NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
03 SEPTEMBER 2014
UNCTAD OPEN FORUM
CONSULTATION ON CSTD TEN-YEAR REVIEW OF WSIS
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. I think we should start now. Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, I'm delighted to welcome you to this open forum session in my capacity as the share of the UN Commission of Science of Technology and Development. My name is Omobola Johnson. I'm also the assistant for technology in Nigeria. Today David Souter who is the consultant working with us on the preparation of the WSIS ten reports and also Murvi Kultamaa who is from the CSTD in Geneva. There's a ten‑year review of the progress made in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. This review will constitute the overall input into the overall review at the general assembly next year. And the open forum is part of that effort of trying to collect as much as we can physically from the different stakeholders. This is the third of the open forums we are having in three to four months. We had one in Geneva, one in Africa in July and really the purpose of today is to listen to your experiences, your views, your priorities, on the implementation of WSIS outcomes over the last ten years.
The work that we do embraces all the aspects of the WSIS outcomes. Of course as we are at the Internet Governance forum you want to speak directly to what concerns you and that you are particularly interested in having an input into the WSIS+10 report. When WSIS was started ten years ago the Internet or the Information Society was a ‑‑ the Internet was a critical element of the Information Society but many changes have occurred since the Internet. The number of people using the Internet has moved from 1 billion in 2005 to about 3 billion now. At the same time there's been a plethora of new services. For instance in Nigeria we have had one of the fastest e-commerce centres in the world. From the government perspective we have started distributing a number of subsidies directed to citizens cutting out the middleman and saving the government huge amounts of money. Developing economies have not been left out of this fundamental change in the way that the Internet has presented to us. But that is not to say they're not challenges. You may have heard in the plenary session this morning we have an estimated 63% penetration.
When it comes to Internet access we still are about 16% in Sub‑Saharan Africa. As you make your comments would like you to reflect on the challenges of WSIS in the past ten years. And I will also like you to look at some of the targets that we set for our cells in the Geneva face of WSIS. It also emphasizes all stakeholders involved in achieving this goal and we have been working since the summit to build such an Information Society. This review is not only about looking back at at past, what you have achieved over the last ten years but it will also enable us to move forward to what week further achieve and how we can build this very important information on society to meet the needs of everyone, everywhere in a time when all across the world we are experiencing rapid change in technologies.
To date including Internet Governance, how do we make better progress in the future? How do we overcome these challenges, those are the key questions that we are trying to address. It's really important that we gather as much evidence. We have had two really good sessions in Geneva and since those meetings we have had about 30 written inputs coming in and that's fantastic but we need a lot more. And I'm confident that your contributions will enrich that process and as many of you leave Istanbul to go back home you will help us to submit some of those written comments as well. I've already introduced Mervi and she's a WSIS coordinator and she's responsible for UNCTAD work of ten year review. And I have already introduced David Souter who is an independent academic and consultant ant he's working with the CSTD as he prepared the review. El introduce the board questions that we will be seeking to answer today and which will be the basis for our discussion so let me give the floor first to Mervi to talk about the work CSTD has done and then we will turn it to David.
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: Thank you, very much honorable minister, colleagues and friends, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great, great pleasure to be with you this afternoon. My part is to inform you on the commission and its activities in relation to the ten year review of the implementation of WSIS. And as the honorable minister already mentions this session is part of a prouder effort of the CSTD secretariat to reach out to stakeholders in all corners of the world. I'm going to inform you on these activities later in my presentation but first I'd like to say a couple of words of the commission itself. The commission was established in 1993 as a subsidiary body of the UN economic and social council. UNCTAD has hosted its secretariat
The commission is comprised of 43 member countries which it elects for a term of four years each. Even though the commission is intergovernmental also non‑governmental actors participate in its annual sessions and intercession of panels. And they bring much value to our work. In each annual session the commission elects a new bureau comprising of the chair and four vice chairs. I would like to thank our current chair honorable Mrs. Johnson for chairing this session. And also acknowledge the chair of our 17th session from the US department of state who is currently also one of the vice chairs of the commission as well as Mr. Peter who is also one of our vice chairs at the moment. Thank you, very much, for being here and for supporting us in this work. CSTD mandate is divided into two working areas. First since its establishment the commission has examined science and technology questions and the implications for development.
