Internet Governance Forum Consultations Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:00 a.m.


Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
Open Consultations.  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.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Good morning.  Welcome to Geneva.  And I thought I would
begin first by explaining a little the nature and purpose of this meeting today.
Let me begin first by saying that when we met last, in February, there was a
certain amount of uncertainty because there was a change in New York, a new
Secretary-General had come in.  And it was more of what we had done in February
was more like a stock-taking of what we had done in Athens. I just wanted to
inform that you the new Secretary-General has asked me to continue as the
special advisor on this matter until the end of this year.  And it's in that
capacity, in my capacity as a special advisor on Internet that I'm taking this
meeting for an open consultation on this issue. The other part of it was the
Advisory Group.  Again, there has been a process of -- how shall I say? --
reshuffling going on in New York which has delayed matters.  My understanding is
that it is in the final stages.  And I don't know when, at what point, at what
hour, the decisions will be taken.  But it's in the works. What I wanted to
stress is that the primary purpose of this consultation is to advise the
secretary-general.  Because, as you recollect from -- in the Tunis outcome, it
is the Secretary-General who has been authorized to convene the meeting of the
Internet Governance Forum.  And our purpose, my principal responsibility, is to
advise him on the convening of this meeting, from basic logistical issues to the
broad structure. It is not --  We are not advising him on substantive issues. 
This is where the -- all of those who participate in the IGF have to contribute.
 What we are really advising the Secretary-General on is what he is responsible
for, which is the convening of the meeting. This is my job.  This is the job
also of the Advisory Group. I also wanted to say that the discussions with our
Brazilian hosts have been progressing.  A team from the United Nations
secretariat visited Brazil in March and will be visiting Brazil again next week.
 So as far as the organizational and logistical arrangements are concerned, they
are well in hand and there is no delay of our conclusion on that front. We were
given a very good exposition last time of the arrangements which are being made.
 All of those arrangements stand.  And on the logistical and organizational
side, things are very well in hand. What I think we can do here today which
would be most useful would be to really try and start talking, and, if possible,
see whether we can arrive at some understanding on how the meeting in Brazil
should be organized, structured, what the themes could be. In order to do that,
Markus, the secretariat, headed by Markus Kummer, had put out an -- there is a
-- I don't have a cell phone.  Somebody's cell phone is ringing. Oh, there's
something in the back.  Sorry. The -- this is ITU, after all, so I would expect
phones to ring all around. [ Laughter ]


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  I think Markus Kummer had put out an initial set of
ideas on the organization of the meeting.  On the basis of that, a lot of people
have sent in comments.  And the -- some synthesis of those comments has also
been prepared. And I thought we should focus our attention initially on this
aspect. What I was going to suggest is that I will request Markus to quickly
walk us through what had been put up on the Web site.  After that, we have a
general discussion.  And at the end of the morning, I will try and list some of
the key issues on which there appear to be differences of views, and we could
then spend a little more time in the afternoon focusing on those areas where
there are differences, to see what the range of views is. As I said, my job and
purpose is -- at the end of the day, is really to advise the Secretary-General
on what the sense and sentiment of the people who are most involved in this
meeting is with regard to structure, organization, and themes.  And that is the
purpose. So if we agree, I would begin first by just asking Markus to walk us
through what had been put out and what -- the comments that he has received, and
after that just open the floor for general remarks and comments on this issue. 
Thank you. Is that fine? Markus.


>>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Good morning.  Let me say a few
things -- is it -- Oh, yes.  Sorry.  Good morning, everybody.  Let me start by
making a few remarks on the logistics.  As always, we have our faithful scribes
with us, who take down every word that is being said in this room.  And we also
made provisions for remote participation.  We have two web casts here.  One of
them will be focusing on the transcription so that remote participants should be
able to read what is being said in this room.  And the other camera will just
focus on the room and give participants who log in from the outside a flavor of
the meeting. We also have made provisions so that remote participants can send
in questions and intervention via e-mail.  There are two monitors there.  Adam
Peake and Kieren McCarthy will take any questions and will interact with remote
participants. We did send out a draft program outline for the Rio meeting about
a month ago.  And that was very much based on the input we had received during
the consultations and the preparatory process of that stock-taking of Athens in
February. Clearly, the aim would not be a repetition of the first meeting, but
the aim would be to have something that is a little bit more, that is, Athens
plus. The general feeling in February was that the structure for the Athens
meeting had actually worked well, and there was a general sense that the basic
meeting structure should be retained. There was a sense that best practices
should be given more prominent space throughout the meeting, through the
thematic meetings, but also maybe in separate meetings.  We took up some
suggestions that were made, and, in particular, two proposals that were made are
a feature in this draft program outline.  One of them would be to offer all
major organizations dealing with Internet governance issues, to give them a
space where they can hold open forums and report on their activities and engage
with participants in a discussion on their activities. And the second proposal
for innovation would be to offer a space for holding best practices, forums that
would allow governments and all stakeholders to present best practices in an
area related to Internet governance and also to discuss success stories. The
original suggestion was to give national, to give governments a space where they
could be more actively engaged, so we could imagine that this would be a space
where national governments would present their Internet policy, and we could
learn from best practices in this area. As regard the meeting types, we suggest
sticking to the format of main sessions and workshops in parallel, and other
meetings that will be held in parallel. Clearly, everybody, every -- virtually
every feedback we received said the main sessions should be shorter and snappier
and the panels should be smaller in size.  And that is what we propose, that the
main session should be of only two hours' duration and the panels should be not
more than four or six people. Maybe not clear to everybody, maybe it was not
well explained, I received many questions on the nature of the workshop.  We
proposed two different type of workshops, what we called thematic workshops and
the open workshops.  The open workshops would be very much what we had in
Athens, where any interested stakeholder group could propose holding a workshop
on any issue related to Internet governance, whereas the thematic workshops
would be more closely linked to the main session. This is one of the criticisms
that was made at the -- after the Athens meeting, that the relationship between
the workshops and the main sessions was not always that clear. What we propose
here is to have workshops dealing with subthemes under the main theme. We also
propose that the workshops will be held prior to the main themes, so that they
would feed into the main session.  And as an organizational principle, we tried
to schedule them in a way that, on any given theme, there will be no overlap,
that is, that there will be no meeting on openness in parallel, in competition,
with another meeting on the same subject.  The same, of course, goes for the
other themes. Obviously, one of the successes of Athens was the dynamic
coalitions that emerged.  And we proposed giving a space for dynamic coalition
where they can develop further their activities and where they can also report
back to the main session. And I mentioned already the best practice forums and
the open forums for the Internet organizations. And in addition, we picked up an
idea that was first used by the ITU in an intergovernmental context, that was to
have -- I think the ITU called it speed exchanges.  We call it here "speed
dialogue."  Innovative format which was taken from the American Bar Association.
 They experimented with it.  And we have a representative of the American Bar
Association in this room who may give his explanation. But this is not supposed
to be a decision-making, preparation session, as it was used by some
organizations.  I noticed it created some confusion in the various discussions. 
This is merely supposed to be a warmup to the main session, a kind of open-ended
preparatory session for the main session. The advantage of this kind of more
intimate session is that it allows people to take the floor who might feel a bit
shy to take the floor in a main plenary session. And last, but not least, we
will offer allocated meeting rooms to whoever wants to have a meeting.  I will
not go through the various facilities.  But, basically, the schedule, the draft
schedule, and the program outline we proposed is tailor-made to the facilities
the Brazilian hosts are offering to us, which are excellent meeting facilities.
And we think that we need to provide for enough meetings in parallel to the main
session because we expect even bigger attendance than we had in Athens and we
cannot fit them all all the time in the same meeting hall. We also made some
suggestions for possible content for the main sessions.  And these suggestions
were not invented by the secretariat, but they were taken from the summary we
had of the Athens meeting. And we also, to conclude, we said we could hold
another round of open consultations in September, and talking to various people,
I feel they, on the whole, see the necessity to do that.  We have already
reserved facilities. We don't have much flexibility, as the U.N. will be very
busy this fall.  But there is a slot in the first week of September where we
could hold other meetings. Now, based on this draft program outline, we had
contributions, reactions to it.  And on the whole, I'm pleased to note that the
reactions were rather positive. There were, of course, a few dissenting voices. 
And there were also contributions that, again, raised the more fundamental
questions related to the role, the mandate, and the functioning of the IGF. With
regard to the content, there was, again -- clearly, some contributions pointed
out the need to address critical Internet resources and also called for a kind
of meta discussion on the global architecture, the global framework. I will not
go through the detail of the various themes.  But it was also questioned whether
the themes we had in Athens should be cast in stone or whether we should not
have different themes, should handle them with a certain flexibility. And, well,
with regards to the participation logistics, the comments were made that it
would be important to start registration early and so on.  And I can assure
people that we will do so. It may be worth mentioning that, with regard to
content, there was a strong push for dealing with children, protection of
children, and the need children have, and also the needs of disadvantaged
communities.  There were several contributors that made that remark. So the
program, I think, we have produced provides what we would see as a possible
middle grounds on Athens, but it opens up also for dealing with critical
Internet resources. In particular, what we suggest the voting session to
emerging issues maybe in a more structured way than we had in Athens.  And we
also propose a session that will be -- we call it topical issues, but maybe the
better word would have been to call it a case study, on something that was of
interest with regard to Internet governance.  The paper mentions the denial of
service attack on root servers, which could be an interesting case study to
discuss how the existing mechanisms work, how the attacks were handled, how the
system withstood these attacks, what are the lessons learned, what could be
improved, and so on.  But, of course, there are other themes that may be of
interest.  But that is one of the proposals we think could be of interest to
participants. I think I will stop at this stage.  And, of course, I'm happy to
explain if there are any questions, if the proposals were not clear enough. 
Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The floor is now open. El Salvador.  Germany, Brazil.  China.
 I've got four.  I'll take four at a time.  Okay.


