Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Sixth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum
27 -30 September 2011
United Nations Office in Naiorbi, Nairobi, Kenya

September 29, 2011 - 09:00AM


The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Sixth Meeting of the IGF, in Nairobi, Kenya. 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.


   >> IZUMI AIZU:  So in a few minutes we will start.  We are still waiting for some panel. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  We are still waiting on some of our panelists, but they are stuck in traffic.  I'll call on the panelists who are ready and hopefully as they speak the remaining panelists will walk in. 

   So, thank you and welcome again.  I'm going to give some very brief remarks before we get into the thick of things, and that is just by way of an introduction.        You probably already know the background to the IGF improvements process.  But for those who don't, there are certain elements of the mandate of the IGF that some stakeholders feel have not been fully implemented yet.  They should be in a position to make recommendations on emerging issues when appropriate.  This is one of the points addressed by the Indian proposal. 

   The mandate of the Internet Governance Forum was extended when the Secretary General issued a note in May 2010 in which he recommended that the mandate be extended for another five years.  But also suggested that some improvements were necessary.  So in response to that in July, ECOSOC issued a resolution that there should be a working group on the Commission for Science and Technology to come up with these improvements.  That working group was convened in December 2010.  And there were 42 members, including 22 States, five international organisations, five Civil Society representatives, five technical and academic community representatives and five business representatives.  And at the first meeting of that working group, one of the -- the most detailed proposal that was tabled was from India, and the title of this workshop is "reflection on an Indian proposal."

   In a sense it's not just an Indian proposal because many of the same suggestions were made by other stakeholders at various times throughout the last five years.  But we're calling it that simply because that's the forum in which it was presented to the working group.  And certainly other members of the working group, some of them had similar ideas, and so it's not really that India owns this set of ideas, but for convenience they have collected them together into ten principles which are listed up there on the slide. 

   Which... I'm trying to find out how to expand it to full screen.  I think --

   It was fine before.  No need -- there is a way to make it full screen again.  F5. 

   It's a PDF. 

   Full screen, there we go.  Control 4, full screen mode.  Go down to the previous -- no.  Back. 

   That is close enough.  Close enough. 

   So another interesting point to note is that United Nations Secretary General in his note in May 2010 had asked for improvements to the IGF to be discussed at the IGF's 6th meeting, which is this meeting.  And since there is no formal agenda item in the plenary sessions for discussion of IGF improvements, effectively this workshop and a similar workshop that has been held is what the Secretary General called for.  So this is potentially a very important workshop, especially because we happen to have many of the members of the CSTD working group and we have the Chair of the working group, Peter Major, who is sitting to my side here, the Chair.  So we are happy to have an illustrious group of panelists. 

   I'll introduce them one by one. I'll not readout of biographies or the job titles.  I'll just give you their names and institutions.  The reason is that there is a background document that you can download from the workshop Web Page, which has the full biographies of everyone.  So you can get all the details you need there.  So when I call your name, for the benefit of the closed captioner, who is here with us, could you please stand up so that she can see where you're seated.  And I'll ask the panelists to come in late -- who came in late to do the came. 

   We have Antti Peltomaki from the European Commission.  Welcome. 

   As I mentioned, Peter Major, the Chair of the CSTD working group. 

   And Sivasubramanian M from ISOC India Chennai. 

   And later, unless they walked in while I've been speaking, we will have Marilia Maciel from the Centre for Technology and Society in Brazil.  Raman Chima from Google.  And Romulo Neves from the Brazilian government.  Are any of those people here already?  Hopefully they will walk in in the course of the workshop. 

   Of course, I haven't introduced myself or my comoderator.  My name is Jeremy Malcolm.  And my comoderator is Izumi Aizu.  We are the co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance caucus, which organised this workshop. 

   So I said that I would be brief, and that's literally it for me.  So I will hand over -- Izumi Aizu has a few comments. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  For those who are members of the CSTD working group in this room, could you raise your hands?

   (Showing of hands)

   How many are here?  All right! 

   So, for you guys, this will be an interesting learning exercise, warm up exercise for the next meeting scheduled in October. 

   So, without further ado, shall we just do --

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Before that, I also omitted to mention that our remote moderator is not here.  She is on her way.  She is stuck in traffic.  I don't suppose anyone can hear us, but if they can, I apologize that there is nobody to moderate your questions yet, but there will be.  A couple of people are putting up their hand to volunteer.  Maybe, since you're closer, maybe if you can do that, that would be appreciated.  Thank you very much.  The traffic must be particularly bad today. 

   So before I do hand over, let's just go through the slide.  It is very simple.  It proposes that the MAG would identify -- it's disappeared.  There we go.  The MAG would identify certain very specific key policy questions, rather than the general issues of openness, security, et cetera.  There would be certain specific questions that the MAG would identify in an open consultative process for the IGF to deliberate upon.  The MAG would establish multi-stakeholder groups which would develop background materials on the theme.  Those would go into feeder workshops and round table discussions at IGF.  And once those had developed a level of maturity, it would be possible to then have a thematic meeting held intercessionally, and perhaps partly online, and try to reach a consensus.

   Then the product of the thematic meeting would go back to the IGF plenary and possibly there would be more round tables at the IGF.  However, whatever mechanism works best to try and solidify the IGF's response to the issue.  Then there would be a report on those questions, which would include any dissenting views.  It wouldn't necessarily be a contentious position unless there happens to be a consensus.  And those reports would find their way into the intergovernmental process by means of the CSTD and there would be feedback and interplaying with the relevant body to make sure that the outputs from the IGF had been received and therefore just didn't get lost in a sea of documentation, as is it case at present, where we simply have transcripts of sessions and so on that really are impossible to digest.

   So, that is the essential elements.  Now, the approach that we want the panelists to take is to be as specific as they can be about those elements of the proposals.  You don't necessarily have to address all of them.  But if you can say whether you agree or disagree.  And if you disagree, please be specific about where you think the flaws in this proposal lie and how we can address them and what alternatives might exist. 

   So at the end of the workshop we hope that we will be able to create the outline of a response from this workshop to the proposal that we can present at the taking stock session. 

   Again, we're not suggesting that we will have consensus or agreement.  But if we can say which points we agree with, which points we think may be problematic, that would be a successful outcome for this workshop. 

   Marilia Maciel just walked in, if she could stand up.  Our transcription lady needs to know where everyone is. 

   So without further ado, Antti Peltomaki would you like to begin?

   >> ANTTI PELTOMAKI:  Thank you.  I'm here representing the European Commission, but I think that the first remark is that we have to kind of coordinate the position for the EU on these issues.  Of course there were a couple of Member States or members of the working group, but the European Commission has not -- we haven't really positioned ourselves in the relation to this draft.  But I think perhaps what we say they are more or less personal remarks and nothing to really perhaps reflecting officially any kind of EU positions. 

   But I think that of course it's well-known that the EU has always been very clearly --

   (Technical difficulty)


   Whenever -- looking at the  elements and the list that you have just presented.  I guess that of course it's a very fundamental question that I'll be trying to modify kind of for IGF some kind of proposal tips, converging ideas that you could start the report coming closer, kind of idea for the setting, be sort of a set of recommendations that are representing the consentual views on this and that. 

