Sixth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum
27 -30 September 2011
United Nations Office in Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
September 30, 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.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Good morning, everyone.
Thank you very much for being here. There are not very many, but we are very interested in the topic. We notice the last day of the IGF and everybody's already tired and looking forward later to go home and sleep in their own bed or go on a Safari. But we are very happy that you took the time to be here with us today.
The title of the workshop is Global Internet Related Public Policies -- is there an institutional gap?
I'd like to give you background information and then I will pass the microphone to the speakers.
Paragraph 60 of the Tunis agenda acknowledges that there are many cross-cutting international Public Policy issues that require attention and that are not adequately addressed by current institutional mechanisms.
To fill this gap, the agenda provide for the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum and also of a process of enhanced cooperation. The UN General Assembly decision from 2010 has stated that enhanced cooperation and the convening of the Internet Governance Forum are to be persuaded by the Secretary General through to distinct processes and recognizes that the processes should be complementary in some way.
So there are two very important discussions about institutional frameworks taking place right now. One is going on in the CSTD, the Commission on Science and Technology for development about IGF improvement. And the second one is taking place about enhanced cooperation in the UN in New York, DESA. And the main goal of improving the IGF is to link to the broader dialog on IGF. And because these two processes are taking place in different fora and also in different places -- one is the meetings of the working group take place in Geneva, and the meetings about the enhanced cooperation take place in New York -- there is a disconnection between the two topics. And one of the goals that we have here is to try to connect them. What does the process have to do with the other? And how can we see them both together in a coherent manner?
Well, to structure the session, we have come up with some questions. I'd like to divide the questions in two blocks. And the first block we want to address two main issues. The first one, what are the main policy and regulatory issues that are not being sufficiently addressed by the existing bodies? And the second question would be what should be the main role of a mechanism of enhanced cooperation? And of course this question entails the -- what the definition of enhanced cooperation is of the people who are going to speak here.
I would like to give the speakers, something, some time, about three or four minutes ,for them to express their ideas, then open the floor for questions. We are going to take questions for about 30 minutes and then we are going to go to the second block of questions that will be more specific on institutional options.
Who would like to start? Parminder? Could you?
>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: If you want me to. Thank you. The first question is what kind of institutional gaps one may think exist today in the global Internet policymaking space?
For this, the first distinction I would like to make is between technical policymaking and day-to-day operation of the Internet, and larger Public Policy issues involving social, cultural, economic, political issues. Now, this distinction was very clearly made in the Tunis agenda, but most of our discussions confused these two issues a lot. Every time -- and I mostly am concerned about the Public Policy issues. And whenever I go to a meeting and start talking about the gaps, what needs to be done, almost all responses I get from the other side of the floor are about the technical policymaking regime. And then obviously discussion goes nowhere, because the two sides are talking about two different things.
So ,first of all, I would like to say that in technical policymaking and the day-to-day operation of the Internet, there are no huge institutional gap, I think. However, there is a need for a better public interest based oversight, which is the Democratic. And in a very small, nonintrusive back stabbing kind of manner, the way the US Department of Commerce does it in a fashion for the whole world. Otherwise, the general institutional system in this area is found satisfactory by most people and that is not the problem. So let's not frame that as the problem.
But what the problem is is about Public Policy in social, economic, cultural and political areas. And examples are so many that one wonders on whether you should start giving examples, because it's limited. But everything, everything -- like Google decides, as the keeper of the inn, decides to keep on making its search engine algorithm without anybody knowing what the public implications are. Some people are enthusiastic about certain movements and less enthusiastic about other movements and what gets done. There is no public oversight. There is no transparency. There are bigger issues like Internet and IP. There are interests of Internet and trade. When we download, does any text get uploaded at the downloading or at the place where the application uploads, which is in the north mostly? The list is unending. It seems that people are not convinced that there are those issues.
The last point that I would make, because I know we need to get through this quickly, if you want to know whether there are any real Public Policy issues which need to be addressed, go and see the functioning of OECD's information on computer policies, something like that. By the month they came up with new frameworks, new Public Policy guidelines, new suggestions, new questions in the Public Policy area. And if they have Public Policy areas, it's obviously these Public Policy areas are also relevant for the rest of the world.
First we have to agree that there is a huge amount of Public Policy issues which needs to be addressed at a global level and then we can come down to how to address them.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to give it to Markus Kummer.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: When I read the description of the workshop, I felt it's very easy. I go there and say no. The answer to the question is no, in my view.
Having listened to Parminder, I think it may be useful to go back to the discussions we had in the working group on IGF between the two phases of the summit, where we agreed there is an institutional gap on the global scale, where we have to address all these issues related to social, cultural, economic areas.
But we then also recognize for most of these fields they are specialized organisations in place. And they do exist. And when we then proposed as a working group on IGF to come up with a new space for public Public Policy dialog, the IGF, it was the clear understanding that the IGF would not take over any issue.
Yes, IPR, I totally agree with Parminder, this is one of the key issues.
I like -- I prefer actually calling it digital content, as in ISOC we started putting that in our programme, and I like calling it digital content and innovation. Because innovation does not necessarily need to be protected by copyright or intellectual property rights, but can also be done on a shared creative comments platform. And we as the Internet community reacted quite strongly, when in the OECD framework IPR was put forward as almost the sole source of innovation. We said no. It's the Internet is the key to innovation.
So, I don't have any substantive problem here. But we are talking about institutional framework. And there is, A, no need to set up a new organisation dealing with these issues; and, B, there will be no political will to set up a new body dealing with issues on Internet and IPR or Internet and trade, because they are well established organisations.
So the question is more how do we carry what we discuss here into these organisations? And quite often they have their own system. I have no expertise on IPR. I've never even been to a meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organizations, but I'm told it's very strongly dominated by the copyright holders. So the question is, how can we from our discussions in the IGF framework give messages to these discussions taking place in the IPR?
And by coincidence -- not coincidence, I planned to attend the workshop yesterday on IPR, which was coordinated between ISOC and WIPO, and I thought it was an excellent workshop because it brought exactly all the different perspectives of these issues on the table. And this is basically the way forward, that you bring in the different perspectives to the existing organisations.
The last word on Democratic oversight over the technical organisations, all these policy development processes, be that on standards, be that on IP addressing, be that on DNS, are done in an open fashion. Everybody who wants to attend can attend, can contribute to these processes. So, I can't see why there should be -- I mean, yes, I take it, Parminder talks about a light oversight. But I can't see why there should be oversight over a process that is as open as it is. If you are interested in developing standards, go to an IETF meeting. If you are interested in policy development and allocation of IP addresses, go to a meeting of the Internet Registry. And if you are interested in the DNS, in the -- in the administration of the Domain Name System, attend an ICANN meeting and you can make your voice heard.
