IGF 2010
VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
16 SEPTEMBER 10
SESSION 110
1500
ICANN

*  *  *  *  *
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.

*  *  *  *  *


>> Good afternoon, everyone.  Good afternoon.  I'm just trying to see ... good afternoon, everyone.  Can I be heard?  Am I audible?  Hello?  Can I be heard?  Yes?  Can we have that a little bit louder, please?  Can we have this a little bit louder?  One, two, three?  Okay.  Can you hear me?  Can you hear me?  Okay.  So, all right, we'll give it a try.

>> HANS HENSELL:  Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.  Good afternoon.  It is my pleasure to welcome you to this workshop on behalf of APC, the Council of Europe and UNECE.  My name is Hans Hansell.  I am from the UNECE.  That is the European Economic Commission for Europe.
The basis of today's discussion is a code for internet good governance.  This is a result of a very fruitful cooperation between APC Council of Europe and the UNECE.  We also had a large number of individual comments and proposals and also very good input from other organizations.
The current text has been put together by Professor Souter to the left of me.  And I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the partners for the hard work that has gone into this project.
The theme for the workshop is "Applying a Code of Good Practice on Information, Participation and Transparency in Internet Governance."    and to experience practical aspects of the code.  To that end, we have an agenda.  And Mr. Remmert will Chair the meeting and will go into more detail.  But we'll give you an update and news about what happened since the last idea of meeting.  We'll take questions and clarifications.  Then we'll have reactions from regional Internet Governance Forum, from Latin America, Africa and also from Euro D.
We'll have a discussion on the South African broadband policy process and leave some time for comments on that, as well.  And finally we'll have a concluding discussion what next what possibilities could include the code of good practice as a tool to build capacity at national level.  And Karen Banks from APC who will close the meeting.
Michael Remmert from CoE is pleased to handle the meeting.  I'm pleased to turn it over to his capable hands.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you, Hans.  And hello to everyone.  It is my pleasure to be Chairing this workshop.
And to kick it off, I would like to speak about the events of what happened since the last workshop in    last year where we presented a draft code.  And a number of Internet Governance entities were present.  It was really work on the draft text.  We didn't have a set panel.  We did split up into working groups and looked at the different provisions and sections of the draft code that for all of us, Council of Europe, UNECE and APC was a very fruitful exercise; and David helped us to bring the conclusions of that workshop into a revised version of the code, copies of which are available in this room.  I hope they have been circulated.
I would also like to draw your attention to a French and Spanish version, which are on the documentation table over there.  So, please help yourselves if you require or are interested in these translations.
I would also like to welcome those participants who are following this workshop remotely.  We have a remote moderator (loud noise).
To my left and I thank you her for helping us here for remote participation.  So those who follow our discussion remotely may we encourage you to join into the discussion.
To start now, I would like to give you a very brief presentation of the code.  Many of you are already familiar with its development, have participated in previous workshops, but I think it might be worthwhile to record the context and the objectives and the content of the code.
So we all know that Internet Governance is very distributed field.  And if you can see on those monitors which are maybe not very big, we have a whole field of Internet Governance here ranging from narrow to broad approaches.  And many organizations that are involved in them and interact with the broader Internet community.
We have a wide range of global, regional and national issues, and all these entities should have and do have an interest to interact with the wider community.
Now, the Code of Practice comes in when it comes to optimizing Internet Governance entities, policies with regard to information, participation and transparency.  This initiative was started in 2007 by the three sponsors, and we had workshops in the past three years at each of the IGFs which took this process forward.  We took into account in drafting the code the experience of existing Internet Governance entities and in particular the Aarhus Convention, which of course gives us a lot of examples of cooperation from the environmental transparency field.
And we had the discussion with a number of international Internet Governance entities, which we are listing here.  ICANN, W3C and some others.  And I hope    I will bet that some of these entities are represented around the table here now.
What I would like to stress at the same time is that the code that we are proposing here could also be    and we feel should be    a tool for Internet Governance agencies, organizations that work at the national level.  So we are not claiming that this is exclusively usable by international entities but also regional and national entities.  And I look forward to comments to this proposition from any representatives of such entities that are represented here around the table.
The objectives of the code are to provide stakeholders who have an interest in Internet Governance with some guidelines that they can use in their efforts to improve information participation and transparency with the ultimate objective to maintain and enhance  inclusive engagement with the Internet Governance.  We all know that the Internet is becoming increasingly interconnected with other public policy spheres, and the code also makes reference to the needs of these other public policy spheres to be properly informed and involved about issues relating to Internet Governance that concern them.
The aspirations of the code, from our side, would be that Internet Governance entities might consider to use it to review their own experience, current arrangements and practices and consider and compare them with those of other Internet Governance entities, thereby it would provide a framework through which they can develop their arrangements and practices as the Internet continues to grow in terms of technology, applications and user communities.
I'm skipping the definitions here.  This is at the beginning of the code that you all have copies of.  Suffice it to say that it is important that we base ourselves on the definition of Internet Governance that was developed by the wiki in 2004.  And that decisionmaking processes are at the core of the considerations of the code.
The code is divided in three sections.  First, it sums up a number of principles of Internet Governance so that we can all start from the same premises.  And then it goes on to two sets of guidelines, one concerning information and the second one concerning participation.
It is important to note, also, that at the end, there is some commentary about possible monitoring and review mechanisms, although it is not intended by the proponents of the code that that should be a very formalized process.  It would be very much in the hands of the entities who would agree to use the code for their purposes.
The code is based on the WSIS principles clearly and it is proposed to enable the participation of all stakeholders from also sites, be they current users or potential users or possible future users of the Internet.  And I recall again it should enable engagement with other public policy domains with which the Internet interacts.
Now, the first set of guidelines concerning information is intended to    for Internet Governance entities to conduct their work openly, transparently and inclusively and to make actively available information to the public.  Active facilitation of access to information and knowledge about Internet decisions is deemed to be very important.  Information resources should be inclusive audience including nonspecialists and, if possible, in diverse languages and formats.  And there should be, as far as possible, accessible points of contact.
So here we're talking about the background information that enables people to understand processes and to enable them to do this with materials which form part of decision making process.  Now, that is the part of information provision.  But the code is going on and formulates some guidelines about participation and is intended to facilitate the active encouragement of participation by all who are concerned with the expectation that their views will be considered.
And, again, it's important to include all those who are underrepresented, including end users, nonusers and possible future users.  There should be publicity for opportunities to participate and for ways to participate, including outreach to nonspecialists.  And, finally, it is important to note that there should also be offline opportunities for people to participate and other forms of participation who are suited to those who cannot easily travel to meetings and attend them physically.
And I already spoke and Hans Hansell before me about the steps that have been taken so far.  We are now here and have the pleasure to discuss the code with you here at the IGF 2010.  And our aim would be    and we hope that we could develop some pointers to that together today    to review the current practice in partnership with specific Internet Governance entities.  I did say both globally, regionally as well as nationally and that principles could be developed for, in particular, national Internet governments' bases.
So I look forward to the discussion here.  This is only one opportunity to get in touch with us.  There is also a wiki in which you can follow the development and discussion of the code.  And you have here the contact points at APC at the Council of Europe, and UNECE as well as the contact details of David Souter, who has been helping us tremendously in taking this code where it's been today.
So, perhaps I could invite you now, if there were any questions that you would put at this stage for clarification?  If I need to go back to any of the points of the code.  And of course my copanelists here could then also come in for clarification.  So are there any issues that you would like to discuss now before we go on with some further commentaries from those who presented the code to some regional fora during the past year?  Any comments now, please?  That is not the case.  Thank you very much.
So I would then like to move on to the reactions that were received at regional meetings during the year.  We have two presentations in particular from Latin America and from East Africa.  And I would like to invite    to take the floor to tell us about the Latin American event at which she presented the draft model.  You have the floor.