   I think that whenever reading these kind of different steps that lead up to the reports, I think I was starting to ask myself, is there any kind of a reality check made that how this kind of workshop that IGF has today can start to really behave a bit differently? 

   Fine, I think we have to recognize that even if -- I think our understanding is that the IGF is already involved.  I think really that they are now governing a wide range of different stakeholder, both regionally as well as I think in different kind of stakeholder groups.  And I think that then it's also of course that the themes also have been able to, let's say, been reflecting what is in the air, what are kind of the real topics.  And I think it's a self sustained evolution. 

   I think, of course, we have been discussing whether IGF is kind of a talking circus.  I think the conclusions, of course, I think that you are always then thinking in these terms, what kind of proposal elements you could start to play with.  And of course I think that perhaps then to my mind it's not the person of one or two of the elements, but the whole of the idea behind this kind of a view that we should end up.  The report, I think some kind of merging consensus, and then start to communicate between the other international institutions on the basis of these reports. 

   And I think then I have more questions than perhaps the actors.  But I think on my own behalf as well as I think I can speak on behalf of the Commission, I think we are ready to reflect that and examining all the elements that are there.

   And of course like all the other things that we presented lately, I think that this is worth to study more carefully.  Thank you. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Thank you very much.  And we will hold questions until the discussion period at the end, so that we can go through the presentations quite quickly. 

   (Technical difficulty)

   >> MARILIA MACIEL:  We have no clear information of how much the donors, how much the donors contributed to the IGF.  How the money is being spent.  This is not available on the Web site and we asked for information about this in the working group.  But we have not received clarifying information about it.  I believe it's a very important point. 

   And we have to take into consideration also in-kind donations given to the IGF and that are not summarized together with the money donations that are given to the IGF. 

   The second point is the issue of outcomes.  I believe that we have discussed this many times.  And I believe it is possible for us from the rich discussions that we have here to be able to summarize not conscientious, but different policy options that we can take to other organisations, be it existing organisations, such as the ones that have a role in WSIS implementation, be it in the organisations that are created.  And I believe it's important for us to move forward from the historical debate from one side who says we don't want a binding IGF.  And it's important to know that we are not talking about the binding IGF, neither here or in the working group.  Let's move forward.  And let's not waste discussion on a binding or not binding IGF.

   The other point regarding outcomes, I believe that the outcomes discussion is an important one and it has nothing to do with enhanced cooperation.  Enhanced cooperation and the IGF process are two distinct complementary processes but two distinct processes.  So I believe that we can avoid moving forward with the outcomes from the IGF.  Because I believe we are afraid of an enhanced cooperation.  Enhanced cooperation may take place or not, but it has nothing to do with the IGF being able to offer more concrete outcomes.  There are organisations nowadays that it would be useful if we could send the outcomes from the IGF to existing organisations. 

   Another point that I believe it is important to mention regarding outcomes is the selection of workshops.  If we want to have good outcome, we need to have good workshops.  And I'm afraid that we have not been strict enough in the selection process of workshops.  And, when we do avoid to put a proposal forward, we are asking to reconsider it.  I do understand that the many people have made an effort to make proposals, but we can't accept every proposal.  And we can't say that having a proposal from act or X, from a developing country, is a reason for this person to receive funding to come to the IGF.  If we have a funding problem, then let's name the problem, let's give it the right name and the name is funding.  It's not workshop proposals. 

   Another point, it's a MAG.  I believe that the Indian proposal has been good in terms of strengthening the MAG, in terms of improving the number of MAG members, reinforcing representation from some actors that have been underrepresented, such as Civil Society in the MAG.  And the idea of creating thematic working groups and strengthening conversations between the MAG and other international organisations, I believe it's a good one.  And the MAG could be an alley in this task to summarize inputs that come from the sessions in the IGF. 

   Lastly, to finish, I could not avoid to talk about remote participation, which is a topic that is very dear to me.  And I believe that we have seen in the process and during the discussions in the working group that remote participation has been a fundamental tool for more inclusion, especially from people from developing countries.  It is very important that we set aside funding for remote participation.  It has not taken place so far.  We have to put it in the IGF specific funding for remote participation. 

   We had a major problem here.  We almost didn't have remote participation.  The moderators on-site were being paid so little, like 200 shillings.  Something that is so important to the IGF should not be treated so less. 

   Lastly, remote participation is very important. But it is also very important to bring people to the IGF.  Remote participation is not a substitute for physical participation.  So we have to discuss how to have more funding to bring participants to the IGF, especially participants who have not come to the IGF never before, and we have to have clear participation standards for participants. 

   Thank you. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Thank you very much, Marilia.  We will have comments during the funding period about the funding from Peter here. 

   We will also -- I would also like to welcome Romulo Neves, who has just joined us.  If you could stand up so that the transcription lady can see where you are.  Since Sivasubramanian M is ready with the slides, I might bring him forward.  So, Sivasubramanian M from the ISOC Chennai, would you like to do your presentation?     >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN M:  Thank you.  I'll go over the proposals point by point with some comments.  First, the MAG to identify the most important global policy concerns, take into account current issues, focus on IG for development. 

   There are changes taking place in every country affecting the way the Internet works.  Most of these changes are made in isolation of the deliberations at the Internet Governance Forum. 

   Under the next proposal is issue-based working groups of MAG members plus external experts.  The words that are dropped are overall balance, diversity, developing country participation, both governmental and nongovernmental. 

   That reflects on commitment to multi-stakeholder constitution.  There is a note of caution.  It appears that this is a proposal for too many working groups.  This could be sometimes we depend on working groups for everything, and we land up in a situation where there are too many working groups. 

   And the third proposal is about issue-based working groups during the prepatory process to develop background material, Commission experts, prepare the format of the corresponding plenary sessions, select and review feeder workshops. 

   Could be a very good way of streamlining MAG's work, but sweeping powers to working groups.  It could work very well, but how are they to be balanced?

   Workshops on various themes linked to the chosen key policy questions.  Feeder workshops, followed by round table discussions.  Working groups to attend feeder workshops; round tables to further shape perspectives around the key questions and look for areas of convergence. 

   Take the IGF beyond inconclusive discussion.  What about the issues falling outside what are identified as core policy issues?  So that is something that we have to pay attention to. 

   And the fifth proposal is about thematic meetings or thematic IGF's between IGF sessions on the policy issues, to facilitate dialog and identify possible outcomes. 

   There are regional IGFs on all issues.  This could be too many meetings.  It takes the ideas forward to productive outcomes.  But instead of having regional and thematic IGFs, I would like to propose, why not have three IGFs, the way that -- there are three ICANN meetings every year and each IGF would focus on one theme.  One IGF could be in one region, focusing on security, and another one focusing on another issue.  This is something that we can think about. 

   6, convengences and alternate views from the round table discussion and thematic meetings taken to the IGF plenary for a structured discussion.  India's proposal is keen on outcomes.   This is very positive. 

   And 7, working groups to produce a document on the concerned key policy question, presenting areas of convergence and divergence, to present a concrete set of policy options. 

   I think we are in harmony with the Government of India, so this is something that I changed during 20 July 2009 as input for the formal consultation with forum participants, July 2009, and I've given the link.  This is more or less my comments that reflect on this. 

