Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/wgig/public_html/igf/website8/web/cms/libraries/cegcore2/gcloader.php on line 63
Internet Governance Forum
 Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

IGF 2010
Vilnius, Lithuania
17 September 10

* * *
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
* * *

>> HENRIKAS JUSKEVICIUS:  Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to resume the meeting and open this afternoon's session:  Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward.
My name is Henrikas Juškevicius.  I'm adviser to the Director General of UNESCO on Communication and Information, and Vice President of Eurasian Academy of Television and Radio.  There are 5 spellings of my name, and three other spellings so there's no full database on the Internet but if you want you can call me Henrikas Jush.  Very special prize for the foreigner for pronouncing my name correctly on the first attempt.
This final session of IGF is to review the IGF itself and the impact the Forum has had over the past five years.  As we come to the end of the IGF five year mandate, this session will serve as a check on how well we have done.  Here we achieve the goals set for the Forum by the Tunis Agenda.  How well have those goals been achieved?
We have covered a broad range of issues this week.  The discussion in the main sessions and many parallel events have been very informative.  In preparing for the meeting, we were asked to consider five questions and I simply want to remind you, because today, we do not have panel, and success of this session will depend on your activity.
Are the main themes of 2005 still relevant today?
Are the new themes that are being overlooked in Internet Governance discussions?
From Athens to Vilnius:  Has the context of the discussions changed, and if so, how?
Has Internet Governance globally advanced over the five years of the IGF?
Capacity building:  Where were we five years ago, and where are we now?
I would like now to introduce our moderators, moderator Jonathan Charles, who is very experienced moderator.  You already have seen I think in some sessions, and the moderator for remote comments will be Mr. Rafid Fatani.
So I give all responsibility for them, everything will be bad is their fault.  Everything what is good is mine.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Hello, hello, excellent.  Henrikas, thank you very much indeed.  I'm glad you had to introduce me, because I was dreading introducing you with your very difficult family name.  This afternoon we're going to really take stock of where we are.
We have to remember the IGF doesn't exist in a bubble, and that the Internet has come a long way in the last five years.  What I suppose we want to find out this afternoon is in your view, just how things have changed in terms of Internet Governance.  We want to then work out perhaps you might consider this, how the IGF and the Internet then co exist together for the foreseeable future, because clearly, the IGF doesn't exist in a bubble.  You could perhaps argue that the Internet influences the IGF, and the IGF influences the Internet.
I'm going to call on you to give your views from the floor.  I hope it's going to spark some debate.  We have a little under probably around about a couple of hours to do that.  Then at the end of it Henrikas will give a few conclusions.  If you want to be called perhaps I can ask you to put up your hand, and introduce yourself as I call you.
If you say who you are very clearly for everyone who's watching remotely and who you represent, I think that will be very helpful for our remote viewers, too, and listeners.  We will hopefully make this a nice, exciting dynamic debate because it is an issue which is as dynamic as the Internet itself.  First of all let me call on call on Alun Michael, who will introduce himself.  How about over there?

>> ALUN MICHAEL:  Thank you very much, indeed.  And it's a privilege to be able to respond to those questions.  Alun Michael, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and I also Chair the U.K. IGF.  Can I say that my name is spelled Alun for the benefit of the transcript, so that the Chairman isn't the only person who has to insist on his name being correct.
And I'm not going to try to pronounce it.  Firstly, I think the IGF process has been extremely successful.  The only criticism I would make is the fact that inevitably as we are human beings we can't keep up with the pace of development.  So I think it's developed probably as well and better than we might have expected, and no small thanks to the sensitive way in which the Secretariat has enabled the process to develop.
I want to underline the word "process" because I think there's no doubt that the Internet Governance Forum is not an event one week a year.  It's the process that happens throughout the year and the things that go into and go out of the week as we have here in Vilnius that is important.  Many things have impressed me in the way that they have developed and I don't think they were predicted.  The development of National Internet Governance forums or fora, certainly that was not something we envisaged in the U.K. when the original proposition was there in Tunis but I think it's been a successful development.  We've learned about the need to have a debate within our own country involving Government and industry yes but involving parliamentarians and Civil Society in that process.  I underline that fact because I think there's a tendency sometimes to talk about self regulation when it comes to dealing with difficult and criminal activities, and I don't think it's self regulation that's needed.  It's, if you'd like, a cooperative model of regulation, where the industry leads because that's where the developments are taking place.  They're the people at the cutting edge.
It's important to design in things like safety for young people and so on.  And of course, Government has to be involved, but you can't leave it just to industry and Government alone.  There needs to be transparency and openness, and that's where the engagement of parliamentarians and Civil Society is absolutely vital.
The other things that I think have been particularly exciting are things like the development, as I say, of National IGF processes, but also regional processes in a number of parts of the world.  I was privileged last year to visit the East African IGF and I pay tribute to the way that the country's involved there and again very often the leadership of NGOs has created a very positive model.  It's different from region to region as we were hearing in a discussion that took place this morning but to hear in south Asia and other parts of the world, and in America, the development of an IGF process I think is very encouraging.
It's different in different parts of the world, in Europe, we see two overlapping models developing, one following the larger number of countries involved in the Council of Europe and the other the development involving the European Parliament and Parliamentarians from National Parliaments as well working across the European Union element.  That's not a bad thing.  The fact there's different models developing and it's a light touch approach that it's a developmental approach I think is extremely encouraging.
I also think that the development of a Commonwealth Internet Forum is particularly exciting because of course that stretches from developed countries to developing countries and across several continents, a grouping that's used to debating many issues.  Climate change was one that was very much developed as a debate within the Commonwealth.  And the fact that the Internet issues are being developed I think is very positive.
The engagement of Parliamentarians I think is crucial because there's a tendency when there is a problem to legislate for it and in many ways what we need to do is avoid legislation and regulation that is specific or just for the Internet.  It's people that are the subject of the need for legislation, very often, and laws rarely prevent what they forbid, I think is the best piece of advice ever given to Parliamentarians.  So if we want that approach, the engagement of Parliamentary is crucial.  What I would say is the greater engagement of industry at that National and perhaps regional level, but certainly in the IGF generally, is crucial.  And industry must realise that if there are major concerns emerging from Parliaments and from Civil Society, unless they are part of designing solutions that suit industry then they should not be surprised if the legislative and bureaucratic approach develops and that will not be a good thing because it will be impossible to keep up in the age of the Internet.
And finally I think the engagement of young people is one of the most positive developments.  Last year we I think for the first time heard the voices of young people and my colleague Andrew Miller in the final session then suggested we should see young people on the main stage this year.  That hasn't quite happened.  But we've seen the engagement of young people, their attendance at the    at the IGF here in Vilnius, and a very positive contribution made by them.  And I think we will see the development of the engagement of young people at that sort of more local and National level, and we, as a process, need to be open to the voices of young people.  After all, they've grown up with the Internet.  It's not something new for them, and very often, their approach is quite different from that of older people, and one or two of the sessions here have focused on that question of youth engagement in a way that is most encouraging, and I hope that we will see the direct voices of young people increasingly into every part of the IGF process, including the events in future years, which I sincerely hope we'll see taking place I believe in Kenya next year.  Thank you very much indeed.
[ Applause ]

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Alun Michael, thank you very much indeed.  It's an interesting thought if we're talking about how assessing how the Internet has changed over the past five years that the Internet has grown in a way that couldn't be foreseen and the IGF has also changed in a way which hadn't originally been foreseen with National and regional IGFs and a much more even more grassroots approach to the Internet than we're taking here at the IGF.  We should always remember as we're having this discussion at we're at this crucial moment.  We've had five IGFs now.  We're coming to the end of the fifth IGF, to steal a phrase from Winston Churchill it's not obviously the end    the beginning of the end it is in fact probably the end of the beginning.  This is process even though it was only a visage for five years is probably just starting in its way.  Who would like to speak next?  Gentleman here first.  Yes.

>> VINCE CERF:  Good afternoon, my name is Vince Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, and I'd like to respond to several of the questions raised by the Chairman.  First of all, with regard to young people, perhaps we should have a T shirt next year that reads:  Don't look back, there's a 13 year old gaining on you.
Let me respond to how the Internet has changed in the last five years.  First of all, we're soon to run out of IP version 4 address space and it's time to get IPv6 implemented.  Second, there have been some significant improvements in Internet resilience, specifically, the domain name Security Extensions, the routing RPKI mechanism which is still in its early stages.  The use of IP SEC on an end to end basis other wise known as HTTPS.  The introduction of internationalized domain names in the Top Level Domain name system, those are all rather important and recent changes to the Internet and of course it continues to involve apace.
I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we consider in a year's time assuming that we will convene again in Kenya, several specific actions.  With regard to the meeting there, I, for one, would be very grateful to hear from our colleagues there at AfriNOG and AfriNIC how progress is being made in the proliferation of Internet and Internet access.  I'm sure there are other institutions besides those two who could be prepared to present their results.
I would also look very much to hear from them about barriers and problems that they're encountering.  Second, I think as a matter of practice, the Internet Governance Forum which is intended as a place where we discuss and raise issues, but we don't necessarily achieve either consensus or action, that we undertake in this Forum to identify the location, the venue, in which those problems might be address, and that we seriously take that as a matter of responsibility, and in the following year, ask ourselves:  How much progress have we made in pursuing a particular goal?  Let me give you a simple example.  There are Brazilian colleagues who presented a list of 10 things earlier this week.  These are principles I think could be widely and generally accepted.  In fact, I would go so far as to suggest we should be interested in an international proliferation treaty, not a non proliferation treaty but a proliferation treaty to promulgate not only those principles but the Internet that goes with them and we might ask ourselves, in what venue could such a treaty or agreement be made?  And second, can we measure progress?  I want to mention just one other thing as a concrete idea emerging out of this week's discussion:  There has been a great deal of concern, I'm sure, as all of you know, with regard to safety and security in the Internet environment.  And we all recognize that there are various kinds of threats that interfere with the use of the net by citizens and by Governments and others.
Sometimes this is    this discussion is lodged in a crime based framework, and I have suggested in one of our workshops that we might think about attacks against the network in the same way we would think about a fire in a building.  What you typically do when a fire is burning the building is to call the Fire Department, not the Police Department.  After the Fire Department has put out the fire, there are questions about arson, there are questions about how the fire started.  Indeed, there may be need for legal investigation.  When the Fire Department looks to find out if this was a fire that was started on purpose, evidence of that needs to be captured.  And now we get into legal questions like:  What are the rules of evidence?  How do we establish chain of custody of information that's relevant to a legal proceeding?
In the case of a cyberfire, similar kinds of concerns would apply, but the first objective is to put the fire out.  The people whose cybersystems are on fire may not be prepared to respond themselves.  They may need help, and having a place to turn to, or places to turn to, for that kind of help strikes me as an interesting proposition.  The question again, Mr. Chairman, is:  In what venue might we pursue the creation of or experiment with such a cyberfire Department idea?  So I leave that as some concrete suggestions for consideration in the remainder of this session.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  It's an interesting thought that the development of the Internet now may require some more results oriented discussion in some venue, maybe other people would like to comment on that.  You will see people going around with pieces of paper.  I think if you want to comment and you want to be called, feel free to fill in one of those pieces of paper.  My colleague will sort them all out and we'll be able to call you.  We were just hearing there about the fact if you look behind you maybe a 13 year old is gaining ground on you.  I don't think our next speaker is 13 but let's talk to someone, let's call someone from the youth coalition on Internet Governance, Joonas Makinen.  Perhaps you'd like to go to that microphone and give us your views, sir.