>>EL SALVADOR:  Thank you, Chairman. The Latin American and Caribbean group,
GRULAC, would first of all like to thank you and the secretariat for the draft
program and schedule which were published on the official Web site of the forum.
GRULAC has made a study of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum,
henceforth referred to as a forum, contained in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda
for the information society, again, the results obtained at the first forum,
held in Athens, and the drafts prepared for the second forum in Rio of this
year, which we would like to share with you. Before going into details, please
allow me to highlight the fact that GRULAC believes that the forum must fulfill
the entire mandate which was handed to us by our heads of state and government
to take each subparagraph of paragraph 72, GRULAC would like to state the
following.  With regard to debating issues, public policy issues relating to key
elements of Internet governance, with the aim of contributing to sustainability,
solidity, security, stability, and Internet development, the forum has made
progress. We might even consider that all discussions contribute to this
subparagraph.  We should mention that subparagraph A will be relevant throughout
the rest of the process.  And we need to include all the key elements relating
to Internet governance, and we know that this is a long list. With regard to
facilitating the dialogue between bodies which deal with cross-cutting and
Internet-related international public policies and debating issues which are not
included in the mandate of existing bodies, the open fora for all the main
organizations which deal with the issues relating to the Internet for this year
could be a first step in the right direction.  GRULAC would invite these
organizations to take advantage of this space in Rio to increase their
visibility, and as an action that would contribute to fulfilling the governance
principles reflected in paragraphs 29 to 31 of the Tunis Agenda for the
information society. The relevant results of these sessions could be fed into
the topical session and/or the year-in-review session in addition to being dealt
with in the reporting-back sessions. As far as facilitating communication with
the appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other competent institutions
are concerned, we would like to say that the work and results of dynamic
coalitions can contribute to the construction of such interfaces. With regard to
facilitating the exchange of information and best practices and, thus, fully
taking advantage of the competence of academic, scientific, and technical
communities, the fora of best practices proposed by the second forum could be
very important with regard to advising all stakeholders suggesting solutions and
means for the Internet to be more rapidly available and to be available to a
greater number of persons in developing countries. In Athens, the forum dealt
with this issue, particularly with regard to the national dimension, pointing
out the benefits of competence.  But there is need for this to be dealt with in
more -- more in depth at the regional and international levels. With regard to
strengthening and improving the participation of stakeholders, in the current
and the future Internet governance mechanisms, in particular, in developing
countries, GRULAC believes that the forum must do everything possible to involve
the current entities which deal with Internet governance mechanisms to take
advantage of the space offered by the forum to increase their visibility and the
level of awareness, particularly among the different stakeholders of developing
countries.  This in order to increase the participation of these countries in
such mechanisms. Again, open fora proposed for Rio as well as the topical
session or the year-in-review session could be useful as far as steps to this
end.  GRULAC believes that this topic is as important as the four large topics,
although for different reasons, and should be dealt with as such by the forum.
With regard to identifying immersion issues and to bring this to the attention
of competent bodies and the public in general and to formulate recommendations,
the year-in-review session and the topical session could be an answer that would
guide the forum on future actions in order to adequately tackle this issue. With
regard to contributing to the capacity building in relation to Internet
governance for developing countries and taking advantage of local knowledge and
competences, the first step would be to increase awareness in most developing
countries, especially at the decision-making level. This would necessarily be
based on the premise that all the different aspects of the mandates of the forum
should be raised at that decision-making level. With regard to contributing to
capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, taking
advantage, as much as possible, of local knowledge and competencies and
discussing issues relating to critical Internet resources, among other things. 
The forum did not touch on this issue in Athens and it is not considered in the
drafts for the Rio meeting. As we said before, as far as GRULAC is concerned,
topics relate to go critical Internet resources and the internalization of
Internet governance principles are as important as access, openness, security,
and diversity, and must be treated equally, although the reasons for their level
of importance are different. The ideal case would be to have a fifth issue
referring to Internet governance of critical resources and the attendant
principles. GRULAC, although we understand the limitations of time and space
that the forum necessarily has, would like to ask and urge all the stakeholders
and the Secretariat to come up with a satisfactory solution to this problem.
With regard to finding solutions to the problems arising from the correct or
incorrect use of the Internet which are of particular interest for the ordinary
user, GRULAC recognizes the justified emphasis made by the advisory group on the
fulfillment of the subparagraph and understands that it will continue to be
important if we want to have an Information Society that is inclusive and people
based. With regard to publishing its minutes, the GRULAC recognizes the efforts
of the forum, the Secretariat in complying with this. After having presented our
current study on the fulfillment of the forum's mandate, GRULAC would like to
draw attention to the need for balanced geographical representation contained in
paragraph 78 and others of the Tunis Agenda for the information society in order
to increase the participation of all stakeholders of developing countries. In
Athens, the representation of our region stood at 5%. We, therefore, need to
actively seek better geographical balance as far as participation is concerned,
which will not only facilitate the successful carrying out of our work in forum
and later fora, but also the legitimacy of the Internet Governance Forum. Allow
me, before ending, to open a small parentheses to refer to the process of
improved cooperation, which was requested of the secretary-general in paragraph
71 of the Tunis Agenda.  You informed us at the last open consultations that you
had presented your report to the secretary-general and that you were awaiting
his decisions with regard to the following, the next steps. GRULAC would like to
stress the need to have feedback on the status of this process. We take note
that the Secretariat has planned for possible consultations for September.  In
case this is possible or necessary, we would need to refine the program and
calendar of work for the second forum. We would invite all stakeholders to carry
out similar studies so that our collective knowledge would have a clear view of
what we have achieved so far, and the challenges that remain for us to take up.
I thank you, sir.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I thank you very much for that very thorough and very
thoughtful contribution. I would strongly urge people to, if possible, to
comment on suggestions which have come from others, also, so that I get a sense
of where people are. And the first contribution, we are very fortunate, has gone
through very systematically all the terms of reference of IGF and have made an
evaluation of where we are. So I urge people to comment, also, as to whether
they agree with that, whether they feel the same and so on, because that will
help us to move towards some form of what we will do with this forum. I would
also request people, if they have any written contribution -- I know we have the
transcript, but it will also help if the written contribution is there for
somebody like me, who has lost the habit of reading long transcripts now, and
would welcome something like this, which gives me a sense of where people are.
Next we have Germany and after that Brazil, China and Iran.


>>GERMANY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of
the European Union.  The European Union would like to thank you for convening
the present consultations.  We would like to commend the Secretariat for
preparing the draft program outline for the second meeting of the IGF. We
welcome the proposed concept that builds on the format of the IGF in Athens and
at the same time incorporates the innovative ideas expressed in the course of
the last consultations in February here in Geneva. For us, it is in particular
important that the multistakeholder approach be the guiding principles. Mr.
Chairman, we equally appreciate that the content of the draft program outline
reflects the continuation of the themes brought up in the first IGF in Athens. 
In particular, with regard to security and openness, as well as the development
orientation of the forum which we find of high importance. The European Union is
fully committed to continue cooperation with all stakeholders.  A number of its
member states have embarked on active participation in dynamic coalitions.  It
is therefore particularly welcome that a space for those coalitions is also
foreseen in the draft program outline. The European union, therefore, supports
the proposed concept for a program outline of the second IGF in Rio.  It will
allow us to build on the success achieved in the first IGF in Athens. Mr.
Chairman, the European Union will continue to support the IGF.  It is a
well-suited forum for public policy dialogue with all stakeholders involved. The
success already achieved in Athens is a good example for this. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. Brazil.


>>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Allow may to speak on behalf of the
governments of Brazil and Argentina. First, I'd like to say that we fully
support the statement that has been just delivered by El Salvador on behalf of
GRULAC. Our governments are committed to the full implementation in all fora of
the results of the World Summit on the Information Society.  The following WSIS
principles provide the framework to guide our debate on Internet governance.
First, the Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public
and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society
agenda. Second, the international management of the Internet should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations.
Third, the Internet governance is an essential element for a people-centered,
inclusive, development-oriented and nondiscriminatory information Society.
Fourth, policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of states.  They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues. And fifth, all governments
should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet
governance and for ensuring the stability, security, and continuity of the
Internet. The governments of Brazil and Argentina consider essential that the
mandate established by the Tunis Agenda regarding participation, scope, thematic
agenda, and possible results expected from the IGF be fully observed. No subject
that may be relevant to Internet governance show a priori be excluded from the
agenda. The participation of representatives from the developing world in the
first IGF meeting was very limited.  Only 5% of the participants came from Latin
America and the Caribbean. It is expected that its second edition in Rio favors
the involvement of representatives from developing countries and the region. We
would like to recall that the mandate of the forum provides for balanced
regional participation, paragraph 78 of the Tunis Agenda. With a view to
contributing for the preparatory process for the Rio meeting, we offer the
following suggestions: We support the creation of a mechanism that is able to
revert the problem of underrepresentation of the developing world.  As
established by paragraph 78 of the Tunis Agenda, the secretary-general of the
United Nations should take balanced regional representation into account in the
convening of the IGF.  Balanced regional representation is essential for the
legitimacy of possible recommendations as provided by the IGF mandate. We invite
the international telecommunications union and the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, to lead the discussion on topical issues
related to Internet governance. The ICANN President's Strategy Committee report
and the ITU resolution 102 could be a good starting point for discussions. The
basis for introducing such topical issues is the Tunis Agenda, paragraph 72j,
which provides that IGF shall, inter alia, debate issues regarding the
management of critical Internet resources, as well as paragraph 72b which asks
the IGF for facilitating discourse between parties dealing with different
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss
issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. We also support
that time be allocated to exchange good practices of Internet management at
national level. As regards the structure of the IGF, we are in favor of the
installation of a multistakeholder bureau office outlined by paragraph 78b of
the Tunis Agenda. It is understandable, considering the open nature of the IGF,
that the composition of a bureau poses challenges to the traditional practices
within the United Nations. It would be useful to promote the debate on how to
better use the existing structure to the preparatory phase in support to the
conduct of work during the event, as well as in the intersessional period. As
for the main thematic sessions, the four main topics that structured the debates
in the first IGF in Athens could be maintained. We should consider streamlining
the agenda of each cluster so as to focus the debates on concrete and specific
issues. Among concrete issues that could be addressed in Rio we suggest, one,
for the access cluster, a discussion on international interconnection costs. 
Two, for openness, a discussion on fundamental rights in the Internet, as well
as issues related to interoperable platforms and open standards, including free
and open source software. Three, for security, cooperation on the efficient
application of national law and international treaties related to the use of the
Internet.  In particular, in criminal matters. And for the diversity cluster,
protection and promotion of knowledge sharing and local content production,
including content produced with noncommercial purposes. The concept of network
neutrality would also fit on this cluster, but it could also be considered as an
emerging issue. Mr. Chairman, the governments of Brazil and Argentina consider
that the enhanced cooperation process is also essential to enable governments on
an equal footing to exercise their roles in formulating global public policies
related to Internet governance.  We therefore urge the United Nations
Secretariat to take action on this matter in accordance to the Tunis mandate.
The process of enhanced cooperation is inseparable from the context of global
Internet governance, and is part of the balance of commitments achieved by the
world summit. Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. I have now China followed by Iran,
followed by Saudi Arabia.


>>CHINA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for convening this consultation. 
The Chinese government attaches great importance to this IGF process.  And we
have the following points to make. First, we believe that the second IGF meeting
should be an expansion of the previous one, the Athens meeting.  And we are glad
to hear that Mr. Kummer also believes it should be Athens plus.  So as far as
the themes for the second meeting is concerned, we believe that some addition
can be recommended, and we think that the discussion of the essence were very
useful.  Still, there are some critical issues that were missing at the meeting.
For instance, issues like the DNS root servers and IP address.  These are the
critical issues, critical to the security of the global Internet.  And actually,
it is these issues which were not adequately discussed during the Tunis meeting
that an IGF was recommended in the first place. So we find it, on the first hand
-- on the one hand, that the discussion of the essence were quite useful, but on
the other hand, we find it regrettable that these critical issues were not
thoroughly discussed, and we hope that at the second IGF meeting this can be
rectified and that is the reason why we, China, has suggested an addition to the
themes of this meeting. So in addition to the four themes that were proposed by
the Secretariat, we would like to add the fifth theme, which is the -- which we
entitled framework.  And under this theme, we hope that the issues of the IP
address and the DNS root servers can be discussed. And we are glad to hear that
this idea was also mentioned by some of the previous speakers.  So we support
their statement. And we are also glad to see that China's comments, which we
submitted some time ago, have been incorporated into the document prepared by
the Secretariat, so I will not go into the details of the Chinese proposals. But
let me reiterate that we strongly recommend that the second meeting of IGF
should discuss the issues of DNS, root servers, and IP address.  And we hope
that some sort of decision can be taken during this meeting to incorporate that
theme into the draft program. Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. I have Iran and then Saudi Arabia, and then Chile.
 And then Russian Federation.