   And views generated on a specific policy question to form part of the working group's reports. 

   Governments could adopt it as a Convention to draw resources from IGF Reference Papers on the relevant issues, topics, mwhile framing proposals for a new policy, changes for existing policy related to the Internet. 

   IGF report.  It goes to CSTD, ECOSOC, then UN General Assembly and then to policymakers.  It has given an alternate route.  It could send it from IGF or at least ask ECOSOC to send it directly rather than waiting for the UN General Assembly process. 

   Nine, IGF to receive feedback on developments, from governments, ongoing international Internet governance processes, interface with relevant bodies, facilitate discourse between bodies different priorities.  This is from Tunis agenda Para 72. 

   Again, this places IGF truly at the heart of Internet policy. 

   So this is probably the next generation of IGF.  So this is looking ahead.  It could also include -- I picked this up from what was said sometime back on some of the contexts, I don't remember that, what Marilyn said. One thing that is highlighted is define and implement a funding model for Internet Governance.  That is very important.  If not straight away a funding model for Internet Governance, a funding model for the IGF at least. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Could you wrap up.

   >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN M:  And thoughts about emerging markets.  So, there are governments who might be a little reluctant to adopt this Indian proposal, but I've brought a quote from Markus.  He says "the Internet will stay with us and nation-States will also stay.  "

   So with that, I think governments can confidently proceed towards India's proposal. 

   And my question, what happened to the Indians, between then and the IBSA meeting?

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  We are going to hear from -- we are going to hear from Romulo Neves, of course, and N Ravi Shanker.  Would you mind putting the ten points back up so we have those for reference?

   Thanks very much. 

   And --

   >> One question, I saw the ten points and it was alluded to the elements which was the composition of the MAG, which I didn't find in the ten points.  Is that part of the proposal?

   >> That's coming.

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  I don't think the composition of the MAG -- maybe -- is that

   >> (off microphone)

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  There are comments on the MAG issue, but they don't form the ten points.

   >> Please use the microphone. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  We have been joined by the final panelist, Raman Chima, from Google.  Are you able to launch right into it?  Thank you very much, Raman. 

   >> RAMAN CHIMA:  Thank you for the introduction and I apologize being late.  Unfortunately, traffic governance and Internet Governance don't work together, but I'm happy to be here. 

   I'll launch into what I wanted to say.  The first point was just to appreciate the fact that we're having even more focused discussions around the topics of Internet Governance.  I remember the last IGF I attended which was several years ago at Hyderabad, and the questions were more open and broader.  I have followed what has been taking place, and I noticed the fact that there are far more focused discussions at the present IGF.  Many of the questions that we talked about several years ago in fact already have answers.  If not answers, we know they are not the right questions to ask.

   We have new issues before us.  And the Indian proposal that has been towards IGF previously and the further developments that the previous panelist talked about indicate that we are going further and further into this discussion. 

   Let me go into the main points and my reflections on the proposal that were made toward the working of IGF.  I want to go into what seems to be asked here, underlying what seems to be the philosophy behind some of the very well considered proposals that the Indian government did make. 

   One seems to be get more focused discussions, focused outputs and recommendations as to questions of Internet Governance.  To make it clearer that the IGF does result in clearer answers to some questions, clearer standard setting and more increase in Democratic participation, focused on the idea of development.  And that is something that is important for us to remember.     The Indian government and other governments played an increasing attention on the issues of development.

Issues about intellectual property and the global comments of other working organisations.  And that might be behind the philosophy of these kinds of proposals as well. 

   Let's go into some of the reflections of what I was talking about in terms of more focused outputs.  And that is something that I wanted to go into here.  One of the proposals has been to establish monthly expert groups, experts who would be advising MAG, who would be able to feed into feeder discussions leading into the plenaries as well as intercessional workshops that are taking place in between.  And my interest here was not the fact that many standards and many principles that have come out in terms of Internet Governance from the Council of Europe or groups like progressive communication, and industry as well, have seemed to have developed by themselves without having gone through a formal process yet.

   The IGF has been in a position where these issues have been -- the standards have been shared and discussed at this forum meeting and it's been fed into other UN systems.  So the basic reflection here was that in fact isn't this already taking place?  And perhaps are there ways that we can adapt the Indian proposal to even more easily take use of what is already there?  Most engineers and even lawyers say step on the shoulders of giants.  Build into what is already there, so that you don't replicate things.  You add fewer moving parts to an already complex system.  The expert groups that were mentioned and the feeding parts that are taking place.  Perhaps we need a more increased role in the plenary session and in the other -- in the administrative dialog and even in MAG for the work that has taken place through other groups and through Dynamic Coalitions and other forms of organisation here at IGF? 

   There is a comment I heard repeated from several stakeholders is that there seems to be many IGFs.  It's become better but there seems to be many IGFs.  But the point is that we take what is best in every IGF and ensure that what you have is the most discussion and the most effective sharing of standards and the knowledge that everyone here is working so hard to create and to talk about and to feed into recommendations.  So my main comment on the distinction about expert groups and the working group, pardon me, the works groups and the intercessional meetings that came up in the Indian proposal, there is scope for that to be done.  I'm not sure of whether a more formalized process, whether it would be beneficial to all.  I suspect it might reduce input.  It might reduce the ability of people to add discussion to the entire process of what is taking place here.

But there is something to be be said that the existing formalized ideas, mechanisms, particularly at MAG and the administerial, could connect better to what is taking place on the ground. 

   Perhaps at WIPO, in the latest sessions and working groups it has.  It easily connects into nongovernmental and academic discussions, and knowledge creation, which tie into the main reports.  Perhaps that is one of the underlying ideas here behind the reports that are identified in the proposal for the IGF and I believe many Civil Society members suggested.  So perhaps that could be more clarified and the IGF Secretariat could play a greater role there.  But I'm not sure whether an absolutely new system would necessarily bring the best for all of us here. 

   The other part --

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Would you wrap up?

   >> RAMAN CHIMA:  On the last three elements of the proposal in terms of recommendations and responses, again, I think the connection here, and it's an important element of the new proposal, is that it must feed into existing UN bodies and it's taking place at IGF.  The Human Rights council, the special Rapporteur has been making concrete international soft law, but it's still concrete soft law that feeds from ideas of discussions.  So the other UN and intergovernmental bodies as they take part in the IGF meetings.  So my response would be that perhaps a lot of this has been taking place.  We can figure out more concrete ways of guaranteeing that other stakeholders take part in these meetings. 

   The question is how do we do this and that's something that I look forward to hearing responses to as well.

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Thank you very much, Raman.  Because we're moving on to N Ravi Shanker from the Government of Indian.  Thank you very much. 

   >> N RAVI SHANKER:  Thank you, Chair. 

   I'll be brief about it.  This is primarily a multi-stakeholder proposal as was brought out by one of the panel speakers, but having given it an Indian flavor has really spiced it up.


   Now, coming to the point, we articulated a position that we would like the IGF to have an outcome orientation, and I think all of this which has been stated is in that direction.  Quite a few things of the policy proposal and the thing -- I'm not going into all of it -- are in consonance with the Tunis agenda. 

