You are here

FOCUS SESSION (ACCESS/DIVERSITY): INTERNET AS AN ENGINE FOR GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ICTs AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE REAL WORLD: CONCRETE EXPERIENCES OF HOW INTERNET GOVERNANCE HAS IMPACTED DEVELOPMENT

FINISHED TRANSCRIPT

 

INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM VIII

BALI

24 OCTOBER 2013

FOCUS SESSION: ACCESS/DIVERSITY:

INTERNET AS AN ENGINE FOR GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

9:30

 


The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Eigth Meeting of the IGF, in Bali, Indonesia. 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.


>> C. MASANGO: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We'll start the Focus Session for this morning, if you could please sit down. Thank you.

Also, it would be a good idea if you'd get a headset so you can hear properly.  

Welcome to the Focus Session on Access and Diversity: Internet as an Engine for Growth and Sustainable Development.

Our Chair this morning is Mr. Muhammad Neil el Himam, GCFA Board of Trustees, Indonesia Domain Names Management, PANDI. Thank you very much, and I'll hand it over to the Chair.

>> M.N. EL HIMAM: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, a very good morning to you. We now resume the meeting, and I now open this session Internet as an Engine for Growth and Sustainable Development. In this session, I'm looking forward to our discussion about three important issues. The first one is with regard to the World Summit for the Information Society.

WSIS is 10 years old now, in 2015, and the UN General Assembly is deciding how to review WSIS follow‑up to date, and then what the next 10 years of WSIS follow‑up will look like. 2015 is the also the 10‑year review of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, process and given this confluence, how will the next 10 years of WSIS connect to the next 10 years of the MDGs?

This session will explore how to answer this major question two days after the UNGA discusses it, in three parts, with hopefully ample time for comments and questions from the audience in each segment.

Part 2 will highlight practical examples of how technology has been used to improve access and diversity.

Now I would like to introduce our moderator for the first part of our discussion, Mr. Janis Karklins, the Assistant Director‑General for Communication and Information of UNESCO. Janis, you have the floor.

>> J. KARKLINS: Thank you very much. Yes, Markus, before you ‑‑ if Mr. Saminarsih is in the room, if you could identify yourself, I want you to be placed next to me.

>> M. KUMMER: I'm Markus Kummer. I Chair the preparatory process. Before we start, I remind you today is UN Day, so we're celebrating when the UN got started. Just a few words on some of the underlying concepts for those who are not too familiar with IGF and CSTD and whatever acronyms.

When the mandate of the IGF was renewed, there was a Working Group set up under the Commission for Science and Technology for development and they made recommendations for IGF improvement, and one of the recommendations was that each session should address two or three policy questions.

Now, we took that seriously and made a call, issued a call, for public input and received policy questions and they're available on the IGF website and we will also pull them up on the screen. It's not meant you address all these questions but take note of them and I notice also you've developed your own questions.

And another thing, the printed programme was printed before we finalized the programme, and we decided this week, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, to have tomorrow's session which is devoted to emerging issues to make it ‑‑ it was originally a 90‑minute session but now we have a slot for 3 hours, and it will deal with Government surveillance so this is just an announcement that tomorrow the main session will deal with surveillance. And with that, back to you, Janis.

>> J. KARKLINS: So thank you, thank you, Markus. And I would like to extend my greetings in the ‑‑ on the occasion of UN Day. Very appropriate day to discuss Millennium Development Goals, WSIS goals, and what is the correlation and interplay between them.

Maybe before looking for Mr. Gordon Manuain and giving floor to him, if he's in the room ‑‑ is he ‑‑ I would like maybe to give a little bit of a context and background.

As Chairman told, we are approaching 2015, which is the year when the international community will be reviewing achievements and implementation decisions which were adopted in the year 2000 at the Millennium Summit, and will be looking how far we have reached at National level, at international level, in implementing Millennium Development Goals.

WSIS which took place in 2003 and 2005 also adopted a set of goals and I will remind about them all of you and during the Tunis phase, one of the issues under consideration was how the implementation of WSIS decisions would feed into a review of Millennium Development Goals, and how technology could become an integral part of post‑2015 Sustainable Development agenda. So this was clearly identified the WSIS process should assist in developing ‑‑ in reaching Millennium Development Goals, and technology should be seen as catalyst and engine of development.

In this session, we will try to explore and better understand how these two processes are related, and how we will get to the conclusions but before going and giving floor to my first speaker this session, I would like to remind that Millennium Development Goals consist of 8 major goals, and they are: Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal higher education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality rates, improving maternity health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development. Geneva phase identified or set up WSIS goals which were supposed to be attained in 2015, and I again will just list those goals to remind ourselves and to show how far we have gone ‑‑ or how far technological development has gone and you will see that some of those goals maybe look a little bit naive, because they represent our understanding in which direction technology is developing in 2003.

And WSIS goals establish community access points to connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTs, to connect scientific and research centers with ICTs, to connect public libraries, cultural centers, museums, Post Offices and archives with ICTs. To connect health centers and hospitals with ICTs. To connect all local and central Government departments and establish websites and e‑mail addresses. To adapt all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the Information Society, taking into account National circumstances. To ensure that all of the world's population have access to television and radio services. To encourage the development of content, and put in place technical conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on the Internet. And to ensure that more than half of world's inhabitants have access to ICTs within their reach.

So these were goals which WSIS set for development with the perspective of 10 years. It is very interesting to see how far we have gotten in technological evolution, and see that some of them really are already outdated. Nevertheless, if we look and analyze whether these goals are attained, we clearly can see that many of them are, but certainly not all of them, and in remaining years, we may wish to put additional emphasis to those goals where attainment falls slightly short.

So I do not see Mr. Gordon Manuain. Is Mr. Gordon Manuain here in the room? Please. I was desperately waiting for you, Sir.

Mr. Manuain is special Advisor of the President of Indonesia, and special envoy on Millennium Development Goals. He's in charge of overseeing regional and global affairs, and he joined the presidential office in 2010, and Mr. Manuain will be sharing with us experience of Indonesia in attaining Millennium Development Goals. Mr. Manuain, the floor is yours.

>> Can we please switch to the screen computer?

>> J. KARKLINS: While we're waiting and fixing some technical problems, I would like to announce that the next speaker after Mr. Manuain will be Mr. Felix Dodds who will join us remotely and Felix if you hear us please be prepared to join after the presentation of Mr. Manuain.

>> G. MANUAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to everybody. It's both a pleasure and honor for me to be here to attend this very important meeting of IGF Forum, and today I'll share with you our views about the implementation of the MDG initiative and its role in generating some progress to achieving the NCT Indonesia and we will see the special will ‑‑ I'll focus on a special emphasis on partnership, because it has been a driving force for achieving MDGs in Indonesia.

