Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 1946

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/database/driver.php on line 2022

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/filesystem/path.php on line 143

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/filesystem/path.php on line 146

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/joomla/filesystem/path.php on line 149

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/components/com_fabrik/helpers/string.php on line 264

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/src/User/UserHelper.php on line 621

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/cegcore2/gcloader.php on line 63
2015 11 10 WSIS+10 Consultations Main Meeting Hall FINISHED
 Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 


>> Good morning, everyone. 

We're gathered here today for a session that is geared to examining the theme of the 10‑year revision of a process that was started by the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva, 2003, Tunis, 2005 which we had documents which resulted in the implementation.  This year should be 10 years, this year.

The goal of this session is within the IGF context and multistakeholder we should evaluate and have the results of the implementations, changes, issues that have come up since then. 

I have the great satisfaction of inviting to start the session and to say the opening remarks, the Minister of Communications from Brazil, His Excellency Andre Figueiredo.

>> ANDRE FIGUEIREDO:  Good morning to everyone present. 

I would like to welcome all of you again at the 10th IGF meeting.  Particularly I would like to mention with affection the presence of the WSIS Co‑facilitators, Lana Zaki Nusseibeh from the United Arab Emirates and His Excellency Janic Majeiks from Latvia, and the work of the debate of the 10 years of the Information Society work in New York and their meeting on the 15th of December. 

The participation of the Ambassadors, this will provide a unique opportunity for the results of the session to be immediately transmitted to the main responsible people of the drafting of the final document of the December meeting.  In Brazil we are NETmundial, here we are represented by its multistakeholder Committee with the CGI.  It is very pleased to have this debate, people, where we can experience a participative debate of building consensus.

It is worth mentioning that Brazil is enthusiastic of the multistakeholder model.  It is the second time we host IGF:  The first was in 2007 in Rio, and then in 2013 we had a WorldNet which was a pioneer example to have the concrete sessions for the development of the Internet ecosystem by a multistakeholder process.  Brazil is a pioneer in the Marco da Civil drafting with a collaborative contribution at WorldNet.  We base ourselves on the definition of global principles for the governance of the Internet and on the definition of a root for a future evolution of Internet Governance.  Today in 2015 this debate has become more important and urgent as we approach the conclusion of the process of revision of the 10 years of the WSIS World Summit.

This morning we'll have the opportunity of listening to the different players on the successes and failures of the World Summit and maintaining the accomplishments and now we'll have the chance of identifying the challenges we have ahead that should be addressed from the decision to be taken at the meeting that's a high‑level meeting of the UN to be held in New York on the 15th and 16th of December.  Thus, we should recognize and greet the international efforts of WSIS+10 with the priorities and challenges related to this and the advance of the new needs in social demands in our viewpoint, the important discussions to be held regarding Internet Governance, I mention the need to redebate the current governance arrangements and the importance of evolving in a debate on the definition and implementation of enhanced communication in Tunis. 

In this context, Brazil has defined the importance of the mandate of IGF following the governance structure and working methods.  On the other hand, especially under the viewpoint of developing countries, we believe it is necessary for the process to advance the concrete mentions for the overcoming of the digital gap considering the technological development and the challenges faced by society.  This morning we have the possibility of exchanging impressions and visions on this process.  That certainly will contribute to the enriching of the final version of the document to be appreciated in December. 

Thus, I conclude this brief intervention with my expectation that via this collective exercise we can gather visions and reach consensus that may be formally incorporated to the process of revision of the 10 years of the WSIS World Summit.

I'm sure with consultation meetings with governmental sectors in New York in July and October the debate we'll have this morning will contribute greatly so that the Ambassadors can receive suggestions and assess the areas of greater concern of Civil Society, private sector and academic and technical communities in the world regarding the themes being discussed and the process WSIS+10.

In this, I would like to thank everyone for your time, and I would like to give the floor to the co‑moderators of the session, Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho and Lynn St. Amour to proceed with the words.

>> H.E. AMB. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHA:  As indicated by the administrator, we have the privilege of counting the presence of the Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives from Latvia, Ambassador Janis Mazeiks and from the United Arab Emirates Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, that represent their countries in the UN in New York and are Co‑Chairing the preparatory works for the high‑level meeting in December in New York.  It is a great privilege for us to have their presence here. 

As you know, the General Assembly is having a session from September to December, the General Assembly has its annual session and they're considering the fact that they're heading their missions in New York, they have several attributions, topics that deserve their attention.  I would like to mention that it is a great privilege for us to have their presence here.

>> ANDRE FIGUEIREDO:  I'm grateful for your participation.

We know at this time at the General Assembly it is a very intense, demanding time for the Permanent Representatives.  We're grateful for you for coming here to discuss this with us.

With these words of introduction, I would just like to give the floor to Ambassadors so that they can make a presentation and update the situation in New York so that they can comment on the process and that should result in the meeting ‑‑ the high‑level meeting of December.

>> H.E. JANIS MAZIEKS: Thank you.

Dear participants, it is my privilege to participate in this IGF meeting and address you as a Co‑facilitator of the overall review of the WSIS, the process of which the IGF itself has started. 

I would like to begin by thanking the Host Country Brazil for the tremendous efforts in making this meeting a success.

To me, the number and diversity of participants present at this year's meeting is a good reminder that the idea behind the IGF is very relevant and there is a high demand to have such discussion platform.

My intention here today is to give you a brief account of ongoing preparations for the high‑level meeting that will take place on 15th through 16th of December, UN General Assembly and then, I hope, that we'll engage in rich exchanging of views especially given that present set of participants is different from the New York meetings.

As you may well know, it was decided during the second phase of WSIS to request the United Nations General Assembly to conduct its overall review of the implementation of WSIS outcomes in 2015.  After the intensive and extensive negotiations in 2014 the UN General Assembly in the so‑called resolution agreed to organize a 2‑day high‑level meeting in December of 2015 marking the end of the 2015 review process.  This resolution prescribes the roles of governments and other stakeholders in the review process.

December meeting is expecting to produce a negotiated outcome document which will take stock of the progress made in the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS, addressing existing challenges and indicating areas of continued focus, including the focus of taking in consideration the contribution of all of the relevant stakeholders. 

It is an honor to serve as one of the Co‑facilitators along with my colleague Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to UN, Lana Nusseibeh. 

In the first informal meeting of the plenary, as part of this intergovernmental preparatory process for the WSIS+10 review took place on 1st of July, 2015 following an initial stocktaking meeting on the 10th and 11th of June of 2015.  The aim of the first meeting was to provide an opportunity for Member and Observer States and Observers to share inputs on the expectations of the elements to be captured in the December outcome document. 

In the first informal meetings we received many written contributions which prepared the non‑paper to discuss the objectives and later develop a Zero draft of the document to be developed in December. 

The Zero draft document was discussed in another meeting providing detailed content to the structure and overall review and reaffirming the WSIS vision established. 

In parallel preparatory meetings, two rounds of consultations with stakeholders were held by the President of The General Assembly on 2nd of July and 19th of October respectively.  These consultations provided an interaction with the multistakeholder during the process. 

We're carefully studying all contributions and keeping closely involved with all in the process.  We made an effort to create a balanced basis for further negotiations, and a few days ago we circulated draft outcome document. 

Currently we're just days away from starting intensive textual negotiation on the document.  We would appreciate to hear your views in general and on specific aspects and themes of the WSIS review. 

Before that, I would like to pass the floor to my colleague Lana Zaki Nusseibeh who will provide a more detailed explanation on the ongoing debate including Internet Governance within the WSIS review. 

Let me conclude that written contributions make one part of the review process and there is nothing more valuable than face‑to‑face meetings with all interested parties.  I'm very much looking forward to fruitful exchange during our stay here in Joao Pessoa.

Thank you.

>> H.E. LANA ZAKI NUSSEIBEH: Thank you, Andre Figueiredo. 

We're delighted, we're honored to be here.  We would like to thank the Government of Brazil for their generous arrangements for us to be here today and for their careful stewardship of the IGF this year.  It is a phenomenal experience so far. 

It is our first IGF.  We're excited to be here, and we're listening to your views on the process so far and what you would like to see happen next.  We have been grateful for the opportunity to meet with many of you on the sidelines of the formal meetings and take that input forward.

Throughout the UN's review of the WSIS outcomes we heard about the IGF from all corners of the government, private, certain, academic communities as the world's foremost platform for governance and multisectorial multistakeholder to carry out the vision of a people centered, inclusive development‑oriented society. 

It is exciting and instructive to participate.  We have encountered firsthand the frank, incredibly diverse, well‑informed discussions proving the reality of how valuable this forum is.  The ideas debated and refined here are precisely the inputs that we and all stakeholders need to take back to New York, especially now entering the critical stages of negotiations.  This process is too important to get wrong.

As Ambassador Janis Mazeiks explained, this is a timely opportunity to look back over the last 10 years of Internet development, evaluate progress made and the challenges that remain and identify the priorities for the future.  Frankly, ten years in ICT time is like five decades in another sector.  If there is one point that the UN review has made clear, it is that the value of the Internet has increased beyond almost any expectation in 2005.  ICT is so firmly embedded in our lives and the economy that any conversation about its future is in fact also a conversation about development, about values, culture, about security.

I think it is worth repeating statistics to underscore the scale of change, and these statistics we as Co‑facilitators take in every negotiation so that people remember the substance of what we're discussing as they enter negotiations on text.

From 2005 to 2015 the number of mobile phone subscriptions went from 2.2 to 7.1 billion.  2.5 billion are expected to be online by the end of 2015, over 40% of the world's population by the end of 2015.  Of these 2 billion are in developing countries.

Additionally, mobile Broadband is the fastest growing market segment in the world.  2014, 32% global penetration, four times higher than in 2009. 

It is accordingly not surprising that the governance of the Internet assumed such a large place in WSIS discussions, and that these are equal parts optimism and trepidation over how negotiations around the governance play out.  It is telling that 2.5 thousand people came to Joao Pessoa with many more participating remotely to hear and to be heard about this topic. 

I would like to try to contextualize the governance debate within the WSIS review, starting with the frame of ICTs for development, and then going into the New York‑based conversation on Internet Governance.

So a taste of that discussion in New York: 

Many think of the UN as largely focused on security, an important pillar of the work is on Sustainable Development.  This is, moreover, an intensifying focus, as both moral outrage and understanding of the security connection grow in response to the fact that 836 million people still live in extreme poverty.  Environmental health continues to be threatened.  Let alone the fact that today there are more refugees globally than at any time since World War II with a number that's almost at 60 million.  This problem is only intensifying as conflicts in all parts of the world fail to find solutions.

To address this amongst other issue, all 193 Member States and thousands of non‑government delegates gathered and agreed to mobilize partnerships to eradicate poverty, protect the planet, achieve peace, and you will recall the Millennium Development Goals adopted which largely focused on less developed countries, we have come a long way since then.  The Sustainable Development Goals demonstrate a significant shift and approach of the international community as they apply to every country of the world recognizing we can all benefit from the global commitment to social, environmental and economic betterment. 

Of greatest relevance to our gathering today, the 2030 Agenda explicitly recognizes that ICTs are both a driver and an indicator for development and economic growth.  Having a mobile phone, for instance, is now common aspiration.  At the same time, we're moving past correlation to cause with connectivity, income, education, health, many other underpinning aspects of development.

In the context of development, ICTs brought life‑changing impacts.  Mobile banking has transformed financial access for the poor, especially for rural populations.  Being able to receive realtime weather forecasts or market price data helped farmers to raise yields and grow incomes.  Social media platforms revolutionized everything from disaster response to citizen‑government interaction.

We no longer talk about whether ICT should be a part of development, but rather how they should be leveraged to their maximum potential for everybody. 

Harnessing the potential of ICTs for social and economic progress is at the core of the WSIS, the mandate of the UN more broadly.

The many success stories of the last ten years as well as the impressive data regarding increased global connectivity lead many to ask the question why fix the system if it isn't broken?  The answer lies in the other side of these statistics, the digital divide.  Today 80% of online content is only available in one language.  60% of the world lacks Internet access, and only 37% of the world's women have Internet access, which is a statistic that I think is unacceptable to many.

So while there are enormous leaps in advancement and impact of ICT in parts of the world and for some groups of people, the gaps between those with Internet access and those without is still too large.

Looking at the reasons behind the digital divide and how to tap into the potential of ICTs has been a priority of the WSIS since its inception in Geneva.  Globally, narrowing the divide requires capacity‑building initiatives and technology transfers, and creation of an enabling environment, better public‑private partnerships and more investment. 

Within countries, advancing the discussions around enhancing women's education and participation in ICTs as users and entrepreneurs and leaders are important.  Ensuring the Internet is accessible for people with disabilities, particularly the vision impaired, is key and may require explicit policy action. 

Another trend we're seeing over the last 10 years is the focus on the need for equitable access.  Just having access to ICTs and the Internet is no longer enough.  The quality of access, relevance of content is also critical.  Moreover, technologies and services must be affordable, and information must be available in different languages.

Finally, for true access to be achieved, everyone around the world needs to have the ability to create and develop their own content and to contribute to the richness of the Information Society.  How then do we get greater penetration of ICTs, raise the quality and affordability of access and ensure the relevance of content, enabling ICTs to drive achievements of the SDGs?

