Internet Governance for Development
16 September 2010 - A Main Session on in Nairobi,Kenya
* * *
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
* * *
>> VYTAUTAS GRUBLIASKAS: Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, we'll now resume the meeting and I pronounce this afternoon's session called Internet Governance for Development open.
It is an honour to show confidence in me to be Chairman of this session. In addition, it's a responsibility that I feel and value a great deal. My name is Vytautas Grubliauskas. I am a member of the Parliament of Republic of Lithuania. And my position is Chairman of the Committee on development of information society. I look forward to our discussion about this important issues that have been at the heart of the dialogue at the IGF in the past years.
I hope and invite you to actively participate in this session. Unfortunately, I have to remind you that our time is limited, 3 hours at most, so I ask you to give your clear and brief viewpoints and positions about the development of the Governance on the Internet.
As all of us already know Internet Governance for Development has been a cross cutting theme at the IGF since the first meeting in Athens in 2006. In my opinion, for the past two years, a series of really successful workshops have brought out the notion that development should be more central to the IGF, and that the relationship of the Internet Governance to development has not been widely explored.
Since extremely our session this afternoon is a result of this need. Our panelists will explore links between local Internet Governance, mechanisms and development. We ask them to consider the institutional arrangements for Internet Governance, and the resulting policy procedures and policy outcomes generated at the global level and how to relate to development consensus.
It is my understanding that in most Internet Governance discussions outside of the IGF, the topic of development is rarely covered and the question of the relevance of policies to development is rarely asked. We shall begin our discussion by asking the question: What does Internet Governance for Development really mean? Furthermore, we shall also consider the regulatory issues and investment relevant to the development. Our overall goal should be to consider how to take the agenda for Internet Governance for Development forward in the IGF and other international settings.
The IGF must be relevant to the needs of developing countries. It's my pleasure to introduce our moderator this afternoon, and let me invite Mr. Nitin Desai, special adviser to the Secretary General for Internet Governance, and Mr. Nitin Desai is from Delhi, India. We have, too, the floor moderators. It is so nice, two beautiful ladies will take care in that position. Let me introduce them.
It's Ms. Christine Arida from tire row, the Director of Telecom planning and services National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt. And Ms. Ayesha Hassan, senior policy Manager e business, IT and Telecom executive in charge of information and communication technologies policy, international Chamber of Commerce, Paris.
They will have you make your comments and the moderator for remote participation is Mr. Olivier Crepin Leblond, so we have six expert panelists but Mr. Nitin Desai will introduce them, so Mr. Desai the floor is yours.
>> NITIN DESAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vytautas Grubliauskas. He has also given me permission that I don't need to pronounce his name more than once, and that if the need arises I can use his jazz nickname which is Congo. I will tell him it is very good for us because Congo in the U.N. also means the Congress of Nongovernmental Organizations, a major institution in the U.N. so I'm very happy to use that name because this is a Forum which is very particularly a particular favorite of Nongovernmental Organizations.
Our Chairman has given us a very good sense of what we need to do in this session. There's always been the discussion which says that you people talk about intent Governance but you're not talking about development. And I think the intention behind the session is to see: Are there issues where Internet Governance impinges on development, which we have not addressed adequately either in the IGF or in the various Forums that are involved in the management of the global Internet.
And we should look here at institutional processes as well as the substantial policy outputs of the Governmental arrangements and ask ourselves the question: Is there something we can do there which would enhance the possibilities of the Internet being supportive of development, the particularly in the developing countries.
As you know, four questions have been posed: What do we really mean by Internet Governance for Development? What do we have in mind when we say we want to talk about Internet Governance for Development? And let's not forget, the word Governance is there. You're not talking about Internet for development not the educational health as such. What we're really concerned with is: Are there issues in the way in which Internet Governance is managed which does have an impact on the possibility of development?
And let's spend a little time on that initial exploratory question.
The second question that will come up from that is to try give examples of specific Governance issues that may have relevance and there are many which have been listed in that including the Governance of names and numbers, the technical standardization, issues about security, about international interconnection, about intellectual property, about issues about transnational consumer protection. Having listed as possible examples but I hope in our second question, people will come up with what they had in mind when they wanted to discuss Internet Governance and development in more specific terms.
Third is a slightly different question, and that question is that after all the Internet is a global infrastructure, and everybody who uses it in some form or one form or another has to participate in its management and Governance, and how developing and other countries organise and manage their National level engagement in global Internet Governance? This is an issue which perhaps there are many here who may have views on this, particularly people from developing countries.
Now, having done this, having had a better sense of what do we mean by Internet Governance for Development, some examples, issues of how developing countries and other countries can connect with global institutional arrangement, we come to our final and fourth question, which is, given all of this, how can we take this agenda of Internet Governance for Development forward in the IGF and in other international meetings?
Our intention is that we will proceed with the four questions sequentially, and we will I will therefore first pose each question to the panelists, ask for some guidance from them on how do they see that question. Then turn to you, and I hope you will be very active in interacting with the panel, and once we have explored one question, then we will move on to the next.