All right, okay. Before we go into any depth, let's take a look at the current status of Indonesia ‑‑ the current MDG status in Indonesia.

Like many countries in the world Indonesia makes level of progress in MDG achievement. As you can see here, our MDG achievement can be categorized into three groups. First are the targets that are already achieved. Here there are targets related to MDG 1 that is poverty of alleviation and there's also target related to general equalities and also there's a target that has been achieved in MDG 6, decrease in tobacco prevalence. There's a target that you can see here that these are the targets on track to be achieved by 2015.

But perhaps what is more important is that there are other targets that needs hard work or extraordinary achievement in order to meet this target by 2015. I'd like to call your attention to these three issues. First is high maternal mortality in Indonesia. Currently, the rate stands at 228 maternal mortalities per 100,000 live births, and we have also huge problems with the increased proportion of people with HIV/AIDS, which are still make every effort to deal with this problem.

And also, we also have to work hard to deal with MDG‑7. This is related to high level of greenhouse gas emissions and safe drinking water and sanitation.

Slide. And there are also, when we talk about MDG achievement, we have some huge challenges to deal with to make sure that we can achieve MDG achievement by 2015. We can see this challenge from the geographical perspective. As you may know, Indonesia is the largest archipelagic country in the world. It has a considerable span and barrier so you can imagine it's hard to cover from Aceh and Arian in the north, to Rote, situated in the southern area of Indonesia, and we also have infrastructure problem that should be improved continually and the infrastructure problem pose a significant challenge to providing access to health care service particularly community health center for poor people in underserved remote areas in Indonesia. And also we can see the challenge from population perspective. As you may know, Indonesia is a country with the fourth largest population. Now, the figure stands at 250 million and we also see that the population growth in Indonesia seem to outpace the progress of development. It means that we will have to work very hard to keep pace with the progress of development.

And we have a success story of family planning in the past, but now we have ‑‑ we are trying very hard to be able to repeat the past successes. Also, from the population ‑‑ from the perspective of also the effect that the bulk of our population is a young population at a productive age. This means that when these young people reach an elderly age, because our life expectancy rate is improving now, that means that in the future we have to take care how to deal with the growing portion of the aging population in Indonesia. This is one of the problems that we should deal with in the future.

Slide. And one of the typical problems in Indonesia is related to women's and children's health in Indonesia. There is a concern that the achievement made in this area, particularly in reducing maternal mortality rate, is not enough, because we have to meet the target of 102 maternal mortalities by 2015, but now we ‑‑ our figure stands at 228 maternal mortality, so we have to work hard to reach the target.

And we need an out of the box approach and a synergy between Government, Civil Society, private sector and academia, media, all come together to make changes to meet this target related to women's and children's health in Indonesia.

Slide in fact, the Government of Indonesia has put MDG achievement at the top of its agenda and there have been some milestones since the adoption of MDGs in 2000. Chief among these are National road map to accelerate the achievement of the MDG Indonesia. This road map was released in 2010, and serve as a guideline for all the MDG stakeholders in Indonesia to accelerate their programme to meet the MDG target by 2015 and also one important ‑‑ another important thing is that there has been mainstreaming of the MDG into National long‑term and midterm development plans so our National development plans have been united into the MDGs so all the priority of the MDGs are now in our development plans. And we also mainstream MDGs into National budget and there another important thing, there has been progress in District and provincial effort in terms of translating some commitments into action by making their Action Plan to accelerate MDGs at the grassroots level.

And another important thing is that we have been organising an annual Indonesia MDG Awards, and this form of partnership between Government and Civil Society and private sector in accelerating the MDG achievement at grassroots level.

Slide and when we talk about who initiate the implementation of MDG programmes in Indonesia, we have a two‑prong strategy here so we adopt what might be called a top‑down and bottom‑up approach to accelerate MDG achievement in Indonesia so in this context Government is not only the sole ‑‑ the sole entity responsible for achieving MDGs but now we have seen a greater level of participation by community.

They have taken responsibility to improve the life through their own programmes. This I call community development programmes that initiated by communities.

Slide. And let me give you one example of the how MDG programme put special emphasis on the partnership in Indonesia.

Over the last two years we have been developing and implementing a programme. We call it Pencerah Nusantara. It means nations guiding light. This is an integrated health care programme intervention to provide access to health care service in underserved remote areas in Indonesia. One important thing about this programme is that it integrates a lot of aspects, so it put educations at the core. Also there are community empowerment in addition to health. So it's not health itself, but we combine it with education of the community and community empowerment.

Slide. And we realize that Governments alone is not able to ensure the success of MDGs so what we have been trying to do is to engage other sectors in Indonesia to come together to participate in a sustainable partnership to achieving MDGs in Indonesia, so there is a strong focus on a partnership between CSO, private sector, academia, media, and both National and local Governments in our programmes of Pencerah Nusantara, of nation guiding light.

Slide. Now let me move a bit to what now has been a hot issue that is post‑2015 development agenda. There's been a lot of talk of post‑2015 development agenda and I think it's time for us to lay the groundwork for good new development agenda and we need to add an enabling condition for this new development agenda.

Most of the talk about post‑2015 development agenda revolves around Sustainable Development. Here we can see that as you might know, there are three pillars of economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. What we'd like to stress is that we should bring all these different pillars properly together.

So we should not emphasize one pillar over another, or we should not pursue economic development to the exclusion of environmental sustainability, but we see them in a well balanced manner. And we believe that this Sustainable Development should be underpinned by peace, security, and good governance to ensure that the success of these development goals.

Slide. Now, as some of you may have understood, high level panel of eminent persons on post‑2015 development agenda in which our President is one of the Chairs in this high level panel, they have submitted a report to the Secretary‑General of the United Nations and they highlight several important points, and one of those is that we need ‑‑ the new development agenda need to be driven by five big transformative shifts. So there are 5 important points that are stressed in the report by the high level panel.

Those are: Leave no one behind. Put sustainable development at the core. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth, build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all, and most important of all is that this goal should be achieved by forging a new global partnership.

Slide. And in that report submitted by high level panel, there is also some emphasis on partnership. They would like to see an opportunity to expand the traditional partnerships so in the post‑2015 development agenda we will have more broad‑based new global partnership, so this partnership should not only involve Governments, but also cut across also social classes, like people living in poverty, people with disabilities, women, Civil Society and indigenous and local communities, marginalized groups, multilateral institutions and many others.

So in essence, it's time for the international community to use new ways of working that is to go beyond an aid agenda.