>> JOONAS MAKINEN:  Actually, he will start in just a moment.

>> RAFIK DAMMAK:  My name is Rafik Dammak, youth coalition on Internet Governance.  I'm not going to speak in the statement of our coalition but I will let my friend Joona fill in.  I'm happy he'll speak our segment because it's his first IGF and he's also a new member of our coalition.  Please.

>> JOONAS MAKINEN:  Thank you very much.  The statement has been created by members of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance.  We're pleased that many more young people are participating in the IGF this year to share our input and opinions on how the Internet should be governed and we urge the U.N. to give the new five year term for this unique opportunity to share ideas and collaborate on action.
Although progress has been made towards the full inclusion of young people, there remains a recurring problem that in many sessions the voices of children, young people, and young adults have not always been invited or listened to.  It is a great shame that sessions discuss youth issues solely from an adult point of view, instead of youth discussing the future of the Internet as equal stakeholders with all other participants.
Firstly, young people have a unique experience on the as early adopters of new technologies.  Hence we have the first hand information and knowledge on what needs to be done to make the Internet a better place for all of us.  Already, youth around the world are taking part in the process of Internet Governance.  For example, the youth IGF project in the U.K., and the youth IGF camp in Hong Kong have contributed key insights and action points on issues of censorship, privacy and digital divide.
Their statements, statements from young people at EuroDIG 2010 and from the youth Dynamic Coalition meeting at Sharm el Sheikh which we encourage you to read about at, contain considerable depth which has been lacking from dialogues where youth voices are absent or where adults have not taken time to listen.
Secondly, youth reinforce the multistakeholder approach of the YGF by bringing new ideas and skills.  In fact, in many cases, young people are the experts.  We can help improve the IGF.  After all, we are the decision makers and entrepreneurs of the future, not just in the future.  We are citizens of the net today.
And thirdly, we bring energy and skills to are resolve core Internet Governance challenges.  We're more than willing to collaborate with workshop leaders and IGF stakeholders to support a greater diversity of voices to be involved.  Youth need to be seen as stakeholders and as an asset not as a problem.  We believe that the Internet Governance dialogue is made richer by focusing on the opportunities, and addressing the times when they're not realised rather than using fear based arguments to restrict Internet freedoms.  It is better to focus on fighting ignorance and building digital literacy than applying safety strategies based on restriction.
We have established a coalition not to compete with or replace many youth groups who have come to play a role in the regional and international IGF process over recent years.  Instead, we want to bring together the message from many different groups.  There is not a single voice of youth, but there are many important youth perspectives on the Internet Governance debate.
Let us not waste time talking about the youth, but let the youth talk.  Young people are major users of technology and Internet services.  We could all benefit from the knowledge the youth has.  It is not enough that young people are simply showcased, allowed to express their concern for a few minutes and then ignored.  As we hope will not happen right now.
All youth, children, young people, and young adults from all genders, backgrounds and cultures, should already be discussing the Internet, instead of stakeholders only discussing the need of their participation.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.
[ Applause ]
As we, before we move on to our next speaker perhaps I could just throw something out there.  There is this question we're discussing this afternoon as to whether or not Internet Governance is keeping up with the pace of change in the Internet.  And Bob Kahn said something at lunchtime which I hope you won't mind me repeating, a very interesting thought.  That was that we should perhaps devote some of our speaking time at future IGFs to the idea of looking further ahead because we spend a lot of time looking at the current issues, when actually, the Internet is moving faster than we are sometimes.  And maybe there is a case for sometimes throwing our perspective 10 or 15 years ahead and have some very specific broader blue skies thinking on that.  That may be something you want to reflect on as you frame your discussion this afternoon.
I'd like to call from ICC BASIS, Katia, if she's here.  If you want to use that microphone just there maybe.

>> KATIA BODARD:  I'm Katia Bodard representing ICC BASIS.  I'd like to respond to the questions raised by the Chair at the opening of this session.  Concerning the main themes of 2005, the business representation believes they're still very much relevant today.  Of course, we have seen that the interconnection between the issues themselves have been evolved in the discussion, but this in itself also shows that the discussions will continue to be the case in the future.  And the flexible and multistakeholder nature of the IGF enables it to be timely each year and address emerging issues of the day.  
Each year, we see a new main session topic and emerging issues session which both bring new issues into the discussion.  We do not believe that there are specific Internet Governance issues which are overlooked.  We do encourage continued evolution of the broader topics and consistent integration of new IGF policy issues which are on the horizon.
The context of the discussion has changed to address evolving issues of today, which is quite productive.  The discussion of security, openness, privacy is actually a good example of how the main session discussions have changed.  Indeed, it was recognized that the emerging policy challenges were about balancing three elements appropriately which led indeed again to a new focus for the discussions.
The workshops have also become increasingly more balanced in terms of the viewpoints which have been expressed, and in cooperating audience participation.  Participants are getting more familiar and also more comfortable with the interactive discussion formed and again this makes the exchange more substantive.  ICC BASIS also believes that Internet Governance has advanced over the five years of the IGF.  We watch an ever increasing number of National and regional IGF initiatives, which is really a testament to these advancements.
During the workshops this week, you could also notice that the fact that this regional and National IGFs exist are helping also to raise awareness of the IG as a concept.  The range of workshop and open Forum events as well as increased participation from stakeholders from developing countries, in particular, are also a demonstration of how the discussions have evolved.  National and regional IGF initiatives are really a testament to the increased human and institutional capacity building, and indeed of the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in IG discussions at all levels.
It is perhaps difficult to measure capacity building, but there is an increase in the stakeholders who have engaged in the IGF, and are now involved in ICANN and other processes, and we as business representation believe strongly that the IG Governance should be continued in the future.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  It's an interesting thought.  There does seem to be almost a feeling over the past few years a community of interest has arisen in Internet Governance rather than a conflict of interest, which it might have felt slightly like that at the very beginning of the process and maybe that is an interesting thought to keep in mind during this discussion.
I'd like to call on Maria Hall from the Swedish Government who wants to give a Swedish response to the questions of this stock taking session.  We can bring a microphone to you, yes.

>> MARIA HALL:  Hello?  Is this working?  Thank you very much.  I'm Maria Hall from the Swedish Government, Ministry of Enterprise and Communications.  On behalf of Sweden I'd like to express our deepest thanks to the hosting country, Lithuania, to Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer and the rest of the Secretariat and all participants that once again made this IGF a success.
In this statement I'll try to answer the question for the stock taking session.
It has been a great pleasure to be here again at yet another Internet Governance Forum and many things has evolved since the first one.  Discussions are more mature, current new and interesting subjects are brought up, as well as the still relevant themes of critical Internet resources, access, diversity and openness and security.
Things are discussed in a relaxed way and experiences are shared in a true multistakeholder environment.  Another thematic area which should be further explored is the Internet and its function as a Democratic arena where Human Rights including freedom of expression and freedom of information are important principles.  We welcome with appreciation that IGF deals much more profoundly with Human Rights issues now and in the past.  This process should continue and Sweden believes that Human Rights approach should be applied to all areas of Internet Governance.
The IGF is well suited to promote such discussions, and we encourage more Government to take an active role in this process.  Net neutrality as well as responsibility and different roles of immediate areas are issues that would benefit from more analysis from a Human Rights perspective.  Internet uses has increased and also awareness of Internet Governance.  The numbers of participants from Government, private sector, Civil Society as well as technical community has therefore increased.
That's one of the many positive outcomes of the IGF process, and these will for sure also continue to evolve.  Another positive outcome is the development of regional and National Internet Governance processes, which increase international inclusiveness, as well as local and regional multistakeholder dialogue and capacity building.  As Sweden said before we support a continuation of the IGF with its multistakeholder, non binding principles and present structures intact.  The wonderful thing with IGF is that    has been and still is ongoing development for the IGF, since the start five years ago.
And this will continue within the IGF process.  This self development process and power pushing involvement and capacity building is something remarkable and something to be proud of.
We want to see a Working Group follow this and take this into consideration in their discussions of the development of the IGF.  Sweden also wants to support a structure and forming of the present Geneva based IGF Secretariat and the effect that IGF funding is based on donations.  This ensures process to be unbiased and independent.  The Secretariat funding and functioning models should be reviewed in the CSD Working Group.  The IGF process continues to evolve every year within these fantastic multistakeholder environment.  Let's keep it this way.
Let's invite and stimulate more ways to participate and let our own engagement continue to be the driving force of this process of development of the IGF for many years to come.  This is the true IGF spirit.  Thank you.  

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  Let me call on now
someone from civil society, Valeria Betancourt.

