The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 10-21 September, 2008. (Writer A) I invite you to participate to an open WSIS consultation meeting next Monday 15 at ITU headquarters (online registration at http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/consultations.html). For the occasion UNESCO and ITU will present a set of proposals to improve the WSIS implementation process. I believe that your experience and your historical knowledge of the entire WSIS would be extremely important to bring about relevant changes and improvements. (Writer B) First of all, sorry if you receive this in duplicates. I have not compared the mailing lists involved for common members. Secondly, this _is_ a work in progress, but I hope that this can be the basis for a good fruitful discussion in the coming week meetings in Geneva. =========================== Status of Multilingualism / Diversity -- 2008-09-14 The area of multilingualism and diversity is broad, very broad, and trying to discuss everything in only one session is impossible. Discussions among interested parties have lead to the following conclusions. We have had various sessions on Multilingualism and Diversity at now two IGF meetings. It is time to dive deeper into the issues, so that forward motion is achieved. Diving deeper do though imply be more specific. Instead of describing the overall landscape, we this year suggest what the actual needs are, to leave room for all players in the landscape to suggest what pieces of the needs they can take care of. We need to discuss how to solve the problems that really exists. But discussions have to start somewhere, and we concluded that the most interesting aspect for specifically the next billion will be to be able to compose content in their own language. The ability for two native users of the same language to communicate, exchange ideas and save text for future generations. Based on this, we can extract the existence of needs. But what is needed? And what is REALLY needed? As an example, having software localized and translated is interesting and of course makes the work easier, but lack of such does not by itself block the ability to write in the local language if just the software is good enough. If we look at localized software, where are we, and what can be done? Same or different solutions for commercial and free (open source) software? What can different parties do to help? Do we have any good (and bad) examples? The actual needs involve Unicode support for the script to be used. Support for rich scripts in the transport and storage protocols and standards that exists. Like in HTML, Email and the chat standards. And finally of course identifiers -- but they are secondary or even tertiary. People "click on text" in web pages, in their address book etc, and identifiers are "only" needed for the "side of the bus" problem. Not to be ignored, but not really needed for the overall problem to be solved. For this to play all together, we suggest a main session that explain and discuss what is really needed. What can be done, and by whom? Discuss good and bad examples. This to be followed by workshops that connect to the workshop. Discuss and present even deeper what has been done, can be done (and not be done). We have no suggestions on speakers, and not any concrete suggestions on merged workshops. . (Writer B) > Shall each proposed organizer start by > identifying the critical issues that it intends to discuss? Based on > this, > we would know how to collaborate and draft a coherent program for > the whole > program. If we all plan individually, it would like the blind men > and the > elephant and we could hardly understand the whole picture. Thanks these words Writer C. I agree with your concern. Let me suggest that for the Multilingualism/Diversity main session and workshops each of you that have ideas, a workshop, proposal for panelists etc "just" send this to me. I will summarize and repeatedly send out status. Then, if you in parallell manage to cooperate with others, even better. But to get started, I suggest you all send information and ideas to me. (Writer D) As the MAG list agreed that tomorrow morning's meeting of the MAG should be open to allow us to further develop the main session workshops, I would like to propose the following mechanism to make that possible. Let us start with a joint session to deal with some common issues as the Chair may see fit, but then break into the 8 groups organizing workshops to collaborate face to face to try to complete their work. We can then get back together for a broader discussion. That will allow us to take maximum advantage of the presence of our non-MAG colleagues who have so generously agreed to be in Geneva to help with this. This is not a fixed proposal, but I thought it might be good to get thinking about this now rather than taking time having a debate about the working modalities. (Writer E) I think this approach sounds like a very efficient balance between enabling all members to be informed and participate through the joint sessions at the beginning and the end, while also ensuring productive work time on each of the multiple main session workshops -- each entitled to detailed time and attention