Slide. So the high level panel would like to explore the possibility of developing development assistance in the future. So they would like to broaden the opportunity to expand the traditional modalities of development assistance. For example, there is a possibility to include private sector through social investment and inclusive business. By such a partnership between Government and private sector, it is expected that these will bolster significantly the achievement of the MDG targets.

Slide. And when we ‑‑ our work focus on as I mentioned before, our work focus much on partnership, and usually these are the groups that we work with. There are youth groups or students, and there are also private sector. There are also Government, at both National and local level, and Civil Society.

The unique thing about this is that each group usually brings in their own expertise, so usually, youth groups have an expertise that's mass campaign through social media, and private sector usually have the ability in developing partnership, replicate corporate values, and Government usually good at creating enabling condition, enabling environment, for this MDG programme. And Civil Society usually is well versed in building community capacity and doing evaluation, feedback and reporting.

Slide. Now, again, collective action has been an important key word in our achievement of the MDG target by 2015. We believe that without collective action, much of our effort will have no sustainable results. So we put a lot of emphasis on collective action. We have worked with Civil Society, with Government at both National and local level, with private sector, and with the community at grassroots level, so by now, and after MDGs there will be some unfinished agenda, MDG agenda, and this should be pursued after 2015 so we feel by collective action we can achieve ‑‑ we'll in a better position to achieve MDG target.

Now, this concludes my overview of the implementation of MDGs in Indonesia and the progress we've made with some emphasis on the intersector partnership. Thank you for your attention.

>> J. KARKLINS: Thank you, Mr. Manuain, for your rich presentation. Congratulations with achievements. Indonesia has gone really far. You clearly know what are the still areas where you need to put emphasis, and also as you mentioned, Indonesian President is playing very important role in the process which will lead to definition of Sustainable Development Goals.

Now I will turn to Mr. Felix Dodds, who is waiting for his presentation from his hometown in England. Felix Dodds is an author, futurist and activist. Has been involved in United Nations, works with the particular field on sustainable development, and is well known for his book "How to Lobby at Intergovernmental Meetings: Mine is a Cafe Latte," which he wrote together with Michael Straus.

Mr. Dodds, if you hear us, please, you have your 7 to 8 minutes.

>> F. DODDS: ‑‑ what happened in the ‑‑ so something to consider, as well. I'd like to start by complimenting the Government of Indonesia on their leadership in the ‑‑ 

>> INTERPRETER: Mr. Chairman, the sound is very fuzzy.

>> F. DODDS: ‑‑ High‑level Panel, and I think it shows a move of leadership to understand from more developed countries to leading developing countries in a number of areas but particularly in the runup for Rio+20. We saw Mexico as well as Indonesia and India and Brazil and Colombia taking leadership and I think that that's a very good sign.

I wanted to cover in my presentation four areas. A little bit of the history of the MDGs, implementations of some of the issues, the development of the Sustainable Development Goals which was mentioned just in the runup to Rio, and I'll return to that in the final session in a little bit more depth. And other things which the WSIS might consider.

So I remember well the preparation for the millennium 2000 because it was happening just as the World Summit on Sustainable Development was starting to gain traction. Like many environment and Sustainable Development NGOs ‑‑ I was the Director of made the strategic decision that the millennium Summit seemed to be going well. We therefore decided to put our efforts into securing what we hoped would be a new deal between developed and developing countries, the agenda 2021 and we hope this will be done at the World Summit on sustainable development in September 2002. Of course the election in the United States in 2000 and 9/11 was considerable going to derail the progress around the Summit. And we were many of us wrong I think in what the millennium Summit was going to achieve.

In the last 3 months before the Summit, the UN Secretary‑General, and The World Bank came forward with what became the Millennium Development Goals and you have to remember these were ‑‑ 

[ Unstable audio ]

Targets which were part of the original 1996 paper stating the 21st century and as was mentioned I think by our moderator, there were 8 goals, and for the Sustainable Development community, MDG‑7 was very important ensuring environmental sustainability but it was actually a very weak goal ‑‑ in September 2000. It was clearly a top‑down approach, and that brought the wrath of many of the NGOs. The entire process has been accused of lacking legitimacy if it failed to include the voices of the very participants the Millennium Development Goals seek to assist. Most of those people have become supporters and have helped to try and see those targets achieved.

And that's why in the process for the SDG there's much more ‑‑

For example a target was added in the MDG7 after the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the global partnership MDG was amended after 2005 World Summit.

On the implementation it's really interesting because the 1990s saw significant commitments made by Governments at the Rio Summit, the Copenhagen Summit, the women's Beijing conference, the Cairo conference, the conference and the other Summit. By 2000 it was clear governments seemed to be unable to implement across such a wide area and were having significant problems in prioritizing resources to the most important areas.

For the MDGs were an attempt to simplify this. 8 goals with only 21 targets. So the criticism with the targets was that they were not ambitious enough. Target 7B for example aims to by 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers. In context India alone is estimated to have close to 100 million slum dwellers so the ambition in certain cases was as high as it needed to be.

One of the significant results of the Summit in 2000 was that overseas development assistance started to go up again, after a period of 10 years from 1992 to 2000 where we saw no real increase in ODA. The next 10 years saw it double from 60 billion to around 120 billion a year and this went a long way to accelerate implementation, a challenge that was underlying 2008 at the UN special session on MDGs, when the UN Secretary‑General said this about the development agenda: Looking ahead to 2015 and beyond, he said, there is no question that we can achieve the overarching goal. We can put an end to poverty.

But he also recognized the challenge of the financial crisis. He went on to say, we face a global economic slowdown and security crisis both of uncertain magnitude and duration. Global warming has become more apparent. These developments will directly affect our effort to reduce poverty. The economic slowdown will diminish the incomes of the poor. The food crisis will raise the number of hungry people in the world and push millions more into poverty, and climate change will have a disproportionate impact on the poor. The need to address these concerns, pressing as they are, must not be allowed to detract from our long‑term effort to achieve the MDGs. We need to keep the focus on the MDGs as we confront these new challenges.

Those were very, very important words and reflected in a sense why some of the MDGs are now not being delivered, because the reality is now that there will be only a few of those MDG targets and as many developed countries have started to drop their ODAP contribution. Though it's not everything it does for the least of the developed countries play a significant role.

A country dropped back under 0.7% GNP target this year. On the positive side, the U.K. reached a target with the political support of all parties. To some extent that was the consequence with what I call the Band‑Aid generation. U.K. citizens and now politicians in power were in the 1980s raised millions of dollars we gave to famines and leadership ‑‑ 

It started with a single do they know it's Christmas, possibly the most influential.

