CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 
 TRANSCRIPT OF MORNING SESSION 16 FEBRUARY 2006

 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 Consultations on the Convening of the Internet Governance Forum, in Geneva on
 16-17 February in Geneva, Switzerland. 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.

 (Gavel). >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Good morning, and welcome to Geneva to the
 consultations on the convening of the Internet Governance Forum, which was
 requested in the Tunis Agenda. It's my pleasure to meet many old friends all
 over again. I thought you all had had enough time to exchange notes and find
 out what you all had been doing between Tunis and now. So I thought we'd get
 down to work. I really do not wish to take much time in the beginning, but I
 must begin by a big word of thanks, a big word of thanks to the many people who
 have -- who made it possible for us to get to this point where we can sit down
 and talk constructively about how we address this issue of Internet -- of the
 Internet Governance Forum. I would like to thank particularly the secretary
 general of the summit, Mr. Utsumi, who is here with me and who will, I'm sure,
 tell us -- give us his reflections on what is expected of us a little later. I
 wanted to thank minister WAHLI, who is here, who, for sure, had to bear a great
 burden of the work which was done in Tunis. I'm really happy that he could be
 here. I also wanted to particularly thank ambassador Janis Karklins and
 Ambassador Masood Khan. I really I want to express my deep appreciation of the
 work that they both did, particularly Ambassador Masood Khan, in leading the
 negotiations and the discussions which led to the outcome on this very
 difficult issue. There are, of course, others who have been very involved in
 that process, but these are the people I really wanted to thank, because they
 are the ones who have given us the basis for our work today. I will not say
 much more at this point, but just a word on how we will proceed. I was going to
 suggest that we spend the morning today listening to some general statements
 about what people expect out of this Internet Governance Forum, and also their
 views on organizational issues which have been raised in the questions which
 have been -- which were sent by the Secretariat. After this round of, if you
 like, open-ended debate, I thought I would try and pose a set of questions. And
 then in the second round, people can come back with more precise replies if you
 like, or comments, on some of these questions, and also possibly commenting on
 what has been mentioned by other people. I would like to stress that this is a
 multistakeholder consultation. And I would, therefore, invite everybody to be
 very free in seeking the floor. I apologize for the fact that we are not
 well-organized for name plates in Geneva. I hope we can correct that as we go
 along. But I will try to do my best to recognize people. But in case you have a
 difficulty in getting yourself recognized, you just send a little note, saying
 so-and-so from such and such organization wishes to get the floor. In any case,
 let me tell you that even if we had name plates, at such a distance with my
 eyesight, I'm not sure that I would be able to read those name plates anyhow.
 So I apologize for the fact that the civil society and business sector and
 other stakeholders do not have name plates, but we'll try and make up for that
 and make sure that we do have a balanced discussion. So I will suggestion,
 therefore, this process where we have first an open discussion, followed by a
 most structured discussion around certain questions. And I will try and put
 some sort of summary of areas where there is general agreement, perhaps areas
 where there is a variety of views. Because, essentially, my job is as a
 messenger, a messenger to convey to the secretary general what views and
 sentiments here are. So I will try and give you a sense towards the end of the
 session tomorrow evening on what the messages that I think I have received from
 listening to people here. This is the process that I hope that we will be able
 to follow. So I do not wish to say anything more substantive at this point,
 because I'm here to listen, and I will have more opportunities to speak
 tomorrow when I react to some of the ideas which have come from the floor. So
 with these words, I would like to turn to Mr. Utsumi and request him to give us
 a sense of how he sees us doing our work.


 >>SECTY-GEN UTSUMI:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
 ladies and gentlemen. It is very nice to see you once again here in Geneva.
 Many of you participated in Tunis summit and you saw the success of the summit.
 There are many reasons why the Tunisian phase of the summit was successful. But
 I only want to emphasize that from the point of the secretary of the summit,
 the budget finance for hosting the summit was very important. And in the ITU,
 we have calculated the expenses we had and the income for the contribution --
 by the contributions to the summit fund. And we are seeing that we most
 probably will not have a deficit. That is one of the most important items of
 the success of the summit. And I very much appreciate those countries and the
 donators who made the summit successful. Tunis phase of the summit, in my
 opinion, has opened a new door for Internet. It has opened up the place for the
 discussion of many policy matters concerning the Internet openly and
 transparently. In the past, before the summit, the Internet was discussed
 mostly by engineers and by experts. Now, the Internet has been and will be
 discussed from more policy perspective. That is, I think that the -- one of the
 successes of the summit. And I am hoping that this new forum for Internet
 governance will have a fruitful discussion on various matters concerning the
 Internet. There are many, many challenges and problems for the Internet and for
 our communications to be effective and efficient and secured. So I am very much
 hoping the success of this forum. And today I am sure that you will have a good
 consultation how the forum will be formed. This forum is our forum, everyone's
 forum. And I wish you a very good, successful meeting. And I thank you very
 much, Mr. Desai, for your very good leadership.

 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, Mr. Utsumi. And may I once again thank
 you for your sort of positive words of support for this exercise. Before we
 begin, there are a few announcements which Markus Kummer, who has been
 supporting this process, needs to make. Markus.


 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:   Thank you, chairman. Let me start by apologizing for a
 few hiccups with the registration. But I think by now I would say that most
 participants are in. And I think -- I suppose there were not too many major
 problems. We are a learning organization, and I think each time went a bit
 smoother. The list of participants, we have not received from all participants
 their names. And I would like to encourage those, especially the Geneva-based
 people who don't need to register to be allowed to enter the Palais des
 Nations, that they also give us their names so that at the end of the day we
 have a complete list of participants. You may have noticed that we had hoped to
 have Wi-Fi. But I'm told it's not working yet. But we got in touch with the
 technical services, and they promised they will make it work as soon as
 possible. We also have at the back of the room the books we had started to
 distribute in Tunis. There will be some people go around in the room and give
 every participant a book. And if some participants would like to get more
 copies, there's no problem; we have more copies available. So please tell us
 how many you would like to get. And you will also be distributed an invitation
 by the Swiss authorities for the cocktail this evening. You will have noticed
 that we again can count on the excellent realtime transcription team, Laura and
 Teri, who have been with us several times. One important feature is that we
 have to try and get the names right. So it would be helpful if those who take
 the floor who don't have a name plate give their business card or write down
 their exact name and function so we can give it to the scribes. Last, but not
 least, I would also like to thank those who have made written contributions.
 They are posted on our Web site. We have 17 general statements and 20 answers
 to the questionnaire. Five of them were from governments:  The government of
 Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Singapore. We did not try to
 summarize these contributions, as it will have been impossible. They have a
 very wide variety of views, very rich input. Nevertheless, I think it might be
 significant that all the governments who responded to the questionnaire speak
 out in favor of a very open format, and a number of them actually cite the
 format we used for the WGIG open consultations, and I see this as a very
 encouraging start. And last, but not least, we also would like, of course, to
 post general statements made during the course of this meeting. The easiest
 would be if you could send it by mail to our Web site address. But you can
 also, of course, give it on a stick and we will post it as soon as possible.
 Each session will be posted, at the end of the session, we will post it on the
 Web site so that there's also a possibility for people who are not in this room
 to know what's going on. And I hope that, again, our Web-casting team from
 TURIN, who tore themselves away from the Winter Olympics will be up and
 running. Thank you very much.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, Markus. The floor is now open. Who is
 going to lead us off. Austria, then I have Pakistan. Good. We've got a good
 starting point. May I first give the floor to Austria.


 >>AUSTRIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking on behalf of
 the European Union and the acceding countries Bulgarian and Romania. The
 European Union would like to thank the secretary general and yourself for
 holding the present consultations. On this occasion, I would like to present
 the state of your reflections on the Internet Governance Forum. It is crucial
 for the first plenary meeting of the Internet Governance Forum,
 multistakeholder in nature, with equal participation, to concentrate on issues
 of substance. The EU is therefore particularly grateful for the present
 consultations, which it expects to address already a wide range of important
 organizational issues so as to avoid having these issues on the agenda of the
 first meeting of the IGF. Regarding the substance to be addressed by the IGF in
 full compliance with Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, the E.U. believes that
 spam and relevant security-related aspects and multilingualism would be
 appropriate and substantive topics for the first meeting. These topics are best
 addressed from a user perspective. Mr. Chairman, the E.U. stands ready to
 actively participate in the preparation of the IGF discussions on these
 important issues. The E.U. believes, Mr. Chairman, that spam and
 multilingualism are of importance to all countries, be they developing or
 developed. In addition, the E.U. would welcome developing countries bringing
 forward topics of particular importance in the context of bridging the digital
 divide. Before moving to more organizational matters, the E.U. would like to
 recall the guiding principles of the IGF as enshrined in Paragraph 77 of the
 Tunis Agenda. For the preparation and support of the IGF, the E.U. submits that
 it would be necessary to have in line with the Tunis Agenda both a
 representative multistakeholder steering committee and a Secretariat which is
 small and cost-effective. As far as the frequency of meetings is concerned, the
 E.U. believes that one meeting per year, lasting for two or three days, would
 be the appropriate format. It is important that meetings focus on a limited
 number of well-defined issues. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
 giving the E.U. the opportunity to present its views, and the E.U. remains at
 your disposal for elaborating further on its suggestions and proposals made.
 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much. We now turn to Pakistan, and then
 Brazil, and then the United States. And may I request members who may feel a
 little deprived of their name plates to start sending their little slips so
 that I know who to call on.