And I think the ICANN has -- a lot of criticism is focused on ICANN. But I would maintain that the recent meeting in Singapore on the new gTLDs, that the ICANN system was more reflective of the public interest than governments would have been. The governments wanted a more restrictive system, and that was very strongly dominated or influenced by the trademark owners.
Alas, the ICANN board listened to the other stakeholders and took into account the other interests, and that is a very good example of how within the Internet community decisions can be made, listening to all the stakeholder groups. The development of the IG is a long process. There are many criticisms, but in the end the whole ICANN community came out of it strengthened.
So that would be my point of view. I know others may have a different point of view. But this is my point of view. Thank you.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Markus. I'd like to give the floor now to Tulika Pandey, direct from India.
>> TULIKA PANDEY: Thank you, Marilia.
Talking after Markus, who has been the initiator of an open and inclusive forum like the Internet Governance Forum, is not going to be easy for me to speak just a little bit away from what he has already stated, that there is no need for another institution or another mechanism or another UN body to fill up the gaps that exist today.
I wouldn't speak too much, but on behalf of my country and my people, there are just a few that I felt were not fully being addressed within the IGF ambit. And I go back to the Tunis agenda and just mention those few that we feel could be better addressed if there was a slightly more organized or more focused structure or a body that could look into these issues that need to be addressed urgently, since the Internet today has become one of the fuels for socioeconomic growth of economies across the world.
And the first one that I would like to refer to is 72/B, where the Tunis agenda States that "the IGF needs to facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international Public Policies regarding the Internet, and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body."
When this was amended, expected to be covered by the Internet Governance Forum, there is no denial that there have been open, free, and inclusive deliberations within the IGF. But where have they led to? What do we have as a take away from those open, free discussions and deliberations that we have had within the IGF?
We seek to have something more concrete as a take away on this para 72/B, which for many countries is not so clear or transparently available.
The next one is Para 72/C. Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview.
I have not been able to understand the process or even the informal mechanism within the IGF discussions which has allowed us to have direct interactions with these intergovernmental bodies, who have sat down around the table with us to state what they have taken away from the IGF deliberations on the issues that come under their purview, and to come back to say this is how we have responded to the issues that have emerged and this is where we have taken measures to mitigate or to respond to the issues that were felt not fully covered or not fully addressed by our mechanisms of management of the Internet resources.
72/F, "strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance Forum mechanisms, particularly those for developing countries."
I am fully aware that the Internet Governance Forum has to reach out to the developing countries has been a great success, but where has it led to? How do we measure that there has been an enhanced engagement or a strengthening of these stakeholders in these developing economies, vis-a-vis the IGF having reached out or outreached to these nations? I do not see how the current IGF structure or the processes would allow us to be able to even informally gather this information and put forth a percentage or some form of discussion stating that this is where we stand today.
The only thing that we see is number of percentage of the participation of the developing world in the IGFs.
Is that the real measure of strengthening and enhancement of the engagement with the stakeholders? I'm not sure this could completely align with that.
There are a few more, but these are the few major ones which I wanted to bring to the attention of my imminent panelists along with me here and all of you who are sitting to attend and participate in this.
Thank you so much.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Tulika. Well before I give the floor to the next speaker, there is a small observation I would like to make. I think the two processes that we have commented on the beginning, the process for IGF improvement and the process for enhanced cooperation, in my view, what differentiates greatly both processes is that enhanced cooperation has to do with a forum for making decisions. And I think that it has to be clear when we talk about both issues, do we need a forum to make decisions? Which is the role of this forum? And this is something I would like our next speakers to also address.
And having said that, I'd like to give the floor to Eduardo.
>> EDUARDO: I'm afraid I didn't have time to recover fully enough, so my apology for my voice.
I would like, if it's okay for the Chair, I would like to react briefly to some of the posits made by previous speakers and to try to answer again briefly, because I know the time is a premium, to some of the questions that were made.
So, Parminder made a reference which I think is a key reference that is not discussed enough about the difference between the technical day-to-day running of the Internet and Public Policy issues. The European Commission has on a number of occasions both through official communications or formal statements by the Commission as a whole, through speeches, you might have heard the keynote speech of Vice President Kroes during the opening session. As a public authority, we are not interested at all to enter or to regulate into the day-to-day technical management of the Internet. That is something that should be left to the private sector or to the technical community if there is any difference between the two. But anyway, it's not a job for the public, for public authorities.
However, something that we noticed is that very often decisions which might appear as purely technical have actual deep Public Policy implications. Without wanting to bore people, but just to make one example, is there is now a big discussion which has been ongoing for a time, PARKI, which is about building security infrastructure for exchanging routing information about the Internet. Which is fantastic, because we saw during the Pakistani rerouting, the routing for the Internet is not as secure as it should be. However, these technical discussions raise important questions. If you raise a structure, I don't want to get into the details, then the question is who controls? The power is given to those who control that key? And these are the questions that the technical community, the business community, et cetera, are not, according to us, do not seem to be very -- with all due respect, either not very willing or not very well prepared to address.
And some of you might know the European or those who follow European affairs might now that the Regional Internet Registry for the European, I think Middle East and Russia, had recently discussed the introduction of this particular secure system into the region. And there was a proposal. Everything seemed to go right. And then one person asked this simple question, who in the end controls the keys, the keys that are necessary to operate the system? And all hell broke lose. Because the technical community did not simply seem to have ever questioned this important point. And this caused the whole technical proposal to be dropped, which was very unfortunate.
So if the Public Policy question had been asked beforehand and, quite frankly, public authorities had involved themselves or had been involved, because let's be frank, it's not always easy for public authorities to get involved into the day-to-day discussion on the Internet, because we agree it's not something that we should do.
But if there had been better involvement, I think that this problem might have been solved.
So the first message I take from this, whenever we talk about whether it's enhanced cooperation, whether it's a forum like the IGF, it has to be clear that there can be no artificial separation between the users. And we need to all understand that even an issue that appears to be merely or purely technical can, not necessarily do, but can have Public Policy implication.
And I'd say the public authorities should probably be -- try to participate more. But the technical community, what is called the technical community, should also try to understand that if you want to participate, it's not because we want to control, because we want to regulate, but because perhaps we have a little bit more experience on the political issues and the Public Policy issues that can arise.
