FINISHED COPY
NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
ISTANBUL, TURKEY
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR
ENHANCED MULTI‑STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
03 SEPTEMBER 2014
09:00
WS 140
THE FUTURE OF THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL IGFs POST 2015
***
The following is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.
***
>> AYMAN E.: Good morning. We are just waiting for Chengetai Masango, because of his role of a secretariat, so please bear with us for a few minutes, and if he doesn't show up, we will start now.
So I think now, we are 15 minutes past 9:00. Maybe it is the right time to start, and we will probably include Chengetai when he arrives. Apparently he is busy with some dignitaries.
So, good morning once again. Let me introduce the context of this workshop, if I may. This workshop 140 is one of the workshops organized by the Arab IGF main partners, which is ‑‑ the first partner I'm representing is United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, ESCWA, the League of Arab States, and our colleagues in the Arab IGF Technical Secretariat, the NGRA of Egypt, plus the AMAG, or the Arab MAG of the Arab IGF. So these are the co‑organizers of this workshop, and just it's one of the new practices that the Arab IGF officially designs and have an activity within the global IGF apart from that conventional reporting of idiginalism.
This is one of two. The other one is on Thursday, related to emerging issues from the Arab regional perspective. So this is the first contextual programmatic context of the event.
The second thing is a substantive contextualization of what is the importance of this discussion. It's actually related to this 2014/2015 moment that is really of interest to all people working in the Information Society and Internet Governance Communities, as well as people working in the sustainable development at large.
The post‑2015, there is going to be a new sustainable development agenda for the global world. That will take over the previous MDGs framework. It is going to be SDG's, And there is an open working group on that. And most of the processes related to international cooperation is going to put in or fit into the SDGs process. One of these feeding processes is the WSIS plus 10 that many of us have been part and parcel of it for the last ten years, and we have attended the WSIS plus 10 event in Geneva in June, where the community has done the self‑reflection and the WSIS plus 10, two new outputs, and give this input to the ECOSOC and the ECOSOC will give it to the general assembly.
The other thing, one month BEFORE, which is a CSTD meeting, it took inputs from the IGF community and the in‑house corporation, a working group, and passed ECOSOC to the general assembly. So it seems that this 12 months are the conversions of processes. And that is why we are here focusing on the IGF process, per se, and how can we give some input or thoughts whether through the IGF channels or through our constituents in our countries back home. So that, in the general assembly discussions, there are more insights towards the future prospects of the IGFs, as well as the regional IGFs. So probably assessing effectiveness, strengthening in the future or whatever.
So, without further ado, we will get more interest during the questions. I would like to welcome my distinguished panelists to this workshop, and I thank them for being here. We start from the right, like 20 seconds introducing the affiliation, the name, the affiliation back home, and the affiliation within the Internet Governance Ecosystem.
>> QUASI Al-SHATTI: Quasi Al‑Shatti from Kuwait Information Technology Society. We are an NGO based in Kuwait, and I am involved in the global IGF as part of civil society.
>> LEONID TODOROV: Good morning. Leonid Todorov. Dot Ru.
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: My name is Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I'm a professor for Internet policy and regulation at the University of Als in Denmark, and I'm also a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, and I'm involved in the IGF Germany and the European IGF.
>> MAKANE FAYE: Good morning. My name is Makane Faye from the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, which is African Commission, the African IGF.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: I'm Parminder Singh from an NGO based in India, and we work on intersection of commission and communication technologies and social change.
Thank you.
>> CHRISTINE ARIDA: Good morning. My name is Christine Arida. I work for the telecom ‑‑ National Telecom Regulatory Authority in Egypt, and I have the team that is in charge of the Arab IGF Secretariat.
>> RIDHA GUELLOUZ: Good morning. I'm Ridha Guellouz from the Genesian IGF Association. I am a member of the Genesian MAG and a member of the Arab MAG.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you all.
May I add a little bit, also, to understand the team from the Arab region that, of course, in addition to his role in the IGF globally, he is also a member of the MAG ‑‑ Arab MAG, of the Arab IGF, and Ridha is also a member of the MAG, of the Arabi IGF, Christine is also a member of the MAG, plus a member of the executive bureau of the Arab IGF, which is headed by (Indiscernible), myself and (Indiscernible).
So, the first thing is to introduce the set of questions and then we will see how to move.
The first group of questions is related to the global IGF, the second is going to be related to the dialect between the global and regional processes, and then there is a question related to other processes on, like, NETMundial and things.
So the first question I would like to direct to our colleague from outside the region, and maybe we also get more insights rather than ours, first question is related to the very delicate issue of pertaining to multistakeholderism, which is the so‑called respective roles. And I think this is delicate, and I hope we can give very quick, sharp and concise messages, because this is a topic of a workshop on its own. And, Wolfgang, you need remember that there was a workshop on that before, and then we little bit merged and joined forces. So this is very challenging. The idea of multistakeholderism, we all subscribe it to, we all agree to its benefits, but there is many details regarding the subgrouping of the stakeholders, the equal footing issue, and these kinds of things.
So I will not give now my ideas, but I would like to hear specifically Unide, Wolfgang and Parminder and this specific point regarding the nature and the structure of multistakeholderism as practiced globally.
>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you. Well, I will be very quick. I believe since the year 2005 these rules remain basically unchanged; however, we can see a greater ‑‑ we can see them increasingly merging, and the more closely intertwined.
At the same time, I believe that it also depends on the different level of governments, let's say of governments presence in these Internet Governance system on the national level, because we do understand that some governments are bigger than others, and they have the primordial instinct of monopolizing the scene. So I would say that, for example, it is hard to manage how we can judge how these roles have evolved over time.
For example, if we have an academic who was called on the government and was recruited by the government and then he becomes a civil servant, and then it's hard to say whether he wears an academic hat or he's already a public servant and, as such, he has to follow, let's see, a certain prescription and a certain agenda dictated by the government.
So, my sense is that governments are still pretty much in deciding on the public policy in the area and to bolster the infrastructure ‑‑ I mean, by means of public investment while other roles are critical. Some other roles are critical, such as academics to assess, evaluate and guide the community, a Civil Society, to be that watch dog to monitor and to ‑‑ to exercise that public oversight. I mean public in terms of, you know, I don't know, greater community. Public oversight over the processes and technical community being pretty much engaged in developing a new tools and instruments to help implement those policies and that practice.
Thank you.
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much. I think the whole concept goes back to the called definition, working definition of Internet Governance, which was produced by the working group on Internet Governance and accepted 100% by the Tunis agenda that was signed by the head of state. So far Leonid is right, since 2005 and we had this definition on the table, not so much has changed, but this definition, you know, has a number of aspects, and one aspect is that it introduced the concept of the multistakeholderism, I do not like the ism, but it's labeled so, and added in their respective roles. And the roles are defined in the Geneva declaration, it's like a division of labor, but what we already experienced is that not everybody is happy with this defined roles in the Geneva declaration because the Tunis agenda went one step further and introduced in the second part of the definition an important element which is very often overseen, and this is the concept of sharing, sharing principles, programs and decision making procedures.