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT:  Thank you.  My name is Valeria Betancourt,
and I am speaking on behalf of the association for progressive
communications, APC.  APC is committed to the continuation of the IGF
and to the strengthening of global, regional and signal IGFs.  We
believe and have experienced the IGF contributing to the development of
Internet governance practice in a more integrated way by informing the
way and enriching our understanding of Internet public policy issues,
actors, spaces and challenges.
By offering a platform for open dialogue including the exchange of
ideas among different stakeholders and institutions, we have built
relationships and alliances -- sorry -- that support us in our work.
An international space for open exchanges on matters of public policy
affecting the Internet must continue to thrive in conjunction with
regional and national processes which are evolving according to local
particularities and priorities.
If the IGF is to continue, APC would like to see us find ways to make
IGF outcomes more visible and even tangible without compromising the
nonbinding and nondecision-making nature of our deliberations.
Finally we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
government of Lithuania and the IGF Secretariat for hosting a very
successful IGF, thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much.  We're talking about the
need for tangibility in some form within the context of the IGF.
Again, something that you might want to bear in mind as you contribute
to this discussion.
Let me call upon Emily Taylor who is obviously a member of the MAG.
There we go.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank very much.  I'd like to take up your
challenge, Jonathan and reflect on some of the tangible achievements
that the IGF has made in capacity-building.
Back in 2006 one of the greatest barriers to developing countries was
the cost of interconnection.  Thanks to contacts built within the IGF,
there are now a growing number of Internet exchange points in Africa.
And these directly reduce the cost of interconnection.
Secondly, as a stake holder group the technical community understands
the importance of sharing experiences and best practices.  And thus
build up human capacity through the exchange of ideas, processes, and
knowledge of what didn't work as well as what did.
Best practices have taken place within the IGF from the beginning.
Now the IGF has published a collection of those best practice reports
to stand as a capacity-building resource for colleagues around the
world.  The Tunis Agenda called for the creation of processes at the
national and regional level.  And the last five years has seen the
burgeoning of regional IGFs as many speakers have already mentioned.
Now, these processes identify local issues and bring together those
who may be unable to travel to the international meetings.  They build
capacity through dialogue on Internet governance issues and extend the
multistakeholder model of governance throughout the world.
Finally, the IGF has used the power of the Internet to enable many to
join these meetings through remote participation.  I believe there are
more than 30 regional hubs participating in this meeting, and many
workshops have had presentations via remote participation.
Each main session has had a remote moderator.  The IGF Secretariat
has exploited on line social networking and other media to extend
participation and awareness of the IGF throughout the year.
Finally, the contribution of individuals should not be underestimated
in this process.  At the outset the scope for dysfunction within the
multistakeholder environment was immense, especially after we all
emerged from the bruising World Summit on the Information Society.
Nitin Desai, and Markus Kummer have -- within the well-funded
Secretariat in Geneva.  Because they made this look easy doesn't mean
that it was.  In all, the IGF is a vibrant process, growing in
confidence and strength.  Its flexible, informal structure enables it
to adapt and change rapidly without outside intervention.  Long may it
continue in this form.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  Maybe you have
views on this organic growth as the way forward, as Emily was
suggesting.  The way IGFs that proved itself capable of adapting to
this environment.  We are looking at Internet governance within the
contents that the Internet is changing.  I would like to call on Mitsuo
Tanabe -- which have spread out for this session.

>> MITSUO TANABE:  My name is Tanabe, from the Ministry of Internet
Affairs and Communications in Japan.
On this occasion I would like to make some short comments.  I would
like to make my comments according to the five questions.
Okay.  Our first one, the importance of the main themes such as
openness, security, diversity, and the access is now still growing.
The former has proven to be of a nature to all concern.  And I think
this tradition will continue.  The main themes of 2005 are still
important today.
Second question, various workshops are held during every IGF and the
in previous meetings new themes such as safety of the Internet for the
youth people, social networking, and this and cloud computing are
discussed in the main session.
I think there are no themes that are being overlooked in the Internet
governance discussions.
The third one, that the development of the Internet is so rapid that
what was mainstream today is now going to old fashioned.  In Japan, as
a study group was held to discuss about network neutrality such as
equitability of share of the networking cost.  And fairness of the
utilization of network.
And we also formulate another study group.  It was held on the IPv6
development.  And we tried to push for joint efforts by the government
and the private sector to promote IPv6 farther.  And we have
educational programmes for the engineers through the use of IPv6 tester
base.  And we created an action plan for various players.  This is an
examples we discuss and consider how to deal with various topics.
Covering Internet governance in Japan.
In light of our experience, I believe IGF is a good place to discuss
various topics.  The first one, various multistakeholders gather at the
IGF from across the world.  And many topics of Internet governance are
And as a result we can say that Internet governance has globally
advanced over the five years to this IGF forum.
Finally, I think that the IGF is an ideal forum for the
multistakeholders to air through views and to work toward fulfilling
the needs of the people all over the world for responsible Internet
In conclusion, I will -- I would like to say I will support the
continuation of the IGF.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much, indeed.
Well, let's hear from another member of the youth coalition on
Internet governance now, Rafik Dammak, here somewhere.  Did he?
He was passed.  Okay.  Can I call on Chris Disspain from the
Australian domain name.

>> CHRIS DISSPAIN:  That's the first time I have seen my name spelled
that way.  Chris Disspain, the CEO of the Australian domain
administrator and the chair of ICANN's country code name supporting
organisation.  I would like to address a couple of the questions raised
by the chair.
The context provided by IGF has made a real difference to the
dialogue.  From Athens to here in Vilnius, the issue of critical
resources was the source of acrimony around the Summit on the Internet
Society.  Successive discussions of the nonthreatening environment of
the IGF have helped.  We may not agree about the best way forward but
at least we have a better understanding of the reasons why we disagree.
The implements of the IGF can be seen in changes to the ccTLD and
ICANN environments over the past five years.  The IGF in previous
countries highlighted the importance of internationalized domain names
in bringing the Internet to those who are not served by Latin scripts
and in the critical resources in Vilnius on Thursday we heard from
the Russian ccTLD which has introduced its ccTLD.
The multistakeholder environment enables policy discussions to be informed
by real world examples from the technical community, industry, and
civil society.
Again, in the CIR session on Wednesday we heard from the German
government, from venders and Internet service providers as well as a
number of resource allocators about their experience of introducing
IPv6.  We also heard how the Haitian ccTLD kept going through the worst
national disaster of that country through a cooperation of off-shore
service and cooperation within the technical community.
AuDA looks forward to participating in the work of the CSTD in
helping to identify potential improvements to the IGF.
Our studies off the consultation responses on the IGF shows that 87
percent of respondents want the IGF to continue as is or with some
minor changes which can be achieved without major structural reform.
Throughout its five-year mandate the IGF through a combination of its
flexible structure and the leadership of Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer
have been -- shown able to adapt in response to feedback.  Last year
people felt there was not enough of a link between the workshops and
the main sessions.
This year by designating feeder workshops, that link was made.  And
it created a different type of dialogue in the main sessions.  The
discussions were actually illustrated by many examples of what is
really happening on the ground.
Finally, auDA recognizes the contribution made by the technical
community during all of the IGFs.  The technical community has been
generous with funding, in-kind donations and expertise.  We hope that
the technical community will be recognized as a stake holder group in
its own right during the upcoming discussions on the IGF.
Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Chris, thank you very much.  Clearly it's going
to be an afternoon for mispronounced and misspelled names, that is one
theme running through our session this afternoon.
Let me call on Nurani Nimpuno now, from NETNOD -- let's keep bearing
in mind that this whole discussion should be framed, of course, in the
thought that the IGF doesn't exist, as I keep saying, this bubble.  We
have to see it in the context of the Internet.  We are after all
talking about Internet governance rather than organisation in its own
NURANI NIMPUNO:  My name is Nurani Nimpuno, and I work for NETNOD,
which is based in Sweden.  I'd like to start by thanking Nitin Desai
and Markus Kummer and the IGF Secretariat.  I have seen how they work
behind the scenes to make each IGF a success.  And I believe that
without them the IGF wouldn't have grown to what it is today.
I believe that continuing to have an independent and committed
Secretariat is vital for the future of the IGF.
I remember attending the first IGF in Athens five years ago rather
confused about what this forum was actually about.  It was
significantly different to the technical meetings I was used to
attending, and the suits to T-shirt ratio was quite overwhelming.  The
IGF we see today is of a very different nature, not only towards the
dress code I might say but in terms of maturity.
We've seen the IGF evolve each year, changing as the Internet
evolves.  It has allowed more people to participate through remote
participation and through its inclusive nature, strengthening new
partnerships.  But we've also seen discussions mature as the IGF has
grown.  From the early days with discussions centred more on abstract
political matters we have seen a move towards more concrete and
constructive discussions with more tangible outcomes.  Both in
workshops as well as in the main sessions.
For us as a technical organisation the IGF has provided new channels
and partnerships which in the -- enabled us to further contribute to
the strengthening of Internet infrastructure in other parts of the
world.  The unique molt Phi stake holder with governance, civil
society, private sector and the technical community come together has
proven to be the key to the IGF success.  It is not fruitful to discuss
capacity-building without the presence of the technical people who have
the relevant technical clue present.  Just as one cannot discuss
national policies without the presence of governance.
The national and regional IGFs are not only one of the great outcomes
of the IGF but it has also shown that the open, inclusive
multistakeholder model is a model to be inspired by in other forums as
The open exchange of ideas a forum like this allows for is something
that would not have been possible had it not been for the open,
nonbinding multistakeholder model of the IGF has enjoyed.  Eye strongly
hope the IGF will continue in this spirit in Nairobi, and beyond.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much.  Next I'd like to ask
Malcolm Hutty, to speak.

>> MALCOLM HUTTY:  I'm Malcolm Hutty from LINX, the London Internet
I'd like to speak a bit about the practical benefits that I have
obtained through participation in the Internet governance forum.
LINX is one of the largest Internet exchange points in the world and
therefore has a particular interest in building understanding of the
contribution this Internet exchange points can make to capacity
building and to developing infrastructure around the world.  This year
I particularly benefitted from renewing the contact that we've had over
many years with Internet exchanges in Africa.
I first met the founder of the Kenyan Internet exchange, the
admirable Michuki Mwangi, and we continued information exchange at IGF
and in between meetings ever since.  The Kenyan Internet exchange now
goes from strengths to strength and is a shining successful example in
Africa.  And he now provides his experience and expertise through the
Internet society to help develop other IXPs around Africa.  Many of
these IXPs are been founded over the last five years in large part as a
result of the growth and understanding of the benefit of Internet
exchanges that the IGF has supported.
I would offer this as one small but valuable and concrete example of
the contribution that the Internet technical community has both brought
to the IGF and taken from it.  I would therefore call on the CSTD as it
considers how to advise the UN on how the IGF might evolve and
hopefully renewed mandate to ensure that the Internet technical
community is fully included within their deliberations and decision
making according to the multistakeholder principle that has served the
IGF so well.
Finally, may I say that the IGF has already proven its ability to
improve itself.  Two years ago I spoke in the stock checking section
and I called for a step change in the level of facilities available for
remote participation.  With video services and automatic
transliteration available not only in the main conference session but
also in every workshop room, our Lithuanian hosts have risen
commendably to this challenge, and I would like to commend them.  Thank

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much and of course Malcolm
raising the issue of how Internet governance and the exchange on
Internet governance should perhaps evolve.  He thinks it should evolve.
Maybe you think it should too.  Maybe you don't.  But whether and how
it should evolve is one of the issues perhaps you'd like to speak about
this afternoon.  May I keep reminding you the people are going around
with these forms.  If you want to speak fill one out with your name and
your organisation and we'll call you up.
Next I'd like to call Parminder, for IT for change.  Where are you
Ah.  Nope.  Where is Parminder sitting?