Secondly under its so‑called WSIS mandate the commission reviews in the conduct of WSIS outcomes than means that in each annual session the commission also formulates draft resolutions on both of its mandates which it submits for its approval. Okay. Let me briefly explain the mandate what the CSTD has in relation to the WSIS follow up. Right after the Tunis summit. It conducts this follow-up through regular review and assessment. It shares best practices and lessons learned, identifies obstacles and constraints, and measures for further developments. The commission has therefore been the only UN body which really looks at the WSIS commitments in the entirety. Its mandate in WSIS covers both regional and international levels. It also includes promotion of dialogue and fostering partnerships which it has done not just between its member states but all stakeholders also referred to earlier. By doing this the commission supports further implementation of WSIS. Now, let's go to the ten year review of WSIS implementation and the CSTD mandate. In 2013 an again this year they asked the CSTD to make a particular contribution to the WSIS follow-up. On the screen you see quotations from this year’s resolution. It has basically made three requests to the commission. And firstly it requested the commission to collect inputs from all stakeholders on the ten year review and in reality a full day was devoted during this year's annual session. The second substantive discussion will be held during the commission's 18th session in May, 2015. Third task was to submit after its 18th session the results of its ten year review through the general assembly as it makes an overall review of WSIS outcomes in 2015 to which the honorable minister already pointed out.
In the following slides I'm going to briefly explain what the secretariat is doing to help the commission implement these three requests. Now the CSTD secretariat launched several activities. First of all, there is an ongoing open invitation to all stakeholders to share their views and experiences on WSIS implementation through submission of written input, as the honorable minister already mentioned. The stakeholders can reply to the online questionnaire or submit any or input which they feel would be of interest in the ten year review. Actually we start to upload them next week. And they will also serve the commission as evidence in the review. I would like to thank all of those who have sent already the contribution and invite all who haven't done so yet to do so before the 15th of September.
Regarding the second pillar, in order to reach to all stakeholders in different continents secretariat is also organising a number of face‑to‑face consultation sessions. In addition to this there was one pre‑event during this IGF where we had an interesting discussion on the Latin American and Caribbean perspectives to the WSIS implementation. We have also other face‑to‑face consultations, one for the Arab region in the context of the ICT for all meeting in Tunis on 23rd of September, and another one for the participants of the world congress on information technology, which the world information services and technology alliance organises in Mexico on the 13th of September. And the last consultation will be held during the ICT committee of the United Nations economic and social commission for the Asia and Pacific that will be held in Bangkok on 15th of October.
It is also important that the 10-year review does not duplicate what has happened on the context of WSIS follow-up and the richness of the material collected during the high level event and the previous WSIS+10 event hosted by UNESCO in 2013 as well as the outcomes constitutes value input. The review will also take in other relevant material such as for example the report which was launched by the policy of measuring ICT for development on the final WSIS review during the WSIS+10 high level event.
Secondly, the CSTD secretariat is preparing a ten-year assessment report of the WSIS implementation. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive summary of evidence concerning WSIS outcomes and the development of an Information Society, the conclusion of the summit in 2015 and the various inputs which I just mentioned. The first draft of the report will be discussed by the CSTD members in the intercessional panel in late November of this year and the final version will come out for the CSTD next annual session in May next year. Takes commission also holds its substantive discussion of WSIS review. And just to mention that the CSTD secretariat also repaired a similar report in the five‑year landmark. I don't have the booklet with me but on the screen you can see its cover page.
And you can also download it from the web.
Now we come to the third request that they made to the commission to submit after its 18th session the results of its ten year review through the general assembly. In its 18th session the commission needs to decide what is the form and the content of its ten year review. One possibility is to include the commission's ten your review on its draft resolution on the WSIS. At that stage of course the commission has the final version of the report which the secretariat provides as background information for decision making and if the commission decides so it may also adopt the report or parts of it as the outcome of its review. In any case the outcome of the ten year review will be submitted through the general assembly and constitute any input to overall review in 2015. As you know the GA adopted a resolution on modalities of carrying out this overall review last July and the work of the CSTD was reflected in that resolution.
This is basically what I had to say to provide you some background information. More information you can find on the CSTD website and also the open call for inbox. So thank you for your attention.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you. I think David will now give us a short presentation and then we will end up in the questions that we are trying the answer this afternoon.
>> DAVID SOUTER: Thank you. The sound up here on the platform is very unclear. So Mervi introduced a process of the CSTDs following in fulfilling this mandate and I'll take a few minutes now to do three things. First I'll summarize what the WSIS outcomes are that the CSTD review will be looking at. Secondly I'll talk about some of the changes taking place in it technology since the summit and third I'll introduce the four core questions we are hoping people will address in this session here today. For those that were at the Latin America consultation earlier in the week, apologies for the repetition. I'll start with the WSIS outcomes which we are going to be assessing in the CSTD report and there are obviously a number of different ways which we can look at these. One of those ways is to simply list the documents that we have got within the WSIS process which include the full key text that emerged from the summit in 2003 and 2005, and they're contained in the booklet on the left‑hand side of the screen here. But we have also since then had the outcome documents for two further review processes.