And I think this is really very, very crucial, and here we have still to learn a lot, and to have to develop a lot of new ideas how to share decision making among stakeholders which have a different legal status, but has to be treated, more or less, on an equal footing and understanding of equality there is no discrimination.
So what we have to develop further is a decision making procedure where, quote, unquote, nobody has the final say, but the stakeholders have to learn to work hand in hand and to come up with the result which is named in other groups, rough consensus. Though, you know the slogan of the Internet ‑‑ the IGF is, we do not believe in kings, presidents and voting; we believe in running code and rough consensus. Though, this is not the way how intergovernmental organisations are working, though they are ‑‑ this is a negotiation among governments and then it's a voting or something like that. So it means the multistakeholder model introduces a new governance concept which is still in its very early stage. We need more exploration. We need more experiments. I always argue the 21st Century has still 85 years to go. We are in the very early years of this new model, and the risk is that because of some deficiencies and weaknesses of the concept, that this concept will be killed in the cradle. This would be very bad, because this has a lot of potential for doing things better in the future.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Parminder.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: Thank you. I think it's very difficul to respond to question of multistakeholderism, because one doesn't know what multistakeholderism is one responding to. The task is made a little easier by Wolfgang speaking before me, and I can respond to that multistakeholderism.
The first thing about the multistakeholderism is that we need to know what are we talking about. Are we talking about technical issues, whether all stakeholders should have a equal right in organizing this workshop? Should they have equal rights? I think there is almost a deliberate confusion between what exactly is being spoken of. Technical decisions are not what we are speaking about. Organizing workshops, organizing dialects, they're very different matters. So I am only speaking about public policy making.
Now, we should cut and slice issues, because public policy making is very different from technical decisions. It's different from organizing dialects, like the IGF.
Public policy, who should be ‑‑ what are the roles? Before we can go into what are the roles, we should recognize what public policy is.
Public policy is a collective will. If represents the will of the people; therefore, the means of the presentation of the will of the people are primary.
Before we go to who represents and what could be respective roles, and equally important, public policy has a coercive effect. If there is a public policy, they can force you, constrain you, enable you, which is very important, because if somebody can force me not to do something or to do something, I need to be represented. And the first systems made in democracies, how public policies can be made, and they're not left to the law of the jungle. That particular point is important. Now, therefore, public policies should only be made by those institutions which have a legitimate means of, at least by putting to represent the people's will, nothing is perfect, but there should be a clear set of rules, means demonstrating methods that this is a convention of the people's will. And right now it is the government. We are happy to dismantle governments. I'm ready to have a global parliament. I'm ready to talk about those kind of representation matters, but to see, and now I come to the equal footing model, that business has to be treated equally. I'll very much go back to the traditional governmental model. Even Civil Society, what right do I have to sit here is because I write good project proposals, and some people agree to those project proposals and pay me. I don't think I have the same kind of right as a legitimate presentator of public will.
So I can go on. Technical committee has expertise. Expertise and (indiscernible) has no political right. It has only a right to tell and show things. So, in the same way we can talk about other rights. So it's very dangerous, extremely dangerous for people to say that business should be treated in the same matter in public policy decision making.
Well, we all need more open spaces of public policy decision making, and Internet allows us. We want more accountability, more challenging of ideas, more answers why this issue was not taken on board, we can go to the street, stop things. These are the rights of people, rights of non‑institutional forms of the government, but then somebody has to make the policy. And, if ‑‑ that is my problem with multistakeholderism. What could have been a matter of improving democracy is challenging democracy, and if this is the area we are going, poor people would prefer to be in the traditional means whereby they at least know whom to ward out or whom to throw out by a revolution. In multistakeholderism you don't even know whom to fight against because who is oppressing you becomes so much clearer.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: On the same notions, I still make some benefit of cross fertilization of ideas.
Before we move to the second round of questions, let's contemplate a little bit on a detected common observation that the respective roles, specifically of the policy making machinery, which is until now it is the government, the governments feel a little bit ‑‑ some of them, of course, not all, a little bit not comfortable with having this flat structure within the IGF dialogue so that they don't mind equal footing in consultations on workshop preparations and these kinds of things, of course, but when it comes to policy making, and this is really the challenging part, the idea of equal footing with the other stakeholders is not very comfortable for many of them. But equal footing among them, we agree to it, according to the agenda and the definition came regarding Governments. Governments on equal foot.
So here there is a like kind of ambiguity, constructive bid, or non constructive ambiguity, but there is ambiguity on this kind of equal footing among subgroups or equal footing among the government subgroup. This is one thing.
The other thing, this flat structure, now we have, like, hundreds, thousands and increasing number of people coming for the dialog. Is it healthy, even from an organizational perspective, to have, like, 1,000 talking the same talk then 2,000, then 4,000 without even have subgrouping like the ICANN model. The ICANN model they have a constituency for business, a constituency like GAG for governments, constituency for CNS on these kind of things. So this is out of the box. Maybe provoking question.
Do you think, Wolfgang, and Parminder, before we move, that it is healthy in the post‑2015 that IGF continue to be flat as such, or it has a little bit of form based on subgrouping like the one in ICANN, for example? I hope it is not very provoking.
Wolfgang, you need, and Parminder, before we move.
>>WOLFGANG K.: Moving forward into new territory always needs some exploration, experience, and you have to find out what works.
I think the risk is always you move from one extreme to the other extreme. So it means from traditional one stakeholder model where only governments have a final say to a model where too many people are talking to each other and it's impossible to reach anything. The truth very often is elsewhere in the middle, and we have to figure out where this middle is.
In so far, if we go to concepts which were raised about Leonid about democracy, we have traditional representative democracy, and Parminder has referred to this, that with the government on the top, and then some people say the mighty stakeholderism opens the door for the participator democracy. These are two concepts which are not in conflict. It can, you know, be linked in a certain decree. It means every broad participation with thousands of people has to lead in a certain moment to a certain form of representativity. And this also brings down the (indiscernible). For instance, you know, I remember in the WSIS process when Civil Society was rejected in the early days because they're totally disorganized. They are loud speakers. People are making noise to whom should we talk and things like that. But under Civil Society versus hundreds of organisations, we are able to create a bureau, they had a plenary, had a number of working groups and caucuses and content and seems group and was in the Civil Society produced reasonable results, produced language and enabled itself, then, to communicate with other organisations which have the same process inside their communities, including governments. Because, also, within Governments you have a broad range of different opinions, though it's the same chaos you have in the Civil Society that some Governments have a totally different position than other Governments, and the challenge, but also the beauty of the multistakeholder model, is that you have to bring this various opinion forming processes now into interconnection. This makes it really difficult.
