Internet Governance Setting the Scene
15 November 2009 - A Main Session on in Vilnius,Lithuania
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fourth Meeting of the IGF, in Sharm El sheikh. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. ORIENTATION SESSION Sunday, 15 November 2009 INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt >>MARKUS KUMMER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning. We managed to turn off the music so we can start the session. This is an orientation session. It is not the starting of the meeting proper. It is an informal session that should help newcomers to find their way around the IGF, to understand what the IGF is, and also look a little bit at the program. May I ask you to be seated so that we can start properly. Please take your seats, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Markus Kummer. I am the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat, and I have the pleasure to co-moderate this session with my Egyptian counterpart, with Ms. Nermine El Saadany, who is the Director of International Relations in the Ministry for Communication and Information Technology. Before -- [ Applause ] >>MARKUS KUMMER: Before we start it's my sad duty to remember that a very active member of the IGF community passed away on the 4th of October. And I would like to invite one of his many friends, Mrs. Divina Frau-Meigs to say a few words in his memory. Please, Divina. [ Applause ] >>DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS: Dear colleagues, dear members of civil society, of the public services, and of the private enterprise, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words in tribute to Francis Muguet, our comrade who died suddenly on the 4th of October. Francis Muguet did not like farewells, so I will not speak with sadness about him. I believe that we all think of him with sorrow. Civil society will miss him. The committee of engineers laments his loss. The community of open source is also sad today. The community of global licensing and the global listener recognizes his loss and that there will be a significant loss in terms of the approaches that might be found for Internet governance. All of the facets of Francis Muguet are facets of civil society. Many of us are like him. We are seeking different approaches through our cultural diversity for freedom, for alternatives, for trade, that are nonproprietorial. What is left from his legacy? Something very important, and which all of you who have known him will keep in your memory. He was an irritant. He was a thorn in one's side. He was someone who you recalled always to us within civils that we were supposed to be that thorn in the side, that within this tripartite approach of Internet governance, the private sector, the international sector and the civil society, we were -- it was our job to be this perpetual itch, this thorn in the side. And he was this small flame of disobedience, this rebel. So as you observe this minute of silence, Francis Muguet gives this to you, each of you, so that you can find one second that small flame of resistance. And I thank you on his behalf. [ Applause ] >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Divina for these thoughtful words. May I invite all participants to stand up and to honor Francis Muguet's memory with a minute of silence. [ Minute of silence ] >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Let's now turn to this session. I will begin with saying a few words on the IGF, what it is and what it is not. The give, as most of you know, is a child of the World Summit on the Information Society. It was decided in Tunis back in 2005 to give a mandate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convene a multistakeholder platform for dialogue on the issues related to Internet governance. And the important word in this context is multistakeholder. It is unlike a traditional U.N. meeting, which is essentially intergovernmental. Here it is a meeting where all stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, international organizations, intergovernmental organizations, all sit down as equals in the room to discuss matters related to Internet governance. And Internet governance is also based on the definition agreed on in Tunis that relates to policy issues with regard to the development and deployment of the Internet. This year in Sharm El Sheikh, it is the fourth meeting of the Internet Governance Forum after Athens in 2006, Rio in 2007, and Hyderabad, India in 2008. We have found our axis of discussion with five main themes: access, diversity, openness, security and diversity, and also critical Internet resources. In Hyderabad, we have begun to look at the interrelationship between these themes. The program is developed very much in a distributed bottom-up way. The main group in this regard is the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. They advise the Secretary-General in convening the meeting. And we have, throughout the years, open calls for contributions. We have planning meetings, open meetings, open to all stakeholders, and we have rolling documents that push the agenda forward. The nature of the IGF is -- it's not a decision-making body. It's not here to replace any existing organization, it's not here to take decisions. But the IGF can shape decisions that are taken in other organizations. It has not the power of redistribution, but it may have the power of recognition. It can recognize issues. It can put them on the agenda of international cooperation. And the new phenomenon in this regard, and we look at it in the latter part of the session, is the spread of national and regional IGF-type processes. One important part of this year's meeting will be the review session. The IGF was originally given a mandate of five years with a clause to review it and to take stock. And based on this report, the Secretary-General will then make recommendations to the U.N. membership whether or not to continue the mandate. I will ask now my co-moderator to introduce the moderators, and they will then tell us what they got out of the IGF so far. Please, Nermine. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thank you, Markus, and good morning, everyone. Let me first, on behalf of the Egyptian government, welcome you all in Sharm El Sheikh, the City of Peace. This session today, as Markus has clearly mentioned, will help explaining what is the Internet Governance Forum, the process, the agenda, and highlight some of the key aspects that we're going to live together the following four days. Today, I'm honored to co-moderate this session with Mr. Markus Kummer, the Executive Coordinator of the IGF. And I am honored to have with me some friends and colleagues that have been very active in the field of the Internet governance for the previous four years, and maybe before, since the WSIS in its two phases. I will go around the table quickly with introducing the names of the panelists together with us today, and then allow me to switch the hats between the host country perspective, the Egyptian host country perspective, and then the perspective of the panelists together with me that shares how they see the Internet Governance Forum, and we will continue the discussion afterwards. We have with us today, Mr. Rafik Dammak from the University of Tokyo. He will give us the perspective maybe from youth point of view of view. Then we have Ms. Marilyn Cade, who has been very active and of course most of you will know Marilyn and know how she has been very active since the WSIS, and very enthusiastic about everything that happens here in this forum. We have as well with us our Indian host who has been very generous in the previous year in Hyderabad hosting the Internet Governance Forum, and I'm delighted to hear his experience and look forward now that I am the host here and share his views. As well, we are having with us Mr. Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe. Mr. Hibbard has been very active and we have been working together the previous year in mobilizing some of the activities that the Egyptian government has taken. Of course, we have as well Mr. Jovan from the DiploFoundation. The DiploFoundation is one of the key players in the capacity building as we are going to see together. And I think their contribution to the process has been very well recognized. We have as well Mr. Alex Ntoko, from the ITU, the International Telecommunication Union. Of course, the International Telecommunication Union, as we all know, has been behind the WSIS and has always been a very reliable counterpart that we all rely upon and has very wide experience in different fields and areas. Last but not least, Dr. Nii Quaynor, representing the African perspective, and definitely Dr. Nii has been very, very active since very early ages of the Internet. And I'm sure that his contribution to this panel will be of great addition. So please allow to welcome with me all our panelists so that we can start our discussion. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: I will now take advantage of being the moderator and being here as well as being the host country representative and I would like to start with sharing our views, and then I will move the floor to our Indian host to share his views as well. Today, we are hosting the fourth meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. And as all know, that we will try to address some questions that will help you understand more about this forum this year, including its agenda, the various workshops, the differences in the sessions and the main panels and so on. Further, I will be highlighting the honorary session on the 18th of November, on Wednesday, of the First Lady of Egypt, Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak. I would love, actually, to encourage you all when we open the discussions for the Q&A to have more interactive discussions so that we can see how your views are and how we can move forward afterwards. As you may remember, the IGF has evolved through the discussion of the WSIS to tackle the needs of the Internet policy issues and to help the developing countries in understanding more about these issues and aspects of the Internet governance, allowing them to engage in the discussion as well. By hosting the IGF this year, Egypt wants to emphasize the responsibilities that both developing and developed countries are equally sharing. Bringing the forum to the African and Arab region for the first time in this particular year, signals a message that this forum and the question of its continuation could not be completed without adding the opinion of the developing countries and tackle their needs. We believe that the IGF is the only place that paved the way for the involvement for all stakeholders in the process and establish a healthy and productive dialogue between all parties involved. This dialogue surely helps in creating a common background with regard to the different themes and issues. You may join me in feeling the impact of this process on the different layers of our community on both national and regional levels. In this context, hosting the IGF enabled the Egyptian community to get more engaged in the discussions related to the forum and stimulated the national and regional awareness in regards to the Internet governance issues. The Egyptian government has been investing a lot in mobilizing the community and coordinating different stances to ensure a successful event. I would love to hear from our colleague from India, Mr. Ravi, to share with us his views in this part as the previous host of the IGF in Hyderabad. Mr. Ravi, you have the floor. >>N. RAVI SHANKER: Thank you, Madam. At the outset, on behalf of the government of India and the people of the India, I would like to felicitate the government of Egypt for undertaking the onerous task of hosting the fourth IGF. All good luck to you, ma'am. We in India had the privilege of hosting the third IGF, and though it is very clear that the IGF is a non-outcome oriented event, taking a lot of learnings and lessons from the IGF, we have been able to stimulate a lot of activity in the I.T. sector and the Internet (inaudible) in the country. The theme of the current IGF is very well articulated: Internet opportunities for all. And the development agenda is certainly getting into a lot of focus, and this is a laudable move, I would say. Within the country of hosting the IGF, we have felt that the development agenda needs to be given a lot of trust, and moving apart from the fourfold ideas that emerged at Athens -- access, diversity, openness and security -- and dwelling onto the theme that evolved in Rio, management of critical Internet resources, the "Internet for all" tried to place a focus on a development agenda. The theme today at this fourth IGF, which is the opportunities for all, really puts it at the center of it all, and I am sure that in this IGF, we would be moving towards the age of development where IGF would open opportunities for all. I would like to say that outside of the IGF, a lot of things have happened in India, and I would like to just dwell on it for the benefit of our audience present here. We, in our country, have launched what is known as the national knowledge network, which is basically democratizing education or trying to bring about the genesis of countrywide class (inaudible). The initial phase has been launched, and the final phase is likely to be launched in about three months' time from now, and the project will take about two to three years to actually be put in place. But that, I think, bridges a huge digital divide gap in the educational arena. We also felt that as a nation the development agenda needs to be put into focus, and the common service center or the info kiosk, which we call it, this we have tried to take it to all the rural areas, and we have tried to broad-base activities. Telemedicine and e-learning will be the important points that will be the focal areas of development. The agenda of the IGF, Internet opportunities for all, augers very well, and we wish you all the very best. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>MR. NITIN DESAI: Thank you, Mr. Ravi. Part of the process of the IGF has been evolving, and one of the very important, actually, aspects that has been -- or considered to be the impact of the Internet governance is the capacity building. In Egypt, in our endeavor to prepare for this Internet Governance Forum this year, we have been building the capacities of a group of experts to enrich the awareness about the Internet governance issues and themes. In collaboration with DiploFoundation, the Egyptian task force of IGF organized a series of awareness workshops for the Egyptian community to introduce them to the themes of the Internet Governance Forum so that we can come here well prepared and can actually integrate in the discussions. Therefore, the capacity building is one of the aspects that I think is very important and I would like, therefore, to turn to our colleague and friend, Jovan, from DiploFoundation, to share his views about this specific area. Jovan. >>JOVAN KURBALIJA: (No audio.) Can you hear me? Good. Well, when I was asked by Nermine to reflect on capacity building during the orientation session, I thought of using the visual association on the metaphor of a compass, because we usually need a compass to see where we are. And I will use today two type of compasses. One is to navigate evolution of capacity building in the IGF context, and the