The conference call towards knowledge societies for peace and sustainable development which UNESCO hosted in February last year and the outcome documents from the WSIS high level events which was hosted in June this year so those are the other two documents on the site here. So they’re starting points for the review. But obviously you can't measure implementation of progress by simply listing these outcome reports, outcome documents. In order to do that we need to look at the particular issues which have been raised since, we need to look at the specific outcomes that were raised within those outcome documents and the instruments that we have for measuring those. So it’s important in doing that to start by looking at the overall vision of the information society which was in the WSIS outcome documents. The information society wasn’t just a collection of separate targets or separate action lines or silos of activity. It was a comprehensive shift. And that was encapsulated in the phrase on the left hand side of the screen here, the phrase which is in the first paragraph of the Geneva declaration of principles, a vision of a people‑centered inclusive and development oriented society. So in reviewing the WSIS outcomes we have to ask how much progress we have made towards realizing that vision.
Now to facilitate that vision the WSIS stakeholders agree to a number of different things. They agree to ten targets for connectivity and access and one or two other issues. They recently have been reviewed by the partnership on measuring ICT for development in what they called the final WSIS targets review which was in June of this year at the high level event. They agreed to establish 11 action lines, 18 action lines in total which cover different aspects of the Information Society from infrastructure to inclusion, education to agriculture, cyber security to the ethical dimension of Information Society. They established a number of processes aimed at monitoring and measuring change and the need for understanding the changes which are taking place as they're developed. They ask for mechanisms for finances networks and services development applications to be improved. And of course they ask the UN Secretary‑General to establish mechanisms to enhance corporation and Internet Governance as a whole. Lastly the WSIS outcome documents gave responsibilities to the various stakeholders that took part there the summit.
So responsibilities to UN agencies including the specialist agencies, responsibilities for government, for business, for Civil Society. And finally these stakeholders were urged to work together through multistakeholder corporation and partnership. That's the outcomes which this review is examining. And in the process of doing that as Mervi explained, we issued a consultation which is available online through a questionnaire, it has around ten questions, there are four core questions we are using in these particular meetings, the four questions which are on the screen here. The questionnaire also invites anyone...which they want to make as evidence to in their submissions so it's not simply restricted to answers these questions, it's an opportunity to bring forward issues, themes, ideas, documents, evidence, which has been produced in other places.
And the more evidence that's received from the more people that it's received from different stakeholder communities, the more valuable the report should be that we can submit to the commission when it considers what it wants to submit to the general assembly next year. So I'll come back to these questions at the end of what I have to say. There are of course many different aspects to implementing WSIS outcomes. And some of these I've listed some of the themes which we expect to be raised in the consultation. I've set out on the slide here. So issues of infrastructure and connectivity. Issues of inclusiveness. So if the digital divide between countries, between rich and poor, between women and men, between urban and rural areas and other groups of society and between society, issues of governance and the relationship between ICTs and public policy.
Issues concerning the application of information technology to social and economic development which is both general but also expect to particular areas like health or educational enterprise or development. New trends in technology and services and I'll say something in a moment about CSTD's works on those and Internet development and Internet governance. This review is with all of these. Naturally in this forum at the IGF those of you attending the IGF are likely to be particularly interested in issues concerned with the Internet and Internet Governance. And in that context its worth remembering that the discussion of Internet Governance of the Tunis agenda isn't just the IGF and its corporation, it's a broader more wide ranging discussion of the Internet. So we welcome views on any of these issues.
I would also like to say something about the context for the WSIS implementation and reviewing that. This review will look back at the last ten years of WSIS implementation but it will also look at what has changed in those ten years and look forward to the future. In looking hat the past it's important to contextualize the summit implementation within the other changes which are taking place in the global economy that we have seen demographic change including migration in the past ten years. We have seen shifts in economic power and trade patterns, climate change. New approaches to sustainable development thinking around economic and social development. And in looking at the future it's important to place WSIS implementation in the context of the other United Nations processes which are under way next year, the adoption of new sustainable development goals and post 2015 development agenda. And in looking at both we need to consider how information and communications technology themselves have changed in the past decade.
One of the main themes of CSTD's work around Information Society issued since the summit has been to try and understand the changing nature of ICT technology and markets. Most of you will be familiar that the observation that the capabilities of ICT networks and devices have been doubling every two years for the past five decades. We of seen the capabilities of networks and devices grow to about 30 times what they were in 2005. So to understand the implementation of WSIS outcomes we have to place them in the context of rapid change that that implies and to remember that the rapid change it implies continues to change around us and will continue in the next decade as well. Processes which it had already changed the nature of the information revolution since the summit in 2005, those five things were the transition to mobility in access to basic telecoms and also the development of model Internet and model services around making the use of Internet t emergence of social networking and the advent of cloud computing. Last year in a paper published at the end of last year the CSTD looked at five further emerging trends since 2010 which have become prominent and those five were the data indication of business and government organisation. The related phenomena like open data.