I disagree, to a certain degree, with Parminder when he says, okay, this works for the technical issues, but the public policy issues should be the privilege or the monopoly of the government.
In this Internet World, it is nearly impossible, not only nearly, it is impossible, to separate the technical from the policy issues. If you go to the ICANN issues, the introduction of new generic top level domains is really a technical issue, but if you look in the debate we have in ICANN, on simple three letters, like dot (indiscernible) then you have immediately the political issues involved. And the same thing, public policy issues, you know, will not find the solution if they ignore the technical realities. What it means in Germany, the parliament adopted a law for, you know, against child pornography with filtering. It didn't work technically, so it means the next parliament abolished the law because public policy was made by ignoring the technical realities.
So far there is no choice than to technical people and the policy people, including the private sector, the Civil Society, come together and try to find a solution for concrete issues and nobody should have the last word.
Thank you.
>> LEONID TODOROV: Let me change the discourse just a little bit. Well, I would love to mention the word multistakeholder is indeed really ugly, I would agree, but what I think is that sometimes ‑‑ what missing in the picture is the institutional fundamentals of the process itself. And let us just ask this question: Why some Governments are so much concerned of multistakeholderism? Why do they feel that something is, from their perspective, wrong with that?
I believe that they instinctively can see and can sense the rise of arrival to them. And that rival does not lie in multistakeholderism and their related process, per se, rather it is all about the rise up in you, very influential and very consolidated group which I, for myself, call Internet bureaucracy. Internet bureaucracy is a very special instrument in formulating a shaping and delivering on a certain policy aspects.
We do know this. We do understand that these Internet bureaucracy, while the Internet is no doubt a public good, a universal public good, the Internet Governance process which you ask is becoming increasingly becoming pretty much glob good. I mean, A good for few. Where the area, the entry barrier to reach, are growing. Just imagine what one needs to join the process now, not ten or 15 years ago. That person should be well versed in these Internet Governance language with all this acronyms and abbreviations. That person should, no doubt, be in good command of the English language, because without that, he cannot join the process. I mean meaningfully. That person should be educated and have funding to go for all these meetings.
In other words, what I mean, the Internet Governance, and that I'm really concerned, is right now is absorbed by a certain group, and that's why the Internet Governance Forum can grow only at the expense of that narrow group, not the at‑large community.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: So until now, the first two interveners did not really touch on the idea of the flat, and a little bit taking form subgrouping was in the IGF post‑2015. Also, Wolfgang said something in the middle can be found, but maybe Parminder can focus more on the idea of flat versus not flat.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: Okay. I'll be direct to your proposal. I think that's a good idea, for a number of reasons, that we allow each group to talk to each other, which fluid space would to be available, but to allow to gather separately a set on constituencies, because their political alleged background conception is very different. And governments should be able to think together. Technical people should force on certain revelations, like Snowden. What are the technical problems, and what changes need to be made.
And it is not only for the governments. I have a big concern about how multistakeholderism has corrupted change in Civil Society. While Civil Society earlier, or always whenever this spoke, was looking back to their on constituents and saying, what I'm speaking does exclude them. Am I going to be able to answer back to them. They are listening. So they're always thinking of them. But a certain multistakeholder civil society thinks whether we are acceptable to the big business largely, and the technical community, and that kind of things change. But if Civil Society is organising along with its constituency separately are talking, that, I think, is a good idea, really.
>> AYMAN E.: Okay. So before we move to the second round of questions, any further notes from the first segment of panelists? Okay.
So now we move smoothly, also gradually. Before we move to the regional dimension, we will ask our regional platforms, the African IGF, to comment on the first segment of questions. Maybe they have developed some also enriching insights to the first segment. And then from there we go to the question on regional.
So now the same question but directed to Qusai, Makane, Christine and Ridha, just insights, reflections on the first segment regarding the multistakeholderism April 14th perspective roles and the flat verses non flat evolution.
So one minute each please, before we move.
Qusai.
>> QUASI AL-SHATTI: Multistakeholder is a main principal of the WISIS, and we cannot, for example, have venues like IGF without a multistakeholder involvement; However, what is emerging now is the respective role of each stakeholder, and while we may agree on all the stakeholder to be involved in the process, we may look at the respective role differently from the prospective about each stakeholder. And this needs more debate, I guess. We all know for Civil Society is involved in advocacy, but now they are involved in developing public policy, so how? How the private sector and what they should do. What government ‑‑ what is the government role as a convener or as a facilitator or as a drafter of public policy? Are there other stakeholders like technical committee with a local global origin? So these are all questions.
>> AYMAN E.: What about the idea of evolution of the ‑‑ we are for the evolution of the matter of taking a little bit of more, like, features, like subgrouping. Like what I propose just for sake of argument for the ICANN constituencies. You have thought about that?
>>QUASI A.: Actually, your question is correct in terms of when there is a talk about public policy. For example when we talk about the economy and public policies related to the economy, shall we deal with the private sector at large? No. There are small to medium scale companies, there are entrepreneurs, and there are major pairs, right. So the issue of several groups or how to define a stakeholder, depending on the nature of the issue of public policy, is correct and may be proper.
>> AYMAN E.: It has met for discussion, nothing more, at least for the moment, to be discussed further.
Makane, also your reflections on this segment.
>> MAKANE FAYE: Yes. Thank you, Ayman.
What I would like to stay is that the multistakeholder nature of the IGF as agreed and proposed by the working group and agreed by head of state, I think, is continuing and should continue. And here we have all the stakeholder groups intervening in each segment. We are having policy making and at the technical level, government private sector, civil society, all of them, I believe, they should continue working. This is reflected in the bureau of the African IGF where we have five regional conveners, which are from West Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa, Central Africa and North Africa, and these conveners then be government, they can go civil society, they can be private sector. But in addition of the convener, we ask them to provide three other stakeholder groups from each subregion, and the stakeholder group, if the convener is government, the three other groups can be civil society, private sector, technical committee ‑‑ community. If it is technical community, people can be part of the other stakeholder group.
In addition, then we have the AUC, The African Union Commission. We have ECA, which I represent, and the Naprid Coordinating Agency. All those members have equal voice in the African IGF of courses.
The bureau is also led by the Country which he has organized the last IGF, and we will submit our reports to the various ministries in the countries, to the African Union Conference for ministers of ICT's and also to ECA. So I believe that it is a bit difficult to have separate committees in the IGF process. If we want to follow what ICANN is doing, it will be a bit difficult in the idea of thinking.
>> AYMAN E.: Christine, and then Ridha.
>> CHRISTINE ARIDA: Thank you.
Just for the record, I notice that our transcribers are having difficulties finding out who is talking, so now they're trying to get it back. I am Christine. I think we should say our name at the beginning. It's easier for them.