>> Thank you.  Hello, everyone.  Well, in the opportunity of the regional preparatory meeting in Latin America, the Caribbean for the IGF, APC presented the code of good practice to the different stakeholders of the regional Internet community.  Participants in general acknowledge the fact that the code of good practice was tabled for discussion.  And it was perceived as an important and useful tool with potential to contribute to an open Internet Governance    in terms of specific reactions to the code from the Latin American meeting, I could mention two.  Institutions and people that are willing to adopt and to support the code of good practice either by endorsing it or making it in practice.  Or the other stakeholders who identified themselves with the idea that it is not enough to make information available through different formats and channels in order to be transparent and facilitate participation in decisionmaking processes.  So those type of stakeholders have adopted the initiative and are also incorporating in their interventions the different product.
It is also a very useful way to let people know of the existence of the code.  Participants of the regional meetings stress the need of building alliances with key institutions that have presence in Latin America and institutions that are, in a way or another, are working on different areas of Internet development, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America, or UNESCO, among others, of course.
And participants also stressed the importance of promoting the Code among the group of the group of economic governments, the GRULAC.  Specifically developing principals for the national Internet Governance spaces.  So this is what I think I will refer in relation to the regional meeting.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you very much, Valeria.  May I call upon Natasha Primo to report back from the East African event?

>> NATASHA PRIMO: Thank you very much, Michael.  Much like Valeria, I can report that the response to the presentation was largely favorable.  I'll just sort of outline a little bit of the process.
The presentation was made at the end of the three day meeting in which much of the discussion had been around the regional priorities and also how to enhance and build cooperation between the multistakeholder, well, the different stakeholders, the states, civil society and the business community within the region.  And there was generally a very good feeling about the way in which relations between the stakeholders have improved over time, starting in 2007, I suppose, when    with specific reference to the Kenyan government, it was then said that ICT policy documents at that stage were almost treated as if they were secret, secret documents.  And to that relationship has gradually with increased dialogue and with building continuous engagement, how that relationship has improved.
However, people recount that none of that should be taken for granted and that there needed to be processes put in place or principles to measure practice against that will keep that    that will keep enhancing those relationships.
So there were some    so overall, there were positive responses including from institutions like the Kenya Communications Commission, who particularly engaged with the content of the code.
I mean, there were also some questions around just how final the content of the code is, whether there was opportunity for anybody interested in using the Code to actually develop it further, to localize it to its own, to their own priorities, to the particular context in which    institutional context in which different people would find themselves.  And one of the ways I understood the purpose of the code is that the Code is there for institutions to adopt, to improve on their own practice, as well as look at their relations with stakeholders outside in terms of relations with other stakeholders.  So it was very    I mean, we stressed or I stressed that there was certainly an intent for the Code to be used and localized in ways that the stakeholders felt appropriate to their contexts.
At the end of the meeting, just in terms of the general feeling towards the Code, it was decided    what the meeting did was to draw up a set of resolutions that basically reflected the decisions of the meeting of participants in the meeting and within that set of resolutions there was one included around the openness of participants, the willingness of participants to further engage with the Code and to see how it can be applied in their own practices within the region as they take the discussions of the IGF forward and especially trying to engage in processes that are transparent, that are participatory in developing an Internet infrastructure and an Internet Governance in the area.  So I'll stop there.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you, Natasha, for that insight.  I think that is very interesting, in particular the issue about the status of the code.  Is it something that is being considered as final?  Or should it be possible to localize it, adapt it to different needs?  And I would say very strongly yes, of course it is because the Code, as it stands now, is not something that has been formally adopted by any of the proposing organizations.  We have seen ourselves rather as a facilitator of a discussion that would help all entities concerned with Internet Governance to improve their information and participation policies.  So in a sense, it is a proposition to the Internet Governance community in order to draw more attention to the need for very well thought through information and participation agreements.  And so I think that is a very important discussion that took place at the East African event, and which I would hope that we could perhaps have here today.
Are there any immediate questions to the previous two speakers?  There will be ample time for a general discussion later on in the meeting.  But each time we have a speaker or two, I do open the floor for any issues that might be brought up immediately.  Okay.  Not yet.
So we would now like to take the discussion a little bit further by starting to think about how could the Code be applied to a concrete policy making process?  And one process that has been taken place over the past year or so was the discussion about the South African broadband policy.  Now, the intention here is not to give any opinions about the broadband policy development in South Africa, but, rather, as using it to see how the Code could be applied in the context of such policy making processes.
And one of those among us here who has followed the development of this broadband policy from an observer perspective was David Souter.  And he has some thoughts to share with us about how the Code could usefully be applied to policy making processes such as these.  We are grateful to persons very closely involved in this representative of the South African government and one of the South African Parliament have joined us today.  And if you feel like sharing some of your experiences, we would be very happy to hear them.
For now, I would like to ask David to take the floor to give us his ideas and proposals about how the Code could be applied in a context such as the African one with developing a broadband policy.  You have the floor.