   So the underlying thing is we are seeking change within the process of continuity.  So all issues were articulated in the Tunis agenda.  The change is that on the premise of improvements in IGF.  And we felt that having it as an outcome orientation definitely helps. 

   One more point that I would like to state here is that the funding of the IGF, the funding of the IGF, if it were from a single source, preferably the UN source, that would make it a more cogent way.  There is a scarcity of sources.

We would like that the Secretariat functions fully and flexibly with complete resource backing. 

   Coming to some issues which my Civil Society member from India has been rather complementary in many senses, but at the end of it left with a parting shot, I would like to say that the IBSA is a forum where my counterpart from Brazil is also here and South Africa.  It's in the process of the Tunis agenda.  We have looked at carrying forward the Tunis agenda and trying to see that there should be the focus on enhanced cooperation.  There also needs to be an outcome orientation.  I think it's all in the agenda.  And I would like to say here that the dialog that took place at Rio was primarily first meeting.  So it's basically come out with some draft ideas.  And it goes through a graduated process to the next level of summit.  The summit would sort of firm up our ideas.  And I think a number of stakeholders contribute to the IGF.

   The way in which OECD contributes to the IGF and ICANN contributes to the IGF, if the simple gender, IBSA contributes to IGF.  I think it's a multi-stakeholder forum and we all realise it.  And we should look at it through that lens through which we need to view whatever thoughts put up. 

   I would like to thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Thank you very much, indeed. 

   And penultimate panelist is Romulo Neves from the Brazilian government. 

   >> ROMULO NEVES:  Thank you, Jeremy.  Sorry, also, for being late. 

   Well, I'd like to be very brief, because I would like to hear the discussion here.  But, I'd like to say that the Brazilian government supports the main idea of the Indian proposal, especially because we have a logical issue and a logical contribution to it, to give for this occasion.  That is the following:  There are some things that are very important in a forum like this.  The first one is legitimacy.  And legitimacy comes from a mandate and it's an authority issue. 

   And the second thing is participation.  And following the logical way, the logical path, the mandate is already there.  We have a mandate from the secretary general to do this. 

   The participation we need to improve.  So we need to think about attractiveness.  And we think that attractiveness, we have two elements.  Funding, of course, can to make it easy to participate, especially for developing countries, and relevance. 

   Following the logical path, within the relevance we have two elements to improve it.  The issues that are discussed here, so we need to take care about the relevance of the issues.  And the following up policy.  And I think the Indian proposals are talking about this point.  And in my logical path it's a very important thing. 

   But, the following up policies, and we can call it outcome, we have some, let's say, classifications on it.  It could be just reference, just food for thought.  It could be suggestions, declaration, Public Policy.  So, we have a lot of types of outcomes or following up policy.  We need to think about that. 

   How could we bring more attractiveness due to relevance and due to following up policy?

   Well, most of the proposals, the Indian proposals, are based on commonsense.  But commonsense is not a simple thing, as you may know.  So, let's just give an example.  To buy a house, the commonsense says to buy a house you need to work hard and earn some money.  This is the commonsense.  But the commonsense needs a concrete plan for action.  So it's not enough to say that. 

   And I agree with Mr. Raman, that some of this is already there, of course this is already there.  But we need to think how could we improve that logical path that I described in my point of view to bring some more, some more legitimacy through attractiveness, through relevance, through the follow-up policy? 

   And how could we, turning to a concrete way to do it?  So we need to think -- we think in the Indian proposal, who will decide the key issues?  There is already a policy on that.  So could we improve it or not, or could we just follow what already exists?

   Which criterias should we raise for the evaluation of the workshops, the thing that Marilia just read?  Is it enough or do we improve it?

   Who will summarize and harmonize let's say the following up policies, the outcomes or the declaration?  I think this third question may be -- maybe is the main question to put forward the following policy element of my thought. 

   And finishing, which channels we think those outcomes would be dealt with?  What would be the channel through which the IGF outcomes should go to be, or just food for thought, or reference, or something more?

   If you would like to bring more participation, we need to think about that.  Maybe we could get a conclusion that 90 percent is already there, you need just to improve it.  But maybe 10 percent we could improve to bring something more to IGF.      I agree, I totally agree that there is a lot of IGFs, but I also agree that everywhere we could improve something.  And I think most of you believe that. 

   So, specifically, about the Indian proposal, I would like to say that we need some more concrete indications to clarify what could we do to increase the legitimacy through participation, through the follow-up policy?

   Thank you. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Thank you very much indeed for that. 

   And it's, perhaps to wrap up, we have a final panelist, Peter Major, the Chair of the CSTD working group.  If you would like to present from here, we can advance the slides from there.  Just give a signal.  So thank you very much. 

   >> PETER MAJOR:  Thank you, Jeremy.  When I said yes to participate in the panel, I thought I would participate as a special advisor to the Hungarian mission to the UN.  And my designation came last Friday at half past 4 in the afternoon.  So, all of a sudden I realise that one of the least things I can do is to be neutral.  And I try to be neutral and I'm going to be neutral. 

   Having said that, I went through my presentation, which I wrote before my designation, and I found out that, well, it was neutral already.  So it might have been a kind of anticipation of the events. 

   So if we could go to the next one, please.  Probably I would like to give some overview, the results and concerns of the IGF 1.0  and what I see as improvements as far as structure, financing, reporting, streamlining, is concerned.  And talk a few words about the working group and wrap up with some conclusions. 

   I think all of us do agree that IGF on its own is something unique.  It's a multi-stakeholder approach, which was initiated in 2005 and maybe before has taken up.  And there is, I might say, the result of it is a kind of trust.  It is not always there, but it's increasing.  It's flexible and it's self organisation.  That's the way I see it. 

   I was at Hyderabad.  I went to Sharm.  I went to Vilnius and I'm here.  I'm still fascinated.  It's something really extraordinary.  We have no resolutions, no decisions, and it is nonbinding.  And up to now what I heard from you, all of us do agree that this is okay. 

   And it is trying to be inclusive, well, to a certain extent.  Well, probably the degree of inclusiveness is up to debate.  But to my understanding it is inclusive. 

   On the next slide I'm talking about some concerns, what I heard:  Unequal representations, it is not streamlined, there is no real reporting, it has no real impact, the development issues are not really in the forefront, even though I think the theme, the major theme of this IGF is IGF  for  development.  And there are questions of financing and MAG composition. 

   Dilemmas:  Maintain flexibility versus streamlining.  Should it be nonbinding or have discussions or in the worse case resolutions? 

   What about the multi-stakeholder approach?  Should we maintain?  I think there is no discussion that we should maintain it. 

   What are the obstacles to participation?  To increase the inclusiveness?

   The budgetary issue:  Should it be a voluntary contribution base or should it be a kind of regular budget?  So that's what I heard together as well. 

   As for the MAG, its composition is also a central question.  Should it be a selection or election based mark? And in the Indian proposal we have had very relevant points concerning the structure, a very elaborate scheme, if I remember correctly, how to select the members of the MAG. 

   There is another issue which hasn't been mentioned here, the IGF and other WSIS related activities.  How do they relate?  Probably this is also a hot topic to be discussed if at all. 