The transition of cloud computing to a cloud economy in which data and applications access is concentrated in other resources other than those hold on people's devices. The use of smart systems to manage distribution and conception particularly in areas like energy. These sets of changes illustrate the way technology and markets have changed since the world summit and the way in which prospects for a people centered inclusive domestic‑oriented society have changed and the ways in which the opportunities and challenges have implementing WSIS outcomes have also changed in that period. So a key purpose of this review is to learn lessons from the past ten years which can be applied to the future. If you think of it in terms of this rapid development of technology, some doubt that it will continue at the same pace but it may decelerate but nevertheless it will continue to be that very rapid growth in capabilities. If it continues to apply then the capabilities of networks and devices in 2025 will be close to a thousand times what they were in 2005 at the end of the world summit and there will be no waves of technology and innovation which will be just as significant. So that's why the consultation for this review is focusing on these four questions and the other questions within the consultation that are built around them.
Questions that look back towards the experience since 2005, questions that consider the challenges and opportunities we face now. And questions also that look forward to the issues and challenges that we will face in the era of the post 2015 development agenda. It's very important for the consultation that it should include strong perspective across the wide range of stakeholders that have been involved in the WSIS process and WSIS implementation but it should represent the perspectives of all parts of the world community. By geography, by gender, from the most included to the most marginalized and it should reflect the diversities of context in which people live and experience information change diversity of objectives of experiences and of priorities. And also diversity of outcomes. So how do things look in different regions in different parts of different regions in countries with different economic characteristics?
What do businesses think of being the main achievements and where do they think of the most important priorities, big businesses, small businesses. What do Civil Society organisations feel has changed? What is successful, what is less successful, what is unsuccessful. And it's those four questions that we hope contributions in this meeting and in the consultation will generally help us to use to develop a full analysis of the way in which the Information Society has developed over the past ten years that will help the commission to decide on its input to the general assembly so I hope that's been helpful and thanks for listening.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank very much David. I think we can go into the process of just hearing from what you your experiences are. As David said it would be useful if you kind of centre them around these four questions and also like I said earlier if you have any specific experiences that you want to share on Internet Governance and that will be relevant for this review that will also be quite useful as well. So I think there will be a microphone going around. Just raise your hand if you want to make an input. Thank you. Introduce.
>> AUDIENCE: Good afternoon. My name is Pranesh Prakash. I'm a policy director at the centre for Internet and society. And I'm also an access to knowledge fellow with the Internet and society project. Especially for those here at the Internet Governance forum, while answering the second question there that David had put up, it would be good to also answer the question of how far the IGF has fulfilled its mandate. So for instance looking at the IGF ‑‑ provided to any of the stakeholders about the ways and means of accelerating the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world because to do so was one of IGF's mandates. Or, for instance, has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issue as rising from the use and misuse of the Internet or ever any issues ever been brought to the attention of any of what the relevant bodies, if so what issues and what bodies? Or has the IGF interfaced with appropriate intergovernmental organisations, how many have officially attended the IGF and have taken on board what has come out of the IGF? So these kinds of questions I think would be particularly valuable being answered by those who are who have been attending the IGF as part this review. I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: There's a question ‑‑ okay.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, good afternoon. I work at the centre for technology and associate in Brazil. I wonder because when the modalities for the WSIS review have been published it seems that will be a very intergovernmental process and there will be consultations with other stakeholders and it's not very clear how these consultations are going to be held sole I wonder if you have more information about it. The other question is what do you think would be the best of the Tunis agenda, do you think that the high‑level segment of the event that is going to evaluate WSIS is going to stick to this text and try to come up with a more soft document such as the outcomes of the high level event for post 2015 or do you think that maybe a text will supersede the Tunis agenda in the position to negotiate something better because in my opinion the text from the high level event are quite vague and old although they have good promises for the future they don't have things that are very concrete and measurable for us to achieve. And in my opinion this is one of the issues they have presented, they are all very relevant. If you look at the questions this is very subjective. So if people answer this question how do you intend to measure the answers that are going to be presented because most of the questions that are laid out are very subjective. Thank you.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: We will take one more intervention and then we'll answer them together.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. When this ten year evaluation ‑‑ to be used for preparing the general report to the UN general assembly in 2015, I think that this at the end of the day will lead to this kind of report. As far as the IGF is concerned, you know that on the table we have the issue of having the IGF getting to another status of not only consultation structure but also decision making structure. We think that we will have enough time and room to make such a proposal?