 Pakistan:  Thank you, Mr. Desai. Mr. Desai, it's always a pleasure to see you
 chairing any meetings. I did turn it on. Thank you, Mr. Desai. I'm saying it's
 always a pleasure to see you chairing any meeting, because you do bring a lot
 of intellectual input and drive into IT. On behalf of the G77 AND China, I
 would like to thank secretary general Kofi Annan for convening today's
 consultations. We welcome this opportunity to discuss issues agreed in both
 phases of WSIS. Your continued commitment, Mr. Desai, to Internet
 governance-related issues will help us launch and keep on track this important
 post-Tunis phase. We would also like to thank the initiative taken by the
 government of Greece to brief the G77 and China on the preparations for the
 holding of the Internet Governance Forum in Greece. Today's consultations are
 timely. They give us the opportunity to think collectively about the follow-up
 and implementation mechanisms with reference to the creation of the Internet
 Governance Forum. We intend to present the views of the group of 77 and China
 regarding the overall direction of the forum. Members of the group will make
 substantive and detailed contributions during the consultations. We look
 forward to seeing the views of the G77 and China reflected in the output of
 these consultations and in the future work that may be undertaken in this
 regard. Mr. chairman, the World Summit on the Information Society belongs to
 the U.N. series of summits that focused on economic and social development
 issues. The information society should be seen as an important phase and
 requirement for achieving the developmental objectives by bridging the digital
 and developmental divides. International consensus clearly emphasized the
 development orientation of the Tunis summit. This was aptly reflected in the
 opening sentence of the Geneva declaration of principles where the
 representatives of the peoples of the world declared, and I quote, the common
 desire and commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive, and
 development-oriented information society where everyone can CREATE, access,
 utilize, and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals,
 communities, and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting the
 sustainable development and improving their quality of life, unquote. This, in
 our view, is the guiding principle of all our work and must continue to be
 accorded primacy during the follow-up and implementation of the Geneva and
 Tunis outputs. The Internet Governance Forum, in all its aspects, must achieve
 a development-oriented information society. All dimensions of the IGF,
 including its mandate, work, agenda, structure, composition, frequency, and
 venues of meetings, must be development-sensitive. We look forward to working
 with all stakeholders in ensuring that this development orientation that was
 reflected in the Geneva and Tunis consensus continues in the post-Tunis phase.
 Mr. Chairman, the Tunis agenda for the information society gives a very clear
 mandate for the IGF. In the implementation of this mandate, the Internet
 Governance Forum provides a unique opportunity for us to harness the potential
 of information and communication technologies in meeting development
 objectives. Internet access and easy connectivity are critical to this
 endeavor. It would be useful to recall and highlight those elements of the
 Tunis agenda that were clear, the development aspects of Internet governance.
 These may not be -- this may not be an exhaustive list, but an effort to
 introduce development-oriented clarity to the discussion at this -- these
 consultations. The G77 and China would first like to draw attention to
 paragraph 65, which reads, and I quote:  We underline the need to maximize the
 participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet
 governance, which should reflect their interests as well as in development and
 capacity-building, unquote. We must not lose sight of the clarity in this
 paragraph with regard to the participation of developing countries and the
 decision-making process in Internet governance with a view to reflecting and
 realizing developmental objectives. The intent of this paragraph needs to be
 operationalized through a work program on Internet governance, a process
 wherein the IGF would carry utmost significance. G77 and China believes this
 paragraph offers a holistic perspective on Internet governance. On the issue of
 participation, paragraph 5 emphasizes the need to ensure that all stakeholders,
 particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in
 policy decision-making related to Internet governance and to promote and
 facilitate such participation. G77 and China would like to see this reflected
 clearly in the work of the IGF. The Tunis Agenda opens the door for us to think
 creatively about the role of all stakeholders in supporting developmental
 issues. It also highlights the importance of corporate responsibilities linked
 to positive contribution to the economic and social development of developing
 countries. We look forward to seeing the IGF as a vehicle for the realization
 of corporate responsibility for development. This would form a benchmark with
 regard to the extended development orientation of the forum. Mr. Chairman, the
 importance of interconnectivity and transfer of technology has been highlighted
 in paragraph 49 of the Tunis Agenda, which clearly sets the direction. It
 states, we commit to foster and provide guidance in development areas in the
 broader internet governance arrangements and to include, amongst other issues,
 international interconnection costs, capacity-building and technology know-how
 transfer. Mr. Chairman, we have highlighted only some of the overall
 development teams of WSIS. We hope that the consultations will be guided by
 these principles and inputs from all stakeholders towards ensuring
 development-oriented architecture of Internet governance. It is time to put the
 Tunis commitments to action, based on the agenda provided for, an inclusive and
 people-centered information society by our leaders in Tunis. I thank you, sir.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much. We have further comments. Let me just
 give a list of the people I have. I did mention Brazil, U.S.A.  Then I have
 Canada. After that, UNESCO. After that, the ICC/CCBI. Then Ghana. Then I have
 the world forum of civil society networks, UBUNTU. And then I have Switzerland.
 If I may repeat, Brazil, U.S.A., Canada, UNESCO, ICC, Ghana, the UBUNTU forum.
 Brazil.


 >> BRAZIL:  Of course, we do support the statement of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman,
 the Brazilian government would like to convey to the United Nations secretary
 general its appreciation for the organization of this consultation on the
 Internet Governance Forum. This is certainly a great step forward to the
 international community in its endeavor to set up what our heads of state and
 heads of governments decided at the Tunis summit last year. As we all know, we
 have agreed upon, on November 18, 2005, to ask the United Nations secretary
 general to help us in two tasks. First one is to convene by the second quarter
 of 2006 a meeting of the new forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, called
 Internet Governance Forum, which is Paragraph 72 of the agenda. And the second
 task, and not less important, is to start a process towards an enhanced
 cooperation by the end of the first quarter of 2006, which is paragraph 71 of
 the Tunis Agenda. We were told that this meeting of today is related
 specifically to the Internet Governance Forum, and, therefore, it is the
 Brazilian delegation's understanding that another meeting is going to be
 organized to take care of the enhanced cooperation process. Mr. Chairman, let
 me be specific. Brazil is looking forward to the establishment of globally
 applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination
 and management of critical Internet resources. Brazil is of the view that what
 paragraph 55 of the Tunis Agenda calls as, and I quote, existing arrangement
 for Internet governance, unquote, has neither the mandate nor the treaty-based
 authority to take on responsibilities related to international public policy
 issues. Even though these, and I quote, existing arrangements, unquote, have,
 and I quote again, worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust,
 dynamic, and geographically diverse medium that it is today, unquote, the
 decision-making process of international Internet public policy issues should
 be taken by the world community at large, and I emphasize at large, and not by
 a number of technical bodies or by a single government. The most important
 question to the international community is face -- that the international
 community is facing nowadays, and that is why we decided to create a forum to
 discuss it, is that due to a lack of any obvious international organization to
 deal with Internet public policy issues, a number of entities which should
 ideally be only in charge of the technical management of the day-to-day
 operation of the Internet are pushed to fill the void and take political, which
 is public policy decisions. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to quote paragraph 60 of
 the Tunis Agenda, quote:  We further recognize that there are many
 cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are
 not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms. Unquote. In a nutshell,
 what we are trying to say is, technical bodies are deciding upon public policy
 issues. This awkward situation cannot go on forever without causing serious
 trouble and, as we have said before, things that cannot go on forever don't.
 Mr. Chairman, the root of the problem is the absence of an appropriate
 international treaty. That is why Brazil favors the Internet Governance Forum
 should be the locus to discuss the willingness by the international community
 at large -- and I emphasize again, at large -- to create the necessary
 international applicable legal framework for Internet-related public policy
 issues. Therefore, at Athens -- and I shall emphasize that my government is
 very much grateful to the Greek government for hosting the first IGF meeting --
 we have an excellent opportunity to initiate negotiations on a framework treaty
 to deal with international Internet public policy issues. In the near future,
 negotiations on specific protocols could also take place to address problems
 such as, inter alia, A, cybersecurity; B, cybercrime; countering terrorism.
 Spam, privacy and the protection of personal information and data.
 Multilingualization, as was just proposed. Consumer protection.
 Capacity-building. Global public policies related to generic top-level domain
 names. And international interconnection costs. Mr. Chairman, allow me to
 emphasize that Brazil is very much proud of its domestic Internet management
 system. The Brazilian Internet steering committee -- and I have in my left side
 here the president of the Brazilian Internet steering committee -- is a
 tripartite, multistakeholder organization with due representation of not only
 governmental officials, but also of the civil society, the academia, and the
 private sector. Discussions are taken on a collective basis, in an open,
 transparent, and democratic way. Brazilians are very much attached to freedom
 of expression, Mr. Chairman, and to the rule of law. We hope one day we could
 have something similar on the decision-making process of public policy issues
 at the international level. Mr. Chairman, to conclude, let me say that I am
 personally convinced that secretary general Kofi Annan, and especially you, Mr.
 Chairman, are both not only patient men, but also examples of those
 19th-century Tolstoy-like gentlemen that we used to get acquaintance with
 through literature. If you, Mr. Chairman, were not that kind of man, you would
 have already told us that most of this repetitive discussion and endless
 exercise could have been avoided if we only had read with more attention and
 bonne volonte the WGIG report, which you chaired last year. Thank you very
 much, Mr. Chairman.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I would recommend Zen Buddhism as a very suitable training
 for this job. United States.