>> PARMINDER SINGH:  Thank you.  I'll make some comments off the top
of my head.  I wasn't -- I did not know that it's rather formal
statement kind of session.


>> PARMINDER SINGH:  Started to seem like that.  Some of them will
probably be more sobering than the comments which have been coming till
now.  In the first few sentences I would like to say what I think has
been changing about the Internet in the last five years and what has
been changing about Internet governance.  And I think I would say too
big things have changed about the Internet.  One is it -- about its
extent and scope.  The more people, many more people using the Internet
today, and therefore many different kinds of people using the Internet
today than they were using five to ten years back.
And Internet is involved in much wider range of social activity than
it was involved.  Which is all very good news.  But that brings up a
political issue.
When different kind of people use Internet for variety of different
kind of acts, differential interests come in.  It becomes more of a
political question than it was earlier when there were more or less
users of the same kind which similar interests and similar backgrounds
using the Internet for a small range of function.
And then you are confronted with more political questions.  And this
has happened.  Internet has changed in a manner which requires now more
political issues to be addressed and greater political governance of
The second thing is about the architecture of the Internet.  And here
the news is rather worse.
I think -- I do know it.  I mean, about six, seven years, Internet
was a network of tens and thousands of networks.  And increasingly --
so the evaluation of power and the Internet is increasing.
Increasingly very few companies dominate the Internet and as Internet
is used by the people today, it involves being within the -- the
appropriate environment of certain applications.  So issues like
network neutrality, cloud computing, wireless Internet is changing the
Internet in manner that there's consolidation of power and loss of
diversity on the Internet.  And this -- this consolidation of power
again needs a political response for the people, for the common people
to reduce that consolidation, to democratize power on the Internet.
And therefore this second kind of change, which Internet has gone
through, again calls for a more political response.
So as you see, the two big changes which I identified about the
Internet over this last few years, both had one -- both have one thing
in common, which is it requires a more political response.  And then
you come to the question of how Internet governance has changed, has it
been able to give that political response to the -- to the needs that
have arisen.
The good news first.  What has changed positively about Internet
governance is that national governments are more aware about the kind
of issues which are involved.  They're able to take care of national
issues in definitely much better than they could do a couple years
back.  At the global level as well there's more -- people are talking
to each other, they know each other's perspectives better.  But if we
were to ask one direct question that has Internet governance at the
global level changed, improved, I'm not very sure.  As said, the
requirements, the needs have become many fold, they have changed many
fold.  But the response, the political response at the global level
have more or less not changed.  And that's my opinion.
And where there are themes have evolved, they need to change.  I
think the themes have been good.  They still serve the purpose, but in
many statement, we need more tangible outcome, we need to start
addressing more specific questions, take a question, hammer it out, get
something out of it.  Even if it -- the end there is a diversity of
use, but we should be able to make progress on clear questions of
social media, network neutrality, interconnection charges.  Choose a
couple of questions and let's try to make progress on that.
Has the participation increased?
It is -- it has increased in one manner.  We see more developing
country people here.  They know more about the issues.  But I'm not
very sure, because we keep on talking about the marginalized people.
And that's the -- that moral conscious people which governs all our
discussions.  You about if you had asked me the question directly has
the participation of the marginalized people increased, I don't see
much signs of it.
Marginalized people would have to be -- would have to participate
through representation, through governments, through NGOs, through
societies groups, community-based groups.  Which work with them.  And
their participation has to increase before we can say the participation
has really increased.  And on this I think still we have a long way to
And the IGF is increasing participation, it's increasing awareness.
The next step ask to channel the kind of what we have done at IGF into
real global policy making.  And that's the next challenge.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Parminder, thank you very much.  And I think on
that tangibility issue which lots of people are raising, your workshop
I was struck heavily by your name-based outcomes.  I thought that was
rather good.  I thought it did concentrate minds that you were
searching very hard for solutions as well as for identifying the
problems.  You raise the issue of pace of change and change.  That's
something I want to continue with our next two people I'm going to
call.  First of all from ISOC, Vittorio Bertola, the risk of losing the
core principles of the Internet.

>> VITTORIO BERTOLA:  I'm Vittorio Bertola, from the European Council
of Society.  But I would like to make an informal personal statement as
a long time participant in Internet policies, addressing the question
of what has changed in the five years.  There are two issues that five
years ago were just starting to appear and that now I think are really
pressing.  One is the emergence of discriminatory behavior by Internet
service providers on content.  So the issue of network neutrality.  And
the attempts by Internet service providers and content providers to
form alliances and maybe to bring consolidation into the market.
And the other one is social networks, which I find an unfortunate way
of even defining this concept because it's not really a network.  It's
actually a database.  A network is something which connects information
starting in different places.  While here what we have is a
concentration of a huge amount of personal information in a single
point and in the hands of a single entity.
Which is the exact opposite of what the Internet is about.  That the
basic principles of the architecture of the Internet are that
information is to be distributed, intelligence, and control has to be
at the edges.  And there must not be any centre controlling point.
What we see both with such a -- and with the violations of network
neutrality is the emergence of controlling points.  And the push
towards consolidation, which really -- to let the Internet change
fundamentally.  So we are actually at risk of not having the Internet
anymore.  As it happened in the past with other media.  Because when
independent television networks were introduced at the beginning, there
were hundreds of them.  They were independent.  There were a lot of
different views, different content and freedom going on.
And in the end in most countries we ended up with one, two.  So we --
total consolidation and control of the flow of information.
So I think that the -- IGF as a community has to think of whether it
wants to address these questions which are really pressing, I think.
It's nice to come here to have discussions, it's important.  It helps
to raise awareness.  But then at a certain point in time we have to
provoke some change.  So maybe the question for everyone that I would
like to leave to everyone is how do we actually address these questions
and get something changed.  Or maybe not changed so we can actually get
something done to protect the original principles of the Internet.
Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed, Vittorio.  That word change is cropping up in every speech.  Interesting enough of course a lot of people are raising this issue of how and whether the IGF should respond to that fast pace of change, exactly how it moves forward.  Let's stick on the subject of change.  It's difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of change.  Andrew Miller wanted to say something about that.

>> ANDREW MILLER:  Andrew Miller, member of the British Parliament and in the Parliament.  I Chair the Science Select Committee, and for many years throughout my adult life, I've been struggling with some of the impacts of technologies on society, and it's an area I concentrate on a lot.
And I just want to reflect on the pace of change, just in my relatively short life.  I know I'm getting a little frail these days, but when I was a child, I lived in Malta and flying from the U.K. to Malta the plane used to have to refuel at Nice.  Now you can fly 3/4 of the way around the world, much, much faster, with such ease.
Similarly, Jonathan, your predecessors in the BBC could provide us with one channel, and one channel only, and that came through pipes.  It was the prediffusion world service, and in this hall thanks to the wonders of the technology applied by our Lithuanian hosts, I read the BBC news on my Blackberry yesterday faster than I can read it at home.  That's the pace of change that we're facing.
And I think you're right, that the Internet is moving faster than us.  The more I've wrestled with these challenges of these problems, the more I've come to the conclusion that Governments alone cannot provide the solutions, and I am a very strong supporter of the partnerships that have been created within networks like this, bringing together industry, academia, Civil Society, all the key players that can deal with some of the issues.
One of the reasons why it's worked, and I want to echo the words that Emily Taylor used and the lady from Sweden, is because of the independence of the Secretariat, and more than that, because of the caliber of the two people in particular, Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.  We should thank them for the work they've done.  We were asked if we should be looking forward and the answer is yes.  We need to be horizon scanning in a way that is not looking    trying to look 20 years ago because that's crazy.  Things are moving so fast.  But if you just look back to the programme of the IGF, where was cloud computing at the beginning of this process?  Just as an example.
And yet today I went to what I think was the best session plenary session I've been to in the IGF and that was very well managed on cloud computing.  And there's a precise example of why this isn't Governments and treaties alone.  The complexities of cloud challenges all of us.  There's nobody in this room who can deal with the philosophical issues, the legal issues, the globalization issues, the technical issues, the challenges in cloud alone which technically are inevitable, they're going to be facing us big time, cannot be left to Governments alone.
Similarly, if you look at the workshop I think again Jonathan you were there on disabilities, some of the technologies that were on display there were stunning.  Japanese broadcasters' presentation.  I think technologies like that, we need to really do some horizon scanning and see where we can take those technologies, not just for the needs of the people with the particular disabilities they're being targeted at but because there are enormous potential markets there which will drive down the cost of facilities like that for people with disabilities.  So, yes, we ought to be looking forward, as well.
And perhaps finally, Jonathan, is a bit of a challenge to you, because one of the things that we need to reflect on, and this came up in one of the report backs we had in the U.K. IGF, were somebody said we should be asking ourselves not about who is here, but who isn't here.  And this is where there's a particular problem that the media can help us with, because by and large, there aren't party political differences.  The U.K. delegation are as of one and we're working with Alun and I both opposition members, we're working with Government members on a common agenda.  And that's true in most countries.  That's great.  The trouble is, that doesn't make very good news, and one of the challenges is how do we answer that question about how do we reach out to the people who ought to be here, who ought to be part of this Forum, who are not yet engaged in their own countries?
And my plea to the media representatives that are here, if you take this event seriously, see what you can do within your community to help us develop the network even stronger than it is now.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Andrew, thank you very much indeed.
[ Applause ]
Perhaps you and Alun could stage a quick argument in order to drum up interest.  I agree I think it's about raising the profile of these multistakeholder debates particularly actually when as increasingly they're becoming as I said earlier communities of interest rather than conflicts of interest.  I think you're right.  In that sense it's less news worthy but in another way it's more news worthy because you're more likely to make progress.
Let's call on Jeff Brueggeman from AT&T.  He wants to speak about the progress of the IGF and the way forward.  Jeff?