other one is to navigate our next four days at the IGF in Sharm. One of the conceptual fathers of the Internet said that we often underestimate what can be done in one year and underestimate what can be achieved in four years. And the IGF capacity building is a good example what can be achieved if you work in a bit longer time span. In four years, the IGF achieved a lot in capacity building, mainly for inclusive participation. It was one of the highlights of the last IGF in India, and I think Egyptian hosts made additional step forward in this direction. Now, let me illustrate this revolution of capacity building with a story based on my personal experience. Prior to the start of the IGF, back in 2005, I was one of the members of the Working Group on Internet Governance. At one point during the meeting, I asked the other members of the working group, 40 of us, if they could explain to their friends and relatives what they were doing. Very few could do it. I wasn't among them. The IGF was a new topic. There were many acronyms. Many friends of mine, they are telling me, "Jovan, well, you are dealing with computers. Could you come to my home to fix my printer?" And I said, "Well, I can try, but it's not exactly what the Internet governance is." It was in 2005. Today, my friends are approaching me and asking, Mr. Jovan, that what you were spending your time on, Internet governance, could it help me to control what my children are accessing on the Web? Or could it help me to control my Facebook account and privacy status of the Facebook account? In four years' time, there has been enormous evolution in general understanding about Internet governance and need for Internet governance. If I can use climate change metaphor, the foot fingerprint of the Internet governance has increased enormously. With more people being aware of I.G. issues, there are more questions. They need answers to the practical issues: Facebook, child protection, and other topical themes. Many of those answers must be provided on the national level, and on international level the place where the answers are discussed, and some of them are provided, is the IGF. Another major change over the last four years has been I.G.-related capacity building. International organizations, including ITU, UNESCO, World Bank, have trained many people in I.G.-related issues, including infrastructure and multilingualism. International organizations such as ICANN have also trained huge number of people. Internet society is one of the most prominent players in capacity building, especially on national level. In this period, there have been more specific targeted capacity-building programs in Internet governance. Summer schools are organized in various regions, even during the winter. My organization, Diplo, runs capacity-building program involving training, research, and policy immersion. An increasing number of universities worldwide are introducing I.G. in postgraduate studies and undergraduate curriculum of their programs. The IGF has galvanized those developments. And this has made the IGF as the natural host of capacity building in all the field of Internet governance. Let me briefly return to the second compass, and compass that should help us navigate the next four days. Today, we are at the very beginning of the fourth IGF. The IGF is a great learning experience, providing context for exchange of knowledge and acquiring new skills. I'm sure that each participant in this room, and more than 1,500 people, will have their unique stories about experience from Internet Governance Forum. For many, the IGF will be the first exposure to Internet governance. Some have been in this process for a long time, and the IGF will help to fine-tune their I.G. knowledge and understandings. Others are involved in specialized area such as privacy or data protection, and IGF will help them to make links with other fields, to move beyond their policy silos, to see what has been done in other areas. How to navigate this richness of the program over the next four days? Let us use the metaphor of the compass. First, I suggest the compass will direct us to workshops and panels where you can listen to the leading experts. Second, it will point to I.G. village, where you will be able to meet people, chat and learn by, what you can say, osmosis. This is capacity building by osmosis. And I think probably the title I.G. bazaar, intellectual knowledge bazaar, will be close to the description of what will be happening in I.G. Village. Third point in which our compass will direct us is, especially if you are digital migrants as I am, to visit digital dive booth at the youth corner where digital natives, young people will help you to understand their role and new challenges of the governance. The fourth and the last direction that at least my IGF compass will point to is debating club, where you be sharpen your arguments and listen to young people arguing on the key Internet governance issues. To conclude, take your IGF compass, open your radars, and be prepared to enjoy and learn. Thank you. [Applause] >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thank you, Jovan. Actually, part of the activities as Jovan has mentioned that we will be witnessing this year in IGF in a more mature way, if I may say, is the inclusion of young people and some youth activities that is very, very impressive, and I think all of us will be engaged somehow, because we're having about 60 youth around the corner will be interviewing you and asking you questions and printing newsletters on a daily basis and so on and so forth. Young people inclusion are the future users of the Internet and I think we cannot deny their rights to listen to their views and know how they are thinking and what are their needs and fears and so on and so forth. I would love to hear Rafik and his perspective of the young generation inclusion on the civil society basis and so on. Rafik, can you share with us your views, please? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Thank you, Nermine. So I want to talk about youth involvement from my own experience, so, in fact, my first experience was in IGF Rio de Janeiro as a kind of youth representative with some fellows to present what we had done on an online roundtable and to participate and to voice our vision for youth on Internet governance, so our main participation was during the emerging issues session, it was a main session, and I think it was enough energizing for continuing the experience and following up to the next IGF edition. So the next step was to organize a first youth workshop focusing only on youth issues, with a fair presence of young panelists. That work was done by a formal team of volunteers from the old online roundtable and the new people, and all of us were youth representatives. So to have such a specific workshop provided us a rich opportunity to talk about youth issues by people who can really be aware about youth problems and vision, and more able to understand them. So it was from youth to youth. This year, in IGF Sharm El Sheikh, I am really happy that we will organize again a youth workshop with only young panelists. So we have even a speaker in his beginning of his 20s. And this workshop is organized with partners like DiploFoundation and Cyber Peace Initiative and Net-Aman from Egypt. So just for information, this workshop is the Number 230, and will be held tomorrow afternoon for more than two hours in Sinai room, and everybody is warmly welcome, especially young people, but others too. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thank you, Rafik, for sharing with us the future activities of -- in the coming few days, but I would love to listen to your impressions of the previous IGFs and what did you get out of it? If I may. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: So my experience from previous IGFs is that IGF is really the place that people should be present to understand all IG issues and to find the opportunity to talk to the other side, because this multistakeholder aspect, so it's important to be inside the IGF, rather than outside. Thank you. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thanks, Rafik. I will turn now to Alex. Alex, you are representing a key organization in the field of communications and have been always there for helping member states in different areas. What do you see and what are your views regarding the IGF and what did you get out of it so far? >>ALEXANDER NTOKO: Am I on? Is it? Okay. Good morning, everybody. I will start by asking a question, basically. Today, the 15th of November, 2009, why are we here? Why are we in this room? Why are we in Sharm El Sheikh? A process was launched in 2003 where world leaders thought that it was important for us to see how we could accelerate the achievement of Millennium Development Goals using ICTs. And it was also for the first time that we had all four stakeholder groups -- governments, civil society, international organizations, business -- all functioning on an equal footing. In fact, we like to say in the ITU that it was -- WSIS was one of the -- probably the first forum where civil society was not demonstrating outside, because they were inside, on the same footing as everybody else. And we think that this is a unique opportunity because it brings -- it creates this environment where people can discuss, on an equal level, share ideas, and these ideas are now in line with the spirit of WSIS and could be fed into more formal processes. WSIS and governments, the role of governments, intergovernmental organizations, what have been our experiences? You see WSIS is a forum -- sorry, IGF is a forum, and a forum is where people discuss, but the people discuss because there are problems behind, because there are problems that they need to address. They are trying to arrive at some common understanding or a shared vision on how to look at some of the solutions to these problems. But these ideas which have matured to a certain extent need to be followed up, they need to be followed up through the current arrangements and mechanisms a little bit more formal. I am with the ITU. I am working for the ITU, and we are an intergovernmental and a treaty organization with 191 member states. For us, the IGF gives an opportunity where we can get some of the ideas and see how they can mature and be fed into some of the processes which are formal in ITU. And I will mention some of the key roles of ITU. We have development, and I see the director of the BTD sitting in front there, Sami Al-Basheer. We also need to develop standards, global standards, to be able to make sure that, you know, this Information Society which is all what this IGF is all about, is built on global and interoperable standards, and I also have my colleague, Malcolm Johnson from the director of the standardization bureau, so IGF has been something which is unique. It has been something where we would be able to, you know, see -- we meet people that in most cases we normally would not meet in our own normal organizations where we function, so we believe that IGF is an experience which is unique. It is unique because you have all four stakeholder groups working on an equal footing. It is also unique because it doesn't arrive at decisions. So we see IGF, and, again, in line with the spirit of WSIS, as an interface to existing mechanisms so that some of the discussions that have matured enough can be fed into formal processes, so we should never forget that the reason we are here and the reason we met at Tunis and in Geneva and then in Tunis was because there was a need for ICTs to try to contribute towards meeting the development goals. So for me and from ITU, IGF is something that needs to be seen within the broader picture of WSIS and the agreements that were undertaken -- that were arrived at by world leaders both in Geneva and in Tunis. So I think I'll end my remarks at this point. Thank you. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thanks, Alex. [Applause] >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Ladies and gentlemen, I think you will all share with me that the IGF is a multistakeholder process, and I come from the government and I know that all of the government and what should be done on a governmental level but I would love to hear from Marilyn the perspective from the private sector. What do you think, Marilyn, about the multistakeholderism of the IGF? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Nermine. It is indeed my pleasure to be with so many new attendees at the IGF, but also so many parties who I have met in the number of years and experiences that I've had in paying attention to this concept of Internet governance. I'm going to talk about what multistakeholder means within the IGF, but also perhaps put it into context in thinking about the role that all of us play in using and influencing and building and enhancing the role of the Internet. So there are three words, really, that make up the title of Internet governance forum and all of us understand the value and importance of the Internet and enhancing how it reaches people and brings access to information, knowledge, resources, and to other people. And we all want to enhance the role of the Internet. Governance does not mean government. It means governance. And without going into great detail, there was an extensive discussion over a six-month period in a multistakeholder environment that defined "governance" very broadly, to include the acts and responsibility of each individual person and each individual sector. In thinking about "multistakeholder," I see "multistakeholder" within the IGF as something that we have built so far, but must continue be to build. So I'll make a concept here, if I can, about how "multistakeholder" in the IGF means that each of you are an expert, but in a different way than you are an expert in another intergovernmental organization or in a national organization. "Multistakeholder" here comes with the modifying phrase "interacting on an equal footing," so here each of us individually is entrusted with respecting the perspectives and the role of each other person and each other sector. Civil society and NGOs, the business community, the technical community, the governments with more than one ministry involved -- and I think that's an important message as well -- and the intergovernmental organizations are all contributing to this unique multistakeholder environment where we're all interacting on an equal footing. When I interact in other intergovernmental organizations and in national organizations, I also find other varieties of multistakeholder behavior or interactions. But "multistakeholderism" within the IGF is different and very reliant upon the participation, active participation. So one of the things that you have to do within this environment is not just listen, but actively participate and raise questions and get to know the different stakeholders that are from the other settings, and their perspectives. That means when you come to the IGF, it's a lot more work. You don't just come to attend a workshop session; you actually have the opportunity to build a workshop. And one of the real contributions that I've seen throughout the very -- the four years of the IGF is that the planning and organizing of each of the sessions, in and of itself, is also multistakeholder. Active participation within this environment, I think, is something that we have really benefited from, and the opportunity we have in multistakeholderism here, Nermine, I would say, is to keep reaching out and defining "multistakeholderism" within the IGF, and calling it that, and making sure that participants understand the uniqueness of how we treat multistakeholderism here. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thanks, Marilyn. Actually, I agree with you that the multistakeholder approach has been very well recognized in this process, and we were supposed to have Ginger Paque from Venezuela actually on behalf of the civil society, but unfortunately she's not here physically, but thanks for the technology, she will be participating remotely, so I will ask the technicians, our colleagues there, to start the intervention from Ginger, please. Is she there already? So I will move on to the next speaker until maybe you can find Ginger online, okay? So Dr. Nii, the next billion users will be coming from our beloved continent, Africa. Could you share with us your views of the IGF? >>NII QUAYNOR: Thank you very much, Nermine. I think IGF deserves some appreciation for getting African issues close to the global community, so that we can at least address those as well. And I think that has been very helpful for us. As you may know, the technical community started a journey about ten years ago from Cape Town, and we ended up finally going through different countries, ten different countries, and arrived in Egypt just this past May, and once again, our appreciation to the government of Egypt for that level of support and commitment throughout our entire journey, which is over a decade. Now, I'd like to start by commenting that discussion is good. Whether you have a problem or not. And so to associate the need for discussion when we have issues to solve may not be the right perspective for an African who is trying to join the rest of the world, given that there is a digital divide. Now, I believe that the cross-cutting themes of multistakeholder and capacity-building did create a very great learning environment for Africans -- myself in particular -- and if you add the portion about "nonbinding," it really creates a very good environment where, you know, sort of the sensitivities are a little lower, and that really helped us. Given that, I'd like to make a quote of the chairman of the advisory group, Nitin Desai, who often said that IGF brings people who would ordinarily not meet. And I think it is still true, and that has been of benefit for some of us in terms of our access to people who will normally not be working with, who we need to at least learn from and interact with. Now, the power of the multistakeholder process, you know, need not be underwritten. In fact, it's something that we should all try to take back home, in the sense that every organization we are in, we should make an effort to leverage the other parts of the community who will certainly have input, and you can still decide what you want but it's extremely important you hear what the other sides are concerned about, what they are thinking about. And that open process, you know, brought more Africans in to the IGF, and I think that is very good. It's, however, very important that when you are creating these multistakeholder, you know, communities, pay attention to things being locked in reality, in the sense that we need to be practical as to the thoughts that we generate. So if one is working on issues relating to, let's say, child protection, then you must make sure that the relevant groups that deal with that issue are within the community. Likewise, if you are discussing infrastructure-related issues, you better make sure that the technical community is well represented, so that the discussion can be rooted in some reality. Now, the best thing to -- for a participant to get the most out of it is a bit of immersion. There is so much going on, and in fact, you might say that the workshops somewhere become even more important than the -- you know, the main sessions. And that means that you have to immerse yourself in the community and really chase all the issues that seem exciting and interesting for you, and you'll be able to get more out of it. Of course the issues of access still remain an issue, a major concern for, you know, Africa and the developing world. We'd like things to be much more, you know, let's say affordable, and also more readily available, and we'd like to encourage the necessary investments and the promotions of the investment to make that realistic. Now, regarding special issues facing the African community, one can put it really in the three ways that were mentioned from the Hyderabad environment. Meaning the access, the diversity, and the security. Of course we face a major challenge of capacity-building, and the capacity-building challenge is significant and, therefore, leveraging on the skill set within the community becomes important. I mean, it's more difficult building of capacity in one organization, but if you can have a matter of leveraging it across organizations, which the multistakeholder process brings, that makes it possible for us to make some progress. Overall it's been very beneficial for me as an African, and I believe the same is true for my colleagues. Thank you very much. [Applause] >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thank you, Nii. I'm referring now to the Council of Europe to present, our friendly, and he's coming from a very diversified council with many issues. How do you think about the IGF and how do you see it, Lee, so far? >>LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Nermine, and hello, everybody. I'd like to start with a personal remark about the IGF and my passage through the IGF over the last years. I come from an intergovernmental setting, a governmental setting, governments talking to other governments, in a pan-European space with 47 members talking about human rights, role of law, and democracy. And then I arrived in Athens for the first IGF, and things started to change. In my own perspective. Of course the word "multistakeholder" came to mind, and I think myself and my colleagues in the Council of Europe quickly realized the importance of multistakeholder dialogue, and that talking between only one stakeholder group isn't enough, particularly when you're dealing with things like the Internet rights and freedoms, which are without borders, often. And it became very clear for many of us, and also I think with the member states in a governmental setting, how important it was to talk to other stakeholder groups, talk to businesses, talk to civil society. And if you like, the analogy I'd like to make is with what happened, we were celebrating in Europe the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and it reminds me of an event we took part in last week in Berlin with Google. Which was an event called "breaking borders," and in many respects the IGF is about breaking borders, another type of border. But simply bringing people together to talk. I think decisions are one thing, intergovernmental settings decision-making is one thing, but the value of face-to-face discussion with youth, with persons with disabilities, with many stakeholder groups, you know, is invaluable. We have to -- you know, we have to use that dialogue to make better Internet governance policies, whether that be a standard, whether that be a tool, a guideline, whatever. I think it's very clear in the council that's very important. And I think on a personal note, without the Internet Governance Forum over the last years, I don't think that the Council of Europe would have been able to be as reactive in developing many tools and guidelines in the field of human rights, for example, as it has been. And I think if the Internet Governance Forum wasn't there, we may have not produced certain texts at