   And if you go further, the topics we are discussing during the IGF, should we stick to the existing topics or should we take on the emerging ones and anticipate something?

   Finally, I think the Secretariat is also a kind of burning issue.  Should it be an independent Secretariat as we have it now or it has been also mentioned that it would be good that it be integrated into the UN system.  So this is something that we should consider. 

   Naturally, these are not independent issues.  They said be treated partly separately but probably they will form a kind of overalll view. 

   I wouldn't go into much detail, so probably we can skip some of the following slides, and I would like to go to the IGF two topics.  Probably I will make this presentation available to you.  And just a few words about the working group and the way I see it right now how we get -- how we are going to proceed with the working group. 

   I am really grateful that we have this workshop, because it gives -- it's a tremendous help to me, frankly speaking.  So I'm here to listen.  I'm here to understand.  And in the end to summarize. 

   And I try to reach out to as many participants as I can, and I am very glad that I have the trust of, I think, of all stakeholders. 

   So I am all ears to all the suggestions or the considerations, and my view is that I would go with the first meeting on the last day of October.  That is following the ITU telecom and following the ICANN meeting in Dakar.  I know that it's a very short notice.  However, if we want to achieve something and go for the -- probably we have to do that.  I propose to have a three-day meeting at the outset.  It will be had in Geneva. 

   And based on the discussions here, and naturally based and mostly based on the inputs we had up to now, to the working group, which really did some very good job, I have to admit.  Even though some of us feel it was a failure, because we didn't come up with recommendation, I still think we have substance.  We have substance to build on.  And that's what I want to do.  To build on the substance, to come up with a summary of what we have done up to then, including all the discussions we had during this IGF. 

   And I'm confident that we shall come up with some positive rules at the end of the day. 

   So in conclusion, I am confident that the IGF is in its nature a self-improving organisation, forum.  It will be inclusive for all stakeholders and we can work on that.  And I'm not forgetting the remote participation, which I think is an extremely important thing. 

   I'm also attentive to some remarks coming from some participants referring to enhanced cooperation.  Probably if this is a concern, we have to deal with that as well. 

   And, finally, I think that by the end of March, when we have our last meeting, we shall come up with some recommendations. 

   Thank you for your attention. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Thank you very much, indeed.  That was very illuminating.  And I'm going to pass on to my co-moderator now.  He is going to continue the debate with the floor.  So, thank you very much.  Izumi. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  I see 25 people wanting the floor and we have about 25 minutes to go.  So please, identify yourself clearly for the remote moderation and also for the transcriber.  First I've got Luis, Luis Magalhaes, our colleague at the CSD working group and Narani is speaking after, and many other hands to follow.  Paul Wilson and Jeremy -- sorry.  And Parminder.  So others -- and Bertrand, Marilyn Cade, jump in please, for those who I don't know the names, please forgive me.  But I can't remember all of your names.  Luis Magalhaes from the Portuguese government.

   >> LUIS MAGALHAES:  Luis Magalhaes from the Portuguese government.  Well, any living body has and should have room for improvements.  And that is true with the IGF, because it's quite alive as I can notice. 

   The ten points that represented on the screen regarding possible improvements of MAG are certainly worth consideration, as well as the procedure for the composition after MAG itself especially from the side of nongovernmental representatives, which probably requires more transparency and a clearer organized scheme. 

   And it's certainly elements that we can discuss, but we must be clear that the proposal, we are talking about other elements that are not contained on what was presented on the screen.  And some of them deserve quite a lot of attention and discussion. 

   Well, besides -- I think that we must be very careful about this designation of the India proposal.  And the reason for that is because India, like so many other of us, is involved in more than one proposal that is being discussed.  And sometimes they are contradictory.  And sometimes we think we are discussing a point and actually on another proposal backed by the same government we have a contradictory point. 

   I'm being clear because we have little time, so it's better to face the issues as they are. 

   For instance, India together with Brazil and South Africa are presenting a proposal that they want to move to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the so-called IBSA proposal, which as it is stated now in written form kills the multi-stakeholder process.  It doesn't say it is against multi-stakeholder, but the proposals that it actually has conceives the idea of creating a dedicated agency within the UN systems or else something within ITU that working with United Nations procedures will pursue the work and put together the work of several entities like IGF and ICANN. 

   Let me be clear, United Nations procedures don't provide room for that sort of nongovernmental Involvement.  And for us this must be clear for all.  These are not the real nowadays.  It is so much so that the IGF itself is not organised as a United Nations body, but it's convened under the sponsorship of the United Nations Secretary General and the demand itself is not a (inaudible) body, it's a (inaudible) body to the Secretary General.  And also the members have to be formally nominated to be validated by the Secretary General himself. 

   So to consider the multi-stakeholder environment, one has to actually go around and take special measures. 

   Well, I urge that the IBSA proposal is still developing and there is room for improvement and clarification.  The people related to the proposal with which I talked seemed to be talking about a different thing.  So I suggest that it's better to improve the text so that the situation will be very clear and the -- and that we can follow it. 

   Well, I think on these issues we should discuss the tag, but we have to avoid being distracted by micromanagement, and actually -- well, overlook the real big picture, because the big pictures determine very much, very much what we can do.  We should not forget just ten months ago, recently, the working group for IGF improvements was asked to be only governance and India was a supporting government. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Please wrap up.

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  So we see our contradictions are here appearing.  So I hope that we can clarify that and we can come to a very constructive system that supports and provides a new breadth to multi-stakeholder involvement. 

   Thank you. 


   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  As I said, we have 23 minutes and now I see 30 people want to have the floor.  Be mindful, please.  Do you want to have click reaction or clarification or wait?  Then Narani. 

   >> NARANI:  I'm a member of the MAG and also on the CSTD working group.  I would speak for half an hour but I won't.  It's a shame we didn't leave more time for real debate here.  I have think there are a lot of interesting issues and there are a lot of opinions in this room.  So we could have had a very rich discussion. 

   I have a few things to say.  And I think it is very encouraging to hear that everyone in this room supports obviously the Tunis agenda and the multi-stakeholder model. 

   But even when doing so, I think we need to be careful in -- when we talk about multi-stakeholderism, actually, full multi-stakeholderism, where everyone participates on an equal footing.  Although the term is being used all the time, I see that in many different discussions there are other interpretations of multi-stakeholderisms, where we are invited to the room but we aren't necessarily allowed to participate.

   So when we speak about multi-stakeholder, let's talk about it in its true meaning. 

It's encouraging to see that no one obviously wants to change the Tunis agenda mandate and I think it might be worth reviewing that.  The Tunis agenda talks about a lightweight body.  It doesn't talk about a very formal process with government representation different from any other stakeholders. 

   I think we all agree it might be worth giving a bit of background of how the MAG was selected.  Pardon if I speak fast.  The MAG in the previous years, there hasn't been a formal process for the MAG selection.  This is not a mistake, but it was simply also because in the beginning when the IGF was started, there wasn't -- trust needed to be built and the Secretariat did a fantastic job in reaching out to the various stakeholder groups and selecting people that represented the various stakeholder groups. 

   I think we have reached a point in -- a point of maturity where we, I think everyone agrees, shall need to look at more formal processing of selecting the MAG. 