>> Jeff Brueggeman:  Thank you very much.  I would like to draw a distinction between both assessing the progress of Internet Governance and then looking forward, and in assessing the progress, one way to think about it is to consider how the IGF is adapting to the rapid change that you mentioned compared to other organisations and entities and I think in that context, the multistakeholder framework of the IGF has shown that it's very adept at adapting to the technological change both in terms of identifying issues, expanding a global perspective, and identifying more importantly solutions.
So I think as we just heard, that the multistakeholder framework will show itself to be a framework that is best matched to the rapid structure and change of the Internet itself.
Another way to think about and assess Internet Governance is to consider how would things be different if we didn't have the IGF?  And again, I think unquestionably, we are better off for having gone through this process for the past five years.  I think the IGF has shown it has really developed, as others have noted, a culture and an opportunity for the various stakeholders to learn how to interact with each other, and again, work together to identify solutions.
I also think that the local and regional IGFs are not only beneficial in and of themselves be are reflective of the desire to take the discussions that happened at the global IGF and continue them and expand the dialogue with even more people at the National and regional level.
So in terms of the way forward, I think the foundational principle has to be maintaining this framework, this multistakeholder framework, in its existing model, which has shown itself to be flexible enough to accommodate the rapid change, and can accommodate the enhancements and other suggestions that we're hearing about today.  And in that vain I have a couple of specific suggestions myself.
In terms of tangible outcomes I'd like to commend the Secretariat for the compilation of best practices released this year.  I think that's a great example of the type of information assembling and distribution that can help to provide some more documentation of the outcomes of the IGF.  And that should be continued.
I would also like to say that the    we should continue to look for other ways to strengthen the feedback loop between the global IGF and the National and regional IGFs so that they complement each other, and the discussion should flow in both directions between, so that the global discussion is supporting and also being informed by those National and regional IGFs.  Finally I'd like to comment on youth participation.
I had the opportunity to participate in a digital citizenship workshop where we actually had some teenagers from the U.K., and they were not just there to listen to our opinions but in fact, to participate in the discussion, and I think we all found that to be an extremely beneficial part of our experience.  And the suggestion was made in that workshop to try and think about other ways to maybe populate youth throughout the workshops not just targeting digital citizen ship specifically but think about how we can include them in the discussion on other issues as well.
So finally I'd just like to say that AT&T strongly supports the continuation of the IGF.  I think it's made an enormous amount of progress and I look forward to all the benefits we can have by continuing to work together.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Jeff, thank you very much indeed.
[ Applause ]
One thing's been very clear to me during the three IGFs that I've been to is the very impressive contribution from the Brazilian Government, always thought provoking and interesting papers, Everton, your comments, please.

>> Everton Lucero:  Thank you, thank you very much, Jonathan.  Mr. Chairman, the Brazilian Government fully supports the IGF.  Actually, we were honoured to host the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro in 2007.  And we, now that we are at the very last day of this 5 year cycle that started in 2006 in Athens, it's more than appropriate that we engage in this exercise of taking stock and also preparing our way forward because without pre judging the decision that will be taken later by the General Assembly of the United Nations, there are indications that the IGF will continue, and this is a view that my Government fully supports.
Continuation of    so I believe that it is important for us to get back a little bit to where we were when we started, and we were, in fact, we came here to the IGF from very different positions, different backgrounds, and different views of how to use and run the Internet.  And some of us were in very retrenched positions.  We were not in a position of accepting or even to listen to others' views, and if there is one thing that is a result of the IGF during these five years is that we were able to express our views freely and openly to everyone, and even more important, we were able to listen to each other and understand the other's perspectives, and after this five year cycle, I believe that we reached the point in which we know that we all, in spite of our differences, we all want to preserve and to advance this wonderful thing that is the Internet.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if there is one role for this Forum in its continuation, I believe it is that we acquire the consciousness that we are the true stewards of the Internet and it is upon us the responsibility to preserve the core values and principles that inspired.  And then I would like to take up the points that were raised by Vittorio Bertola earlier.  So how do we do that?  We've discussed many issues:  Access, diversity, security, openness, critical Internet resources.
This year at the 5th IGF, we added the important dimension of development, which we truly believe that has to be kept alive in the present, in the future agendas of this Forum.  And I believe that we've had enough material now to start a process of convergence, and start to see among all of those discussions what are those key    those core values and principles that are the common heritage for all stakeholders and all generations that participate at this Forum.
And my suggestion for the next IGF, as the main topic for one of the main sessions, is that we engage precisely in that discussion what are the core values and principles of the Internet that we want to preserve.  And I believe that we should do that progressively, starting with National IGFs and regional IGFs, always in a multistakeholder environment, and we will come here and then bring our conclusions and discuss and then we don't need to agree on principles.  We don't need to negotiate or get to treaty level at this Forum, because I understand this is not the place to do it.  But once we discuss the principles and considering that the principles may also evolve together with the Internet, I believe this is a ongoing exercise, that once we start, we will always have material to discuss again at the next and next and the years to come.
We should also be able to take note of our differences, and allow them to be expressed, and without the intention of having the final word about anything.  But only by saying that we are truly engaged in the discussion of principles and values, this will create, will give a message to the rest of the world who's not here, that there are principles and values, and that they must be observed at any Forum, at any opportunity in which the Internet may be affected by decision makers around the world.
I believe that we should take note of the methodologies as well that were used to prepare and run this exercise because, for instance, the excellent work that is done to manage the remote participation.  I don't know if it is already documented or not or it is only in the minds of those who are operating it.  It would be probably a good contribution to have it registered somewhere by the Secretariat.  And we, the Brazilian delegation, we've made our contribution throughout this process, and we are fully decided to continue engaging in it.
This year, we brought our little leaflet with 10 principles as our contribution to the debate.  Maybe it can inspire further discussion so that we may always keep this discussion alive, and contributing to maintaining an Internet that is safe, reliable, and secure for all.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[ Applause ]

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Everton, thank you very much indeed.  That was very, very thought provoking this idea of core principles.  Before we go what do you think about that actually Markus this idea of identifying core principles?

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  I was very    not aware of these principles although I should have been but I was asked to look at them that we could let this be distributed, and I was indeed very much impressed and I think he said so in his opening remarks.  This is something I think, I don't know whether there will be any dissenting voice but I think they've done so well, I could imagine an emerging consensus around these core principles.  I for myself would happily endorse them, put them on our website as IGF core principles but I know that may be jumping it a bit as we've always shied away to do that sort of thing but once again, I would like to comment and congratulate the Brazilian team who put them together.
I'm sure it was not that easy but they really did a good job there.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Yes, thank you very much.  Yes, thank you Everton.  It's really interesting.  Maybe actually if we have a few minutes at the very end of this we might quickly by a hands up just go around people for them to suggest core principle ideas worthy for discussion actually in future.  I don't know whether you're staying Everton you're probably going.  Are you going to the airport are you staying?  You're staying good.  Andrea Saks perhaps I could call on you from the Dynamic Coalition for accessibility for the disabled and a big, big issue here and one where there has been progress the past five years.

