IGF 2010
Vilnius, Lithuania
17 September 10
CLOSING CEREMONY
17:30
* * *
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.* * *
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the closing
ceremony of the 2010 IGF in Vilnius. Before I give the floor to the
six speakers drawn from all stakeholder groups, I will ask firstly to
tell the -- Mr. Kummer -- about attendance statistics.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have the latest and
complete figures of the participants who attended the 5th IGF meeting
in Vilnius. We had more than 2,000 registrations because it's usual
not everybody who registered attends the meeting. In terms of badges
distributed, we distributed 1993, close to -- last year in Sharm El
Sheikh. However of these included security personnel, local staff, and
also the UN team. Looking at participants, bona fide participants like
you who are here in the room, we had 1461. That figure is very close
to what we had last year in Sharm El Sheikh where we had 1480
participants. And the gender balance, 64 percent male, 36 percent
female. Which is actually very good as a recommended UN standard would
be 30 percent female is considered a good standard.
Average age is 41. The oldest participant was -- I have met the
youngest, was about 10 months old. He was given a badge. So much for
youth participation.
(Applause.)
>> MARKUS KUMMER: And we had participants from 107 nationalities.
Maybe a short word on the distribution of stakeholders. Of all
participants, 25 percent were from government, 23 percent private
sector, 22 percent technical and academic communities. 21 percent
civil society, 5 percent intergovernmental organizations, and media 4
percent.
I think that is more or less the complete break down. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you very much.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Sorry. Sorry, I forgot
something important to add. The list wouldn't be complete without
mentioning the remote participants. We made a special effort this year
and I would like to thank the remote working group on the remote
participation, that according to Ginger and Marilia, we had a total of
600 remote participants. We can safely say we had 2,000 people who
followed our proceedings. We had 28 remote hubs in all continents, and
we also had panelists who participated remotely, 35 of them, a total,
as I'm told. 35 remote panelists.
So a great thank you to all who made this possible, and not least,
also to our Lithuanian hosts to set up an excellent infrastructure, who
set up this remote participation.
(Applause.)
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you very much and thank you all for your
applause and for your thoughts.
Well, now we will hear from six speakers closing remarks.
And it's my honour to introduce the first speaker. Mr. Nitin Desai.
Special advisor to the secretary general for Internet governance. The
floor is yours.
>> NITIN DESAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it's a
pleasure for me to be here at the end of a five-year cycle, the first
mandate of the IGF. And I'm not going to go way deeply into the issue
of achievements and issues because that is what you have discussed, I
believe, with some depth in the session which just ended.
I -- in many ways, many of you pointed out what has been achieved in
very concrete terms because of IGF, and referred to the impact that IGF
had on the whole issue of people with disability. We also know the
role that IGF has played, for instance in child protection issues.
These are things which came very directly because of the work of IGF.
But I also believe, as was recognized in your earlier session, that the
process that we have had here has been a role also in the changes which
have taken place, for instance, in the nature of the U.S. government's
involvement in this Internet governance and the changes which have
taken place in ICANN.
I also believe a very big impact of the IGF was in changes at the
national level, reflected in the national and the regional IGFs. So in
that sense I believe that these five years of work are not just
important because it gave us an opportunity to meet once a year, but I
do believe they have made a significant difference in making the
Internet a much more friendly medium, a much more safe medium, a much
more accessible medium for people in the world.
When we started five years ago, it wasn't clear that this is the way
it would evolve. And if you remember, there was some issues that had
flagged at that time. The first issue was of flexibility. Normally
the UN process agendas tend to become frigid. The same things get
repeated year after year. As you would know, quite well. And the
question was how would we do this in -- how do we manage this tendency?
When we are talking about the Internet, which changes so rapidly,
would we have the nimbleness to change with changing issues?
And I believe we have. We talked this year about cloud computing,
last year about social networking. And these were issues which were
not even on the horizon when we met first five years ago in Athens.
And yet we had the flexibility to be able to respond to these changing
conditions in which the Internet operated.
A second big problem that we had when we started the process, which I
had a red flag in my remarks in Athens was a cultural difference. Here
was a multistakeholder forum which tried to bring together governments
whose diplomatic culture involve, basically, a certain discretion and
politeness in the way in which we talk with one another, which was
focused very strongly on practical results, the Internet community,
which was very focused on the whole issue of the technical management
of the Internet; nongovernmental groups whose major concern was the
user community and the impact that governance had on the user
community.