   I agree with Portugal's point in that we need to be aware that the MAG is not a human body.  It's actually a group of experts that are selected not just because of their geographical representation, but because of their expertise.  And this is very different from any other body within the UN.  And I think there is a risk in moving away from this flexible system. 

   I think that when we speak about outcomes of the IGF, I think we all agree.  Someone yesterday said that the WSIS is a beautiful but empty Web site.  The IGF Web site is full of resources and very ugly.  So I think there are things that we can do to improve -- there is a fantastic amount of resources from the IGF.  We can certainly improve that. 

   But I think we found that whenever we try to enter into negotiating, and it takes drawing conclusions from the IGF, we get stuck.  So I think we need to be aware of that. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.

   >> NARANI:  I want to make two more points --

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  No, just one, please, for the sake of others. 

   >> NARANI:  Which one to pick?


   Okay, well, one is, again, when it comes to the composition of the MAG there are several aspects that we have to look at.  Not increasing the participation of developing countries is valid, but we are looking at other types of diversity as well, geographic diversity, gender balance, which is also very important. 

   And if you look at the MAG, I know that, for example, the balance between developing and developed countries has improved.  In 2006, there were 48 percent from developing countries in the MAG, and in 2010 64 percent. 

   So I think when we look at how to improve the IGF, let's also look at what the facts actually are.  Let's not raise or turn problems into bigger than they are.  We can do a lot to further improve it, but let's also stick to the facts when we discuss them.

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thanks.  Now I have great sympathy to Peter about how to have a balanced discussion.  Paul?  Ready?

   >> Paul Wilson from APNIC.  I have a small point that lead to something that lead to IGF improvements.  I'm not talking about the India proposal but the fact that there was no reporting from IGF.  I don't think that is true.  I think there is a huge amount of reporting infrastructure that comes from IGF that comes through traditional media and is distributed among the participants widely, going out through Twitter and all the rest, not to mention the journalists who are here.  So I think that is worth note.  That is part of the IGF model around us here. 

   The point was about formal reporting.  But the point I'd make about that is the purpose I think of formal reporting is to help inform people who are not here.  And I think remote participation, if it's working properly, probably also reduces the possible need for formal reporting in its traditional sort of form. 

   So I guess what we all know is that the IGF is pretty unique in a lot of ways, and it's challenging a lot of the traditional paradigms that we are used to.  And maybe this reporting question is an example if it was to become one of the points of potential improvement for IGF in the future. 

   But the more general statement I wanted to make then is that I think we should always be wary of sort of suggestions for IGF improvements, which are based on actually in the old models that IGF is replacing or improving, more based in those, in assumptions about those than what is necessarily actually needed. 

   So again I'm not talking about the India proposal there at all.  It's a more general comment.  Thanks. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  There is a clarification about the financial thing, Peter? 

   >> PETER MAJOR:  Just briefly, we had a meeting with the UN, the donor community.  And the consensus was that we asked DESA  to check with their lead counsel of what the rules for the UN are in order to make this more transparent. 

   I'm not sure what I can say about the finances, but as a rough guideline ring the budget currently of the IGF Secretariat that they have been using in 2010 was roughly a little under one million dollars.  There are a number of contributions from governments and the private sector.  The percentage of private sector contributions per company is about 1 percent, roughly, or less.  So they are not having a major influence. 

   And also the money is channeled through a trust fund at UNDSA in New York, and of course the rules of that means that any donor does not have any influence on how the money is being spent. 

   And for my company, we have strict transparency rules.  I'm not to give directions to the UN on how the money is being used.  And that's how the other companies follow as well.  We have given the clear signal to the United Nations that we would like them to be more transparent about it and find ways of how it could be made more public, and they have to check however with the legal counsel and their counsel on what is permissible or not and what level of detail.  So that is just for clarification. 

   So the message has already been received and already yesterday we have made the moves to instruct the UN please make sure that there is more transparency. 

   And as an add-on note, the finances for today and looking forward, because of the very uncertain situation about the appointment of the special advisor and the appointment of the executive coordinator, there have not been as many donations in this year as there used to be.  There has been a carryover from the previous year of roughly 275,000.  There have been some contributions.  But I would encourage everyone who has the well-being of the IGF and the functioning of the Secretariat in their mind, to see how much they can donate to the United Nations for the continuance of the IGF Secretariat.  They would be surely welcoming contributions.  I hope not on the level of $50, because the administrative efforts to manage that would be higher than the contribution received.

   So please dig into your pockets and make major contributions.

   >> Can I add something here? 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  I'm sorry. 

   >> I'm looking at the proposal and paragraph 6.  It says "the convergences and alternative views of the discussion and meeting would be -- (Reading document) -- with a wide participation as possible.  "

   Some grammar that is missing.  But the point being that this is the crux.  There will be a lot of discussion, what topics will be discussed.  At this point, paragraph 6, comes the point where a decision will have to be made as to what things are going to go forward or not.  And if it's not that way and there are alternative views, one view says it should be done one way and another view that says it should be done another way, who is going to decide at the end of the day? 

   I'm thinking that if it does go further than this to the UN bodies or as it said here to the IGF report, it will then end up with the CSTD, et cetera, who decides? 

   I'm concerned that the structure that we have right now allows us to, whatever sector we come from, to debate, to discuss.  If you're going to find a situation where suddenly we are jockying for the position, I'm concerned about the ability for many people to work together and the division that may be created. 

So I'm trying to figure out what is the decision-making that may happen as far as paragraph 6?  I could be wrong.  Where does it lead to? 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Could you say your name --

   >> Sari Zahad Jamil from Pakistan. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  I have Jimson and Bertrand, Riette, Sheba and Craig.  Yes. 

   Okay.  Mary? 

   >> MARILYN CADE:  I'm very excited to have had this workshop and the workshop that happened yesterday.  I'm a member of the CSTD working group.  And we have received a very large number of suggestions.  And I think I want to focus primarily on funding. 

   I've had a conversation with many of you.  We must take the responsibility of the importance of providing funding.  We are supporting a structure that is trying to support other functions.  And we must give it enough resources to be effective and to be meaningful.  And that means that in the, I hope, in the CSTD working group, that we are going to be very serious about an effective funding mechanism, which is reliable, predictable, and sustainable. 

   I have studied very hard about whether or not funding could go to the UN budget.  I think it's quite out of the mandate of how the working group is set up. 

   But I think there is another problem.  And that is in the UN called committee 5, which basically is nothing new, and there is a 3 percent budget cut UN wide, which -- so if we were to change the mandate, which is what would be required in order to move the funding under the UN, we would also imperil the even survival of the IGF, because committee 5 accepts no new activities, nothing new.  And they're cutting everything 3 percent. 

   So I have two concerns about funding.  I think the community, this is a multi-stakeholder bottom-up ecosystem, and I think the community of stakeholders can adequately fund it and that we can find a mechanism that makes it predictable and sustainable. 

   As to the question of transparency, I, too, like Peter, have approached the UN to ask for different approaches.  You can believe that we are trying to do that. 

   But I think the bigger question is we want a big list of improvements, so we have to in the working groups also be realistic about funding that big list of improvements.  Thank you. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  Parminder now. 