So I would request you to write your questions down quickly, and hand them to the two lovely moderators we have, Christine and Ayesha, who are standing there. I also requested the two of them to be proactive in going to people and requesting them to intervene if they feel that is necessary. But let us try and keep to the four part structure. We have about a total of 2, 2.5 hours, let's say 2.5 hours, leaving time for a little bit of summarizing at the end. And that's 150 minutes, so roughly let's say we have about 30 to 40 minutes for each of the questions. But we don't have to spend 30 to 40 minutes on every question. If there's some things we dispose of faster we'll have more time for other things.
So let me turn to the first question, and that is what we really mean by Internet Governance. And I'm going to introduce the panelists and as they come around and I'm going to move from that end downwards. All of the panelists have been very active in this process. They're very familiar with all of the issues that are involved in this. And I'm really happy to be with them because I've been working with them for so many years now.
Beginning from the first person on my right, that is Ndeye Maimouna Diop Diagne. She's from Dakar, Senegal, the Director of Communication Technology in the Ministry of Telecommunications and ICT in Senegal. You'll find a more detailed biography of her, the work she's done, on the Internet site where the session has been described.
Next over is Everton Frask Lucero. Everton was with us in the Internet Forum but now he's decamped to Washington but I'm very happy to see him again once more in this process. He's at the moment counselor for science, technology and environment in the embassy of Brazil in Washington and as I said earlier, he was very involved in this whole process.
Next here is Zahid Jamil. He is from Pakistan, he's a lawyer. He's senior partner in Jamil and Jamil and Chairman of the Domain Name dispute resolution centre in Pakistan. And once again you'll find more details about his involvement in this area of work in the website. He also has been a very active member of our multistakeholder advisory group.
Next to him is Raul Echebberia. Raul is from Montevideo. The Executive Director, the Chief Executive Officer of LAPNIC, the Latin American Caribbean Internet logistics. He's been a great supporter of this process for many, many years and I'm really happy to see him here, and he has also been very innovative in the way in which the organisation has interacted with Internet users. Next to him we have William Drake. William Drake is our resident intellectual and academic. He's the one who helps us edit all the books we produce and he himself has also been a prolific writer on this subject.
He's also a lawyer and at the moment a Senior Associate in the centre for International Governance at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, and he has played a very crucial role in getting this whole issue of Internet Governance for Development more focused, more organised for debate, particularly in this session.
And finally, we have Anriette Esterhuysen. She's the Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications, and international network which was established in 1990, which of the organisations which are involved in using ICT to support social justice and development.
These are the panelists that we have. I'm going to pose to these panelists my first question, how do they interpret this phrase: Internet Governance for Development, IG4D? What is it that they would like to see discussed under this heading?
May I first turn to our first panelist here.
>> NDEYE DIOP-DIAGNE: Thank you, Chair. I will answer in French, if you allow me. The question of Internet Governance for Development in my opinion should be seen from the viewpoint of sustainable development. If we look at the usual definition of durable development, that meets the needs for giving capacity for future generations to respond to their own needs and sustainable development should meet three essential needs: Social equity, preserving the environment, and economic efficacy. In order to see the impact of good Internet Governance, I can give you just one example, and that is the example of my country, with which on the 6th of August last, underwent a complete breakdown in services of the operator.
That break in service led to National losses of more than 50 billion CFA Francs, 60 billion U.S. dollars. If we base ourselves on that observation, the question which arises is: In the context of Governance, how does Internet Governance currently affect economic activities, in particular generating employment and wealth? The second question we may ask ourselves is: What should be improved in the current Governance to create optimum conditions for the sustainable development of nations.
Since 2003, the first phase of the summit enabled us to conclude that Governance related to a number of questions, particularly names and numbers. So how can the decisions taken in connection with a broader series of questions have a lasting impact on the sustainable development of nations? I wish to remind you here, as we were told by Mike Connor 3 years ago at the workshop on Internet Governance in Dakar, West Africa, that 80% of Internet Governance aspects are local aspects, National aspects. Only 20% are dealt with internationally.
And that is why I believe that this debate concerning Internet Governance for Development will enable us to reframe our National policies this enables us to ask the right questions in the right places. I think in this international Forum, we are not truly going to be able to solve National development issues, but we are, nevertheless, going to ask the right questions, and then enable Governments to apply themselves better and to find out how to include these Governance aspects in their development policies.
In Senegal, I have the pleasure of saying we have defined our new economic and social policy document. In the definition contained for our new economic and social policy document, we have taken up Information Technology and communication as a development tool for the other economic sectors, thereby enabling ourselves to create wealth and employment as also to repo poverty. Against that background we may well ask ourselves what the stakes are currently for development within the framework of Internet Governance: I think that access to information and to knowledge
>> NITIN DESAI: We have a definition and then we'll come to the examples and get into the it in a little more depth.
>> NDEYE DIOP-DIAGNE: Thank you, okay.