>>IRAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It's always good to see you up there,
steering the work of these open consultations and any other meeting. And thanks
to you, Mr. Chairman, for arranging another round of open consultations which
really enables us to express ourselves in terms of our interests and also
concern, our concerns. I appreciate also Markus and his team for the draft
program of work which really helps us to focus on the issue. Mr. Chairman, I'll
try to focus more on the issue of themes and briefly -- a brief note on the
structure. Let me first indicate that we do not look at the IGF in a sort of
ambitious manner.  We judge IGF within its own context, and we expect from IGF
the way it should be expected. And we invest, at the same time, a great part of
our attention to the enhanced cooperation mechanism.  Supposed to be there by
the end of the first quarter of 2006. I think we are mature and patient enough
to wait, still, for it.  But as said by Brazil, that is a serious part of the
agenda of the Information Society and the balance which was established in
Tunis. So we will still wait but encourage and urge the secretary-general to
embark upon initiating or starting the process. We have taken note of the draft
proposed program of work with great interest.  We are cognizant of the fact that
the same issues are considered for the focus of the work of the Rio meeting, the
same topics as discussed in Athens. This is where paragraph 72 of the Tunis
document, Tunis Agenda for Action, provides us with a list of items within the
mandate of IGF; indeed, of major concern for many of us.  Many of those items
are a matter of major concern for many of us within this room and out there. As
we recall, a number of stakeholders during the previous consultations proposed a
multi-year program of work to be established in order to enable us to avoid the
controversies that we are having around the themes for each meeting of the IGF.
And that was to conduct open -- that the proposal of establishing a multi-year
program was in a way helping us in these open consultations to do our job in
more efficient manner to avoid controversies. It is interesting for us to note
the conclusion that if we establish a multi-year program, we would be behind
technology called progress and that cannot be accommodated within such a
framework.  This is why among the issues for the consideration of the IGF in
paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda for Action we have a theme on emerging issues
which does not contradict with establishing the multi-year program of work at
all, to our mind. We are of the firm conviction that issues of major concern to
all stakeholders should be addressed in a fair and equitable manner.  This does
not mean that we are against discussing the four themes of the Athens meeting to
be elaborated in further details in Rio.  To us, among the meetings in Rio, a
meeting can be allocated to stock taking of the Athens elaborations on the four
themes, and coming up with a sort of conclusion to be included in the report.
Yet the second IGF should be able to touch upon other issues of concerns to all
stakeholders. We wish to clarify, like many others, the necessity of addressing
public policy issues related to the key elements of the Internet governance, as
well as discussing inter alia issues related to critical Internet resources as
stipulated already in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. There is no point to
avoid that.  And in fact, the question is, how long we want to avoid discussing
those issues. According to paragraph 13a of the WGIG report, which to our mind
is the outcome of a full-fledged multistakeholder process, and we have been part
of it, and you chaired the meeting, Mr. Chairman, so ably, and I suppose all
stakeholders shared its conclusions that issues relating to infrastructure and
the management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the
domain name system, Internet protocol addresses, administration of the root
server system, technical standards, peering and interconnection,
telecommunication infrastructure, including innovative and convergent
technologies as well as multilingualization are among those very important and
pertinent public policy issues that should be touched upon. As said, the WGIG
report is not a report imposed by governments. It is a report of a
multistakeholder process, with open consultations involved, and we all remember
that very well. On cross-cutting issues for the Rio meeting, again according to
paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, IGF is mandated among others to promote and
assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet
governance processes. Clear as it is, that means that the principle of the
international management of the Internet, which should be multilateral,
transparent, and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society, and international organizations, and that it
should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all
and ensure a stable and secure function of the Internet, taking into account
multilingualism. This needs to be properly accommodated as a cross-cutting issue
and we propose that that be taken into account during deliberations on
cross-cutting issues during the Rio meeting. We've taken notes of the dichotomy
between main sessions and topical ones.  We are of the view that the list of the
themes listed in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda for Action, and more
specifically, public policy issues, should be addressed in the main sessions,
and not necessarily in the topical ones. On these issues, we associate and align
ourselves with much of the interventions made by El Salvador on behalf of the
GRULAC and also China, Brazil, and Argentina. One more point, and that is on the
structure of the Rio meeting.  We have taken note of the conclusion that the
same structure would be copied and pasted for Rio. To our mind, any structure
should guarantee maximum interactiveness, I don't know if the word is the right
one, interactiveness of the whole process, not to forget the realities and the
fact that it is -- we admit that it is extremely difficult to manage a truly big
meeting.  We are cognizant of that. It, indeed, is a difficult task and a tall
order, but at the same time , panel discussions should provide a participant to
engage actively upon posing questions -- a question and receiving an answer.
Making panels a bit smaller or more smaller, or smaller, somehow helps us to
achieve that. And lastly, in conclusion, we support another round of
consultations to be organized in September. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much, and thank you very much for -- and it's
nice to see you back here, also, after the working group. Next is Saudi Arabia.


>>SAUDI ARABIA:  Thank you, sir.  On behalf of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Syria, and Kuwait, I would like to express our thanks to Mr. Nitin Desai and Mr.
Markus Kummer as well as the other members of the group for all the efforts that
they are making in order to make the meeting in Rio a success. We are pleased to
contribute some ideas and opinions, and also address to you a number of
questions. We support most of what we heard by the representative of El Salvador
on behalf of GRULAC and Argentina, China, and Iran. Sir, it seems that the
orientation is to adopt the same themes that were adopted in the Athens forum,
and the reason is the forum held in Athens was successful. Here I would like to
say that the success of the Rio forum does not necessarily mean that we have to
adopt the same themes that we had adopted for Athens.  Because in Rio, the forum
is going to be held at a different moment and in a different place, and,
therefore, it is not necessary for Rio to be a carbon copy of the Athens forum. 
There has to be the scope for discussing other issues as well in Rio. Like, for
example, the critical Internet resources, public policy issues, and the enhanced
cooperation that was mentioned by the Tunis document as well as decision 102
adopted by the plenipotentiaries of which was held in Antalya. Second, it was
indicated that in the forum the stories of success would be discussed, and this,
indeed, is an excellent idea, but what is more important is for us to discuss
the challenges and the obstacles and discuss these and find appropriate
solutions to overcome the obstacles and resolve the problems because this is
going to enhance and promote participation in the forum. As to the other
questions that I would like to make, those revolve around the people who are
going to be invited to attend, that is to say, the panelists, the moderators,
and the chairmen of organs.  What is the mechanism that is going to be adopted
to select them?  I hope that transparency is going to be observed, as well as
geographic distribution, as well as the ideas that they carry, and also an
indication of the circles that they come from or belong to. I hope that this is
going to be decided sufficiently early before the forum, not less than four
months before the forum is held. Fourth, we also would like to know what method
is going to be utilized in order to prepare for upcoming fora.  The fora are
going to be held utilizing the same method or that is going to be discussed in
Rio, and then we could emerge with a generalized conception for how to prepare
for upcoming fora. I thank you, sir.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Perhaps I can respond to the specific questions that you have
raised together. They are fair questions, and I would certainly -- but just one
quick comment on the whole question of panelists and participants. I would
strongly encourage everybody present here to actually send names.  Because,
naturally, it's good to have names in front of you of people with competence in
different areas who could be invited as panelists, et cetera.  So it is always
very difficult to collect these names at the last minute.  So I would strongly
encourage to -- everybody here to send names, particularly in order to ensure
fair regional representation from all sides, to send them to the secretariat. 
And we will completely welcome this exercise. May I suggest quickly on the last
point, at the present stage, right now, we are only talking about Rio.  And
certainly on the last question, I think we have to think as to whether future
forums will necessarily be organized in the same way.  And that is, I think --
we are hopefully -- is hopefully going to be written into the present
constitution.  So I just want to assure you that we are taking this, if you
like, one step at a time.  And are fully aware of the fact that we have to
always keep under review how we actually handle these things in future also. But
these were two questions. But the other question I will respond to later,
particularly on enhanced cooperation. I now have Chile, the Russian Federation,
and then the United States of America. Why is the civil society so quiet?  Why
is the business group so quiet?  Are they so satisfied with everything that we
don't need to listen to them? Ah, there's one, and there's a second one.  Good.
Come.  Chile, Russian Federation, USA, followed by ambassador Peake.  And then
ICC. Microphone for Chile.


>>CHILE:  Thank you.  Thank you, chairman.  We would like to thank you for
having convened these informal consultations on the Internet Governance Forum
and the information on the draft program which was provided by the secretariat.
We'd also like to express gratitude for the exchange of views that we are having
on this.  The delegation of El Salvador made an intervention on behalf of the
Latin American and Caribbean group with which we would like to associate
ourselves. We agree with the elements -- the points made by Brazil in the joint
declaration or statement with Argentina. Chairman, the Internet Governance Forum
is a process which, in principle, will go on for five years, at the end of
which, after formal consultations with the participants of the forum, the
Secretary-General should make recommendations to the members of the United
Nations on this issue. I should like to point out that as in Athens, a
successful meeting was held.  It would be important that in the second meeting
of the forum, which will take place in Rio this year in November, we hope that
we will be able to make significant progress in this important process. Thank
you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I have (No microphone).


>>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  Thank you, Chairman. On behalf of the Russian Federation,
on the Internet Governance Forum's participants, I would like to thank the
secretariat for the work which it has done and tell you about the position of
the Russian Federation on the agenda and the work of the forum. The Russian
Federation on the whole supports the proposed agenda for the second forum. 
However, we have a number of proposals to make on the structure and agenda of
the forum.  This, we think, would improve the quality and effectiveness of its
work. You've already seen the IGF site contribution from Russia.  The Tunis
summit reached an agreement that the Internet is a basic element of the
structure of the information society.  And it is now no longer an R & D tool,
but a public resource of global dimensions which requires new approaches.  One
of the most important issues, undoubtedly, is the participation of international
and intergovernment organizations in Internet governance.  There has to be equal
opportunity for all interested parties, especially from developing countries, in
taking decisions on this issue. This issue was already raised by the
representatives of Brazil, China, El Salvador, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Chile. 
All except one delegation have raised this issue.  In this connection, we
believe that within the framework of the forum, what we have to do is look at
the issue of the role and responsibility of the state in Internet governance at
national and international level, provided by governments of stability, safety,
and continuity of Internet use. Therefore, as we see it, we have to expand the
agenda of the forum, and here we agree with the position of the Chinese
delegation, and include as a priority item the organization of international
Internet governance as a block of issues. We think it is important to look at
this block of issues on the first day of the forum in Rio.  For instance,
instead of the item which is emerging issues, planned for the 15th of November
2007. We'd also like to emphasize that all issues which will be discussed by
participants during the second session of the forum are important and topical. 
However, in the block of issues on security, we think there should be more
issues, we should continue to look at providing security in all aspects in the
context of Internet management and governance as one of the basic issues
underpinning the forum and the Internet in general. Now, we've seen what
happened in Athens.  It was good, but we could improve the efficiency of the
forum.  So we think that at the end of the forum, we should adopt a concluding
document which would show international agreement on Internet issues and show
how far the international community understands Internet issues. Now, Mr. Desai
said that today in New York, a decision is being taken on the work of the
Advisory Group on Internet use for the preparation for the forum.  Now, this is
an issue that we already raised in February of this year.  But I'd like to
repeat it now. And the issue is the following:  It's about the principles of
setting up the new Advisory Group, the membership, the terms of reference, the
procedure for candidates from governments and international and nongovernmental
organizations.  We advocate equal representation of all parties in this body.
And the final question, well, yesterday, day before yesterday, it was said that
in a few days, some meetings would be planned. Could you please tell me more
about that.  Will there be some meetings or not?  Or will these extra meetings
only be held in September?  And what will be the format of these meetings? Thank
you for your attention.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I think the only reference so far to meetings was that a
further consultation like this in September. I know there's nothing else on my
agenda between now and then.  So I'm not aware of anything else between that and
the September meeting.  But if anybody is, I'd like to know, because I suddenly
find myself being called upon to travel to this place or that place at the last
minute.  But I thought that was the only thing, the September meeting. I don't
know of any other further meetings that are being contemplated right now. Can I
go, then, to the United States.