On Internet Governance, this is a question that's perhaps one of the more contentious ones in the WSIS review at the UN.  While nobody disputes the role of education and good domestic policy, there are groups of countries that see reform of Internet Governance as being central to harnessing the ICT for development and groups of countries that adamantly disagree with this view.

The growing use of ICT for crime, terrorism, other illicit purposes has further exacerbated the tension, further mixing concerns on security and Human Rights with concerns of governance.  For instance, if terrorism undermines the development, many countries and stakeholders say that the use is in the interest of development.  On the other hand, many others see such intervention as a slippery slope to strangling the creative spirit that made the Internet so successful in the first place.

In a similar vein, there are many divergent views on who has the decision‑making on the governance issues and what the impacts on the development would be.  We have seen calls from many different configurations of governments and non‑government actors each with their own understanding of the contribution to further the deployment and innovation, and therefore development. 

In fact, there may not be a one‑size‑fits‑all approach.  There are many different layers to Internet Governance and not all of the decisions involved in the operation of the Internet will need all stakeholders at all times. 

There is deeply political and technical aspects that are under consideration.  We should be aware of all this and how they affect one another. 

I would emphasize a strongest point of consensus in the UN WSIS review is that governments and non‑government stakeholders should both have a voice and input into the process.  This is by no means a common view in intergovernmental processes, and this is a direct result of the IGF in many ways.  While there is a call for greater participation, the reason it is working, everybody is richer from the inclusiveness. 

Ultimately, ensuring the achievement of a people‑centered inclusive, development‑oriented Information Society requires the broadest sense of ownership, and the best ideas from every part of the world and there is resounding acknowledgment that the IGF enables both elements.

Before I close, we would like to take advantage of this feature of the IGF and put three questions to the room that could inform our ongoing negotiations back in New York:

One, what concrete measures and policy and financing can accelerate achievement of affordable, relevant, high‑quality access in order to bridge the digital divide?

Two, what are the specific measures that can address the gender dimension of the divide, and how do we make sure that our global Internet Governance system reflects the global nature of the Internet? 

Again, I would like to thank you for having us here, for the opportunity to work together for an outcome in December that we can all rally behind and, we're really here this week in listening mode to hear your views.  Thank you for the opportunity to do so.


>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: I thank you both for your comments.  Your valuable insights as Co‑Facilitators of the process provides us with a good basis for the discussions. 

I would say no better introduction could be made, and thank you for posing the questions that should also guide and be a parameter for interventions that will follow. 

I would like to turn now to my co‑moderator, Lynn St. Amour. 

Lynn St. Amour is the President and CEO of Internet Matters, and she will explain and guide the rules for our discussions that will follow.

You have the floor, please.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you, Ambassador.

I'm pleased to be back in Brazil again and very pleased and fortunate to have the two UNGA WSIS+10 Co‑Facilitators with us.

We were the co‑moderators for the session or perhaps put another way, the timekeepers.  As the two Co‑Facilitators indicates, they're here in an active listening mode.  It is to say that this is not a typical panel session you may find at the IGF.  They're here to hear from all of you.  It is not a debate ‑‑ though they may have some clarifying questions and if so, they should indicate to Benedicto Fonseca Filho and I and we'll give you the floor.

Now to the more specific administrative details, we just completed part 1, which was setting the scene and we're moving to a fairly lengthy session, a little over two hours in total, which is going to be dedicated to developing messages from the IGF community and ending with a summary of key messages.  The consultation is based on the updated Zero draft, it is called the draft outcome document and was published November 4th.  That should be scrolling here in the background as well in order to aid the process here.

We did pass out some sheets, the URL is there for the document if you need it.  In this case, the search engines are also your friends.

We have over two hours for this session, and we'll walk through the major sections in turn.  We would like to ask you to place your comments in the appropriate sections.  We have four identified:  One is ICT for development covering the preamble and sections 1 through 3 of the document; section two, Internet Governance and enhanced cooperation and that will cover section 4; the third section is implementation and follow‑up, section 5, and then we have another section at the very end which is called other or additional messages or an open mike and some other forums.

Following the process used in the WSIS+10 preparatory process in New York we suggested some guiding questions.  Those are on the reverse side of the sheets that you were handed as you walked in.  You're free to comment on any of the sections of the draft you wish, but those were meant to just help direct the discussion a bit and we have the three excellent questions put to the floor as well.

There are four separate microphones here in the room and a fifth one for online participation.  We indicated when people were coming in the room, we hope successfully, that the mikes were organized with business, private sector on this side, my left, Civil Society is in the middle on the left and government is over here on the right and then technical government and IGO and then technical and academia is there on my far right.  We're going to rotate across those five groups.  Participants will be allocated a maximum of 2‑minute statements to make their time slots, to make their statements.  We may reduce the time for participants at the end if, in fact, the size of the queue demands that. 

It is not a debate.  We really want to hear from you.  Please make your comment as clearly and as much to the point as possible.  This will enable as many voices to be heard and you can take the microphone in multiple sessions.  Think of this as enabling a neighbor's voice to be heard through your own judicious use of air time.

For those that aren't able to keep their comments to 2 minutes we have a timekeeper, it is a thankless job for any of us, but she will be indicating when people have hit the 1 minute, the 30‑minute mark as long as we're in a 2‑minute discussion section.

With that, I want to open the floor up.  I think it makes sense to start left to right.  We'll ask people to start queuing at the mikes.  If you're familiar with Netmundial, you are familiar with it. 

This is a session, ICT4D, we'll spend 40 minutes there.  I will moderate that section and then Benedicto Fonseca Filho will moderate the second.  I will give you a moment to get to the mikes and I can read out the questions that we had indicated. 

The first is how can ICTs be harnessed for Sustainable Development? 

What insights and experiences from the last 10 years should be highlighted by the review? 

What concrete measures can help bridge the digital divide, including between and within countries, and between women and men?

How can the IGF community contribute to the implementation of the SDGs in achieving ICT4D for all? 

What could be the role of the IGF in these efforts? 

And finally, Human Rights issue, we have included two other section:  How should Human Rights issues related to ICTs be addressed in the outcome document and finally how should the outcome document handle present and emerging concerns about cybersecurity?  

Please go to the mike.  This is not a panel.  This is an opportunity to share your thoughts, question, opinions to everybody here.

I will go left to right and if one of the mikes is open, obviously we'll move to the next.

Please, introduce yourself and your affiliation. 

And we'll need active mike control here from the audiovisual team.

>> JOE ALHADEFF:  Thank you.  I'm Joe Alhadeff with Oracle and ICC. 

We think that the current draft has struck a very good balance related to the ICT for development.  We would highlight some of the comments made by the could facilitator, related to the breadth of technologies that are helpful here from the idea of whether rainfall historical data, big data analytics to move these things together, this is available to be done in development countries as well, the technology is transferable and applicable and we also think the breadth of the technological applications goes across all of the development goals, not just the few that call them out.  This is a useful tool to formulate a very integrated and approach.  In particular, we suggest the SDG target 16.10 which ensures the public access to information and fundamental freedoms could be precisely cited in this chapter on ICT for development. 

And my two point is related to the Human Rights section.  We would like to complement the improvement in this version.  In the Zero version we have suggested to have a stand‑alone, more prominent section on the Human Rights.  At that time it was just a subsector and the Internet Governance, now we have it.  It is sufficiently elaborated. 

We would like to reconfirm the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis complement and as UNESCO, and also the universality concept, we reaffirm the commitment to the universality to the interdependence and the relation of all Human Rights including rights to free expression, right to privacy, right to education, right to culture participation and the security of person and also to the development and the gender equality.  That's the second point. 

Number three, we have noticed vocabulary inconsistency in the text.  For example, the multilateral, it is used to describe the multistakeholder approach.  We think there are two concepts which should be more consistent in using multistakeholder approach.

And another vocabulary is about the management of Internet and the Governance of Internet.  They're two different things.  We would like the vocabulary to be fixed in the new text.

That's it.  Thank you very much.  If you need, I can provide our inputs in writing by UNESCO.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.  That would be helpful.

>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Good morning.  I'm Raul Echeberria, the Vice President for Global Engagement of the Internet Society.

First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of the session, that's really, really important, and I would like to thank especially the Co‑Facilitators for the process for coming to the IGF.  It is not a minor thing.  It is a strong sign of the importance of the multistakeholder process on the Internet Governance. 

Limiting my comments to the part of ICT and development and Human Rights, I would like to say that we're very glad to see that the focus on the development on this document.  This is a big change.  It is not a coincidence that this focus is coming up at the same time that we have on the table the new Sustainable Development Goals.  We like very much the idea of seeing the ICTs, not just one more chapter of goals in development but a cross‑cutting thing, this is ICTs should be seen as an instrument for achieving all of the development goals and I see that this focus on the document.

Besides that, I was very, very glad to see in the discussions, in the last WSIS review meeting in New York that many governments are embracing this view so I think that's ‑‑ we think this is the document that's very balanced in that sense.

In terms of Human Rights, we're very pleased to see the importance of Human Rights in the document.  We're sensitive of Human Rights being in the center of the discussion.  We say and we have ‑‑ we say many times during this process it is impossible to think in a people‑centered Information Society if Human Rights are not one of the foundations of that society.  So it is closing the two issues.  We think that the Human Rights and development is the central issues on the post‑2015 Agenda on WSIS and should be reflected well in the document.  WSIS can continue to discuss many things, high‑level things, and after this year, after the December meeting, but we think that it is really Human Rights and development, it should be the center of all discussions after 2015.

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

Do we have a comment from the remote or online participation?

>> REMOTE MODERATOR:  Not currently.  Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:   Business, private sector. 


>> JIMSON OLUFUYE:  Thank you.  Your Excellency, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. I'm Jimson Olufuye, the Chair of the Africa ICT Alliance.

First of all, I would like to underscore what you are speaking about earlier.  ICT has been critical to business in developing and least‑developed countries, it is the greatest beneficiaries in a way.  With regard to take away, yes, it needs to be sustained, we need to sustain the process of embedding ICT in the various development processes and for us, what we need to do, we need to focus more on policy development processes in the developing countries.  We believe that it will have another openness in governance.  More transparency and more accountability which is key for businesses and for peoples in developing and least‑developed nations.

Talking about concrete measures, universal service phones, we would like to see that this phone is more transparently used in developing countries and to provide access to many more people, reduce cost, make it more affordable, this is quite key for us and we believe that getting to understanding more the multistakeholder approach as well. 

Talking about the role of IGF, more IGF needs to be established in country because we need to get more people to understand the subject matter and recently in Nigeria we started to have IGF, we need to encourage IGF not even national but also intersector in the country so more people have an understanding on the issue. 

On Human Rights, we believe everybody has a right to be informed.  Every one of us has a right to be informed and we think that ICT can make that happen in the outcome document. 

The last point I would like to address at this time is regard to cybersecurity.  Cybersecurities are collective security, it is a concern to all of us and all stakeholders need to play an important role in all of this.

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:   Thank you.

Civil Society.

>> DONNY B.U.: Thank you for giving me the opportunity.  I'm from ICT in Indonesia.  I have two suggestions regarding the section of the development and the second, it is for another section.

The number one, I propose to include the technology approach at the end of paragraph number 15 of ICT sections so at the end of the paragraph more or less it will say now understood to be foundational country to enable the development with recognizing the principle and importance of technology and neutrality.  Be sure that technology neutrality is different than net neutrality, the one means the same regulatory rules apply regardless of the technology used.  The regulations should not be drafted in the technology in silos.  It very much is relevant to the SDG number 10.3 that to ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities including discriminatory law, policy and practices and promoting appropriate legislations, policies and action in this regard.

I believe technology, net neutrality can ensure any alternative communication technology, may and will have appropriate opportunities to be acknowledged and developed, as to those that are developed by global, that's number two. 

And another, getting to the next section:  With the number of proper deliberations, of course, I strongly suggest to prioritize, at the beginning of paragraph 50 in the intergovernance section.  At the beginning of the paragraph, more or less we'll say we affirm that the governance of the Internet should be multistakeholder transparent, so on.  I believe that development of future Internets should be a process reflected from the rights, obligations and the people, not from any particular states or global player.  I also recall that the WSIS+10 review should reaffirm the principle agreed in the World Summit including continuously promote and encourage more holistic approach.  Due to this approach on a national level, it has began conducted by a number of democratic countries such as Indonesia, and therefore the comprehension and implementation of the multistakeholder should be upheld strongly and reflected in the regional and global effort.

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

I just would like to remind everybody that we would like to concentrate on the ICT4D, the preamble in sections 1 through 3, and we'll come to the Internet Governance and enhanced collaboration in the next session. 

The timing went beyond 2 minutes because the queues at the mike, they were sparse.  As they fill, we'll be on that more.

We'll go to the government mike.

>> Thank you.

I'm from Minister of Communication and telecommunication in Indonesia.

I think my inputs will be straightaway to number 14 on the screen.

We have to ‑‑ the number 9, number 10, reduce within and among countries, so the complete sentence will be we commit to have lessen the potential of ICTs to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other internationally agreed development goals noting that ICTs can accelerate progress across all sustainable goals in addition to the specific reference in SDGs 4b in brackets, education and scholarships, 5b, women's empowerment, 9c, infrastructure and access, and 10, produce equality within countries and then we have the technology bank and capacity building will call on all governments and all other stakeholders to integrate ICTs in their implementation approaches to the SDGs and for UN entities facilitating the WSIS action lines to contextualize their reporting and work within the 2030 Agenda.