>> DAVID SOUTER: Okay, thank you, Michael.  I'm not going to talk specifically about South Africa but about the general issues of policy making and how the Code might apply to those.
Now, the Code, as was explained, was developed in relation to global and Internet Governance processes and in discussion with global Internet Governance bodies.  But the principles which are within it are equally applicable at a national level.  And so part of what I'm doing here is trying to explore how that might be so.
The Code is, as Michael described it, divided into three main sections and principles of Internet Governance and information and participation.  And in two of those sections, at the end of the information participation sections, it's suggested that Internet Governance entities should seek to introduce the same sort of principles into the mainstream decisionmaking processes with which the Internet intersects.  So there are processes which are internal to the Internet with which we're very familiar and which are largely dealt with the Internet Governance bodies we know.  But there are also other processes where the Internet is intersecting with other decisionmaking bodies which are not bodies of the Internet itself.
There are many hybrid issues like that, and one of the most significant for a lot of countries at present is broadband policy.  Broadband policy being concerned with how in a national context the infrastructure for the next phase of the Internet's development is going to be put in place, managed, monitored, reviewed and so forth.  I say the next phase, the short to medium term, shall we say.
Many governments around the world have been developing broadband policies, so we have here some people who may be able to comment on the south African process.  Obviously my own country had    the United Kingdom had its process which is called Digital Britain which I will say looked at in a great deal of detail.
So many governments are developing broadband policies.  And what the sponsors of the code asked me to do is look at what the Code might imply if you were going to do a broadband policy process.  And I'll do that in a couple of sections.
What I want to start with is actually looking at what is meant by policy or what is included within a policy process, what that actually entails, because it's a lot more complex than just sitting down and writing something which you think will apply to the environment you're concerned with.  A policy document is not just a list of aspirations of what you want to achieve.  Fundamentally, a policy is a plan of action which is about how you are going to achieve those objectives.  And if you look at best practice around the world, I think you can identify nine or 10 elements within the development of a policy and which contribute to that overall outcome.  What are those?  Well first the assessment of the problem or challenge or opportunity which is being addressed, what is it that is being attempted?
Second, an analysis of the circumstances of the context itself, that is the circumstances of the country concerns, which places the overall objectives within a context that you actually are discussing.  Third, consideration of how other countries are dealing with those issues and international examples that may be relevant to your national contexts.  From that, fourth, the establishment of policy objectives which are specific to the country.  Then a discussion of achieving of those objectives, which needs to consider the resource implications, it needs to consider the different impact the different approaches may have, in society, in the sector concerned.  And the account of the views of the different stakeholders, which will be a result of a consultation exercise, I'll talk about that in a moment.  The selection of the particular policy options which are going to be followed; an assessment of the resource requirements for that particular set of policy options; and perhaps also consideration of other policy domains where action needs to be taken, for example, building the capacity within society to do the things that you are seeking to achieve.
So all of those things put together amount to a plan of action which includes clear objectives, which sets targets, which establishes the roles and responsibilities of different actors, and which has a timetable for achievement.  That's the kind of framework within with the different elements of the policy process tends to encourage.  And if you're talking about broadband here, well among the things that are going to be necessary in that are a definition of what broadband means in a particular context, a discussion of the current circumstances of the communications market within the country and the future prospects for that market, an assessment of the drivers for broadband adoption and for the usage of communications, and of the constraints which are currently limiting adoption and usage.
A discussion of future demand, an assessment, a cost benefit analysis of different technical and market options, consideration of the different regulatory approaches that may be required.  All of that, again, coming to a plan of action from which    in which you have clear objectives, targets, allocation of roles and responsibilities and a timetable for implementation.  That's the kind of sort of best practice scenario you might find if you look around the world at policy development processes.
As for who might be consulted within this, I think best practice would say that the best approach is to consult openly.  It may well be that there are particular actors that have particular important input to make into a consultation process, in fact that's certain.  The businesses that are responsible for delivering a broadband network or the major uses that will take advantage of it in government and in business clearly are particularly important.  But it doesn't actually cost anything to have an open consultation process.  And actually there is a lot to be gained from enabling everyone to participate.
So, if that's what a policy process implies, what might the Code of practice apply    imply for a policy process like that?  And I'll take it in the three pillars that were in Michael's description.  So, first, the Code addresses a number of principles which concern policy making in general.  And I think together they represent a sort of ethos of transparency and inclusion, an ethos which is characteristic of a lot of Internet decisionmaking bodies with which we are familiar here.  These resources are really built around the idea that information communications and the Internet are of universal importance and value.  They're of importance to all actors, all stakeholders, all potential uses.  Therefore, everyone should have the opportunity to take part in developing policies that affect them and in helping to ensure that their specific needs are met.