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: We have three questions now and I think we will answer the first question on the process of the report production and then David will answer the question on the text and it is the substantivity of those questions.
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: Thank you very much for the questions. As I said the report will constitute background material for the commission to decide how it wants to makes its reviews. So it's not the review itself but it's just background information for the commission to make the review. So usually there is no consultation process for such background information. The review will first be discussed during the intercessional panel of the commission late November and of course in that intercessional panel you don't have only the member states you also have other actors present and they of course have the chance to discuss about it, as well in the annual session. Of course the commission can decide during the intercessional panel that it submits the draft report to an open consultation process if it so wishes. And then that's what the secretariat will do. But as of now we don't plan to conduct a public consultation. It will be just background information for the commission.
I think there was also a question of the general assembly process. And your comments and questions are dually noted. I understand that the resolution resulted from a long period of negotiations between member states and when CSTD or UNCTAD was not part of those negotiations it is a little bit difficult for me to see how the decisions should be interpreted and what will be the path for that respect.
>> Just on the question of the questions, so to speak. The purpose of this particular exercise is to produce a report from the secretariat to the commission which provides the information for the commission needs in order to decide what it wants to submit to the general assembly. So that its purpose. It's one of a number of different processes that have been under way. So there has been as you know a quantitative analysis of the WSIS targets by the partnership on measuring ICT for development which does an excellent job of assessing what has been achieved where there's targets are concerned out of a really difficult data set, set of data that's available. The purpose of this particular set of questions was really to do something different to that. It was to provide a space in which it was possible for all stakeholders to submit as evidence to the commission what they thought was important.
So the issues, the priorities, the views, the experiences, the evidence they had to pull forward. So if you take in a sense yes they're subjective questions, or they're qualitative questions but that was to enable stakeholders to make the contributions of evidence they wish to make. Whatever it was they wished to put forward. And the report what the secretariat produces will have an analysis of what is submit there had alongside the evidence that exists from United Nations reports and other sources.
The submissions themselves will also be published unless the person organisation submitting it that it should not be made public and that will also provide a resource for the commission when it's making its decision on what to put forward for the general assembly. So therefore it has that kind of separate publication space as well. I hope that sort of answers the question.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: I think there was enough time, the migration of the IGF into a decision making body if I understood that question, the question was is there enough time in this process to make that recommendation or make that suggestion? Is that correct?
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Okay. Well I guess it would be ‑‑ what you're suggesting should be put forward as an input into the WSIS review process. Like we said the deadline is in about two weeks’ time, the 15th of September. We will take that comment on as part of the discussion in this open forum but I think that it would be useful if we could have a written input as to although like the business cases of why we should migrate from the open discussion forum that the IGF is now to decision making bodies so it would be easier to have the context and the underlined reasons for why we should be recommending that. Thank you. Gentleman in the blue shirt first.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Sayed Gazi (phonetic). So my quick thought is that why we solicit this whole opinions and ideas towards these WSIS consultation, this is consultation under the next tier of submissions as a mechanism to solicit the opinion of the nation and the largest stakeholders, because for India in India for example we have the united nation development. So I just wanted to know whether the offices in respective countries, member countries has also engaged or solicited opinions for those countries and feeding this information to the WSIS outcome?
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: We have sent invitations to respond, for example, all UNCTAD's members. Also we have approached UN regional commissions and asked them to share information for that. We have also asked the governments, we have sent separate invitation letters to the governments and asked them to supplement information for what they constitute so we are trying our best to make sure that as many stakeholder groups as possible are aware of this collection of inputs and of course there's an open call for inputs on the website. So this is the best we can do. There are of course always people who are not reached out and so on. But we try our best.
>> AUDIENCE: I am from the United Nations, Regional office in Beirut. And throughout the WSIS process we have been involved in measurement, in monitoring and so on. My intervention here is not the form of question but some comments that might help in answering these questions. Regarding the first point about the people‑centered, our observation that is the people centered has been achieved by two ways. First of all, by natural there were people enthusiastic about technology, ICT, realizing its importance, its value to them, they get satisfaction value added and therefore they become centered, they invite themselves. Other approach is policy driven, policy driven by governments, local governments. They are making encouragement to people to join in and so on and therefore I think the measurement of the performance of e‑government programmes and services is important for the future.
Now the infrastructure is there. Now it's time for people for citizens to reap the benefits and to start benefitting. The other point is about the measurement. I think my contribution here that is measurement of the achievements for the review has to take two tracts. The numeric measurements where we actually go and measure by certain benchmarks and certain thresholds what happens that we achieve did we not achieve and so on. This is from one side t other important area that for the future we should focus is on is on the measurement of the opinions and perceptions of those who receive services. It's important for example to notice that for mobile services we have reached let's say 100% saturation rate, penetration rate. It's great. But for the next ten years or five years this is not such an acceptable measure. We need to go and dig into the opinions and whether people are satisfied or not and where they want the direction to go.