That's all.

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

I think that technical and academic queue is empty.

Again, online participation?

>> REMOTE MODERATOR:  We still have no comments. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.


>> Thank you. 

I am from Egypt.  I'm a board member in the Africa ICT Alliance. 

I just want to echo my colleagues on the same that it is very important and we appreciate very much the availability of the wording regarding ICT across all Sustainable Development Goals.  At the same time, it is very important to emphasize the role of SMEs from development countries and to highlight some examples of ICT for development like localized solution for eHealth in Africa or eLearning, serving remote, underdeveloped areas that would certainly bring richness to this and would certainly serve the rest of the developing world.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Civil Society.

>> PETER MASAK:  Thank you. 

I'm Peter Masak from Access Now. 

I would like to draw attention to the positive language on privacy and mass surveillance and other forms of surveillance and paragraph 42.  We support this language asthmas surveillance violates Human Rights turning all citizens and users into suspects.  We feel that privacy must be protected online as it is off line and this section draws attention to the important role that Human Rights law plays in ensuring that all interception of communications and other types of surveillance is with other international laws and norms.  In addition, mass surveillance threatens trust in the use of ICTs and must be considered as an obstacle to development.

In this way, we also suggest language ensuring that encryption tools are protected online as they're enablers to the freedom of expression and privacy in the digital age.  The encryption tools access is the best way many vulnerable ICT users have to protect themselves from malicious attacks on the Internet.  The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression David Kay recently found that blanket prohibitions on encryption violated international Human Rights.  In addition, encryption is essential to banking systems, eHealth, any technical system where security, authentication, integrity of communications is paramount.

In this way protecting encryption both enables access to Human Rights online but also ensures the benefits of the development of society, and how it is spread.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Government queue.

>> MICHAEL WALMA:  Thank you.  Good morning. 

I'm Michael Walma, I'm the Cyber Coordinator for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canada.  I would like to start by thanking the Co‑Facilitators for being here and for the Chair in Brazil for making this session possible.  I think that this is a critically important initiative if we're to maintain the multistakeholder approach and the involvement of all stakeholders in the process.  I very much welcome this initiative here today.

In keeping with that sentiment, I would like to note that it would be our approach that we're taking careful note of this conversation as I know the Co‑facilitators are and we would hope to be able to reflect enough of what we hear today in the discussions in New York to ensure that all voices are heard.

For Canada, the section that we're talking about here is, of course, of key relevance, the ICT for development is central to the vision of the world's Information Society and we believe this is very properly the focus of the report and we find the language here much improved over previous drafts.  The linkages to Agenda 2030 are critical because, of course, that's the overall approach to development issues and these must be mutually reinforcing and compatible.

With respect to some of the other elements that you're asking for comments on here, I can be relatively brief because as a government we'll have other opportunities to make our views known, but with respect to the Human Rights language, we find that the language here to be very forward looking, very balanced, important for thaws we recognize that Human Rights obligations apply online just as they do offline and that this is recognized by this group.

With respect to the final point on security, the language there is I think ‑‑ it needs some work frankly.  It tends to focus pretty much, as do other sections of the report, in some places on governmental rules and I think doesn't adequately talk about some of the other activities that are being ‑‑ that are undertaken, some by Civil Society, some by private industry, but I think it also is a bit of a UN focus, not necessarily recognizing some of the other efforts that are being ‑‑ that are taking place talking about the recent conference hosted by the Dutch in the Hague where there was a global cyber expertise set up which has as its goal sharing of information on cybersecurity practices and a clearinghouse for capacity building efforts.  Other regional organizations, the OHS for example, where Canada is particularly active, they do a great deal on cybersecurity.  I think we need to look more broadly at the question of cybersecurity and not see this as strictly a UN and strictly a state to state issue.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Technical and academic queue, still empty?  There was somebody up there earlier?  Not normally known for being shy.

Back to Civil Society.  I think we owe you a thanks.

>> MATTHER SHEERS:  Thank you.

I would like to highlight the unique opportunity we have before us with regards to ICTs in development.  We see in the text and thank you to the Co-Facilitators for producing an excellent text.  We see in there a number of references to the SDGs and the importance of those links, we see it in paragraph 14 and then we see it dotted around elsewhere, what's missing in this document is the importance of this commitment to the SDGs in the follow‑up and final section of the document.

We really do have an opportunity back in 2003 we talked about the millennium development goals, but we seem to have missed that boat, the ICTs harnessing ICTs for development and the MDGs from knotting sufficiently linked up and it is a crying shame if we don't have that ‑‑ a greater sense of linkages between the SDGs and the WSIS going forward.  The only way to make substantive progress on the SDGs if we realize that this is a fundamental enabler, it is wonderful to list them but it is more important to come up with an Agenda, plan, for ensuring  that the ICTs are harnessed for the SDGs.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Going to the government mike.

>> My name is Muhammad and I'm Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of Afghanistan.

I understand one of the major messages is in the document is that not a single player can handle the situation and the multistakeholder approach is of immense importance for us.  We do understand that the alignment of the international ICT policy and SDGs, they're of critical importance and that's why we very much endorse the suggestion that the ICT policies and the Sustainable Development Goals should be aligned together.

However important it is also to make sure that through the IGF and all other stakeholders, how we could ensure the development of infrastructure, in particular in the countries where the ICT sector is not very much developed.

Likewise, governmental levels it is very important that we move the barriers that are challenging the investment by the private sector.  There is further need and elaboration is required to make it clear of how we can encourage the private sector so that they could have their initiatives and how the governments could grow towards more liberalization of the policies.  It is important that the IGF involves governments at different levels to make sure that the technology awareness, it is raised on one hand and then on the other hand, it is important to encourage the government officials at the highest levels so that they could include all these recommendations while they're developing the initial policies.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Technical mike.

>> BYRON HOLLAND: Hi.  I'm Byron Holland.  I'm the president and CEO of CIRA, the Canadian operator of the dotca country code.  I'm also Chair of the CCNSO at ICANN which represents all country code operators in the world.  We have 153 members currently.  I would like to speak in my capacity as CEO of CIRA.

I would like to draw attention to how well ‑‑ how much I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this event, and how well organized it appears to have been.  My colleagues and friends at, a key participant there, I would like to call them out, recognize them and say thank you for a job well done.

I would echo many of the comments we have heard thus far this morning, there is much to recommend in the document thus far.

However, I'm going to speak to some of the things that concern me and in particular one theme that runs throughout the document.  It starts in the preamble.  It is set up in the preamble in Article 12 and then weaves its way throughout the entire document.  That's the role of the multistakeholder model and how it is diminished throughout the document.  In favor of wording around multilateralism.  I would suggest that the multistakeholder model has successfully brought almost 3 billion people online in little more than 15 years and it is poised to connect the rest of the world's citizens in short order.

Throughout the current draft, the term multistakeholder is only used in the past tense.  Typically referring to events that happened in the past.  Multilateralism is used for all forward looking activities and is presented in a manner that assumes it has always been thus.  It simply does not reflect the practical reality.

The multistakeholder model has been in place to govern the Internet's technical resources from the very beginning of the modern Internet.  The evidence proves that it has been tremendously successful.

I would say going forward, you know, for example, the multistakeholder Internet community has been engaged in the stewardship transition process in the past 18 months, this is one of the most important undertakings of the global multistakeholder community, it is a process that's taken some time but it is critical we get it right.  Internationalizing the technical Internet functions involves balancing a wide variety of interests from governance, private sector, non‑governments, certainly from the technical community who make the whole thing work.

I believe we will do this.  We will be delivering a proposal on enhancing ICANN accountability in a couple of months paired with the already completed transition proposal, the package that will result in a truly international regime for the management of the core technical functions.  Once completed, it will be another excellent example of how the multistakeholder model works in the context of magic Internet resources.

Yet, I believe its role is certainly not adequately represented in the outcome document today.  The text of this document I believe should be modified to recognize this practical reality.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

I'm going to start moving to a push signal from online participation rather than ‑‑ if there is a comment, maybe you can signal me directly.

I move to the private sector and, again, would ask everybody to keep comments to 2 minutes.  We're getting to the end of this first session and we want to make sure we can get to everybody currently in the queue which is probably a signal that the queues are just about full in terms of the time remaining to us.


I'm Elizabeth Thomas Reno, and I represent the ICIS basis initiative and the global business that participates in that.

I am not going to repeat the remarks of my colleagues relating to the ICT for development Sustainable Development Goals but we certainly support them and will issue remarks to the current draft that will elaborate our concerns and questions and support for the text in that regard.

I would like to pick up on the point made by our colleague from the Government of Canada about cybersecurity, about the cybersecurity section, in that I would like to support the call to include greater references of other activities that are going on in Civil Society, private sector, other non‑‑‑ other intergovernmental organizations beyond the UN, for example there is some work going on at the OACD in this regard, ICIC has done work and was able to launch it this year at the global conference on cyberspace held and hosted by the Dutch in the Hague.  We would welcome and support the invitation to add more information on those activities.

We would also like to support the inclusion of the Budapest Convention in the document.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Civil Society.

The queues are now closed with the folks standing in line.

We'll move to the next section shortly.

>> STUART HAMILTON: Thank you. 

I'm Stuart Hamilton representing IFLA. 

We like a lot in the new version of the text, I would like to draw out a few things.  We like the references to the multifaceted approach to the digital divide in paragraph 22, the nuance and awareness there.  Perhaps there could be a couple more tweaks to reference the importance of community‑led solutions and we'll be submitting written comments on that.

Libraries are not just about helping people access information, it is about helping people understand, share, create information so that we like the references to supporting the media and information, literacy skills in paragraph 23.

In the enabling environment section we're absolutely convinced that Connecting the Next Billion is not just happening through mobile or private connections alone.  Public access will play a big role, millions of people already rely on this so the reference to public access in paragraph 27 is welcomed.  If we had a preference it would be that there was more language on supporting the public access rather than just acknowledging it.

We were extremely pleased to see reference to culture in the new draft, it was completely missing from earlier drafts, a bit worrying seeing that there is an entire action line devoted to culture but we're happy that people have been listening and it is good to see that in the text and the language must be retained.

Finally echoing the comments of Matthew sheer's earlier on regarding the opportunity here to really link WSIS with the SDG, nice to see some a bit more concrete in the text.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.


>> Good morning. 

I'm from Brazilian Minister of Planning.  I recognize the emphasis that the document brings on bridging the digital divide.  That's important.

I would suggest to add stronger recommendation for governments to increase the delivery of public services online, adopting as long as possible the digital first approach.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you. 

Technical, academic queue.

>> AHMAD SHAHEED: Hello.  I'm from the Center of Communication Governance in International University of Essex, and I would like to specifically thank the organizers and the Co‑Facilitators for this opportunity and it is heartening to see that at each draft there's been received ‑‑ I mean, improvements that reflect the inputs and voice from the various stakeholders specifically under the section for ICT for development, the languages ‑‑ the language on the digital divide can be for the strengthened in a sense that there is a specific need to articulate the fact that sometimes digital divide is amplified by manifestations of existing socioeconomic and inequalities and it is reflected in certain parts of the text on cultural and economic, social difficulties, there is a specific reference needed for this.  We would be submitting specific text inputs, written text inputs for this.  Also, importance of new financial mechanisms is very important and we completely support the idea that there should be a further mechanism that's separate from usual development assistance and we also appreciate the section on Human Rights and we appreciate the inclusion in this draft.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Civil Society.

>> BENOIT THIEULIN:  I'm the President of The Digital National from France, I'll speak in French to be more precise.

(No English translation).

>> I would like to really talk about the basic ideas.

First of all, we really insist on this in terms of not only to go and see Internet as a right, but that's been discussed, and through many debates, but to actually take on the whole idea of Internet as a common good and information, you need a link part 21 in ‑‑ that you'll have that in a few months, we're in a digital and ecological transition, both articulate together and together with this, we have common goods, natural ones, informational ones, and behind that, you have the whole idea of open source movement, the idea that you have basic information that are free.  That's the first idea.

The second idea, it is actually that we talk about the digital divide in terms of infrastructure.  We talked many times about this idea in terms of what we call the numerical literacy, talking about the divide, we're talking about the divide of the control of the uses.  It is important this is written in all public policies, the fact that we're just not talking about access to Internet but actually to educate citizens in this plan, to actually use the Internet and that is digital literacy.  The third point, innovation, behind the neutrality which is written on the European, French, legal term, we're talking about here the whole idea of innovation.  We're talking about being able to bring on innovation and to emphasize innovation over and over again.  Not only from a point of view that we're just seeing the technology, but in terms of use, services, business models and also in terms of not necessarily business and neutrality, a principle for the lower tiers of infrastructure, we have to think as researchers and think as what is actually the high‑tier principles and that way we can take on the whole idea of loyalty to the platforms.  It is very important because we need to have the principles there in the lower tier and then neutrality.  We need to take that into consideration so that we have that.  This is an essential topic here, and behind the loyalty to the platforms there are challenges like the interoperability, portability of data, of platforms and that seems to me very important. 

And to conclude, I would say that I believe that all of these statements here have to take into consideration that we must show that there are many digital worlds, it is a huge leverage for transformation in the world and we can't have just one thinking there, there is leverages, but we need to make this digital revolution guided and to sum up I'll say there are many digital worlds possible out there.  Thank you.