So its use of importance should be considered and decisions should be made by what I might call an inclusive Due process.  Highly relevant in broadband development process because what is underpinning the desire for broadband is the notion that broadband for all will improve the quality of    will improve economic and social outcomes and will improve governance.  So broadband for all will have benefits for all.  Inclusiveness, therefore, should therefore improve the quality of policy outcomes.
And a first part of the code's message really is that for the consultation on a broad basis is necessary and important.  Obviously it should not be a token consultation, it should have real meaning, real substance.  Serious consultation or substantial consultation is likely to make two valuable contributions.  First, the decisions that come out of a process in which there has been consultation are likely to be better informed decisions.
Second, if people have the opportunity to participate in decisionmaking, they are more likely to consent to the decisions that come out of the process, even if they personally disagree with those decisions.  So substantive consultation will improve the quality of decisions and improve the degree of consent with those decisions.
Second part of the code is concerned with information.  The central message there is that if people are to contribute, as they should, they need to be well informed.  And enabling people to be well informed here is a responsibility of those who are conducting the consultation, not just of the people who wish to be consulted.  It's not just a matter of passively handing over information, therefore.  It also requires governance bodies to obtain information which is not yet available and to make it available in a proactive way.  So, for example, in a context like broadband policy, it's necessary to research the current state of the market and to research the plans of actors within that market and to make the resulting information available to stakeholders so that they are commenting on a basis of full information about what is happening in their society.
It's also important to make information available clearly and accurately and in such a way that people find it easy to understand and easy to engage with.  So in language that is easy for people to understand if they are not specialists, in languages that are the languages of the people you are consulting, in terms that are    that enable people to respond, for example, by setting out what the key questions are and asking for responses to those key questions, in ways that    in formats which are accessible to people in their natural way of doing things.  So online and offline formats, but also formats that people can easily reach rather than having to go to a specific place in order to do.
The third part of the code is concerned with participation itself.
The central message of this part of the code is that everyone should have the opportunity to put forward their views as readily through a consultation process that is open and accessible.  And as for information, the key to this is making the consultation available to people in ways that suits the people who are being consulted.  This is actually a very familiar concept from marketing.  If you're trying to sell something, you go to the places where people who might want to buy it are and you try to sell it in those places.  You market it in ways that are an attractive to the people you are trying to sell it to.  The same principles apply to a consultation process.
So here that means, among other things, that consultation opportunities should be open and diverse.  They should be available to individuals and to organizations.  It should be possible to respond in writing and also through meetings.  It should be possible to respond offline as well as online.  The process should be well publicized.  It should allow sufficient time for people to think through their views, to discuss their views with others, to draw up their views in a response, because especially in an organisation, it's necessary to do quite a lot of internal consultation.  Before presenting your thoughts or inputs to a process.
And it should also, a consultation process like this also should actually go out and actively seek the views of those who might not otherwise naturally engage with it, especially those users as well as suppliers, the marginalized as well as those who are very familiar with the issues, ordinary citizens as well as technology professionals.
So I think what I'm trying to encapsulate here are the sort of things that may be best practice within a consultation process which are issues that are put forward in the Code as being good practice for both Internet and internet related consultations.  And when a consultation process is concluded, best practice would say that the response    by certain proposals, certain contributions have been accepted and other contributions have been rejected.  So it should include feedback to those who have taken the trouble to submit their inputs to the process.
Okay.  So no policy process is ever going to be a perfect process.  And what I've been talking about here is the kind of absolute best practice sort of thing that follows through from aspects of the code and from looking at different policy processes in a number of different countries.  And I've talked very much in general terms.  Different countries have approached this sort of thing in different ways.
In my country, for example, in Britain, the Digital Britain policy was set out through an interim report, which was then open for a period, for prolonged, really, I think a six month period for open consultations, following which another report was written based around the outcomes of that consultation.
And the South African context    for 2009 following which there was a consultation process and a coal oak we um.  And the revised policy document was published in July 2010.
And other countries have taken different approaches with more or less of the kind of consultation dimensions that I've described.  So I'm going to leave it there as a kind of broad, general introduction, Michael, and then see if people want to take up those points either specifically or more generally.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you for this, David.  And what I would like to suggest now is that we could have this discussion from two angles:  The first one would be to perhaps speak about experiences that you might have had with consultation processes with South African consultation but also some other ones that you might have been involved in to highlight some of the possible strength and weaknesses from which we can certainly learn in developing, further developing this code.  And the second one, of course, from the perspective of the sponsors of the code is the Code in its present form really something that you could see as being applied to such consultation and decisionmaking processes?  So one dimension I think can inform the other.  So I would like to open the floor now to all kind of comments that you would like to make from these two dimensions or anything else.  If you do take the floor, please let us know who you are, which organisation you might represent.  That would be very interesting for us to hear, as well.  So the floor is open.  Hans Hansell, please.