>> EVERTON FRASK LUCERO: Thank you, Mr. Desai. Mr. Chairman it's an honour to be with Mr. Desai and in Vilnius for the 5th Internet Governance Forum. On your specific first question I'd like to reply with another question which I believe embodies the answer to what is the meaning of IG4D. The question is: Is the developing world adequately represented and heard at the global mechanisms in which decisions are taken to shape the use and the future of the Internet? Do the existing processes correspond to the share that developing countries have in terms of Internet users Internet growth, in terms of traffic flow, domain names, content production? What we're seeing today I think everybody knows is that the demography of the Internet is changing.
The Internet is growing much faster in the developing world, and it became one of the most important tools for development policies in the developing world. The economy of the Internet, as well, is changing. And what we believe is that those institutions that were created in a different time before this phenomenon, they need to respond to it, they need to evolve, as well, in order to take into account the new configuration of how the Internet is used and is distributed in the world.
I believe that there is another question that is a symbol of how important the Internet Governance is for development and that perhaps should guide our debate. I got this in one of the workshops I participated yesterday as a panelist and I promised the lady that posed this question Walda Roseman that I'd bring it up here because I think this is such high importance and seriousness that it's the centre of our attention so Ms. Roseman asked me: How can Internet Governance mechanisms impact the life of that woman who's living in a rural area in a developing country? She's probably raising her kids, does not speak English, does not have access to the Internet and perhaps can barely express herself in writing in her own language.
So I didn't give her a reply. I told her that the seriousness of the question requires us to keep it floating perhaps for some time for us to analyze it and be clear about what is the effect of all of the decisions that are taken be it in ICANN or IETF or at the ECOSOC or CSTD or whatever mechanism that is created relate to Internet, and those who are taking those decisions, are they aware that they may make a difference to the life of that poor woman?
This is how I would frame the debate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> NITIN DESAI: Three basic things have come across. I'll just put them down for reference as to what is IG4D, for one. The Internet is clearly crucial for development and therefore Internet Governance matters for development, examples which were given by both of them.
Two, that the demographics of the Internet are changing. It involves the developing countries and that the whole question of seeing that their voice is heard in the way in which Internet is managed and governed is one of the key issues that has been brought up.
And the third issue that has come up is that Internet Governance for Development in the context of the impact that it would have on the lives of ordinary people, I'm just going to try and summarize as we go along so you can pose your questions later in a focused pay.
>> ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd rather start with initially yes, it creates a little bit of difficulty. Take a slightly different approach to the topic of IG4D. One of the things we were conscious of at least I was and some others that this should not become ICT for development per say and be sort of that sort of focus and maybe talking more in the development general aspect but more related to basically what and I agree with the first speaker about the National and international impacts that Governance has that is related to Internet, both at National and international levels.
Now, how can does development, for instance, solve or work at or develop new innovations, creativity, to impact development not only in developing countries, but also in developed countries? So it maybe broadens the definition slightly a little more than just look at developing countries. For instance let's look at the wireless broadband which is an issue not only for developing but developed countries also so maybe look at the IG4D as developing the Internet, the issues surrounding that, work at it to solve them, and not to forget the developing countries. obviously, that's part of it. To make sure that they are a part of the process, that they're also being served but slightly broader issues.
So things like developing a greater enabling environment that will have innovation, creativity, give rise to investment, so that then infrastructure can be invested upon and brought to the developing countries as well as the developed countries and capacity building for instance, a very important part of developing Internet Governance across the Board in most places. To take basically the Internet to the next billion. What does it take? How do we develop that? How do we develop the Internet and what IG can do to develop that to the next billion and to the allow developing countries as well to basically take advantage of it. So these are the challenges. It's important to see at this level and these international fora how to set frame works for better Internet Governance so that National and local rules as the first speaker obviously mentioned can actually be impacted that lead to development and the use of the Internet, and all services related to that Internet.
So maybe my definition would be slightly different and a little broader.
>> NITIN DESAI: What you're saying is also bring in the focus on --
on innovation, et cetera. Not just focus on environment and -- by
itself, but also the way in which the governance arrangements work for
or against the possibilities of innovation. Which impacts on
>> RAÚL ESCHEBERRIA: I would like the opportunity to -- of course
this is a pleasure for me to be once again working with you and with
this prestigious group of colleagues with whom we have shared many --
many other time working in this IGF process.
I think responding to your question about what is IGF for
development. We had recently originally an IGF meeting in Quito, in
Ecuador, this is one of the questions that was raised during the
meeting. And I think that's -- I will answer the same, that I say
there that is, for me there are two perspectives of the Internet
governance for development. As one perspective is the -- how the
current governance -- Internet governance mechanism of course adopt the
convention of development in the daily work. And I think that we have
made huge progresses in this area in the last few years. Probably --
not probably, I'm sure that as a result also of the debates that have
been held during IGF. And this is one of the positive consequences of
And so for example in LACNIC, that is one of the organizations in
which I am involved with, we are doing many things. I will not list
all the things that we do. But since providing France and promoting
research in the region, funding demonstration projects to apply ICTs
for -- in different aspects of the life of the people in the region,
and to support training; this had is -- the most important thing is to
remark that this is something that we have in mind all the time when we
design our work plans and we are trying to figure out not only how to
do our work better, but also how to impact in the development of the
As to transform our organizations that could make the difference, as
I think it was the expression that was used by Everton before. Make
the difference in the development of the region.