And a problem was that there were cultural differences in the way in
which people -- these groups participate in meetings. And I had
flagged at that time the need for all of them to make some adjustments.
For governments to be more willing for the free flow of discussion.
For NGOs to be less aggressive than they usually would be in asserting
the point of view. Of business to accept the value of the general
discussions. For the Internet community to recognize that there are a
whole set of policy concerns which are not Internet technical
management concerns which are germane to the issue.
And I believe this has happened.
And I think one of the most important successes of the IGF has been
that transformation of cultures, so that people have learned to talk
with one another rather than at one another.
And this is true for all of the stake holder groups who I think have
adjusted their cultures so to speak to fit in with the requirements of
others.
Many of you in the previous session thanked Markus Kummer and me for
this exercise. The people you really have to thank are you yourself.
Because this cultural change is not something that we could have done.
This cultural change has come from you. And it is you who have to take
the credit for the fact that the IGF functions. Because without this
culture change it would not have functioned.
What Markus and I have tried to do is basically create a hospitable
space in the UN for all of you so all of you can feel at home in this
space and do not feel that you are intruding into somebody else's
space.
And I think we have succeeded in doing that over these five years. I
hope none of you feels like a stranger here, an outsider here, that all
of you feel in some ways that this is part of your space.
And this to me has been the most valuable achievement in these five
years. I have been involved a lot in multilateral diplomacy. And this
is something I'm doing in my retirement, in the evening of my career.
And I do pride myself on the fact that we have succeeded over these
five years in creating a very different type of working environment for
people so that they -- very different sets of people can feel at home
here.
And we conclude, Mr. Chairman, by an analogy which people have come
to expect from me. When we've met in Athens, I used the boy-meets-girl
analogy, using the practice in my country of arranged marriages. And I
said at this meeting was that the boy met the girl for the first time
and just scoped each other out. When we went to Rio, you could see it
was the place where the boy and girl learned to ask each other
difficult questions. And found that they could get an opportunity on
difficult issues.
Hyderabad was where they learned to hold hands. Sharm El Sheikh,
love flowered. They started looking into each other's eyes. And
perhaps one can say in this final fifth meeting that the boy and girl
have now finally decided that they want to get together, if the
gentleman from Burundi is to be believed, for life.
The only point about arranged marriages, Mr. Chairman, is in the case
of arranged marriage, it's not enough for the boy and girl to agree.
The parents also have to make up their minds. So now this ball is in
the parents' court, so let us see what the parents decide for the boy
and girl. But I think the message one can convey to them, over the
five years these two have gotten to like each other quite a lot and
want to be together for life. Let's see now what the parents will
reply. I hope the parents will decide the right thing.
But I once again want to thank you for this fine experience that I
have had in these five years and the very fine people that I have got
to know in all these five years. You thanked us, but really Markus and
I have to thank you for allowing the UN to create this very vibrant and
wonderful process. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you, Mr. Desai, for your remarks and
impressive words. Our next speaker is Mr. Alain Aina. The floor is
yours.
>> ALAIN AINA: Thank you, Chairman. It is a great pleasure for me
to speak today on behalf of the technical community.
But I will go for French as I think that that is allowed here.
So...Mr. Minister, excellencies, ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen,
we wish to thank that the authorities of Lithuanian, the secretaries of
IGF and all participants for having made this IGF another success.
Those among us of the technical community are happy to see the maturing
of the dialogue within the IGF over the past five years.
The commitment of the technical community with other actors has made
it possible to raise awareness of technical aspects among
representatives of government, business and civil society.
This has enriched our debate. Let us ensure that dialogue on
governance is not disconnected from technical Internet realities.
The IGF is the major forum within the United Nations which has
decided to adopt the multistakeholder approach, and we are happy that
over the past five years this multistakeholder approach has prospered,
producing a dynamic environment which moves beyond the week of the IGF
each year. We hope that this multistakeholder approach recognized by
governments, business, and civil society, as well as the technical and
academic circles will continue to be a fundamental element of the IGF.