tomorrow on their specific preparation requirements. So, I do support this. (Writer F) I think a short break-up session may be a useful idea. Will we be able to have all those necessary in the breakouts present on the day? (Writer G) Markus, all Please accept my late regrets for this week's f2f meeting.. I've been working on the launch of the [EDITED] (see recent announce on [EDITED]) for the past few months and it's not done yet (but at least I can talk about it :) I hope this [EDITED] will help create a better environment with more committed liaison between Web techies and policy makers. (Markus Kummer) Dear Writer G, A shame you can't make it, but we can see you have a good excuse! Congratulations on the seeting up of the [EDITED] and I look forward to our cooperation with this new institution. (Writer H) Some people asked me to send this file to the group. This is the proposal that Adiel sent to the secretariat as the result of the merging. There were some updates later on the list of supporters, but I think that the proposal itself didn't change. ATTACHMENT Organization: Joint NRO / IGP /Tama University / ITU Title: Managing Critical Internet Resources - Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme including its importance and relevance to the IGF. Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are the numbers that uniquely identify and enable the connection of all the devices to the Internet. These devices can be an originating point, an intermediate point, or the destination point. IP addresses are used by a process called routing to determine how to move parcels of data called packets from an originating point through any intermediate point to a destination point. Two IP address versions have co- existed since 1999. The predominant version of IP in use today is version 4 (IPv4). However, it is estimated by various experts that the central pool of the predominant version, IPv4, will reach its depletion point within the next three to four years. Although it is clear that version 6 (IPv6) is the most likely alternative to the depletion of the IPv4 central pool, it is important to look at what will happen during this gray (transition) period from when the central pool depletes to when IPv6 becomes the predominant protocol of the Internet Infrastructure. There is a need for a proper coordination in this regard among all stakeholders in the community, be they public, private, or civil society sectors, during the gray period. This coordination includes Ensuring the stability of the Internet by smoothing the shift from the Internet infrastructure where IPv4 is predominant to one where IPv6 is predominant; Providing mechanisms which will ensure ongoing orderly management and use of IPv4 address space, both during the gray period and for as long as IPv4 is still in use and Providing mechanisms and incentives for the rapid adoption of IPv6 by exploring various approaches to Operational, Business and Policy related questions. This workshop will explore these issues, providing a balanced and diverse array of opinions from technical experts, public interest advocates, industries and governments. The goal of the workshop is to heighten awareness about the IPv4 to IPv6 transitions issues and to promote better understanding of the challenges that may be facing the Internet growth in the coming years. The workshop is framed to cover the following points: Introduction and problem statement (setting the scene): How IP addresses are distributed What is the real nature of the problem (IPv4 scarcity; IPv6 opportunity). Solutions for the problem and challenges facing its deployment Operational State of IPv6 deployment Operational Challenges facing IPv6 deployment/adoption. Social & Economics: Will a market driven approach to the challenges provide a global solution? What are the market forces, who are likely to benefit from it? How does socio-economic diversity can affect the various approaches to the transition? Policy and incentives What policies have been proposed by governments, and other stakeholders through the RIRs policy development process to respond to the problems? Impact and limitation of theses policies? Way forward Improving cooperation among stakeholders for a smoother transition and more efficient and balance approach to minimize the gray period factor. Provide the names and affiliations of the panelists you are planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed workshop. Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC, NRO) Lorena Pineiro (Ministry of Communications, Chile) Milton Mueller, (Internet Governance Project) Alain Durand (Comcast Network) Sam Paltridge (OECD) Makiko Yamada (Government of Japan) Kc Claffy (CAIDA project) Leslie Daigle (ISOC) Discussants: Paul Wilson (NRO, APNIC) John Curren (ARIN, NRO), Marc Halbfinger (PCCW Global), Izumi AIZU (Tama University) Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi- stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Number Resource Organisation (NRO) – Technical Community/Private Sector Internet Governance Project (IGP) – Civil Society Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University – Civil Society International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – Government/Technical Community Government of Japan (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) – Governments Internet Society (ISOC) – Civil Society/Technical Community Google – Private Sector As shown above, the organizer is composed of multi-stakeholder entities from the public, private, and civil society sectors, with geographic coverage of Africa, the Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe. Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the issues under discussion? Yes, it takes both operational and policy (government and Operational) perspective into account. It will also try to highlight potential Social and Economic impact of the issues addressed. It aims to provide a broad view of issues while focusing on reasonable solutions available to address it. Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. In relation to Internet governance and the Tunis Agenda, we believe this workshop conformity with the Tunis Agenda paragraph 35 36, 37, 45 and 49, which call for cooperation and coordination among all stakeholder for Internet Governance in general and related issues. In addition to that we believe that its is conform to the mandates of the IGF, as described in paragraphs 72-a, 72-b, 72-d, 72-e, 72-g, 72-h, 72-j of the Tunis Agenda. List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have organized in the past. All the organisation partners and sponsors of this workshop have strong experience in organizing events that address similar issues. They have all organized and/or sponsored several workshops during the past two IGF events. (Writer B) Here is a snapshot of where we are in the discussion about this main session workshop. Please do understand thought that I as the coordinator get comments on this all the time from other people being involved, so this is really a snapshot. ATTACHMENT Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Multilingualism / Diversity Status as of Sep 18, 2008 Writer B Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Speakers, panelists •Main Session Workshop panelists to come from the various stakeholder groups: - Government, IGO, Private sector, Civil Society, Disabilities ? Government of India, UNESCO, Apple/Microsoft/Google, ???, Suggestion from Andrea Saks •Discussion based on end users needs, from three perspectives: - Technology, Policy, Cultures and Languages 2 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Overall strategy for sessions • Main session workshop is to get people engaged in the (sub-)topics. Explain why the various topics are important, and also about solutions. Discuss also whether there are any governance issues. Encourage all stakeholder groups (governments where mentioned) to be engaged. For all sessions, do not try to educate too much. Rather take for granted people do understand the topic. • Afternoon session is shared with Access session. There is no overlap after the agreement that diversity is staying together with Multilingualism. • Workshops should be encouraged to be speci?c focus discussions on the various topics, for example (used as an example) one on Internationalized Domain Names. 3 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Multilingualism / Diversity 1.Content in local language - Languages, elderly, children, disabilities 2.Localization, adjustments of the tools - Translation of software, training material, adaption of tools 3.Internationalization of identi?ers - Internationalized domain names, keywords etc 4 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Content in local language •Needed for the user so that she can express herself in such a way that peers can understand •Send email, create text for "the web" •Save information about the language for future generations •Not only for communication in writing •Possible, but not optimal, to do even if software is in different language 5 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Localization, adjustment of tools •Translation (and internationalization) of software, manuals and training to local language •Adjustment of keyboards and other tools to script used •Adjustment of hardware for disabled people •Possible, but not optimal, to do without having to manage identi?ers in local language 6 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Internationalization of identi?ers •Support for internationalized domain names, internationalized email addresses etc in software •Standards have to be developed further •Existing registries for identi?ers must adopt so that policies are created and "not surprising" •Keyword systems, directory services etc must be enabled so that global communication is possible •Speci?cally, the topic on IDNs will include an alert to the participants about the roll-out on internationalized IDNs and to tell them why it's important for them to know about it - High level concept, no technical details, make workshop interesting 7 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Workshops (To be updated) 9. ITU: Including Accessibility and Human Factors in the Universalization of the Internet - How to reach persons with disabilities, the 10% of the next billion 10. National Internet Development Agency: Access to Local Culture and Language (ALCL) 