The second perspective of Internet governance for development is the
impact of the Internet governance initiatives in -- in development.
This is something that I would like to expand a bit more later is
answering other of your questions. But I think that we -- this is
probably the most interesting part; is how the different initiatives
that are being discussed impact the life of the people. So how we can
have all the time in mind when we discuss the Internet governance
proposals, as we should have in mind how they impact in the development
of not only developing countries, as has been said before. I have
little distinction in this second perspective about something that has
been also mentioned by our colleague from Senegal, that is we should
also explore what Internet Governance initiatives are needed for
support of development. Not only have the current -- the initiatives
that have been discussed impacting development, but also what IGF
initiatives are needed in order to support the development in different
>> NITIN DESAI: That was an interesting -- because we got a
perspective from somebody who is involve involved in Internet
governance. It was interesting to see a perspective so to speak from
the side of a person who's involved on the governance side.
>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting that in
walking over here I ran into several long-time participants in the IGF,
and they said, what is this session about? What is Internet Governance
And I thought, isn't that curious had. The first two Internet
Governance had as their overarching theme Internet Governance for
We have been invoking this term for years. But yet in reality we
have never actually tried to nail down in any kind of systematic way
what it is the term might mean.
In some ways that's -- it reminds me where we were with the term
Internet Governance during the WSIS process in 2003 when you had a lot
of people walking around saying, it means this to me, it means that to
me, and so on. And the different parties were talking past each other.
And sort of failing to connect. And it was only through a process when
we sat down in the working group on Internet governance, in the larger
WSIS process and worked through a definition, a conception and came to
a consensus that we were able to really make sense of the topic.
And I think that has to be born in mind. Because we are in this
case, I would say, breaking new ground. We're at the front end of a
discussion hopefully that doesn't just end at the end of this session.
It would be important, I think, to the IGF and to Internet Governance
more generally if we could have some sustained ongoing attention to the
question of development, because it's absolutely central to the reasons
Everton and others have already suggested.
I guess in abstract terms if you say what is Internet Governance for
development, it's Internet Governance that advances the development of
the Internet in developing and transitional countries, and promotes
Internet enabled development. Which may not be exactly the same thing
as just having the Internet, because it's possible to roll out the
Internet and still not fully leverage the benefits of it if the use or
access to it is constrained by improper policies and other conditions.
We kind of know, I think, as has been alluded to by Zahid and others
what has been done at the national level. There's been a lot of work
done over the years of what kinds of national policies sustain the
Internet development. Having the right mix with regard to the
licensing of independent ISPs, composition of telecom, all those kind
of things. But what does it mean with regard to the global IGF
That's the kind of connection that we generally have not tried to
make. We had a workshop yesterday on development issues where I
suggested that Internet Governance is kind of a complex multi
dimensional phenomenon. You take any given issue and you can look at
it from many different angles. Like a three-dimensional prism. And if
you look at it from this direction it will foreground certain issues.
If you look at it from the angle of law enforcements, certain
considerations are in front, others, civil liberty, so on, would be in
the back. You can look at Internet Governance from a variety of angle,
economic, political, other.
To me Internet Governance for development is fundamentally about
turning the prism around a little bit and putting development at the
foreground for a moment and asking the question, okay, how do these
institutions and processes and policy outlets relate to development?
Either in a positive way or in a negative way.
So in the first instance it's about asking the question. Because we
don't often ask the question. In many Internet governance processes
we're talking about very detailed solutions to particular functional
problems without putting it on the table, oh, what might this mean in
the developing world? How easily would this play out?
How would people within countries that don't have perhaps the same
access to information, technological capabilities and so on, how would
they be impacted?
So I think, you know, this is an important exercise to go through.
And I think it's -- I hope it's just the beginning of the dialogue
about how we actually do that.
>> NITIN DESAI: Anriette?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Nitin. There's not a lot to
add, I'll try to add nuance rather than more content. I agree with
what Bill said. I think it really is about the recognition among the
people in this room and the people in the workshops that this is a real
In my experience unless you actually live in a developing country and
experience the daily difficulties of dealing with the matters of
improving governance, dealing with poverty, and dealing with lack of
infrastructure, then this development doesn't feel very real to you.
And I certainly feel like that in the IGF. I feel that I have to speak
a certain language and project my concerns in a particular way for it
to be taken seriously. Because it's not a very developing country or
developing world experience-friendly space. And I say that not meaning
to be offensive, and I know that's not the intention of participants,
but that is how it feels.
So getting to recognize that it is real and that the differences and
perspective and consequences are real.
And secondly, I think it's important to remember that it's about the
inclusion of the needs of users, of people who cannot be users because
they don't have access, of governments, and of other stakeholders. I
think often in international forums when decision-making processes take
place, there's a conception of inclusion of development and a
developing country concerns as being equal to inclusion of developing
country governments. It's much more than that. We need other
And thirdly, I think it is about more broadly developing a common
understanding of what development is. I don't think we can pretend
that we are not going to deal with having to problematize, in the same
way that forums dealing with development, there are debates about what
we mean by development. Is development growth or is development
something more, like sustainable development?