[ Off Microphone ]

Development aids. The reason we're seeing some of these goals now is the process has had a yearly global reports on the progress to deliver the MDGs. We've seen an annual review of goals for UN annual Ministry of Review on biannual development Forum. We've seen Government aid departments focusing on the goal but of course by them doing that they have taken money away from other areas which have suffered in the last ‑‑ years. We've seen National implementation strategies as the Government of Indonesia was indicating in their presentation, often linked to support from the UN and The World Bank. And so the coherence at the National level is playing a significant role and as Indonesia also indicated many countries has been through the support of stakeholders whether it's the private sector, NGOs or community‑based organisations.

And I'm looking at the third area, the development of the Sustainable Development Goals and the runup to Rio. The idea of the Sustainable Development Goals was articulated in July 2011 at a Rio+20, a Government sponsored event on institutional framework for Sustainable Development, held in Solo, Indonesia, presented by the Director of Economic and Social Environmental Affairs in the Colombian Government, supported by Guatemala and other Governments shortly afterwards, such as Peru and UAE, and that pushed the Sustainable Development Goals coming from development countries, again showed that transfer of leadership from developed countries to developing countries. The original proposal was grounded on the idea that the MDGs played a significant role in focusing the world community but that that focus was too narrow and that 7 of the 8 goals were focused only on developed countries. The only universal goal in the 8 focused on the environment which I mentioned seemed to be very weak by many of the people in the environment and Sustainable Development community. The original proposal for the MDG indicated a reinvigoration of MDG7 by updating the agenda of the Johannesburg plan of the implementation with up to date Sectorial targets.

Although the original proposal significantly evolved over the months up to Rio+20, the Solo Chair's text also reflected the value of new ideas. It said that there is a significant interest in the discussion of Sustainable Development Goals. The Chair's text also reflected the likely difficulty in negotiating new goals this during the Rio+20.

In September 2011, NGOs and other stakeholders met in Bonn at the UN DPI conference and they put on the table for the first time a set of coherent goals, 17 of them. It's well worth looking back to that particular document that came out of that conference to see the influence that it had in the thinking of Governments as far as what MDGs should be considered and a runup to Rio+20 there was much conflict between the environmental and development community. Development community wanted to continue the MDG approach and the Sustainable Development community wanted these new goals to be encompassing both poverty eradication and Sustainable Development.

And that any new goals needed to be universal and would also address issues such as consumption and production to enable all of us to live in a more sustainable way on this planet.

I will continue this story in the final session on how the SDGs have developed but I wanted to end by saying one of the most significant outcomes of Rio+20 was the agreement that there would be a Sustainable Development Goals. The question of course is what would be the relationship with the MDGs? What Rio+20 did do was to start a rebirth of Sustainable Development as the main conceptual framework for development in the 21st century, and by doing so, offer a real chance that we might be able to address these challenges together.

So it's a fine line, some issues where I think the WSIS process might learn something from. One, that money follows goals. This was clear from the MDGs. That if you don't have any targets or indicators that are embedded in these new goals, then money will be less for the area that you're interested in.

That engagement with the preparatory process will be critical for the process. You need to be engaged now and you need to be engaged in a very fully in front way. That any National follow‑up mechanisms that are set up and again we heard from Indonesia how effective theirs was, any follow‑on process, you need to integrate the WSIS into that one process.

The collaboration with other sectors will help deliver your agenda work. Working in silos does not.

Perhaps I could end with a few words from Albert Einstein who said: Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow, but the important thing is not to stop questioning. Thank you.

>> J. KARKLINS: Thank you very much, Felix. It's a very, very good presentation, and puts us ‑‑ really gave us very good perspective. Thank you.

I know that we are running very late, and I think since we had very ‑‑ two very rich presentations, I don't believe that there will be any specific questions about MDGs and relationship between WSIS and MDGs. I just want to finalize my part of the presentation ‑‑ or session maybe by putting on the screen one picture which indicates the complexity of process which leads towards the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals.

And I see if we can switch to the main computer. Seems it doesn't work. Does it?

>> Can the technicians please switch to the front computer?

>> J. KARKLINS: You see now on the screen how many work streams are organised which should converge to one document, which will be then endorsed by international community in ‑‑ as a Sustainable Development goal framework after 2015.

What we see today very clearly, that until now, technology is not very much present in any of available documents of this process. And that is really a pity, and during the next session which will be moderated by Robert Pepper, Vice President from Cisco, we will demonstrate the technology indeed can be catalyst and can be in some cases a mode of development and hopefully that this will encourage those who have the power to bring that to attention of millennium or Sustainable Development agenda preparatory process.

Robert, I am giving the microphone to you now.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you, Janis. We are a little bit behind on time, but we are going to camp up, and I want to make sure that we have time for discussion, as well as from the remote moderators.

I will dispense with long biographies, and just tell people who are speaking. This is actually for me the very exciting part of the session. Those of you who know me know that I'm very pragmatic, so I try to go to what are some real examples. We've had a great conversation so far on the framework, what's possible, how to think about it, but we have three short presentations that demonstrate concrete experiences on how the Internet, and how what we're doing here at the Internet Governance Forum has had a direct impact on development. First, Maarten Botterman, Chairman of the Board for the PIR, public interest ridge industry will show us a video. Farid Maruf, the country Director in Indonesia for the Grameen Foundation is going to again I think ‑‑ do you also have a video? No, you're just going to talk about what you're doing.

And then Jorge Abin De Maria from Uruguay is going to talk about some examples he's been working with so let's get right into it. Maarten, the floor is yours, and let's see the video.

>> M. BOTTERMAN: Yes, thank you, Robert. Let's see the video of a very short connecting remarks.

>> R. PEPPER: If we could roll the video. There we go.

[ Video in language other than English ]

>> R. PEPPER: Because there was not a German to English translation they couldn't do the scribing. Those who could see the screen could see the subtitles could see the English. But the people in the back might not have been able to see it up there so you might want to give a short, very ‑‑ it was great for those who could actually understand German or read the English subtitles.

>> M. BOTTERMAN: I very much appreciate the initial introductions about Millennium Development Goals which are larger than life and really about people in this world and the intent with this video was very much to share real people doing things, things that were never possible before, and are really truly enabled by the Internet or made much more effective by the Internet.

So it's issues by the development community and it's really a call for of course the development community by using the current possibilities even better with all the limitations that are there and the IGF is one of the places that contribute to that understanding.