 >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make the
 following statement on behalf of the United States and its views on the
 Internet governance forum. The united states reiterates its commitment to the
 results of the World Summit on the Information Society, and in particular to
 the convening of the Internet governance forum. In order for the forum to
 realize its full potential, we believe that it is critical to ensure that all
 stakeholders from the Internet community participate in the event on an equal
 footing. The Internet Governance Forum should offer an opportunity for leading
 Internet experts from around the world to share experiences and offer visions
 that support the continued evolution and expansion of the Internet.
 Consequently, the issue of the use of information and communication
 technologies to advance development should be at the heart of these
 discussions. One possible approach to the Internet Governance Forum would
 involve a series of panels composed of innovators, scholars, and industry
 leaders from around the world who can debate Internet-related policy matters
 such as the free flow of information, capacity building, expanded Internet
 access, cybersecurity, Spam, and privacy. The United States believes that the
 Internet Governance Forum should be a truly multistakeholder event.  Therefore,
 it is important that it not be encumbered by extensive, existing United Nations
 processes and procedures.  Attendance and participation in the forum should be
 open to a broad array of stakeholders including governments, business entities,
 civil society, scientists, and intergovernmental organizations. Linkages to the
 U.N. should be minimal in terms of procedures, and the forum should avoid
 burdensome preparatory processes. The Secretariat should be small with a
 mission to support the smooth functioning of the Internet Governance Forum and
 to facilitate broad participation in the event. Finally, a multistakeholder
 bureau will be extremely important to act as a program committee and to offer
 input as to discussion topics, speakers, and format. The promise of the
 Internet Governance Forum, an open and inclusive dialogue amongst all
 stakeholders of the international Internet community, to discuss critical
 issues concerning the future of the Internet, is viewed by the United States as
 a positive development. We look forward to a successful inaugural meeting of
 the Internet Governance Forum in Athens, Greece later this year. Thank you very
 much.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Can I have Canada and then UNESCO.


 >>CANADA:  Thank you, chairman. Canada is pleased to participate in these open
 consultations, and we intend to continue to play a positive and active role in
 the Internet Governance Forum. Canada applauds the decision of the
 secretary-general of the United Nations to organize this consultation.  We are
 also very appreciative of having you, Mr. Desai, in the chair along with Mr.
 Kummer in the Secretariat as we valued your important contributions to the
 earlier working group on Internet governance exercise and hope to benefit
 further from your considerable experience. Building on the spirit of the
 working group on Internet governance, Canada believes the IGF must be based on
 principles of openness and inclusiveness.  For Canada, it is crucial that all
 stakeholders be able to participate fully in the IGF, and note that
 multistakeholder, as defined in the WSIS context, includes governments,
 business entities, civil society, and intergovernmental organizations. Canada
 believes it is vital that these Geneva consultations provide the U.N.
 secretary-general with definitive guidance on the structural and logistical
 aspects of the IGF. The first meeting of the IGF can then focus on a
 substantive agenda, developed in a way that will permit the first IGF to
 produce meaningful results. Canada has always maintained that the WSIS should
 be about development.  In accordance with the successful ICT for defocus of the
 WSIS, the IGF's discussions should maintain a focus on capacity building
 throughout, fully including participants from developing countries. This would
 permit all countries and stakeholders to participate more effectively in other
 internet governance organizations and processes, and enable the effective
 development of national policies and frameworks for Internet Governance.  As
 for the agenda of the IGF, at least for the first few meetings, Canada believes
 it is essential to concentrate on issues where positive outcome can be
 anticipated rather than those issues known to be divisive. Canada believes that
 the IGF can begin its work in a positive manner by helping to find solutions to
 the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular
 concern to everyday users.  Issues related to stability, trust and confidence
 significantly impact the sustainability, robustness, security, stability, and
 development of the Internet. If the IGF is successful, its outputs on these
 issues could contribute to a work program for the coming years within the
 appropriate organizations. Canada does not envisage the establishment of
 ongoing work programs for the IGF. The IGF must take great care to be
 nonduplicative in its efforts. Institutional arrangements around the IGF should
 be sufficiently flexible and inclusive to attract the best thinkers in the
 topic areas it is discussing at any particular meeting.  This implies a
 shifting group of participants.  Efforts need to be made to ensure such
 flexibility. Moreover, the tools of the information society should be used to
 their fullest, both to inform on the activities of the IGF and to engage the
 competencies of all interested stakeholders. By building a significant online
 presence, the IGF can also facilitate ongoing discussion between its physical
 meetings. Canada suggests November 2006 or later for the convening of the first
 IGF meeting.  It should not be in conflict with other major international
 meetings, in particular the eITU plenipotentiary conference. There is
 undeniably a link between those parties interested in the ITU and those
 interested in Internet Governance.  For many it would not be possible to
 prepare for both the plenipotentiary, and the first meeting of the IGF at the
 same time. In conclusion, Canada would like to emphasize our view that the role
 of the IGF is to hold policy discussions.  By focusing on areas where the IGF
 can make a positive contribution, Canada believes that the IGF will be a
 successful forum for discussion. Lastly Canada looks forward to the discussions
 to take place during the (inaudible) and to the work of the forum itself. 
 Thank you, chairman.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  UNESCO, and then ICCBI.


 >>UNESCO:  Mr. President, UNESCO appreciates the opportunity to address this
 meeting.  UNESCO, as one of the organizations responsible for essential tasks
 associated with the Internet, would like to confirm that Internet Governance
 remains one of its core concerns because of the multiple opportunities for
 increased development and prosperity that the Internet represents. UNESCO
 continues to advocate the transparent and inclusive approach to Internet
 Governance, highlighting the principle of openness which encompasses the free
 flow of information, freedom of expression, and technical interoperability on
 the global level. UNESCO values the emphasis given to Internet Governance in
 the Tunis Agenda and endorses the statement that Internet Governance should be
 multilateral, transparent, and democratic. UNESCO notes with satisfaction the
 frequent references to intergovernmental organizations in the paragraphs of the
 Tunis Agenda related to Internet Governance. In particular, we appreciate the
 wish of governments to assign to IGOs a roll in the coordination of
 internet-related public policy issues and in the development of
 Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.  We also note with
 satisfaction that one of the elements of the mandate of the IGF is to interface
 with the appropriate IGOs on matters under their purview.  For UNESCO the main
 public policy issues related to Internet Governance are freedom of expression
 and multilingualism.  UNESCO also considers capacity building as an important
 policy issue. As to the nature, character, and structure of the Internet policy
 debate, stakeholders should ensure that the Internet Governance forum becomes a
 platform for open dialogue to facilitate exchange of information and best
 practice. Unesco endorsed the Tunis Agenda for expressing the need to fully
 include developing countries in the IGF.  This requires continuous capacity
 building and a funding model that allows this participation.  Discussion should
 result in complete recommendations to relevant stakeholders.  The structure of
 the igf could build on the experiences of the working Group on Internet
 Governance, particularly as regards the participation of stakeholders on a need
 for full (inaudible).  For more focused approach the IGF may decide to
 establish subgroups on special issues as identified on the report of the
 Working Group on Internet Governance, drawing on expertise of the academic,
 scientific and technical communities.  Here again, the multistakeholder
 approach should be fully respected. IGF meetings should be organized once a
 year.  The preparation of and follow-up of the meetings should make maximum use
 of electronic working methods. IGF meetings should be prepared by a preparatory
 committee or bureau which comprises representatives from all stakeholders. 
 Furthermore, this body should ensure the facilitation of transparent
 decision-making and promotion of dialogue. An independent Secretariat with a
 light structure, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations could carry
 out the necessary organizational tasks.  Any mechanisms for funding should
 ensure this independency. Synergies need to be established between the IGF and
 the existing arrangements for Internet Governance. There should also be
 appropriate links between the IGF and the various mechanisms that have or will
 be established for the follow-up to and the implementation for other decisions
 on the World Summit on the Information Society. The IGF should focus its work
 on the policy issues that have been defined in the WGIG report as being
 potentially relevant.  The subsequent work of the IGF could be inspired by the
 four clusters of issues inspired by WGIG. But as Internet Governance will be
 discussed in an environment characterized by very rapid changes and new issues
 may emerge, the IGF bureau (inaudible) committee should have the authority to
 modify the sequence of work. The first meeting of IGF this October or the end
 of this year should, after having taken the necessary decisions of its own
 structure and working methods, focus on issues related to infrastructure and
 the management of critical Internet resources. In closing, I would like to
 reiterate UNESCO's willingness to cooperate in the work of the IGF.  We are
 confident that it will enable greater use of the Internet and thereby greater
 participation in the modern information world by an increasing number of
 citizens from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Thank you.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. CCBI.