So on the issue of having flat versus evoluting into more complex or different mechanisms, I think the thing that is at stake here is multistakeholderism. So I tend to agree more with Wolfgang that it is about interconnecting. It is not about, you know, bringing the same constituencies together. And the different stakeholder groups, they always find ways of, and actually have, with the platforms where they really get together and dialog. So if I talk about the Arab region, there is the Arab league where Governments come together and discuss public policies and discuss other issues and even discuss practical matters.
We have also see with the emergence of the IGF, we've seen many Civil Society groups in the Arab region come together and have yearly meetings on online platforms. So this is there anyways. The issue of segregating is, I think, not in the best interest of multistakeholderism. It is more about commitment of bringing the different stakeholder groups together and having them listen to each other.
If I see any evolution, I would like to see an evolution that goes more into a regional perspective, because I think what we're lacking here is having the different regions. Some regions provide meaningful participation. So I would rather see the multistakeholder nature of the IGF in compress different regional groups and bring them somewhere in a evolutionary matter at every IGF. So I like the idea of that Makane has put forward that the African IGF is doing, because it is more of having a commitment from the different regional groups that they're bringing all the stakeholders on board. So I see it more as an interconnection as a commitment to multistakeholers rather than having different stakeholder groups come together.
Thank you.
>> RIDHA GUELLOUZ: Thank you. As we all know, the multistakeholder --
>> This is Ridha for the transcribers. Ridha is speaking now.
>> RIDHA GUELLOUZ: Ridha Guellouz, yes. I am Ridha now.
>> AYMAN: R‑i‑d‑h‑a. Thank you.
>> RIDHA GUELLOUZ: Good.
Multistakeholderism is probably genuine concept which appeared through the WSIS preparatory process. When coming to the IGF in practical, we have seen and noted that to some extent one exercising the multistakeholder principles, most of the stakeholders were putting the question, what might I get from multistakeholders rather than what can I give and bring to multistakeholders. And I think this is highest preoccupation for the time being. That is why now when we talk about multistakeholderism we rather think about the stakeholders much more than multistakeholderism.
For the future, I think that we should try to find a way to make it a reality. To make multistakeholder as close as possible to reality. How?
I wouldn't agree with my colleagues on the fact that starting from the global and regional levels may bring something. I think that from the multistakeholder point of view it will not be efficient. The best way would have been to start with the national level. This is where really multistakeholder are. This is where we can have a real exercise of multistakeholders. For sure we have a chance to talk about the experience from this point of view, but I think that we should start from the national level and building the regional and then finalizing at the global level.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you, Ridha.
So now we move clearly to the other segment, which is the regional dimension. We have three ‑‑ four panelists from the regional IGFs. Qusai and Christine from ‑‑ and Ridha from the Arab IGF and Makane from African IGF. And he give an intro about the African IGF Mechanism.
So first let us give an intro about the Arab IGF, and then we ask generic questions. So maybe I can give that, because of my roll in the Arab IGF.
The Arab IGF is actually the exact ‑‑ semi exact replica of the global IGF mechanism. So we have the same structure of multistakeholder bottom up input to the programme of the meetings similar to the global MAG.
We have also a host that changes year to year, and every year we change the stakeholder group or the regional subgroup.
And we have a mechanism similar to the mechanism of the UN and the technical secretariat. In the UN, we have something called the executive bureau for coordination, which has the UNS1, the league of foreign states as the umbrella organisation, as well as the technical secretariat, which is a long contribution from the NTRA.
So three of us, like three in one and one in three, this is the Arab IGF like super secretariat. This is the bureau. So this is just for convening for coordination. But the process itself is bottom up.
The programme, the topics, the slogan, everything is set in a bottom up participatory fashion on equal footing multistakeholder similar to the structure of the global IGF, and we had three years. Now the first was in Kuwait, the second in Algeria and the third will be in Beirut next November.
And this is just the intro, but now we will ask about the linkages, which is the question related to this panel. The linkages between the Arab IGF and the global IGF, I will ask Christine, because this was part of her efforts among S1, but she played the major role on that, regarding the reporting and connection between the Arab IGF and the global IGF.
How do you see it, Christine? How do you see the idea of reporting? Is it enough? Do you think of something that comes also top down like bottom up? You know better, and you understand it, what we want to bring to the table.
>> CHRISTINE ARIDA: Okay. Thank you. This is Christine Arida.
Well, that is really a difficult question. It's a question that, I mean, on an inter‑regional dialogue that has been taking place at the IGF, we have been posing at the IGF and even through the years through the mailing lists how to actually make this linkage more effective and more realistic.
So just to give a bit of the status quo and maybe some touch on the history, you all know that through the IGF you can actually say that I'm running whatever national or regional IGF in my Country or region simply by making sure that you're following some simple rules that are listed on the website, and that is mainly being a multistakeholder in nature, so you have different stakeholders that are convening this initiative, and that you're going along the same lines. So that is an easy thing. You just comply to a couple of rules. Whether you really do or not is something that you put forward. There is no way to really go back and look at it in depth and see if it is true or not, but it's there. Then you get to report on a yearly basis to the secretariat of the IGF whatever activities you have made.
But, for a couple of years now, there has been a dialog going on at the IGF where the different coordinators where the regional and national initiatives have come together and exchange views. And for some time it was just simply reporting back and, you know, learning from each other's experience, but this year there is a new idea of actually discussing with a broader public, not just with the coordinators, of how to make this, let's say, linkage more effective. And today, actually, we are having a session at 2:30 to discuss about that, and everyone is invited. We're trying to make it a bigger group discussing. There are so many people, all of us, probably, are in a way or another participating or involved in some IG dialog in their own Country or in their own region, and whatever is done there, they bring it on their own personal basis into the IGF. So there is an implicit linkage that is there, but there should be some more focus on how to look at the topics that are discussed on the region and national levels when you're doing the agenda of the IGF. And, so, this is one of the ideas that needs to be looked at.
The MAG ‑‑ you all know that the MAG meets three times a year, and they discuss what will be the agenda of the next IGF. They open up for consultation so everyone can go and put their view, but there is no actual mechanism to take from the national and regional topics that are coming, so today we are going to discuss at the discussion at 2:30 what are the commonalities between the regions, what are the commonalities between the regions, what are the differences, and maybe we can come up with a number of topics that we can put report back into the stock taking session and say here are the commonalities between the different national and regional, what the initiatives are, and those are issues that have emerged here and there and should really be considered at the IGF on a global scale
Also, there are ideas to actually have some space within the consultations that happen through the year and give those spaces to the nationals and regional initiatives to come back and put forward ideas that can be taken into the agenda.
One last thing, I think all of us on a regional and international level should have a platform that says not only we're discussing our own, but that's the most important, we're discussing what's most relevant to us in public policies relating to IG, but also what do we want to put forward on the global agenda. So this is a space that really have to make available.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you, Christine.