My third point is about the speed. We noticed that ‑‑ David mentioned things are progressing very rapidly sometimes but we noticed that in some ICT areas technology is much faster than the people's absorption or perception. In other it was the other way around. People are eager, hungry to services and technology is not there yet. So we have been I think witnesses the two types of speeds. It's like two people racing and their legs are tied together. The other important thing most of the measurements and the review in the past was focusing on government achievements and people. There was little focus on the private sector. While we are sitting here the IGF, Istanbul happy about what you are doing, there are some other people sitting there in the business rooms and the business meeting rooms making decisions making partnerships between Google, Samsung, this, that and so on.
People business sector are not waiting for us, they are not even listening to us. They are doing their own business deals and they are marching. So I think for the future part of this review is to see the performance of that private sector, the sector itself in general. My last point is I think I mentioned it but now I want to clarify. I think the last time we were focusing on infrastructure. Now when you speak to ministers of ICT and so on in the countries, okay we are fed up with the infrastructure, now let's focus on the services. So in the future I hope that focus will be the measurement review will be citizen centered and will involve the private sector. Thank you.
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I am strategy and policy advisor, managing the WSIS process. I was in charge of the high level event which we successfully concluded in June thanks to the joint forces of all stakeholders, thanks to the openness multistakeholder approach and how we can reach some agreements at the lower level on very complex issues. And maybe answer some questions of some colleagues asking for the scope and the focus of this outcome document. So the outcome negotiated outcome documents which were endorsed at the high level events are coming to the result of the negotiations where of course when you are bringing 193 nations and in addition society, private sector and others, it's very different.
So therefore we are looking toward the reports which are more of the analytical, we have more of the analytical character as the opportunity also raising some issues which maybe didn't reach the consensus but are still relevant and important and maybe had the future will find the reflection in some negotiations or we become much more relevant. Also in terms of the involvement of the UN agencies in the process, so prior to saying about this you wanted to congratulate the secretariat who were following the process of the high‑level event, also to all UN agencies which (?) To make a high level event as successful as it was. This means the results is also the contribution from all of them; all of them were providing the E‑goods, all materials which were relevant to this review. Of course the focus of the high level event was more related to the Geneva phase so many ever these questions we see on the screen are the first glance maybe giving the impression it's more related to the ICT for development however as David was drawing a attention it encompasses all aspects which were addressed in Geneva.
So we hope that the report that will be submitted by the secretariat will reflect the major issues addressed as well as the outcomes of the high‑level event. But outcomes not only of the negotiated text but also those outcomes which were produced for the proposal of the meeting and there were more than 1,000 submissions coming from the governments from different stakeholders which may be in the process of the negotiations were taken into account some reformulated but they are still valid and because they were the deliberations of the stakeholders that's why we invite the CSTD secretariat not only to focus on the final outcome but also to take a stock on what has been submitted to the process whatever direction he is available. In addition to this there are few outcomes of course the report of the targets. This was some challenge during the high level event. The negotiations also addressed the issue of the measurement and there was no consensus on setting up the clear targets which would give us the possibility of held being accountable for the process with the action lines measured by the measurable targets. Of course this is the evolution and we hope that in the future there will somebody discussions on these in particular ones now we know that the global debate on the post 2015 agenda has advanced and we know much more than we knew in June on the focus, on the main principles and main goals and maybe some ideas could be addressed in this respect.