>> HANS HANSELL: Thank you, Michael.  I just wanted to make a short comment or reflection.  Some of you might know that we have had an inspiration in developing this code from what we called Aarhus Convention, UN Convention on Environmental Democracy.  The main principle there is to share information and to be transparent and ensure participation from the common citizen.
That convention is working very well.  And that's quite a success story.
Now, that is environmental democracy.  Here we are talking about Internet Governance, Internet democracy.  But nothing that states that it cannot be transposed into other areas, as well if we have the principles here that can be used in merging of the sectors.  So I just wanted to share this with you, that this is not only Internet Governance; we're talking more of a general aspect of    and I think David also mentioned his example from UK.  And I think these are the principles that are generalities and could be taken on board in several other aspects.  Thank you.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you, Hans.  Thanks for reminding us that the Aarhus Convention was very important for multi state governance has been practice.  I see Paul Wilson is asking for the floor.  You have it.

>> PAUL WILSON: Thanks very much.  My name is Paul Wilson.  I'm the head of the APNIC, which is Internet address agency for the Asia Pacific.  We are one of the organizations along with our counterparts along with Internet registries which operate outside the ICANN system.  We are mentioned in the second paper that provides a survey of the community.  We're referenced and described quite well there, actually, in terms of our performance and our characteristics relative to the Code.
So I think I'm really speaking for myself here, I'm not representing any of the other RIRs.  I do think the Code is an excellent document.  I think its content is substantial and meaningful.  And I think    and at the same time, one of the interesting, the really interesting things about it is as an example of the way that we are now merging aspects of the Internet world with the real world, in a way, that is the drawing from the Aarhus Convention and in a way that can transform both of those worlds.
I had an experience quite recently that is quite relevant here in that we had a new legal adviser joining the legal team that serves us, a guy who had worked in state government interfacing with nongovernment organizations.  And he got himself quite immersed in the APNIC at the policy process, that he took it back and described it to one of the bureaucrats in the state health department as an interesting example.  And they, without any exposure to the Internet way of doing things at all, were really quite excited by this instead of dreaming quite idealistically about whether the state health policy could be done along in some way along those lines.  I think it will be a long time before that actually happens, but I think it's a good example of the fact that what we are doing here is actually quite meaningful.
The Code does    the Code as it's proposed does draw a lot from what is actually already happening in the Internet community.  And I think in that sense, it's interesting that it reflects running code in the IETF sense.  If that reference isn't understood by everyone, it's an old credo of the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, that we don't believe in voting for kings, we believe in rough consensus and running code.
The meaning of that being that we really don't adopt something and we don't give it our attention and don't give it value until it's proven itself as something that is actually running code in the programming sense, that it actually does work.  And so what this code, this proposed code here draws from is the running code of the practices that exist already.
And I think, as I said, the second paper that David presented I think at the last IGF, which is the survey across the community of organizations, does actually demonstrate that many of us are demonstrating some aspects or demonstrating best practice in at least some aspects of what we're doing.
There's one thing that is as an essential part of the Internet registries which isn't specifically highlighted there and which I'd also like to mention because we recognize it as a very important part of what we do, and that's the Policy Development Process, or the PDP as we call it.  That's the process which actually is summarized quite well in that second document, in the case of APNIC, at least.  It is a formalized process by which someone can bring a proposal or a change in relation to addressing the policy into the system and have it in an organized, predictable way, have it considered and debated, commented upon and finally adopted.  And that PDP is actually an essential thing to all of the RIRs.  It's something that I say is a cycle.
What we are doing at all the RIRs actually have meetings once a year and what we're doing at those meetings is continuing going through the cycle of continuing new or changes to the policies, or policy proposals that have been rejected and are coming back for a second go.  And this is a cycle that goes on and it's part of our best practice or part of our understood and adopted way of doing things that that's how we make changes.
One important aspect of that is the PDP itself is a policy.  So if someone wishes to adjust the way the Policy Development Process works, it could be something relatively trivial, like providing more time for comment in a particular stage of the process or giving, for instance, something more substantial might be giving some    involving in a formal way the remote participants that come into our meetings.  Such changes to the PDP can actually come back and be approved through the PDP itself.  So that's something that is possibly not quite as well highlighted, I think, in the documentation that I've read.
An aspect of the PDP that applies to all of the RIRs, I think, is actually not terribly well covered in the Code that's proposed here, and that's actually the decision making process.  I think the Code covers transparency and participation, and within participation, there's references to decisionmaking that is not sort of an examination of how decisions are made and the consensus word is the one that applies in the case of the RIRs.  We actually do have an approach where not only is it inclusive and transparent and so forth, but the decision that's finally made at the end of the day is made as a consensus decision.  And that's a choice that we've made.  You might decide or feel that voting would be a better way for certain classes of decisions and also a consensus, of course, can be achieved and measured in different ways.
In our case, the consensus is judged fairly and formally by Chair of the policy working group.  And so the Chair is elected by the working group itself and one of the responsibilities that they're charged with in being elected is to exercise their judgment as to whether we have consensus on a particular decision.
So the point here is that I think the Code as it's proposed actually doesn't delve terribly far into that sort of aspect, and yet it's part of what we do recognize and we do.
I'll finish up by just asking a question or pointing out there's something that hasn't been quite clear to me, and it is the question of what the Code is actually intended to, what purposes it is intended to serve and how it's intended to be adopted.
I think there's a risk that because it's described as a code, that it may be seen as something that is a mandatory code or a code that is codified in a way that doesn't allow changes.  In the fast moving world of the Internet, as I say, even in our Policy Development Process is subject to change, and I think to codify something in a way and to describe it as a code is something    it may be seen as something that can't be changed so easily.  And so certainly if you're presenting this as a code to an existing community with its own practices, then it may be    you may risk sort of rejection in the sense that it's seen as external people proposing to impose a new set of rules.  And they may not be new rules, but they just use different terminology from the terminology and the processes that happen to be in existence in a particular community.
But I think the actual intent is, as I think we've heard, is that the Code is intended to be used as input rather than to be adopted as something that would be binding or imposing.  And so I think that's exactly the way it should be presented, that you might actually call it rather than a code, you might call it a reference model, that this is something that is presented for consideration, for reference by people who are examining their own or other people's practices.
And two sort of concrete ways in which I could see it being adopted is, for instance, or being used as input in that way would be, for instance, it may be published as an informational RIRC within the IETF, system and I think that would be an interesting thing to present to the IETF, that here is the reference model as a document that has been decided through this IGF process.
It could also actually come in in some form of policy into the RIR processes so that following that PDP as I described in a bottom up member, it would be possible for any member of the community to come in and say "well let's consider this.  And let's consider adopting it in some form." and that's something that any member of the community would be quite free to do.  I could see that as a possible outcome.
But as I say, these are all examples of taking this as an input rather than as an imposed set of rules for adoption and doing something creative with it.  I understand that's the intent of the exercise and of the authors, anyway.  So that's all I had to say, thanks.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you, Paul.  That was very useful indeed and to immediately take up your final point, technologies is important, in particular when people look at a document, the history of which they are not too familiar with.  A code could possibly lead you on the wrong track.  As being something as you say being imposed on something on external entities.  You understood us exactly in the right way with me saying that the sponsors of the initiative see themselves rather as proposers and facilitators of such a discussion rather than as imposers in any way.  So it's the terminology or a changed terminology could make that even clearer, I think we should certainly think about that.  And thank you for your concrete proposal and also ways of possibly channeling this into policy making, decisionmaking mechanisms, the two examples that you gave us.  Thank you very much.
I have a request for the floor from Mr. Papela, of the member of the Parliament of South Africa, whom I'm giving the floor now.  You have it.