We're going to have to deal with that same challenge of building a
common understanding in the IGF.
I think what's interesting about doing it in the IGF is that we can
do it and should do it not just as a developing country or not just
from a developing country perspective but from a global perspective.
Because the issue in the longer term of sustainable development looking
at social as was said, looking at social development, economic
development and impacts on the environment. That ultimately is going
to apply as much to developed countries as it's going to apply to how
we approach development in developing countries.
>> NITIN DESAI: So are you -- I hope you have been -- I hope you are
sufficiently confused to be able to pose questions about what all this
is all about, you see.
Zahid, with a what did you want to --
>> ZAHID JAMIL: I guess I should have done more thinking before I
got to the panel. I'm listening to different views, is IG4 D of what?
IG4D for the Internet. And then I hear for whom?
For developing countries, for developed countries?
I think what some people are saying, it's for developing countries.
And I'm saying it's also for developed and developing countries. And
maybe the second blank is globally. Which I think has just been
mentioned in the last intervention. So IG4D for the Internet for the
global community is the way I look at it. What does that mean? It
means where Internet governance led to the Web 1.0, I guess, and what
do Internet governance rules and frameworks do to allow 2.0 come? And
where do we have to go from here to make sure that Internet Governance
frameworks allow the next evolution of the Internet to maybe the other
level. That includes -- I'm not excluding -- that includes how the
person on -- in a developing country, say in my country, in Pakistan, a
woman who wants to send money through the use of a mobile phone or
access to Internet protocol services, things, would also be included in
that. Again, I think that we can probably give it a broader definition
as well. Just a thought of a point.
>> NITIN DESAI: Can we just skip for a bit and I'll come back to
>> AYESHA HASSAN: I think we have our first contributor, or what is
IG for development, and another from what is science and technology
>> AVA CRISTINA NEVÉS: Thank you. Well, it's good to have this
debate because I think that is the very first time that we are
discussing development here. In fact, the mandate of -- was to discuss
the development through Internet. But in fact these last years we have
had very good, very interesting discussions but about technical issues
of Internet. Having said that, we have a very good discussion during
the meeting of IGF in Geneva for this session. And I asked whether we
were talking about ICT for development or development for ICT.
So I couldn't agree more with Zahid Jamil, because really what we are
talking here is about the development for both developing and developed
countries. Because the developed countries, they have lot of
constraints as well.
And that's why it's possible these dialogue.
And that -- I would like to emphasize another thing. The basics for
this discussion is location. It's training, it's open access to
Because if these are the main components because with human
resources, we will have the change of the paradigm. We cannot change
the paradigm without human resources. And to have these human
resources with -- we have to work on the capacity building. Thank you.
>> AYESHA HASSAN: I think we have a second comment here from Qusai,
who was coming from the developing region of the world.
>> QUSAI AL-SHATTI: Thank you. Qusai Al-Shatti from Kuwait
Information Technology Society, civil society located in Kuwait. I'm
honoured to be here among you and addressing the panel and my comments.
It's important to differentiate between the Internet as a development
tool and between Internet governance. And I agree with my colleague
Zahid on this. There is a difference between the two.
There is no doubt that the Internet is a tool that can be used for
development especially for developing country and the least developing
country. But the issue here is what is an in IG that is related to --
for development and what -- how it is linked to development issue.
In that sense when we look at paragraph 29 of the Tunis Agenda, when
it said that IEG should be multi lateral, transparent, democratic,
that's issues can contribute to development. It asks for a
participatory Internet. The fact that it ask for a multistakeholder
involvement when we are discussing issues related to Internet
The fact that when we talk about enhanced cooperation, it asks
government to coordinate the effort for policy development that may
affect several aspects of life and civil, social and economy factor,
but may relate to IG activities. In this sense IG is definitely
contribute to the agent of development. And there is a lot to do.
The issue that the previous speaker said, the access to information;
and governing the access to information.
We have talked in the last four meetings about building a trust and
using the electronic media and the Internet and how we take measures to
improve this trust. These are all issues, really, that were all
discussed within the Internet governance framework during all the last
meeting. And it is directly related to the issue of development.
So it is important to differentiate between the two issues, between
Internet as a tool for development, and between the topics that we
have -- we are discussing within the framework of Internet governance
that relates and support the development of the developing countries
and the least developed. Thank you, sir.
>> NITIN DESAI: You wanted to comment on this, Raúl?
>> RAÚL ECHEBERRIA: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that he
brought up a very interesting point, that -- in which I had not
reflected very much about before. That is, Internet governance for
development of what?
As listened -- listening the comments from the audience and the
interventions from other colleagues from the panel, I think that's --
my answer to that is that it is Internet governance for human
development. And it comprise developing and developed countries, of
You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm the chair of the Internet society, an
organisation that spend most of its energies in working in the
development of the Internet around the world, but also in trying to
turn the Internet as a tool for improving the life of all the humanity.
I think that this is the -- the point. Of course, in -- in developing
countries are probably -- not probably, in most cases are bigger than
in developing countries. But we have to think in the -- in all the
humanity. Thank you.