>> ANDREA SAKS:  I'm going to come down to the front because I like to look at all of you people because disability is kind of like death and taxes.  If one of them doesn't get you, the other two will.
The Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is a very unique special place to exist.  And it wouldn't exist without the IGF.  I work with, I am not the Dynamic Coalition, all the people that participate are the Dynamic Coalition.  A lot of them live all over the world, and some of them, and a great many of them have disabilities and contribute to accessibility for persons with disabilities.
And I'm just going to throw in my quick bomb shell because it also includes not only the elderly but the young.  And we had the pleasure of the youth group visiting us on two workshops that I was a part of.  And one of the most touching bits is when they were in a workshop with us that was specifically geared towards accessibility for persons with disabilities.  They told a story, and that story was about their friend Robert.  And I get a little teary at this sort of stuff because it's so special.
They told us about their friend, a young boy with sight problems, who designed his very own screen reader and he's giving it away.  I just couldn't believe that, but I could, of course, because they were fabulous kids.  I believe Dan and it's either Rebecca or Roberta, I can't quite remember and if you're in the audience, forgive me.
I later spoke to them, and I asked them:  Would you like to give a presentation for the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility?  You should have seen those faces.  It was terrific.  It was a "yes."  I said, we have to go through a few hoops, that means parents and a formal invitation, and we have to find funding for them.
And all of you guys have deep pockets, I want you to help me with this.  I had to go and ask my Dynamic Coalition if that's okay.  It was a resounding yes in our meeting yesterday.  They loved the idea.  I love the idea.  So Alun Michael are you here?  We're doing it.  There you are.  Yes, I guess.  We're doing it.  We're going to ask these kids to come, and they were also exposed and talked to a young lady from Kenya, who had a disability, who said:  Do you know, you have disabled kids in your group.  Later they said, well, we know these people from over here.  They'd already started working on who they could invite to be in this group that had disabilities.  It was wonderful.
So you're absolutely right, where are you, Youth Forum?  You're going to be a part of our workshop, so you have to continue beyond this day.  I won't have it any other way.  It is really important for all of you to understand, I'm talking to you, and those are service providers, manufacturers, everybody in this room, I'm talking about your old age.  I'm serious.  I'm starting to experience    as you've noticed, I don't tap dance anymore.
But I grew up with two deaf parents who did not consider themselves disabled.  A lot of people don't like the word.  We have older persons with age related disabilities.  That seems to work.  We have a situation where people, I mean, she doesn't like the word disabled do you?  You just can't hear.  That doesn't mean you're disabled.  We need assistive technology to be incorporated from everything we do from the beginning and use universal design.  You have to listen, and I'm saying have to.  To persons who have the difficulties to get the scenarios so you know what you need to do.
The best one that I like, or it's one of many, but I love this one, is that banks when they were putting in ATMs didn't understand the need, because blind people do not drive, why they had to put braille on drive in machines that would give you money and this lovely chap puts his hand up and this actually I got from Judy Brewer, it's her story, and it's a true story.  He said, well, I'm going to be going on my way to the airport.  Do I give the cab driver my code?
Now, it seems to logical, but if you don't have the experience, or you don't know someone who does, you might not think of it.  It's not in your world.  So the fact that the Dynamic Coalition has people in it who not only have certain let's just say difficulties in managing to get online, or use some of the tools that we take for grant every day, they need to be listened to.
I also need organisations that are big to increase the strength of the Dynamic Coalition, because, Andrew, you were right, some of the people who are not here today need to be here to listen, to listen to us, to all of us, but if you make a world where persons who have challenges and that includes all of you maybe who have a temporary disability, you're in a situation that we've all been in recently, because the noise factor, you were disabled for a short period of time.  You can experience perhaps something I can compare with tinnitus or something.  You could not hear as well as you thought you should.
You have the captioning and I've watched this grow and I want to also say thank you to the Lithuanians who have, in fact, done a pretty damn good job, sorry for the swearing, I always speak French.  French people, don't get upset, that they have really made an enormous effort to make this particular conference accessible, and I applaud them on that.
We're still bugaboos and again it's this consciousness effort that we have to raise the awareness.  And I'm not going to preach to you that you have to do this.  Just think about yourself when, okay, you're my age and you're not tap dancing, or think about your parents that are losing, let's say, the agility in all their faculties that they once had.  And you didn't tell the story Michael about your mother who had to go to a retirement community, and the first question she said, apparently maybe not the first question, was more important than if she had her own bathroom, was there broadband?
So people    I love that story.  That's going in the list.  So what I want to say, without the Dynamic Coalition, without the support of Markus, who has been a doll, the Dynamic Coalition wouldn't exist, and I also have to thank Malcolm Johnson of the ITU T and Sami Al Basheer of the ITU D because they paid separately for different reasons every single speaker except one who paid for himself to come here.  They have been supporting it.  I need and also we have people in the audience who I'm looking at one and other people who have helped us when the captioning wasn't included who helped us with the payment of that.  I need more money!  I need to get people like the young people to come.  I need sponsors to help me bring people who need to communicate with industry, with Governments, and the issues of legislation versus treaties.  Treaties are so much better than having to be forced to do something and find an exception.
When you think about the little, I don't know if some of you heard about what I said about being able to portably take your profile with you.  It's also for another reason.  I'll just give you another scenario.  If you have a physical disability, and you have to bring in somebody else to programme it in for you, and you move somewhere and you lose it all and have to call them in and have them do it again, it should be transferable.  You should own it in some way.  And of course when you cross Government borders and country borders there are going to be different regulations that have been pointed out today that you cannot perhaps do something that you could do somewhere else.
So all these things are important.  I really would love the IGF to continue.
And thank you very much for always being so kind to me and supporting our group, and I always get emotional at the end because I really have made some great friends here.  And thank you, all of you in the audience, for all the support you've given me and my crew.  Thank you.
[ Applause ]

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed, Andrea.  I couldn't tap dance even when I was young enough to tap dance.  Let me call on now Oliver Robillo from the Southeast Asia Civil Society, who has Civil Society Southeast Asia recommendations to the IGF.  Oliver Robillo.  We'll just get you a microphone.

>> OLIVER ROBILLO:  Hello.  Good afternoon.  I represent a group of Civil Society representatives from four Southeast Asia nations, namely, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.  As first time participants, we offer the following perspectives and recommendations for future IGF meetings.
Firstly, openness is a key to a Democratic and open society.  Restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression online such as state censorship and physical measures which block and threaten Internet intermediaries are one of the threats to open societies.  Intimidation and state censorship facilitate self censorship, as is happening in countries like Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia, stunting the growth of democracy and openness.
Secondly, on the matter of access    I apologize for that   
Secondly on the matter of access, a higher priority must be placed on addressing not only the global digital divide but also regional and National ones.  Countries like Burma and Cambodia rank the lowest of 200 countries in a world bank study.  Various factors contribute to this, from politics, economic and social development, poverty levels, and technological infrastructure.  Thus, coordinated international efforts must be made to address domestic policies that contribute to the digital divide in Southeast Asia, and find solutions to bridge the gap.
The digital divide is such that remote participation, which has been by the way fantastic here in Vilnius, remote participation from those southeast Asian countries are not possible such as for the people of Burma where Internet access and freedom are crucial to their freedoms.
Thirdly on cybersecurity, the definition must include elements that address right to privacy and civil and political freedom, recognizing that levels of democracy and rule of law differ in many states.  An individual's right over his or her own privacy including personal data and information, must not be sacrificed.  Information Technology when used without transparent and accountable oversight could pose threats to individual rights.
In this regard, any National security policy must not deviate from the universal Declaration of Human Rights, and all international Human Rights covenants to which states are a party.  Our recommendations to the IGF:  Immediately address as an urgent global Internet Governance issue the increasing implementation of laws that suppress and restrict freedom of expression and access the information, especially within developing countries.
Fully integrate the universal Human Rights agenda into IGF programmes, and engage systematically and regularly with the Human Rights bodies.
Ensure that the IGF policy proposals and recommendations are in line with international Human Rights and principles and standards.
Extend the mandate of IGF for another five years in its present form.
The fifth recommendation:  Conduct wider outreach to Civil Society actors from the global south, in particular, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific region, and allocate or earmark financial resources to encourage and support their active participation.
Ensure the participations from remote are really integrated into session discussions onsite.
Guarantee that technical discussions during IGFs fully accommodates new constituents and stakeholders and incorporate an assessment of policy implications on the rights of Internet users and society as a whole.
Develop a plan of action in order to facilitate, follow up and monitoring of IGF outcomes.
Finally we'd like to thank our Lithuanian hosts for welcoming us to their beautiful city of Vilnius.  And for making our first visit here, and we all come from tropical countries, very comfortable, and wonderful and an eye opening one.  We hope we will be able to reciprocate this in the not too distant future.
[ Speaking foreign language ]

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much.  You were talking about remote participation there, and I think our remote moderator has something for us.

>> RAFID FATANI:  We've got two remote interventions, one from Cameroon and one from the Burundi hub.  First, we the Cameroon remote hub just want to support the concept of Internet Governance capacity building programmes.  We also want to highlight our support and highlight the importance of Internet Governance on the schools.  We'd like to state that still needs to be done regarding the multilingualism issue and finally we strongly support the continuation of the IGF and invite all stakeholders to support the regional African IGF.
Our second intervention is from the Burundi hub.  On behalf of the Burundi remote hub we're glad to be part of the multistakeholder process.  We're participating from Burundi in this Forum and we believe the Internet is important today, tomorrow and forever.  Technologies which enable people to connect to the Internet are in widespread in Burundi and rapidly reaching the rural communities.  We strongly suggest the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum to tackle online security issues we have today in Burundi.  Taking part in this Forum remotely we got inspiration of some projects which will be implementing locally for our community and these include computer emergency response team groups, an online capacity building programme for our regional Internet issues, and let us finally say, let the Internet IGF mandate be extended forever.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  Forever is a long time.  Thank you very much indeed to Cameroon and also Burundi.  Probably in about 20 minutes or so as we come to the end before we hear finally from our Chairman I want to throw the floor open again to a very quick backwards and forth which will be on this issue of core principles, core values that maybe we can start throwing around just very quickly, just 30 seconds from each person who wants to contribute as to what the core value might be and exactly why they think that's a core value to get the discussion going for us all to think about when we leave here.  Bill Graham of the Internet Society, I'd like to call you, please.  

>> BILL GRAHAM:  Thank you very much for the opportunity.  I just
want to say that it's very, very clear at the end of this 5th session
that the IGF has really evolved and changed.  The levels of tension are
much lower than they were certainly anyone who was here for the first
IGF will remember that there was a great deal of suspicion and
mistrust.  The maturity of the dialogue now, however, is much, much
different.  We can talk about what were the most controversial subjects
back in 2005 without anyone being killed.  We can explore new subjects
in a very open way.  And I think learn a great deal interest one
another as we do that.
I also would note that in my experience, at least, this evolving
atmosphere in the IGF is reflected in how we interact with other stake
holder groups across a wide range of topics and organizations.
So I think that is a very concrete contribution by the IGF.
A few other minor things or less important things.  I note this
year's linkage of the workshops and main sessions has really been
improved.  The workshops have been the most vital and interesting part
of the programme.  And the ability to follow through tracks has been
much better.  I think we need to look at ways to make it even easier to
do that; to help people to prepare for the main sessions, which then
become more useful.
So obviously the Internet society hopes to see the IGF renewed and
continued after the general assembly debates in New York.  And it's
important that that decision maintain the essential elements of the
IGF.  Which are that it be open very broadly multistakeholder,
nondecision-making, and supported by the independent Secretariat.
We obviously still need to expand participation.  Developing
countries are still underrepresented.  Youth should be here in greater
numbers and more active in all of the sessions.
So I think we need to make those improvements.
The Internet technical community and the Internet society itself
contribute to that significantly through the fellowships and the
programmes we offer like the IGF ambassador programme.
I also understand that over 20 percent of the people in attendance
this year are from the technical community and we have also contributed
a great deal of expertise in funding.  So just in concluding, I would
like to make a very brief comment on the CSTD meeting that was held
yesterday.  And I would urge that we not revert to a 2005 definition of
multistakeholderism as we consider how to improve the IGF.  As was
suggested yesterday.
We really need to stay up with the experience and stay up with the
times, using the broader definition that has evolved, recognizing the
contribution of the Internet technical community and all of the
stakeholders in this process.  Thank you very much.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Bill, thank you very much.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Next I'd leak to call or on our representative
from Portugal, from the ministry of higher education, Luis Magalhaes.