>> This is a very important opportunity to listen to non‑government voices and we hope that the views expressed here today can be taken into account as the conversation moves back to New York.  We think much of the draft document is already consensus text and we thank you for the work that was done, there was clear consensus on the development, and we have seen the specific goals mentioned in the text in paragraph 14.  We would like to see references to Sustainable Development Goals on economic growth, on climate change, as UNESCO said, goal 16, protecting fundamental freedoms and access to information.

There is one area of the text which does need further development as others have said, that's section 3 on building competence in security.  We have to reflect the roles of all stakeholders and reflect the role of the technical community in building security, the contribution of Civil Society for example in raising awareness, the responsibilities of the private sector in looking after the data of its customers.  Section 3 currently neglects these critical roles.  WSIS should be about development.  Instead of emphasizing repeated references to national security we need to reflect other developmental issues around education, around skills, around awareness raising, around capacity building and building confidence in security in our view it is not enough only to emphasize the roles of governments, we need to fully reflect the contribution of all stakeholders if we're to build confidence in security in the use of ICTs.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Technical and academic.

And really, I need to encourage everybody to stay at 2 minutes so we don't have to short the folks that are standing at the mike.

>> Thank you very much. 

I'm with the Human Rights Center.  Thank you for allowing me to comment. 

We are happy that the draft is a lot stronger on Human Rights elements of the targets in it now but it should go beyond issues of privacy to include issues of discrimination.  For example, analytics, the high‑risk individuals in particularly, the high‑cost individuals, therefore they find it difficult to access certain basic services, healthcare for example, insurance may be too strict for them.  There are aspects that are beyond privacy that impacts Human Rights and there is anti-discrimination as well, you could have that because policies could identify certain social backgrounds which may change the look of it proportionately.  There is a case of looking at importing practices such as language on mainstreaming Human Rights and the Human Rights approach to ICTs which could link up with the broader impact of Human Rights ‑‑ on Human Rights on ICTs.  I would be happy to submit language to that effect. 

Thank you.

>> ANYA POVISH:  I work with the Internet Democracy Project in India.  Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

We are pleased to see the direction in which the current draft is developing.  We have been very happy to see that many of the comments we have made earlier were included.  We think that there is still space for improvement, including on Human Rights, and I support many of the comments that my colleague made from academia.

We're very happy with the strong recognition of the need to protect Civil Society space in paragraph 38, and also with the language on free speech and privacy and surveillance in separate paragraphs and strongly hope that this will stand.  There is space for improvement though.  I support comments my colleague from Access made earlier on including anonymity and the encryption in the texts. 

In 18, there is an emphasis on the importance of knowledge.  We think there could be a more explicit reference to accessing information in this paragraph which is crucial to make sure that the benefits of ICTs reach everybody.

Perhaps more importantly though, at a higher level, we think that ‑‑ we continue to think it is important to include reference to Human Rights governance in the text specifically in paragraph 5 and paragraph 47.  We find this is not balanced since they reference the charter including specific paragraphs of the UN charter, and when it comes to Human Rights I do not refer any instruments at all or refer to instruments that are not binding.  We think to strengthen the balance between different roles and rights and responsibilities that this should be corrected.  Similarly on paragraph 43 there was language on the duty ‑‑ duties of Human Rights and the importance of all restrictions to be legitimate which we fully support.  It also says these rights may in all case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, seeing that there is reference to legitimate restrictions we don't think it is necessary to include this reference.

Finally, briefly, on the SDGs, we think that there needs to be stronger recognition of the fact that not having access to the means ‑‑ digital exclusion leads to harm.  It is not just a maintenance of the state or school.  This is really important to recognize in the context of the SDGs because it is the importance of bridging the digital divide and the fact that if we do not bridge the digital divide putting ICTs at a service ‑‑ the SDGs, it means that for those people that do not have access to ICTs, things will be worse and not better. 

Thank you.

>> CHRIS PAINTER: Chris Painter.  I'm with Cyber Issue in the U.S. State Department. 

I thank you for the hard work that you have done thus far. 

I want to raise one issue in paragraph 49 which currently states that we acknowledge the call for a convention on international cybercrime suggesting that this is a consensus when indeed having done this for many years myself there is no consensus on this issue.  In fact, this is interesting doing this in this Netmundial setting, this is one of the many issues that was debated.  That text reflected not a call for a global convention but the need for greater cooperation between countries and other stakeholders in addressing the problem which this draft also talks about.

There is a good reason that that wasn't reflected there and in fact in the UN bodies that looked at this and the UNDOC for many years, debated many years, the only consensus that emerged was an important consensus is one around capacity building and the need to bring countries up to speed.  As we have more and more countries that are indeed modernizing laws to call for a global convention which would take many years and would not really help those countries who need to modernize their laws, even in the short‑term or long‑term, we think that that should not be reflected in the document as a scone sector specific initiatives item and we should emphasize as the document does in other places the need and importance of capacity building.

I also want to agree with my colleagues about the importance of reflecting in the cybersecurity area some of the other work that's being done even outside of the UN system. 

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Civil Society.

>> STEVE ZELTZER: Yes.  I'm Steve Zeltzer with LaborNet APC and

And I want to address a serious issue that is yet to be addressed in this, that's a question of dislocation and the effect of deregulation through companies like Uber and others that are displacing workers.  In San Francisco, them and other companies have led to marginalization of workers in the taxi ‑‑ marginalization of the field, and we're threatened by the new technology. 

Technology, not saying it doesn't have a positive role, but it is playing a negative role in terms of the worker lives and that's going to continue and grow in the future.  I think when we talk about the sustainability we have to look at the effect of this technology on workers' stability.  We're in an international global market and workers in the United States are competing against workers in China and other countries in the world, that means it can benefit society and also can be harmful to the living conditions of workers in many countries.  That, I think, is a question of sustainability and has to be addressed.

This idea of disruption, which is the ideology of many of the people who are developing the countries I think has to be looked at seriously.  What effect is this disruption having on the economy and the real economy and for working people and labor internationally in every country in the world, that's got to be addressed in the future and has not yet been addressed in this document.

Thank you very much. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you. 

To the last speaker, government.

>> GARY FOWLIE: Thank you very much. 

I'm Gary Fowlie head of ITU Liaison Office to the UN. 

I would like to call attention apparently for the last time to paragraph 14, the commitment to harnessing the potential of ICTs to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals which is a very clear, incredible, concise paragraph in terms of its expression of the reality of the document.

I would like to call attention to the preamble of the Sustainable Development Goal Agenda noting paragraph 15, how global connectivity in ICTs have great potential for human progress.  I think that's a good reflection of the reality but measuring that progress is not going to be an easy task for the SDGs Agenda but not possible unless we harness the ICTs as a cross‑cutting means of implementation which fortunately it is recognized in goal 17 as a cross‑cutting means of implementation.  I think that provides us with the starting point for the action that I have heard many people want to have.  In terms of achieving ICT for SDGs and in anticipation of that, ITU with the WSIS coordinators created the WSIS matrix, it connects them, it is a work in progress, it is worth taking a look at this, the idea is to continue to strengthen the impact of ICTs for Sustainable Development.  Each action line coordinator was asked to look at their line of action, look at where ‑‑ at which goals they may or may not relate to, provide case study examples, it is a work in progress, more input would be much appreciated.  I would encourage you to read the complete document which is at 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.  That would be useful. 

That concludes the first section.  I particularly thank those that made the effort to stay in the 2‑minute speaking slot. 

I'm going to turn over to Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho for the second session.


I'll assist you and try to moderate the discussion on the second session on Internet Governance and enhanced cooperation.  Which is a section relatively short in regard to what we have been discussing until now.

The first portion of the text that was handled included 49 paragraphs, this section on Internet Governance has 7 paragraphs.  That's why I would like to beg your indulgence not to read out the paragraphs but to walk through ‑‑ if we can turn to paragraph 50 here, the Co‑Facilitators have proposed to resort to agreed language from the Tunis Agenda with reference to the definition of Internet Governance and including the working definition of the Internet Governance that's contained in paragraph 34.

Paragraph 51, again, there is a reference to principles that were agreed at the Geneva Declaration, we're resorting to the agreed language coming from the outcome document from WSIS and making particular reference to paragraph 35.  In 52 there is the issue of participation, especially from developing countries, they need to increase participation in the Internet Governance processes and also a call that this would be coupled with Voluntary Funding mechanisms to assist in the increased participation.

Paragraph 53 refers to net neutrality.  There is recognition and reaffirmation of the importance of net neutrality.

Paragraph 54, particular importance for us here at IGF since it addresses specifically the role of IGF reasserting the unique role of IGF as a multistakeholder platform and makes reference to the report that was prepared by the Working Group on improvements to the IGF and make as call for its implementation to be accelerated.

It proposes ‑‑ I think this is going to be one of the main topics to be addressed by you, I think that's the mandate for the 10 years under and within the current mandate as set out in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.

Paragraph 55, here we have section 4.1, enhanced cooperation, that's a subset of the discussion on Internet Governance, of course, but there was an emphasis on that discussion I assume in light of the discussions that were held in the preparatory meetings.  Here there are two paragraphs, the first, there is acknowledgment of the initiatives and actions that have been done to ‑‑ towards implementing the concept of enhanced cooperation and we are invited to take note of the notes on that matter and the work that's been undertaken by the Working Group on enhanced cooperation under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development.  I'm happy to see the room, the Chair of the Working Group, Mr. Peter major, we acknowledge his presence here, the benefits from his presence with us.  The second paragraph, there is a recognition that on the other hand there have been a call for this process of implementation to be accelerated and to be deepened and, therefore, there's suggestion to request from the Secretariat, the Secretary‑General a report to be submitted to the 73rd Session on Implementation and to that end, to also ‑‑ it is also suggest that had a Working Group, intergovernmental Working Group with participation and input from all stakeholders should be establishes to that end.  I think this covers the main topics I think of what's been proposed by the Co‑Facilitators.

On that basis, we have developed a few questions that could maybe also assist you in addressing those issues so we are proposing that in your intervention, you could, few wish, touch upon the following topics, what should be the main goals of Internet Governance now and in the future?

How long should the IGF mandated be?

How should improvements be implemented and what's the role of the UN?  The third question, what are the respective roles of governments and non‑governmental stakeholders?

How do you view their fulfillment over the last 10 years and how should they develop in the future?

Finally, how can enhanced cooperation across and within the Internet Governance ecosystem be strengthened through the WSIS framework.

Those topics are proposed to you on the basis of the text provided by the Co‑Facilitators and you may also ask the questions that we have and benefited from the information from the could Facilitators, I invite the comments on the part of the plenary on any of the topics related to that section.

I turn to the representative of Civil Society.  Please.

>> Thank you.  I'm a professor from Denmark and I was a member of the Working Group on Internet Governance and I'm very pleased to see that this section starts with the reference to the definition of Internet Governance, which was produced by us.  This was a very carefully drafted text, and this text has introduced the concept of multistakeholderism and introduced the concept of sharing principles, programs, decision making, and it has introduced the distinction between the governance of the Internet and the governance on the Internet by using the language, the evolution and the use of the Internet.  I think this was really the outcome of long discussion and we were very pleased and this is not just the UN, but the heads of State adopted the text word by word in the Tunis Agenda and so far, you know, I wanted only to express my satisfaction and invite everybody to a section on Thursday because this is the 10th anniversary and we'll have a full 2‑hour session to go more into the details of what we have achieved 10 years ago in WCIT and what's important today and tomorrow.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for the comments.  Very helpful.

Private sector, you have the floor, sir.

>> JAMES OLUFUYE: Thank you, Distinguished Ambassador. 

I'm from Africa City Alliance. 

Just have a very brief comment on the goal of Internet Governance now and in the future.  I want to emphasize that it needs to be more inclusive, it needs to be more inclusive and have broad participation, need to encourage more broader participation in reference to what I said earlier.  We need to take it in country, encourage more divisional participation in the country to get more people informed about IG.

I quite agree with the fact that the ten years, the proposal, quite good, we have seen the outreach of IG has been over the years and the value it has added to a society.

On the role of government and non‑governmental stakeholders, well, I think the approach so far has been quite good through the multistakeholder approach, the exchanging of ideas and having understanding.  I think we can never come to the end of an ideas which is very important.  I think we should keep that in view.

On enhanced cooperation in the WSIS framework, I want to use this opportunity to commend the Working Group and the Chair of the Working Group on enhanced cooperation.  I think the framework within this, it is to foster implementation of the enhanced cooperation spirit with regard to the WSIS paragraphs.

Thank you.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your comments.

I turn now to United States.  You have the floor.

>> DANIEL SEULVEDA: Thank you. 

I will try to be brief. 

Paragraph 50, I think a number of comments were made during the last session and I think will be reiterated again here about the emphasis throughout this document on the word multilateral and the application going forward. 

I think in paragraph 50 being the first paragraph on Internet Governance it should be multistakeholder and multilateral in the language.  I understand that you are resorting to the language used in the original WSIS but we have learned a lot since then.  This event and everybody stated commitment to adhere would be undermined by not including the wording multistakeholder and before the word multilateral.

Paragraph 51, we claim to be resorting to establish language again.  Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda outlines important rules for stakeholder PSW but does not restrict them nor in most cases as responsibilities.  We should refrain from inserting such texts as a result we would recommend striking within the respective roles and responsibilities from paragraph 51.  It is not resorting to established language.  If we're reaffirming text we must insist on accurate, concise quotations. 