 >>ccbi :Thank you, chairman Desai, Mr. Kummer, Mr. Utsumi. I am pleased to
 provide initial comments on the igf on behalf of CCBI and ICC members. The
 global business community welcomes these consultations and the opportunity to
 provide input both online and in person at these meetings.  We call attention
 to the inputs from CCBI and ICC in December of 2005 as well as February 2006,
 which are on the IGF and ICC Web sites. The business members in the CCBI have
 appreciated the opportunity presented by the World Summit on the Information
 Society process to discuss how to bring the benefits of the information society
 to people around the world. Many business leaders believe that the post-wsis
 processes present continued opportunities to provide even better ties to other
 information society stakeholders.  Today -- we have outlined other fundamental
 principles regarding Internet Governance in our written inputs on the IGF, and
 today we would like to focus on four important areas. One, the multistakeholder
 principle.  Two, the role and mandate of the IGF.  Three, the IGF process.  And
 four, supporting the IGF. One, multistakeholder participation on an equal
 footing.  The first and foremost principle for business is that the IGF must be
 multistakeholder, ensuring full involvement of all stakeholder groups,
 including business, on an equal footing on all aspects of the IGF, starting
 from consultation to establishment to operational planning and events. We know
 that there is widespread support among governments, civil society, academic and
 technical communities, and other stakeholders for this principle as has already
 been stated in interventions this morning. Two, the role and mandate of the
 IGF. Consistent with the mandate articulated in paragraph 72 of the Tunis
 Agenda, the IGF should emphasize the development oriented aspects of Internet
 Governance, such as enhancement of capacity building, to increase meaningful
 participation in Internet-related issues by all stakeholders, particularly
 those from developing countries. The Tunis Agenda paragraph 72 gives the IGF a
 mandate to promote the expansion and continued development of the Internet
 through information exchange and sharing of best practices.  To maximize that
 goal and in line with the other relevant paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda, the
 IGF should do the following:  Only address issues that would truly benefit from
 international multistakeholder dialogue, work with existing forA to improve
 awareness and existing information on topics already being considered, avoid
 duplication of the work underway in existing organizations, be consistent with
 the aim of promoting the security and integrity of the Internet, not compete
 with or impede the technical management and technical coordination of the
 Internet or critical Internet resources. The Tunis Agenda is clear that the IGF
 does not have decision-making or policy-making authority. Three, the IGF
 process.  This third important area of the IGF process we put forth that the
 IGF should do the following.  It should operate in a flexible manner to
 facilitate open discussion among all participants.  Therefore, adherence to
 rigid rules used in intergovernmental negotiation processes is inappropriate.
 it Should provide the opportunity for all stakeholders from all countries to
 participate on an equal basis in the consultations and at IGF events.  Should
 involve all stakeholders on an equal footing and all operational planning for
 the IGF.  Utilize online tools to make it more inclusive with no stakeholder
 group excluded from the discussions of the IGF.  And operate in a cost and
 operationally efficient manner. I would now like to comment on the purpose of
 the first IGF event in Athens. In Athens we should limit topics on to the
 importance of the Internet and the success of bringing the Internet to all
 people.  We should limit the discussion to those topics that could truly
 benefit from further outreach, information exchange, and human capacity
 building. To be effective, the first event in Athens and any igf events in the
 future should not be an attempt to open discussion of a plethora of issues. 
 Further consultations both online and in person for all stakeholders should be
 planned appropriately.  CCBI and potentially others cannot provide responses
 regarding many igf issues until several fundamental igf attributes are
 established. Furthermore, we call upon all stakeholders to be sensitive to
 limited resources of all stakeholders.  The development of the IGF should bear
 in mind the extent of human and financial resources required to establish and
 participate in it.  This is especially true since these same resources could
 alternatively be applied to implementing the development goals of the WSIS.
 Consistent with this principle, we appreciate the fact that the proposed
 schedule for the event in Athens is for a two- to three-day time frame.  This
 will provide adequate time for a true exchange on the agenda topic. In
 addition, for example, meetings on the IGF and other relevant topics could be
 organized back to back to reduce travel and other cost. Four, supporting the
 IGF.  Lastly, on matters supporting the IGF, we see a fully multistakeholder
 bureau taking any and all operational and program decisions by consensus, in
 consultation with all stakeholder groups regarding the IGF. The host would take
 the logistical decisions necessary on the ground and a Secretariat in
 cooperation with those providing logistical support should put the operational
 decisions of the bureau into practice and facilitate the participation of all
 stakeholders. The topic identified for an IGF event should be agreed upon by
 consensus among the stakeholders.  A bureau that is in fact multistakeholder
 with all on an equal footing as discussed earlier.  We look forward to
 providing additional input as the discussions continue today and tomorrow, and
 thank you for this opportunity and your attention.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Ghana, UBUNTU, and then Switzerland.  After that I have
 Japan. I have the Internet society of Argentina and (inaudible). Ghana.


 >>GHANA:  Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our position to the
 secretary-general for helping to convene this meeting and to you, Mr. Chairman,
 for steering the affairs of this consultation. I will be very brief, as you
 requested, and also because Africa being a large constituency, is holding full
 consultations and will be contributing in detail as we progress. Africa's
 general aim of advocating for a common ground to help us move forward
 positively on Internet Governance is paramount. We cannot help but reiterate
 the central theme of these consultations, as in paragraph 29 of the Tunis
 Agenda.  I quote, the management of the Internet should be multilateral,
 transparent, and democratic with the full involvement of governments, the
 private sector, civil society, and international organizations." To us in
 Africa, the second parts of this paragraph is also important, and I quote, "It
 should ensure a equitable distribution of resources, facilitate assets for all,
 underline for all, and ensure a stable and secure (inaudible) for the Internet,
 taking into account multilingualism," unquote. As a continent most challenged
 with ICT development, we are practically interested in the infrastructure
 development, capacity building, reduced technical costs, and equal
 participation to help us remove this digital divide. We commend the government
 and people of Greece once again for agreeing to host us and we look forward to
 an effective and results-oriented forum.  I thank you.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. UBUNTU.  Welcome.


 >>UBUNTU:


 >>world forum of civ. soc.:  Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
 as organization of the civil society, I would like to thank -- express my
 thanks for the facilities of being here.  Although I must also say that these
 facilities, this setup, are only, let us say, usable if one has the economic
 means to be able to travel to Geneva, apart from the fact of also the NGOs and
 the organizations that have headquarters here. Secondly, and to the extent that
 we are in a part where our statements are general in nature, I would like to
 express a concern, but positively, not negatively.  Indeed, when I saw the list
 of participants in this meeting, it is very clearly that there are governments,
 there are international organizations, but then we have the entities list.  And
 in that list, and I understand perfectly that at this stage nothing else has
 been able to be done, taking into account the whole process, the Geneva process
 and the Tunis process, as a minimum we should have two lists at least.  The
 business entities, private sector, and the civil society list.  And I am saying
 this positively, not negatively.  But these are interested parties that are
 different, different lists.  And in many cases, we can have synergies or points
 of agreement, but during Tunis and Geneva, these are listed as different lists.
  And that would be good for them to be listed as different lists.  And my
 concern also is the following.  Not few NGOs, and there are a few, only a few
 of civil society organizations on this list, and from our point of view, one of
 the organizations here, CONGO, represents many of them.  And I would like to
 congratulate them and especially to Mr. Bloem for this socialization activity
 of this issue.  But I consider that there are organize that did not follow the
 Geneva and Tunis phases.  And it would be good at this stage for the
 information not only to remain with the organizations that took part in this
 process but also to be extended to other organizations.  Indeed, when we speak
 of civil society and when we speak of NGOs, I think that also with the Internet
 issues and especially what follows after that, it would be very important for
 the civil society sector and the NGO sector be represented in this phase in a
 very active manner. I've said this first because in this phase or this phase of
 general statements, I would like to underscore from our point of view what, as
 a world forum -- as Ubuntu, my organization, what, from my point of view, these
 fundamental spirit is that is behind what is the Geneva and the Tunis phase.
 Now, I think we agreed that this -- we want to put the ICTs to the service of
 development. And if that's a fundamental point, well, it has to be a
 fundamental point that inspires the design of the creation and the organization
 of the IGF. And in that respect, and I insist on this fact, the socialization
 of this process and the openness of this process to the civil society
 organizations and NGOs is an important thing and it's still time for us to act,
 it's still time for us to socialize this whole process. I wanted to underscore
 especially that as far as we understand, and we've expressed this to the
 participants in the forum, what is at stake here is not only that we fight
 against the digital divide, given that the -- this would be a negative,
 important, but just a negative battle. But what we need to do is put ICTs at
 the service of development. Thirdly, and as an organization of the civil
 society, which, basically, is concerned and monitors the developments in
 international organizations and the operation of the international
 organizations and ensuring that there are in-depth reforms in those
 institutions, we believe that the process to create the IGF is a process which
 in itself is very important for the life of the international organizations. We
 are extremely satisfied and interested in the heritage we have from Geneva and
 Tunis speaks to us as -- of the Internet as a globally -- a global facility, a
 global facility. Well, it will become that, and it should become that, and it
 should become a new common good for humanity. And in that respect, the Geneva
 and Tunis process have emphasized what I think is extremely important in the
 context in the economic and political situation of the world, namely, the need
 precisely to have public policies that are international in nature. And before
 the need to have these international public policies and understanding perfect
 what is set forth in the Tunis Agenda of namely what the role of IGF should be,
 I think that this forum, as well as operating well and being operational, as
 well as being an example of a working experience of the various interested
 parties in the directions we have underscored and also in other directions we
 would indicate, we are also in favor of governance and global governance going
 in the direction of strengthening international public policies. In that
 respect, in this general statement, I wanted to express our stance. Thank you
 very much, Mr. Chairman.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you. Going now to Switzerland.