During this week's workshops we heard members of the technical
community speaking about key aspects such as the feature of privacy,
the importance of transparent practice by all stakeholders, and
questions concerning the threats to Internet stability.
The discussion also touched on one of the major challenges facing the
national community, namely IPv6. It is encouraging to see that the
discussion around IPv6 in IGF has matured over the years so that today
there is relevant enthusiastic exchange of information on real examples
of use of IPv6 in developed and developing environments.
An extreme example and an educational one was provided during
Wednesday's session on critical Internet resources. We heard about
Haiti and reconstruction of the technical infrastructure there
following the earthquake with the integration of IPv6 compatibility.
All stakeholders must play their part in ensuring that deployment of
IPv6 at global level continues to progress rapidly in the months and
years to come.
The IGF continues to improve capacities for remote participation. It
has done so since the first meeting. And the technical community
welcomes these improvements to IGF this year, which made it possible
for more people than ever to contribute remotely.
Naturally there is a process underway to broaden the scope of
participation and we encourage the IGF to pursue its development as a
forum. From all points of view, particularly as regard to developing
countries.
With assistance through remote participation this is a great help.
The technical community was an enthusiastic participator in IGF. It
has been so since the beginning. There are considerable financial
resources and competencies invested in this in increments every year.
The IGF has been a pioneer in the process, bringing in all stakeholders
and all points of view.
With us, share responsibility in continuing to refine and broaden
this multistakeholder process. The technical community welcomes the
work in this connection, participating on an equal footing with the
many stakeholders represented here, but it is essential that the
technical and academic communities which play a unique role and
contribute unique expertise are recognized as a distinct and valuable
actor.
We fully support the IGF's efforts and look forward to further
positive steps, in particular by the general assembly in December. And
I thank you.
(Applause.)
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you, Mr. Aina, for your remarks. And
our next speaker is Jeremy Malcolm, Co-coordinator, International
Governance Caucus.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to begin my
speech a little differently by looking back into history, not very far,
just five years ago when the Internet governance forum was first
proposed by an organisation called the Working Group on Internet
Governance, or WIGIG. It too was a multistakeholder body and had
several open consultation meetings that anyone could attend. WIGIG,
quote, identified a vacuum within the context of existing structures
since there is no global multistakeholder forum to address
Internet-related public policy issues.
In response to WIGIG's recommendations to the World Summit
Information Society, two measures were proposed to fill that vacuum.
One was the IGF, which would be a new forum for multistakeholder
dialogue. The second was a process towards enhanced cooperation which
would facilitate the development of globally applicable principles on
public policy issues by governments in consultation with all
stakeholders. By the combination of these two complementary measures,
the public policy vacuum in Internet governance could be filled.
Let's come back to 2010 and consider how well we've addressed the
policy vacuum. It seems to me that our progress has been good but that
something is still missing. The dialogue conducted at the IGF has
produced many insights that could feed into decision-making processes
elsewhere. But in many critical areas, that hasn't actually happened.
Decision-makers have either been oblivious to or perhaps even
deliberately disregarded the best practices shared at the IGF. The
negotiations for an anticounterfeiting trade agreement may be one
example of the latter case. The United Nations Secretary General has
noted this in his recent remarks on the renewal of the IGF, stating
that the contribution of the forum to public policy-making is difficult
to assess and appears to be weak. Why have we fallen short in this
regard?
There are two reasons. First, we still don't have a broader process
of enhanced cooperation through which we can participate in the
development of globally applicable public policy principles. This July
a resolution of ECOSOC called for that process to be pushed along this
year, and civil society supports that call. The second reason that the
IGF's influence in global policy making hasn't been as strong as it
needs to be is that we have no short, simple, strong outputs that
policy makers can use; notwithstanding that the IGF's mandate calls
upon it to make recommendations where appropriate.
The idea of a multistakeholder body producing recommendations worries
some people. But don't forget that the IGF itself would not exist if
not for the recommendations of another multistakeholder group, WIGIG.
And our outputs don't always need to be as concrete as that. In fact,
there was one issue on which WIGIG couldn't reach consensus. Rather
than producing one recommendation, it gave four alternatives. We could
do something like that, too, producing messages where recommendations
are not appropriate.
Another concern that some have about the IGF producing these sorts of
outputs is that it could place its core characteristics at risk,
perhaps turning it into another intergovernmental negotiation session.