The second point I want to raise concerning when my esteemed colleague, and I like to think friend, Markus Kummer, mentioned about the openness on most of the discussion processes, in some cases decision-making processes that involve around the Internet, the Internet Engineering Task Force, ICANN, it's true, these meetings are open, and the discussion process -- I'm not so sure about the decision-making process -- but the discussion process is certainly very often. And I can easily accept it's usually more open than you normally find in traditional settings. That is true. Having said that, oversight, which does not mean regulation, but oversight is very often necessary in order to ensure that openness does not become or -- you don't confuse an appearance of openness when in effect only the usual suspects talk. Only those with fifteen years of experience talk, and the newcomers who might have good ideas are discouraged from making these decisions. Since the Singapore decision of ICANN, certainly a number of stakeholders were listened to. Seeing that the Chair of the ICANN board has gone to work for a company which is bound to make a lot of money on the new generic domain a few days after the decision was taken while he was Chairman of the board, which stakeholders was he listening to? This is a good point to make. Openness is fantastic, but there has to be clear rules in place about conflict of interest. And you may know that the European Commission is extremely worried about that.
The last point I wanted to make is I just wanted to answer one of the questions which I think was raised. Do we need more policy? Personally, I didn't say the Commission, it's not that we need more body. I was at Wednesday at a workshop called mapping the IGF. And several attempts at mapping the institutions that deal with Internet governance issues was documented. I think we have too many institutions at the moment. What we need is a much better way of coordinating and outreach to the institutions. I agree with my esteemed colleague that there was a clear mandate for the IGF to help in this process, and that mandate has to be fully fulfilled.
We do not want with the Commission -- we are happy with the IGF for its basic structure, but the full mandate has to be fulfilled. On that there is no possible discussion.
>> MARILA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Andrea. He just made a statement that I think many of us have commented upon. The IGF is not a decision-making body. The question is, do we need a decision-making body? Which body should be it? What is the structure of this body? And I want to give the floor to Romulo Neves so he can address this question and if he can focus on this specific topic. Thank you.
>> ROMULO NEVES: I can't.
Well, just some few words before trying to address Marilia's question. There is no gap when one talks about power distribution or legitimacy distribution. Somebody, someone, somewhere is filling in this gap. This is, for me, it's just clear as water, clean water.
There is institutional dysfunction, let's say, or institutional inequality, maybe it's better. So, when you talk about having said that, when you talk about institutional framework, we probably are talking about Public Policies.
And related to Public Policies, I would like to talk about task, the first thing we need to think when we talk about Public Policy, the decision process, and the funding. These three elements make the Public Policy path and process possible.
When I talk about tasks, what would be the tasks we think related to Internet Governance? It depends on the stakeholder that we're talking about. For example, and we think the different groups of stakeholders, we think those groups, those groups, there are different tasks. Let's say government we could say some of them would like to increase access. Some of them would like to increase control and regulation. Some of them would like to avoid political dysfunctions, just like Andrea said. When you talk about companies, maybe some of them would like to increase access. Probably most of them would like to have profit. Maybe 100 percent. And some of them would like to increase or most of them would like to increase freedom to the private business.
When we talk about the Civil Society related to user, the Civil Society is almost everything. But when we are talking about users, we could talk about those tasks, increasing access, also. Increased freedom of those citizens related to Internet usage.
When we talk about academy, maybe increased clarity, we think the Internet Governance process.
When we talk about the technical community, I think maybe some of them would like to increase access. Most of them would like to increase stability. And maybe 100 percent of them would like to have prompt and widespread patterns and patternization.
Well, when I talk about tasks, we can find, we think, within this forest, all this different meaning to the word.
When I talk about decision related to those tasks, each one of those tasks means different decisions and sometimes opposite decisions. But maybe we can find a common point, common element among all the stakeholders. I think it's increasing access. I think. But let's make it -- let's leave it to the discussion.
Just two minutes. One minute. Okay.
So, what is the Brazilian government -- sorry.
>> TULIKA PANDEY: It's Civil Society controlling the government function.
>> ROMULO NEVES: Well, how is it about the decision-making distribution of power? How, in the Brazilian government point of view, how is it distributed right now? I think it's as follows. First of all, private companies have more power, have moral legitimacy here, in the process, than governments. And by the way, governments have more power, more legitimacy than Civil Society.
What would be the Brazilian government tasks? And I can say by my ministry and probably on behalf of the entire Brazilian government to overcome these functions in the distribution of legitimacy here in the process, increased participation. It includes internal participation on the process. It's why we adopted a very successful multi-stakeholder model and increased access. It means we need some dysfunctions to solve.
And how can we put this forward? How could we put redistribution of legitimacy, access and increasing participation on the stage? Maybe we need another body. But maybe we can forward some evolutions in the existing body. We don't have the response, but we would like to put it into the discussion.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Romulo. I know it's not fair when you are not speaking in your native language. I'm going through the same thing here. So you need more time to express yourself.
But having said that, I would like to give the floor to the next and last speaker, Jovan Kurbalija, and I'd like to make a question. Yesterday we had a very interesting panel organised by William Drake. We discussed the role of multi-lateral arrangements that are making the policies or standards on IGF Internet Governance, and we discussed if they are a good or bad thing. If they are contributing to the global governance or if they are creating silos of decision-making and we are fragmenting governance of the Internet.
How could you comment on that?
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Marilia, it's a difficult question after party night. You can see based on our voices that it was party night at IGF and on our attendance this morning.
I'll answer this question through one anecdote and explanation what we are doing in our building and the construction. Anecdote is from Geneva. And from comments that I received from one Ambassador at the reception, well experienced Ambassador who follows the issues.
And when we discussed what I'm doing and what I'm involved in, he said: Why do you need to write this IG books and to do the drawings? He said that he recently attended one briefing and for him it was very clear. The IGF -- Internet should be managed by those who are in charge of cables. And he indicated ITU. And those who are in charge of content. It's UNESCO.
And well I said those two organisations are playing an extremely important role in Internet Governance, but it's much more complex. And I tried to introduce a bit of complexity, but it didn't fly. He tried to reduce complexity. And you can understand a busy Ambassador from a small state in Geneva, which has to cover in the morning Human Rights and in the afternoon trade and Internet Governance and all the complexity comes to the front.
This anecdote is a good example of, if we can call it perception and reality. And perception is powerful in policy, and that we have to address more and more if we want to create a real powerful Internet Governance system.
Back to your question, what are we going to do with the silos? You know, our famous Internet Governance building, we realise that the building has to be a bit reconstructed. It was under heavy construction when we designed it in 2004. And then there are two requests that we add two elevators, two lifts on each side. One elevator should overcome the silo effect, which exists between floors, the infrastructure, legal, economic, socio, cultural and very many. And the elevator on the other side should introduce values. Because it seems the people commented that there is a lack of values and discussion on values in the current values. It's open and transparency. And we have been mentioning that, but not introduced operationally.