In addition to this, I believe that this would be important also to take a look at the thousands of submissions coming from the active is the process which was set up in 2004 by the process, for the process as the unique repository of the stakeholders. We submitted already a whole package on the WSIS high‑level event, it outcome and the relevant to the secretariat one week after the high level event. So I hope we were the first. And also we hope to see maybe this would be useful for us to understand more what are the plans in regards of the outcome of the discussion. If the main outcome of the review will be the report endorsed report, or also we are taking a look at some negotiated texts to be adopted in 2015 session coming prior to overall review by the general assembly. Taking in particular into account the CSTD was already doing significant work on the enhanced cooperation and IGF and some debates include a lot of the different ideas was already submitted to the secretariat so if we could also hear more enlightened on this, it would be very useful for further discussion. Thanks. One more times congratulations for secretariat for setting up the process.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, thank you Madam Chair. You can be next. Intergovernmental organisation 47 member states, which has core mandates, bill of rights, law and democracy. When we talk about Human Rights we talk about people, people centered approach. We have been involved from the WSIS time all the way through the IGFs and with UNESCO w different times like action against crime and media, ethics of the Information Society. We have had many meetings together David over the past perhaps much we of also been involved you know talking about the words about it being global seats which was put further by the council of Europe and also we are involved in ICANN. All of that to say we have had wring correspondence over the years with UNCTAD so thank you for that correspondence. So say that we have done a ton of work in Internet Governance. So there's a great deal of invite and experience. It's a pleasure to be part of that process. Probably perhaps to ensure that we do a good and full job and go to WSIS+10 with the full information I think you'll be good to go beyond the written exchange with certain actors because there's much more than is always written in the texts that we exchange. Because I see even today the work in Europe inspired by global events like this one and the work in Europe inspiring events outside of Europe in the world even today we had a Japanese university teacher talking about the work in Europe, he was using it in these lectures and his contexts with the local administration. Very nice to hear that. So just all of that to say it's perhaps good to think about whether you need to do any further special perhaps a typical dialog with certain actors who are intimately connected to the whole process perhaps in your summarize, in your conclusions, perhaps in your overview beyond the written correspondence and the counselor of Europe stands ready to help if that's what you would like.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you. Yes the other gentleman in the white shirt and glasses.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm with Cisco systems. This spurred a lot of interesting discussion and said a lot of thoughts but I'll try to keep it short, different thoughts on the topic we are discussing. I just wanted to mention that the private sector was engaged in the Geneva and Tunis phases of the WSIS to the extent it was allowed to engage. And it plans to engage in the ten year review to the extent it will be allowed to engage there as well. And we have been active in the Internet Governance Forum since it was started and fully supported so we are willing to work with you as this process, you know, as much as we can. So say that I think I was personally fortunate enough to participate in both of the UNESCO hosted review and the ITU hosted review of the high‑level event. I didn't get to attend the high level event but I was engaged with an eight month preparatory process for that. And I would like to congratulate both of those organisations for hosting such an open process for communication and discussion. I think it was difficult at times but that's the process, when you have all stakeholders together discussing these issues so I would like to thank both of those organisations for their efforts. And I think we some of good outcomes from those two events that we can take to account.
So the other topic that I want to just mention is you were thinking about the last ten years, the trends. One thing I didn't see on the list I agree with all of what you said David, the mobile social networks those are affecting the world tremendously. Another aspect I'm sure you're looking at is the explosion of Bandwidth and undersea fiber and the affect it's had in a number err of developing countries, especially in Africa. The amount of Bandwidth has been available in Africa because of the great number of fibers that have been landed there over the last five years is tremendous and it's changed the dialogue in a lot of the discussion. In addition I've seen a lot of growth in regional fiber. Especially say within South America and Africa. Fiber across borders of interconnecting countries that have saved the landscape as well. Previously the biggest issue was lack of connectivity and now the big question they're having is how do we keep up with growth and buildup enough equipment to keep up with demand. So it's changed the landscape and the questions these people are asking. This gentleman up in front, I think he left, but he actually said something that I was going to say so I would like to agree with him in that the conversation is changed based on that is that previously we were talking about infrastructure and people are tired of hearing about infrastructure, now they're talking about services and that is indicative of the growth we have seen over the last ten years and how the conversation has changed.
So when we look at how far do you consider the implementation of WSIS outcomes to have been achieved we to have look at this as an interdependent process. So as you bring more fiber and more Bandwidth in you're going to get more issues and challenges you're going to have to address because now our connected. So these were interdependent and in some cases the actual increase in one area may cause more problems than another area that you then need to address. You understand what I'm saying so I think I'll stop there and thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the consultation.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you for participating. Yes. The gentleman.
>> AUDIENCE: Thanks. Okay. Great, Garland McCoy with technology education institute. One of the things having been part of a group that in a small way helped bring the undersea fiber cable to the east coast of Africa as was mentioned a lot of the Cisco people were there when we were dealing with some of the regulatory policy issues that we need to get through to get the folks who were putting the money on the table to agree to put it in so you wouldn't be captured at the other end. And I'm not familiar with all this so I'll apologize about all the word and processes that I've been hearing here for the last hour or so but I would like you the consider the following, that I think is very important.
We in the US and in the sort of Europe if you will northern hemisphere have been very blessed in that this whole technology of the Internet arrived on top of a very well‑developed and fully functioning electric grid, electric power system so that you were able to bring in the network operations centres, data centres, peering centres that all run this commodity if you will which are Packet data. The dirty little secret is it takes an awful lot of power electricity and a certain kind of electricity, not episodic electricity. What they call base load power plants to operate these big data centres that work with this commodity. Think of the data as a commodity lie corn or oil or whatever takes a lot of energy to work. And the problem is in these developing countries I mean I watched the fiber come in and the fiber going out and they still can't keep the lights on there.