On extension of IGF, I note yet at the high‑level meeting there were people calling for a five‑year extension rather than a 10‑year extension.  We believe we should be extending the IGF for a much longer term than 10 years even to give donors, participants, everybody that's bothered to take three, four flights to get here, to participate in this event has exposed how much it matters to them.  To not call for an extension, a firm extension of 10 to 15 years at a minimum, is a problem, and I hope we won't debate that in New York.  At this point the consensus opinion of the multistakeholder community is at least 10 years.  On enhanced cooperation, this is going to be a challenging paragraph.

We believe and we cannot concur with the changes made to the Zero‑Draft as repeatedly noted enhanced cooperation involves more than just enabling governments to exercise or enhance their power.  As written, this language states that the concept of enhanced cooperation is to enable governments to carry out their responsibilities and that's the full purpose.  We're engaged in enhanced cooperation right now in this meeting between governments and between governments and every other stakeholder in the room.  Enhanced cooperation has been a success.  It is the opinion of some that it has not been fully implemented, as directed in the WSIS document, enhanced cooperation is a process, it is not an end.  You will never fully implement it.  It is not something to be fully implemented, it is a process we engage in every day out of respect for each other and out of respect for all other stakeholders.

Now, I think I have a number of other comments to make throughout this document.  In respect to the time, I will stop there.  Ultimately I think our biggest responsibility will be to ensure that we do not come here and celebrate the multistakeholder process and then go to New York and among governments without the participation or the microphones for other stakeholders agree on language that these stakeholders would not support.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your statement. 

I will turn to Raul.

>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I'm Vice President for the Internet Society.  I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this section of the document.

I agree with other speakers, especially with the speaker from .CA, from Canada, saying that the use of the expression multilateral is not reality.  It is not a matter of preference, it doesn't represent what we have built.

We know that we recognize that there are different views on different governments.  This is not an easy point to solve.  Using ‑‑ we recognize the importance of using the agreed language in this cases and the international environment, but this language was agreed 10 years ago.

This was an expression to decide ‑‑ we were discussing about what we wanted it to be.  In those ten years we have built something that's not only important from the point of view of Internet Governance but also from the point of view of international governance in general.  We have built a very new process that's been very successful.  This should be recognized in this text.

It is time to be corrective with the language.  To use something that doesn't contradict the agreed language from 2005.  I encourage you to review the language that was agreed based on inputs and comments from multiple participants, including several governments, organizations from Civil Society, private sector, academic community.  We agreed on a language that doesn't contradict the agreed language from Tunis Agenda but represents much better the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders and the process that's the basis for the Internet Governance.

One more comment related to this one, paragraph 45, the security, it is related to this, this is a call for a leading role on governments on dealing with cybersecurity.  We think that it is not ‑‑ we have to build, we have to reinforce the need for a collaboration among all stakeholders.  In some cases the governments would have a role, in other cases they'll be other stakeholders that will lead ‑‑ that will lead the things that have been done.  It is happening right now.  There are many other stakeholders creating capacities, making movements in a national level, other cases with the governments that are leading the discussions and implementation of policies.

This should be recognized.  If we're recognizing in the paragraph 50 the different roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in the governance of the Internet there is no need to be specific on paragraph 45 saying that somebody should have a leading role in the process of building better conditions in cybersecurity.

My last comment is on paragraph 56, enhanced cooperation.  There is a call for having new intergovernmental Working Group with participation of different stakeholders.  This is redundant.  This is exactly what had been done under CTSD, and it has been an intergovernmental Working Group with participation of all stakeholders and informally this Working Group is still open.  There is no need to create opportunities for opening new working groups that will take energy from other stakeholders participating and following up on the developments and so I think that's ‑‑ it should be removed I think.

Thank you very much.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your statement.

I will go back now to representative of the private sector.  You have the floor, sir.

>> MARTIN BOYLE: Thank you, Chair.

My name is Martin Boyle, I'm with Nominet, the domain name registry from the U.K.  We as an organization fit neatly in the business sector and in the technical sector.

I think I would like to echo the thoughts that have come from the previous two speakers without repeating that.

I would actually say that we have gone a very long way since Tunis and the Tunis Agenda.

We have seen the development of the IGF as a forum for involvement and exchanges between the different partners of the multistakeholder environment.  We have seen the development of the stewardship transition proposal, which again got the mobilization, which got all partners across the different groups.  We have seen the national cooperation and partnership, Brazil is a very, very good example of that.  We have been doing similar cooperation and engagement within the U.K. and we have certainly seen the development on the international for that sort of exchange.

So as a net result I think that a loss of the wording in the Tunis Agenda was very much wording from 2005.  I recognize the need to requote that wording but I also think we ‑‑ here we are ten years later, we should look at how we should be developing that wording to recognize the massive developments that have taken place that we start looking at the blurring of the roles because of the Internet understanding and the shared responsibility that's been taken by the different communities that's standing up here today.  I would like to see that reflected in the draft that's going to the United Nations.

Thank you.


Civil Society.

>> DEBRA BROWN:  Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment. 

I'm Debra Brown with the Association of Progressive Communications.

We're very happy to see that many of the comments we submitted earlier in the process made it to the current draft including the reference to net neutrality.

We also welcome the recognition that the Internet is a global resource that should be managed in the public interest and would suggest adding to paragraph 50 the principles of open and inclusive manner to make it more consistent with paragraph 12 in the preamble and because these are key Internet Governance principles.  Regarding enhanced cooperation, we support what was said regarding the intergovernmental Working Group and the need for participation from other stakeholders.  We would suggest text to welcome governments the opportunity to discuss Internet related public policy issues in collaboration and link ups of the Internet Governance forum.

Regarding the IGF we welcome the renewal of the IGF and would like to see the recognition of the IGF's evolution tore outcome oriented, capacity building, identifying emerging issues and facilitating institutional dialogue.

Also to identify solutions for Internet related public policy regulations and problems.

Thank you very much.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for that statement.

I will turn to governments.

>> RAHUL GOSAIN Thank you, Chair.

Rahul Gosain, Government of India.

It should be also recognized that in the next decade a large number of Internet users will come from developing countries.  The Tunis Agenda, 2005 has been reasonably successful in increasing access to developing countries, however at the same time it should be noted that there has been a lack of participation from developing countries in the policy development processes related to the Internet.

India would like to highlight the need to enable developing countries to have a say in the policies which have a direct impact on the social and economic development.  The role of developing countries cannot be limited to receiving support for development and they should have an active role in Internet Governance.  In working towards such inclusion it is crucial to ensure that the objective is substantive inclusion and not merely formal inclusion.

Keeping in mind the barriers making the participation and processes that are normally open to all, the outcome should invite all developing countries to actively engage and participate in various forum related to Internet Governance and for them to explore means to facilitate such substantive engagement and participation.  We would be happy to provide text which could be included.

Thank you.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your statement.

I will revert to the representative of the technical community, please.

>> Thank you. 

I'm Pablo.  I work for The Regional Internet Registry for Asia‑Pacific.

First thing, to thank the Co‑Facilitators for the great work.

In spite of very restrictive times for the review of very important process you have made a great effort to listen to the voices of different stakeholders and it must be very hard to make decisions on how to include very different views and to develop from the non‑paper to the current draft.  Thank you enormously.  One of the key features of the World Summit on the Information Society indeed was the process.  The novelty of it, the way that it evolved and how it finished in Tunis and how it started in Athens with the first IGF.  I mean process in the sense of the level of inclusiveness and the beauty of being key for bridging a gap.  The gap between technical expertises, what is the Internet, how it actually works, and policy making, how to support its growth, how governments cannot do it on their own.  For policymakers to make better decisions that would not hurt the technology but actually help to foster it.

WSIS has been great process for this gap to close in information and information to flow particularly through the IGF back and forth between governments, technical experts, private sector, Civil Society, I think that's a story of success and I hope we can preserve that spirit.

I would like to support comments made by my friend from Indonesia Donny in the previous section regarding paragraph 50 and an importance on preserving the multistakeholder spirit of WSIS in the sense of meaningful participation not only involvement but meaningful participation of different stakeholder groups whip is a key feature of the WSIS process.

Thank you.


I will refer to the private sector again.  Please.


My name is Dominique Lasanski.  We represent all mobile operators worldwide, over 800 of them are members and we will be key obviously to Connecting the Next Billion and several billion with all of you.  I just wanted to make two points.

One, that we really support the renewal of the IGF mandate, the ten‑year renewal and we were pleased with that and thank you for that.  That's fantastic.

Just on the point of net neutrality, we feel it is a bit too constrained in terms of the words that are being used and the open Internet would actually be more inclusive to include not just the specific topic area but, you know, all topics around this, around the secure, safe, interoperable Internet.  To that point, I want to just read a statement that was adopted in the Council of Europe last year in November, unanimously, that's a great way to phrase the open Internet, it says take necessary steps to preserve the open and neutral character of the Internet and support end user rights to access, disseminate and use Internet content or services of their choice.

Thank you.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your statement.

I want to acknowledge the presence of Lennie Montiel, Assistant Secretary‑General for Economic Development, we're honored with his presence

And I'll now go to the Civil Society representative.  You have the floor.

>> Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho.  We're delighted to have want representative on the Internet Governance from the United Nations and I want to give a special shout out to the permanent member to the UN for her inspiring speech and the co‑facilitator of of the WSIS process yesterday. 

I come from India.  I teach and this has been truly an inspiring journey.  We have been able to engage with the process of the IGF which is truly inclusive, transparent bottom up allowing people to participate.  Meetings, however, take place in places which are expensive and they're difficult to engage with in terms of the process.  As far as the current draft is concerned, speaking particularly to paragraph 50 and 54 on the issues of Internet Governance and enhanced cooperation, paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda especially is the spirit where Internet Governance capacity building and speaking to the unconnected, the billions, 3.4 we're looking at and women and youth remain underserved.  We believe that 10 years hence, it is time though we made a great journey, there were representation when the draft was put in place, when the Tunis Agenda actualized, we have made a long journey since, I speak for those that remain unconnected especially from developing countries and emerging economies.  My colleague from India just mentioned that we do not just want outreach and empathy, we would like to have a place at the table where decisions are taking place.  This is more than multistakeholder participation, it is also about equitable participation and outreach.  It is about capacity building, not just with funding which is essential to bring young people, but not just end users and also lead users.  I would like to see stronger language when it comes to enhancing cooperation between countries and also recognizing the text that cybersecurity and privacy are concerns that intervene and have more space for different stakeholders while existing mechanisms which are multilateral, they can be strengthened but spaces like the IGF, they need to be reinforced and also need permanent support in recognition in terms of the UN is concerned.  Thank you for taking that onboard and strong support we would like to articulate for the renewal of the IGF mandate for another 10 years.

Thank you for listening.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your statement.

I will now turn to the distinguished representative of the U.K.

>> Thank you. 

The U.K. government supports a multistakeholder model of Internet Governance, open, inclusive, transparent, accountable.  The IGF is an indispensable pillar of that model and we very much welcome the proposal for a 10‑year extension to the mandate.  We have concerns, however, about the section on enhanced cooperation.  The U.K. government believes that real enhanced cooperation is happening now and it needs to continue and continue to develop.  Stakeholders are cooperating in new ways to address key issues.  That process needs to be flexible in order to address the different kinds of issues that come up and in order to keep pace with innovation.  We don't need a new intergovernmental Committee where issues are negotiated between governments behind closed doors without the expertise, the experience and most importantly perhaps without the commitment of other stakeholders.  The successes and achievements we have seen over the last ten years have depended on open and collaborative approaches involving all stakeholders.  We recognize, however, that there are differences of view on what enhanced cooperation means.  What is vital is that we don't consider this concept in the abstract.  It won't take us forward if we only talk about commissions and panels and reports and special sessions. 

A conversation on enhanced cooperation must be issues‑based.  What's enhanced cooperation mean for child online protection?  What does enhanced cooperation mean in terms of investment in infrastructure?  What does it mean for climate protection?

The answers will be different in teach case.  It is only by following this issue‑based approach involving all stakeholders that we will be able to develop a meaningful conversation that can actually make a difference.

We hope the WSIS review will not focus its attention on long discussions about enhanced cooperation as an abstract process but instead, focus on the issues and focus on the Sustainable Development priorities that we urgently need to address.

Thank you.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you.  Thank you for your statement. 

Technical community.

>> I'm Gangesh.  I'm from the Center of Communication from the University of New Delhi. 

On this section, we need to reflect the need ‑‑ the comments made already, this can be reflective of the current scenario and there is an urgent need to update the understanding of Internet Governance from ten years ago.

I also recommend that in paragraph 50 the word open and inclusive are part of the open lines and these are terms that need to be mentioned wherever we talk about any kind of multistakeholder engagement.

Also the fact that the enhanced cooperation is the subject of debate since its inception and there is the ambiguity developed between 69 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, here we have an opportunity to clear that up, that ambiguity and probably to define enhanced cooperation in a clearer fashion and that we can operate better.

Yeah.  That's it.

Thank you.


I give the floor to you, please.

>> JOSEPH ALHADEFF: Joseph Alhadeff from Oracle, on behalf of ICC basis, and we would support the comments of others related to the renewal of the IGF mandate. 