When I asked colleagues about their motivation, why we should do that. And motivation is centered around two elements. One is that governments are back after the strong bashing against governments in the early part of our country, and these governments are back especially after the financial crisis in the United States, European Union, everywhere, and they want to play a more prominent role. And it's a constant that we will have in the forthcoming period that governments will try to extend their footprint in the -- not only in the Internet policy, financial market, other policy, and that has to be kept in mind.
The second element, which is extremely important in creating this from a balance, is that in the same time we are also facing limits of the global solutions, we are facing it in climate change. We haven't had any major global treaty recently. And there is more and more realising that you have to empower people, bottom-up initiatives in the field of governance, what they call road calling people in Kenya. People are putting their ideas in the various inventions and sorting out their problems.
Therefore, our challenge in the new building that we are designing, and probably in the Internet Governance process, is how to find a more prominent place for governments. And at the same time, how to avoid the situation of having a very complex top-down solution through the classical multi-lateral instruments, which is keeping vitality from the bottom, and that its both from the Internet and the Internet Governance Forum, among other things.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much.
I'd like to open the floor and I'd like to take three questions. I'd ask you to be brief because we have to go to the next part of our session. And on the next part of our session, I'm sure there are other things that came up, such as the IBSA, and it will be an interesting session.
I see three hands over here. Ron, please. ,Was the first one to raise your hand.
>> RON: Thank you. In yesterday's workshop about the different government frameworks for Internet Governance, I mentioned that, as Jovan just said, that the Internet Governance landscape, it's so complex that -- well, that in the wiki, we had an expert from Singapore of complex systems and chaos. I'm not saying that it's chaotic, but complex.
So, in innovation systems, that is why now it's academically we are introducing the concept of ecology, the concept of biology, biological, ecology to these systems. The concept states that there are many different actors, many different processes, and sometimes those are linked, but that the linkage is not completely understood or known.
So I think that the system of Internet Governance should be considered an ecosystem of Internet Governance in which there is multiplicity of actors, multiplicity of processes, and of course multiplicity of decisions and governance and policy that will have to be enacted. And as one panelist said, it's part of this ecosystem, the complexity, that it's very difficult to differentiate technical from policy matters and the processes in which they are conducted to actual implementation.
I think that we should acknowledge that complexity. I think the IGF in a way maps that -- relates to that complexity. That's why the IGF itself is so complex. But I think that the question that I have for the panelists is that in order for that complexity to actually deliver task-oriented policy results, or whatever, there has to be some sort of guideline, some map, something that tries to extract for the anecdote that you said, the extreme of trying to find the extreme simplicity in that complexity.
Of course, that is the extreme case. But at least there should be some path to extract resources from that complexity.
Markus mentioned how the results ,for instance, of this forum, the IGF, should go to the existing institutions. And to that end, I think that Internet Governance, because of its complexity, it will have to be governed by multiple institutions. You could never have only one. And also it's unrealistic to say that the existing institution will go away or will seize their mandate. But the key thing is how the result of these complex discussions, as Markus said, could get into their process in a natural and maybe not in such a voluntary way. Because now we are talking in the IGF to the world of institutions. But are they listening? Or they should listen or say somebody should say in writing that they said listen? I think those are the questions.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you.
I'll give the floor to Anja. We only have space for three people. And next over there. And Anja.
>> It's Gretchen following up and away from the earlier speaker. I think there are two strands to this debate. One is about whether or not there should be more oversight. The other question is --
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Introduce yourself.
>> ANJA KOVACS: Anja Kovacs from the project in India.
One question is oversight and the other question is where that oversight should be located then. And I find it interesting listening to these conversations how there is talk about fragmentation and silos. While of course in other areas of government, what is here called fragmentation, one calls decentralization, and all of a sudden it becomes something positive.
I'm really trying to understand this debate, so this is a genuine question. But I would be grateful if the representatives of governments, including the EU, could comment on whether they see possibilities on having greater oversight but keeping the decentralized system intact. I think a lot of the unease that has been there about some of the proposal is a feeling of centralization. So I'd like to hear your comments on whether there is an in between possibility as well.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much.
>> CHRIS: It's Chris from NRCC. I'd just like to agree with what Markus said about the technical community and the Open Forums. I wanted to just address some of the European Commission's comments about the inability or unpreparedness of some of the existing decision-making bodies to address Public Policy related issues. And just because I'm honing in on that specific case of RPKI as you mentioned, as someone who has been involved in the communications surrounding that, it has been a frustrating and chaotic process. But I think it's not a failure of the system that the community has not reached a policy whether it's a success. And it shows the success of the consensus based process in that even what people saw as a light stage, in that policy development and agreement and process, a single voice or several voices, actually, raising a significant person, were able to prevent that and to make the community go back and say okay, we need to rethink this. We need to look at this. Because there are possibly significant Public Policy implications.
So as I say, I think it's a real specific point but it also goes to a larger point about maybe some misunderstanding of the strength that the existing forums have. And something like the Internet Governance Forum is a good place where stakeholder groups can come together and hopefully support one another about the processes that they have. So I guess that's my point.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to go to the second round of questions and I'd like to -- sorry?
I'm sorry. There was another question for you. And if anyone wants to address the comments that were made by Anja. Very early in the day, last day.
>> ANDREA: With Chris, with the RPPC, and I'm sure we can discuss it in more detail bilaterally.
If I may make a quick joke, it's striking me that when in the technical community there is one last minute objection to a process that brings the whole process to a halt, as with RPKI, that is a success.
What is happening in ICANN, the GAK arrived a bit late, although we made the point: Arrives a bit late, claiming that there are problems with the decision, then there is a failure with the GAK. So coming from the ICANN administration, I can't see how spending one year of discussion and arriving at the end and not being able to achieve a decision because certain issues were not addressed at the beginning can be considered a success. If I said that to my superiors, I would be thrown out of the window.
Fine. My Deputy Director General there is laughing, so I'm sure that he can agree with my point. I would be thrown out of the window, yes.
Very briefly on the point made by the Cuban gentleman, I understand, on the Internet Governance as an ecology, I have to say that I dislike the use of this metaphor. You have the right point. You have a good point there. I think we should try to be more pragmatic. Fine, it's an ecology of what? Then what should we do with it?
I reiterate the workshop that we had on mapping. It was very productive and knowing where decisions are taken, who is involved in those decision, how can people participate in those fora, which are very, very many. As I made the point on Wednesday, many of the fora where the decisions were taken do not have the name "Internet" in it. Do not have anything apparently to do with the Internet. And yet relevant decisions are taken there.