This fear doesn't give us any credit for our ability to develop
innovative processes that could avoid that trap. One of the options
for producing outputs that we produced in the past was through dynamic
coalitions that were carried out between meetings and generate their
own recommendations from the grassroots. This has succeeded in part,
but the loose and informal structure of these groups has also limited
the participation of governments and therefore the weight that their
outputs have.
So it may be time for us to look at dynamic coalitions version 2.
These could take the form of thematic working groups with a more formal
mandate from the IGF at large to address and report back on specific
substandard issues with a view to producing documents that could be
used in policy-making processes.
The multistakeholder advisory group, or MAG, may also need to take an
expanded role in finalizing these documents, and that in turn may need
us to predetermine the MAG's legitimacy such as the black box process.
These may be controversial issues, but that's why it's all the more
important that we discuss them openly, fearlessly and together.
There are other improvements we should talk about too; such as
continuing to expand inclusiveness of the forum, particularly to
participants from the developing world and to ordinary Internet users
who don't participate in policy decisions through speeches and meetings
but through mailing lists and Web fora.
The commission on science and technology for development yesterday
announced the working group it will be convening to look at a range of
possible improvements to the IGF, and civil society looks forward to
working closely with it in this process.
In conclusion, the IGF was formed to address a vacuum in global
governance for the Internet, to give civil society, along government
and the private sector, influence in the development of public policy
for the Internet. We're halfway there. The discussions that we have
at the IGF on issues such as Human Rights in the Internet, network
neutrality, and the development intervention of Internet governance are
insightful, relevant, and don't occur anywhere else in such a
multistakeholder fashion. The next step for us is to focus those
discussions, reduce them to a form that policy-makers can use, and make
sure that they don't end here at the IGF.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you, Mr. Malcolm, for your remarks. And I would like to give the floor to the next speaker, Mr. Vaklas Sutkus, President of Lithuanian Business Confederation, ICC Lithuania.
>> VAKLAS SUTKUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to speak on behalf of International Chamber of Commerce and its basic initiative here today. I would like to thank you both as a native of this beautiful country and as a representative of Lithuanian business for giving us the opportunity to host this year's IGF.
I think you will agree it has been a tremendous success. I am also delighted that this event created a chance for many of you to visit, discover and explore Lithuania for the first time. I hope you will return to your countries with good memories. I also expect that by hosting this high profile event, Lithuania was tagged on the map of northern Europe and the world as an investment friendly country with a strong knowledge economy, innovative businesses and high value added services.
For the fifth consecutive year, the IGF has successfully fostered an environment where Governments, business, Civil Society, technical experts, international and intergovernmental organisations can have Frank and open exchanges across the spectrum of Internet Governance issues.
This is a unique environment, and one that shouldn't be taken for granted. Nowhere else does such a range of stakeholders have the opportunity to share best practices, exchange ideas, and debate critical Internet issues on an equal footing. For that reason, I speak for businesses around the world when I say the continuation of the IGF is of the utmost importance. And alongside its continuation, it's vital we maintain the spirit and format where substantive information exchange is prioritized over formal negotiations. By sharing business knowledge and experiences, we aim to provide policymakers and other stakeholders with greater insight to take practical actions in their own countries.
Leading up to IGF 2011, we will build on improvement made over the last five years. We will seek new ways to increase participation of business and other stakeholders from around the world. We believe strengthening links between National and regional IGFs and the global Forum offers a means to advance this. We will also focus on increasing representation of small and medium sized business, especially from the developing countries. The closing of this year's IGF provides me with the opportunity to reflect on key discussion points and highlight progress made to date.
Some people question the value the Forum brings in terms of tangible results. We would argue that point. The advancements of the issues, the style of our interactions, and the breadth of perspective gained by participants results in a better informed decision making beyond each IGF. Adding to the new understanding we all take away, we are also seeing practical tools and new developments emerge that are formed by the conversations we have here.
The best practice document produced by the Secretariat this year is another useful resource that could not have happened without multistakeholder insight. This year, an increased number of remote participants joined the session from many regional hubs. Five years ago, this was not the case. We applaud this progress.