To that topic we would add perhaps that thinking about why it is important for the renewal of the mandate over that period of time because it helps the IGF in fundraising and in planning.  The 5‑year renewal was a limitation on the abilities to do that.  We should remember there is a reason it is not just 10 years as a nicer figure than five, it helps the IGF do what it is supposed to do.

In terms of people spoke about improvements to the IGF, we believe improvements should be made and trying to figure out how to better take the lessons learned from the IGF and make them available to national governments, to developing countries, all of the stakeholders participating, both through the regional IGFs and other mechanisms, but we don't want to lose site of the value of the IGF as a dialogue.

Sometimes when we look at improvements we forget about what we have done that's beneficial and useful.  After 10 years we should be celebrating some accomplishments and that dialogue is one of the substantial accomplishments we should not under sell.

Finally, when we think about governments in some way some of the text makes it sound like there is government and there is other stakeholders, government is a stakeholder.  The text needs to unify that government is one of the stakeholders with all of the others.  We have to make sure that in the language we don't create a nuance that they're separate, we play different roles but government is a stakeholder and participates as a stakeholder.  Finally, in reference to the question that was raised with the language from ten years ago, we have to remember that there will be new people coming to this document.  Perhaps as we quote the older language we can create an introduction to talk about the importance of the multistakeholder process, the role of multistakeholderism and what it does today and then highlight the fact that it was first established in this language and then we can quote that language directly.

Then it places the language in context so that we're not bound by the status quo of where we were but we remember where we were and how we got to where we are.

Thank you very much.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for the statement.

I give the floor to you.

>> Thank you.  Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

In the IG section I want to stress again we're very pleased with the language on net neutrality and the strong goal to not just recognize its importance but also to protect it.

We also welcome the proposal to renew the IGF for 10 years and including the emphasis on the improvements that need to be made.

Where we have more concern is similar to what many others have already said here.  Paragraph 12, 15 we find that the emphasis is far too strongly on the multilateral aspects.  We think that it is very important to recognize the contributions of the multistakeholder community in those paragraphs as well and that one stakeholder group should not be privileged over another here.  In paragraph 52, we are very happy with the inclusion of the recognition to have greater participation of the developing countries in the Internet Governance.  We fully support the comments that were made earlier here by the Government of India to argue that this should be substantive inclusion, not just inclusion informed.

For this reason, we're very happy to see the reference to the funding mechanisms that are needed to make this a reality.

We would like to see the word expanded and added to the text so now it says mechanism should be strengthened, we think they should also be expanded.

In addition, we would welcome a reference to any additional measures to make sure that is greater inclusion happening, including references to checks and balances in the multistakeholder process and a greater need for transparency in many pros.  Enhanced cooperation, we share the concern about proposal for an Internet intergovernmental Working Group in paragraph 56, we realize it says there will be contributions from other stakeholders but as long as it is not clear beforehand how this process will be organized a reference like this does not induce the kind of trust that's really necessary to move forward in Internet Governance.

In a way it is similar to what we have seen with the current WSIS review process, the Co‑Facilitators are doing their best to maximize the space for stakeholder input in the modality but there are parts that are only government only and that's a concern for other stakeholder and we should not deny that.  It is worrying to see a call to put such an important aspect of the Internet Governance debate and such contention aspect into possible closed door meetings.

Thank you.


Please, I give the floor to the representative of government.

>> LJUPCO JIVAN GJORGJINSKI:  Thank you very much. 

I'm head of communications in the Macedonia Foreign Ministry and Multistakeholder Advisory Group. 

In different times in the last 15 years or so I had an opportunity to speak at different microphones and these settings, never had an opportunity to speak in front of the technical microphone, I don't have the mind for that, I'm very respectful for those that created the Internet and the tools we use today.

At the same time, I understand why there is concern sometimes in using such words as multilateral and there should be definitely multistakeholder in front of that, multilateral is not a bad word.  We have to remember at this time that this as we renew the mandate, that it is the UN that's given the mandate that it is the renewing of the mandate, that the IGF is a UN product and we should celebrate it as such.  Nevertheless, we should celebrate multistakeholder which is the basis of what made this beautiful thing, the Internet, what it is.  Having said that, we are in support both the government that I represent of fully multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance, same time we should not shy away from anything that involves multilateralism as well.  Thank you very much.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for your statement.

I give the floor to the representative from the technical community.

>> Thank you.  I'm actually from the Secretary of The Commission on Science and Technology for Development as there was no mike for international organizations I just decided to stand behind this line.

>> (Laughter).

>> I wanted to comment, the reference, it is that ‑‑ the references made on the work of the CSTD in terms of the working groups in improvements to the IGF and enhanced cooperation, paragraph 54 says that we call on the CSTD within its current reporting to give due consideration to fulfillment of the Working Group report recommendations.  This is being done annually in the context of the Secretary‑General's report on WSIS implementation and follow‑up.  In that, we rely on the inputs of the members and other stakeholders and we are thankful for the inputs in regards to the fulfillment of the recommendations.

Paragraph 55 notes the Working Group work on the enhanced cooperation of the CSTD, as you know, they held four meetings between May, 2014 and 2015 and they were intense deliberations on what is enhanced cooperation, what are the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in it and how to pursue it.

It definitely increased understanding of the different points of view, but as the Chair concluded in its report the consensus emerged on some issues that were significant divergence of views concerning others, the complexity and the political sensitivity of the topic did not allow them to finalize a set of Recommendations for a fully operationalizing the enhanced cooperation. 

Paragraph 56 of the outcome document suggests that the establishment of another Working Group.  I'm not going to comment on whether such a group should be established but just to say if we decide for its establishment there has to be more clarity to it and also some creative thinking so that we don't just repeat the previous experience but that we can build on that.  I would also like to make reference to the UNDESA work on the 10‑year review report on WSIS, which concludes the Internet Governance for example, whatever the measures taken to solve the issues, what is essential is to ensure that the Internet remains a universal resource that's available for all.

We're going to discuss the main messages for the report on implementing the WSIS outcomes tomorrow afternoon at 2:00.

I would welcome you all to participate in that open forum regarding that and we're also going to link our work to the overall review in that session.

Thank you.


As we are moving towards the end of that section, I will take the last three speakers and then we would make some remarks with my Co‑Facilitators, co‑moderator, not to confuse it with the Co‑Facilitators for the next section of the document.

I will give the floor to the representative of the private sector.  You have the floor.

>> CARYOLYN WINN: Thank you very much.

I'm Carolyn Winn from Microsoft. 

I would like to make a few comments with regards to this section.  With respect to paragraph 50, we agree with various previous comments with respect to also including the word multistakeholder, open, inclusive, transparent.  At equal level with the words multilateralism.  I would like to also reinforce a point with respect to paragraph 45 in terms of reflecting the same concepts of multistakeholder into the discussion of cybersecurity specifically, the paragraph states that for government which have responsibility for national security and personal safety to play a leading role, but in some issues to ensure cybersecurity as opposed to a broad stroke, putting in the document that there is tremendous ongoing work in public, private partnerships globally around the world as well as nationally to address cybersecurity issues.

If possible, we would like to see that reference made explicitly as well as in reference to other cybersecurity work that's not in the UN, for example, with the OECD.  With respect to paragraph 52, we strongly support the paragraph in terms of the recognition that there is a need for greater participation and engagement of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing nations, middle income states, least, and land looked states, as a private sector we're strongly invested in the goals of the Sustainable Development in countries and support that paragraph.  Enhanced cooperation, we noted support for comments from various other speakers in particular from the U.K. government regarding the cooperation that are already ongoing amongst all stakeholders.  Just as there are ‑‑ there is not a tingle multistakeholder model, there are multiple multistakeholder approaches and different approaches to enhanced cooperation in an issue base.

Thank you very much.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for the statement.

I give the floor to the representative of Canada.

>> Thank you, Ambassador.

As many of the points that I wish to make have been made by others, I can be very brief.

You put out the questions for our consideration and many of them have been already covered from Canadian perspective, we would echo, you know, a key point with respect to Internet Governance would certainly be to ensure that we do no harm, we have a model that's been tremendously successful and we want to preserve all of the good that's come from it.

Like others, we want to recognize that this is very much a multistakeholder approach, it has to be multistakeholder in all dimensions, not just in a limited selection.

In that regard, we're particularly concerned about some of the language in paragraph 56 with respect to enhanced cooperation which seems to set the stage for a state to state discussion on enhanced cooperation when we know that obviously there is enhanced cooperation that takes place outside of a state to state relationship, we're doing it right here, right now today.  It is happening in a variety of settings.  A special session of the General Assembly will be by its nature state to state and we're very uncomfortable with this approach which is very state focused.

Thank you.


Thank you for your statement.

I'll give the floor for the representative of ICANN which should be the last speaker, but I see two other participants that are requesting the floor.  You will also be allowed to speak but it will be very short, the comments.  Please.

>> NIGEL HICKSEN: Thank you very much. 

Nigel Hicksen from ICANN. 

First, I would like to congratulate this session in drawing out so many diverse opinions.  That's what the WSIS process is all about.  That's what we strive to do in various Internet Governance processes.  I think that's got to be recognized.  I would like to recognize the role of the Co‑Facilitators, not just for turning up to this panel today but for the incredible work that they have done since being appointed on this particular brief.  It is not at all easy I'm sure to be able to cope with diverse opinions, comments, the written, the oral, the tweeting, social media is terrible, isn't it? 

All of the information that's come in to them, the many different viewpoints, the many serious viewpoints, the governments, other stakeholders have had on this issue.  The history, the passion, the eloquent history, the cultural history of the Internet Governance as was mentioned this morning, it goes back a long way.  The Tunis Agenda, the historical nature of it, the fact that it was a compromise between so many different interests has really, if you like, spurned what we have today in this draft.  I want to make two points:  I think on Internet Governance as others have said, the nature has changed considerably since 2003 and 2005 in 2003 we found it difficult in governments to get ministers to talk at Internet Governance conferences and it was difficult to get statements on the Internet Governance.  Today the statements are plenty.

In 2003 and 2005 stakeholders didn't have the same access, ability to talk as they do today.

We need to reflect on this in this resolution and this historic resolution that's going to be held up against the Tunis Agenda as a work, if you like, on the Internet Governance treaties.  We need to ensure that it truly reflects this development.  We need to try to move beyond the wording on enhanced cooperation.  We all know what it means or what it doesn't mean.

Surely for all of us here, it means talking together.  It means all of us having an input.  It means governments being able to take their necessary part in public policy discussions and it means being able to take the part in those discussions, those decisions with other stakeholders as well.

We in ICANN strive to do that, other organizations strive to do that as well.  We should be able to find language to reflect that.

Thank you very much.  Thank you for your great efforts and we have truly looked forward to the discussions in New York.


You have the floor, sir.

>> BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you. 

Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian CCTLD operator.

As per my earlier intervention with multilateral and multistakeholder, I would draw your attention to paragraph 50, another example that I think that others have commented on and I would like to further reinforce the importance of adding that there.  Enhanced cooperation section, the concerns that I have about that is what my comments are around, by calling for a report on this, the section implies that there is some sort of an end state.  How much, of course, the Internet is an ever‑evolving ecosystem.  Like Internet Governance itself, enhanced cooperation is a process.  Almost by definition it has no end state as it must be as dynamic as the entity that it is meant to govern.  Floor to the representative more, I'm disappointed to see the role of the multistakeholder model in the governance diminished in this section.  It is essential to ensure the full and equal participation of all stakeholders in the review of the progress on enhanced cooperation in ensuring all voices are heard.

Only with their full and equal participation will we successfully bring the tremendously value of the Internet to all citizens of the globe.  This is a government to government process in the text, for example, of course, Article 56 refers only to intergovernmental and UNGA processes to review enhanced cooperation with the participation of other stakeholders tacked on at the end as an afterthought seemingly.  Multistakeholder is not a box to be ticked off on a list of news‑dos, not a method of consultation, but a living governance model that is to manage these entities like the Internet.  It is not enough to call for the participation of stakeholders in the processes, this should be woven in the fabric of the WSIS+10 process and any mechanisms developed for the ongoing development of the Internet.

Thank you.


>> Thank you very much.  Thank you for the opportunity in the last minute.  I'm from the Japan networking information or JPNIC.

I would like to make a brief point on section 50 as previous speakers have made.  It reads that we reaffirm that governments of the Internet as a global resource should be multilateral, transparent and democratic with full involvement of those stakeholders.  I agree it should be sometimes multilateral, for example when the issue pertains to the public policy and at the same time it needs the coordination among the countries, but the other parts, such as the global coordination of the Internet or the setting the knowledge of the experts for the concerned issue, it is different and usually they need the multistakeholder approach rather than the other approach taken should be rephrased accordingly.

Thank you very much.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you very much, we have come to the end of the speakers.

We have one remote participation.  I turn to our remote moderator.

>> REMOTE MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Chair.

We in fact have two comments. 

The first from Nigeria.  My name is Akin‑Awokoya from Lagos, Nigeria, remote participation hub, a global member of the Internet Society.  The Internet Society has its core mission to promote the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of all people around the world. 

We from the developing countries, we are pleased for the renewal IGF process and the multistakeholder model given another chance to show its advantage over other models.  I would love to comment on the necessity for more capacity building especially in emerging technology that would increase access for the next billions. 