>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States would like to thank
the Internet Governance Forum secretariat for its good work and preparations for
the future meeting in Rio. Like the European Union, we believe the
multistakeholder process within the Internet Governance Forum should continue to
be a guiding principle. The United States supports the program outline as
proposed by Mr. Kummer and the continued elaboration of the four themes from
Athens. The United States would also like to reiterate its continued support for
private-sector leadership in the innovation and investment that has
characterized the development and expansion of the Internet around the globe to
date.  We believe that the genius of the Internet is that it has been
decentralized and private sector-led, encouraging individual creativity, access,
and value added at the edges of the network.  Flexible approaches to the
Internet need to be maintained to support this dynamism.  The dynamism of the
Internet is fueled by the current structures which support and encourage a
bottom-up, participatory approach to Internet development and diffusion. While
this system will, of course, evolve as the Internet grows and changes, the
United States believes that democracy is characterized by the ability of all
stakeholders to participate fully in the Internet's development, not the ability
for governments to control it through a top-down, intergovernmental bureaucracy.
The United States firmly believes that international cooperation has been the
Hallmark of the Internet's development to date and supports continued
cooperation within existing international organizations.  The stability and
security of the Internet is of paramount importance to the U.S. government. The
United States is committed to keeping any ongoing dialogue on Internet
governance open and inclusive, with the participation of all stakeholders. 
Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. I now have Adam Peake, Ayesha Hassan of
ICC, and Matthew from ISOC, and then UNESCO.


>>ADAM PEAKE:  I'd like to pass this slot over to Bill Drake, who will speak on
behalf of civil society with a statement.  Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Sure.


>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  You didn't see my hand, I think. 
But Adam was behind me. The Internet governance caucus has been debating these
issues online at some length, as you might guess, and has adopted two
statements, one on substantive matters and one on procedural matters. I'm going
to outline the main points of the substantive one now.  Some of my colleagues
may wish to amplify some of these points later on.  And then Parminder will get
to the procedural one later on. With regard to the main sessions, I think that
the feeling of a lot of people in the caucuses that while the four themes that
were used in Athens are interesting and helpful, it might be nice to add other
themes as well.  And it might be possible to restructure some of what is
currently envisioned in the draft outline of activities, perhaps by, if
necessary, getting rid of the speed sessions and having more main sessions on
different topics. We saw the need for main sessions on four particular points,
and I think that this resonates with many of the comments that have been made
thus far by governments. First, we'd like to see a main session on global
Internet public-policy issues.  In particular, besides just the sort of general
questions, I think we'd like to probe a little bit deeper into what is public
policy on the Internet and when do we need to use global institutions to
establish it.  After all, the Tunis Agenda distinguishes between technical and
public-policy issues and between public-policy and the day-to-day technical and
operational matters.  What makes an Internet governance issue a public-policy
issue and what happens when policy concerns are closely linked to technical
administration? These are issues we think merit some consideration. Similarly,
what was intended by the Tunis Agenda's call for globally applicable principles
and how can this be pursued?  We'd like to see a session on that. Secondly, we'd
like to see a main session on core Internet resources and their current
governance institutions.  This is, in particular, with reference to ICANN and
the regional Internet registries, but one could look at other dimensions as
well.  In particular, some members felt very strongly, as has been evident also
in this room, that there was a need to discuss certain aspects of the management
of domain names in particular. We would like to see discussion of ICANN's status
as an international organization, its multistakeholder representation of various
constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the Governmental
Advisory Committee within the ICANN. Third, we'd like to see a main session that
deals with what you might call a development agenda for Internet governance and
the impact of Internet governance mechanisms on disadvantaged peoples and
groups.  How do international Internet governance mechanisms impact people's
access to and effective use of the Internet and their access to knowledge?  This
session could try to explore these kinds of questions with regard to property
rights regimes, resource allocation processes, and so on, thinking about these
things in a holistic manner and assessing the extent to which the different
development objectives are or are not being promoted by the existing
institutional arrangements. We think that that is a central consideration if
we're going to have as an overarching thematic focus development to look at the
links between Internet practices and development trajectories. Finally, we'd
also like to see a main theme session on the role and mandate of the IGF.  We've
raised this issue in a number of contributions over the past couple of years. 
The view that, really, we should be taking seriously the agenda that is laid out
for the IGF in the Tunis document.  In particular, we're interested in a
dialogue around how Internet governance mechanisms promote and assess or how the
IGF can help to promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS
principles in existing Internet governance mechanisms.  This has also been
raised by the caucus before.  Issues like transparency and inclusion within the
existing frameworks merit some consideration.  There's great variation across
the existing institutions in terms of how they address those issues.  And it
would be helpful to think about that and to identify current practices and good
practices for the future. Last week, we had a meeting in this building on the
ITU's efforts to open up to civil society.  And in this context, we had a
discussion about the fact that ITU, in thinking about how to promote more civil
society participation, would benefit from understanding what other institutions
do with regard to allowing civil society and the private sector to participate
in their activities. I think the same type of approach could be followed here. 
It would be beneficial to everybody to know what are the practices out there
now, who approaches these issues in what manners?  What does it really mean to
implement transparency and inclusion?  What are the procedures adopted?  So we'd
like to see some serious discussion of this issue because we think it's a
central, overarching, cross-cutting question that applies to the way that all
Internet activities are pursued going forward.  These are suggestions about main
themes that, while perhaps slightly orthogonal to what is currently envisioned,
I think could be added and seen to resonate with the views of a number of
governments as well. Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Would you like to comment now, Parminder?


>>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  It would be fine if we comment later or if the process
is still open for --


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The session is open until evening.  It's always open. Okay. 
Then I have Ayesha Hassan from the ICC, followed by ISOC, followed by UNESCO.
The Council of Europe.


>>ICC/BASIS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you -- if you would permit me to, I
would like to have one of my colleagues follow me to just provide a broad range
of input.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Sure.


>>ICC/BASIS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Ayesha Hassan, representing
the International Chamber of Commerce and its initiative Business Action to
Support the Information Society, BASIS.  We very much appreciate this
opportunity to provide our views at this informal consultation for the November
2007 Internet Governance Forum on how we believe the forum can be structured and
conducted. These build upon our comments of January 12th, 2007, on the format
and practical recommendations, which is entitled ICC/Basis feedback on IGF
Athens, that were attached to our written contribution to this meeting and that
can be found on the IGF and ICC Web sites. This first ICC/Basis intervention
will provide some general views regarding the IGF in 2007 and our desire to have
it contribute to creating an open, inclusive, people-centric, development on
oriented information society. The second intervention will discuss our thoughts
on some of the specific topics that have been proposed for the meeting in Rio
and how they might seek to achieve that objective. Business once more reiterates
its strong belief that the IGF should focus on helping to spread the benefits of
the information society to more people and involving more people in
Internet-related issues at the national, regional, and international levels. In
addition, given the IGF time constraints, it should allocate its time on matters
that can benefit from the opportunity to share information about activities
underway in many organizations. We think that the first IGF was successful in
this regard, and part of that was due to the form and format, one being having
sessions addressing broad topics that related to the ability to provide an
inclusive, people-centric information society; and, two, by having a format that
stimulated free and open discussions, recognizing that there would not be a need
to prepare and negotiate a text, as has been noted in the written contribution
of the Internet Society, which states, quote, "Athens worked because it was
multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic, and transparent and it was an open
environment free of the governmental pressures of negotiated texts and political
maneuvering. Suggestions that might change the structure and nature of the IGF
for Rio or future meetings need to be approached with great caution and
carefully measured against both the IGF's mandate and paragraph 77 of the Tunis
Agenda," end quote. ICC/Basis joins this approach. We, therefore, suggest that
the following questions should be answered positively to add value for
participants when considering candidate topics for the November IGF. First
question should be, will discussion of this topic at the IGF contribute
positively to ensuring a people-centric, development-oriented information
society. The second question should be, will discussion of this topic at the IGF
contribute to increasing the number of people who can contribute to or access
information using ICTs. And the third question should be, will discussion of
this topic at the IGF help coordinate efforts that are already underway in
multiple other forums and not duplicate discussions in another venue that is
already addressing the topic. ICC/Basis believes that the answer to all of these
questions should be "yes," regarding a topic before it is placed among the
topics on the agenda for the second IGF. In addition, we make the following
general observations and proposals to assist in planning this next IGF meeting,
since the format of the main sessions will have an impact on how the topics are
approached and on the value provided to participants. A, we believe that the
cross-cutting theme of human and institutional capacity-building should feature
in all of the main meeting sessions, and we urge a true integration of concrete
capacity-building elements in the agenda for the IGF in Rio. B, a comprehensive
approach to highlighting existing best practices and those under development in
other forums on all of the main meeting themes is essential to respond to the
input of many participants from all stakeholder groups, and, in particular, from
developing countries. Best practices and lessons learned are not a separate
subject, and thus, must be part of each main session, which will also ensure
that the IGF discussions are not duplicative. C, business supports one reporting
session that gives organizations that are addressing Internet governance-related
issues the opportunity to update the IGF community and each other on
developments as a way of building understanding and helping to raise awareness
of developments in key Internet-related organizations. D, the IGF should provide
a place for stakeholders to get up-to-date information regarding issues being
addressed in existing organizations or which cut across several different
organizations in this one reporting session.  This session can thus be
complementary to the discussions in the main meetings and avoid duplication of
discussions that are taking place in other forums. E, business believes that the
four main topics of security, openness, access, and diversity cover a broad
range of Internet governance issues and that building on the discussions that
took place at the IGF in Athens will be important to make this second IGF
productive, with further exchange on these important issues, which have been by
no means completed. F, business recommends putting the main meeting discussions
on openness and security on the same day, followed by discussions on access and
diversity on a same day.  This would provide a coherent approach to the
interrelationship of each of these two sets of broad topics. G, business
supports the idea of having the IGF secretariat suggest subjects for the main
workshops to supplement the main meeting themes, and to encourage different
stakeholders to express an interest in working collaboratively to organize them.
 The number of all types of workshops should be limited so that people will have
time to attend them, and they should also be well advertised in advance. H,
business supports having the emerging issues session towards the end of the IGF
in Rio, to most effectively highlight new issues that may be discussed
throughout the event. I, the IGF will benefit greatly both in terms of the
quality of the sessions and the interest it generates, if the program is
solidified and anchor participants in sessions are confirmed and publicized by
the end of June. J -- and this is the last recommendation in this intervention
-- one of the benefits of an annual IGF is that it presents opportunities for
new technologies and applications, best practices, and lessons learned to be
presented as real successful projects or programs.  These should be introduced
into our discussions. Mr. Chairman, ICC/Basis members believe that the general
observations and proposals that we have just offered should allow the November
IGF in Rio to build upon the success of the first IGF in Athens.  Furthermore,
we think that the questions that we have identified and proposed are important
to answer positively in considering topics for the second IGF to ensure that it
achieves the important objective of contributing to an open, inclusive,
people-centric development-oriented information society.  Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I now have ISOC and UNESCO.  Council of Europe.  The APC. I'm
sorry, one more.


>>:I'm sorry.  Would it be possible?


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Sure.