11. Cyberlaws.Net: Four Sisters For Developing Countries - Information Security, Spam, Electronic Governance and Data Protection 12. Council of Europe: Internet accessibility for people with disabilities 13. Cyberlaws.Net: Legal Challenges Before Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) 8 Geneva Sep 18, 2008 Other related workshops (To be updated) 25. ISOC: Steps toward an Internet that is multilingual, yet remains global 27. WIPO: WIPO Workshop on Digital Identi?ers and IPRs: Enabling Access to Content 1. Chinese Domain Name Users Alliance: An Asian Prospective on Internationalization 2. ICANN: Internationalized Domain Names: Myths and Opportunities 3. ITU: Multilingualization and Internazionalization of Internet 9 (Writer F) Hi Writer B, thanks for sharing this. ? A suggestion (from a non-member of the workshop organizers' group) on the speakers/panelists: organizations working with open standards and open source should also be added (some from the larger open source communities/organizations? Also, W3C/WAI? etc). (Writer A) Thank you Writer B for the great work of synthesizing all imputs and build a multidimensional workshop on multilingualism! just let me add few things more, I would prosose to follow another gradual stepping for the three main issues, just tell me if it makes sense: now the order is 1 Content 2 Localization 3 Internationalization three essential apects of multilingualism deeply interlinked. But if we see the issue from the persective of access, and (being at Internet Governance Forum) then I see the 3 steps in reverse order, one conducive and essential for the other. if we are able to convene this message, and then point out to the specific parallel workshop for each aspect in details we reach the goal of a main session workshop on multilingualism I think it is important that we always consider the particular moment for IDN and the fact that we will be in India (11 scripts 25 languages), an occasion to link global policy coordination with local multistakeholder involvement and participation. We will fulfil also the capacity building potentiality and develpmet perspetive of the IGF let me know what your impressions are! (Writer B) > Hi Writer B, thanks for sharing this. > > A suggestion (from a non-member of the workshop organizers' group) on > the speakers/panelists: organizations working with open standards and > open source should also be added (some from the larger open source > communities/organizations? Also, W3C/WAI? etc). Yes, we already have W3C interested in helping, but, we also have to keep the number of panelists low, so we have to find panelists that can be cross-stakeholders. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, Please find attached a summary report of the MAG meeting. Also attached is the revised schedule of the main sessions as it was discussed and displayed in the meeting. The List of Participants will follow tomorrow. You will note that we introduced a deadline we did not actually discuss in the meeting itself: we set 30 September as a deadline for finalizing workshop proposals - I hope you agree. I hope the summary report reflects our discussions fairly. Let us know should you find any omissions. ATTACHMENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM Multistakeholder Advisory Group Meeting Geneva, 17-18 September 2008 Summary Report 1. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) met in Geneva on 17-18 September 2008. The discussion was based on the agenda for the Open Consultations held on the preceding day. 2. The MAG took up the discussions on the relationship between the two types of main sessions which had been termed open session workshops and main session debate. It was agreed to rename these sessions to reflect better their nature. The morning sessions are now named 'panel discussions' and the afternoon sessions 'open dialogue'. 3. The 'panel discussion' sessions will consist of a chairman and a moderator and approximately four panellists. The panellist will be asked to give an initial presentation of not more than 7 minutes. Power point presentations are discouraged. The panel discussions attempt to explore an issue in some depth and produce a set of questions that can be taken up in the afternoon sessions. They will allow for adequate interaction with participants. 4. The 'open dialogue' sessions are designed for a maximum interaction with participants. They will be lead by a chairman and animated by a moderator. It was generally felt that a person with substantive knowledge of the issues under discussion would be best suited as a moderator. 5. The order in the schedule for the last day was reversed and it was suggested compressing the 'Taking stock the way forward session' with the closing ceremony. 6. A revised schedule for the main session is attached as an Annex to this report. 7. As regards Dynamic Coalitions, it was agreed that they would only be scheduled for a meeting slot in Hyderabad if they had submitted a report describing significant activities in the last year. 8. A final version of the rolling document with the revised draft programme outline will be posted shortly. 9. The following deadlines were set: 25 September: ? Lists of panellists for the panel. 