Next to that it's the industry also creating a more supportive Internet every day, and the support is in two ways. One is of course which has been clearly the subject at the IGF as well, it's more access. It's connection, it's connecting people, connecting institutions. At the same time, it's also about adding value and I can see that the emphasis is often from the I would almost say the Northern part to be more on the use and adding value. In the south, the emphasis is on getting connected. You can't do one without the other. We can't do both and we do in this world that's increasingly globalizing the role of NGOs contribute more and more and are an essential element and one of the things we for instance are working on right now is to get a brand NGO in the world which is only for NGOs and this will help them to get even better access to donors, to people they step up to and in that way, they established big NGOs that won't need that but it's the small and medium sized NGOs in the world that will be able to den fit in this way even better from the Internet.

So this is a little bit of what the industry can do to help, and it's really about empowering the world to step up to not lean back and wait for Governments, but all act together in reaching out to those goals we all care about.

>> M. KUMMER: Just a quick message to the scribes: You had the wrong speaker. That was Maarten Botterman from the PIR registry not Jorge Abin De Maria, so please correct in the final transcript. Thank you.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you, Markus. Maarten, one of the things you pointed out is that it's focusing on applications and content that what we would think of as the demand side in addition to the supply side. It's not just about the connection, that's only the necessary but not sufficient first step. It's actually how we use it and that I think is extremely important as part of the conversation about how do we think about the Internet and Internet Governance to support development.

Sometimes we tend to focus just on the Internet piece, which is nice. It's great. That's what we do. But the real benefits are how people use it.

>> M. BOTTERMAN: Yes, and I think in this, it's okay that if you're not connected, obviously you're focused on getting connected but it's not a big investment to look at what the rest of the world ‑‑ what's happening out there and benefit from all the extra added value that is increasing every day in different areas, and make sure you take that on Board.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. Now we are moving to Farid Maruf so the scribe can attribute the next bit to Farid. Farid.

>> F. MARUF: Thank you. Yeah. I'm representing the organisation Grameen Foundation, which the mission is poverty eradication. Within our organisation we have several areas. I'm going to discuss a little bit example what we do in the other part of the world in Indonesia on these three areas.

The first area we work on is the information services. And information services, a good example that we have is we create a platform for health, maternal health in Ghana to help reduce that ‑‑ the first presentation mentioned about child deaths, mothers. So we have an application platform that help the mothers to have better information how to take care of their pregnancy, and when they have delivered the baby, they also have the knowledge how to take care of their kids.

And we have application also to help them to monitor by inputting the data and regularly sending message to the mothers, like: Now it's 7 months old. Your baby should be able to do this. And so we have that in Ghana, very successful. The project is called MOTECH. Then we replicate that in India with more theme on HIV/AIDS.  

The other part of information service is agricultural and other services. We create a ecosystem with power of mobile technology in Uganda and we're trying to create a private sector sustainability to ensure that this will be beyond the donor money.

Many of extension workers fall into the Government domain in many countries, but we're trying to extend that and create incentive for privatizing the extension worker. Example of this application is to provide the farmer with good farming practice, certification ‑‑ certification traceability. If they do they will receive more money for their product. In Indonesia we're trying to replicate that because we also see a lot of challenges in the small farmers initiative.

A good example, cocoa industry, our productivity is half of the other countries. For hectare, Indonesia could produce around 800, while South America could produce 2,000 kilograms so there's room for improvement, rather than just giving them information about market price, we also try to improve their yield.

The other part of that area is what the what we call poverty tools and insight. This is also where we're using Internet where we create the tools, a scorecard, now available in 46 countries, to easy for any organisation that would like to work in poverty eradication, to evaluate and to profile and to target their constituents. These poverties derive from National census from each country. Usually came from 200 questions. Then we do some correlation and we come up with 10 most simple questions for us to see how poor somebody is. The question is simple, to ask and to validate. The question never asks about income but it will ask you condition of living.

For example in Indonesia we ask what kind of toilet they have. What kind of gas, whether they're using 3 kilogram gas for cooking or 20 kilogram cooking. From there you will get score 1 to 100. Then based on this score, you can also create what we call poverty outreach reports, and also we can use the monitoring over time.

Currently, Indonesia I think it's already been used for almost 2 million audience. Some of the big institutions intensively using this as part of their operation.

The last one is Financial Services, where we're trying to find potential product using mobile technology that could help the poor, especially, to reach out the pyramid, the bank by helping them to define a product based on customer needs rather than from the lab or from the desk, so we go to the last mile asking them what kind of product. Currently we work one project that we have in Uganda for example, trying to find a simple product like goal based saving where someone could have a goal, like want to send kids to the school and then they contact their friends, their family, and everybody will chip into SMS mobile money to save the money to that goal.

The other product that I like to tell is called Me2Me, where somebody could sell their money to themselves over a certain time, so like saving but because this person doesn't have a bank account it's a good way for them to hide this money from somebody, including their husband, for example.

Yeah, I think that's enough.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you, Farid. Jorge, the floor is yours. And then we will have time for questions from the floor, as well as remote. Go ahead. Thank you, Jorge.

>> J. ABIN DE MARIA: Thank you. A member of the Board of the Agency for the e‑Government and Information Society development of my country Uruguay. Since founding this 6 years ago, we have worked based in digitalization. Actually we're in the third version and it has 15 goals and 79 mission targets.

My presentation today is a report on some progress made, and in particular to Plan Ceibal. It is one laptop per child. I'd like to remark that Plan Ceibal began 6 years ago, and 6 years is the length of the primary school cycle so at the end of this year, the first child who received a laptop is going to end this primary school cycle so we are evaluating that.

Please I have a video, if the technical people could put it in the screen.

[ Video ]

>> R. PEPPER: If the video continues, then please.

Could we continue the video? Yeah, thank you. There was more?

So click "play."

[ Video continues ]

Could we stop the video, please? Thank you. Thank you, Jorge. A lot of questions, which this is great. It's very concrete, how you've used the Internet in a plan, going back now 6 years, deploying it, putting it in schools, and you're now about to evaluate, which is always the tough question, which is: Okay, we had this great idea. Does it work? What did we learn? How can we improve? So I'd love to hear about that very, very briefly, because I definitely want ‑‑ we need to leave some time to open up for the questions, but thank you. Go ahead.

>> J. ABIN DE MARIA: I would like to remark that the best tool to teach are the teachers. And we have introduced a new tool, that's the laptop, but the laptop is not only ‑‑ not a tool for learning. It's a tool for improve the capacities of the children.

They now are having the ability to access the Internet, give computer to the family and use it to learn English, to learn math. We have agreement with the school in England, they import by e‑Learning English to the children in Uruguay, so it's important to see that. We are not working with a tool only for traditional education.

>> R. PEPPER: No, and this is exactly the point. So if we can come back to that. I first want to see whether there are any questions on the three presentations that were great, again, very concrete. Very practical.