>>:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Ilkka Lakaniemi, Nokia Siemens Networks,
representing the International Chamber of Commerce and its initiative, the
Business Action to Support the Information Society. Earlier, you just heard
about the general views regarding the ICC and basis about the 2007 IGF and our
desire to have it contribute to creating an open, inclusive, people-centric and
development-oriented Information Society. Now we would like to offer comments on
the specific topics that were the subject of the initial IGF in Athens or that
could be considered as emerging topics for the second IGF meeting. ICC/BASIS
input on the specific topics is posted on the IGF and ICC Web sites, and is
available at the back of this room. As indicated earlier, business believes that
the four main topics of security, openness, diversity, and access cover a broad
range of Internet governance issues.  And that building on the discussions that
took place at the IGF in Athens will be important to make the second IGF
productive with further exchange of these important topics. Looking in more
detail at these four themes, the ICC/BASIS offers the following input. The theme
openness should include a discussion of the following subthemes. The roles of
the Internet and ICTs play in promoting access to information and how
governments, business, civil society, and other organizations can work together
to maximize openness and the free flow of information of the Internet. Build
capacity and awareness about how existing intellectual property rights regimes
foster the free flow of information on the Internet as well as consumer
confidence and security. The theme security should include a discussion of the
work underway in multiple private and public sector bodies with substantial
expertise in network security to improve practices in this area. With a special
focus on work that is relevant to small and medium-sized enterprises, and
developing and emerging economies. Practical approaches to raising awareness of
existing best practices for network security issues across all stakeholder
groups. The roles of governments, business, and other stakeholders in adopting
authentication technologies to promote trust online. And private and public
sector organizations that are actively working on privacy issues and improving
the state of play and aspects of their work that may be relevant to emerging and
developing economies and SMEs. Under the discussion of theme diversity should
include the ability of the Internet and ICTs to enhance diversity with limitless
capacity to transmit content. The role that user-generated content plays in
advancing cultural diversity and the exchange of best practices and experiences
that promote user-generated content and its platforms, including profiling
related work in other forums and organizations. The promotion of cultural
diversity, true intellectual property protection.  The standards that facilitate
the creation of new software applications and tools such as translation and
speech technologies. Government and business initiatives to stimulate
development of local content production and providers of online services for
their local market, including, for example, establishing seed funding, training,
incubator services, and the exchange of best practices and experiences. Efforts
underway to introduce internationalized domain names and existing technologies
that increase access to disabled communities, and thus increase the diversity of
participants in the Internet and Internet governance issues. Under the theme
access, we would like to recommend the inclusion of the legal policy and
regulatory conditions that enable investment and innovation, promote competition
and foster entrepreneurship, which are essential in establishing the right
enabling environment to promote access to infrastructure and the benefits of the
Internet. Information and case studies regarding economies that have created
successful enabling environments.  Concrete examples of local build-out and case
studies that promote the exchange of best practices and experiences regarding
improving access for even more people than are currently accessed. ICC/BASIS
proposes then a couple of emerging issues as candidates for discussion at Rio. 
They are, first, the need for all stakeholders to work together to ensure an
environment that facilitates innovation and cross-border services and their
deployment as more are developed for the Internet in the meantime. Many of which
of these services will include software as a critical element.  And second, new
technology developments such as the increasing mobility of the Internet, usage
and applications, and the policy implications of these new technology
developments. ICC/BASIS believes that the cross-cutting theme of human and
institutional capacity building should feature, in all of the main meeting
sessions and urges a true indication of concrete capacity building elements in
the Rio agenda. Therefore, key subthemes that should reflect in all of the main
meeting sessions are, 1) creating multistakeholder, multigenerational and
gender-inclusive dialogue at the national and regional levels on Internet
governance issues. Creating capacities to access to e-skills value chain and
policy development that allows new users of the Internet in developing
countries.  For instance, duty free e-commerce and accredited e-learning that
could be profiled in the emerging issues session. Mr. Chairman, the second IGF
should build upon the success of Athens.  With this in mind, ICC/BASIS has
carefully considered candidate topics and has offered some proposals relative to
the discussion at the second IGF on the four Athens session topics. In addition,
we just heard the consideration of emerging topics, and as these topics are
being proposed, there is a list of questions which should be posed for each
emerging issue. I don't think we need to go even to the -- back to these
questions but you can see those in our papers as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for the opportunity and -- thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I'm tempted to suggest that we should get civil society and
business to sit together and work out an agenda because if they can agree then I
think we are there. But that will be a simple solution, which is to have them
sit down, work it out, and if anything they can agree, I think should be
acceptable to everybody else.  Shall we do that?  That will save us all -- we
can all go and enjoy the good weather outside. But I think this is has been all
very valuable, but I will now also ask people to start commenting on what others
have said, because it's important that we get a sense of where people are. For
instance, let's be very clear.  One very strong message which has come through
in the discussion so far has been the expectation that people have that there
will be a visible and open discussion of issues about core Internet resources. 
Let me just put that in shorthand. Now, I would like people to comment on that,
how do you see that?  How do you react to that?  Because this is has come from
different people, this particular suggestion, so I would urge people to comment
on that.  Do you see, from your perspective, is there a problem if that were to
be there?  And that is something that I would like to get your feedback on.
Okay? We will now turn to ISOC, then I have UNESCO, I have the association --
Council of Europe, APC.  There were two or three people from -- I am afraid I
didn't get all the names. It's Eurolinc, and then you, the three of you there
and the fourth there.  We have got enough.  I'm not sure we will get to the full
list by 1:00. So let me turn first to ISOC.


>>ISOC:  Thank you, Chairman. The Internet society's mission is to promote the
open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of all
people throughout the world.  We continue to believe that the Internet
Governance Forum's cross-cutting themes of capacity building and development,
and the four theme focus areas of openness, diversity, security, and access are
fundamental to increasing the availability of the Internet. These themes and
focus areas oriented the discussion in IGF Athens and continue to provide a very
important foundation for the work of the IGF going forward. In our submission to
the IGF for these consultations, we suggested that while these are the right
themes, clearly we need to add value by discussing these themes in a more
specific sense, in a more narrow sense, and we'd like to suggest some
sub-issues, if you will, that would, we believe, add value for this particular
activity in Rio. A deeper dive, if you will. For access, we believe that the
main focus of this session should be on the importance of enabling environments,
including regulatory regimes, investment climates, and business practices, to
addressing access issues.  And we believe that workshops should explore these
areas in more detail. We believe that a much greater emphasis within the main
session should be placed on experience sharing and best practices, to really
address subparagraph e of the IGF's mandate, which is to advise all stakeholders
in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of
the Internet in the developing world. All stakeholders should be encouraged to
present best or good practices. We also believe that it will be very important
that specific access issues for disadvantaged communities, for reasons of
gender, geography, disability, et cetera, should be highlighted and could be
addressed in workshops.  And that the issue of interconnection costs and the
means for addressing those costs could also be addressed in a workshop. With
regards to openness, we believe that the focus in this session should be on the
challenges to access to information and knowledge, and what can be done to
overcome them.  Challenges might be related to languages and content, censorship
and freedom of expression, training and skills development. We need to focus on
an approach that lends itself to productive problem solving and best practices.
Additionally, this session could be well suited to addressing issues as per
subparagraph k of the mandate arising from issues of use and misuse of the
Internet. For security, the focus on this session should be on the need to
develop and implement a culture of cybersecurity in developing and developed
nations, from the very basic educational and awareness-raising programs for the
individual user through to guidance on improving the security of e-government
services, for example.  Again, we suggest and recommend the sharing of best
practices and how programs have been successfully implemented. For diversity, we
believe very strongly that the main focus of this session should be on creating
demand, and I emphasize creating demand for the diversity of voices, languages,
and, importantly, content on the Internet.  There are a range of impediments to
this, including regulation, lack of skills development, lack of commercial
incentives, that should be addressed. A related discussion should focus on the
importance of user-generated local content to spurring access and increasing
local investment. In the discussion so far this morning there's been a
considerable amount of talk about the need for the IGF to address the entirety
or totality of the mandate.  There's been considerable focus on one particular
aspect of the mandate but I would like to remind us that there are some other
elements that are equally important.  Subparagraphs b, e, f, h, k, et cetera.
Let me talk about one -- two, which is 2f and h, and they are related.  At a
recent event we hosted and sponsored in Abuja in Nigeria related to Internet
governance, there was a vigorous discussion in the afternoon session in which we
had a number of players from a number of stakeholders that talked about how one
actually adds value at a local level from Internet governance discussions.  A
number of speakers pointed to the fact that while much occurs at the
international level, there is very little to ensure that the momentum and
discussions in international meetings is driven forward at the local level.  It
was suggested that this is due in part to lack of suitable multistakeholder
structures and technical and regulatory capacity in many countries. We would
like to suggest that time in Rio would be well spent fulfilling subparagraph h
of the IGF's mandate in which the forum should contribute to capacity building
for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources
of knowledge and expertise.  This is an incredibly important aspect that we have
not sufficiently addressed so far and it would add significant value to many of
the participants who come to Rio, highlighting, for example, examples of
successful multistakeholder Internet governance discussions at the local level
would be a very useful step in this direction. Thank you, Chairman.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  UNESCO. I have UNESCO and then I have the three people that I
identified there, Council of Europe.  Then Mary Rundle sitting in the back, and
then we will come to the others.  And APC.  Yes. Can we start with UNESCO,
please. I request people now to be a little crisper because we are -- a lot of
points have been made.  If they are made, they don't need to be made again, but
let's move on.


>>UNESCO:  Thank you, Chairman.  UNESCO appreciates the opportunity to address
this meeting and I'm not sure I can promise you to be much more crisp than many
of the other speakers. We are delighted to see the increasing interest in the
international debate surrounding the issue of Internet governance. We reiterate
our thanks to you, Chairman Desai, and to secretary Kummer also for your efforts
to foster the multistakeholder dialogue on very core issues of Internet
governance. As a key stakeholder in the debate and issues that are crucial to
enhanced free flow of ideas by word and image and to promote cultural and
linguistic diversity, UNESCO considers the Internet Governance Forum as an
excellent opportunity to foster this dialogue in a truly multistakeholder
environment. Concerning the second meeting of the IGF in Rio in November, we
appreciate the efforts made to maximize the opportunity to open dialogue.  The
basic meeting structure outlines in the document dated 30 of April 2007 that the
IGF Secretariat has prepared provides, we think, good opportunities to achieve
this goal. UNESCO also welcomes the continuous focus of the main sessions in Rio
on the four main themes of the substantive IGF debate:  Access, openness,
diversity and security. We particularly appreciate the proposal to organize an
additional main session on emergent issues that would allow the IGF to react to
the very rapidly changing Internet environment, and also the best practices
sessions that will allow us to pay much more attention to the capacity building
issues in the developing world as many other speakers have mentioned here today.
Regarding the initial proposals related to the content of the meeting, UNESCO
appreciates the focus and freedom of expression and freedom of information under
the main theme openness and on local content development and the related subject
of multilingualism and, in particular, internationalized domain names, under the
main theme of diversity. These proposals are fair and are square within the
areas that UNESCO promotes to building knowledge societies using the power of
the Internet. UNESCO intends to build its contribution to the forum in Rio on
its technical expertise, its large group of stakeholders, and the experience
gained in the past in governance related events.  We will be preparing proposals
for the organization of one open forum and two workshops in the areas of
openness and diversity, respectively. These workshop proposals will be
established in close cooperation with other stakeholders, building on the
results of the two workshops organized at the Internet Governance Forum in
Athens.  We also intend to actively participate in activities of the various
dynamic coalitions that are related to our areas of competence. Thank you for
your attention.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I have.