We also note the fruitfulness of the National and regional IGFs that continue to spread the benefits of this type of exchange all over the world. Not only do these Forums provide an opportunity to discuss Internet Governance issues from National and regional perspectives, they inform international level discussions.
Experience shows us that each of these Forums is unique, providing attendees with the opportunity to discuss current issues and concerns that continue to evolve as growth of the Internet accelerates.
There is no doubt that the Internet is an invention with profound impact on all of our lives and economies. It is an enabler of innovation, creativity, development, and an extraordinary tool for education and empowerment that continues to surpass our imagination. However, the risk of inadvertently cutting off this potential are great if we do not have well informed policy. We need all stakeholders contributing equally and constructively as we have come to do here at the IGF.
The theme of this year's IGF summarizes a key aspiration beyond this Forum: Developing the future together requires an open, transparent, Democratic and inclusive approach to Internet Governance. Embracing these values we can take a more informed policy approach, and have fair representation from a range of different stakeholders, across developed and developing countries, and from small, medium and large companies. That is why we wish the IGF to be continued in its unique format, and based on its founding principles.
I look forward to seeing you again next year in Kenya. Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you very much many Sutkus for your remarks. Our next speakers are from the Government of Kenya. Mr. Philip Okundi, Chairman of the Board of directors Communications Commission of Kenya. And Esther Wanjau from the Ministry of Information and Communications of Kenya. The floor is yours, Mr. Okundi.
>> PHILIP OKUNDI: Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, heads of delegations, participants, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to start by recognizing the contributions of all those who invested their valuable time and resources in this process. More specifically, I wish to thank our generous host, the Government of Lithuania, Republic of Lithuania, the IGF Secretariat, members of the Civil Societies who are represented here, the youth, the business community, the academia, technical experts, and representatives of Governments. Your presence here explains how extraordinary this event has been, not only does the number of participants surpass expectations as we've been told by Mr. Kummer, but the great diversity of groups and perspectives have indeed ensured its success.
Over the last 4 days, we have exchanged perspectives, discussed best practices, and shared our thoughts on the best way forward. Furthermore, coming together has been a way to break down walls and to build bridges with others who share common goals. As we look ahead to the next IGF, we see the need to focus even more on the discussion on development aspects of Internet in all fields of our neighbor. As many existing partnerships demonstrate, pooling resources and expertise with other stakeholders can strengthen efforts and expedite progress. While some challenges may seem daunting, we must rise up together to meet them by remaining committed, creative, and cooperative.
Yes, we have made progress in Internet Governance, but there's much more that still needs to be done ahead of us. The discussions this week have made one thing very clear: No single group can manage or resolve all the Internet Governance issues by itself. Therefore, it must continue to be a multistakeholder commitment where we all work together towards a common goal. The wisdom and experience gained so far and in the future to come will be of great value.
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of Kenya, the people of Kenya, to welcome you all to IGF in Nairobi next September, year 2011. And before I conclude, I also wish to say that my good colleague, Alice Munyua, is a little indisposed just at this hour, but what she would have said will be said by our colleague and her colleague, Esther. If you can give Esther a chance to say something. Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> ESTHER WANJAU: Thank you. Let me start by giving Alice's apology. She was not able to be with us at this time. I'm Esther Wanjau, the Ministry of Communications, Kenya.
I'll read Alice's speech. I would like to thank all Chairs of past very successful IGFs. In particular, I thank the participants of this meeting. It has been a very rich and rewarding four days. I would particularly like to thank and congratulate Markus Kummer for having managed five IGFs. I would like to thank and congratulate Nitin Desai. Thank you to the Government and the people of Lithuania for hosting the 5th IGF. The organisation of the meeting has been excellent. The discussions have been very valuable. The IGF continues to be instrumental in building bridges across stakeholder groups by enabling them to share views and experiences.
The IGF has inspired many of us to continuously work on enhancing policy and technical frame works pertaining to the Internet in our home countries, as well as at the regional level. This has been witnessed with increased emergence of the National and regional IGFs, IGF initiatives leading to increased human and institutional capacity building, and the involvement of all stakeholders in discussions at all levels.
Kenya supports the continuation of the IGF in its current form and supports the proposal by the Commission on Science and Technology for the development to form a multistakeholder Working Group on the continuation of the IGF. We are ready to host the 6th IGF in 2011 if the mandate is extended, and we take this opportunity to welcome you all to Nairobi, Kenya, next year.