Although the drone technology was mentioned in the comment from one of the contributors for the ICT4D section there is need for consideration for the TV whitespace and the digitalization of broadcasting, and there is a need for developing country experts to be at the table for the standards and technology.  The percentage of participation of the developing countries in the development of emerging standards and protocols should be enhanced because the Internet rights, cybersecurity threat relies on these protocols and standards

I am happy about the paragraph 52.  I would love to tie it to paragraph 18 as the ICT alters the way we live.  The next billion should be able to transit into connectivity without losing its ways of doing things in its cultural ideal manner.

There is a second comment from Christine Arida in Egypt.  Her affiliation is with the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of the Government of Egypt. 

We appreciate the opportunity to intervene remotely and would like to offer the following comments in response to the questions posed to the floor.

We believe the main goal of Internet Governance should be facilitating coordination among the different stakeholders and all relevant players in a way that will preserve the functioning of the Internet as one stable global resource while enabling further innovation and extending its reach to all citizens of the world especially from development countries.  We welcome the renewal of the IGF mandate for 10 more years and we believe this should be considered as a minimum.  We stress the importance of the competing roles played by the different stakeholders and in this context believe Internet Governance should continue to be a multistakeholder process and suggest reflecting this in the language used.

Finally, we emphasize the need to further gage different stakeholders from developing countries in Internet Governance and would like to commend the intersessional work of the IGF this year in reaching out to regional and national IGF initiatives.

Thank you very much.


Before I close this session, I would like to make some comments and I don't want to abuse my position as co‑moderator.

I would like nonetheless, first of all, having participated in the preparatory Committee in New York in October I have the very strong perception that one of the basic parameters for us in New York is to consider that the outcome documents that come from the WSIS, that they provide still today a valid framework for the work to pursue beyond 2015.  By doing that I think we are in a way ‑‑ we're not tied to the language there, but we're guided by the language there.  I think in regard to some delicate balance that's involved in the language that's crafted both in Geneva and Tunis, particularly in the Tunis phase I wouldn't say ‑‑ this is my ‑‑ maybe this is my personal, not my national position ‑‑ but ‑‑ I don't see energy needed, time to redraft I feel of the very important consensus that emerged from there.

I'm saying this for example in regard to the word multilateral that appears, it comes from the Tunis Agenda that reflects a very elaborate work that was done.  I don't see how having been adopted at that summit level that we could in the review change things that are there.  I think at the UN, I served in the UN a few years ago, it is difficult to get away from some agreed language unless you have a very important instance that would change that.

By doing that, we cannot be selective about important language coming from Tunis Agenda.  Some parts you may like, so you want to preserve as it is, some parts you don't like, you want to change.  I think that there is not that kind of scenario that could emerge there.

I think basically we'll be guided by the parameters and I repeat, those are considered the overall framework valid, it has been reaffirmed, something that we can live with and have assisted us in the last ten years.

In regard to the issue about multilateral, I would like to ‑‑ I thank the colleague from Macedonia, I wanted very much to say what he has said.

From the perspective of the Brazilian government, my minister has ‑‑ the Minister of Communication has stated this and I think my president will state that in a few hours at the opening ceremony.  We don't see that there is necessarily a contradiction between multilateral and this is a principal in our constitution, we discuss the issues that affect the global interests, we should come together as countries, not have unilateral decisions, not have the decisions crafted by groups of countries, but come together as in multilateral ways to discuss.  That doesn't mean to exclude other stakeholders.  Being a democratic country, the constitution that was discussed, the meaning of multilateral is not to exclude the other sectors.  I feel in the context of Internet Governance that those terms are seen as being mutually excluded and they're not.

We think that multilateral process can be reinforced by cooperative stakeholders and on the other handsome processes that are in itself multistakeholder that have ‑‑ that were born with the multistakeholder corrective, that they should allow the space for each stakeholder to express and to define roles and interests accordingly.  We don't see necessarily that balance, that contradiction.

I want to thank some participants that referred to net neutrality.  We had the honor to host Netmundial last year and we have been very proud to host that, it was a very valid experience, it provided us with very important ideas and proposed a way forward in the discussion on Internet Governance related issues.

I would caution it is not realistic to think that what we discussed at Netmundial, a meeting the Brazilian government convened outside that process, outside the existing process at the UN, that those results would be automatically transmitted to the UN context.  I think that will require much more work with Delegations towards making that possible and this is our wish.  You can certainly count on the Brazilian government to do that.

Finally, I'm sorry, because I said I would not abuse my position, but I think ‑‑ I don't see the flag raised but I think maybe I have already expired my time, from my own perspective, we think in regard to enhanced cooperation, one thing that's needed is more good information which we can make decisions.

We are very glad with the work that was done by the Working Group on enhanced cooperation by the CTSD.  I think that's ‑‑ that enlightened us to show the issues, the processes, and we think that's kind ‑‑ that kind of exercise, it is not ‑‑ I'm not saying it on behalf of anyone, that's our position, we think we need some more clarity on what is meant by ‑‑ what will be the actual interventions that we could make in different processes.

Recognizing that the Internet Governance ecosystem has a variety, a multitude of processes for dialogues.  How can we improve the overall infrastructure here?  I think we need good information and we certainly could support that this kind of exercise could pursue.

We have an example, we were able to develop within the CSTD a format for doing this, in a way that was found legitimate, that was not only composed of governments but also included the other stakeholders, I think we could do the same and pursue this exercise in a way that would be seen as legitimate by all stakeholders.

I really trust that we can develop creative solutions even working in the context of the UN.  We should not forget that the IGF itself was a creation by the UN.

We are optimistic on the prospect of working together with the countries, governments, stakeholders as well.

I apologize for the length, and I would like to go over to my co‑moderator to continue the session. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you, Ambassador. 

We started late this morning so we're combining the implementation and follow‑up and then the general, the other category.  Because of the time, I'm not going to try to do any high‑level summary.  We'll follow‑up with the 7, 8 paragraphs here under the follow‑up and review.  Maybe the scroller can just go through them quickly here.

I'm going to read out the questions which we had suggested, again, just trying to get to the areas that we think would be the most informative.

So the first question was what financing mechanisms should be put in place to implement the WSIS outcomes?  The second, the review of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes has taken place at 5‑year intervals.  How often should the reviews take place and what should their nature be?

What role can the IGF and various national and regional IGF initiatives play in WSIS implementation and follow‑up?

Finally, what should be the objectives of the annual reviews, particularly the WSIS action line reviews at the WSIS forum and the annual WSIS reports by CTSD?  I will note in those paragraphs you see that there was substantial support for continuing all of the various reviews and reporting structures and specifically called out for a continuation of the annual WSIS forum as well.

Finally, the last question, under section 4, how should stakeholders continue to be involved leading up to the UNGA high‑level event in December?

We have 15 minutes for those sections.  If you can keep your comments to a minute, a minute and a half, there is a lot of other times and opportunities to participate in the preparatory process.  With that, the mikes are open.

I see the U.S. government, Daniel.

>> DANIEL SEPULVEDA: Thank you very much. 

This has been an incredibly useful conversation and I very much appreciate it.  In terms of follow‑up, looking forward, I want to reflect on the comments from our colleagues from India, from Civil Society who have called for I believe it was a substantive meaningful inclusion of all stakeholders from the developing world, we're happy and hoping for that language in whatever document that occurs.  Relative to a number of times of conversation on whether or not multilateral, multistakeholder processes and conflict, we don't believe they have to be processes and conflicts but they can be.  When we have concerns or express concerns about for example proposals to create a new intergovernment discussion on enhanced cooperation, to have that take place within the UN construct, that would exclude the stakeholder community from a decision making process in that statement and could threaten the multistakeholder process.  When we express concerns it is relative to that.  I don't think that there is any longer this perception that they need to be in conflict and they can be added and supportive in the processes. 

Lastly, on paragraph 62, because we had a WSIS in 2003 and 2005 and we're gathering ten years later for a high‑level meeting to review the WSIS, I don't believe that means we have to gather every ten years to review the WSIS.  We don't know what the next ten years will hold, whether or not the multiple processes we have for review including the CSTD annual gatherings.  WSIS, the annual IGF and other conferences that we have, if those are not adequate to ensure that we are properly implementing the WSIS if we're not properly implementing the WSIS, at any time, the United Nations, multistakeholder community can have another high‑level meeting and whether or not that high‑level meeting should take place in the UN, maybe we should have a super IGF at some point in ten years or later to ensure the full participation of the multistakeholder community in this conversation and reviewing this process in review.  Again, ultimately I think that there is an incredible amount of value in the process that our Co-Facilitators ran and the conversations that ‑‑ co‑facilitator its ran and the conversations we have had, there is text with divergence and there is good will and a desire for consensus and we'll work with everybody toward that end.  We want to make sure everything we're doing and celebrating here is properly reflected in the language, relative to the language in paragraph 50, whether we need to stay consistent with the language in the WSIS, I think if we're ‑‑ if the language in the text in many places reflects that there have been changes in concerns and considerations, some areas of language within the document up there, received much more time and consideration than they did in the original WSIS document, we're obviously looking at the WSIS documents in a different light today and this document reflects that.  I think that generally there is consensus in this room, including the word multistakeholder, especially the first paragraph of any mention of Internet Governance, if we're going to revert to the WSIS language from 2003 and 2005 we have to cut and copy the entire text of 2003 and 2005 rather than selectively pull out one paragraph and make it the first paragraph of the Internet Governance section.  With that, I again appreciate the consideration and I appreciate all of the comments of everyone in the room. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Let's go over to the business mike.

>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, distinguished moderator.

I'm Chair of Africa City Alliance.

I would like to really appreciate the spirit of the discussion, very lively, cordial.

In this way, our approach, I approach this other items, with regard to the financial mechanism I think we have ‑‑ we need to review the national economies and to strengthen them especially the developing economies we have as I said earlier the U.S., the universal service portion funds, these funds, they're supposed to provide some specific intervention through expansion of infrastructure for more broadband and general implementation of the WSIS, to get people to be more connected.  We need to bring in more transparency in this regard.

Of course, it does not disabuse the fact that we can bring in new mechanism.

The second points, the review, I think we cannot put the review from project ‑‑ or from the program management perspectives from ‑‑ there is nothing wrong with review, we have the existing framework, the United Nations brings in reports, we have to find a way to get the nations to take this report more seriously, maybe working on their monitoring processes and evolution processes to get the statistics in.  There are a lot of things happening in the grass root.  We need to give the opportunity for this information to come in on a yearly basis.

Then, the role of IGF.  As I said earlier, there is something unique that happens in Nigeria for the first time, I don't know if it happened elsewhere, we have intranational IGF, a regional zone in Nigeria, after the national IGF, I appreciate the coordinator, he's here, we have another IGF, so bring in the idea for enriching the discourse to the grassroots.  So that's in the fostering of the understanding of the WSIS, the packet of inclusive, the nature of the goals of Information Society and then the objective of the annual review, of course, is to provide more clarity, progress to be made, I think that the report is great as mentioned earlier.

A stakeholder, involved in the UNGA, the high‑level event in December, I want to congratulate the leaders in this regard.  They have done an excellence job of getting everybody informed through media, through various venues, we need to sustain this momentum through December.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Another example of the evolution of enhanced cooperation we're suggesting another change to the Agenda.  We were going to spend 20 minutes at the end with some summary comments.

I think in light of the people that are at the mike, and some of the comments that Benedicto Fonseca Filho made earlier, it is more beneficial to continue to hear from people in the room.  There will be a session report that will capture the summary, we'll go to 25 past the hour and spend 5 minutes on a couple of things in one, two short announcements.

With that, I'll move to the Civil Society queue.

>> MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you.

Matthew Shears with the Center of Democracy and Technology.  Appreciate the opportunity.

A quick point, and then a broader comment:  A quick point is that on the review, going back to the comments earlier on about the WSIS with the SDGs in a substantive way, it is useful to foresee an annual review that does review that linkage and how effective that linkage is and highlights Best Practices and meeting those SDGs and innovative ways of looking at meeting those targets.  A review focused on the linkages between the twos WSIS and the SDGs, and the progress made would be useful.

A general comment, there is no doubt that we have to look back as a part of the WSIS review to the documents of 2003 and 2005.  I think that the Co‑Facilitators did a nice job of trying to spur us to think about ways forward.  If there is one thing that we have noted that we just really haven't quite captured in this WSIS review document, it is that everything is changing.  Whether we like it or not, the roles and responsibilities are changing.  The notion of multistakeholder and multilateralism are changing, I'm a steak holder, I'm in front of a Civil Society mike but I don't think of myself as Civil Society but I think of myself as a hybrid.  It is going to be increasingly difficult to abide by the restrictions on what the stakeholders are, as we evolve, we'll see many more stakeholder groups evolve as well.  This notion of change that's coming through a bit in the document actually is far more important and enhanced cooperation is changing, it is evolving.

We cannot just look at the static motion of the Tunis Agenda in 2015.

The importance of ICTs to development, it is changing.  The role of innovation, it is increasing.  These are elements of change that I think somehow needs to be captured more in a document and to encourage stakeholders to think more openly and creatively on how we take this Agenda going forward in the next 10 years or whatever the period may be.

Thank you.

>> JOE OLUFUYE: Joe Olufuye from Oracle. 