I'm not being ‑‑ this is not a criticism, it's just they have staggering growth but when they start talking about we want to keep our data local in some of these countries, fine. Give me 35,000 megawatts, that's what we use to hour a whole city. Well, that's what you're going to have to have 24/7 in this building to manager this commodity. So what I'm saying is your on the cusp of running into a big problem and that's this other piece of the pie and back a long time ago, I'm an old guy here so I remember back when they used to call it connective computing and digital was a strange word, people way would say what is that? And they used to very early on you use the word convergence. That's a strange word. But I would submit to you that you need to think in the ICT world, you need particularly in the developing words that were not as fortunate to have this very well‑developed infrastructure of electricity in place, that that's going to be a really problem that you're going to have to deal with very quickly. And in these developing countries. So that's all I have to say. That's going to be a big problem.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you very much. I think that's probably one of the challenges that will be recorded in the record. There was actually a question maybe for David about whether or not there will be any negotiated text. So I think there was a question that was asked that I forget to ask the response on whether there was going to be any negotiated text included in the final report? Okay.
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: Thank you for that question. As I mentioned the commission needs to decide what is the outcome of its review and hopefully it will touch on its decision already in the intercessional panel but the outcome should come out from its next annual session which will be organized in May next year. If the commission so decides, it may organise open process for negotiates. What it normally does each year is that it prepares a draft resolution for the implementation of follow-up to the WSIS outcomes. So one possibility is to do it in the way which would be maybe more inclusive to other stakeholders and then include its review in that resolution. But I would not like to foresee already what the commission decides so we are really in the hands of its members in this issue. And also maybe to confirm to your remark on the submissions to the WSIS+10 high level event and the stock taking initiative that definitely we are actually at the moment reviewing all submissions not just the final outcomes and we will include the stock taking initiative in the review as well. Thank you.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you, Mervi. We only have a few minutes left. Any comments from the remote participant? No? Okay. Then I think if you can say one final input. Can we have the microphone, please? Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: This is Dr. Bikru (phonetic) from Bangladesh. I represent Bangladesh and I'm here to say something on behalf of my poor people. Huge population, 160 million. And people are very poor. About the four questions here, in my country less than five% of the people have Internet access so I guess here in my country it's not at all possible‑centered because most of the people don't have any access to Internet because of lack of connectivity. So naturally this is not double oriented function society. And the outcome is far greater to achieve. The major in my country is to give access to the rest of the 95% of the population who don't have any access yet because the government just started the connectivity to the people very recently so it takes time and it costs huge money. We don't have that much capacity. I'm here to say something to my poor people. Okay. I come back with this good news for you people from Internet Governance Forum where all the people. So can anybody tell me what good news we have for my poor people to give them access and the things that my country is going to the market because government is buying computers and IT accessories which the poor people have to pay so this is a dilemma. So I'm looking for some answer from especially the countries who produce this type of ICT and also the consultants who have been elite in their knowledge and also the technology, any answer please?
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you. I don't think we have any answers per se but I'm hoping that what will happen is as we get the input from around the world there will be countries that are similar to Bangladesh in terms of first of all the size of the population and also the number ever people that are living under the that and what I hope will happen is as we collate this input we will be able to use some of the best practices and the experience of those kind of countries to then support or to support Bangladesh as you develop your policies for access for the underserved or the unserved people. So I don't think it's a question that we can actually answer here but I'm hoping that as we collate the input in the various countries there will be some insights in to how Bangladesh can improve the access that it currently has. Just one final comment.
>> AUDIENCE: What do you want to talk about is two things that maybe you can also consider when I finally decide on this whole inclusive people centered, two points, one is how far this information is democratized and decentralized. Because the devices and the entire approach has to be there so that there's an inclusive possibility is more wider. So technology democratization and also information democratization as well as information.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: Thank you for that clarification. Do you have any final comments? Did you have any final comments?
>> MERVI KULTAMAA: Well maybe just briefly to reiterate our invitation to end inputs. I guess whether there will be a negotiation that we don't know but what we know is that we organise inclusive process for collecting comments and all those comments will be put forward for the members of the commission. So your views and experiences really matter and this is the right time to post them. So please get in touch with us in the time that we have when we meet at IGF.
>> OMOBOLA JOHNSON: With that let me just thank you all very much for your comments. Again it's very, very useful for us as we prepared this report. I hope we answered your immediate questions or concerns that had you around the process but just to say to people said it would be very useful of us to get some of this input in writing through the website but thank you all very much. It's been a very diverse group actually so it's been very good to hear from the developed country point of view and also the developing country point of view. Hopefully we will bring all those together and see how much progress is made in the world to really develop this people‑centered inclusive information oriented society. So thank you very much indeed for participating.
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.