all, and I'm thinking of one in particular which is a standard on Internet -- on the public value of the Internet, the public service value of the Internet, where 47 governments agreed on the importance of the public value, that the Internet has a public value, has a public interest. And this is something which is still being discussed now in many different workshops. So that means where are we today? Well, today, the Council of Europe is working with not just Europeans now, but we're working with many non-European actors here in the Internet Governance Forum and outside, which is wonderful. And it means that today we have 21 people from the Council of Europe, we're organizing seven different events and co-organized with other actors in and outside of Europe, and we are involved in at least 13 other roles in panelist roles in other events organized by other stakeholders. So it feels very much like I came from a European space and I ended up being in a global space, sharing many different things, and in terms of what has really happened in the Council of Europe, I think the Internet Governance Forum has allowed us to encourage signatures and ratifications of certain international treaties, it's helped us to cooperate outside of Europe. It's helped to put human rights on the map with regard to Internet governance. That's very important. We've developed many policy documents, as I've mentioned. We're working more with the private sector than ever before, thanks to -- partly to the Internet Governance Forum and back home, even in the very formal settings where there's lots of protocol, ministerial conference settings, for example, we're applying the multistakeholder principle. So for the first time back at the end of May in Reykjavik, we had ministers sitting around tables, as they do normally, but they associate -- many had associated youth delegations to their delegations, so we had youth sitting next to ministers, and we had -- we had a civil society and we had private sector actors talking together with ministers. That was quite an achievement. And in addition, the Internet Governance Forum allows the Council of Europe to test work in progress, so we're developing different things, different fields of work, whether it's to do with new media, for example, or cross-border Internet traffic and what that means there a human rights perspective. So it allows us to test ideas and a work in progress before they're realized, before they're completed. And of course when things are completed, it helps us to share with all of you. And as Nii said, I think, it's also a great place for capacity-building and we have a workshop, for example, on this -- over the next days on cybercrime training for judiciary and law enforcement officials. So overall just to finish, I would say that there's lots of value for us there. I feel very much like a child growing up with the Internet Governance Forum, and I see things much more clearly with the word "multistakeholder" at the center of that understanding in an intergovernmental setting. And long may it continue. Thank you. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thanks, Lee. [Applause] >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: I will turn the microphone to my partner, Markus, to continue the second question of this panel. Markus? >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Nermine. I take it that Ginger is not online. No? >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Not yet. >>MARKUS KUMMER: Not yet. Well, we thought we might have some hiccups. It's the morning session. It's always a testing round. But we do hope this year that we make more progress with bringing in remote participants, and Ginger is one of our panelists who is back home in Venezuela, and we hope we can establish a link and bring her in later. Well, the second part of this panel was supposed to look at the program in a more down-to-earth way, but many panelists have already pointed out what their highlights are for this week. I just would like to walk you briefly through the program. I mean, not in detail but just in the broad lines. First of all, thank our hosts for producing a printed program. I think it is very helpful. I see many participants looking at it and finding their way around. Just a word of caution. The deadline for the printed program was roughly a month ago, and there have been some changes since. People had to cancel. Some workshops are cancelled. An open forum has been added. So please also countercheck with our Web site. The version on our Web site is the one that is valid. So on the whole, the program is solid, but there are changes, so please check the Web site. It has been mentioned -- I mean, the main sessions are the backbone of the Internet Governance Forum, but I often say the Internet Governance Forum is like the Internet itself: The value added is at the edges, and there's much value added in the workshops. We have more than 100 events in parallel outside these main sessions. They're all self-organized under the auspices, under the steering of the multistakeholder advisory group. They're based on the principle of multistakeholder cooperation. So in a way, we force workshop organizers to be happy and to endorse the multistakeholder principle, and that has been a very useful tool as a benchmark. For a workshop to be accepted, it needs to be based on the multistakeholder cooperation. And through this cooperation, I think real partnerships have emerged. We have -- You see in the program, we have color-coded the different workshops. Each color corresponds to one of the main themes. That should allow you to pick your interest. If you are interested in security, you may just wish to fill your program with security workshops. If you are interested in diversity, you can pick your workshops on diversity. Looking at the main sessions, we have various formats this year. We have some panels, such as we have this morning. This afternoon, the opening ceremony will be more formal. There will be a sequence of distinguished speakers. Tomorrow morning, we will have a session on critical Internet resources. That will be open debate, a moderated debate, but without any panel. So we have very mixed formats. One session I would like to highlight is the session on diversity. We have there dynamic coalition on accessibility for people with disabilities. They have worked very hard on presenting this particular aspect, which will be on the morning of the 17th November. It will be linked to diversity related to multilingualism, and there will also be an access panel. But here I would really like to draw your attention to this diversity session. This is an important issue. According to U.N. statistics about 10% of the world's population are people with disabilities. There are U.N. conventions in place on this issue, on disability, their obligations. And there are also the tools available. So this is a session aimed at raising awareness. And I understand the people organizing this have also prepared a message coming out from Sharm El Sheikh. And there will be a follow-up workshop that will go into more details in presenting the various tools that exist. One session I would like also to highlight, that is the session taking stock and looking forward, where we talk about the mandate of the IGF. We have opened registration for this session on our Web site, but we have realized now that the interest is so great that we already have too many speakers. And we did say on our Web site that we encourage speakers to group together from the various stakeholder groups so that one statement is on behalf not just of a single individual but of one important group within that group or a group of various institutions within that group. But presumably, we will have to limit the statements to about ten from each stakeholder groups. But we may also have to limit the speaking time, which we have now set at three minutes. There is one special event, and for that I would like to ask Nermine to introduce the host country honorary session. Please, Nermine. >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Thank you, Markus. We feel very honored to have for the first time in the history of the IGF, a high-level participation from the First Lady of Egypt, Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak. Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak has been very active since her early career in many areas, and one of those areas is the helping people with disabilities and special needs and making their lives very easy and comfortable. And the other issue that is very close to her heart and I think we all share the same care and the same importance of this is protecting children in cyberspace. We are going to have on Wednesday the 18th at 10:00 a.m. in the morning her excellency the First Lady of Egypt in an honorary session titled "preparing the young generation in the digital age, a shared responsibility." The young people, ladies and gentlemen, you will all agree with me, that these are the users, the future users of the Internet and we need to teach them to make use of the Internet and avoid the harm that they can face. This session will tackle so many issues through distinguished panelists and discussion, and Her Excellency will give a keynote speech regarding her perspective in that area. Thank you, Markus. >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Nermine. We are, of course, indeed, very honored to have your First Lady to be with us. It has necessitated some changes in the program. We will begin all the workshops very early, at 8:00, so we can break in time for the session. And then we will resume the normal program at 11:30 and the lunch break will be a bit later. But it's all up on our Web site. And there will also be heightened security. But I trust you will understand that this is necessary and comply with requirements. And I urge you to make sure that you are maybe a little bit earlier than you would usually be because the queues may be a little bit longer. But I am given to understand that ginger is ready for her interventions, and can I ask the technicians to link to ginger. Ginger, hello. Please, you have the floor. >>VIRGINIA PAQUE: Good morning. I am Ginger Paque, co-coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus, speaking for civil society. I am very fortunate to have this opportunity to interact with you in the orientation session today, speaking from Maracay, Venezuela. Global participation is truly amazing. I can perceive many of the benefits and impacts of the fourth IGF meeting even though I am unable to travel to Egypt and to be with you in person. I join other remote participants, remote hubs, and remote presenters in thanking the IGF host, Secretariat, and community for making this possible. Some of us are used to immediate connections and efficient tools, and we forget sometimes that remote participation is a complex process, as is the Internet itself. To be here with you today in a session that starts at 3:30 in the morning takes a bit of planning. It takes a lot, too. I have to have electricity because although my laptop battery might last the whole session, my Internet connection requires a constant source of electricity, not only to my modem and my computer, but at the ISP site and on the path between us as well. We need good weather, too, because if it rains, my Internet goes out even if I have electricity. That was just the planning on my end. The planning here in Sharm El Sheikh was much more complicated, as teams worked to set up a system capable of connecting 11 remote hubs around the world and possibly hundreds of individual remote participation if this IGF follows the patterns of last year. It is a well worthwhile as remote participation offers an alternate meets to inclusion that overcome financial, temporal and travel constraints, allowing for a more global impact, and enhancing the IGF's concrete measurable progress towards diminishing the digital divide through improved participation and inclusion. There are not many discussion forums in the world that can point to such success. The impact of the IGF is one thing I am very aware of right now, as I have been part of the DiploFoundation team that has worked on the IGF identifying the impact report, which I hope you have all seen by now. This is our first review of the impact of the IGF which we hope to study more thoroughly during this next year. Trying to identify the impact of the IGF has turned out to be far more complex than I expected. The IGF is a discussion forum. It's a conference. It's a meeting of minds and ideas. It is words. Words are reportedly mightier than the sword. If this is true, we must be careful to word them well, and not to waste their power. How can I identify or measure the impact of words? I can see the immediate impact of my words in a responding facial expression, a smile, a nod of comprehension, or a puzzled face. This is the instantaneous impact of isolated words and phrases. Then I can put those words together and provoke an impact to this presentation in this orientation session. So I must consider what should be the impact of my words to you now, during this session. What impact do I want to make right this minute? Well, I want you to realize the importance of planning what you want to take home from this IGF. I want to you decide what impact this IGF, this investment of your time, energy, and money, will have on your life, your profession, your community, and your future work. If we add my words to all the other words to be spoken during these four days, will we have an impact that is greater than the sum of all our words? How will we know? What is the impact of the discussion? Even with the wide range of information available on an Internet search, I found very little guidance on how to identify or measure the impact of discussion. Most impact is measured in terms of cost/benefit or in terms of the impact of environmental impact. And I was hard pressed to find pertinent information to answer my query. The most relevant report I found was an article on the acts for journals political analysis by Adam Simon and Tracy Sulkin called "Discussions Impact on Political Allocations - An Experimental Approach." Their abstract reads in part, "Results indicate that the presence of discussion can generate outcomes that are perceived as more equitable and fair in some circumstances; namely, when a cleavage is present." These findings establish the utility of this paradigm as well as an important baseline for assessing the probable impacts of proposals to integrate deliberation into political decision-making. In Spanish, we have a saying, (in Spanish), or by talking, people come to understand each other. That Venezuelan analysis finds its foundation in common sense and agrees with Simon's and Sulkin's application of discussion to political decision-making. Both applications, that of common sense and political decision-making, apply to the international policy discussions going on in Internet governance and indicates that a discussion forum is, indeed, the proper format for significant impact in Internet governance. What is the impact of any meeting? What is a typical conference outcome, professional or academic? Publish. Spread your ideas. For a business conference? Sell your (inaudible). Sell your ideas. For a government conference, enclose your ideas or negotiate a better position. The outcome of a professional conference might be new techniques to study, new lives saved, extended families and