Two quick points:  One on the idea of the national regional IGF.  They have demonstrated themselves to be important.  We see innovative practices doing developed in places like Nigeria looking at the intranational IGFs.  I think we have to think about how those regional and national IGFs and intraIGFs are becoming two‑way vehicles or multipath vehicles where knowledge goes out to them, but needs come back and how they actually may share learning across the various national, regional, subnational IGFs because there may be examples of how ICT for development was used that could be shared across the regional and national IGFs because some of the examples between the developing countries may be tremendously useful to share.

Maybe we could find ways of panels within IGF to actually help some of that coordination take place.

On the last question of how multistakeholders can participate, I think there has been a call for comments to be provided in a somewhat more drafted form to be considered in advance of the meeting.  I would also want to appreciate the role of the Co‑Facilitators have played and continue to call on them to be creative in the way that you have operated within the modalities that are permitted to expand and continue to include the multistakeholder and participation and wanted to highlight how much we appreciate the efforts that have been taken to date. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Civil Society queue.

>> SUBI CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Chair.

I'm Subi Chaturvedi, and I'm from Indonesia, a member of the MAG. 

Speaking to 57 and 58, thank you, Joe, for bringing up the question of national and regional IGFs and initiatives.  There is a lot we have learned from national and regional initiatives and that language in terms of the reflection, we have stagnated at 36 to 14, there is in terms of support, there is requirements and a very clear message and mandate that you require only 3 stakeholders to put together a national, regional initiative, there is needs to further strengthen the similar initiatives.  I link that to the point of the review process. 

What I was trying to say earlier, it is difficult and extremely expensive for academia civil society and regional, national initiatives not just because of lack of funding but fairness to contribute to the process can substantively.  What we would like to see in the language, decentralized review process, if this is consistent and calls for engagement, we're doing two things and we're also sending national, regional initiatives and looking at taking in commentary directly from the community that find it difficult. 

The value is there are many, many challenges to jump through the hoops of fire.  One, of course, is the clear mandates that you have to be an equal accredited civil society organization.  That's a challenge.  We hope these processes would be able to open up all conversations as well as inputs that can be sought from different spaces.

And I would like to speak to the point of paragraph 57 about the definition of stakeholders.  Clearly the roles and responsibilities, they need to be redefined and examined and also a call for including media as well as youth to the stakeholder category because the Internet today is also one of the largest media.  What we lack in terms of education awareness, also dissemination of information, engaging media, especially defining them as part of the stakeholders may be the way forward.

Thank you for listening.  Thank you again, Co‑Facilitator, you have done a brilliant job. 

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you. 

Technical, academia

>> GANGESH VIARMA: Thank you. 

I would just like to specifically on the aspect of reviews.  I also echo a need for more regional and national level reviews that can happen.  Also the fact that these can be cost intensive for developing countries and there is a need for creating a financial mechanism to aid in creating this kind of data collection that's talked about in paragraph 61 and it is also important that this data driven and the mode of policy making, it is important because it creates targeted policy that's more effective and so there needs to be that and it should be supported from a financial mechanism for developing countries.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you. 

A move to Civil Society.  You have the floor.

>> Thank you very much. 

This is the Association for Progressive Communications, and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

We would like to refer specifically to the call, to the high‑level meeting on the Information Society in 2025 and we're pleased to see the strong linkages with Sustainable Development Agenda and process.  We support the suggestions made by Matthew sheer in relation to having annual reviews.  We really think that would enrich the process very much.  We would want to emphasize the need for the high‑level meeting to be really inclusive and open in all aspects and all faces of it with the inclusion, the full inclusion and participation of the various stakeholders.

We're concerned that pairing a high‑level meeting with intergovernmental Working Group is not conducing reinforce the Internet resource that must be managed in an open, inclusive manner with participation of diverse stakeholders, nor does it recognize the evolution of the Internet Governance in the past ten years and how it has been enriched by the contributions of the diverse stakeholders.  We would like to see those recognitions made explicit in the document.  

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

We're going to close the queue after these two speakers from Civil Society.  Then we'll have a few concluding remarks and a few announcements.

Civil Society, you have the floor.

>> Good afternoon.  I'm not from Civil Society, but from the African IGF Secretariat at the UN Commission for Africa. 

What I will say is the African IGF, output, it was said in December.  When you look at the paragraph 102 of the Agenda, it is indicated that the commissions based on the request of Member States and approved budgetary resource, it may organize the follow‑up activities in collaboration of the regional organizations and continues in paragraph 1, we consider a multistakeholder approach and the implementation activities by the private sector, Civil Society, UN and other international organizations to be essential.

So this is just to let you know that the African IGF, we have the review ‑‑ we have reviewed this, this outcome document and we came up that there is a need for regional reviews as we used to have in the WSIS process and we had sent our contribution, which is a bit reflected in paragraph 59, but which was not what we were asking for so what we want is the following, we call for annual regional review of WSIS+10 outcomes, involving all stakeholders who are Member States, international, regional organizations, a report on progress in achieving the outcomes within the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  Thank you.

>> Thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

I'm from the Internet Democracy Project in India,

I support a lot of the statements that have been made here.  I will try to be short. 

I support everything that was said earlier by Matthew Shears from the Center of Democracy and Technology, including on the importance of being more dynamic in our looking forward efforts.

One point I wanted to specifically stress though is the value that is there in regional review processes and this comes back also to my earlier point about the importance of full development country inclusion, this is easier to achieve if there are actually regular processes looking at something like a review on a regular basis.  Within the text, as the previous speaker mentioned, there is already in paragraph 59 the reference to the UN regional commissions and they could perhaps be mobilized to do this as was done around the earlier summits.

But it would perhaps be a great idea also to explore at the moment whether the regional IGFs may be a better venue to organize this.  Good because they have built a very strong multistakeholder tradition and because they're effective and dynamic and they're already being organized.  If we could combine these reviews with the IGF that would perhaps be a more cost effective way to organize regional reviews on a regular basis.

I would also strongly support suggestions to make the review more analytic, should not just be a reporting on achievements but also an analysis of trends, of gaps, of changes going forward.  This regional analysis could then also be Fed into the review of the WSIS action lines at the WSIS forum as well as the WSIS forum more generally making that more dynamic and analytic as well.

Finally, I wanted to support a comment by my colleague from EPC, on the high‑level meeting and particularly the need for any future review exercise to be fully open and inclusive of all stakeholders at all points of the process.

Many thanks. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you. 

With apologies to the last two, if I could ask you to keep your remarks to one minute, we have to make sure we have time for the Co‑Facilitators to say a few words before they need to leave.

>> Thank you for the opportunity of having this space. 

My name is Sylvia.  I'm Vice President of WTSA.  I'm general director of ALITA, and deeply involved in the ELAT process, the process of Latin America and the region.  I have been involved in WSIS process in the beginning as part of our government.

I would like to congratulate the organizers for the wonderful meeting.  It is amazing.  My first time in this kind of meeting.  A lot of things I have to do and change, the mentality of private sector since this meeting.

I would like to stress the importance of finance mechanisms, that they should be reviewed, the instruments, they still need to be brought and we have to have the joint collaboration.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.  Well done on the time.

Academic, technical, you have the last floor spot.

>> Thank you very much.  Thank you. 

I will be quick,

I want to thank the organizers and the Co‑Facilitators, and I would be glad to inform you that we will be giving specific text inputs that will help with the process as a written comment and also we request that the next stage, if there is a possibility of one more consultation to be held before the meeting it would be very much appreciated and if the meetings may itself be open to more than just government stakeholders. 

Thank you very much. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you. 

I'll hand it over to Benedicto Fonseca Filho for concluding with the formalities and we have announcements at the end.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you for those that participated actively on my own behalf and on behalf of the organizations Committee of the Host Country and the MAG.  I think we have completely fulfilled the purpose of the session to allow the Co‑Facilitators of the preparatory process to have yet another opportunity to interrupt the representatives from governments but also from the stakeholders, especially from the non‑governmental stakeholders, I think that was my view a success.

I would like to turn to the Co‑Facilitators for their final remarks if they wish.  Please.

>> H.E. LANA ZAKI ZUSSEIBEH:  Thank you to all of you here for some of the most enlightening, enriching comments we have heard through the entire process. 

I think we go away with a lot of fresh ideas, perspectives we wouldn't have had and it made our participation here in Brazil valuable.  Thank you for giving us food for thought.  I would like that thank and acknowledge in the presence of the Assistant Secretary‑General, the role that UNDESA has played, we're one team back at the UN with all of your input.  We would like to acknowledge that.

There is so much that was said that I don't think we can comment on each of the individual suggestions and proposals and questions.  I would like to note that I think that submitting it in writing is a very good idea.  Taking ‑‑ I think there was a suggestion from Joe to be creative within the restraints posed by the resolution, it occurred to us, if there is a high level summary of this meeting, it is useful to have that well before the negotiations start next week and what we will commit to do is to circulate that summary to all Member States so that as they're going into the negotiations they also have in front of them your contribution on paper side by side with the textual contributions from Member States, that's one way to ensure that what is said here doesn't simply stay in Joao Pessoa but comes to New York with us and we'll, of course, commit and pledge to represent the views that have been expressed here.  That's one tangible way to take the views here into the negotiations in New York. 

You know, lastly, I would like to thank those of you that have acknowledged that this is a difficult job.  There are divergent views and there is something in the text that everyone finds to like and there is inevitably something in the text that everybody dislikes and we don't think that's a bad thing.  We think that we have managed to compile a lot of very important views, important stakeholders, into this document.

It will not be easy.  I don't want to say it will be easy in the room in New York on the 19th, 20, 24th, 25.  We don't think it will.  We hope not to lose the spirit of this document which has been forged out of a very strong consensus on a number of key areas that are important to taking this very important topic forward and we will pledge as Co‑Facilitators to not let everyone in this room down to look at this document to be forward looking and help them achieve the next decade or two of development, that's essentially what this is about and we shouldn't let that go out of site as we're into text on the negotiations and we pledge not to let that happen. 

Thank you again.  It is a pleasure to be here and to meet so many of you over the last two days, and we take that experience back with us to New York.

Thank you.


Let me say thank you for your statement and for the suggestion that these meetings, going forward for you, it is a summary for circulation, we think that this will increase the value of the session and we really thank you for this. 

Would Janis Mazeiks also like to address us?  You have the floor.

>> H.E. JANIS MAZIEKS: This is unscripted, and this is done for myself, but as mentioned by Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, which indicates that we're indeed ‑‑ first of all, I would like to recognize that this discussion has been as diverse as we had hoped and in fact, expected.  Thank you very much for the organization of this, for this useful panel, and we will of course bring this back to the negotiation table.  Both the new ideas that have been voiced today and also the reiteration of the elements that, of course, have been on the table for some time, but it is worthwhile hearing from the stakeholders how important they are to you.

We are looking forward to your written comments, and I think this idea of compiling one document of today's discussion also is very valuable.

Final points:  We are gratified for the kind words we have heard from you for the work of the conferences and indeed our team who have been working hard for these months and we'll be working hard for another month.

I will be still here tomorrow so looking forward to further possibilities to interact in the meantime.

One more thanks to the organizers also from me.

>> H.E. BENEDICTO FONSECA FILHO: Thank you, Ambassador, for your statement.  We will I'm sure that participants will take the opportunity to further interact with you today and tomorrow.  I would like to join Ambassador Lana in thanking UNDESA for the support of the process throughout and I would also like to through this, I also want to thank the support that's been provided by the IGF Secretariat and by the MAG Chair who is here also with us and I would like to offer the floor to you.  Thank you.

>> Thank you very much, Benedicto Fonseca Filho. 

Dear friends, I'm particularly grateful to all those who intervened during this conversation and the comment on the draft outcome document of the session.  This was actually the wish of the MAG to provide opportunity for a community to interact with the UN ‑‑ with the President of General Assembly or his representatives.  Of course, when we planned this session, some nine months ago, we hoped that that would be a part of the formal process.  Unfortunately it was not possible, nevertheless, as you heard from Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, the report of this session will be circulated in New York as an input to the final negotiation, to the process, and since the President of General Assembly who was invited to attend IGF meeting nominated two ambassadors, Ambassador of United Arab Emirates and Janis Mazeiks to be the representatives here, you were basically talking to the President of The General Assembly.  Thank you very much.  Thank you Co‑Facilitators for being with us and for engaging with the IGF community on the issues of such a crucial importance for all of us. 

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.  We echo that thank you. 

They have provided tremendous support to this, the UN Secretariat, to the transcribers, the translator, and also to the ones that organized this session.  We had the support of Ginger, we have the online participation.  It really does take that many people and certainly more to pull something like this together. 

Just as importantly, echo the thanks to all of the participants here.  This obviously would not have been a successful session without your engagement and your thoughtful exchanges.  Appreciate very much those efforts.

I think the final thing I have to do is ‑‑ I want to announce that there is an exercise ongoing in the demonstration booth area, it is called Imagining the Internet with students.  It is a journalism school.  They have been to many of the IGFs in the past.  They do a great job of capturing kind of the comments and the essence here.  They're looking to do short interviews, 5 questions, 5 minutes.  They'll be here over the course of the week.  They're a non‑profit think tank that actually researches questions of the Internet and perceptions.  Really we would encourage you to stop by.  You will see them.  There are groups of two wondering around with a video camera.

I think I'm to point out that from 2:00 to 3:00 there is a setting the scene for the IGF, and of course then there is the main session as well which begins at 3:00. 

With that, thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho, for joining me here.