   >> PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  Parminder Singh from IT for change. 

   The first thing, I talk about larger issues.  I think the proposal on the table which has been made, called the Indian proposal, I bet is within all Public Policy making systems in the global arena the most bravely multi-stakeholder process.  There is no other place where other stakeholders are proposed to be given such kind of clear role and power to shape the agenda authoritatively, communicate outcome, talk to people.  And I doubt any of the great champions of multi-stakeholderism here can bring out and show me a model which is more multi-stakeholder than this model on the table.  It's the biggest multi-stakeholder in the whole space.  And not talking about in the Public Policy space.  This is the largest proposal. 

   Now, the paradox is that a lot of people who seem to support multi-stakeholderism have been a little more resistant to this proposal and a lot of people are presented as being against multi-stakeholderism are pushing the proposal and it needs to be investigated, thought about what really it is about. 

   The question comes that Narani raised.  How do you do it?  People agree, it's a good proposal.  But it foils because it can't be done.  It's not a paradox.  It comes to also what happened between this proposal and Rio.  A lot of people said that global Internet policies should be made in the multi-stakeholder manner, even hard policies.  But if you cannot have a process which could succeed even in soft policy shaping, it would not succeed.  I heard three or four people say the process won't succeed. 

   This is a place where we should experiment with the soft process, invest into it.  If it fails, you are no worse off.  Let's sit down and trust it. 

   Now comes the basic question.  Who thinks there is a need for Global Public Policy making and who thinks there is not a need is a prior issue that we have to solve.  Countries think that the Internet social system has been shaped without public participation.  We need Public Policy to be made.  And therefore we come from mechanisms that make it.  Not to say -- rich people have half of the town and it is going to be difficult because, you know, these things are murky, they don't work.  It doesn't work because there are people who want government assistance.  They want government policy issues to be involved.  Therefore, we need a process and the best way to experiment is in the IGF to have a multi-stakeholder process, shaping the policy, giving outcomes, and then think yes, if we succeed here, what can we do at the hard policy level? 

   If you don't like the proposal, you have to come up and say this is an intergovernmental process, we don't like it.  This is what we like.  What should therefore be the process of Global Public Policy making?  When you say -- you criticize without saying what it should be, then you just don't want it and the Public Policy making is already happening.  It's happening at OECD.  It's happening by the private company consortiums.  And again, it's a closed process.  So I think this is something that is evolution over everything and I don't see anyone who supports multi-stakeholderism not supporting this proposal. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Maybe we can extend another ten minutes.  But since most people have over agendas after that, we will perhaps finish around 10:40.  So, please be mindful.  And Jimson, please. 

   >> JIMSON OLUFUYE:  Thank you.  Well, it's quite heartwarming to really underscore the fact that we have more than 100 percent support for IGF.  Because when the United Nations officials in most cases got the feedback to the effect that there is a support system and they would desire that it could be replicated at the global level.  So, I think where we could really incorporate improvement is with regard to all the outcomes, how they fit into the developing nations.  The issue of Internet for development is actually for developing nations.  And from my experience thus far, many countries in the developing nations don't have a grasp of the issues, are yet to really have multi-stakeholder approaches.  And if I used an example of Nigeria, you could see it practically happening in our country.

   We have to get the idea of how this really filters down to the grass-roots.  I think we need to find a way to focus on are we developing in the nations. 

   >> BERTRAND de La CHAPELLE:  I want to thank the IGC tremendously for having forced everybody to come and actually look at the document. 

   Because presuppositions about why some document is being put in place and so on is running all through the list of paper that we receive.  And so there is always this knee jerk reaction that it comes from that group or that group.  So I already have a proof against feeling. 

   I want to thank India and Brazil in pushing the discussion and setting up the agenda. 

   The only point I want to make right now, and there are many other possible comments, but the only point I want to make is the self organising nature of the IGF.  I think it's extremely important.  And we have right now the opportunity to demonstrate that.  This afternoon, from 4:30 to 6, there is a room 2 that is empty.  I would suggest, kindly, to Peter Major, that very informally and with the agreement of the Secretariat, those who are willing to continue this discussion, because we all want this discussion, even if there are parallel workshops that we may want to attend, take the opportunity and get together or use the lunchtime and make a table to get around Peter and give some discussion. 

   What I just would like to highlight here is that the time is not necessarily at that stage to get into the details of the proposals.  What I want to say is that what I loved, really, about the combination of the India discussion, proposal discussion, and Peter's slides, is the notion of scales. 

   IE, each of the proposals by India or so-called India proposal is actually a solution that is related to a general issue which can be the power of the MAG or not, in terms of agenda setting or decision-making for the process, in terms of what is intercessional, et cetera.  So there are headlines that will structure the work of the working group. 

   The India proposal is a specific positioning of the cursor in a range that is usually going from very informal to very structured.  Very distributed to very centralized.  And every discussion that will take place in the working group will have to use those three layers. 

   The issue that we are addressing, like composition of the MAG or intercessional work or degree of reporting are.  The definition of the parameter range and the scale between one extreme and the other, and the final tuning, which is where do you put the cursor on each of those issues.  But if the working group could already clarify consensus on the two different first layers, it would be a tremendous work forward. 

   So I don't know if Peter was willing to try to highjack the room 2 at 4:30. 

But I for one I'm very happy to go there if it is possible. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  For the IGC we have the network on neutrality at the same time.  And I hope if you do something, please share that one as much as possible with others. 

   We have nine minutes and four speakers, so two minutes each, please. 

   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you.  Member of the APC, I'm a member of the CSTD working group on IGF improvements.  Thanks for convening the workshop.  It's useful.  And I think it's useful to discuss one proposal in-depth.  I think that can also unfortunately result in overlooking some of the other proposals that have been made. 

   I think I want to focus on just a few missing things from this very useful proposal.  One is looking at the overall mandate of the MAG and the accountability of the MAG to the IGF community.  And I think that by over emphasizing the composition of the MAG, and making sure it's representative, the proposal overlooks this fundamental role of the MAG, which is to distill input from open consultations and channel that into IGF organising. 

   I like the idea of the working group.  I think the MAG working groups on key policy issues, which are identified by the IGF community, not by the MAG, will be very useful. 

   And I think the working group idea, we proposed it for a long time, I think I prefer the key policy working group idea than working groups on all main sessions.  Simply based on experiences of this year, it's very hard to have functioning working groups when you have so many.  I'd rather have a few really good ones. 

   Composition, structure has to follow function.  And I think it will change over time.  Challenges will change over time so we need some flexibility. 

   Transparency is absolutely important.  What is missing is enough of an emphasis on the fact that this is a group of individuals, even if you use a model, such as proposed by India, they need to work as individuals in the working group, rather than as representatives.  And therefore working method and facilitation and leadership and Chairing becomes important. 

   One proposal that I think is missing, which is one that APC put forward, is to split the academic community from the Internet technical community, which would give us more depth.  At the moment civil Society has to share our slots with the academic community and that marginalizes us.

   And I think that's the final point. 

   >> Sorry for my voice, after three days of IGF, I'm suffering some. 