 >>SWITZERLAND:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to
 see you again at the podium. On a number of occasions, we have had an
 opportunity to appreciate your qualities as chairman. Switzerland, as you know,
 we have always defended during the summit process a multistakeholder approach,
 so to speak. And this multiparTITE approach we think is also important for
 establishing the IGF. And in setting up this IGF, we also think it's very
 important that the rules of participation be flexible and that we should not be
 constrained by too many rigid requirements of the U.N. system. With regard to
 the themes, Mr. Chairman, we have heard many proposals. But we should bear in
 mind that the entire process of the summit, and also the reasons why we're
 here, are, first, to close the digital divide and to strengthen capacity in the
 ICT. And for that reason, we're here to -- hear what the developing countries
 say when they propose themes, such as settling the problem of cost of
 connections, and also settling questions on multilingualism. We also think the
 question of spam and network security is important. All of these themes are
 themes which we think are important. And they deserve to be considered in the
 IGF. With regard to structures, Mr. Chairman, as has been indicated by a number
 of speakers already, we think the Secretariat should be independent and light
 in weight. In this regard, I would also stress that Switzerland would be
 prepared to contribute substantively if the Secretariat were to be set up in
 Geneva. It is also important for us to have not a rigid bureau under the U.N.
 system, but, rather, a steering committee with the participation of all those
 involved, in other words, governments, but also civil society, the private
 sector, and international organizations. With regard to financing the IGF, we
 think that this should take place under the auspices of voluntary
 contributions. We would like to have the meeting take place at the end of the
 year, but also taking into account other major international meetings
 scheduled. Our Canadian colleagues referred to the ITU, which at the end of the
 year has its PLENIPOTENTIARY ASSEMBLY. We believe the IGF should meet once a
 year for two or three days. It's important to us that we should not have any
 redundancy in the IGF's work with what is being done in other organizations,
 such as UNESCO, the ITU, the UNDP. And I would also, Mr. Chairman, praise the
 initiatives of those organizations which on 24 February are going to meet to
 make progress towards implementation of the Geneva and Tunis decisions. We
 would like the first IGF meeting to be devoted to concrete topics. And for that
 reason, we would be very glad, Mr. Chairman, if the questions of procedure and
 organization could be resolved before the end of the year. This would enable us
 to immediately get down to work and be effective. Thank you, sir.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you. May I also take this opportunity of thanking the
 government of Switzerland for all the support that it has given for this
 process, both at the stage of the WGIG as well as right now. I thank you for
 your help and support that you have extended to us in organizing this. I now
 have Japan, Quebec, ISOC Argentina, and then (inaudible) Switzerland.


 >>JAPAN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Japan would like to
 appreciate Mr. Chairman and Mr. Kummer for their leadership and excellent
 contribution made in the WGIG process that we believe led to the successful
 outcome of the WSIS Tunis phase. And we are also grateful for your chairmanship
 at the preparatory process of IGF today. At this time, Japan wishes to mention
 three points that I would like to highlight today and as well as some comments
 on the substantive priorities. Firstly, the IGF is a space for dialogue and a
 forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, as indicated in paragraph 67 of the
 Tunis Agenda, to discuss public policy issues and facilitate the exchange of
 information and best practices. And in this regard, make use of the expertise
 of the academic, scientific, and technical communities. Japan also believes
 that at its outset, the outcome of the IGF does not have to be a set of
 recommendations, but, rather, the forum should be well-satisfied to produce a
 report as its output as the first step and the process of discussion. Secondly,
 Japan believes that the IGF must be a space for open dialogue by
 multistakeholders, in line with the paragraph 72, and accordingly, calls
 meetings expected to be held. Thirdly, any private sector-held forums that
 satisfy the criteria indicated in paragraph 72 and 77 of the Tunis Agenda
 should be regarded as candidates for additional joint IGF meetings in addition
 to a forum that the United Nations secretary general convenes. In order to
 discuss the diversity of Internet issues, the utilization of these forums
 should be taken into consideration to incorporate a broad range of professional
 opinions. And lastly, a substantive priority issue, Japan believes that the
 discussion at IGF should be broad and inclusive, as paragraph 58 of the Tunis
 Agenda states, namely, much broader than Internet naming and addressing, and
 inclusive of other significant public policy issues. In addition, we find it's
 important for the IGF to identify emerging issues, as stated in paragraph 72
 (G) of Tunis Agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you. The government of Quebec.


 >>QUEBEC:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The government of Quebec is very pleased
 to be involved in this work. We firmly believe in the importance of technology
 and communication as an important mode for economic and social development. We
 are satisfied with the results of the second phase in Tunis on Internet
 governance and we welcome the establishment of that forum on Internet
 governance, and we expect to participate actively in it to contribute to
 innovative solutions for effective and rapid development of the Internet. We
 believe that the establishment and organization of the forum require parties --
 is involved to review their -- we have cooperating. This presents a new model
 of governance on the international level. And this requires equality for the
 parties involved, governments and civil society organizations and the private
 sector. We are aware that many options are available as regards the
 organization of the forum and that they all deserve particular attention. We
 believe that the none binding nature of the forum requires rules and procedures
 for the operation of the organization, should allow the elaboration of
 consensus on various issues at stake. This consensus should be reflected in the
 results of our deliberations. With regard to organizational aspects, we think
 things should be flexible, and to optimize the work of the forum, we believe
 that the working languages should be those -- the same as the official
 languages of the United Nations. We also believe that the use of information
 and communication technologies should be systematic to maximize exchanges
 within the -- between meetings, as well as to encourage participation of those
 who cannot attend physically, integration of intermission and communication
 technologies as well as technological choices, should, however, be done based
 on the capacity of the participants. In view of the high number of issues
 identified, it would be preferable if the work of the forum should be
 decentralized and that the organizational approach would be upward. We believe
 that for the first meeting, the forum should consider certain issues, a
 relatively limited number, and among them could be stability and security of
 the Internet, including cybercrime, of course, privacy, protection of personal
 information, education and capacity-building, and, of course, the question of
 cultural diversity and linguistic ability. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that
 creating this forum is a great opportunity to establish a constructive dialogue
 on the Internet and we would like to thank you.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you. I have from the ISOC Argentina, then WIS@key,
 then the main ISOC, then Congo, Argentina, and then Australia.


 >> ISOC Argentina:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for organizing these
 consultations in such an open and inclusive way. My name is Sebastian
 RICCIARDI, I am also involved in the ICANN at-large advisory committee. I am
 talking in my individual capacity. It is clear and undeniable that the
 principles of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, and democracy should be
 the foundation of this new space for dialogue. To be inclusive and become a
 truly multistakeholder space, the forum needs to recognize and welcome all
 stakeholders and let them participate on equal footing at all levels of the
 discussion. Beyond the model we want to replicate or use, it is important to
 recognize and follow these values. A truly multistakeholder, transparent, and
 open process lets everyone participate in the critical tasks. And this task
 includes the agenda and role of procedure-setting. If we are going to have a
 BROAD or any kind of committee to perform these important tasks, it should be
 composed in a way that, one, represents the view and interests of all the
 stakeholders. Two, conduct their work under open and transparent mechanisms.
 And, three, have no preeminence for any of the stakeholders involved. Setting
 up the rule of procedures is, consequently, a critical challenge. In this
 regard, WSIS rules of procedures should not be considered as a starting point.
 These rules were tailored for a different kind of forum and are not treatable
 for a much broader, inclusive policy dialogue. The nature of the IGF is
 different than WSIS, and hence this should be reflected in the rules. There are
 many examples of how the WSIS strict rules will undermine the results of the
 IGF. The input received by a large group of stakeholders was limited to the
 observer role they have had during WSIS. Some of these stakeholders were very
 representative of the Internet community, and even when the Tunis Agenda
 recognized the importance of their ongoing roles in coordinating technical
 matters, and their expertise, the process did not recognize them as a
 (inaudible) GENEROUS  stakeholder, and did not allocate a specific time to hear
 and consider their thoughts on the different matters. Fortunately, members of
 the civil society and the private sector were kind enough to donate some of
 their scarce time for this proposal on that opportunity. There were also many
 organizations a member of the civil society that were precluded because of the
 rules. Just as an example, the first hours of the last PrepCom here in Geneva
 were used to discuss the situation of an organization that was excluded because
 they refused to declare their funding sources. This example shows some of the
 reason why we should not use the U.N. procedures rules beyond the multilingual
 capacities. A much higher degree of flexibility is desired to promote an open
 and inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue. These consultations of the convening
 FOR THE IETF provide a good example of how a multistakeholder forum should be
 put in place. The openness and inclusiveness on the process should also be a
 guideline when considering the mechanism of participation. Physical presence
 exclude many stakeholders, especially those coming from less-developed
 countries. This is why we ought to ensure mechanism of remote participation,
 namely, online discussion forums, E-mail discussion list, WIKIS, Web casts,
 just to name a few. Physical presence should not be a requirement to fully
 participate in the different debates that may arise in the forum. IGF meetings
 should be done mainly through Internet-based mechanism and only one yearly
 meeting. This meeting shouldn't take more than three or four working days to
 cope with financial constraints and assure broad participation. It will be also
 important to promote some financing mechanisms to ensure participation of those
 who are in a disadvantaged position, an example, those who come from
 less-developed countries. The investment and promotion of capacity-building
 programs is also necessary to assure a world balanced participation in the long
 range. And this is why it should be one of the main topics addressed in the IGF
 discussion. Thank you.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you. I am now going to Ambassador Stauffacher, in
 your capacity and the private sector.


 >> WIS@key: thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, indeed, for allowing
 me to take the floor here and also giving me the opportunity to thank you again
 that you have agreed to be the leader of this process. We all know, of course,
 that you are in well-deserved retirement, but also a very busy person in your
 own country. So we are very grateful that you continue to lead this process. As
 you said, now I moved from the diplomacy to the private sector. And be patient
 with me if I transgress or make mistakes, but I'm glad to be here, and I'm
 pleased to say a few words, while not repeating what the ICC and CCBI already
 said, which I endorse fully. Let me make just a few remarks and maybe
 precisions. We have talked about, of course, the intergovernmental -- the
 participation of the stakeholders. And I think it is, I think, important to
 underline that we do not embark on an intergovernmental process with
 stakeholder participation, but that we really develop a true multistakeholder
 process. I think this is an important distinction that we have to make, in
 order to truly benefit of the wisdom and knowledge of all members of societies,
 of the societies. The second point I would like to make is that WSIS Tunis has
 given the secretary general and you the mandate now to structure and organize
 this forum. And I think this is important that this forum, then, also remains
 under the auspices of the United Nations. Third point is that, as it has been
 stressed before, I think this is not a forum for decision-making and
 legislating, but, really, to help us to create awareness with policymakers,
 with leaders of all quarters, on the challenges and opportunities, and through
 that, help us to advance the objective that we have set out. I think with
 Pakistan, of course, I believe the development orientation is very important.
 And if I look at the themes, if you allow me to make a few comments here, as
 Brazil said, I think the field of cybersecurity, privacy protection of personal
 information and data protection, and, in particular, the field of identity
 protection and management is something that we should look at in this forum as
 well. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you. May I now turn to the Internet society. Who is
 speak from ISOC? Where is ISOC?