>> NITIN DESAI: Everton, there have been several references to this
whole issue of is it something for developing countries, or what's
developing and developed?
You place a lot of emphasis on one interpretation, which is the
participation of development. How do you react to what you heard on
>> EVERTON FRASK LUCERO: Thank you, Mr. Desai. On the question of
IG4D I must say first it never occurred to me any doubt about whether a
would be a reply to that question. Because it's so obvious. The
beauty of this kind of exercise is that we come from different
perspectives and each one bring its own experience here. And by
bringing the experience -- perhaps and that's what I want the most as a
result of this, is that we will be able to kind of construct a common
ground of understanding around this concept. Because to me since the
beginning I didn't even care to explain that Internet governance for
development is for development of people.
Because the whole world summit on information society was about the
creation of information society that was people centred. Development
oriented, and inclusive. So what we are doing when we talk about
Internet governance specifically is that are the mechanisms adequate to
take into account that basic mandate that resulted from WSIS?
This is the comment I have. Thank, Mr. Chair.
>> NITIN DESAI: One question and we move to the next. Do we have
>> AYESHA HASSAN: Viola Krebs, Executive Director of ICS volunteers.
>> VIOLA KREBS: Thank you. Working in ICT for development, I'm very happy to see this panel, and I think it's a very important discussion. We just had over lunch a discussion of the Dynamic Coalition for linguistic diversity, and many of the issues that were discussed during this very vibrant meeting are very much connected to development, and so one of the things that was outlined and mentioned multiple times by different speakers was the fact that at the end of the day it needs to with be around the people centred approach and reflecting cultures, access to those in particular who do not have necessarily the possibility to write but being innovative to develop bridges between all communities and maybe use innovative technologies to reflect the cultural heritage and the needs of people who may look for jobs or may have very day to day kinds of preoccupations, and so as was said by the representative from Senegal, the local Governance question seems to be very important. So to the panel, my question would be, of course, we have talked about linguistic diversity maybe more in this IGF and the two previous ones than before, but there are still many questions to be resolved. We have 6,000 languages, maybe 350 of those are represented in cyberspace and this question is very much connected to development and getting the next billion on the Internet.
So how do we best tackle that?
>> NITIN DESAI: Can I suggest that we did have think we did have a fairly extensive discussion under diversity. What we're trying to do here is something which is not that detailed, and I'll come back to this and we'll come to that in the next question when we start getting to grips with what other specific issues on Governance which are most salient from this.
But Bill, quick, quick, quick because I need to move on.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Maybe we do agree Internet Governance is not about ICT for development but is it not about the relationship between Internet Governance at a global level and ICT for development? There are Governance decisions that are made globally that can impact on how ICTs can be used for development. We've had an example from our representative from Portugal looking at access to knowledge. There's viola's example about linguistic diversity so looking at how those two modalities relate to one another is probably the simplest and quickest way of getting to it.
>> NITIN DESAI: That's what we're going to get to next when we start trying to be more precise, what are the specific elements which are most relevant and salient from this perspective. Bill, you wanted a word?
>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Just on the question of what kind of development are we talking about? Of course human development. I'd wanted to give you a quote from Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist who wrote a nice book called, "Development as Freedom." He says development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency. It involves the promotion of crucial instrumental freedoms including economic opportunity, political freedom, social facilities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. Those are things that you can look at the relationship between Governance arrangements and economic opportunity and political freedom and so on and start to try to make connections. Of course that's not limited to developing countries. Nobody was suggesting that it is but from an operational standpoint it seems to me that the challenge for the IGF in particular is to try to foreground somewhat the concerns of developing countries, the kinds of issues that particularly arise in developing countries precisely because we have not given them central attention in this Forum and they're not given central attention in most of the other Internet Governance processes and that's the challenge.
There's a political as well as a normative and operational reason to say: Yes, development occurs everywhere, but we want to try to really take seriously the question of: What are the particular concerns that apply in developing and transitional countries. Thank you.
>> NITIN DESAI: Can I move on to the next question. As I see it, in some ways this is a non question. Imagine for a moment that this was a meeting not of people involved in Internet Governance, but Governance of the electricity system. Imagine that this was a gathering of people who are involved in the regulation of the electricity industry.
Would this question even arise? Would I not certainly pose to the electricity regulators that should you not be looking at the, for instance, your regulations on entry, your regulations on access to the grid, your regulations on tariffs? Would you not ask that those be examined from the point of view of the impact on development? It would be almost foolish not to ask that question. The whole purpose of this infrastructure is in the end is development. If you don't ask the question how it impacts on development, then it certainly would be rather pointless.
But you would not ask the electricity regulator questions which are beyond that regulator's domain. For instance, which involving industry processes, which involve a whole manner of other things which will decide and define how that electricity gets used. That's the only distinction one has to make.
But the idea that we have to ask this question as to how does how do these arrangement help or hinder development does require us to ask what development is. But probably not in as much detail as you'd have to do there but certainly means in terms of the spread of the Internet, the ease with which Internet can be used by people whose primary language is not English, the ease with which it can be used by people for purposes of their everyday life and so on. That's certainly issues we that will arise.