30 September: ? Submission of final programme for all workshops, best practice forums, open forums and Dynamic Coalition meetings. 12. The MAG also discussed how to approach the "formal consultations with Forum participants" on the "desirability of the continuation of the Forum" as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. It was agreed to set aside one day during the next February consultations to gain a common understanding on how best to conduct this process. 13. A list of participants is attached to this report. __________________ (Writer J) Hi, apologies for my absence and 2 quick questions regarding the number of panelists. First, is there a limit for the number of panellists for the panel discussions? I am asking because I know that the number of suggested panellists for the IPv4/IPv6 panel clearly exceeds the recommended number of 4 panellists. Second, for the open dialogue, no number of panellists is mentioned. Does the same number of panellists apply here? Instead of a third question: I suppose nobody will be able to explain to me the semantic difference between debate and open dialogue... (Writer K) Thank you Markus for the meeting summary and my apologies not been able to make it for this meeting. From what I read we have until Sept 25 to review and submit the final list of panelists for the now called "Panel Discussion" session and this is now limited to 4 persons per session. If that is correct I will take it to the group working on the "transition from IPv4 to IPv6" session for revising our proposal. (Writer I) I agree, but the list so far is the host government, UNESCO, and three US multinationals... I guess the workshop needs to be far more "cross-stakeholder" than this. (Writer B) > I agree, but the list so far is the host government, UNESCO, and three > US multinationals... I guess the workshop needs to be far more > "cross-stakeholder" than this. You misunderstand the slide. First of all, what we talked about was that we are aiming towards 5 (five) people. Those people specifically must be able to cover the view the following stakeholder groups have: A. Government B. IGO C. Private sector D. Civil Society E. Disabilities If we manage to find individuals that can cover more than one of these groups, the better. To be able to understand what we where talking about, we listed examples of organisations that could fit each one of the categories, and that list on the slide was: A. Indian Government B. UNESCO C. Apple or Microsoft or Google D. ??? (but later Writer C as suggested Asia Internet users organizations E. Someone from list that Andrea Saks has Indian Government has been suggested due to both the large number of scripts and languages used, and the fact they are running a project regarding multilingualism, not because they are the host country. And just because of this, I am exploring having a chair for the session from a different country (I have been contacted privately on interest in participating in the panel, and I am exploring possibilities, but do not have a polished proposal yet). Apple/Microsoft/Google where listed as examples because they do have global coverage. No contact has been initiated with them. Indeed US Cooperations. You are correct there, but on the other hand, they do have operations in other regions than in the US, and the important point would be to know exactly what they do regarding language support, what drives support for specific languages etc. Because this process can not really be driven by the users, or? Is "just" money driving this, or can "governance" issues have impact on for example the lack of certain languages in certain products? We also have internally a discussion on how to handle open source, which indeed is very important. We do not have any solution to that yet. There is resistance against removing the private sector completely. And, should we have a panel on these things that include IDN and have noone from ICANN or ITU? Last issue we have is that we would like to also explicitly include W3C because of all the work they do in this cross cutting area. While still staying at 5 people on the panel. If you have concrete suggestions for how to do this, please let me know on- or offlist. Let me end by saying that we yesterday started thinking about panelists. I am happy to receive suggestions from anyone. Specifically interesting is of course pople that can cover the view from more than one of the above stakeholder groups, while still looking at it from Technology, Policy and Cultural/Language perspective. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues,?? Please find attached a slightly revised version of the summary report and a list of participants. ?? Apart from a few minute corrections (such as chairperson instead of chairman) there were three substantive changes, taking into account some of the comments received. We added the following points:?? - There would be no panellists in the 'open dialogue' sessions.? - Dynamic Deadlines would be given an extension of the deadline to submit an activity report.? - A reference to the outside evaluation.?? We will post the document shortly on our Web site. Please let us know if your entry needs to be corrected.? ATTACHMENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM Multistakeholder Advisory Group Meeting Geneva, 17-18 September 2008 Summary Report 1. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) met in Geneva on 17-18 September 2008. The discussion was based on the agenda for the Open Consultations held on the preceding day. 2. The MAG took up the discussions on the relationship between the two types of main sessions which had been termed 'open session workshops' and 'main session debate'. It was agreed to rename these sessions to reflect better their nature. The morning sessions are now named 'panel discussions' and the afternoon sessions 'open dialogue'. 3. The 'panel discussion' sessions will consist of a chairperson and a moderator and about four panellists. The panellist will be asked to give an initial presentation of not more than seven minutes. Power point presentations are discouraged. The panel discussions attempt to explore an issue in some depth and produce a set of questions that can be taken up in the afternoon sessions. They will allow for adequate interaction with participants. 4. The 'open dialogue' sessions are designed for maximum interaction among the participants. There will be no panellists. The sessions will be lead by a chairperson and animated by a moderator. It was generally felt that a person with substantive knowledge of the issues under discussion would be best suited as a moderator. 5. The order in the schedule for the last day was reversed and it was suggested compressing the 'Taking stock the way forward session' with the closing ceremony. 6. A revised schedule for the main session is attached as an Annex to this report. 7. As regards Dynamic Coalitions, it was agreed that they would only be scheduled for a meeting slot in Hyderabad if they had submitted a report describing significant activities in the last year. They are given an extension of the deadline for submitting such a report until 30 September. 8. A final version of the rolling document with the revised draft programme outline will be posted shortly. 9. The following deadlines were set: 25 September: ? Lists of panellists for the panel discussions. 30 September: ? Submission of final programme for all workshops, best practice forums, open forums and Dynamic Coalition meetings. ? Submission of Dynamic Coalition activity reports. 12. The MAG also discussed how to approach the "formal consultations with Forum participants" on the "desirability of the continuation of the Forum" as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. It was agreed to set aside one day during the next February consultations to gain a common understanding on how best to conduct this process. It was concluded that it was the Secretary-General's prerogative to decide on how to hold these formal consultations, including whether or not to request an outside evaluation. 13. A list of participants is attached to this report. (Writer H) Writer J, This is exactly my point. IGF mandate was agreed as a result of elaborate intergovernmental negotiationas and as an element of a package deal. It must be evaluated in the context with other elements. As far I understand, proposed evaluation will not cover all other elements. Therefore, it will do something, out of context and links with other elements of agreement. The UNSG was given mandate to make examine the desirability of continuation of the Forum, not its mandate. He was not ask evaluate but just assess the desirability of continuation. Para 76 goes like follows: 76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. I think what is proposed course of action goes beyond what WSIS was mandated. ATTACHMENT MAG MEETING 17 – 18 SEPTEMBER 2008 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Name Position Chairman Desai, Nitin Special Adviser to the Secretary-General for Internet Governance Members Al Shatti, Qusai Deputy Chair of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS) Arida, Christine Director of Telecom Planning and Services, National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA), Egypt Betancourt, Valeria Coordinator of the Communication and Information Policy Programme in Latin America, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Cavalli, Olga del Carmen Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina Diop Diagne, Ndéye Maimouna Director of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and ICT, Senegal Disspain, Chris Chief Executive Officer, .AU Registry; Chair, Council of Country – Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Dryden, Heather Senior Advisor, International Telecommunications Policy and Coordination, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Industry Canada Echeberría, Raúl Executive Director/CEO, Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC) Ermolaev, Artem Deputy Director, Scientific, Technical and Strategy Development Department, Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Fältström, Patrik Consulting Engineer, Cisco Systems; Member, Board of Internet Society; Member Swedish Government IT Advisory Group Graham, Bill Global Strategic Engagement, Internet Society (ISOC) Hansem, José Vitor Carvalho Deputy Head, Division of Science and Technology, Ministry of External Relations, Brazil