>> LUIS MAGALHAES:  My first observation is to underline the outcome
of the IGF in the issue of expected movement, the creation of several
national and regional IGFs across the world.  This was already
mentioned before, but I'd like to stress it on the slightly different
line.  Because not only is the most eloquent validation of the idea and
the purpose of the IGF and of its real value, of its need, but also
provided to it the robustness that only open network based on
grassroots can provide.
Curiously enough it took -- at the time, it was a movement that was
only having expression between the third and fourth IGF sessions.  This
is between Hyderabad and Sharm El Sheikh.
The second thing I'd like to refer is actually to commend the
Secretariat and the rest of the organisation on fantastic work that was
done throughout time of assuring transcripts and recording of the
sections available almost instantaneously and available worldwide
through the Internet in such a way that what you can do with that --
the results of the discussions can actually be pursued for a long
period of time and outside the IGF itself.
I think it's a procedural thing, but it's extremely valid.
Also visible are the improvements on several aspects.  On remote
participation, on the consideration of development issues, actually on
the connection between workshops, and main sessions; on -- even on the
youth participation; and on the openness of participation of the
organisation meetings of the IGF in wider fashion to broader group of
Of course there is a need to continue to make this evolve and
actually to try to attract to the participation of the IGF groups that
are still missing in terms of expression; but what is visible is that
we went a long way since the very beginning and should be proud of it.
Another point is that throughout this five years we saw definitive
progress in several of the critical Internet resources management
issues.  They actually did not take place in this stage of the IGF, and
they shouldn't.  But we consider that the cooperative mood that was
established in IGF and depth of understanding that was possible to
develop and actually to deepen, played an important role to allow the
enormous progress that from this point of view was achieved in other
From more institutional stand, I'd like once again to state clearly
the Portugal support to the IGF movement and to its multistake and open
character.  Actually we believe we are initiating with Internet
governance a model that most probably should and will spill over to
other policy areas as the global knowledge-based society, with its
increasing complexity, continuous to progress.
We believe very much on flexibility that the presence of the civil
society, the technical community, the business representatives bring to
the process.  And we think that just governments would not be able to
create the same sort of dynamism and progress of ideas with their
traditional processes.  So this is certainly a very new and positive
contribution from our point of view.
Finally, we would like to specially acknowledge the wise guiding role
of Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer to whom we feel in Portugal greatly

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  David Wood from the EBU technical committee.

>> DAVID WOOD:  From the world broadcasting union, the union
broadcasting union, if you -- is the world 8 broadcasting unions which
include the -- pretty much all the national broadcasters of the world.
And we're essentially in the content business.  That's what we care
about most.  We've attended every IGF since the beginning.  And we've
participated as much as we can.  We've really learned an awful lot.  I
personally learned a lot in the four years.  In fact I think I could
give a university course in Internet governance now.  But I couldn't
tap dance, just like you heard earlier.
And so a lot has been achieved.  Absolutely.  It must carry on,
absolutely.  But I do ask myself whether we could do more, whether
there is something we could move to in the next phase.  And I wondered
about whether accepting the role of this group, whether there are not,
nevertheless, mountains that we could try to climb in the next five
Are there some tasks or targets that we could look at.
For example, I did hear this morning in the cloud discussion this
notion of having somewhere a universal cloud that translates between
all languages.  Now, that might not be something that we could do in
the IGF, but maybe, going on to a second suggestion, it could be
interesting for the IGF to somehow sort of pass a work and ask other
groups if they could work on it.  Such as W3 C or the Council of Europe
and so on.  So there were -- those were two suggestions if I may.  One
is that we think about whether there is a mountain that we can climb,
whether there is something like putting a man on the moon by 2000-X,
that we could do in the Internet governance forum to make what is a
good thing even better over the next five years.  And certainly I do
also support those ideas of having themes at the next meeting about
core values and about the future of the Internet.  But Jonathan asked
about what the core values might be.  And I guess I thought that by now
you might have said something about rights of access for everybody
including the disabled, of course, and about the rights of privacy of
data.  But I guess coming from the content business I would like to add
one on that, which is to do with rights associated with content.  And
they would be to do with the freedom of expression, the right to find
out the truth, right not to be offended, and of course the right to
have something that you create protected in some way.
So I'd like to add, Jonathan, on that list something to do with the
rights associated with content.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  David, thank you very much indeed.  I'd noted
down those core values.  Markus wanted to get in on something that Luis
was saying earlier.

>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Many speakers have mentioned the significant
development over the last years, which was not planned by some central
body in a top-down way.  They just emerged as bottom-up initiatives.
We -- last year it was a general wish to give more space to all these
initiatives in our annual meeting.  And we did that this year.  We had
an opening curtain raising session on the first day with a panel of
regional meeting organisers and each of them are given a slot where
they could report on the meetings and discuss among themselves on how
to move forward.
Today we had a round table of all the regional meeting and national
meetings.  And we discussed various aspects related to their
relationship between -- with global IGF, looked at questions as each of
the regional initiatives is somewhat different.  We looked at what --
whether there should be a common template for all of them, whether they
should follow the global agenda, whether they should set their own
agenda.  There was a general agreement that we should be very flexible
in this regard.  But they should be free to set their own agenda, to
put issues on their agenda, which are is of particular interest to
their region.
And maybe most importantly, all the participants agreed that there
should only be -- considered to be part of these initiatives if they
follow the general IGF approach, that is that they're based on a
multistakeholder approach and they are open and inclusive and
transparent and include all stakeholders.
We also agreed in practical terms, it was always a suggestion that
came up during the discussion this afternoon, that we would try to keep
in touch inter-sessionally, we will create a list for this and we will
try and have maybe before the next open consultation a video conference
among those who would like to engage in this type of discussion.  But
there was a general feeling that it is beneficial for them to come pair
notes on how to go about from fund raising to organising meetings, how
to involve their respective governments.  And also that the interaction
should not just be between the national and regional level and the
global level, but also among themselves.  That there should be a cross
focalization among the regions and among different regions.  So that is
a short report on the whole initiators of these regional initiatives
that decided to go forward.  And I think this is very much in line with
the discussion here and with the spirit of the IGF.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Markus, thank you very much indeed.  Now we're
going to have a short statement from the government of Azerbaijan.

>> NARIMAN HAJIYEV:  Thank you very much for giving me the floor.
Respectful audience, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Nariman Hajiyev, a
representative of the Republic, from the Ministry of Communication and
Information Technologies.
I'd like to take this opportunity to first thank the Lithuanian
government and the organisers, especially to Mr. Nitin Desai,
Mr. Markus Kummer, and their team and all participants for success of
this multistakeholder forum.
Now I'd like to say a few words.  Azerbaijan is a country at
crossroads of civilization, connecting east and west, north and south.
Azerbaijan is recognized internationally as a major oil and gas
producer.  However, I can proudly state that the ICT sector is the
second biggest priority for the country.  It was declared by His
Excellency, Mr. Ilham Aliyev, the President of the Republic of
I'm very proud to say that the government of Azerbaijan made it our
strategy to transfer all revenues to nonoil sector of economy as well
to ICT.  We see ICT tools for democratization of society, and we
understand only ICT could play a role of granting the new platform of
dialect between civilization, nation, and countries.  And we see it
here in the forum.
The volume of income received from the ICT sector in Azerbaijan
increased four over the past six years.  We expect approximately by the
end of 2020, income from ICT and oil will be equal, after which it's
quite possible that ICT will include function of the locomotive of
economy of Azerbaijan.
As you all may know, in 2006 the Government of Azerbaijan offered to
host the IGF, alongside a bidding request from the government of
Lithuania.  The government of Azerbaijan has been a strong supporter of
IGF.  And we hope to see its extension at the next UN General Assembly
in New York.
The IGF is a unique opportunity to talk and discuss Internet issues
under one roof.
Distinguished participants, I think we can host the Internet
Governance Forum in 2012 in our glorious capital, Baku, and we look
forward to hold the next chapter of this great platform.
The official position of the Republic of Azerbaijan will be delivered
within the month to the IGF Secretariat.
Azerbaijan is famous for its traditions of hospitality.  And I can
assure you that Azerbaijan will spare no effort to organise the IGF
meeting at the highest international standards this distinguished forum
duly deserves.
Thank you very much for your attention.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  We're fast running out of time before we have our brief chat on core principles.  Could I ask Bob Kahn to say a few words?  I can see you standing up at the back there.  Don't go anywhere Bertrand de La Chapelle because I want to ask you about core values because I'm sure you have something to add.  Sorry, my eyesight is not as good.  It looks like you. Bob?

>> Bob Kahn:  Shall I proceed?  Well, thank you and Jonathan.  I'd like to add my personal voice to these deliberations in the way of summary remarks on what's going on here today at the, or this week, at the IGF meeting, and, in fact, over the last 5 years of IGF meetings.  I'd like to begin by just thanking the hosts of this particular meeting, the Lithuanian Government, for making us all so welcome here, having a chance to see their lovely city, and I think for that I can probably speak on behalf of everybody here to say we are all very grateful.
[ Applause ]
Again, these are my personal opinions but I think many of these comments have been conveyed by others so I'm not going to take any particular credit for any one of them but I believe the IGF has been a very welcome addition to the    as a multistakeholder contribution to the ongoing Internet dialogue.  It's made contributions in many dimensions.  I'll try and mention just a few of them.
One I think we've heard about has been the spawning of National and regional IGFs, which I believe would probably not have happened without the global IGF as a good model for how to proceed.
Second, I believe that the Governance Forum moved the debate on the notion of Governments, on the notion of Governance, along to the point where we have a much better idea where the term Governance applies and where it does not apply.  This was not an easy process, but I think we've made a lot of progress along the way.
For example, some of the changes that have taken place with regard to ICANN may very well have been influenced in a positive way by the discussions at the IGF over the past five years.  I believe the field of multilingualism has been elevated to a point where it is now a first class topic of consideration for the Internet, going forward, whether we limit it to things like IDNs which are more technical, or to content in languages that are currently underrepresented on the Internet.
I think that we will have clarified how things like the Internet of things, and identity management, fit within the current Internet framework.  That will be a useful contribution going forward.  And as Jonathan mentioned earlier, I think we all recognize the importance of involving both new ideas and new participants into the discussions going forward, and particularly, that we be open to relevant aspects of new technologies and application services as they may apply to the Internet in the future.
I believe the most important contribution, or the most important aspects, of the IGF have been its commitment to open discussion for all of us.  And often the discussions that happen in the halls and behind the scenes are as influential as those that happen in the formal sessions.  I believe the biggest challenge going forward will be how to steadily improve the IGF, and to make it continue to be relevant to all of us in the future.
Finally, I think it's particularly important, in my opinion, to single out the important contribution that Markus Kummer and Nitin Desai and indeed, the staff of the colleagues and Secretariat have made in Shepherding the IGF from its inception as an idea five years ago to its current state as a Forum for discussion of global Internet issues and other matters of concern.
I think it was not a given, and by no means certain, that this IGF would be successful or anywhere near as successful as I believe it has been in stimulating these kinds of discussions.  This is a unique contribution that Markus and Nitin have made to this progress going forward, and I hope they can continue to contribute in the future.  Thank you very much.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much.  I'm sure we'd all agree on that.
[ Applause ]
We'll end this session in about 10 minutes but I want to have a quick discussion to kick around a few of these core values.  I it's something we should go away with to think about over the next year.  Fernando, you have your hand up but I'll pick you in a second if you have a core value you think should be down there.  Okay, Fernando Botelho.  You want to put forward a core value?