>> MR. PAPELA:  Thank you, Moderator.  And just also to share some kind of perspectives.  And I do agree that the Code, as it has the pillars, I'll be speaking more on the information and participation.
To stand by and say every situation is unique.  And I know in every democracy there are differences.  And if you go to several countries, I think those differences would be quite wide.  And I think comparisons will then differ because they're competing for resources where the issues of television, inequality are at the highest point, and then you also have down in the developed nations obviously they are not where we are in a developed nation.  So the uniqueness also ought to be recognized and also the differences in every Democrats is not 100 percent done.  And in that context, I just want to then say yes, policy making in South Africa has its own challenges and has its own achievements.  And when it comes to information, we have a situation where if we are to look at language, we have 11 official languages in South Africa.  And you may find that another nation is one or two.
So if you are to engage in that language practitioner, it means then the costs around communication and providing information in 11 languages in itself will obviously be limiting.  So the issue of language also may not be realized.  That ought to be there to ensure that as we grow our democracy, we invest also in the production and insuring that people exist.
And then the other second area is the ability to reach everybody.  The infrastructure also helps a lot in terms of disability.  Though, I mean average middle income country, but there will be certain areas and situations where we cannot reach physically and therefore it would be depending on other sources of communication in media and that could reach those, I just read your television where possible.  Because not everybody then can reach those instruments.
The other 11 is the issue of illiteracy in society.   Illiteracy can also play a role, limiting role.  Because even if there may be a policy for comments, but because of the level of illiteracy in that particular country, you will find that not everybody is able to participate.  So those are the differences that I just wanted to mention.  In South Africa the level of illiteracy is    because of Apartheid    was 65 percent.  During that was 85.  Now we are 65.  We are indeed reducing the level of democracy    of illiteracy.  But it is still a challenging element.  So if you are to then say participation must be maximized to a level that everybody is involved and participates, obviously those particular limits that is always done.  
The process that we currently engage, we do publish the policy in whatever newspapers and then we do call for comments in any consideration of policy.  And then at most you'll find that they have been raising it as a complaint ourselves.  That the most organized and the most resource are the ones that participate, whether they're presenting their voice of everybody, something else that we ought to check, be it civil society, be it industry or others, whether they are presenting the voices that they came to be representing, that is another issue.  But they will be the ones that then come and then participate in any particular processes around the consideration.  And then there will be the position for comments.
Those who are able to do so using the instruments and the means, they will also do so.  But you can't say that every person, even those in the areas are engaged.  Those will be then the limitations of every democracy that we have on earth.
And then after the submissions, sometimes the process culminate in parliamentary hearings.  Parliament also will not be able to have resources of reaching every community.  I mean, we have a constitutional judgment, I guess, parliament, that in certain public hearings that we have had, they were not sufficient.  Years we did, but they said it was not sufficient.  And the engagement between the judiciary and the lawmakers is deficient.  Is it one that 50 million people have been consulted?  And how do you do so?  Do you go house by house?  Talk to each and every individual?  Or what is sufficient?  They were not able to engage, but the pronouncement was there that the consultations were not sufficient.
However, that did not make us to rest.  We are now looking at developing what we call the public participation model.  That looks at the variety of aspects of what could be regarded as sufficient public participation.  Whether we'd be able to come up with something, I'm not so sure.  
So we have given ourselves six months to then consider to broaden the public participation, what it means and then what is it that is sufficient, but balancing that with the representative democracy.  Participation is participate in democracy.  But then these people who are then Parliament, they were elected themselves.  And then those statistics of the elections, then it means people have mandated to again represent their views.  So we need to balance that.  And because when they're pronouncing, they do not look at that particular balancing of their representative democracy around the judgment that they did.  And obviously some of their processes will end up in colloquiums or workshops or some consultative processes, that includes the public from time to time.
So includes in public hearings, if it is government there needs to be colloquiums or workshops.  But all culminating where we can say sufficiently that we've    but in terms of the question that I had, having just given that context of the South African democracy and its deficits and the challenges, but what we are also doing in the development of public participation model, just this workshop we are only presented with the Latin American pilot and then the East Africa.  I'm not sure whether we did other centers or it was only the two, piloted.  These are really good pillars of code, data.  And I think they are quite elaborative and we'd need to put them into practice.  Whether they were tested in other parts of the world or it was only literally those two.
And then the last point I think I will agree with the gentleman who spoke now that if you say code, it's very imposing, as he said.  But if you say general guidelines, then you are easily allowing countries to adopt to our own environments, adopt it into that.  While the guidelines are there, you can then say this is what we can adopt.  And they are just guidelines.  But if it is a code, as you said, the things change so fast that once you have a signed and adopted code, it's going to be easy to change over time and then to adopt it to the new conditions.
But one is general guidelines.  We are able to add from time to time to say can we add in this particular way?  And so forth.  Thank you very much, Moderator, for your consideration.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Papela, and thank you for having allowed us to use the South African policy as an example of a possible application of the code.  And you draw our attention very rightly to the unique situation with which each policy making process is confronted.
So what we are trying to seek or should be trying to seek, I think, is to reconcile the need for or the possibility for adaptation of the code to specific environments but also to have the basic message so clear that different situations and different countries or entities are comparable to each other because by that token, all those who consider the Code and use it could also benefit from it by comparing their own experience with that of similar or related processes.  So to find the right balance, not be too imposing, but not give it away too much, either, so that it is then being adapted beyond recognition, that is, I think, something that we need to be working on.
Natasha would like to make a comment to this, please.

>> NATASHA PRIMO: Thank you, Michael.  I just wanted to    I wanted to acknowledge some challenges that Mr. Papela raised.  And by the same token point out that we've had better practices in South Africa, we had better consultation processes, and that we have, in fact, backslided into a situation where you have a policy process that in the same way that there's been a judgment against Parliament about having insufficient processes, one cannot judge this policy process as also having been insufficient.
And I want to say that or also comment on the Code.  I think the Code has been very useful just looking at issues around information and participation.  Just in kind of looking at and assessing the policy making process itself.  It is, at best, a visionary document.  It sets out a vision for establishing access to broadband within the country.  But in the way that David has spelled out what policy document contains, the document, the policy document, the south African policy document, falls far short of that in that you don't have any of the policy objectives, really, spelled out in detail.  There's no research that has been done there's no    with regard to what the policy options are in relation to what they are.
In the end it is very thin in a civil society person who has been involved in the broadband policy advocacy process, but there's very little to comment on except that there's very little in the document.  So that's one point.
The other point that I would like to make is I recently was also in meetings with staff members within the Department of Trade and Industry and commented and actually requested transparency, sharing of information of the set of framework developing a new copyright policy document and was told that "well, that's not how government operates."
And I was a little bit taken aback that somebody didn't know, this person didn't know that there had been a process where there was much more participation of civil society, of business, of a range of different stakeholders in the policy making process, going from green papers to white papers to actual policy documents and that there would be a civil servant who didn't know that history.
But just to also point out some of the    just the deficits.  In this process around information being made available, a policy document was gazetted in December 2009 and then basically just went to ground and nobody had any information about what was happening with this document.  And there was no way in which one could engage, comment.  There was nothing to comment on until it came out, you know, as    well, there was a colloquium, but a one day colloquium in which very few people would have been able to participate.
So I just think that there are two things that I think of that I want to say.  One is about the policy process itself, but also just in terms of the code, that the Code itself, recognizing what everybody is saying about not wanting something imposed, but it does give you an instrument, a mechanism to work with and assess public processes and the extent to which they enable, enhance participation of people who are or will be affected by these processes and the extent to which they can engage meaningfully and fully informed of the different options.
So, yeah, I'll stop there.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you for that comment, Natasha.  I think if anything it shows us the complexity and the challenges in such processes and possibly also we will call it in the end to enable evaluations or assessments of such processes.  I suggest to not go into this domestic discussion at this point here, rather take it as an indication, again, as I said, of the complexity of such processes and of tools, the necessity for tools of documenting such processes, perhaps also to compare them with other similar processes.
So thank you very much for that to the previous two speakers.  Are there any other comments or experiences of such policy processes in other processes in Internet Governance in the broader sense that anyone would like to share at this point?
Mr. Papela, don't feel compelled to react.  You have the floor, please.