Maybe I take here a suggestion that maybe we bring it solidly forward, which is a idea of a solid representation was in the global MAG. So we can have a recommendation for the UN, when they structure the MAG yearly, they have seats for the regional IGF regardless of any other considerations, be it observers or whatever, but at least to have a solid note for getting and taking input to the MAG.
And before I go to Makane to give his input on that, I think Parminder wants to add something on that idea.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: No. I can come back. I won't take the mic on this.
>> AYMAN E.: So, on the same wavelength, what do you think, Makane, about the African IGF linkage with the global IGF? How sufficient is it?
>> MAKANE FAYE: Thank you, Ayman. My name is Makane Faye, Commission for Africa.
First let me indicate that the African IGF is objectives are to increase our interest and build the capacity on Internet Governance on African users, to ensure that all stakeholders are well prepared for contribution and interaction, to put in place a coordinated African process for dealing with Internet Governance issues on the continent, to ensure also that the consents of Africa are taken into account in the IGF process.
Now, as Christine has said, reporting is no more allowed of what was done at the regional level and at the national level. This has stopped since last year. Of course, there is an international dialog to share ideas on successes, failures and experiences, but at the African level, we provide input in the MAG by coming as a continent to propose our ideas when they are discussing the themes and the subthemes. We are putting in place a discussion list where we all come together, we find somebody to coordinate the ideas, and when we get it, then we send it to the IGF secretariat as a continent. That's what we did this year, and that is what we will do next year to be sure that our concerns are taken on board.
Also, when you organize African IGF meetings, the teams are built upon the subteams of the global IGF so that we meet, discuss and prepare, and we hold also our African IGF every year before the global IGF. The subteams are discussed at the regional continent level, then our participants are prepared so that they can contribute to any of the sector, in any of the panel which is organized during the global IGF.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: So the linkages are there, but loose. It looks like loose. So I might suggest, if Christine and Makane agree, that this representation from the region to the global MAG become part of, like, the secretariat obligation, the global secretariat. For example, there are, like, say eight IGFs. Maybe two persons from each regional IGF to be covered by the global secretariat for MAG meetings. Something like what we do in the regional IGFs for our constituencies. So maybe this can be like solid linkages. It becomes, like, part of the global team. So this liaison become more like an obligation by the global IGF to invite them. I know what you are referring to. You go because you can programmatically find a budget and go, but not every time, not every year this is a standing allotment in the budget. Maybe also in Arab IGF and other IGFs. So if you agree to this, I'll take it to the next level that the secretariat covers one or two representatives from the regional IGF to global MAG meetings.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: Quickly, two points. One was on the earlier proposal of more specialization of constituencies in the IGF. The main purpose, I understand they need to talk to each other, but my main issue has been that so much noise is created, but there is no policy making. And I want some matter with policy making agenda can be pushed. We have reached a generation where so called multistakeholder has become a mechanism of policy paralysis. That is not what solves public interest at all. We need public policies for public interest. And that ‑‑ I am looking for those matters, and if this forgoing is a matter, that is why I welcome it.
As Wolfgang said earlier, no one has the final say. That serves the status quo. That serves the people that are in good places. Them in as they are and there is no final say, therefore, there is no policy, which is a problem.
Quickly, on the IGFs, there should be some kind of a mechanism and we should be careful what these regional and national IGFs are. I've seen whenever the regional IGFs have a good role, we have a system which complements the traditional democratic system rather than supplants it, and same at the national level where the national Governments have some role, but a limited role; however, the places where these mechanisms are completely independent, and sometimes antagonistic to the traditional mechanisms, and that is a new kind of ‑‑ I think there is a transnational global elite, middle classes having global aspirations. I won't go into the query of it, which is unhappy with the governance and trying to create a new national governance, which is a problem, and I found in my, for example, IGF I've recommended a lot of times, please go to the regional UN commission and get them engaged, because that gives a sense of balance, but that doesn't happen.
I think if we are getting such kind of a system, we need to set some kind of rules of the road, and some may seek clarities about what is what. Then alone we can allow the presentation to come in this from, otherwise this supplants the global democratic system, which is a big problem.
>> AYMAN E.: Okay. Thank you. And thank you for commending our efforts as the regional commissions, actually ESCWA, and ECA, are mostly active in this kind of facilitation role for the regional IGFs. Also our colleagues in ECLAC and ICE. They have more different intensity in this kind of facilitation. So this is regional angle.
Let me go a little bit deeper in the supply chain, if we call it, of the policy making inputs, the national IGFs.
The national IGFs is the third layer in the structure, like the model we go national to regional to the globe. So now let's go to the national and we will ask my colleague, Ridha, who has an experience on the national IGF and Tunis, and his relationship with us as the regional IGF, which is asking ourselves here.
The national IGF, a little bit with its relationship which the Regional IGF, which is us also. So we know it is not mature yet, but let us be very transparent. And then I will ask Qusai, also. There is not Kuwait IGF yet, but Qusai, I think, he will do it soon. So maybe we'll get his input.
>> RIDHA GUELLOUZ: Thank you, Ayman.
We can remember that the national and regional occupation in the national IGF started in ‑‑
We may remember that the preoccupation of the National and Regional IGF started in ‑‑ appeared in Nairobi although it was already in the Tunis agenda outputs.
What I would say is that the exercise has been very, very difficult, with a lack of, let's say, directions given by the global IGF on the issue of building national and regional IGFs. So it is started with initiatives coming at the regional level. WE have got regional African ‑‑ I belong to both Africa and the Arab region, and I have the experience of having African and Arab IGF, but also, especially, probably, in the African region, we have good, wide a number of national IGFs appearing.
What you can say. In absence of, let's say, general principles to be used when building national IGFs, each one has done his own experience in the way he understood it first.
And, second, we know that the presence and the preoccupation of the different stakeholders at national level, until now, are not the same. I mean ‑‑ and the IGF, let's say national IGF, have been build according to the limit of one of the stakeholders to build another IGF. In this case we cannot know that most of the IGFs are Civil Society driven.
As fortune, we are very, very anxious to be really multistakeholders and we establish some rules, to establish the national MAG, and we said, we have the four stakeholders, we don't need an IGF. So the main and basic principal was to have the four stakeholders, and we had this idea. I can probably exchange with you on this ‑‑ on the way we have done it, but it may ‑‑
>> AYMAN E.: Okay. Thank you.
So the conclusion here would come to the floor after we finish this out. The idea of national IGFs is still primitive and needs some more stamina and effort. And let us move to Qusai, his ideas about a national IGF in Kuwait, and then we have the colleague from Russian IGF, by the way, he can also add another perspective.
So Qusai, please, what do you think about the national IGF?