professions affected. The viral spread will be from colleague to colleague, from teacher to student, from professional to patient or client. But what is the outcome of an academic conference? New research, new ideas will spread to colleagues and to students. From a government context, which principally tends to be government-to-government accords. But I think that in the idea process, we have the combination of all of the previously mentioned impact networks, multiplying within and between their spheres of influence. Government to government, government to business, civil society to both, and academics sharing with all of us. This generates a spread of discussions and ideas on a global network. From there it moves down and outward to regional and national levels. Very interesting, there is another level of impact. Almost without exception, the interview participants in the impact study seem to assume that the IGF should and will continue. They criticize the suggestions from the viewpoint of people committed to improving a process that they are invested in. They were concerned enough about spreading the impact of the IGF that a strong majority of them were involved in taking home, sharing, and spreading, multiplying the impact of the IGF in their local communities. Similar to this area of six degrees of separation, we have a chain of impact that we must take advantage of. We must plan all year to prepare for maximizing the impact, to wield our words colorfully. To collect words and ideas, and to take them home and put them to work. We must plan for that. We must do it on purpose, not just let it happen. How long did we plan for this meeting? More than a year. This is a continuous process, not a four-day process. We post mailing list messages. We discuss. We go to open consultation IGF planning meetings. We plan workshops, all to create an impact during these four days. We plan what to wear, how to control the impact of our image. Serious, traditional, unconventional. We plan the composition and content of our workshops, our presentations, and our meetings. We must take one more step. We must plan the spread of the impact. We must plan to maximize this impact by using the required reporting from workshop panels to publicize the results of the workshops. To maximize our connections. To use viral spread and multiply the effects. We must assume the responsibility of multiplying the investment made here and taking it from the international bubble we have formed in Egypt back to our regional, national, and especially our local levels. This is not the responsibility of the IGF Secretariat. Perhaps the most important thing I, personally, learned from the participants in the IGF impact study is that spreading this impact is the responsibility of each and every one of us. And that is my orientation suggestion to all of you. I plan on maximizing my investment, my time, and my energy by maximizing my impact in the IGF process from wherever I am, however I can. Do you? Have a great IGF. [ Applause ] >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much. What have (no English in Scribes' headphones). [ Scribes have no English in headphones ] >> So my question is how much IGF is considering equal opportunities for youth, access and youth of ICT and Internet governance? The second question, 2010 has two meanings for us. First, [ Scribes have no English in headphones ] >>What is IGF role for gender use and access to ICT, knowing that Beijing plus ten is promotion of women's rights and coming from accounting of women's right. And my First Lady Leila Ben Ali is the president of the Arab women organization to promote Arab women through ICT and through Internet. So what the IGF is doing for gender and youth. And let's hope during those four days we could come out with a strategy to implement Tunis Agenda in five years. 2015 is almost tomorrow. Thank you very much. >>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for this question. As you got from my co-moderator, young people is very much at the center of our attention, and we realize we maybe have not done enough. And this meeting here in Sharm El Sheikh will deploy a special effort to bring in young people. And I hope that after these four days here in Sharm El Sheikh, we can say we made a step further in that direction. Gender, we also realize we have -- it's an area which is male dominated. And looking at the panel here, we are not doing particularly well. But nevertheless, we have two ladies here on the podium, and we had another woman intervening remotely. And we do make a constant effort. And there is also a dynamic coalition on gender, which has been a little bit dormant, but I hear they are revitalizing themselves, and they will be meeting this year in Sharm El Sheikh. And I can only encourage you, madam and others who want to promote the role of women within the IGF and within Internet governance, to go to that meeting of the dynamic coalition on gender. And I would very welcome if a strong message comes out of that. I think we have reached our limit. I would take this opportunity -- Would you like a last few words? >>NERMINE EL SAADANY: Yes. Thank you, Markus. I will not take you long, but I would like to add to my previous intervention regarding the inclusion of youth. And I would like to notify your distinguished delegates that there is a youth camp that has started actually two days ago. And tomorrow, there will be a workshop run by the youth themselves starting 11 years old until 17 years old for the first time in the IGF history that we have a panel discussion run by the youth about their own needs and thinking regarding the IGF issues. So I think it will be very interesting if we can participate in this and encourage them even and listen to their needs and issues. The youth corner as well, I would like you to go and have a look for this youth corner. It's like the living area, and they will be doing some activities. And let's see how the games will start, and how it will end. And I would love to hear your views in the end of this conference or meeting. Thank you. >>MARKUS KUMMER: I would also like to have a few practical announcements. Apparently, there have been some questions, or there was some confusion as regards the numbers printed on the program and on our Web site related to the workshops, because they don't correspond to the numbers posted outside the workshop rooms. But our numbers are ordinal numbers, the way we listed the workshops. And what -- the printed schedule goes by name. So if it says Sinai, go to the room Sinai and ignore the numbers. We don't want to create confusion. I would also like to highlight, we have two papers posted on our Web site as input into the discussions. One of them has been translated in all U.N. languages. That is a paper summarizing all contributions we received on the stock-taking process with regard to the IGF mandate. And the other paper relates to the substantive agenda. Unfortunately, the translations, they are being made by the U.N. in Nairobi, and we have not received all the languages in time. We hope you receive it in the course of the week, but the English paper is up while we are waiting for the translations into the other languages. And this paper provides a useful summary of the discussions so far on the individual themes. With that, I would like to thank all the panelists and invite you to join me in giving them a hand in thanking them for their contribution. [ Applause ] >>MARKUS KUMMER: We will now have a very short break, just to change the panel for the next half of this orientation session which will look at the regional initiatives. So I would like to ask you to stay in the room while we change the panel, and we will continue in two or three minutes. Thank you very much.