various bodies that were cited, instead of just saying "others," for example, I think you to in fact to say this is the world network for multilingualism. It's a world partnership including UNESCO. All of those other organizations which, in fact, have been involved in this, especially the world association for multilingualism. Now, you have said yourself, chairman, that we may not have resolutions, but we may look at the reports again. Sometimes there are terms they are in where it was said "it was agreed that." But therein, perhaps there is a question of wording that should be revised in the report somewhat. Having said that, and I will finish on this, chairman, by your leave, I was just wondering as to the actual format of the forum in terms of overall results. Now, I do understand that the Tunis mandate has been discussed, and I am wondering today whether we ought to be looking towards 2010, -11, -12, -13, but I do want the actual spirit of the summit to take place within a format, with a formula whereby you would be able to come up with specific, with tangible results. After the wonderful discussions we've had, why shouldn't we have something specific come out of it, after all of these wonderful discussions? And I don't want this simply to be an event and just a meeting and looking at different aspects, but really to think here about the international that dreamed of the summit, and see this as a success in the spirit of international partnerships, to be able, thereby, to find a follow-up mechanism for the summit in order for us to say this was not just yet another summit meeting. Sometimes one tends to think of that, maybe if you did not come to Geneva, but many came to Tunis. So I think that's important. And certainly the United Nations should take this opportunity to make sure that the various elements in terms of specific actions that would actually change how one interacts between governments, NGOs, and other organizations. There have been directions and orientations given. In Geneva, in fact, we were in the course of actually, in reality, experiencing a real partnership. I'm sorry to have been so long. But I do think that this ought to have been heard. And I think that until Rio, we should see how we can make specific use of the outcomes of such meetings and to be moving towards more specific and real interactions between the various bodies here. And as we say in my language, sympathy, or being able to move together is what we need. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I was generous because he is the person who started all of this as the chairman of the PrepCom for the Geneva summit. And he has a certain responsibility for the whole process, which justifies a little relaxation. But I would urge the others to be a little sharper and quicker. >>KHALED FATTEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For these who don't know me, my name is Khaled Fattel, chairman of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. I would like to pay a attribute to you, Mr. Chairman. For a forum that is meant to be nonbinding, nonnegotiating, I can tell you, you have achieved or at least allowed for a lot to be achieved, far beyond what you may have expected. And I'll tell what you that is. And secondly, I would like to pay tribute to Greece, its people, its government, its warm hospitality, and for making this possible. The success that I think has happened is -- pertains to something that many years ago, when MINC used to call for a multilingual Internet, a lonely voice in cyberspace, there were many who didn't understand what that meant or its implications were. But also, there were some who said, no, go teach them English. Look where we were. Look where we are today. As a matter of fact, you may recall a couple of years ago at the U.N., one of my interventions was that multilingual Internet is actually a prerequisite to any form of good governance, because without the participation of the local people in their own local language on issues that pertains to them, their language, their culture, chances are, we're not going to be able to have the type of Internet governance that is necessary for it to be democratic and expressive of the local community. In that sense, I think this achievement that the IGF has made possible is that today, we have a new faith that everybody has adopted. And that new faith is called multilingual Internet and information society. And I think only through the Internet are we able to achieve this kind of success in such a short period of time. But now we have a new challenge, and this is where originally my point was not a proposal, but also thought-provoking and a challenge. The challenge is the following. What kind of multilingual Internet are we talking about that we want? Some may dress it up in new designer clothes, some may want it to actually do a lot more. The challenge I present is the following: Do we want a multilingual Internet that helps local community become empowered, to become representative, to harness their identity, their language, and their culture? Or do we just want it to be a forum or a mechanism for selling products and services? With that in mind, and without further ado, I will leave that challenge in your hands, in your wise hands and the wise hands of the -- the participants, and leave you with this last initiative, which is, MINC will be calling for a charter for this multilingual Internet, so at least we all start discussing what needs to be agreed on what is supposed to be its objectives and its goals. Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May we have the -- ambassador. May I suggest we just keep -- (inaudible) (No audio.) >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you. I have one comment and one question. My name is Jean-Jacques Subrenat, a former ambassador, now a consultant. My comment: Over the last two days, in the plenary, I have said that because of its nature, this IGF should be able to provide a specific added value. And I think that's now the case. We are moving towards the next stage, Brazil, which is going to be very important. So my question is specifically related to this. And it is the following: In order to best prepare, from a technical point of view, and also in terms of the content for the meeting in Brazil, I would like to ask if it will be possible for the various workshops which have met over the last few days, maybe not for all the workshops, but at least for the ones where the organizers think it would be feasible and desirable, and this brings me back to what I heard and saw in this summary of yesterday's work. I think it was Dr. Chung talking on behalf of this group on the question of cybersecurity. He took things a little bit further, because on behalf of yesterday's group, he announced the preparation, the drawing up of standards, a document. Now, I am aware in saying this that it's not the job of this forum to step into government's shoes and substitute them. But having said that, I think it's all well and good that various different IGF bodies should be able to come up with some form of a document. Here, we were talking about standards. Well, it could also refer to issues from other workshops which have dealt with some very important questions. I would like to hear the views of the organizers on this. Thank you. >> Thank you, chairman. Just to follow suit all the previous speakers, first of all, from Malaysia, we thank you, the Greek government, and, of course, the organizer, for having this event and this opportunity to speak. I will be very specific in terms of what I think (inaudible) is appropriate and also the secretariat, to consider moving forward. Number one, I think we may be looking at imposing a conventional structure into a new model. That's my assumption. As a result, I think one of the things as an outcome of this sort of forum like this, where we get input on framework and structural review, maybe one of the output from this is a global institutional reform that we could suggest, an existing institution could consider. I know ITU and all the various bodies are going through reform. Those input from here could be useful so that they can guide into their own reform, which would result in regional (No audio). Okay. So I think that will be useful, because we are thinking of a new model of development based on knowledge-driven economy. We should be thinking differently and maybe are suggesting existing conventional structures and legacy systems to be dismantled. That's number one. So it's a bit dangerous. I thought maybe this is one step forward you could consider, instead of just talking, making a concrete suggestion on institutional reform. Second is what I suggested yesterday, was a bit more structure in our discussion besides just policy debate. Maybe we put some sort of a structure in terms of specific recommendation. And I use the model of Internet engineering task force or the IETF, as a way for us to think about how to structure the discussion in specific areas, whether it's multilingualism, security, or even policy issues. So maybe we can adapt that, but we don't overlap with them, such that their effort will also be strengthening what we are doing. Maybe a group called the Internet task force and will fill in the gaps. And therefore use the RFC or request for comments, as a mechanism for implementation and adoption, especially for application on the business side for which it will be useful for them to be able to -- The third one was to consider the iNet or ISOC program that evolved, in particular, the developing country workshop, for which every time we attend a forum like this, there is a specific takeaway on best practices or tool kit, and also hand-holding for these countries to come and catch up instead of just discussing about the issues. Some of them are very raw and they need more hand-holding. So we may want to do this as a result of these workshop outcome. The fourth one is for us to consider the promotion of creating a global project, a global infrastructure, that seems to be lacking today, maybe to suggest where we can projectize programs, where there's a global Internet gateway for Africa, for Egypt, for central Asia, so some of those programs can get along where IGF can be the seeding organization or seeding programs. And, finally, I think we should not forget that the key issues that we started all of this was about DNS. And maybe the roadmap to really realize our aspiration of what we want to globalize the DNS is being suggested all the way to 2010. So at the end of the day, we will know we will get the thing that we started off delivering anyway. So thank you. >> Thank you very much, indeed. My name is Agrabi, and I am an NGO coordinator in Africa. I come from Tunisia. Now, I would first and foremost like to very warmly and respectfully thank the government and the people and the civil society of Greece for having hosted this forum. I would also like to thank the United Nations and the United Nations bodies for having chosen the subject and content of this forum. In the course of our discussions, we have seen that a large number of participants were not invited, for various different reasons. And I do hope that in the future, these stakeholders will be represented. I hope that their participation will be encouraged. I'm talking here about women, people with disabilities, and those with special needs. Now, as a representative of civil society in Tunisia and in Africa, we have together put forward two recommendations. We asked the UNESCO and the African Academy for Multilingualism to come up with a dictionary to simplify I.T. terminology. And also, with an eye to involving all of those stakeholders who were in Tunis, we feel that they should be invited to be able to cover, to take part in all of these events following on from the World Summit. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: May I clarify -- may I clarify one thing. There is no individualized invitation to this meeting. There is an open door. Anybody is free to attend. Nobody needs an invitation to attend this meeting. The real issue, however, is the capacity to attend, where will the resources come from. And I think that is something that we will have to address. It's not enough to say that the door is open. We also have to address the question of how do people actually get here to be able to attend such a meeting. But I would like to just confirm that this is an open-door meeting. There is no need for an invitation to come to this meeting. I have a string of names here. I'm going to read them out in sequence, four of them. And there is (saying name) from the -- wants to say something on behalf of -- from the economic commission for Africa. Simon Qobo from south Africa. I have -- and then ambassador Lansipuro of Finland. Can I first have (saying name) from the Economic Commission for Africa. Where is he? Please stand up, because we can't find you unless you stand up. Where are you? Ah, there you are. >> Thank you very much, gentlemen. I will speak in French. I wanted to inform you of the outcome of the African group's meeting, which took place in the course of the work of this forum. And the presidency of the Egyptian minister, the president of the conference of African ministers responsible for ICT matters. A preparatory meeting was held in the African region in Egypt last September. And the aim of the meeting we had here in Athens was to get all of the African representatives and participants together to see what we could implement in order to ensure that Africa's concerns could be taken on board within this fora. Two major decisions stemmed from this. Firstly, the setting up of an African regional forum, which will be got up and running in February 2007. The list of subjects for discussion will be opened within the economic commission for Africa to try to define the subjects, the resources, and the priorities for Africa so that we can best prepare the ground, technically speaking, so that we can come up with the best possible results, similar to what we heard from Brazil. Another decision that was taken was to draw up a letter on Internet governance behavior for Africa for the coming five years. That was the major outcome from the African group meeting. Before I close, I would like to thank all of those bodies which supported the participation of delegates from Africa in this forum, particularly the Francophonie organization. Thank you very much, indeed. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: For now, may I, on behalf of our Greek hosts, accept your thanks, without your having to state them. And certainly on behalf of the U.N., accept your thanks without your having to state them. That will save us a little bit of time. Because we need -- we have a lot of speakers, and I think it's very important we hear as many people as possible in the course of the morning. So I had Simon QOBO from south Africa. Simon, please, can I request that people stand up rather fast, quickly, so that the mikes can get to them. Simon QOBO. >> Simon QOBO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I wanted to make an observation with regard to the composition of the panelists, in particular, access, connectivity, policy, and cost. I think we should have been, in fact, included. Perhaps (inaudible) institutions in the panel. Because they deal also with matters of development. For an example, most of the representatives from the developing countries spoke about the bread and butter issues of infrastructure development, which is very important for us. And also, in this regard, if we had them represented in the panel, we would have perhaps gotten an opportunity to explore how, perhaps, the poverty reduction strategy papers could be used in terms of mainstreaming the ICT infrastructure. And also, there is -- there is (inaudible) from these institutions, including the (inaudible) outcome with some kind of conditionalities and regulations. So perhaps we would have asked them, how do we deal with that to deregularize or deconditionalize these particular resources in order to mainstream infrastructure development. Lastly, I would like to also major an observation. I think with regard to policy and -- yesterday, most of the proponents focused on the policy formulation and design at the national and the local level. And I think for the future meeting, we need to spend a lot of time looking at the policy perhaps formulation and kind of design with regard to international resources. How do we begin to harness the international resources for infrastructure development, in particular, to the developing countries? Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: After that, I had ambassador (saying name). >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to share with you some impressions we have discussed among colleagues from the E.U. member countries here in Athens. The IGF has been a new type of experience, and it will take some time to digest them and come to conclusions of what it achieved and what the way ahead should be. Nevertheless, let me offer some preliminary conclusions. With its variety of themes and topics, IGF was a good demonstration of the fact that Internet governance covers, really, a vast area of issues. One of the questions to ponder when we go forward is whether it will be time to go deeper on fewer issues. This has been a good example of genuine multistakeholder dialogue, a free-flowing discussion among stakeholders who just a few years ago would hardly talk to each other. But this didn't happen by itself. This is a result of four years of the WSIS process, from Geneva to Tunis to Athens. Now, when the road continues from Athens to Rio, on the road, we already see these groups traveling together, building dynamic coalitions, and forming partnerships built on synergies found here at the first IGF. So let's hope that in Rio, in addition to continuing the discussions, we also see and evaluate perhaps the first practical results of these partnerships that were begun in Athens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think that's an interesting thought, which is that certain coalitions, et cetera, are being announced, there are partnerships of some sort. And one thing we could do is to simply, one year from now, ask ourselves, okay, what did we do over the past year. Can I, I before I move, I have a gentleman who's within waiting for the floor for a long time. >> JEREMY MALCOLM: It's great to hear about all these dynamic -- Jeremy Malcolm is my name, by the way. And one possible danger is that we might lose track of them all. A facility that is available for all of the dynamic coalitions that are forming to make the information available in a central location is on the IGF 2006.info Web site. There's a new main link on the left-hand side of the page called "dynamic coalitions." And by simply clicking on that and then editing the page that you see, you can add information about your dynamic coalition there. It doesn't mean that you can't have your own Web site somewhere else, and your own mailing lists and so on. But at least you can link to them from that page. That would be a good thing if you did that, because rather than asking the secretariat to add it to the official Web site, the secretariat is very busy, and you can do it much quicker yourself from the IGF2006.info Web site, which is not a -- an official site, but it is endorsed by the secretariat as a place for the community to come together and discuss and post information. So that's the first point. The second point is that another way for all of us to keep in touch after we go home is via a mailing list, an official mailing list has been created, which is plenary@intgovforum.org. The link is also available via the IGF2006.info Web site. If you click on forums, you'll see a number of forums listed there. One of them links to the official plenary mailing list, which I would encourage you to join, no matter which stakeholder group you're from. A third point is, regarding the dynamic coalitions, there isn't yet any clear understanding of their relationship with the IGF. In a sense, they're totally independent. And yet, there's been comments from the floor today that we want to see some tangible outcomes going forward from what we've been discussing in our workshops and what we will be discussing in our dynamic coalitions. So I suggest that we might want to think about criteria by which the dynamic coalitions can attain an affiliation with the IGF, something like a formal affiliation with the IGF, what might those criteria be. They would have to be multistakeholder composition, openness, things like that, so that we know that the output of a dynamic coalition corresponds to the values of the IGF as a whole, of its multistakeholder process. I would suggest that if those criteria are agreed upon, it would then be possible for the output of a dynamic coalition to be formally relayed back to a session of the IGF as a whole and thereby attained some sort of concrete status. So that's just an idea for people to think about. It would tie in the output of the dynamic coalitions to the group as a whole, and thereby give their output a more solid status. Thank you very much. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: That's very helpful. I have Raul Echeberria from LACNIC, and then Mr. Tariq (saying name) from the government -- Let me just announce three at a time. Raul Echeberria, followed by Tariq (saying name), government of Pakistan. And then Mr. David olive, the WITSA policy chairman. >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Is this working? Well, I'm going to speak Spanish. I have to say that the first thing that comes to mind is that we've been working very hard at the IGF here, and we also worked very hard at the working party in the chateau outside of Geneva, well, I can't remember the name, but we also worked very hard there. And it makes me very happy to see that the ideas from there are now being put into practice. We have a proposal, and it was heard at the Tunis summit as well. Because after that, at the conclusion of that