>> MR. PAPELA:  It is not about the comments.  It is just to take from the other delegates here.  You have a situation where a policy comes into public sphere.  Depending on the interests of the nation, some of the policies will get the attention of the nation; and then again another policy which is flat and it does not get that particular attention if we could then look at those particular.  Because I'm talking about the one policy, although it is not related to Internet Governance, but just by way of example.  The planning, the planning policy in South Africa.  It was there three or four months.  There's been flat.  Only very few participate.  But wed to proceed as parliament and then proceeded on it.
Then we have a law currently, the protection of information and the establishing of the media tribunal.  There is so much noise.  But who is making noise?  It is not 14 million South Africans.  It's those who have got the pen who can write the media that go to Africa.  So now you find that the interests differ from one policy to the other.  So I'm not sure whether I'm reading it as probably not only happening in one particular situation.  If you could just say what other lessons besides what the Code is saying, which is very visionary, I must say, I agree with the speaker which says it is visionary, it brings other elements of participation and information sharing to other principles.  But why there's no interest, what do you do?  Maybe any person, or those who presented could really say how do you drive that particular interest and take it so that there is maximum participation?  But when there's no interest,    sometimes it doesn't.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you.  Well the Code would suggest that one of the elements is a proactive information policy.  But certainly that is not everything.  How to capture the attention and how do you convince the population that it is an issue that interests them all?
I repeat my question of whether anyone would like to share of any processes.  If that is not the case, I'm giving the floor to Paul Rendek now because I know that he is involved in a workshop yesterday about transparency in Internet Governance, workshop 88, as it were.  And I suspect he would like to share some ideas about that or anything else that he would like to contribute, Paul, you have the floor.

>> PAUL RENDEK:  Thank you, Michael.  My name is Paul Rendek and I'm from the RIPE NCC.  I have a few questions to raise here.  
I very much agree with a lot of the points that Paul Wilson brought up here, but I would actually like to relate this to the workshop we had yesterday.  I'm actually quite sorry that we didn't merge this workshop with the workshop we had organized yesterday because I think that we could have had some very good discussion with a truly multistakeholder representation inside of the workshop that we had yesterday.
I would have passed this document around to the delegates and had them think about this and have this as one of the agenda points that we had discussed in the workshop.  I hope that I have the opportunity to do that in a followup workshop that I'm planning on organising.
One of the things I want to point out, I didn't quite agree with the delegate across the floor from me.  I think that having a document like this needs to be put into practice before you want to flesh something out any further.  I think there is enough information here to go on for all the stakeholders.
What I would like to see, I think at the end of the day, you will always have one group that will find it too little or too much.  I think you have to be very careful in that aspect.  But I think in putting this, I think what I'd like to see is:  How would you put something like this into action?  I would like to see this put into play.  Because only then can I judge what the outcome can be when somebody follows this as a reference model or as a code.  I think a reference model is something I like to refer to this as.
How are we to measure the success of this?  And what is the next step here?  Because I'm more than happy to work with    from the technical community perspective in any of the things that we would do to actually put something like this in practice to see how this would work.
I am currently thinking how I can bring this to Euro dig, which is the European IGF, some of you may know.  It's a smaller Forum than this.  I think that something like this could be tested there.  But I'd like to know where this can be put in practice for us to find actually the merits of whether this can work.
And one other point I wanted to raise.  One of the delegates yesterday raised a very good point and I think it was mentioned here in the room was:  An understanding of how decisions are made is a very big part of transparency, I think.  And I think if you look at the different stakeholders that are playing here in the field today, and I'm sure there are many more to come, what is our understanding of how decisions are made in all the different sectors or by all the different stakeholders?  I think when you see that, you truly do have transparency.  I do very much agree with that statement.  I think that those are the comments I'd like to make for now, thank you.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you, Paul.  That's very helpful.  And let me join in by saying we should have merged the two workshops.  It would certainly have been very useful.  But we do notice that we're talking about something related here.  From the perspective of you as convenors of the workshop yesterday who really come from the core of the Internet Governance community and organizations such as UNECE or the Council of Europe who take a lot of inspiration from this kind of multistakeholder approach and governance.  And this is why we feel it is so important.  And this is why we feel we want to be involved in this and push this approach.
So to bring these two strands together is a very good challenge that we're looking forward to.
Well, how to actually implement the Code?  How to find fields where we can actually bring it to fruition?  That is something that we would like to discuss.  The EuroDIG would be one possibility.  The Council of Europe is one of the coorganisers of the EuroDIG.  So we can be instrumental in bringing this even more to the attention of the EuroDIG than it has been done already this year.
It was presented, but I'm not sure whether the discussion was so thorough as it was in the Latin American and East African cases.  So there certainly is some scope at the level of the EuroDIG.  Paul?

>> PAUL RENDEK:  Sorry.  If I could just add a little bit of a comment which may help me clarify what you are just saying now.  I think a lot of resources have been spent in the visibility of all the stakeholders in this Internet Governance arena that we're playing in today.  I know that my organisation and the technical community has put a vast amount of resources into making sure that we've carved ourselves a niche inside this Internet Governance process, as well.
Now, what I'd like to see is I think I've reached a good understanding of who are some of the players that we have here and have reached out to many of them just to meet them, I think the next step is understanding what each group has to bring to the party or what their mandate is, what they're trying to gain from the Internet Governance process.  And maybe this reference model can be used to actually take that to the next step and find that out.  And maybe it's better done on a local level, like EuroDIG, for instance, I'm sure there are many other platforms where this can be done.  But I think that doing something a little more locally and smaller might be effective in putting something like this into practice before you would bring it up to a much larger group.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Karen, please.

>> KAREN BANKS:  Karen Banks from the Association for Progressive Communications, one of the sponsors of this initiative.
In terms of how can we use it?  And I think we're really very keen now to see how we can put this into practice.  That's not to exclude, I think, ongoing discussion.  For example, Valeria's suggestions that these documents be shared with decisionmaking bodies at a regional level, such as ECLAC, and the GRULAC.  And so I think that's very important.  And that's why we are having this relationship with the Council of Europe and the UNECE is also very important because I think you need to keep those sorts of discussions going at a principle level.
But at the practical level, we've    we have a very good guide here.  As a starting point.  As a framework.  It was interesting in the workshop yesterday, to hear a lot of the words and phrases that are in this document used by the participants from private sector, from government, from the technical community, that they are things that they feel need to happen and be a part of increasing transparency in these processes.
And I think that our approach, APC's approach to making these sorts of principle frame works more practical is to develop tools and to kind of talk at them.  And that can mean things like you take a particular point and you develop a series of questions that can help say the person implementing the policy process to just kind of think 'Well have we done this and have we done that?  And have we done enough of that?  "and I'd really like to hear more about the process that you're thinking about undertaking in South Africa, how you can sort of define the limits, the parameters that balances the resources you have in a representative democracy and a policy process?  I mean I think it's a very important question.  Can you really involve everyone in a meaningful way in a public policy process?  And I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask that question.  And you actually have to make those kinds of decisions.  And you have to make decisions about allocation of resources.
So I think if we could workshop this I think at a very local level, like I think a national level, whether it be, say, with AfriNIC in workshops that they're holding, with government that would be interested, and really workshop this so that we can develop it into a series of either FAQ sheets or questions and answers that will help you concretize what the practical steps are that you can do to try and achieve these sort of laudable aims and principles.  And I think we can only do that by sort of sitting together and looking at it probably in the context of a real or if not real a theoretical process and think through what does that actually mean?  What does that mean we have to do for this particular process, not like a real process.
So if there's anyone who feels that there's the possibility of doing that and working with us on something like that, and certainly we'd be very interested to work with the NRO in a couple of sort of test workshop sort of scenarios to, yeah, to workshop this framework, if you like, to make it concrete and real.
At the same time, it's continuing to encourage people to think about this principle framework at a kind of higher level.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Yes, thank you for this.  I have another request from the floor from the lady over there.