And I think that knowledge is the first step. We have to know where the decisions are taken. And I would encourage you to organise the -- to contact the organisers of that workshop, which are launching this initiative to build a true multi-stakeholder process and map of Internet Governance. They need help, which we will try to give as well.
The last point on the -- from the lady on the Internet democracy project? Yes. It is possible to have the centralization and oversight. I don't see what is the problem with that. But maybe I'm -- I didn't quite understand your question. The point of the centralizing doesn't mean that you give cart blanche. You are giving certain specific functions and we are accepting the specific functions that are performed by civic organisations. It doesn't mean from the perspective of public that is right and say raise your hand and from now on you can do whatever you want. We still maintain our power, and that is to be clear. Because if that is not the case, this is a real problem for democracy, honestly, and it's not what centralization ever meant. Thanks for your patience.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to -- Anja.
>> ANJA: The question came among other things from your comment that there were two many institutions at the moment.
>> ANDREAS: I have to say that was an ironical statement at the moment. I'm sure if you have been involved in the international work, you know the committees and subcommittees, et cetera. You can ask yourself well should we try to simplify a little bit the whole environment?
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to ask the panelists if they have their burning comments, do it now, otherwise wait for the next round.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Just -- I mean, a small comment. I agree with much of what was being said. We are not against government. We do understand we have to work with governments. Governments are of course important. But we want to do it within the existing institutions. And I think Andrea made the comment that yes, maybe we should get involved even a little bit more. Maybe they should have been involved a little bit earlier in the right discussions. I have not followed. But in ICANN it is more structured through the GAK, and I fully take it that there is room for improvement on this collaboration. But I know many governments, for instance, participate or send representatives to the Internet Engineering Task Force, where you, through standards, influence the deep architecture of the Internet.
So it is important that governments take part in these discussions. And I agree that seemingly technical decisions can have Public Policy aspects, but let's have these discussions in the relative bodies that deal with these issues.
And I for one agree with my friend Juan, we like the word "ecosystem." Because we thrive together and each organisation has its different role. And just "Today's Economist," I don't know whether you have read it, has a lead article on the Internet Governance and also quite a lengthy article on this IGF. And the leader said "Internet Governance Forum in place of chaos."
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Tulika?
>> TULIKA PANDEY: I have a comment. This is in response to whether or not we need a decision-making body. Yesterday I was attending a workshop on the future scenarios of the Internet. And there was this one very interesting presentation. And there were these four scenarios that were presented. One, policy reform. So a regulated market. That was one scenario that was proposed.
The second that was mentioned was an unregulated market scenario.
The third was a VIT scenario, where you had issues on net neutrality to be addressed.
And the last was the Internet common scenario. If these are the scenarios that we are looking at in the future of the Internet, I'm sure that decision-making is mostly public. While we sit together just from standards and we sit together to bring out technologies in various forum, it's the public which actually decides where the Internet demand would go, what would be the future of the Internet. Therefore, the decision-making is more pluralistic than what we have been mostly discussing, to be more not so plural in the decision.
And this is the only observation that I want to bring. That it is the market that will decide the future of the Internet and not us sitting in these committees and forming the standards and technologies that we bring.
>> ROMULO NEVES: Very fast. I think fragmentation is a very different thing from decentralization. And the question, is that open as far as integration in a participative manner with decentralization but avoiding fragmentation? It's a hard question, but we believe and we are trying to say yes and we are trying to build this kind of proposal.
And I would like to use Juan's analogy with a map. Maybe governments should not only try to read a map, but to propose a three dimensional map integrating the multiple organisations, the multiple tasks of outcomes and maybe the roles. This would be a very good contribution.
>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Again on this issue of fragmentation and decentralization, decentralization takes place within an institution framework. Decentralization does not mean that the group sets up their own committees and they do whatever. You know what happens. It's a tight clear. The thing is that distribution of power is always tracked, everybody is discussing. And the decentralization is with that distribution of power.
And when we have spoken of fragmentation, and I saw some people treat it as if it's policymaking and other bodies, it's silos. The problem is that they are not silos. This impacts all others who are not involved in that policymaking.
So I know, as Tulika said, the public should take the decision, and nobody in the room disagrees With that. But how would the public take those decisions is what we're talking about. And if we are keen on tracking that, who will or will not participate, if we track that just in the form of decentralization and bottom-up, these technical terms. Then we are trying to do the same thing.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much.
I'd like now to move to the next round and I'd like to ask our speakers to be concrete on their comments. On this workshop that we had yesterday, we were commenting that one side effect of many lateral or plural lateral ways of looking at different initiatives, is that some of the groups become exporters of standards. Sometimes you have to have one table around which each of initiatives will sit and will dialog. Otherwise it will fragment. And I'd like to ask our speakers if they believe that enhanced cooperation would be a way to build the bridges between these different initiatives, if this is what they have in mind. And the ones of you that have spoken about making decisions, how would you make decisions?
Would this be a body? Can you be more concrete on the proposals?
I'd like to start with Romulo, please.
>> ROMULO NEVES: Well, we don't know yet what is enhanced cooperation. Really. And we are in a -- the very path to find out and discuss internally what it would be, what it should be. I liked very much Juan's analogy with the map. Because drawing this map, maybe we can find a place to this enhanced cooperation institution. Or maybe we could find the solution or the conclusion that enhanced cooperation would be this map, would be this kind of integration system of the existing bodies, with some changes. I don't know.
I really don't know. I'm being very sincere with you. We are searching for it. We think that the Brazilian government and I hope to have at least a proposal in the very near future.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you and thank you for being so fast and concise.
I'd like to give the floor to Andrea so you can comment on the different initiatives, especially in Europe. We have different things in Europe. How are you making efforts to breech them?
>> ANDREA: We don't! I'm joking, of course.
In Europe we have a method of trying different things at once and the best one emerges.
But joke aside, I think in Europe there is work being conducted by the Council of Europe, it's a different organisation than the EU, they are having their own initiative on principles related to cross-border transparency on the Internet. And Vice President Kroes has highlighted her vision of what the Internet in her opinion should look like and what successful policy for the Internet and what elements should it contact. That is the Internet compact that was mentioned briefly. The Internet should be of civic responsibilities, not only legal but civic and social responsibilities. One unfragmented Internet. With the multi-stakeholder process, which is transparent -- and again it's very important for us, which is prodemocracy, which is architecturally sound. And this relates to the technical policy link that I mentioned -- then it should inspire confidence and trust.
I think the question is how do we make all these initiatives? Because we have the G8 or the principles, you have many different principles coming up. There is obviously a risk of fragmentation, this is clear. On the other hand, it seems that we are in a moment in which every single region of the world, not only public authorities, but especially public authorities are trying to put on the table their vision securely or absolutely in our case in order to engage in a discussion.