That's the question which is our next question really. Our next question is: Okay, this is what we mean. Now, what are the specific elements of Internet Governance which are most relevant from this perspective? One or two have been mentioned. The question of linguistic diversity, the capacity of the Internet to handle diversity is one of the things which has been mentioned. Issues of access have been mentioned.
Are there other dimensions of things that we have talked of under the heading Governance which do impinge on development in the sense they help or hinder? If you do it right they will help. If we do not do it right they will hinder the possibility of development. And that's the next question that we should come to. We have to be a little bit more precise.
I only urge the panel when they respond to keep in mind that we've had a fairly broad definition of what constitutes Governance. We have included issues of access, of diversity, of security and openness. All of these are deemed to be and of course the critical Internet infrastructure, all of these in our understanding are part of Governance.
So my question to you is: In these 5 things that we have, critical Internet infrastructure, Governance issues relating to access, to diversity, to security and to openness, what is it that you deem to be most relevant and significant from the perspective of IG for development?
Maybe you can switch around a little and this time maybe I'll start with Bill Drake since he's the one who's been writing and talking most about this subject. I want him to be precise. List the things which you think are most relevant from the perspective of development.
>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Well, we had the planning group that put together this session had identified a few issues that they thought were particularly relevant, were thinking about from a development perspective, where you could see both positive effects that are quite clear, but then you might also in some cases see problems, where potentially the existing procedures or policies might not be completely optimal from a development standpoint, and you might want to consider making some tweaks, some changes. So this is the kind of discussion that one has to have to go through the issues and sort of identify: Where does it work well? And where are the potential issues that we can tackle?
Now, the list that we had talked about in the group was, for example, to address questions of names and numbers, technical standards, security, intellectual property. I forget all the other ones that were on that list. I don't know that I can rank and say which I think are the most important to development, but I can say that it's useful to look at the whole range of Governance arrangements and try and figure out: Are there issues that arise in each of these spaces?
For example, if you take names and numbers, quite obviously, the whole question of IDNs has been very important to developing countries for a long time, and many people felt for a long time that the progress on that needed to be accelerated. Now of course, things are rolling, so we can say: Here's a case where things are moving along.
There are, of course, discussions about IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 rollout, how that transition will be handled, how that could affect developing countries is again a distinctive issue that one could drill down and try and talk through.
New gTLDs. There was a workshop the other day that looked at this in some detail, and we talked about it yesterday in another workshop that I organised. There is, of course, a process now within ICANN to try to think about how to assist potential applicants from developing countries and other needy groupings, if you want to use that term, to deal with new gTLDs, because of the cost involved of applying but not just applying because that's really just a part of the story, of actually operating a gTLD.
Because, you know, many people I have heard it said by some developing country folks, that perhaps new gTLDs would raise a problem for our new ccTLDs that are still trying to get their footing and we should worry about this. I think expanding the name space is pro development. I think it would be good for developing countries but it has to be approached in the right way and it's simply a question of asking the question and saying: Are there particular concerns that might arise from the standpoint of the market structure, market access entry, and so on, for developing countries that perhaps we could take into account more fully.
And the reason, indeed, that this process is happening now in ICANN was I think the feeling among some people that it hadn't been given due consideration the first time around, when the process for applying for new gTLDs was first conceived, including with $185,000 application fee, the view was, there were no special concerns that had to be addressed that would be too complex, too difficult. Will have the same standards, the same approach for everybody. When we were in the Nairobi ICANN meeting a number of people started to say perhaps that will raise some the difficulties for developing countries. Let's give this a second thought.
A group was formed within the community to try and think it through. That's the kind of process I think is healthy is to take a second look sometimes, say, gee, we hadn't really thought about the development aspect. Is there something there? Are there any things we can do to make this work for effectively? So I'm just mentioning a few quick examples to start.
>> NITIN DESAI: Can I ask just the question: Is there any gTLD where there are registries located in a developing country? Just one?
>> OLGA CAVALLI: My name is Olga Cavalli, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, and I very like your comment because I would like to add to what Bill was saying that what I find relevant for development is having a healthy competitive environment for all of the things that you mention. Say for example about the name space. I would rather see many actors in countries coming from the local perspective and from gTLDs and ccTLDs competing in a competitive environment which is fair for both, so I would like those rules being applied too. Say for example in Latin America, we only have six registrars in the whole region. Why do we have such a very few and so limited name space competitive environment? Why we don't have that more developed?
Say, for example, infrastructure. Do we have enough infrastructure for ISPs? Do we have really good prices of international connectivity for the developing regions? Well, the answer is: No. It's because we don't have many actors investing there. Prance we should look at all perhaps we should look at all these issues that Bill really very good detailed, and try to find the ways that make them work in a competitive environment.
So we have many actors, and your comment about having a registry in a developing country I think is relevant. I don't have the answer for that but I should think about it. I think we have more ccTLDs in developing countries which is good. I would like to see also a G market because there are space for all the names. We all should have our name in the Internet. Thank you.
>> NITIN DESAI: Who wants to comment? Now I want you to focus and be precise and sort of drill down to specifics.