>>ENSTA:  Good morning, Francis Muguet.  We are going to summarize some points
of the legal study we did with regard to the legal process of the IGF. First of
all, with regard to the mandate, we have noted that only one point of the
mandate that is establishing discussions was really covered. Now, not even the
point of view of the publication of the proceedings was fulfilled, because the
transcripts was an unformatted output and the proceedings is much more
formatted. If we look at certain points, for example, there is the advice
identified in article E, subparagraph g, it means that the IGF as an entity or
as a body produces council documents.  And this needs to be planned. 
Furthermore, and ISOC referred to this, we need to strengthen help, assistance. 
The IGF should provide the context for this. And furthermore, the IGF must make
recommendations on emerging issues and this is important. So we see that so far,
the mandate of the IGF has not been fulfilled, really. Now, with regard to
organization, the mandate, Article 78 and others of the Tunis Agenda, stipulate
organization and it does not provide for multistakeholder group existing.  But
we need to set up entities that have been provided for in the agenda, and
notably a bureau. Now, the wider problem of the legal framework globally of the
forum, what is it?  The forum is one which was convened by the secretary-general
of the United Nations. It is also a forum that has resulted from an
intergovernmental process of the United Nations.  And consequently, it is a
forum which exists within the public international law. Now, what is new about
this forum is that it is a multistakeholder process, in that there are no
observers, such as in the WSIS process.  All the partners are on an equal
footing from a legal point of view. It means that this is a new domain of public
international law that the United Nations have given birth to and which poses
some questions. Certain members of the civil society are extremely desirous to
see this multistakeholder process being a formal recognition, legal -- has -- is
recognized formally and legally because in a forum where everyone can speak
represents significant progress. But for it to be recognized legally, this would
even be more significant. Now this brings us back to the creation of the bureau.
 And as a representative of Brazil said, this bureau must be a multistakeholder
bureau. In our opinion, it should be as inclusive as possible. In the study of
the transcripts we have seen that there is the Internet community which would
like very much to be recognized as a partner, a full-fledged partner, and this
rightly so, because the community currently, which has the effective governance
-- has the effective governance of the Internet.  Consequently, it has been
proposed that the bureau has at least four members, an intergovernmental
component, a component from the private sector, one from civil society, and,
lastly, from the Internet community. This would ensure that the process is as
inclusive as possible, and that all partners are recognized equally from a legal
point of view.  Now, then, if there should be a bureau, then procedural rules,
multistakeholder procedural rules could be established to ensure that the
forum's mandate could be fully met.  Otherwise, we would be faced with the
problem of the chicken and egg. In other words, we couldn't effectively fulfill
the mandate since there would be no procedure and as there is no body to
establish the procedures, then we can do nothing. And the forum would remain a
discussion forum. Of course, this would be multistakeholder, but this would not
be in accordance with the WSIS texts. I would add something further.  At these
consultation meetings, this is not the place for us to renegotiate the WSIS
texts.  These are texts which were established by 172 member states with the
participation or consultation of multistakeholders, and consequently, the
establishment of a bureau should not even be an open issue.  It is something
that is already acquired. But the composition of the bureau is something that is
worthy of discussion as well as the procedural rules, multistakeholder
procedural rules. I would add that, among states, if we are to be logical from a
legal point of view, among the states, it would be intergovernmental rules that
would apply. I thank you for your attention.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Can I have Council of Europe and then the lady from
(inaudible). (inaudible) and then I have APC.


>> Mike!


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  My apologies.  My apologies. I am used to the U.N. system
where the Chairman's mike is always on, and here I have to switch it on. Can I
just give the sequence, please. I have Council of Europe has been waiting for a
while.  It is my mistake. I have the lady from -- the gentleman from there, yeah
Eurolinc, and then I have APC, I have Mary Rundle, and I have Emily Taylor from
Nominet and the gentleman there.  Six people.  I think we can accommodate six.
Yes, can I have the Council of Europe, please.


>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen.  The Council of Europe Secretariat thanks the U.N. and the IGF
Secretariat and you, Mr. Chairman for your work this year and welcomes the draft
program outline and the proposals regarding the basic structure of the IGF
meeting in Rio, the meeting types, the format and so on. In particular, the
Council of Europe Secretariat concurs with the proposal to retain the four
themes -- openness, security, diversity and access -- as a basic structure on
which to hang and to build dialogue. For the Council of Europe, these themes
underline that above all, the Internet and its governance are about people and
their rights, freedoms and values.  And as others have said this morning, the
IGF must remain people-centered. The Council of Europe Secretariat welcomes the
opportunity to work with other stakeholders, including dynamic coalitions, in
contributing to workshops and to main session discussions. Already this morning
we are discussing with WBU regarding a joint workshop on the public service
value of the Internet and the role of the media.  In particular, public service
media. The Council of Europe secretariat welcomes the proposal for major
organizations to organize their own open forums and to report on their
activities.  Here, the Council of Europe would be willing to organize its own
forum, to share its expertise in Rio in a number of key fields.  And these
fields include its work on cybercrime, sexual exploitation of children and
trafficking on the Internet, child pornography, and the burning questions such
as, for example, is virtually child abuse in Web sites acceptable or contrary to
our values, rights, and freedoms, and, of course, to the rule of law. The
Council of Europe would like to share its expertise with regard to new case law
of the European court of human rights, with regard to the positive and negative
obligations of states and their responsibilities in protecting rights and
freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, and, for example,
in considering how these obligations sit in relation to the roles and
responsibilities of other nonstate actors such as ICANN. Other Council of Europe
work of note, with regard to freedom of expression and private life and what
these really mean in practice, much work is already going on in the Council of
Europe with regard to the transparency and the processing and presentation of
information on the Internet, with regard to the provision of information,
guidance, and other forms of assistance to Internet users, with regard to the
quality and reliability of information on the Internet, with regard to flexible
content creation and IPRs, with regard to technical filtering measures. 
Moreover, the Council of Europe is willing to share its work on human dignity
and violent video games on the Internet with particular emphasis on the rights
of children and their education and skills in using the Internet.  And also,
there is current ongoing work in the Council of Europe regarding the drafting of
a legal instrument on the use and misuse of the Internet and the purchase of
medicines. Mr. Chairman, in moving forward in IGF preparations, we must be clear
and realistic about what we can achieve in Rio.  There is a need to focus, as
others, including Brazil and ISOC have touched upon, on a finite list of key
specific issues within the four-theme structure so that participants may drill
down into the issues and, in response, resurface with better understandings and
a clearer resolve towards action that is realistic and achievable.  The Council
of Europe is trying to do exactly that, focusing itself.  And it is hoped that
this is what preparations for the IGF will succeed in doing. One final point,
Mr. Chairman.  One name for you, you asked for names of those who could take
part in different sessions. Mrs. Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, and human rights expert and an expert in the
field of children and children's rights.  Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. There. I am speaking for Eurolinc, which is a
nonprofit association for multilingualism on the Internet.  My name is Louis
Pouzin.  I would just first take a short moment to commend the wonderful work
accomplished by the secretariat for putting up Athens, one thing, but then now
also on working very hard on organizing the Rio event.  But as my colleague,
Francis Muguet, already explained, we certainly have need to improve the
mechanisms that contribute to the organization of those major events. The
bureau, as he presented it, would be, apparently, as we think, a reasonable
solution to a situation which is certainly difficult to handle, because it's a
novelty, it's an innovation within the U.N. environment.  A multistakeholder
bureau is certainly something that has no existing model and which has to be
invented somehow.  Maybe we will appreciate very much if this proposal would be
conveyed to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Now,
assuming that we have these institutions, this structure established, we think
it would have the advantage to separate clearly the functions of administrative
and clerical and secretarial support on the one hand and the handling of the IGF
meeting contents on the other hand. The bureau could be very helpful in
coordinating, for example, the actions of the different host countries for
establishing a multiyear plan, as was already suggested by another colleague
here, and also to balance the subjects which could be studied in each -- balance
the participation which could be looked for for the various events, for example,
Athens was not very attended by the southern American people, so we might
promote much better participation for the Rio event. But, now, on the contents,
I think what we need is something that's not clearly established yet, is, like
in any international event in which we talk about subjects which are both
intellectual and emerging and innovative, we need an International Scientific
Committee, something which is quite classical in most scientific events.  We
need a group of 50 to 60 people who are selected due to their personal
competence, personal knowledge, ability, in order to study the themes to be
handled, to be treated and then prepare the appropriate contents for a call for
tender, and then proceed as usual with the review of the proposals and so on. 
This is not something unusual in international events. And I think this would
contribute very much to the reputation of the IGF as a major international
event.  It would also contribute to a much better balance of views in selecting
themes and selecting speakers, allocating the appropriate time, and so on. We
think that the organizational part is probably not the major problem, because
host countries are very much equipped to handle most of the work, hand in hand
with the bureau.  But on the other hand, the International Scientific Committee
doesn't have to be a permanent set of people.  It could be selected year by
year.  That doesn't mean some people would not appear regularly, but it doesn't
have to be the same body from year to year. That's the contribution I wanted to
make.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. Can I have the APC.


>>APC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. My name is Willie Currie.  I'm the ICT
policy manager for the Association for Progressive Communications. We have a
written statement which we will submit to the secretariat during the course of
the day, so I won't go into great detail. What we want to say is also that we
support the statements and inputs of the Internet governance caucus. Regarding
the issue of critical Internet resources and ICANN, it's clear that some
stakeholders want to discuss ICANN and the management of critical Internet
resources; others do not and urge caution in adding the issue to the themes. We
have a suggestion of a way that might address this complex and, in a way,
stalemated issue.  And that is that the IGF should have a standing annual
interinstitutional dialogue session which focuses on Paragraph 72b of the Tunis
Agenda, which is to facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss
issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. And we would like
to propose that out of the existing Internet governance bodies, that at the Rio
event, ICANN, WIPO, and the WTO be invited to participate in such a dialogue. 
And in that way, the issue could be addressed. The second point we want to make
is with respect to access.  We've heard the view of the ICC and BASIS that the
issue should focus on an enabling environment, strong focus on regulatory
regimes and investment.  Obviously, the moment one says "enabling environment,"
the question is enabling environment for whom, on what terms, and so on.  We
think that a useful debate could be generated around this.  We are interested in
looking at open access approaches to access, using the layered model of the
Internet where we would look at the physical layer of infrastructure, including
not just private sector, privately owned networks, but also municipal networks
and community-based networks.  We would look at the logical layer and look at
access to free and open source software and raise the issues around proprietary
uses of software.  At the content layer, we would look at the debate around
intellectual property rights and the issue of fair use, fair use being something
which is not exported long with maximalist approaches of two IPRs in developing
countries.  Roughly, the content layer would address the access to knowledge
framework. So in a sense, we would like to see a debate between nonmarket
approaches to access and market approaches to access.  And we think that out of
that, we could start to address 72(e), which says that, "The IGF should advise
all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and
affordability of the Internet in the developing world." In other words, we think
that there should be debate and dialogue in the access plenary session, but
there should also be some attempt to move beyond dialogue, towards the
requirement in the IGF mandate to produce advice. Then on the subject of the
bureau, APC is of the view that the combination of the IGF secretariat and the
multistakeholder Advisory Group satisfies the requirements of paragraph 78b, and
we wish to express full confidence in the current arrangements and in the IGF
secretariat in particular. We are strongly opposed to the creation of a bureau,
as it will cause unnecessary power struggles, particularly in civil society, and
would be counter productive to the purposes of the IGF as a space for
multistakeholder dialogue. We do have concerns that the multistakeholder
Advisory Group has currently limited representation from civil society and needs
to improve its reporting in the interests of greater transparency, as well as a
need for it to be adequately financed to fulfill its tasks. However, we feel
that the issue addressed by strengthening the IGF secretariat through greater
resource mobilization and other approaches, such as secondments and internships.
In addition, ad hoc multistakeholder working groups, which could work on
preparation of themes and sessions, could be established and be open to broader
participation. And we also have a view that the reporting format which the IGF
uses to report on its activities should report against the specific requirements
of Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. We will make the written statement
available. Thank you very much.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much. The gentleman from there, followed by
Mary Rundle.  I have four people.  Switzerland and Emily Taylor.  Let's -- why
don't we do it in this sequence.  I have forgotten altogether which sequence I
called it.  Let's just go this way, this way, Emily Taylor, and Switzerland.