>> FERNANDO BOTELHO:  Yes, this is Fernando Botelho from  I think a core value is interoperability, so important for persons with disabilities, but also so important for everyone else.  Innovation is wonderful but let's do it in a way that does not isolate and connects all of us.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Interoperability, one core value.  We'll make a node note of that one.  The real Bertrand de La Chapelle perhaps I shall call you.  What about a core value?  Perhaps I might suggest liberty, equality and fraternity.

>> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Actually, I hoped to make a longer comment but I understand the constraints.  I would suggest something that is co existence.  The challenge we have is to basically define the rules of engagement for a broader and broader diversity of people with different values, with different moral, cultural, religious values, political values, and how do we define the rules of engagement and the Governance protocol that allows us to stay in a common space and respect one another.  Just want in this respect to pay tribute as others have done to Markus, Nitin and all of the Secretariat for the tremendous job they've done in creating for us and with us this unique self replicating format.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Apologies there isn't time for a longer submission.  Alun Michael, a call back.  Hold on, Alejandro, wait one moment.  Let Alun Michael speak first.

>> ALUN MICHAEL:  Can I offer two?  The first reflects the last remark which is the independence of the Secretariat so that they can continue to reflect the atmosphere of the whole IGF process and the respect for all the participants.  I think that's a very important core value for the future.
The second is a specific point about applying the principle of cooperation.  It applies particularly to issues of regulation and legislation, which I think we'd all agree should be kept to a minimum.  It's not about self regulation, but cooperative regulation, the essential principle is that where the primary role is with Government and industry, industry taking the practical lead, Government internationally or Nationally having the legislative role, it's essential for the engagement of Parliamentarians across party to provide accountability, along with Civil Society to provide transparency, as well as creative engagement.  We've seen the number of Parliamentarians go up each year and the quality of the participation improve each year and I think that can only be good.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much.  Okay cooperation, that's 7 so far including David Wood's three.  Alejandro, you've been looking a lot at core values.  A short view on core values.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  First of all, plus 1.  May I go on record with a plus 1 after Alun Michael's statement?
The discussions about core values will have to reflect many other discussions in the IGF which bring together layers of over five years, maybe 10 years, of discussions and we'll have to be able to accommodate them in the future formats.  Last evening we had a meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on core values of the Internet.
The work programme that was agreed was to start immediately to map out the debate that emerged from the core values because these are we saw last evening extreme positions like totally open Internet versus almost totally closed ID system and pre accreditation of users emerging from an interpretation each of openness.
I will add that during the meeting today on core values, one of the contributions I made in the end which seems to reflect many people's views is permanent beta.  Permanent beta is a derivative of all others but it's one of the things that we continually have to have on the Internet, and ample space for experimentation and for success of whatever is found useful and good.
And I would like to surmise also that it would appear that following up on the very good reception that Everton Lucero's motion is finding, and which you are echoing and Markus is allowing, to go on core values that the Dynamic Coalition already has its work cut out and we would be very glad to carry on that piece of the work forward.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much indeed.  Sorry gentleman, there, you have a core value.

>> STEVE DEL BIANCO: Steve Del Bianco with Net Choice.  For our part in the online business, we have a core value that says:  Innovation without permission is not innovation without responsibility.  And we've become a lot faster and better at responding and changing our products and services to complaints and concerns that are raised by users, by critics, advocates, and, in fact, Governments, and we're faster and better at that than any of us are at trying to design, promulgate and enforce new laws that never keep up with innovation on Internet time.
Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you.  Bertrand, very quick intervention from you.

>> Bertrand de La Chapelle:  I'm cheating I know.  You're addressing two different topics and it's making emerging, the notion not of core value of the Internet only but the core values of the IGF and the core values of the IGF I would suggest two additional ones:  Openness and self organisation.  And I would like to support for next year the idea of taking the Brazilian list of principles for the core values of the Internet, as an input into the IGF.  We talk about outcomes.  We can take that as a base for discussion.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Okay, Bertrand sounds as though core values ought to be the title of next year's IGF.  Gentleman, very quickly there, yes.  You can have my microphone very briefly.

>> PHILIP OKUNDI:  Thank you very much.  Philip Okundi from the opening session.  I want to congratulate the leadership of the Secretariat, Markus Kummer.  But I just want to add to core values one is that we'd like to see maintained the current style and leadership which has allowed people from various parts of the industry, Government, operators, discussing freely with will tie people up towards the long term future.
Second one is that we've seen a growth in the developing world into more participation in the IGF Forums.  And this has been encouraged by the managers, and I think the thing that that core value is difficult to describe but it needs to be maintained, needs to be explored so that more and more of us will find IGF as a Forum where all countries, all leaders, all members of the industry can come and discuss items without necessarily leaving without, you know, being restricted unnecessary.  So I think I just wanted to add but most of the things that have been said I will support.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you.  Perhaps one core value is a multistakeholder participation.  Perhaps one last core value from the gentleman just there and then we'll hear from Henrikas our Chairman for his closing thoughts.  Maybe Markus has a core value.  Gentleman there.

>> KATIM TOURAY:  This gentleman is called Katim Touray from Gambia, a small country in West Africa IGF and with the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa, FOSSFA, and a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  I thought I would give help to my big brother from Kenya, what he said that the idea of trying to get as many people involved in the IGF is a bit difficult to describe.  I call inclusiveness.  I think of myself really as picking up here on behalf of the many multitudes of millions of people in Africa and indeed all over the world who have no Internet access, who have no access to the mobile phone and I think we'd be doing a great disservice to the world if the IGF doesn't strive to be as inclusive as it possibly can.  Thank you.

>> JONATHAN CHARLES:  Thank you very much, inclusiveness.  Great.  I think those core values are something we can discuss of course for the next few months.  It will be a useful email exchange between us all in the time ahead.  Thank you very much for your participation.  I'm sorry I didn't get to you all, there were an awful lot of people who wanted to speak and which didn't have time.  Henrikas?

>> HENRIKAS JUSKEVICIUS:  Thank you very much, Jonathan.  You were excellent.  I understand why they want to have you, and also Rafid who bring out remote voices.  I was listening very carefully to all interventions.  Living with part of my life under totalitarian regimes I lacked dissident voices.  Everybody was so positive.  Everybody was so unanimous.  There was very little critics.  Only then we talk about youth there were some you know.  But I must tell you, on 15th of September, I wanted to participate in Room 7, legal aspects of Internet Governance, international cooperation and cybersecurity.  But when I came, the hall was full, and people were taking chairs from the Room 6, so I decided to stay in the Room 6 and in the Room 6 was only young people so I decided to sit in the Room 6 and maybe on computer to listen what's on 7.
So two young ladies came to me, and told, you know, we now have the young organisations of youth and there will be random choice of speakers.  You will be the first choice.  What is your name?
[ Laughter ]
And I must tell you that there were young people, and we're talking very interesting things, they're talking about summer schools, they're talking about cooperation between    about net works.  They are, of course we have to make them more visible.
Also, I would like to thank you very much for the nice words for Lithuania.  I am Lithuanian and I'm really very proud listening to this.  At least everybody knows that Lithuanians not only can play well basketball, but also can other things.
But seriously speaking, we are living in very important and interesting, because power is emigrating outside the institutions which have existed for centuries.  Practically, power is emigrating even from the Governments.  Power is emigrating to Internet.  Power is emigrating to media.  Power is emigrated to the infrastructures, which are interconnected.
Today you have you saying some words and you have immediate reaction in the whole world.  And it is new power, and we today, we are participating in absolutely new form of this power.  Internet Governance Forum is kind of this new power, which will influence how things are happening.
You know, I don't have anything against Governments, but they have vertical structures.  And vertical structures today are becoming already a bit old fashioned, and a very long time ago had changed these structures.
U.N. is not probably, in my personal opinion, the best Manager.  But United Nations have    can legitimately have powers, such structures IGF and it's very important.  If we wouldn't have U.N., we'd have to create today and for example what have done Secretariat, everybody was praising Secretariat but I must tell you, I myself have worked in two international organisations in Secretariat and I do know what does it mean to organise such meetings.  A lot of underground stones were taken away before.  You're not talking about this, but I am sure.
And this meeting, of course, shows that there is possibility of dialogue between developed, developing countries, between intergovernmental organisations, and it's very important Civil Society.  What is lacking, I agree that there is lacking still the voice of developing countries.  We haven't talked in this meeting, maybe I haven't found too much about digital divide.  Digital divide is not narrowing, regretfully.  With all this progress and we were talking about different forms of computing, this divide is growing, and of course, we have to think about this.
The Forum will exist.  There is no body which was created by U.N. and after it was abolished so you can be sure that Forum will exist, and it's very good, because this Forum, it has to exist because it is about the most important questions.  And something of course can be done better, and there was also talk about difficult issue of outcomes and decision making.
I think there is, you know, in this hall also the Japanese.  I have also the possibility to work with Japanese.  And sometimes it looks that nobody's decision making but decision finally exists so it's very important this philosophy, this atmosphere, which provides possibility of co existing very different opinions and different groups.
You were talking about core values.  It's very important, but it's a very delicate issue.  At the moment, you will put on agenda what are core values, and what not are core values.  You will have very complicated discussion.  Probably it is necessary.
I remember when we're talking about media, about freedom of expression, in environment of new technologies, and we were always insisting that in new environment has to be the same freedom of expression as it was in old environment, and we're talking about core values, probably the main core values are written in charter of Human Rights, especially in the charter 19.
I would like to thank you for the attention.  I thank you for participating.  And I would like to close this session and wish you good and safe way go home.  Thank you.
[ Applause ]
[ End of Session ]
* * *