And we actually have seen some real‑world examples of how the technology and the Internet is being used. Jorge's last point I think is extremely important: It's really about people, and the technology is not stand‑alone. It's how do we use the technology and integrate it into the people processes, right? We sometimes forget that, but this is extremely, extremely important.

Let me open it up. It's here, and is there anybody in the back? Because we have some roving microphones, as well. If you could introduce yourself.

>> S. SANTOSA: Thank you, Bob. My name is Setyanto Santosa. I'm from the Indonesian ICT society. I fully agree and endorse what the moderator mentioned. If in the scheme of the United Nations for the MDG, the technology was ignored, so it seems to me that take it for granted these are available.

Like in the pillar, three pillars that are mentioned by Mr. Gordon from Indonesia, the first pillar you can look at that, there is an infrastructure, but in the Government understanding, infrastructure is not including ICT. Infrastructure is hard infrastructure like the road, harbor, airport and so on. The Government consider that ICT already available built by private sector, so therefore they have to think about that. So my organisation was convinced, look, we need the broadband to the village. I fully agree that teacher is very important but if the infrastructure is not available there, I think it will be harm and danger if we teach let's say with the very slow speed of the Internet facility. Thank you very much.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. Any other ‑‑ we'll go Jane and then here, okay. Jane?

>> J. COFFIN: Thank you very much. Jane Coffin from The Internet Society. I would also amplify the comment from our last speaker and suggest that rather just in one of those three pillars, that ICTs are something that must horizontally cross all of those layers. I'll give you an example of a situation related to the earthquake in Haiti, where one aid development organisation has not even factored in ICT when they were going in to do disaster management relief.

I was on a team working with them and people were talking about what needed to be done, and we thought well, of course you know that communications and ICT is one of the most critical things related to going in and it shouldn't be an after‑thought but it was so the interesting thing for all of us, and we work very closely with bringing ICT around the world at The Internet Society, is that perhaps we should rethink where that ICT layer is. Is it horizontal across? Or do you just put it in specific pillars? I think we may want to rethink how that's done.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. That actually raises an important point which is some of the work that's been done recently at The World Bank that has looked at general‑purpose technologies, the combustion engine, electricity, basic telephony, these are general purpose technologies on which other things are built, computing. Their conclusion is that broadband is one of those general‑purpose technologies, and therefore, like the combustion engine and electricity needs to be thought of as horizontally enabling technology.

So I would endorse what you're saying, and there's some empirical evidence to support that, as well. And we don't think about it enough in that sense.

We had another comment sitting next to ‑‑ down here sitting next to Desiree.

>> Thank you very much. My name is Eddie from Internet Society of Indonesia. I came with Dr. Santosa. He's my Chairman. Probably what I would like to tell in this Forum is not too much far from what Dr. Setyanto has said. When we're talking about the Internet we will be automatically related it into the quality of the network by itself. I would like to share with you all here that Indonesia since 1993 and 1994, all the network infrastructure built by the private sectors in which the Government spending not too much for this, instead of they do the taxation, then they grow charges in very significant numbers in which this is a big burden for the operators.

I think when we concerned that the Internet will be ‑‑ will play an important role on how to maintain the growth and sustainability of the development, I think the IGF will also has the biggest, hard to convince the respective Governments on how to spending in significant numbers of money for the infrastructures, rather than leave it to the operators.

But this is what happened in Indonesia. I think this has been important, so that's why, you know, in the new plan for the law of telecommunication initiative we from MASTEL would like to draw the attention from the Government that they will have to spend significant numbers of money in the network. Thank you.

>> R. PEPPER: So we did a study with the UN Broadband Commission that was published in July, and it examined National broadband plans, and whether or not having a plan ‑‑ whether it was called a plan or a strategy or something else ‑‑ whether having one made a difference. And the short answer is empirically we found, yes, it does make a difference, and it's not just correlational, because it was time series data 10 years, 160‑plus countries.

There's a causality. One of the findings, conclusions, is that we had ‑‑ this was with the Broadband Commission, we did this research collaboratively with them ‑‑ is that public‑private partnerships with much more effective than the private sector going alone or Government going alone.

And what we found was that if it's the private sector going alone ‑‑ because frankly, the private sector does most of the investment ‑‑ is on top of the most advanced cutting‑edge technology, is more flexible and can adapt more rapidly than Governments which tend to move more slowly, by design, which is a good thing. But because of that, the private sector has to lead in the implementation, but what we found was that if you left it just to the private sector, there would be gaps that would not be filled.

And therefore, the role of Government is to set out the vision, the goals, orchestrate, coordinate, and fill gaps, and the gaps are particularly focused on rural underserved areas, and low‑income areas, low‑income people. So it's really a blend. It's not either/or. It's the public‑private partnership that we found was the most effective approach and I think this is essentially what you were saying.

There's a separate question is: How much does Government actually have to spend to fill those gaps? And there are a lot of techniques that Government can use to get more private sector investment. Some of the spending or techniques they can use are indirect with tax credits so it's not having to necessarily write a check, right? But it is an expenditure or an investment by Government.

So I think the point that you made is extremely important.

>> Yes, thank you. But I'd like to add a little bit more. When you said the Government will have to fill the gap there's ‑‑ like, for the rural areas, in Indonesia, for the rural areas and for the economic viable areas, it's only built by the private sectors through the scheme of what we call USO, Universal Service Obligations. For the Government, for the operators, they have to pay 1.25% from the gross revenues, from the gross revenues of the operation yearly. That's a big amount of funding actually, in which when this use of funds coming back to these sectors, to industry, maybe it will be help, as well.

But currently, what they get from the USO fund is not even 25% coming back to the sectors. That is also a problem with us. Thank you.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. Jorge ‑‑ by the way, you can speak in Spanish. I think we have translation in Spanish into English, and so this will be easier for you. We should have said this at the beginning.

>> J. ABIN DE MARIA: Gracias. In my country, communications belongs to the responsibility of the State. And this has allowed us to use the benefits to provide all the services through the entirety of our country of course with the existing communications infrastructure, I'm talking about Telecom, Internet, et cetera. So this means that the Government has a considerable responsibility to cover those areas, those regions, where there is not the ability to obtain those communication facilities yourself. And this is part of the responsibility of the Government.

Not all of the investment that has been made require huge amounts. You can give for example $100 per child per year, and that will give considerable benefits to the child. Thank you.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. At the microphone ‑‑ first, Patrick will go to the microphone, then come back to Patrick. Please.

>> Hi. My name is Ramanen from India. I work for the charter group. We launched an initiative called Empowering India leveraging technology and the Internet for creative economy and Sustainable Development in India in the emerging cities. One of the purposes here was really to integrate and bring together a multistake dialogue between academics in emerging city, local Government, and local industry.