We had an Open Forum at the IGF, which was unfortunately poorly attended and that was unfortunate because we wanted the IGF participants ideas.
But I wanted to say it's dangerous when you are at the beginning of different ideas coming up, it's dangerous to immediately want to reduce them to one single vision. Because that tends to, most of the times, that gets to a very low minimum common denominator. If you are in a rush to find a consensus on something, that I don't think would be appropriate.
I don't know whether enhanced cooperation can help in that process or not, but to be honest I think we should agree on what enhanced cooperation is. And then we will look at what processes that are entailed. If it's only about discussions only between governments and public authorities, then I don't think that we would be that much interested to discuss the conflict there. Because we have that multiple participants should have an input in the discussion. We at the Commission continue to engage with other partners, Civil Society, et cetera. Just if I may conclude by we try to be as transparent as possible, but the fact that we don't advertise on the page does not necessarily mean that we have not done it. But sometimes there are certain discussions which frankly I think happens normally in human life.
You first try to build trust, et cetera, and then you go public with the discussion that you're having.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Now Parminder and Jovan have been quiet, so I'd like you to make some comments next.
>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: What is enhanced cooperation? And Andrea said we are not clear, so let's move from what is clear to the less clear parts.
Enhanced cooperation is -- you can understand I think from its function and then probably think about structure. The function is to address global Internet Public Policy issues. There is an understanding in the Tunis agenda that there are many Global Public Policy issues which need a global response and are not being addressed, that was in 2005. In 2011 there are many more, and there is a good indication that they could keep increasing in a geometric proportion. And these issues need a global response. So whatever addresses that would be enhanced cooperation. So we can settle here and say it's being addressed, then that is happening.
We can say it's not being addressed and needs to be addressed in a manner, and that would be then enhanced cooperation.
Now, coming back to the earlier point, all the good sounding words, bottom-up, distributed, et cetera, et cetera. So which side should we go for now? I remember in India saying this, there is no absolute truth. And he gave the right example of what is the right thing to tell to a child? The if the child spends too much time in games and all that, then you should tell him you should study more. But if another child spends all their time in a library and studying, then you have to tell them to play more games.
It's relative to the situation where we are. And in that regard, in Internet Governance, we need to make our decisions relative to the situation we are. Are we too decentralized, fragmented? Too lack of clarity about who controls all? Are we too decentralized and therefore we have to decentralize? And my view is that right now we need some kind of better hold of what's happening and a better point where the public interest could be negotiated in a form of taking the place of many different bodies.
So let's go over areas of agreement. We agree that there are Public Policy issues that are not being addressed right now. And when somebody said: Why should we go towards this kind of convergence? The question I have is I have seen in EOCD and EU and in COE, there is a convergence of the specialized Internet related issues. There are new forums, bodies, structures within the government, intergovernmental, instrumental forms, to go through the Internet policy related regions, and some of them were set up lately. So that is good proof that you need some structure to convergence. And if that is for a certain group of countries, they have to be together.
The IGF is a huge body and no other sector in IGF has this kind of structure. This should be the place where agenda shaping takes place, which is communicated to this new body, which I think is needed.
And that should be hugely participative, because nowhere else does the multi-stakeholder space with thousands of people attending actually shape policy to a policymaking body. What would be the structure of that body? First, if we reach up to this point that we need that body, what would be the structure of the body? What is the network, the relationship with other bodies? It's something open and we can keep discussing it.
But I think we should first cross the layers we agree on and reach that point. Yes, we need it. But we don't agree on the structure. And then if we reach that and only talk about that, I think agreement should be possible. Thank you.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to give the floor to Tulika, because she has to leave. So if you can stay a little bit more afterward, we can take more questions. Thank you.
>> TULIKA PANDEY: We started with discussions on on governance of Internet. And today we arrived at a position where we talk about governance of the institutions and the mechanisms for managing Internet. And this would -- would be something that we need to keep in mind when we start to talk about a new body, which would function as an oversight for Internet governance. So whether we're looking for a body that would only focus on the techno Public Policy global issues of Internet Governance, focus on that and see that those issues were covered. Or we're looking for a body which has an oversight function to govern the institutions and mechanisms and the Public Policy making institutions into responding to the global requirements of Internet vis-a-vis what we are all seeking to discuss.
So that I feel should be the base of us if you're looking for a new body to look at Internet Governance or the new pod for governance of institutions that are managing Internet.
That is my parting message that I leave with you people. I apologize because I have to go to the main session now. I cannot be late. Thank you for being patient and listening to me.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you for being here with us.
I want to give the floor to Jovan, please.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Andrea, pardon me to introduce new principles or address the existing cover of transparency. Maybe we need a new one of translucency, where we can see something is going on, but to the moment when it's ready almost it has to be transparent.
I'm coming from the country that produces more history than it can consume. And I'm careful when it comes to revolutions, and that is probably in the genetic code. And in my personal experience, that evolution is always better. It takes care of complexity, as Juan said, and the IG Internet is extremely process. It also brings a real understanding about interests and views of different places.
Now, having said that, I'm not going to reveal what would be in our future building. I believe there is a certain surprise element. Probably the key word is that in order to remain the same -- and when I say to remain the same in a positive sense of the key principles of this upheld, we have to change. And that change is reflected in the world in the last six or seven years since the IGF was established.
And this is a reality in our surrounding. And one of the issues which is coming and I think innovated in the world is there is a need to address Public Policy issues. Parminder had the important question, but it would be definitely a lost opportunity if he failed to enhance the Internet Governance Forum. This is a place where the things in the community can be articulated. And if we allow that, this request for change goes into some other place outside this multi-stakeholder and vibrant space. Therefore, yes, in order to remain the same, to have the Internet Governance Forum as highly functionable, respectable, we have to change and those changes are changes that will be discussed in the CSTD context. I don't think the differences are that big. If you look at the Internet principles, they converge in many respects among the different players.
Again, we come to the perception and perception is so powerful in politics. And sometimes if you can step back and see -- to increase the reality and to reduce the noise, I think we can come to a good and functional solution to strengthen the IGF as a real body where vibrancy of the Internet comments can be sent while at the same time Public Policy should be addressed.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you. And now Markus?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, I think I agree with much of what was being said. And the reference to the OECD, again going back to the discussions in WIGIG, which was in many ways the role model for the IGF, for it would be good to have something like the OECD on the global scale. However, we have to realise it was almost impossible, is impossible to create such an important organisation, transform it to a global role. It was more the function we look at and the fact that the OECD is actually very interested and active in the IGF is not coincidence. Because we follow a lot of their working methods on exchanging information, on sharing best practices, on trying to build convergence through bottom-up discussions.