>> QUASI AL-SHATTI: Well, just as a general note, while the global IGF was initiated by the Tunis agenda, and we can consider this a top down approach, the regional IGFs were initiated by a bottom up process. It was the stakeholders or the involved community of Internet Governance in these regions or countries decided to have an IGF because they think this Internet Governance on a national or regional level have issues that is important to address. Whatever the format that took place, that may defer from the regions. Like (inaudible) in organisations and other regions it was initiated by certain stakeholder.
But we always look at the global IGF as a best practice. It is a practice that we follow. We may interpret it for our region, but we look at it always as a best practice and example to follow, which means what you reflect the success of the global IGF and its impact and influence on us. And that's a linkage by itself. And, for us, even when we look at an international level, we will look at the global IGF, and then we will look at the original IGF that we belong to we would follow and see the example to follow.
>> AYMAN E.: Okay. Leonid. Am I pronouncing it right? Leonid or Leonard?
>>LEONID: Yeah, Leonid. It's okay.
Just a quick comment. You know We do Russian IGF, and there were a few consecutive Russian IGF in April this year. I must say that by its existence, the Russian IGF challenged Russia's realities in all aspects, as well as some other established ‑‑ well established concepts.
Just for you to know, we have in Russia, we have in the language, we have no concept of stakeholder. We have no concept of community. There are no communities in Russia, make no mistake, no stakeholders. I mean in that typical sense of these words. So beware of special.
We have ‑‑ our Civil Society is still (Indiscernible). Our academy is not active in these areas. There are no research papers, basically, in this area. Credible research papers, to the best of my knowledge. Businesses are not interested in IGF process, and they do not contribute to that.
Of course, we may ‑‑ we do accept some help, say, from Microsoft, but it would be against our principals, because this is Russian IGF. And the country is so vast. It covers 11 time zones that it is practically impossible to reach out through certain areas, for example, as far as remote participation. When Moscow ‑‑ for example, it is 10:00 in Moscow, it is already over midnight in the far east. And against all these challenges, we still have our IGF, and we have more than 500 people participating in that, and we have a pretty much multistakeholder steering committee, or organizing committee, and our debates are so fierce that some people who come over, are guests from overseas, when they come over they are generally amused and amazed at the intensity with our debate.
With that, I must say our relation with the global IGF is pretty loose. Of course, we replicate, to some extent, the structure. We do borrow some issues, and we, of course, try to build on that pool of speakers for Russians. Because this is particularly important, given that 86%, another challenge, 86% of Russia's population has no command of any foreign language whatsoever.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Which umbrella or which flag is the Russian IGF taking? Is it under the flag of the ministry of ICT or ‑‑
>>LEONID: No. This is exactly that multistakeholder flag. Basically two stakeholers, I must say, or three. Civil Society, technical community, which is the Russian top level domain operator, and the Minister of Telecommunications, who are very, very supportive, I must say.
One more thing. As we have a lot of our neighbors, you know, with some of them we are at odds at the moment, but still we have a lot of our neighbors who still try to build on our successes and our experiences, so usually our IGF is also a platform for the former Soviet Republics, plus Soviet states to come over, and even at the climax of what seemed a climax of that very tense relationship with Ukraine, even at that time, in April, Ukrainians did come to Moscow to participate in our IGF.
So I would say 7 to 10 post Soviet states are usually present at our IGF, and we try to give them floor to discuss their own challenges to find some commonalities to identify particularities and a way to tackle them.
>> AYMAN E.: So let me be a little bit also democratic.
We started 15 minutes late, so instead of finishing at 10:30, we finish at 10:45. Do you agree with that or do you want us to wrap up? Because there is two small rounds. One round on the other process that is taking place in parallel to the IGF NETMundial and the others, and then the floor.
So who has any problem with extension 15 minutes that we lost in the beginning? Okay. But we extend until 10:45, huh. Okay.
First take a round from the floor and then we go to the question about NETMundial and related. We have many hands, and the lady there and gentlemen. If there is someone from participation also.
Okay. So would you agree to go the floor first and then I go to you and take the questions from one round and then come back.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Ayman. Hali Fatel, Multilingual Internet group.
First of all, I wanted to intervene early on about some comments that were being discussed, and then I'm so pleased that the opportunity to speak came after the intervention from Leonid.
When we talk about national, regional and global, I think we are failing, and I use the word failing, to recognize the local challenges for each community. When you use the term national, in many cultures the application is government.
Now, I'm a big believer in the multistakeholder but I also believe there is a role for government but the role for government is not to be the initiate tore or government agencies to be the negotiator and here what I'm seeing is we need at certain local ‑‑ at certain ‑‑ at regions in the world to move away from the term national but perhaps use the word local because the minute you use the word national, it implies exactly what Leonid asked early on under which umbrella. The truth of the matter here, it should not be under a governmental umbrella or ministry it should be an initiative. And relate this to the Arab IGF with some of the challenges that I have observed over the years and we always want to make sure it's positively critically positioned, we ask how many from the masses have participated in our IGF. When you look at the challenges of the Russian IGF and the Russian example and their challenges and you have 500 par notice pants, I think that is a decent achievement.
What numbers do we have within the Arab? I think the challenge here is we're not taking it to the masses and we're still making it too rational.
>> AYMAN E.: What do you think the number is?
>> AUDIENCE: I don't know. Maybe you can tell me.
>> AYMAN E.: The first year was 350 the second year was 800 T first year was the host was Civil Society. The second year was Mr. Dabois representing the government. When the government took the lead 850 from the community plus 8,000 thank you by the way for being here. Mr. Dabois is one of the champions in Nigeria and opened up to the, by the way, we can't replicate the number anymore.
>> AYMAN E.: I think to close the comments, and I want to make sure it's as positive critical comments is out of the 800 how many are continuously participating and adding value.
>> AUDIENCE: This is a question.
>> AYMAN E.: We ask him at the end how can we see the future ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Ayman, sorry.
>> AYMAN E.: Let us take the question first.
>> AUDIENCE: It is not the future. We're trying to find out in the three or four or how many years the Arab IGF has been functioning and the challenges we have from the region how many are active as it stands so that we can device a plan for the future, not what the future is guess what, we've seen a lot of five‑year plans from the region and many of them are recycled.
>> MAKANE FAYE: Thank you so much. Very important point noted. We will take a bit of it here and the other built on the workshop in 42 on Thursday which is focusing on the Eric measuring issues.
Now I may read the chair for the Africa.
>> AUDIENCE: Apart from the Africa IGF, I convene the Nigeria IGF, and for three years running I have been convening it and we have in the local multistakeholder management or local organisationers. We have government playing good role. The government, the ministry itself and two of its agencies we have the Civil Society, we have the technical committee, the .ng is the secretariat for the NIGF. And we have always made recommendations and some of our recommendations have been taken up by the government.