 >>ISOC:   ISOC Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here and to be working with
 you again. The Internet society believes discussions on Internet governance
 should focus on those issues that will help bring the Internet to the billions
 of people not yet connected. This is supported by the WSIS reaffirmation of the
 importance of ICTs and capacity-building to nations economic development and
 future welfare and the United Nations secretary general's call that the
 follow-on from the summit, quote, generate new momentum towards developing the
 economies and societies of poor countries and transforming the lives of poor
 people, end quote. We believe at the Internet society that there are some key
 points that we need to bear in mind in our discussion of convening the forum.
 We believe that the IGF, the forum should ensure inclusiveness, in other words,
 maximize participation in the Internet Governance Forum by all interested
 stakeholders, individuals, et cetera, particularly for those from developing
 nations. We believe the IGF should use the technology we are discussing, we
 should facilitate participation through innovative and aggressive use of
 electronic communications. We believe the forum can do a lot by facilitating
 knowledge of and participation in existing structures and organizations. We
 look to the forum and the stakeholders to suggest better ways for stakeholders
 and interested parties, particularly those from developing nations, to learn
 about and contribute to the key Internet governance discussions and decisions.
 We believe the IGF should focus on capacity-building and access needs, it
 should identify priorities, needed programs for capacity-building, especially
 in developing nations. We believe the IGF should focus on the fundamentals. It
 should explore a limited set of Internet governance-related case studies that
 are cross-cutting and central to capacity-building and ICT deployment. The
 forum should build on existing forums and organizations. It should leverage
 existing knowledge and expertise, while promoting the sharing of experience and
 best practices. And, finally, it should minimize costs of participation. There
 should be a limit to the forum-related organizational structures and the need
 for meetings. And while maximizing the use of Internet-based collaboration and
 communication tools. Chairman, the Internet society believes that the emphasis
 in the IGF should be in two areas, first, the disseminating and sharing of
 information, best practices, and expertise across a limited set of issues in a
 case study approach. And the second should be encouraging a greater
 understanding across stakeholders of the roles and responsibilities and means
 of participation in those organizations that are responsible for the current
 governance mechanisms. The Internet society recommends that the Internet
 Governance Forum begins the case study approach with a limited set of issues,
 one or two that are cross-cutting and do not fall within the scope of any
 existing body, and also build on the WSIS achievements and contribute to
 reaching the millennium development goals. The forum should draw heavily on
 existing bodies of work and institutional and individual expertise,
 highlighting the work already done to address the issues, and then focus on
 concrete proposals of how governments, the U.N., the World Bank, the private
 sector, and key Internet governance organizations, et cetera, can work together
 to ensure that the best available expertise and resources are brought to bear.
 These case studies should include areas such as interconnection arrangements
 and connectivity, ICT education and training, spam and multilingualism, all of
 which report to the WSIS discussions and require further development. We would
 note, however, that it would be important for the forum focus on workable issue
 areas and not on those subject to clearly entrenched views that would make
 discussion unproductive. Clearly, the more focused the forum, the greater its
 chances of enabling a fuller understanding of the issues in question and of
 making a difference in the number of people who can access and benefit from the
 Internet. A recurring concern in the debate over Internet governance has been
 that key stakeholder groups feel that they have insufficient input into the
 decision-making processes that are affecting the development and management of
 the Internet. Many of the key organizations involved in Internet governance
 have made clear throughout WSIS that they are eager to find ways to involve
 more people in decisions, processes, roundtables, workshops, et cetera, and, in
 particular, they are eager to ensure that civil society and others have a full
 and active role in the governance processes. Promoting a greater understanding
 of the roles and responsibilities of these organizations and the mechanisms for
 participation will be a particularly useful focus for the forum. It follows
 that success will depend upon the fullest participation by all stakeholders and
 interested parties. With regard to the functioning of the forum, it will be
 essential that the time, personnel, and financial constraints all stakeholders
 are subject to are taken into account. An operating principle of the forum
 should be to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness through limiting
 organizational structures and the need for meetings, while encouraging the use
 of Internet-based collaboration and communication tools. Finally, with regard
 to WSIS commitment to multistakeholder processes, the Internet society believes
 that the broad recognition of the achievements of the organizations responsible
 for the administration and management of the Internet is a clear endorsement of
 their continued and vital role in its further development. While the
 representational model for the forum has yet to be decided, the Internet
 society believes that the Internet community should be recognized as a
 principal stakeholder in the Internet Governance Forum, given its recognition
 in the Tunis Agenda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, ISOC. And thank you for your steady
 and continuous support for this entire process. I now have RENATE Bloem from
 Congo. And then Argentina. If others want to speak, just raise your....


 >>CONGO:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Desai, it's great to see you in
 the chair, and Mr. Kummer next to you. We know that we are in good hands. And
 for the conference of NGOs CONGO, this is really a great day, because I have
 never heard so many governments really in full support of the multistakeholder
 approach. We are here in -- under the roof and under the leadership and also
 under Mr. Kofi Annan's designation of the forum. But yet this meeting here is
 already somehow a signal for the future of, I would say, even future diplomacy.
 This is when we can really speak on equal level to these issues which are so
 important for all of us that we see something coming out which the whole WSIS
 process has put into -- has put into a process which we are very, very happy
 of. I had not prepared anything, because as you know, civil society was very
 much organized with particular working groups, and we have a very specific
 working group on Internet Governance forum here, and the members will take the
 floor on the specific issues. But there is one thing which I want also to
 reiterate, and what we heard already earlier from the UBUNTU representative. 
 We have the possibilities to have the governments here because all government
 missions are in Geneva.  We have possibilities maybe for limited private sector
 people, but we have still very limited presentation from civil society. We need
 to see, when we want to take a development-oriented, I would say, process, that
 we need to hear from those people in those areas, not only from the
 governments, also from Civil society, which are directly affected from any
 decision which can be made from those deliberations which we hope this forum
 will take on. I wanted to say also one thing.  We have heard various, now,
 mentioning of dates for a meeting later on this year in Athens.  The need is
 absolutely essentially that the consultation comes with a clear date.  How can
 the meeting be -- even be organized if there is not yet a clear date? So at the
 same time, need to see that the rules and procedures will be as flexible as
 possible, and we'll take on this, what we had already here, in the same way as
 it has been applied here for this consultation. And I think the IGF forum
 should not duplicate in general the whole Tunis agenda, but should really focus
 on the Internet issues, and we have heard many of them which are vital. But at
 the same time, I would like to see that the Internet Governance Forum has the
 linkages and has the synergies with all other mechanisms for follow-up,
 including the mechanism of the commission, including what will happen in other
 areas; that it will benefit from all the thinking and from all the input from
 all areas. Once again, Mr. Desai, we thank you for this meeting today, and I
 hope that all our other -- our representatives will take the floor later on.
 Thank you.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Argentina.


 >>ARGENTINA:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to express my
 thanks to the secretary-general for having convened this consultation meeting,
 and this first chance we have to take the floor and exchange general ideas and
 contribute initial points of view. First of all, I would like to point out that
 with regard to the outcome of the WGIG, the Working Group on Internet
 Governance, we hope that the IGF provides contributions with working guidelines
 to bring about an Internet Governance system that is multistakeholder in nature
 and preserves fundamentally the concept of Internet as we know it to be today,
 as a communication tool that is homogenous for all the users. And we don't want
 the risk of the Internet being fragmented and losing its advantage of being a
 tool for everybody. So it's accessible to all, and everywhere in the world.
 With regard to the organization and the procedures to follow for this forum,
 one year -- one meeting a year could be an appropriate number frequency of
 meeting.  The use of ICTs, virtual ICTs would help us to enable a
 multistakeholder participation, especially for developing countries that are
 located far away from places in (inaudible).  Clearly in this meeting, experts
 from the whole world and their participation is extremely important.  For
 countries that are actors on the national/international scene, experts from
 these places should express their will to participate in this whole process.
 With regard to the funding, clearly the Secretariat should be small, minimal,
 and have enough to carry out an effective work with the least cost possible
 involved. These are very preliminary comments, and my delegation, like the
 other groups, the G77, believe that this should be a development-oriented
 enterprise.  We want to express our agreement with the opinions of Brazil;
 namely, that we should begin to develop tools that deal with specific issues of
 Internet Governance, such as cybercrime and others that have been raised by
 this delegation. Finally, we agree with the appropriateness of having broadened
 cooperation, as Brazil mentioned, to achieve a result in the near future. Thank
 you very much.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I have Australia.