Yes, sadly, we don't have the resources to replicate the work of the OECD. That is the fact. But the general idea behind the IGF is precisely that.
Now, looking at the various articles negotiated, we should not forget these were negotiated compromise documents. The language is always denegotiated. It's not something that we have to take. Yes, we have to take it seriously, but often it's aspirational. It's something that we should work toward. But it's almost then to -- there are a few good points. I think the IGF and all the points you made, especially with cooperation and other organisations, yes, the IGF did not go that far. But to begin with, you should never forget that the IGF is not an organisation. It was set up as a -- a mandate was given to the Secretary General to convene a forum. And that is extremely light. And to think that such a forum could coordinate other very well established important organisations is just impossible.
Once I recall the anecdote of a senior colleague from UNESCO who said everybody is in favor of coordination but nobody likes to be coordinated. The fact is that people from these organisations attend meetings at IGF and they do listen, and then go home and they get maybe ideas. I mentioned a workshop yesterday, the WIPO was here and they listened to the diversity of use expressed. Now let's see whether they in their own work will increase the Diversey of views expressed in WIPO.
So the take away from the IGF is not so much that the IGF can actually tell people to do something, it can inspire them to do something. The same enhanced cooperation that was a negotiated compromise language. And I agree with Andrea as long as we don't have clarity or a consensus on what we understand with it, it's difficult to move forward.
There are going to be comprehensive consultations on this, and it was concluded I don't understand what it means. Everybody sees something different in it. And that was the success, because everybody saw something different in it. But the negotiators in Tunis could agree on it. They had what they wanted. But it's not a clear picture of what it is. Now we have the two views, there are two separate tracks, the enhanced cooperation and the IGF. And the GA says so? But others see it that they are absolutely related tracks and the IGF wants enhanced cooperation, people come here, communicate and listen to each other and go home and do something differently than they would have done otherwise.
But certainly we can, I think, safely say that now six years after Tunis organisations interact more and better than they did when in Tunis. And I think the IGF has complemented this and improved the situation when it comes to an international dialog on Internet Governance.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you. I'm looking forward to seeing more views of the IGF reflected on environment. Andrea, I'd like to make a brief point, 30 seconds?
>> ANDREA: Just the reference that Markus made, the OECD is the model for the IGF, I'm struggling because the OECD is not a decision-making body. It's more a think tank some say for rich countries, but in any way a think tank. It's for the guidance of business security and governance, those are not laws, but they are hugely, hugely influential in the way that they percolate through the laws at the local and regional and national level. So if the OECD was a model for the IGF, then should the IGF find a way to produce something closer to the guidelines, understanding that there would be no negotiation, blah, blah, blah.
But to close, something must come from this. Otherwise, especially for public authorities, it can become challenging to continue going. It's hard to explain to families why we spend time.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: We have just a bit of time. Maybe we can do it back and forth again. But please.
>> ALEX NAKURU: Alex Nakuru from Kenya. One of the things I noticed is an entrapping schema that has proposed that you either -- do you support a private sector led Internet or do you support a government led? I think this comparison is moot. It's not valid. Because I think it just creates silos of saying is it private or government sector? When you look at private sector anyway, the interests there are extremely private public policies. It's not their priority and it's Democratic in terms of that. So a balance, if I could say, a case of one thing is too much. Too much private control of the Internet is dangerous, just as maybe excessive government control.
So I think the tensions that exist between government on control and maybe like ICANN private control are a good thing.
I would like us or maybe a comment from the panel to contrast the participation at IGF meetings with a much praised ICANN. And contrast IETF, where public interest is the focus, and the IETF focuses on the public.
So let's not have institutions that have got the usual suspects, technical folk, who is speaking in tongues, over ten years experience is when you are qualified to speak. They say they are open but indeed they are exclusive. So we must not praise those institutions so much as a perfect model, you know, when IGF gives everybody a voice. Compare the participation and you'll see it.
Thank you very much.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: One more. Craig.
>> CRAIG WILEY: Thank you. I work for the US government, Craig Wiley.
Today we are all asking different questions and searching for different information and use the Internet different ways and achieve different levels of success based on what we're looking for. The current model of international Public Policy is not that way. It's slow. It's messy. There's individual interests, there's winners and losers, and it's slow.
So, in this connected world, there was a a lot of of talk about what kind of results do we want? Can we accept uneven results? As long as the trend in these institutions is toward greater openness, multi-stakeholder, more inclusiveness of which the IGF provides the perfect model for this, what we don't understand is how -- why would we want to reverse this trend in this model that has been multi-stakeholder by implementing a decision-making process that would be binding, and try to direct specific global outcomes? And we don't think -- well, we don't think it's a good idea and we don't think it's actually possible to do it. And it would ruin the perfect model that we have of the multi-stakeholder collaborative method that other institutions can then take example from.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to make a brief question for Craig. The US is one of the actors that is developing principles. Are you willing to interact with other initiatives that are developing principles? And where do you envision that this interaction should take place? Do you think it's feasible to agree on a set of frameworks of principles for the Internet?
>> CRAIG WILEY: In fact, there is a great deal of discussion across the US government. And there are a lot of these principles out there of which some of them present good models that can be acted on.
As a nation, of course, the US government will determine its principles. But there is a role and there is an opportunity to consider other principles that are out there. And we also joined other organisations in trying to determine other principles.
So it's kind of a mix. It's kind of like the IGF itself. We're doing our own and we're also collaborating with other organisations to do it. And, see, this is why I say this model of the IGF which has been successful and encourages this cooperation collaboration on a number of levels is a good model that I think we want to continue into the future.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: We have no time, so very quick.
>> ROMULO NEVES: Very quick. Well, in your evaluation, IGF is just perfect. Maybe in the evolution of the other actors, we could really improve the IGF's role in this system, not just putting some binding decisions here. But maybe redistributing the legitimacy or the participation or improving the participation of developing countries, even from the Civil Society of developing countries.
I'd like to give you just an example. Two or three days ago, very fast, I just had an interview with the ICC representatives. It was a good interview. But it was a little bit funny, because I was in a place and 20 representatives of ICC was in front of me, asking me questions. Is this a normal dialog? Well, I asked them, have any of you ever been in this situation with 20 representatives of the Civil Society asking you on Facebook what are your intentions? What are your plans? What are your -- what is your plan of action or C score or something else from a company? So there are different roles here in the IGF. Maybe we could redistribute it. You could reorganise it. Or maybe you would have an outcomes report. It's not binding, but it's visible.