>> Jamil: I think this is a good discussion we're having on this. I'm going to go back to a point I made about new gTLDs. When you look at the new gTLD process and applying for the new gTLD it's an issue. How does that impact developing economies and the businesses in developing economies? I'm commenting on behalf of business so the question again to be asked is did we do a markets assessment, an economic analysis before we said we should go ahead and do this? Did we do an assessment of the economic analysis before we set the rules, before we set the barriers, before we created the complexity, before we set the prices and the answer is no. The economic analysis has come out now and you know that. So maybe we need to also ask the second question. If you look at the economic analysis it's focused on markets. But the next question is does it focus also on developing country markets? Maybe that's a question that should be part of the economic strategy as well. I sort of quickly put together something and drilled down.
I think that both the developed as well as developing countries on this issue of new gTLDs have common grounds. If you listen to a lot of developed countries they have issues on cost, so do developing countries. They have issues on complexity as do developing countries. They have issues who will go first, how will they choose. So do developing countries. They have issues on intellectual properties. So do developing businesses because they have to buy more names at the second level. It will be more impactful for them and user confusion and many other issues so I completely agree with you. You need a level playing field so that not only can the developed countries continue to innovate and create, but also the developing countries can do that and they need an environment to do that as well. Many of the things that are coming together as one humanity, taken together. Thank you.
>> NITIN DESAI: Can I just Olivier, what's happening on the remote participation?
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There hasn't been that much discussion yet. I think people are quite interested in listening and seeing how the discussion is taking place here. I just wand wanted to mention one thing. You can also have remote participation from the back of the room since the distances are quite large so if anybody is a little uncomfortable with asking questions on the microphone they can also send them through the remote participation platform and we'll be able to relay them over. Thank you.
>> EVERTON FRASK LUCERO: From the perspective I initiated my participation here, we should aim at the institutional aspect I believe if we want to consider how the gTLD policy making process is relevant to development, if it is at all, what we have to do is to check where these policies are defined at the GNSO at ICANN, when they are defining the policies if they have criteria that take into account the need of the developing world. If they don't, then it is about time to have. And how are we going to do that? Just by opening a market for gTLDs at the developing world? I have doubts about that. I believe that in some cases or perhaps in many cases, it will actually create some undue, may create some undue competition with the existing ccTLDs that very hardly are fighting to establish themselves and it's not just a question of opening the market and then contributing to the development.
So there are some things that require a deeper analysis and what is most important of all is that developing countries are part of the decision making process on equal footing, because we should not presume that a group of people, we will be able to choose what is more and what is less important in terms of development without listening and bringing in the decision making process those that are from developing countries.
By the way, developing countries people and Government and industry, they know very well, what they want, and what they need. It's just a question of listening and allowing them to participate at the decision making process and we will get there together.
>> NITIN DESAI: Maimouna and then the audience and then to Raul.
>> NDEYE DIOP-DIAGNE: Thank you. As far as the new gTLDs are concerned, I think we've done a lot of work on this in ICANN for categorizing the new gTLDs in order to make it possible for communities and geographical areas to be able to create content in their languages and to be able to create new gTLDs. I think it's important for this categorization to take place and to look at commercial and non commercial gTLDs, and for them to meet the needs of developing countries, because we don't necessarily have a market oriented approach.
As to prospects in Africa, I stressed what Internet Governance can enable our countries to do thanks to IGF. Thanks to Internet Governance. I think there's a considerable impact on sustainable development and that this is becoming a need increasingly. We've talked about gTLD but there are also several routes.
You need better worldwide distribution of highways. This means that we need to have better infrastructures locally and Nationally for us to be able to aggregate our efforts. And I think we have to look at the redistribution of these other routes to enable better traffic flow amongst the various regions.
I think also we need to create security and stability for networks. This is especially important for developing countries because we're more vulnerable. We are more vulnerable because it is harder for us to make our networks secure.
I think that it's very important today to be aware of everything that is being done with mobiles, and with e banking and so on and so forth. We can do better with more secure systems but we have to move forward and carry out this transition as quickly as possible. I think against this background, the Internet Governance Forum can help developing countries to take the step and to move towards IPVCs directly. As my colleague from Portugal said, capacity strengthening is important, training is important. Above all in these new technologies, in these new means of encouraging steps to be taken forward.
In 1998, I was present at iNet training about network management to enable people in the avant garde to train others internally. By way of conclusion we immediate to promote open technologies and open standards. Above all, we have to improve the participation of Governments from developing countries in this process. Thank you.
>> NITIN DESAI: That's a long list, Maimouna. Christine?
>> CHRISTINE ARIDA: Here we have a question.
>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Parminder from IT for Change. With the permission of the Chair I was the last person in Q4 intervention on what is IG4D so can I address that issue also briefly before I go to the specifics? Thank you.
I think what is IG4D should come from our understanding of what development is and it has been spoken by a few people here that it's a complex issue, it's very complicated. Once we at least start accepting that as a complex issue the complication is on the side of development as much or as more on the side of technology. We would have made a start and then we might be more room to the views, perhaps more power to influence the decision to people who work in the development field which is as difficult, as specialized as the technical field and I think there should be a balance there.
And that in tha