From my own region, that is Africa, you know most of the work consistencies are related to the government. Some are just pure governments organisation. Others are just coming up. So government please, a lot of room so we cannot be ‑‑ we cannot call it national.
I don't know how we're going to call it local, but if we call it local, our own Country is so big, we still want to go to the local site like regions, sub regions. So it is very difficult for us.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you. Thank you, Mary.
So the last question from the gentleman over there, and then we go back to the panelists to comment on the three questions.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is John. I come from Convasia.
I enjoy Mary and Ridha, and also Makane. I think we start a national IGA. I want to say how to build house without congressional. I think we need to stand up strongly national IGF and after that we go up to sub original, original and global level. That is very important because we start now to discuss in the Country about IGF and to enjoy government technical community, academic, non governmental organisation, we do ‑‑ that is our approach in the multistakeholder. We start that. And if we take ‑‑ we take out that way, I think it would be difficult for us to stand national IGF. For me the important thing is national IGF.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you. I like the word foundation. This is something that we will use when we refer to this sort of mechanisms in countries, avoiding now the word national or local, whatever. This kind of mechanism in countries is the foundation. Yes, it's, because it's an echo system and the roots is in the communicate tight itself which are the countries regions.
So any comments from the floor on the input from Kaleb, Mary and Baldwin? If not, Christine wants to comment.
>> CHRISTINE ARIDA: Okay. I will quickly respond, because I think there is a point he is making here and I like that point. And I think there is a lot of similarity even with the IGF.
You have so many participants that come to the annual meeting and when you go to a specific Country, a lot of them actually come from that Country or from that region. Most of them they have not heard of the IGF before and may not participate afterwards. And I think here is the big challenge that we all have and the Arab IGF I keep on bringing up this challenge, but meaningful participation because the idea is actually to talk about public policies that are continuing to Internet Governance not only for them but also nationally on a national level for the year and even regionally it's for the year. So you will have a point and I think this is something that we need to carefully consider what it is that will get people to come to the table and discuss is it ‑‑ why aren't they come something are they not seeing the benefit there? I don't know. So if I take an example from my very local place, we have very early on in the 90's discussions that were actually convened by the ministry but were very much a stakeholder nature because ‑‑ and they were not labeled IGF. There was no, IGF at the time. But everyone was coming in to discuss public policies that at tend ended up with having brought down initiatives, the Internet. Actually did an impact on the actual Internet in the Country.
Now those people know nothing about the IGF and they're ‑‑
>>AUDIENCE: I'll take 30 seconds.
Secondly the challenge we have, we have region is because our public partnership is slim to none and slim is out of town. This is where it actually doesn't work.
Secondly, the other point here is for serving the Arab region, I don't care about promoting multistakeholder or multi‑whatever‑ism. What I think we need to make the issue is how does it address the pain and the issues of the local citizen, period. If it is connectivity then you make that the topic. If it is access, you make that the topic. If it is policy you make it the topic. If it then happens to be under the umbrella of IGF then IGF has actually acted as an enabler. By getting them engaged now, you’re creating a multistakeholder process instead of preaching a religion.
So this is one. Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Myrna.
>> MYRNA: I do second your second point. Engaging people, engaging citizen in the process is very important and I think the possibility of our sessions pre‑event days before the IGFs themselves could bring a lot to these citizens and find a target groups. Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you. Anything from Mary?
>> AUDIENCE: I want to say that we discuss what is on the pro bono of our Country. We don't do this at the national level. So call it local or call it anything. And anything that is on the front burner that is what we discuss.
We look at the areas that the global level will discuss, but what will benefit us, what is there for us as Nigeria?
And one of the things we did last was to do a training for our young people. If we had a day before for the young people, they came and are looking forward for next year.
So if we discuss local issues people will get engaged. We got our people engaged.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you. Just a small announcements also adding to the input of my colleague Myrna we will have a present event targeting mainly capacity building of new combers and also let me reiterate that the first IGF in Kuwait had a special session for use, plenary session for use engagement. So we are still in an essence phase evolving a little bit, but we have this idea of engagement as part and parcel of our strategy whether it is the new segments like use or regions like Algerians did or newcomers in general.
And we will move and improve.
The gentleman in the panel, there is one pressing question before we close regarding this other processes that are evolving in parallel to the IGF. And this is, again, to the session, lie come back to you because of the time, but please remind.
The idea of the IGF as a spin off to its agenda has been alive. It took shape and we are here because of it. It's a nice version and successful, it is working and it can be better.
Okay. There is a new process that started recently which is in Admonda. I cannot really miss the chance of this panel and distinguish the participants and guests to ask the question about platform which has not been from the agenda. As Wolfgang rightfully explained is articulated by heads of states. And it took 40 years as a process.
So just a question, also thought provoking. Such a mechanism, how much level of legitimacy does it have vis‑a‑vis at the IGF itself one being a child of a parent like a WSIS process with some of a level of legitimacy and the new one is very important, very good example of multistakeholder innovation, but it was not spun off in the same way.
What do you think about in a nutshell and had the next question, how can it have a channel to the file destination which is the CSTD general assembly for example to give it more legitimacy like the IGF where it has this channel through the CSTD channel assembly.
So anyone is welcome to input without any order, raise hands first. Anyone.
>>AUDIENCE: I just wondering if anyone in this room ever watching the lost NETmundial ‑ world economic forum session in Geneva? Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Me counting, third and fourth. So four people in this room were aware that there was an event in Geneva, although there were no forewarning for that, no information about that, and that was a kind of NETmundial event. Which is pretty symbolic to me.
You just mentioned, sir, the word legitimacy. I think that we should judge each and every event by its ultimate purpose. It seems to me that both NETMundial and that Geneva event were pursuing that ultimate purpose of for getting legitimate, whatever, whatever, thank you.
So this is a bending and twisting with the nature of the processes initiated by the Geneva meetings and Tunis meetings which is something different from what we are used to and this creates an absolutely new closed environment in which what I called once again, Internet bureaucracy merged in ecstasy with the business to represent business biggies to discuss issues of mutual concern which have nothing to do with the nature and the spirit of the IGF. I'm sorry to be that radical and un orthodox but we're Russians and we love bold ash shuns and bold expressions. Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Wolfgang.
>>WOLFGANG V.: Yeah, I think there is a lot of confusion about this and mistrust and misunderstanding. I think the conference came out from process which was triggered by the revelations of Edward Snowden and mistrust and, you know, part of the communities that we have to do something and the result of this that we have to do something was the conference in Brazil which was based on the understanding that all stakeholders have to do something together on equal footing. And the interesting element which was added by NETMundial, was a different outcome. This was different from IGF because IGF is a multistakeholder meeting without no outcome. The main message is we have to strengthen the IGF so Annette never signed or planned to be an alternative to to the IGF. It's probably we can get additional steam to make the IGF better, so that the IGF can go the next step to become more stable probably also a little bit more institutionalized, get more funding, get more secretariat support get stronger and produce this output.