>>APRIL:  Thank you.  I have a procedural issue to raise.  It might seem
technical and organizational, but it does cover the essential issues discussed
here.  And it is about the knowledge from IGF, how it can be consolidated to
help all public and private partners.  All players have to express their opinion
if the forum is to be meaningful, especially those from civil society.  That is
why, as regards physical meetings, is the -- the number of fora must not be
limited.  Intergovernmental documents are usually produced on a basis of
negotiation.  But we saw at the Tunis summit that the essential issues did not
meet consensus.  And that is why IGF was established.  The other, diametrically
opposed, option is to publish transcripts of each statement.  But then the
knowledge is diluted and not very easy to use, because we do not crystallize the
main points.  Neither of these two approaches is, therefore, a very good one. As
to an issue for multistakeholder Internet, why shouldn't we use Internet
practices as regards production of open knowledge?  We all know about Wikipedia.
 This is a collaborative way of building synthesis documents which highlight
points of convergence and divergence between contributors who agree on a joint
drafting of points on which they agree and on -- and agree on the existence of
paragraphs on points of disagreements. Access of all participants to a single,
dynamic site to draft such a dynamic document for the forum would be a good
symbol for openness, democracy, and inclusion in the forum.  Use of free, open
software to set up this document would be another strong signal.  Thus, in my
view, after the five years, the process of this forum could shed light on
emerging Internet issues for all stakeholders.  Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  That's a very interesting idea.  But -- let's think about it.
I have Mary Rundle from the -- Harvard, Berkman Center, Emily Taylor from
Nominet, and then -- well, the -- let's see.  And Switzerland.  I'm not sure
we'll be able to go beyond these three.  Then we can come back after lunch and
continue. Mary Rundle.


>>MARY RUNDLE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'm speaking on behalf of the Free
Expression Online dynamic coalition that formed as a follow-up to the first
Internet Governance Forum meeting in Athens last year. This coalition celebrates
article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which holds that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  This right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The
coalition also looks to the 2003 WSIS Geneva declaration of principles, which
reads, in part, "Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human
need, and the foundation of all social organization.  It is central to the
information society." I would like to call your attention to a contribution made
by the Free Expression Online dynamic coalition found on the IGF Web site under
"contributions."  The paper tells how protecting freedom of expression on the
Internet is crucial because free expression is the foundation of democracy,
essential to the individual pursuit of happiness, and a tool that provides
protection for other foundational human rights and basic freedoms. Moreover,
this freedom promotes education and enables human development.  The paper also
urges, in planning for the Rio meeting, that the IGF community consider several
points.  And here I'll note three. First, freedom of expression should have a
prominent place in the agenda, since it is implicated by all four of the main
IGF themes, especially the openness theme. Similarly, civil liberties as a whole
are cross-cutting, foundational concerns that all workshops and main sessions
should factor in. Finally, the IGF can add value by emphasizing a
multistakeholder and cross-dimensional approach in the development of
technologies and technical standards, as these processes carry serious
implications for civil liberties. On behalf of the Free Expression Online
dynamic coalition, I thank you for your attention to these concerns and best
practices that are foundational for a thriving information society.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  (inaudible).


>>EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'd like to join those others who
have commended the paper produced by the secretariat.  In my view, it promises a
vibrant and innovative format to build on the success of the Athens meeting.
Particularly, I'd like to see integration of themes between the main panel
sessions and the supporting workshops and best practices themes so that the main
sessions can perhaps draw together issues, summarize and look for linkages and
highlight developments around the core four themes. Mr. Chairman, you asked for
comments on the statements made so far.  And as a representative of a manager of
core resources on the Internet, I recognize that this is an issue which
continues to draw keen interest, at least in the rarefied world of international
Internet governance discussions. This is why I welcome the proposal for
reporting sessions.  This will support Paragraph 72(j) of the Tunis Agenda. 
However, building on the Council of Europe's intervention, I would very much
support calls for a people-centered IGF.  In my experience of trying to engage
stakeholders on these issues for many years, they really don't care at all about
the management of core Internet resources.  In my experience.  I note this is
not a view shared in this room.  But they do care about spam, security, child
protection, access, the digital divide, many of the issues which we have seen
discussed or started to be discussed in Athens. So it is worth recalling how far
discussion of core Internet resources eclipsed these other important issues
during the WSIS process.  And though these issues are central to the IGF's
mandate, in particular, security, Paragraph 72a, availability and affordability
of Internet access, 72e, capacity-building, 72h, and sharing of best practices,
72d, this, of course, also supports paragraph 80 and is a particular area of
interest for Nominet.  We are planning on launching a best practice challenge in
June this year, which is open to all organizations in the U.K., to highlight
areas of best practice based around the four themes which were discussed in
Athens. We were hoping to bring and showcase these examples and short-listed
entries in the Rio meeting, and thus -- and also to explore ways of
collaborating with parliamentarians and government to try to get a U.K.-Internet
governance forum process going to support the international discussions. To
conclude, Nominet advocates focus and adding value and to continue developing
the themes of security, openness, diversity, and, above all, access, and in this
way, build on the success of Athens. These discussions are not done; they have
just started.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  (inaudible).


>>SWITZERLAND:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  First of all, I would like to thank
you and the secretariat and also the Advisory Group for the good work that has
been done up to now. We would also like the second IGF in Rio to build on the
success of the first IGF, but at the same time, join in trying to improve some
of the weak points of the first IGF. We think it's crucial that the IGF sticks
to its free and open format and to a true multistakeholder approach which
enables an interactive discussion between representatives of all on an equal
level.  We would also join other speakers who were supporting to continue with
the four main themes, and we would also support the Council of Europe and others
in the view that the IGF should remain people-centered. What should be improved
is, first of all, the participation, especially the participation of the South,
which was not satisfactory at all at the first meeting.  And we should find ways
and means to facilitate this participation from the South for the next meeting
in Rio. With regard to the issues, we would also support a more narrower focus
within those four themes on issues in order to have a deeper discussion on
issues than to have a broader discussion on many issues. We support the idea of
having shorter main sessions, smaller panels, and a better link between
workshops and main sessions, and a limited number of work sessions. We also
support the -- providing space for existing institutions and mechanisms that
deal with Internet governance issues to provide for more transparency and
understanding of their roles and responsibility. So we support the general
direction of the program outlined and meeting schedule that was proposed on the
Web site of the Internet Governance Forum. There have been different proposals
with regard to what to do with the session on the emerging issues.  There are
reasons for having a session on emerging issues at the beginning of the IGF,
because this one could look at the past year and see -- could refer to what was
discussed under the emerging issues session at the end of the last meeting and
see what has happened during this year and also hint at what and where
discussions will take place during the current IGF.  But there's also reasons
for having an emerging issues session at the end of the IGF, where kind of we
can do a stock-taking of what has been discussed and maybe identify issues that
have not been discussed yet. So we could even think of having two sessions on
emerging issues, one at the beginning and one at the end of the IGF. Like I said
at the beginning, the IGF is basically a forum where a free and open interactive
discussion and exchange of views and best practices should take place.  And we
think it's important that the IGF should stay like this. However, some people
feel that the IGF should have an impact that goes beyond just discussing issues.
 They feel that the IGF should facilitate discussions, but also concrete
solutions to challenges connected to the Internet and Internet governance. Now
the question is how should this be achieved. At the first session of the IGF in
Athens, a series of dynamic coalitions has been formed.  These coalitions formed
themselves in order to work between meetings to promote action that should
emerge from the discussions at the IGF. This is a good idea, and I think -- we
think we have to support those dynamic coalitions, because if they do good work,
they can help the IGF to have an impact outside the meeting rooms. And so we
support the idea to give the dynamic coalitions space during the IGF to present
their work and find others who join this work.  But this is not enough.  Those
dynamic coalitions need more support and guidance with regard to what they can
achieve, and they need clearer mechanisms of interaction between the dynamic
coalitions and the IGF, but also with other fora. And they need more people who
are willing to work on these issues, also between the meetings. Apart from the
dynamic coalitions, we should find other ways that could be used to give the IGF
more impact.  According to the Tunis Agenda, the IGF has a mandate to make
recommendations to emerging issues.  This is something that can be done.  But we
think that we have to be very careful when trying to do -- to make
recommendations. What we certainly do not want is that the IGF is turned into an
event where we spend the whole time negotiating on some final paper on which
everybody has to agree. However, we would basically support that there is some
kind of visible outcome of the IGF.  In this context, we would like to recall
the proposal made by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, I think it was at the last
consultation, that the IGF should, rather than try to agree on recommendations,
come up with a list of messages.  These messages could even be controversial or
contradictory and not everybody would have to agree on all of them, but they
would be something that people would take notice of and that people would
continue to discuss at other fora. In any way, we think it will be important
that the IGF remains a platform for an open and free discussion among all
interested stakeholders. But at the same time, one or more members should be
found that what happens within the IGF has more outreach to other fora and
existing mechanisms where similar or the same issues are dealt with and
decisions are made. With regard to the proposal brought up by some speakers that
the IGF should focus more on public policy issues, especially those that are
linked to the coordination/management of critical Internet resources, we think
that basically there is no subject that is forbidden to be addressed in the
frame of the IGF.  But if we remember right, then in the discussions of last
year, there was the idea or the understanding that there were two separate
processes that have resulted from the Tunis summit with regard to Internet
governance.  One is the IGF, and the other one is the so-called process of
enhanced cooperation that was supposed to be started by the U.N.
secretary-general by the end of the first quarter of 2006. Unfortunately, this
process has not been very visible up to now.  But since we think that the
development with regard to this second process will have an impact on the
discussion about what issues should be dealt with at the IGF or should be dealt
with elsewhere, we would very much like to know more about the development of
the second process. And we would express our interest in the proposal made by
WIllie Currie from APC just a few minutes ago about having a standing annual
dialogue between relevant existing mechanisms with regard to the public policy
interests on Internet governance mechanisms. And finally, Switzerland who has
supported WGIG and the IGF Secretariat from its beginning would like to join
those who call on all stakeholders for better funding of the IGF and its
Secretariat. Thank you.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much, and I want to take this opportunity of
thanking the government of Switzerland particularly for the consistent support
it has given this process and particularly the financial support and of course
lending us Markus Kummer, as being the most important bit of support that you
have given us.  So I really thank you for that. Again, I think we should stop
now.  I have Parminder and (saying name) and we will start when we come back
because there's no point in rushing things now. Thank you very much.  I will see
you at 3:00 here. [ Lunch ] AFTERNOON SESSION (Gavel.)


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Good afternoon.  Can we begin?  Can people settle down. I
have Parminder Jeet Singh of I.T. for Change, followed by Riaz Tayob of Third
World Network.  And then I have Mr. Sogo Fujisaki and David Olive of Fujitsu.
Parminder.


>>:Microphone.