 >>AUSTRALIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Australia welcomes the multistakeholder
 consultations on the establishment and operation of the IGF. The IGF has the
 potential to make a valuable contribution to the development and expansion of
 the Internet, but how it is set up will be crucial in this regard. At this
 stage, rather than focus on details, Australia would like to make some comments
 on the principles that should underpin the IGF and what the IGF should aim to
 achieve.  These two be considerations are fundamental to the design of the
 forum. In doing this, Australia will be adding its support for many of the
 points already made this morning. The IGF is being established in the context
 of acknowledgement by WSIS that the spectacular rise of the Internet is the
 result of multistakeholder action in which the private sector and civil society
 have played key roles, that there is value on ongoing dialogue on public policy
 issues and this dialogue to be effective must be multilateral,
 multistakeholder, democratic and transparent. This acknowledgement recognizes
 the new paradigm that was entered by the internet that while governments may
 have authority in public policy, the legitimacy and utility of that authority
 is questionable unless it is exercised in consultation with other stakeholders.
 Multistakeholder involvement and openness are therefore fundamental to the IGF.
  They must be genuine and effective if the IGF is to be genuine and effective.
 These principles mean the design of the IGF must have certain features.  From
 Australia's perspective, these include open and ongoing consultation like that
 we are currently engaged in on crucial issues; a strong preference for the IGF
 to be run as a multistakeholder entity by a competent multistakeholder
 organization or consortium; an IGF Secretariat and advisory group being
 multistakeholder; accreditation and procedural rules that support
 inclusiveness, openness and equal participation; active promotion of the IGF
 and its relevance, particularly to developing countries and the use of ICTs to
 the maximum extent to maximize access and engagement. The second principle that
 Australia would like to emphasize is that the IGF as a whole should be
 lightweight and cost effective.  As many have noted, financial and other
 resources are limited and we all have competing priorities.  In interprets of
 the IGF's design, this suggestion a relatively flat structure without a
 proliferation of subgroups and subcommittees, relatively short, focused annual
 meetings, possibly back-to-back with related events, both intergovernmental and
 private sector or civil society. Potentially, a fixed central location for both
 meetings and the Secretariat.  Use of external expertise and voluntary
 contributions, and again, the effective use of ICTs. From a broader perspective
 it's suggested that IGF discussions should be nonduplicative and should be
 productive and this leads us to our final theme, the aims of the IGF. Australia
 considers the IGF can make a valuable contribution to the development of the
 Internet but this opportunity may be squandered if discussion is too abstract
 and diffuse. We may end up with a set of fine principles but of little
 practical value to stakeholders, everyday users of the Internet and world
 communities, particularly in developing countries.  The igf must consciously
 aim to produce in relevant time frames substantive outputs that are of real
 practical value.  In terms of its design, Australia therefore considers that
 the IGF should have it's procedural and organizational structures decided
 before the first meeting.  It should focus on key issues or themes at each
 meeting.  It should be responsive to real issues of relevance to stakeholders
 and Internet users generally, particularly those from developing countries. The
 IGF's discussions should be structured and focused and rigorously -- the igf
 should be structured, focused and rigorous in its operation so it delivers
 useful outcomes quickly.  More existence -- it should make extensive use of
 inputs from experts and practitioners with on-the-ground expertise and
 experience from all stakeholder groups but particularly from developing
 countries.  There should be emphasis on information sharing and the development
 of best practice models and should publish reports that are accessible,
 documenting its substantive discussions and concrete ideas including best
 practice, and that provide a basis for action. The question of broad aims
 inevitably leads to that of priorities.  Australia considers the IGF's top
 priority should be the issues relating to the use and misuse of the Internet
 and in particular, Spam, E-security and cybercrime.  The interlinkages between
 them and the mechanisms for addressing them. This is top priority because of
 the consumer harm these issues propose and correspondingly the benefits to be
 derived from tackling them.  These benefits will accrue not only to developed
 countries but also to developing countries. In addition, Wsis and wgig
 identified a range of other issues, particularly with a development focus such
 as access and multilingualism which also warrant attention.  We consider
 identification and discussion of new and emerging issues in the IGF is also
 important to the Internet's ongoing and inclusive development. . This focus is
 in contrast to a focus on the issues that have been discussed at length
 throughout the WSIS and which are receiving attention in other forA.  A process
 -- a focus on these types of issues in the IGF would divert its limited and
 valuable resources from tackling issues of real significance to everyday users.
 Australia looks forward to working constructively with other stakeholders to
 help ensure the IGF realizes its full potential.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  David Allen from the world collaboration for communications
 policy research.  And I have the OECD. David Allen.


 >>DAVID ALLEN:


 >>COLLAB. FOR COMM. POLICY:  The name of the organization is long, but the
 intervention is mercifully brief. Mr. Chairman, you have suggested this is the
 occasion to consider objectives for the IGF.  We suggest that the, perhaps,
 overarching aim forgive be to create processes that allow the participants to
 get beyond the stalemate that developed in WSIS. This is, if you please, a
 pregnant proposal in that it does not say how we might go about doing such a
 thing, but if we should decide that this is a compelling aim forgive, there
 will be opportunity later to discuss just exactly how that might proceed. Thank
 you, Mr. Chairman.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. OECD.  And then I have the IGTF, Internet
 Governance Task Force of Japan.  So let me turn to OECD first.


 >>OECD:  Thank you, Mr. chair. We at the OECD look forward to the formation of
 the IGF and we look forward to contributing to it as seen appropriate by the
 various stakeholders participating in it.  I want to make two BRIEF points
 about the OECD and OUR work THAT i feel ARE PERTINENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF the
 IGF.  The first is the OECD is in fact a multistakeholder group such as what
 the IGF will be as well.  We enjoy the active and diverse participation of many
 groups in our work. The second point I want to make is we see consensus on
 issues at the OECD that are nonbinding but in fact, bring with them moral
 pressure for countries to adopt them.  In this sense, I think the functioning
 of the OECD may represent a model for the IGF and we would be happy to provide
 further details if so desired. The second point I want to make is one on
 substance. We at the OECD have been working on a range of issues associated
 with the information society for some time, going from that of infrastructure
 to ICT and growth, to privacy and security. And in particular we have a TASK
 FORCE on combating Spam which after two years has completed its work and will
 issue a final report as well as A TOOLKIT OF VARIOUS ways to EFFECTIVELY combat
 Spam in the next FEW weeks. This may be of use in IDENTIFYING best practices of
 the IGF, and we look forward to contributing it to the IGF if so requested.
 Thank you, Mr. Chair.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  IGTF and then Singapore.


 >>IGTF: Thank you, chairman Desai.  Also, I REALLY appreciate this opportunity
 given again, and maybe again and again, to continue our dialogue. I'm here not
 on behalf of the IGTF, but I am a member of the IGTF as well.  That's Internet
 Governance task force of Japan, but I am also a member of ICANN's At-Large
 Advisory Committee for MORE THAN THREE years, AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL
 SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE FOCUS, but this is simply my personal observational
 comment or contribution. I really appreciate the multistakeholder principle,
 and especially on equal footing to be implemented in this new forum.  Perhaps
 this may be the real achievement of the WSIS on Internet Governance issues. 
 But perhaps we need to be very creative in implementing this multistakeholder
 principle into real forum operation.  We may have very different ideas as to
 what multistakeholder approach really mean. I want to make clear that when it
 comes to the Internet, even public policy related decisions, whether you like
 it or not, cannot be made by governments alone, and that's part of the reason
 why, perhaps, we agreed to have this Internet Governance Forum as
 multistakeholder approach. And there are good reasons or needs for this fact. 
 But practicing or implementing the true multistakeholder approach is not an
 easy thing.  As a member of ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee which is trying
 to bring the individual user's voices to the ICANN'S public policy development
 process, that was not an easy task.  ICANN has BEEN TRYING TO BE a
 multistakeholder organization, and it is more so, I can testify, THAN most
 international bodies or forA we know of.  But still, there are good challenges.
 Most governments in the advisory committee at ICANN, the GAC, and At-Large
 Advisory Committee again, it's an advisory committee, ALAC, have not been given
 equal footing on the decision-making process. Again, there are good reasons,
 perhaps, for this framework, but I would ask you to seriously consider what is
 the best modality or the mode of the multistakeholder approach in this Internet
 Governance Forum.  And thank you very much.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you. We have Singapore.


 >>SINGAPORE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Singapore would like to express its
 appreciation to the secretary-general for convening these consultations. We
 would like to state some principles on the structure and composition which we
 believe the IGF should adopt. Singapore believes that any structure and
 composition of the IGF must be lightweight and scalable. We would LIKE to see
 that the IGF start small and evolve. Singapore does not believe that the IGF
 should have a weighty structure.  Like any successful organization, there
 should be milestones in place and opportunities to review progress and for
 self-evaluation. Singapore believes that it's crucial that the IGF embrace the
 principles of open participation and multistakeholderism in all aspects of its
 organization, composition, operation, and rules for participation. We do not
 believe that any one stakeholder group should be given preeminence in the IGF,
 as this only precludes that the Internet is the purview of the stakeholders. 
 And doing so will not further the spirit of multistakeholderism as called for
 in the Tunis Agenda. Therefore, Singapore believes that the IGF should
 recognize the different competencies of all actors, and bring together the best
 abilities to the table. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We look forward to
 contributing to the discussions in the next two days.