   As it has been pointed out by my professor Luis Magalhaes and also by Marilyn, IGF is not part of the UN structure.  And I understand that according to the IGF mandate, it is impossible to be funded by the UN.  It is something that should be checked before continuing discussing that.  It should be checked with some legal advisors in the UN. 

   And so the only way to fund, to include -- to include IGF expenses in the UN budget would be to change the mandate, as Marilyn pointed out, too.  And I think that this is a very delicate thing and I think that there is not -- there will not be enough support for opening the discuss of changing the mandate of IGF.  Because once we open the discussion for changing small things, we can change -- there will be also proposals for.  Changing other things and we will have the risk of losing the support of some of the stakeholder groups. 

   The IGF has had an accurate discussion and very dedicated work in 2005, so I beg you all to please be responsible and think very well, think twice, before opening that discussion about changing the mandate of IGF. 

   About transparency, as a donor, we receive a letter, usually a letter from UNDESA with information of the IGF expenses.  And I think that this information is available in some part some within the UN public information.  I don't know.  But it's not a problem of the current IGF's format. It's a problem of the UN.  It's the UN that manages that information.  So I don't think how we involve the UN more formally, we can do this.  If you work with the UN, you have to have more information public about the IGF expenditures.  It's the right way to go through. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thanks. 

   >> CRAIG:  I have praise for India's proposal.  But when Parminder said that the multi-stakeholder proposal, I knew that something must be seriously wrong.  So I went back to my presentation.  I went to find number nine and I have a question.  So I'm -- it's actually the first point, the Government of India proposal, that IGF's report should go through CSTD and the General Assembly.  Why does India want to route everything through the UN?  Don't you think the role of CSTD and UN should be lightened, rather than strengthened?  You are strengthening the role of CSTD and the role of UN.  You want everything to go through UN.  Why is that?  On whose advice is this drafted? 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Excuse me, use the microphone if you would like to --

   >> PARMINDER JEET SINGH:  It's one process which is going like this, but the other parts with direct communication with the organisation, which was also pointed to in the Indian proposal, if you go to it, there you direct communication from the IGF to other things.  Once you have on outcome, you cannot --

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  That's it. 

   >> CRAIG WILEY:  Hello.  I'm Craig Wiley.  I represent the US government on the working group.  I'll be very quick.  I think the core of this proposal will cause a shift of the IGF.  Currently, people come to the IGF to present their ideas and concepts for consideration by the wider global community.  But I think what would happen in this proposal is you would come to the IGF to present your proposals and ideas to be included on the report or the recommendations that will, unfortunately, be written and decided upon by some small group of people.  I don't think that leads to an expansion or transparency in the operations of the IGF.  In fact, I think it limits those two things. 

   So, this is why we have a fundamental difference on this proposal, and we would hope that we would not go down this road.  Because we think this is what actually happens within the UN, in these types of sessions, and we don't think the IGF should mirror this.  Thank you. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you.  The last...

   >> NARNANI:  I won't take more than five minutes.  I'm Narnani.  I represent the Egyptian government and the working group of the CSTD.  I'm happy of today's discussion and yesterday as well.  I think improvement of the IGF is very, very crucial at this point in time.  And for this, I would like to congratulate Peter Major for his newly appointed as the Chair of the working group. 

   I'd like then to pose a question if I may to Peter and provide advice, if you allow me, about how are you going to plan the meeting on the 31st of October?  We have been working with the working group for about a year now.  We have faced so many frustrations, following in the trap of too many proposal issues and not much of the content.  We have produced very, very good documents in the March meeting and as well in May, and I think we need to plan well.

   How are we going to handle the 31st meeting of the CSTD working group to avoid issues that we had before and move to discussion and hopefully to reach concrete outputs and deliverables.  We are all here and we can further discuss information with you how we can move forward to avoid such dilemmas as we faced before. 

   Thank you very much. 

   >> PETER MAJOR:  Thank you for the congratulations and I would like to tell you that probably you've been talking on everyone's part.  And during the real work, probably we should only concentrate on that issue, that is the work. 

   I fully agree with you that we have produced documents, we have produced a lot of things, and I'm confident that we can build on that.  I don't want to go into procedural details. 

   I am sure that I have the full support of the Secretariat of the UNCTAD.  So to my best hope, by the beginning of our meeting we can come up with a summary of the documents which we have received, that is extracts from the compilation which was put forward during the previous meetings, which was the 120 plus document, which we to my best hope can reduce to some kind of handleable document. 

   And I think our discussion, we are going to discuss the points in this document.  But this is also up to discussion. 

   And what I suggest to follow Bertrand's proposal to come together in an informal way this afternoon, I'm not sure of the time, 4:30 to 6 in room 2, and anyone who is present here or even those who couldn't make it are --

   >> MARILYN CADE:  I'm holding a scenario summit in room 2.  So, you -- I am in room 2.  The programme is wrong.  We are doing a scenario summit and I hope you all come to that.


   Bertrand, thank you for building my audience. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  I have to go to the Secretariat of the IGF and ask for other solutions.  But the idea is excellent to come together to continue our discussion in an informal way, and I'm all ears for your proposals. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  Thank you all.  All the good questions within 90 minutes we have more difficult questions that this new working group.  But together with nonmember people of the working group we have to work to find consensus by the end of March. 

   Thank you for all the speakers.  Jeremy, you organised this, so you deserve the final words. 

   >> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Let's have a round of applause for the speakers and the audience as well. 


   So thank you very much.  And we look forward to seeing the outcome of this process.  Thank you very much. 

   >> ROMULO NEVES:  I just misunderstood.  I thought the panelists would speak again, so it's why I didn't respond to some questions.  Sorry.  It will be very fast.  Because this is the opportunity to clarify some things. 

   First of all, the IBSA document, I would like to clarify.  It's a government document.  A draft one.  So, don't make confusion with that. 

   Second, we are waiting for improvements on that document.  Much by the Civil Society, the Brazilian, South African and Civil Society. 

   I think the Portuguese representative, it doesn't mean the change of position of the Brazilian government attached to the multi-stakeholder approach.  A lot of people misunderstood that document as a shift to the intergovernmental model and it's not.  I'd like to stress it.

   He is not hearing me, but okay. 

   And we need to be very creative.  Because six years ago, seven years ago, nobody, nobody would imagine such thing as IGF.  Right?  This is -- this is a response to a challenge that was there and nobody could believe.  So let's be creative and maybe let's say not a UN system, UN body within the system.  But somebody told me multi-stakeholder body attached to the UN system, for example.  Let's be creative.  Don't kill the discussion or misunderstood it.  Just that. 

   >> IZUMI AIZU:  We need to clear the room for the next workshop. 

   >> BERTRAND de La CHAPELLE:  One clarification, on the side.  Marilyn's workshop is in room 1.  So we have to clarify this.  If there is one room that is available --

   >> MARILYN CADE:  They're the same one room.  I have to say that I don't understand how we could have a gathering of the membership of the CSTD working group when so many of us have prearranged workshops. 

   >> BERTRAND de La CHAPELLE:  I didn't say that.  If you are not --

   >> MARILYN CADE:  I don't know if you'll be able to find a room or not, but the Secretariat may be able to help you.

   (End of session  10:48)