>> FIONA ASONGA:  My name's Fiona Asonga, I'm the chief executive of the Telecommunication Service Providers Association of Kenya.  You've asked a question.  Is it possible to bring all these different stakeholders together and work on something?  Yes, it is.  It has happened in Kenya.  We have different tools we use for this.  We have the kickternet  (?) which is an amazing list that brings together government, private sector, civil society and the consumers to discuss different policy issues.
So on the mailing list we put our input on the different issues that we're dealing with in the industry, the permanent secretary, who is like the person who runs the technocrat who runs the ministry of information, gets all the input from that discussion lists; and when we are drafting the bill for the different areas of ICTs that need to be presented to Parliament, the input goes into that document.  And he circulates the document on the mailing lists.  We read, we give our feedback and discuss it on the mailing lists.  Where it is necessary, we have a Forum, a workshop, two days or three days where we meet at a particular location and go through the document part by part giving our feedback.  Then the ministry works with all that input that has been collected to put together a document.  And we have at least gone through that process with the current amendments act 2009.  It took us one year to get the document together because of the various interests and trying to balance the interests of the different groups.  But the document is now an act of Parliament that is a legal document, that is enforceable.  So it is possible to actually address the, get the industry and the consumers and civil society and government together to discuss issues concerning ICT and intergovernments.  So that is possible, thanks.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Yes, thank you very much.  I do see that we have lost some participants here for probably the simple reason that it's kind of stressful to discuss in the environment in which we are, which doesn't have, I assume, anything to do with the topic because I mean we had very engaging conversations here.  So what I suggest is that we wrap up in the next five or ten minutes here to not really overstrain ourselves, because I think we've had a good round here and some very good conclusions we can draw from that.
So I think what I would like to do now is to ask whether there are any additional comments here, have these.  And then ask Karen Banks, perhaps, to wrap up and help us to wrap this up with some concluding thoughts and possibly some ideas about the way forward.  Mr. Papela, I'm happy to give you the floor again.

>> MR. PAPELA:  If also for future, I agree with the last speaker, we could have what you call benchmarks on this code or objective at least overall where each country is so that you don't just have the Code and then we move from one workshop to the other, one workshop to the other.  There's no FAQ sheet that then begins to indicate movement country by country in terms of where each country or each continent is in terms of the implementation on some of the pillars of the code.
So obviously it's more work for yourselves.  And some kind of a survey that you can send a questionnaire to everyone and say "what are you doing as a country"?  And then give a summary of the outcome of the results so that you could then begin to see oh, okay, in Kenya, that's where they are.  In Uganda and so forth.  And in that way or in Brazil, this is where they are.  And in that way, we could even encourage others to model themselves on what other people are doing and such.  Thank you very much.

>> MICHAEL REMMERT: Thank you so much.  So one point is certainly to look into the applicability issues.  So how can we make it a practical document?  Can it be a benchmarking exercise?  Can it be a checklist of issues?  So we're clearly moving into that direction.
To what extent it can then be driven by any organisation that would compare experiences in different settings is of course first and foremost a resource question.  That is of course not solved at the moment.  But these are really the things that we need to consider to take it forward.  Thank you for that.
Now, I do not see any further requests for the floor at this time, so could I pass the microphone to Karen to take us to the conclusions of this what I think very good conversation?

>> Karen Banks:  Thanks, Michael.  In conclusion, I think that we can say that the Code in its current form is generally welcomed in the sense that it makes a contribution to our thinking and ways of improving transparency and information and participation in major governments' policy processes, that it probably would be even more useful if it were seen rather as a guide or a framework that has the flexibility to be adapted to people's specific context or realities of countries or organizations or processes that they're working in, that they can add to, that they can adapt and contribute to and that it, in essence, becomes something that evolves and grows as people use it.  There's obviously, I think, a need, and certainly a desire from our part to turn this into a much more practical and useful tool that can be used by anyone interested in improving the processes that they're involved in.  And I think we've heard some ideas about how we might do that.  And I think at this stage, really, that we'd certainly welcome your interest in staying involved in this endeavor.  I think that one other area that hasn't really been referenced in the Code but that I've heard a lot is that I think there's probably something to be said for providing a space for sharing best practice that already exists.  And there's obviously already a lot of that.
There is a part of the document that refers to monitoring and surveying, which is intended more for a kind of review, if you like, of application of the code when it was used.  But I think it's also worth us maybe providing the opportunity for people to share their experiences of practice in their own practices of improving transparency participation information because I'm sure there are some ideas out there, although we've consulted quite widely with quite a lot of organizations involved in Internet Governance, so I'm sure there aren't so much that we haven't heard from.
So if you are interested in staying involved either in just an ongoing discussion in general or in working with us to think about how to make the Code more practical, is to come and give us your email address so that we can follow up with you quite quickly.
You can also visit the Web site, which is quite similar to the Internet Governance Forum website address, it's Intgovcode.  And you would be able to contact us via that web site as well.
And I would then just ask whether Michael or Hans have any additional comments to make before closing and to thank you all very much for coming and bearing with us under these rather difficult circumstances.  So, Michael and Hans?

>> Paul, please.

>> I have a hint for you, which is that if anyone has a pair of these head phones, you can plug them in to the microphone here and you get to hear what people are saying.  So bring them.

>> There you go.

>> I heard that hint too long to bring along my own head phones.  So it can really only be recommended.  So thank you very much for this, for what we think was a very constructive approach.  Thank you very much for your interest.  And we are very keen to keep in touch with all those who said that they're interested in this.
Let me just repeat the address of the wiki which is Intgovcode in one word    intgovcode.org.  And that is a wiki on which you can see successive versions of the code and also the different conversations that have been recorded and documented over time, workshop reports from the IGF and other places.  So watch that space.  And we will be in touch with you in the future.  So thank you very much and have a good continuation of the meeting.
(end of session)


*  *  *  *  *