>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: A lot of people said we can't engage in enhanced cooperation because we don't know what enhanced cooperation is. And again this is the chicken thing. Because we need to start defining that, and then simultaneously engage with it. So it's going to tell what enhanced cooperation is and then engage in it. And Markus said itself: Is the IGF itself enhanced cooperation? And I remember the early days, and Markus will remember them, and the establishment in the IGF was very clear that the enhanced cooperation was outside. There was problems of discussing enhanced cooperation within the IGF, and therefore the early days it was clear that it was a Public Policy addressing mechanism.
Craig said why do we want to reverse this trend? And the India proposal of the IGF improvement is to strengthen the IGF completely. Make it deeper and more participative. And I don't think that moving towards a body that receives the outcomes and does something with them is going to reverse the trend. I think if more people knew that what they were going to contribute is going to some direction to really influence policies...
And I heard the first time that OECD was a model. And I agree with Andrea that it's unbinding. But we know that most of the UN is unbinding. People say all kinds of things and people go back to their countries and do what they wish to do. So I don't see why that kind of thing can't be done. I don't know why OECD is not intergovernment and why if the UN intergovernmental system is so bad, why not make that kind of government in the UN and then come out with the outcomes that OECD comes out with. They are not binding, really, and some countries will come back and be under pressure, but not really binding. So that is the kind of things that we are looking at as being enhanced cooperation.
>> ANDREA: I'm hoping to be as brief as possible, trying to be as brief as possible.
What strikes me in many of the discussions, not only these but in many other, is how much in my opinion people tend to focus so much on the past. At the WSIS, this was decided. In the past five years, the IGF and other organisations have been good. Everyone has different opinions, but they are good or less good. But the fact is that we have to look at the future. The Internet of today, the importance that the Internet has today is incomparable to the Internet that we had in 2005. You just have to see how many countries are developing cyber war strategies. Now, when the military in a country starts to get interested in the phenomenon, that means that it's serious, socially speaking.
Instead of my personal suggestion, instead of focusing on what the particular paragraph, line two, word 7 says, let's focus on what the IGF can say, considering that the time is changing. And I think with all due respect to our friend from the U.S., you can't just keep it as it is. This is simply not sustainable. And whether we agree or not with all of the positions from our colleagues, Brazil, India, South Africa, other countries, there is a clear pressure to just try -- a clear signal for some Democratic parts of world, I would add, which is not true for some of the other proposals coming through, that is clearly calling for a discussion on how we can make the IGF more productive. And I understand the fears. We understand very well the fears, and I'm not turning this into another intergovernmental circus. We don't want that. We don't like that. And we are aware of the -- I get Parminder's point is that there is a bit of hipocracy when you compare some groups to others. And yet you have to be practical.
If you bring discussions in certain contexts which historically have not been very closed, there are risks there.
And, therefore, what we are suggesting, what we will suggest is let's try to be practical. Let's try to identify issues and parts of the IGF that can be made better, whether in the structure, whether in producing some kind of tangible output out of the discussions. Right now we have 6 IGFs. Do we have pieces of paper which are widely distributed, widely read by decision makers, which summarize the results of the discussion of the IGF? I know we have the reports on the IGF Web site, thanks to the good work of Markus Kummer and many others at the time. But what can we do to ensure that the results, whether they are outcomes, declarations, whatever the context, are actually read by those people? Because I'm not convinced that they are.
And I'm closing, as long as we continue to put the wall, saying that the IGF has to stay as it is, I have to say that sooner or later the political, in my personal view, the political pressure will become such that whether we want it or not, something else will come up. And we really run the risk of losing the good sides. If you don't change when the water around you changes, then the water around you is going to change you. Sometimes in directions that you don't like.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Just two quick comments. One is we are discussing a digital world with the 1s and zeros, but we shouldn't use digital logic. It's not either/or. We should use analog logic and we should see that there are many, many possible solutions. It doesn't mean that we have to draft the next treaty on Internet Governance. There are many possibilities. How we can enhance the IGF and make it relevant?
And I'll give you an example. Yesterday we had a session on eParticipation. And we drafted eParticipation principles. Basically, what we did, we codified experience over the last six years in eParticipation processes. Obviously it's politically a noncontroversial issue. But we have one page with the collective wisdom, which is now open for online discussion. And over the next few months we will have a nonbinding bottom-up summary of many eParticipation principles.
This is something that could be distributed by some UN agencies, and this is one example of how we can develop that analog approach, not digital approach, to the possible enhancement of the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I don't want to sort of be seen as a guy who is clinging on to the past, but sometimes it is useful just to look back a little bit where we come from.
Right at the beginning, the first IGF, there was an enormous amount of angst. You cannot possibly have more than six workshops because of the capture or whatever. In the end, we filled all the rooms we had at our disposal. We had 36 workshops in Athens and that has moved on as bottom-up input into the discussions. And for the past IGFs, I think there are about 100 workshops. The first IGF, you know, there were fears that we cannot possibly have anything coming out of it. The Chairman summary, no way. The Secretariat produced a Secretariat summary.
From Rio we had a Chairman's summary as an outcome of the meeting, which are fairly comprehensive also in summing up commonalities. Saying on this point of view, there was an emerging consensus that this is it going forward.
Last year the host country transmitted the Chairman's summary to the Secretary General of the UN with a request to make it available as an official document to the GA. But of course nobody can force governments to read documents that are put in front of them. But over the years what began as a shaky experiment in multi-stakeholder cooperation has gained credibility and more and more people come and listen to it. And there are other organisations that look at the processes. In terms of process, I think we are by far advanced in the UN framework, in engaging stakeholders and trying -- and formatting discussions amongst relevant stakeholder groups. And it's being taken seriously. People do send important colleagues to this meeting. I see the Deputy Acting General from the European Commission is listening here. So it's being taken seriously. Yes, of course it will evolve and it has evolved. Every meeting was different from another.
And taking on further steps, that is a natural I think evolution of the IGF. People are also a little bit more relaxed. A little bit less fear of capture. But when I did say the OECD was a role model, of course a role model only in terms of the function of looking at case studies, of sharing best practices. But obviously we knew the IGF would not be an intergovernmental organisation that provides a framework for negotiating the guidelines and whatever. But yes, we thought we would be able to discuss these issues and we can of course build on that and move it further.
I think the IGF by now has proved that it is resilient enough to survive. More people than ever came to Nairobi and this is a very good basis to build on for the future.
>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Markus.
I'd like to thank our speakers and to thank you for being here, for your participation and for your patience. And thank the next workshop organizers as well for being patient with us. Thank you.
(End of session)