I think this is the main intention of this conference. So the question was then, you know, how we can use the steam from SaoPalo to push this forward, and I think this is here the first big step that we say, okay, we get some fresh blood and fresh blood is in our economic forum. It is an economic forum brings additional resources, additional ideas to the process.
I think that is good, but Alan Marco said yesterday from Macedonia, we are here of the ministers of education because all they are relevant for the Internet and if the world economic forum can help to bring this here to this process, I think this is very welcome.
We should be very clear, Darvis is a two stakeholder process. Big government makes big business. Though traditional governmental meetings are one stakeholder processes so we should have the distinction in mind if we talk about the future of the IGF.
My proposal and I think this is now going around here is the destination for this Mundial initiative should be the next IGF from Brazil. The slogan could be Brazil to Brazil. The next IGF will be in Brazil. There is in no need to be a hurry to produce results in six months which at the moment is the initiative. It needs more time. There is no need to rush so it means we should discuss this with all stakeholders to make this additional initiative very useful through additional steam is needed. Additional support is needed for the IGF. But it would be, you know, really misunderstanding if we treat now the initiative in IGF as two different shows walking in different directions. This is one process and the main process is the IGF and the IGF we know needs to renew. But it means if the renewal fails, then we can reconsider. We have based on the national and Regional IGFs and IGF you know which is organized in a different way.
So far we have to go across together of the renewal of the IGF and then we have a different situation and this brings us in the year 2006 teen. But it's still a long way to go.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Thank you.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: I cannot say that I remain very surprised if I read President Delmont's speech in the UN, and what kindS of things have to be done and how the UN and big corporate is doing what to the world and then the word valid behind her and give her the leadership which produce an outcome that is most celebrated with the same two actors, the U.S. government and the big corporate's who were on the map by the statement and installation and that seems to be me some kind of a problem and what kind of capture took place at the NETMundial.
That apart, the issue is, Brazil has a right to conduct IGF event. WEF has a right. Nobody is against it. Everybody has a right to conduct IGF. Now WEF is not even ‑‑ the problem is to try to make it the process, the global multistakeholder process which is more legitimate than the UN based. WEF process is directly in review and the problems which U.S. government and the corporate see in what could happen at the custom in Europe. That is what it is about. When you try to place yourself as the process, there are huge problems which we have. And how multistakeholderism becomes a fetish comes very clearly from what Wolfgang said. The things are rated UN being one stakeholder is not quantity than WEF being two stakeholders. Now that is not the kind of things we should be talking about
We are talking about public interest and coming from a Civil Society. If I distrust WEF, that is hard roots. I can't go back to the communicate tight and say I have joined the WEF to rule the world. That is not how things have happened. The WEF is .0001 person. I don't really say that they don't have a right to do what they're doing. They should go ahead and do it but trying to lead a global movements offer governmental system is simply disgusting for me. That is the word I would use.
>> AYMAN E.: Any thoughts on this, very quickly?
After Ridha, he wants to add something.
You don't want? Okay.
>>AUDIENCE: Thank you, gentlemen. It has been played by the leaders that we will strongly support the IGF. However, the issue of the status of the IGF is the issue of let's say the mandate of the IGF is still on the table and no one clearly set that it is supporting or not the idea of having more power for the IGF and the decision making mandates.
Now, let's look at the agenda of, let's say, 2014 and 2015 leading to the UN general assembly. What are the coming events we will have for sure IGF 2015 to talk about that probably the second round of that Mundial, but we have to remember that if this issue is meant to be brought on the table of the UN general assembly, it has to be brought by the C SD as a reporting agency to be the UN general assembly on the whole process.
So let's see what is the intention of the CSTD to put in their report and their set of proposals regarding having the IGF getting, let's say, more deeper mandate in terms of decision making.
>> AYMAN E.: Makane.
>> MAKANE FAYE: First of all, Wolfgang, thank you very much for describing the process that led very, very well, but let me add a couple or things.
I think this is where we go back to your point Christine earlier on regarding participation.
Nepdal happened because the community pushed for it and the community was me. Sorry for using the word me. If you recall anybody who was at the ICANN meeting in Johannesburg, I think it was in South Africa, I can't remember where it was last year, Dermot, thank you, I addressed the board and the public forum and up to that point the NSA revelations were still not being public discussions. I challenged the board and I challenged Farid that it needs to be a public discussion and public debate because trust was being dealt against a scare because of the new revelation.
What it tells us is that up to that point it was the big white elephant in the middle of the room. We all came back ‑‑ came to Bali and everything this was about the revelation. Why this is significant shows you how the community participation, and I consider myself a member of the ICANN community, the community participation triggered this and Bali President Obama sent an ambassador to speak on his behalf and his commitment to doing what is necessary and I'm using the key words.
And as a result, Farid and the precedents were engagement to create NepMongial. Now the outcome, nobody knew what it was going to look like and you would agree with that, and also the desire and the timing by the NS ‑‑ the department of commerce to announce the moving from the single rule or the single management of the root and the IANA function to a multistakeholder was politically well timed. Why this is relevant? It is all because the direction could have gone in a different direction. This is part of the weakness when we are renewing the IGF we're not considering how to make it valuable because in extenuating circumstances the Snowden revelation changed the game and brought NETMundial to be a decision‑making process and everybody became frantic. Now we're back to nonconclusive non decision making and this is what I think we need to stop looking at how to make IGF more relevant and when we go to local, local should not emulate or copy and paste the global IGF and it should serve its own local communities.
>> AYMAN E.: Okay. Because of the time, Makane, do you have something.
>> MAKANE FAYE: I really believe that as IGF has amended from the head of state we feel paragraph 2 of the commitment and also in the Tunis Roman 8 is asking the IGF to discuss between bodies dealing different cross cutting international public policies, regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any interesting body. So I think that NETMundial should be brought in here.
Thank you.
>> AYMAN E.: Just, I would like to wrap up.
There are still more questions and answers, but I think we have done a little bit of contribution to thought provoking process regarding strategic key issues on the equal system of the Internet Governance at large. The Internet Governance ecosystem has the heart of the IGF and the IGFs and whatever is happening in the big picture. We try to just lay down some questions. We don't claim that we have all the answers, but generally the most important answer is the title of this workshop, The Future of the Global and Regional ‑‑ the future is hopefully very bright and I think we are maturing and the whole level process and it's custodians plus the community are learning and things will evolve with all of us and with the input of all of the stakeholders and I would like to thank you all the panelists, Wolfgang, Makane, Parminder, Christine and Ridha. I'm sorry I didn't give the floor to all the people. Please forgive me if I had more of your time than planned. I thank you all the core organizers. I think all the participants. Wish you a great day and to meet again in next events. And mark your calendar our IGF in Beirut.
Thank you.
***
This is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.
***