>>PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  Thank you, chairperson. This is a contribution from the
civil society Internet governance caucus. You heard a contribution in the
morning by Bill Drake, my colleague, which dealt with the substantive issues. 
And this contribution mainly deals with issues of the process at IGF and up
towards IGF. Though there are a couple of substantive issues as well, which I
will add at the end. The caucus wishes to express its satisfaction with and
great appreciation for the widespread and genuine adoption of multistakeholder
principle for all activities of the IGF.  And we hope that this practice is kept
up and strongly institutionalized in the IGF as its key constituted principle.
If we are able to do so, along with delivering real outputs from the process, an
issue which has been spoken about here, IGF will become a path-breaking
innovation in global governance, which we really look forward for it to become.
We are, in general, also satisfied with the openness of the IGF process, with
its regular processes of regular consultations like this one, and taking in of
phone inputs and compilation of these inputs for the various meetings.  As for
the main sessions and the workshop structures, we are for a greater connection
between the various workshops, an issue which has already been highlighted in
the draft program outlines.  And we follow the proposal of having official
reporting back from the workshops into the main session a very useful proposal.
We also find the proposal of open sessions for all major organizations dealing
with Internet governance-related issues to discuss their activities very
promising, and I think this would go a long way to fulfill the Tunis mandate of
IGF in 72b and 72c, of facilitating discussion between these two bodies and
interfacing with them. However, it would be useful if the IGF specifically
requests and encourages some of these bodies which have important IG
implications to hold such open forums. We heard APC speak about an institutional
dialogue forum which could in some way be related to these open forum. And this
is something which we would like to look at as well. We are also strongly of the
opinion that there should be no limitations on the number of the open workshops
as far as possible and within very broad limitations of logistics, as long as
they conform to the overall mandate of the IGF as per the Tunis Agenda. We would
like all the sessions and workshops to be more interactive rather than a series
of panel presentations.  We would like to see further development of online
processes for remote participation for the participants to keep track of
parallel events and for greater inter-sessional activity of the IGF.  And in
this regard, we'd like the IGF to develop into a continuing process using its
various online and offline components rather than just a single annual event. We
also appreciate many comments which are looking for strengthening the process of
dynamic coalitions within the IGF process, and we appreciate (inaudible) stand
that more support and guidance is needed for the dynamic coalitions to become an
important device of delivering outcomes within the IGF. We are also happy to see
that the draft program outline mentions that the preparatory process for Rio
meeting will be as open and as inclusive as possible.  In this regard, we have
some comments to make on the composition and the role of the multistakeholder
Advisory Group. We note that the proportionate representation of stakeholder
groups in the cross-cutting technical and academic communities was not openly
and transparently discussed prior to its appointment.  And we think that if
clear terms and rules can be established by the Advisory Group between now and
Rio through an open process involving all participants in the IGF as a shared
foundation for our common work and if these rules are in place, it will be
possible for the Secretary-General to do the actual process of selection of the
Advisory Group members in close, direct, open, and transparent consultations
with the stakeholder groups themselves.  We also express dissatisfaction with
the very limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the
Advisory Group, which amounted to about five members over about 40.  We think
that the significant part, especially of civil society and individual users, as
proved by the WGIG, is key to making Internet governance a success both in
practical and political terms, and thus we would like to see such participation
expanded to at least one-fourth of the group, if not one-third, which would be
at the same level of the private sector and the Internet technical community. We
also -- the Commission on Science and Technology notes that the main task of the
Advisory Group was to prepare the substantive agenda and program for the first
meeting of the IGF.  And this is a quote from the submission.  It was made clear
that any decision to -- how to prepare subsequent meetings and how to further
structure in future working methods of the IGF would be taken in light of the
experiences made during the preparatory process for the Athens meetings.  We are
not clear what is being done in this regard, though we noted the clarification
by the chairperson that we are -- the IGF secretariat and (inaudible) is going a
step at a time.  We appeal that all the changes which are made to the process
are transparent, open, and involves all the stakeholders. On the issues of the
logistics of the IGF meeting in Rio, we hope that the host country and all those
responsible for organizing the event will ensure that all participants,
specifically those from the civil society and other underresourced groups face
no difficulty speaking, specifically from the experience of Athens, we
specifically request that adequate, inexpensive arrangements for lunch be made
available at the venue and inexpensive accommodation is made available close to
the venue with adequate transport facilities, and we request adequate wireless
connectivity with enough number of computer terminals, something which we do
really hope that the committee will take care of. While the separate statement
on substantive issues took up the four main issues which we would like to be
taken up in the main sessions, the two specific issues I will add to the ones
which we have mentioned, one is to join many delegates here to express
dissatisfaction about the lack of transparency and inclusion in the so-called
enhanced cooperation process, which was agreed at Tunis that it should discuss
these matters in a multistakeholder fashion. We ask that prompt communication is
given to all stakeholders about the status and the nature of this process and
that steps are taken to include the full inclusion of all stakeholders in this
process. The second substantive point which we would like to make is that we
would like to see human rights, which are a set of fundamental rights that are a
prerequisite for development of individuals, groups, as well as nations, to be
included as a cross-cutting theme along with development theme for the Rio
meeting. We end with a note of thanks for Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer, and all members
of the multistakeholder Advisory Group, as well as for the IGF secretariat, for
their hard and often thankless work in developing the IGF processes thus far in
such a successful manner.  We greatly look forward to the Rio meeting of IGF to
take these processes further to enable the IGF to meet its full mandate. This
was the agreed statement input to the process.  With the permission of the
chair, I would like to make two comments which are about the issues which have
been taken up during the discussions here. One is about taking up the issue of
Internet core resources for discussion during the IGF.  And I'm unable to see
what could be the real nature of opposition to take these issues up, because
it's only a matter of discussing those issues and not a matter of making a
policy on those issues.  And, normally, it's agreed that even if one-third,
one-fourth, or one-fifth agrees for an issue to be taken up, generally, the
issue does get taken up.  So for me, I'm not able to understand the nature of
the opposition for just even discussing an issue.  And I would appeal to my
colleagues that this opposition may not stay, because -- and I would -- there
was some -- there were some reasons which were proposed here that why should
these issues not be taken up.  And one of the reasons taken up by one of the
speakers was that in her experience, the people who really use Internet are not
really concerned with these issues. And I think I would greatly differ with this
issue, and I think it's -- this statement is at the same level as to say that
people who suffer ill health are not worried about issues of I.P. or generic
drugs.  They are not because they don't know about those issues.  But those
issues directly affect them. And I think this kind of separation doesn't work,
and our organization, who works in the field among poor people in ICT projects
know that these issues do impact them.  And I think they can take the word of
the developing countries that these issues do matter to the people who use
Internet and who are denied access to the Internet. And the second -- second
logic which is given for not discussing Internet core resources is this process
of enhanced cooperation whereby at one -- it's treated as there are two
different processes which came out of WSIS and this somehow should be kept
separate.  So while enhanced cooperation should probably not be discussed at
IGF, critical Internet resources and public-policy implications should not be
discussed at IGF because they are supposed to be discussed at the enhanced
cooperation process. But I do not think that this separation between two outputs
of WSIS is on the basis of issues, is on the basis of what processes -- what
kind of working would happen in this IGF is space for discussion, and enhanced
cooperation is a space for developing policies.  And the separation is on this
count and not on the count of issues, whether one issue should be only taken up
at one place and it should not be taken at another place. To end my
intervention, I would like to make a clarification, I was told by my colleagues
that some civil society members here proposed a bureau structure for the IGF,
and some government delegates were inquiring whether that is the official
position of the Internet governance caucus.  And I would like to clarify that
Internet governance caucus right now do not have any position on that.  They
have not considered the issue.  And that is the opinion of some members who
directly expressed the opinion on their own behalf or on the behalf of the
organizations they represent. Thank you, chairman.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The next person I have is Riaz Tayob. Riaz.


>>RIAZ TAYOB:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I am from the Third World Network which
enjoys representation in Asia, Latin America and Africa and deals with issues of
concern to developing countries. Chairman Desai, congratulations on your
reappointment as special advisor to the secretary-general. The points I wish to
raise should not detract from the excellent work and commitment shown by the
Secretariat.  We would prefer that they be taken in the spirit of safeguarding
the Internet Governance Forum as one of the legitimate fora that is able to
discuss internet related issues. Recalling our previous submission to the
February consultation where we placed on record our serious concerning the
Margization of our concerns to developing countries, the handling of the
discussion of critical Internet resources during a plenary session and we
emphasized the need for all individuals, materially associated with the IGF
process to disclose their interests -- in particular, the after affiliation or
links to institutions currently in charge of critical Internet resources. We
trust that your review of the transcript confirms our assessment regarding our
concerns on the plenary discussion. As we were called alarmist in many quarters
for that statement, it is with great hesitation that we make the following
intervention but we feel it is incumbent for us to do so. We trust the good
offices of the Chair and the Secretariat to purposely interpret the statement
and the mandate in the Tunis Agenda for the forum, particularly Article 73 which
requires that the IGF be democratic and transparent, and by implication,
includes all the attendant good governance principles. We therefore wish to
emphasize, given the serious concerns raised by the civil society, Internet
Governance Caucus on the composition of the advisory group that the Secretariat
in all its operations and executions of functions must not only be neutral and
transparent but must be seen to be so. Let me explain.  We support the proposals
for critical Internet resources to be included on the Rio agenda explicitly.  We
therefore believe it is inappropriate for people or institutions with vested
interests or otherwise to play a critical role in the Secretariat's operations
given the sensitivity and importance of this issue to developing countries and
civil society organizations. Even at this meeting there are critical roles
assigned to people with strong links to the institutions currently in charge of
critical Internet resources.  This is inappropriate and we believe that the
Secretariat should protect itself from any perceptions of a lack of neutrality.
To avoid being misunderstood and personalizing the matter, I am sure that the
individuals tasked with such responsibilities are above reproach and will
faithfully deliver on their mandate to the Secretariat.  I emphasize, it is a
matter of principle and is a call for adherence to the letter and spirit of the
multilateral Tunis Agenda. However, given the lack of balance and improprieties
alluded to by us and others, this does not sit comfortably with us, and we call
for greater prudence in substance and in form. The discussion on critical
Internet resources at the IGF must be a Frank and open debate, coupled with the
availability of institutions currently charged with governance to be present at
the IGF. I hasten to add that it is not sufficient to rely purely on the mandate
in article 60 of the Tunis Agenda.  The Tunis Agenda and the integrity of the
process requires adequate incorporation into the agenda of Article 65, as well
as there is no reason to limit the limit to article 60.  Article 65 bears
mentioning.  We underline the need to maximize the participation of developing
countries in decisions regarding Internet governance which should reflect their
interests, as well as in development and capacity building.  And we have heard
from developing countries regarding their interests on this. Therefore, we hope
to see institutions charged with critical Internet resources governance enter
the legitimate space of the IGF and engage in that forum.  And that the
perception and substance of the IGF is free from gerrymandering in the process
leading up to Rio, the agenda, or through any other means. Since the IGF is a
legitimate multilateral forum accepted by all, and in addition is
multistakeholder, there should be no constraints to discussions on this topic
and neither should there be any excuse for institutions charged with critical
Internet resource governance to be fully and unconditionally available to the
forum. We are repeatedly reminded that the current arrangements are
satisfactory, so full open and you unconditional participation by these
institutions is the acid test for these assertions. In addition, we hope that a
report regarding enhanced cooperation will be tabled and open for discussion at
the Rio IGF.  We look forward with further work with the Secretariat and
reiterate our openness to the Secretariat for any further elaboration on the
issues raised here.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you very much for your comments, but I would say that I
find your comments about Secretariat depending on people who have connections et
cetera, et cetera, quite unacceptable.  There are two of us.  I don't think any
of us have any such connection.  This process has been run openly, transparently
and squarely.  And I think this type of language which alleges gerrymandering
and so on is completely uncalled for, at least as it app place to the processes
that we have been following for Athens or for the process here. And I can assure
you that the Secretariat consists of just Markus Kummer and one other person,
and that's me, and none of us have any connection with any such process. We are
here simply to facilitate this whole exercise. Can I call on the gentleman from
Fujitsu. Would you like to --


>>RIAZ TAYOB:  Yes, Mr. Chair.  I said I was available for clarification.  Let
me clarify, because this was not directed at neither you nor Mr. Kummer, but
it's the discomfort with the persons who are handling the online question and
answer.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Why don't you do it?  You do it?  No problem?


>>RIAZ TAYOB:  Well, I have done it, sir.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Do it.  I hereby request you also to join in, in monitoring
the online conversation, right now.  I am inviting you to join in monitoring the
online conversation, and you come up with, as others would, anything which comes
up on the online conversation which you think we need to know.


>>RIAZ TAYOB:  Sure.


>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Okay. Good. And I now call on the gentleman from Fujitsu.


>>SOGO FUJISAKI:  My name is Sogo Fujisaki with Fujitsu, Limited today
representing Nippon Keidanren, one of the major industry organization with more
than 1,600 corporate members in Japan.  I'd like to provide some comments and
reports regarding the event in Japan. We have been involved in the IGF process,
closely working with ICC/BASIS and other industry par