And how do we ensure that together we create the opportunities for better employment and increasing the economy of that local place? And the challenge that we found really was in India, in particular if we go to the more rural places, the challenge is that of skills development.

You have to have very good skills development initiatives. We're talking about more than a billion people with more than 250 million absolutely having no background or education or training and so on.

So I'd like to know: What are the ways IGF facilitates dialogue in this direction? And any particular incentives that the Indonesian Government for example in their programme were able to ‑‑ they could share some of the best practices, which enables skills development at a completely different level as compared to where we are today.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. Why don't we go ‑‑ we have two other interventions and then maybe come back to see whether there's a response, specifically from Indonesia. Patrick, and then over here.

>> P. RYAN: Thank you, Pepper. I wanted to talk a little bit about this interesting discussion around how to promote infrastructure in different countries and this is one of the most fascinating Public Policy debates we're having around the world. There are so many different models but there's also a lot of different kinds of infrastructure that often get conflated here and so I think it's important to talk through that a little bit.

One of the fundamental kinds of infrastructure that connects everybody are the fiber optic cables and the types of backbones that bring the Internet to locations, and then the access Section of the network. It's really important to have the right model, and there's a lot of really interesting experiments around the world, around how to best optimize that with public‑private partnerships, whether or not these are state entities and I think that we should really let these models flourish and develop because there are ‑‑ we have a consultant that just put a paper out on this and I'll be able to share a little bit shortly that looks at some of these different models and how different kinds of things can be very effective.

Another category of local infrastructure that is absolutely critical that I believe Jane has mentioned a little bit is the role of Internet exchange points, the ability to keep traffic local and to create the proper incentives to make sure that the actors in the space really do collaborate with each other, and share information and cooperate. A light regulatory regime is often best for that but it's a relentless focus on those two aspects that then attracts what the number‑one thing is that really helps users enjoy the Internet the most, which is having things like caches and servers that can serve the video content.

As many have said, as has been discussed quite a bit this week, there's so much Internet traffic that comes over for example Youtube and other sources. It's really important to bring that locally and that can happen in caches and IXPs and those infrastructure really do that.

Finally my colleague over here from Uruguay talked about the experience in Uruguay which is really absolutely fascinating. Uruguay has some of the highest penetration of Internet use of anywhere in Latin America. It's mostly a State‑run model and State‑influenced model and the users are really, really happy. And it doesn't mean that this is the model that should work everywhere. There's some unique characteristics in Uruguay that make that effective but it's the relentless focus that Uruguay has put on these two things: On the cables, making sure the cables are in place, making sure that the IXP infrastructure is in place, that has really benefited everybody else.

And it really is acting as a leader for the region in many different ways.

>> R. PEPPER: So that was Patrick Ryan from Google. You forgot to introduce yourself. I said Patrick but people didn't know who you are.

>> P. RYAN: I apologize. Thank you.

>> R. PEPPER: No problem. Great points because it's also in one of the other sessions yesterday talking about the overall infrastructure ecosystem, right? And there's a lot of sometimes focused false choices. It's either fiber or wireless. The answer is: Yes. Right? It's keeping content locally, which is IXP, Internet exchange points, local caching, local content, keeping it within regions, within countries. There's a lot of these various pieces that all have to come together to enable exactly what you're talking about. So thank you.

>> S. HAMILTON: Thank you very much. I'm Stuart Hamilton. I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy at the international Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. And I just wanted to make some communities while we're discussing public‑private partnerships because it's an area we're working with in a number of places.

There are about 330,000 public libraries worldwide, about 230,000 of those are in developing countries. And during the life of the WSIS process, we've been able to increase almost year on year the number of public Internet access points through libraries.

Recently, we've started working quite intensely on a number of public‑private partnership projects through an initiative called Beyond Access, which you can find at beyondaccess.net. And we've found that this is a very productive way of increasing public access to the Internet in the community, particularly as the teams in Pilot countries which include the Philippines, Peru and Georgia, are made up of representatives from libraries, from the private sector, and from Government, and between these sort of three areas we're able to focus quite intensely on increasing the amount of services that libraries offer, particularly in relation to the Millennium Development Goals areas, and also to the WSIS principles.

And for those of you who are interested, I'd encourage you to check that out.

I wanted to make a very quick observation about the processes we're talking about leading up to post‑2015. My organisation, IFLA, is concentrating quite intently on trying to get access to information recognized in that framework. And as a result, we've been engaging in the process going on in New York with the open Working Group on the SDGs, the kind of parallel process to the WSIS plus 10. I was there at the General Assembly in September and I think it was just quite interesting, when I mentioned to the large number of NGOs working with development about the WSIS review that was ongoing, at a meeting of about 50 or 60 NGOs under the beyond 2015 Banner you could hear the tumble weed blow through the room. There's no recognition whatsoever amongst the CSO community and the development community that this review is ongoing, and that it could at some point meet up with the work that they're taking, that they're undergoing in New York.

Now, I'm not speaking about Governments in that respect. I'm speaking about the Civil Society groups, but it was quite interesting that none of them there recognized that this process was going on.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. Unfortunately, that's not a surprise, and going back to one of the earlier comments, oftentimes what's happening even within this ‑‑ with those of us who are steeped in this, and when we talk to Government officials, the Government officials in ICT, communications, whatever the label is, they understand and they get it. They also, though, have to ‑‑ they need help and they reach out for help to explain to their colleagues other Ministers in the Cabinet, explaining to other parts of their own Governments why this is important.

So we all share the same experience, which is: We understand, we talk to each other, but we have to broaden out to other sectors of why this is important to them. And it is, right? And it's almost like a mutual help society, helping those of us in the conversations to help others in the group, so that it expands.

And so this is a really important point. I think it's something that we should think about mutually supporting one another to spread the word of the importance.

Nick Thorne, and we're coming up against a time, we have one back here. I want to identify any others, we'll do a last round before we move on to the next Section. So 1, 2 ‑‑ any others? Okay, those two. Go ahead.

>> N. THORNE: Thank you. Bob, thank you. I just really ‑‑ my name is Nick Thorne. I'm a former bureaucrat and a former British Ambassador to the UN who is marginally involved in drawing up the MDGs while I was in New York and heavily involved in WSIS in 2005 and I just thought I would reinforce the point made by the last speaker about Civil Society and Bob that which you yourself picked up now that it is sadly fundamentally true that the two sides of Governments, one dealing with ICTs and the WSIS process if you like, and the other dealing with the MDGs, do not necessarily communicate. And by adding the word "necessarily," I think I'm being overly polite. They do not communicate. One of the problems of the way in which the or perhaps the unintended consequence of the way in which the Internet is so effectively run by a multistakeholder and diversified process is that there within the UN, within the UN family, no single advocate for the advantages of the Internet. I am not suggesting that we should create one but I do think it should be incumbent upon us to ensure that our own Governments and our own elements in Civil Society work together when we're looking at the view of the Millennium Development Goals.