And I would like to take this opportunity to invite the members to introduce the members of the Kenya Internet Governance steering Committee that are present here. The Chair is Alice Munyua, Board member, communication commission of Kenya. She's also a Board member, Kenya Network Information Center, and she's the convener of East African IGF.
The other members are Michael Katundu, communication commission of Kenya. Maybe Michael you can Fiona Asonga, Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya. Joe Kiragu, Kenya Network Information Centre.
Rose Andanje, Ministry of Information and Communication. We had a gentleman from the National communications Secretariat but he had to leave early. And Esther Wanjau from the Ministry of Information and Communications.
Finally, I would like to thank you all who are supporting Kenya's expression of interest to host the next IGF. I thank you. I'll see you.
[ Applause ]
>> RIMVYDAS VASTAKAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Okundi and Ms, Wanjau, for your speech, and of course, for all your words, taking a big job and responsibility to your country. Thank you very much.
And now Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I speak on behalf of the Minister of Transport and Communications who could not attend this closing session. During the last four days, we have had very fruitful discussions, and I would like to present some closing remarks. It has been Lithuania's honour to host the fifth Internet Governance Forum here in Vilnius. On behalf of the people and Government of Lithuania, I express gratitude to all of you for coming to Lithuania, and for participating in the fifth meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. We hope you enjoyed the musical welcome at the Opening Ceremony with a special version of the classic song: What a wonderful world by our jazz musician and member of Parliament, Vytautas Grubliauskas.
We've seen progress as we built our shared understanding and knowledge of Internet related issues. The meeting here in Vilnius has built on the experience of the previous four meetings and as in previous years, I hope that this IGF could be described as the best meeting so far. I'm very pleased with the substantive discussions that we have characterized the Forum. The main focus of this IGF was: Developing the future together. We looked at how to give the better access to the Internet, make better use of the Internet and how to prevent its abuse. We have seen two new major topics of Internet Governance for Development and cloud computing introduced to the Forum. And we also discussed the traditional issues of access and diversity, critical Internet resources and security, openness, and privacy. The details of these discussions in the Chairman's summary paper is being distributed. The paper will be completed over the next few days and will be posted on the IGF website. The Internet offers unprecedented opportunities but also creates new challenges. The IGF is here to help maximize the opportunities and to minimize the challenges. The discussions held in the IGF have made it clear once again that achieving these objectives is possible only by collaborative action by all stakeholders. I have to thank you all, participants of the Forum, for contributing to the success of the meeting. You came here not just to listen, and but to contribute actively, to organise workshops and other meetings, and to engage in dialogue.
This is maybe the most important feature of the IGF, all stakeholders engage in dialogue as equals. Dialogue is a two way process, and it means more than reading a prepared speech. It also means listening to what others have to say. The dialogue itself serves a very useful purpose, and it brings together diverse stakeholders who do not ordinarily meet under same roof. This sustained interest in the meeting of the IGF in all regions of the world clearly shows that there is a need for this kind of multistakeholder dialogue. The Government of Lithuania will make its voice heard in the forthcoming debate in the United Nations General Assembly.
In our view, it is important to renew the IGF mandate as a multistakeholder platform for non binding multistakeholder dialogue. In closing, I again want to thank you all for making this fifth meeting of the Internet Governance Forum such a memorable success. We should be proud that the multistakeholder collaboration the IGF embodies is also the foundation for its success and the stimulating and informative discussions we have endured over the last four days.
I would also like to thank Mr. Sundaram, United Nations Assistant Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs for the United Nations, for his personal contribution to IGF 2010. I'm sure you'll join me in thanking Mr. Nitin Desai, Markus Kummer, and the staff of the United Nations who ensured the smooth and successful conduct of this IGF in Vilnius.
I would like also to thank the team from my Ministry, and Committee of information and communications society, as well as other organisations, partners and sponsors of IGF 2010. I would like also to thank the interpreters and the scribes for their hard and excellent work.
And last but not least, I really do hope that you enjoyed your stay in Vilnius. I wish all the success in your further work. Thank you very much to all of you.
And I have to announce that this closes the 5th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum.
[ Applause ]
[ End of Session ]