 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  So I think we've had a very useful discussion in this
 morning's session. And I think in order to move forward, it would perhaps be
 useful if I were just to place a few questions on the table.  And since there
 are no more speakers, I probably could even break for an early lunch. But we
 could -- the questions that would be -- some things are clear.  Everybody
 accepts the multistakeholder nature of this.  I don't think we need to go over
 that ground. What I think we do need to go over is what do we actually mean by
 this in terms of participation. Is the model that of the open consultations
 that we have had for WGIG where essentially the participation was very open,
 you simply had to establish that you had some competence and relevance to the
 issue, and you are welcome.  There was no sense in which you had sort of any
 quotas or any heavy process of screening. So is this a model which would work,
 which is essentially open-door process? I'm talking of the actual physical
 meeting, which will be held. I hope that when you come back you will give a
 little more thought and reflection to this. Several people, not many --
 several.  Quite a few people mentioned the importance of having a
 multistakeholder group to direct the work, to organize the work, if you like. 
 The terminology used varied.  Some people called it a program committee, some
 called it a steering group, some called it a bureau, but everybody said
 something like this is required.  You can't just organize it like this open
 consultation because this open consultation has a very simple purpose, a very
 simple agenda. It's simply to listen to people on one issue, and then carry
 back that message. But obviously, a structured forum has to do more than that.
 So it requires some direction.  Some decisions have to be taken on what will be
 discussed in the morning, what will we discuss in the afternoon, what will we
 discuss tomorrow.  Some decisions will have to be taken.  Will everything be
 discussed in a big plenary meeting or will we have PARALLEL meetings discussing
 different things. Somebody has to decide that.  How will we constitute such a
 multistakeholder bureau.  WHEN we constitute a group such as this, there are
 certain well-established proceedings we can follow in terms of representation
 on an equal basis from all regions and so on. We don't have proceedings in the
 case of this, and I invite your thoughts and reflections; if necessary, IN A
 thinking ALOUD, which is how could we do this, what are the categories that we
 would have, who would name the members of the (inaudible). In the case of the
 member states, there's a very simple process we have in the U.N. which is easy
 to use, which is you simply turn to the regional groups and say that we need
 two names from that regional group and they have their own process, and say
 these other two names. Now, how do we follow -- what's the process that can be
 followed for the others?  Is there perhaps a distinction between the way the
 first group of direction gets constituted and the subsequent ones?  In a sense,
 a problem in the first one is we have no starting point.  We have nobody to
 whom we can pass the responsibility and say please a constitute a bureau
 bECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HAD A MEETING.  SO MAYBE THE PROBLEM IS LESS AFTER THE
 FIRST MEETING.  BUT please give A LITTLE thought and reflection to this and
 come up and see what sort of suggestions you have. As far as THE meetingS
 ITSELF are concerned, everybody has said not more than once a year; THAT the
 general number that I heard in terms of DAYS is around three.  That is, clearly
 people don't want a week long meeting, nor do they want something just one day.
  And the typical number that I have been hearing is three. Some said two to
 three, some said three to four, but essentially around three is what most
 people have said.  And I think it's good for us to keep that in mind as a
 basis. If you feel strongly about this, what my sense is most people seem to be
 comfortable with the notion of once a year, a three-day meeting. I think there
 were some very interesting and valuable reflections which came from ISOC and
 the others on underpinning this with a, if you like, a virtual meeting which
 will go on continuously on an Internet basis to allow people time to -- allow
 people who are not in a position to attend to participate, to create a, if you
 like, a community which is involved in this process.  And I heard this from
 several people. This does not really pose big issues of principle because
 there's no reason why we cannot have an online forum as a base for such a
 physical forum. We had WSIS online which provided very valuable material for
 the meetings of WSIS itself. But if there are any further reflections on this
 notion of an underlying base of a virtual forum, then I would very much welcome
 that in the afternoon session. What of the meeting itself?  We have been using
 this phrase, let's use the model of the open consultations.  But as I said, the
 open consultations, others had a single task in most cases.  The single task
 was to focus like we are focusing on just one issue here.  And in the very
 nature of things, we want everybody to interact. But obviously if you look at
 the IGF, we will be looking at multiple things. Do you see that organized
 entirely as a plenary or would you expect to see a little more structure in it
 in these three days? I think it's very important, because at least as far as
 the first meeting is concerned, some guidance has to go for the people who are
 to do this organization as to what are you expecting when you come to Athens. 
 Is it just a big meeting like this going on for three days or do you see
 something which is more structured?  And it's very valuable if you can give us
 your thoughts, your reflections. Again, I say, in the spirit of thinking aloud,
 if necessary.  You don't have to commit saying this is our country position or
 civil society position.  Let's treat this, if you like, as a joint working
 session to see how we can make sense out of -- or make this a useful outcome. I
 think many people referred to the possibility of making sure that this meeting
 acts as a way of bringing best practices to light. One thought was to highlight
 it in terms of case studies, of successful and good management of things like
 Spam or interconnection or cybersecurity.  But there are other things people
 mentioned.  And one thing that strikes me here is how do we make sure that this
 forum is attractive for the people who are really making a difference in these
 areas?  The scholars, the thinkers, the innovators.  How do we make this an
 attractive forum for them?  Because those are the people that we need there if
 this is what we want as part of the IGF process. So any thoughts you have on
 what can be done in terms of designing this meeting so that we really -- so
 people would say, okay, yeah, this is a meeting which sounds interesting. 
 Let's go there. There are other issues which -- many issues which have been
 raised about how do we bring in developmental orientation.  I saw that again as
 a theme common theme.  Just about everybody mentioned this.  It started off as
 a strong statement from the G77, but I think many others echoed this, which
 this is a meeting which should have a strong development orientation. And
 partly THIS WILL be reflected in the nature of the themes that will be picked
 up.  But also, most important of all, many people refer to the importance of
 ensuring developing country participation and engagement of governments, of
 civil society, especially from developing countries. This is a troublesome
 dimension because I'm not sure that we are all that successful in various
 exercises we undertake here. And any thoughts, reflections that would come in
 this area from you in the afternoon session would be, I think, very valuable.
 In terms of teams, many different areas have been mentioned, areas like
 multilingualism, spam, cybersecurity, interconnection cost. I will not try and
 list all of these. But my own sense is that there seems to be reasonably --
 reasonable agreement on, provided one can just fix these things so that they're
 reasonably clear from an early stage, so that we can mobilize your talent to
 support the process, by and large, I don't -- I don't see these as big
 controversies. But what is very important is to see how we reflect the
 developing country dimension. Do you see, for instance, this forum acting as a
 space where we can talk of the digital divide? I did hear a couple of
 contributions which, to me, sounded like as if the forum was about ICT for
 development. Now, that's fine. If that is the general sense, then certainly the
 developmentally dimension of Internet governance has to be there. But ICT for
 development is a much bigger thing. You talk of e-education, e-health,
 e-governance, and many other dimensions. You talk of the whole telecom
 infrastructure. I do want to point out that as part of the Tunis follow-up,
 apart from the IGF, there is a whole implementation mechanism which is being
 set up, and it consists of -- which is where the ITU is taking the lead --
 which consists of a layer of -- which is involved in translating the
 substantive outcomes of the summit into action in a multistakeholder
 environment, a regional dimension, possibly involving the regional commissions,
 and a global dimension, where three institutions, the ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP are
 expected to take the lead. So a great deal has been launched. There's also an
 Internet society committee, I think it's called, in the chief executive's board
 which is being set up. This is, of course, in terms of how the U.N. is taking
 up the challenge of implementation. So do keep in mind that there are things
 happening in that area. You also mandated a role for -- a potential role for
 the commissions for science and technology of development. And that's going to
 be discussed in July in Geneva. So I think it's very important that we don't
 try and load everything from Tunis onto the IGF agenda. We must keep in mind
 that there are other things which are happening. So I would say that when you
 come back in the afternoon, let's try and get some clarity on what is the
 expectation when we say that developmentally dimension must be reflected, what
 is it that we are expecting to see in IGF? So that's, I think, you know, would
 be helpful in terms of organizing at least the first meeting, the question that
 I posed to you. I think there are other aspects that will come up in the course
 of this discussion. One which I will mention which has not been mentioned,
 which is the importance of flexibility, that let us not treat this as an
 exercise of setting the IGF for its full term, which I think is five years, its
 full term of five years. It's treat our job right now as having a good shared
 understanding of what do we expect the first IGF to look like. And then leave
 open the possibility that the process itself may change itself, finds that this
 has worked, this has not worked, and we will change. So is this a good way of
 proceeding, that instead of sort of asking the secretary general to set
 everything in stone, let's just say, okay, the first instance, let's focus on
 getting the first forum off the ground and making sure that that first forum is
 substantive. A certain amount of discussion did take place on the objectives of
 the forum. Some were discussion also on what was the expectation on the
 outcome, and particularly on the latter, I sense much more variation and
 difference. On what is the expectation on what will come out of this forum. At
 one level, some people say the main purpose of the forum is to bring people
 together so that they're able to talk to one another, learn from one another,
 and there may be some things which may emerge as a consensus, which would then
 influence a process somewhere else. At the other end, people see a stronger
 role for the forum in shaping how the appropriate discussions take place
 elsewhere, perhaps, in this area. I do sense a greater difference in this area
 of outcomes. My request here is this:  I don't think it's our job to fix the
 outcome. It's the job of the forum to fix the outcome. It's the forum which
 must decide, rather than, you know, the secretary general or anybody else. I
 don't see that the secretary general needs to say, "This is what the forum, its
 outcome is going to be." It's up to the forum to decide on what the outcome
 will be. Whereas what we need to focus on is, how do we organize this forum,
 structure it? Of course we will have to keep in mind what our expectations are
 when we answer these questions. But we don't necessarily have to agree on those
 expectations fully in order to agree on how the forum should be structured. So
 let's try and focus on the structuring of the forum and some of the questions
 that I have raised. I just thought it would be useful if at this point I would
 propose some questions so that when we come back, we can address these and you
 can come back and try and give your views on each of these, perhaps even
 reacting to what some of the other statements that you have heard have implied
 with regard to some of these aspects. So is this okay as a starting point?
 Shall we say that we break now, and that we come back at 3:00 and continue
 this, which will give you time to think about this, discuss it, and then come
 back. Okay? Good. Meeting stands adjourned. (Adjourned for lunch.)