Hassan, Ayesha Senior Policy Manager, E – Business, IT, and Telecoms, Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Hilali, Aziz Professor, Institut Supérieur des Télécommunications de Rabat; President Internet Society, Morocco Jamil, Zahid Usman Senior Partner and Barrister-at-law, Jamil and Jamil, Chairman, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center Kadundu, Michael Assistant Director, Information Technology Communications Commission, Kenya Karklinš,, Janis Ambassador of Latvia to France and Permanent Representative to UNESCO La Chapelle, Bertrand de Special envoy for Information Society, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France Lau, Stephen K.M Chairman, Electronic Data System (EDS), Hong Kong Lohento, Gemma Brice (Ken) Coordinator, Panos Institute West Africa, Center for International ICT Policies for Central and West Africa (CIPACO) Moedjiono, Sardjoeni Senior Adviser to the Minister of Communication and Information Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for International Relations and Digital Divide Oliver, Colin Assistant Secretary, International Branch, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Australia Papadatos, George Minister – Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Greece to the United Nations Office at Geneva Park, Youn Jung Senior Research Fellow, Delft University of Technology Piñeiro, Lorena Head of International Affairs Department, Undersecretariat of Telecommunications, Chile Pisanty, Alejandro Director of Computing Academics Services, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Director ISOC Mexico Primo, Natasha National ICT Policy Advocacy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Quaynor, Nii Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Network Computer Systems; President, Internet Society of Ghana Sambrook, Richard Director, Global News Division, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); Vice President, European Broadcasting Union (EBU) Selaimen, Graciela Executive Coordinator, Núcleo de Pesquisas, Estudos e Formação da RITS, (NUPEF), Rio de Janeiro Sha'ban, Charles Executive Director, Regional Office, Abu – Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Shanker, N. Ravi Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology Swineheart, Theresa Vice President, Global and Strategic Partnerships, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tang, Zicai Deputy Director for International Organizations, Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, China Taylor, Emily Director of Legal and Policy, Nominet.UK Warren, Jennifer A. Vice President, Technology Policy and Regulation, Lockheed Martin Corporation Members Participating Remotely Filip, Ondrej Chief Executive Officer, CZ.NIC Gross, Robin D. Executive Director, IP Justice Hofmann, Jeanette Senior Researcher, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)/Social Science Research Center, Berlin Intergovernmental Organizations Nisbet, Miriam UNESCO Beccalli, Andrea UNESCO Casini, Gherardo UNDESA Hibbard, Lee Council of Europe Meudal Leenders, Sophie Council of Europe Seger, Alexander Council of Europe Niebel, Michael EC Markot, Elizabeth EC Sarrocco, Claudia OECD Ouedraogo, Pierre OIF (Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie) Regional Coordinators Boyke, Nurclin Asia (Indonesia) Schneider, Thomas WEOG (Switzerland) Advisors to the Chair and Others Afonso, Carlos Alberto Head of Technological Development, RITS Glaser, Hartmut Director of NIC.br Heather, Shaw United States Council of International Business Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Professor, International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus Kurbalija, Jovan Director, DiploFoundation Miloshevic, Desiree Afilias, ISOC Board Member Singh, Parminder Jeet Executive Director, IT for Change Dr. Govind Indian Delegation Shailendra, Joshi Indian Delegation Cade, Marylin AT & T (Workshop Organizer - morning of 17 Sept) Hellmonds, Peter Nokia Siemens Network (Workshop Organizer - morning of 17 Sept) Advisor to the Chair Participating Remotely Sadowsky, George Executive Director, Global Internet Policy Initiative Secretariat Kummer, Markus Executive Coordinator Masango, Chengetai Programme and Technology Manager Doria, Avri Consultant Peake, Adam Consultant Kabani, Asif Fellow Nyasulu, Ulemu Fellow Agaiava, Sovala Fellow Collins, Teara Intern Arata, Seiiti Intern (Writer I) Thanks for the important clarifications, Patrik. (Writer L) For all of you who would like to know which Airlines have flights to Hyderabad, I would like to pass you the following information: Direct Flights to Hyderabad from Europe: Lufthansa www.lufthansa.com British Airways www.ba.com KLM www.klm.com Air India (from Frankfurt) home.airindia.in If you were not lucky to have a direct flight, you may connect through the Gulf region, the following carriers all have direct flights from their countries to Hyderabad and they have good connections from Europe, North America and South America: Emirates Airlines www.emirates.com Qatar Airways www.qatarairways.com Gulf Air (Bahrain) www.gulfair.com Oman Air www.omanair.aero Kuwait Airways www.kuwaitairways.com I hope to see you all in Hyderabad.