A sad comment, I learned recently from a friend of mine, I have not checked this myself but it is my understanding that from a quick scan of the documentation being worked upon for the successes to the MDGs, there are only two references to the Internet. And that I think is quite extraordinary when as we've seen today from a couple of excellent presentations, I really like the one from Uruguay, the Internet, since the MDGs were created in 2000, has been such a game‑changer. And I think we should all be working to try and change that.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. That's again a really important point. I'm sorry that Janis had to step out because the exception that proves the rule is Irina from UNESCO, Janis is standing in for her. And Hamadoun Touré have come together to create the UN Broadband Commission specifically focusing on how broadband is linked back to the MDGs and it is. And they are.

And but now taking that and everything we've learned the last three years which is actually quite successful and translating it into beyond the MDGs into the SDGs, there seems to almost be a slip. It's people really focusing working, making the case, but then when it's almost a different audience or group back in New York and they don't seem to be paying attention to the real evidence that the UN Broadband Commission for example within the UN structure has come up with and actually provides the evidence of the benefits of linking the Internet and broadband to the MDGs.

>> Quite right, that and the work of The World Bank. Neither are being taken very seriously in New York, and again I think I'm being overly polite by using the word "very."

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. We had one last back over here and if you could come to ‑‑ two more. We'll do the one in the back and then we'll come to the table.

There's a microphone over here, on a stand. In back of you.

>> D. WILES: Thank you. Sorry to add another British voice in a row. I'm a current bureaucrat. My name's Dan Wiles. I work for the U.K. Foreign Office and I sort of wanted to continue this theme a little bit because I think as someone sort of currently working for Government Department on Internet Governance, we sort of realize the importance of linking development and what we're doing on Internet Governance. We're certainly not there yet. It's quite difficult to meet across the departments but we're trying to work closely between the Foreign Office, Department of Culture, Media and Sports, who lead on this for us, and DFIT to ensure we're as joined up as we can be.

I just wanted to mention that as Ed Vaizey our Minister said at the beginning of the week, we're quite keen to ensure that the WSIS review process bears in mind that the original fundamental goal of WSIS was to bridge the digital divide, and to try and ensure that the benefits of the Internet were realized for all. And we sort of are finding that the Internet Governance debate becomes a bit dominated by processes and institutions and how to make them interact with each other, and maybe we've slightly lost the points that the sort of fundamental points that it's not yet fully delivering for the whole world and we're really hoping that as part of the WSIS review we can actually focus in again on how these action lines can really be delivering economic growth and social development for all.

We've had some really interesting examples of how that can happen, at a sort of practical level today, but we also need to think about at the sort of intergovernmental and multistakeholder level how we can make that a reality in the coming years. Thank you.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you. Yeah, and the fact that Ed Vaizey, the Minister, was here, is a visible commitment. There are a number of countries that have senior officials here, and those are the countries that are leading.

And what we need to do is not just as the community, but the Government leaders globally who are here from all those countries need to spread the message, and the fact that the ‑‑ it's collaborative with multiple Ministries from the U.K., as from the U.S., as from Brazil, as from Indonesia and other countries, but we need to have more countries here with that breadth. So thank you.

We do have one last. And then we're going to move on to the next Section. And we have actually, I had checked, I thought we had to end at 11:00 but I was told no we have another hour and a half after we finish so we've gone over a little bit.

This has been a great conversation but one last intervention, and then we'll move on to the next Section. Thank you.

>> C. WACHHOLZ: Thank you. My name is Cedric Wachholz. I work for UNESCO, and I would like to come back to what you just said. I work with Janis Karklins, the Assistant Director‑General who made the initial presentation, and he briefly showed a chart where he showed all the six different groups contributing to the post‑2015 development agenda process, the open Working Group on the GA is the high level panel on feminine persons where we saw the Indonesian presentation. We have the National global and thematic, the UN global compact, regional consultations and the solutions network, and it's not easy. Some of them are multistakeholder setups and some are clearly Government initiated and because some of the lessons of the MDG review and the MDG review were that this should be more bottom‑up process, it is a multiple process and also more difficult to get in.

And UNESCO is also the youngest Chair, the United Nations group on the information Chair, which brings together 30 different UN organisations. And together, we make a joint statement on the post‑2015 development agenda, so 30 UN agencies coming together and trying to come into this process, and stressing the importance of ICTs for development including of course ITU, including UNDP and others. And for what would seem to be a strong group, it's not easy to bring up ICTs as a topic and to bring it higher up than just a horizontal theme somewhere mentioned somewhere but making it more of a pillar.

So I think it is quite obvious that the Governments are really very much in the driving seat, so everyone who works in Governments and who's connected to governments has actually a strongly way to bring and stress this message.

>> R. PEPPER: Thank you, Cedric. In fact, that's a great segue into the next section, which Nick Ashton‑Hart is going to moderate on precisely these questions about how to ensure the WSIS' next 10 years better support the Sustainable Development agenda. So, Nick, I turn it over to you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Thank you very much, Bob. So as Bob has said, that is the question, and we're going to have a slightly different format than you normally see at these sessions in that the session facilitators won't be presenting to you. Instead, they will take remote microphones. There are not enough for all five of us, so three of us will be with remote microphones, circulating through the crowd to talk to all of you, while we consider this exact point, is as we've heard the two processes are not well connected within Governments, within Civil Society, though they are well coordinated within the UN system.

And so if we take as a premise that the objective of the WSIS process, as was originally envisaged is to ensure ICT delivers Sustainable Development, real benefits for real people, and that post‑2015, we want to broaden and deepen multistakeholder engagement in WSIS and the follow‑up process, at the National and local levels, as well as the international level, to realize this objective, but that we don't want the WSIS action lines or the WSIS goals to be completely lost in the Sustainable Development agenda. We simply want to find a way where the work that is done to fulfill WSIS is connected to the broader Sustainable Development Goals, as both processes are reviewed in 2015.

And so you'll find there's a document, a short one‑page document ‑‑ well, it's two pages, but one page is references if you want to read more ‑‑ attached to this session, which suggests a few ideas for how these processes could be connected.

Cedric is kindly doing a mind map during this segment where the ideas that are proposed will all get captured and from time to time in theory switch to his laptop so you can see the ideas being mapped, and then at the end we'll have 10 minutes to sort of wrap up and see if the sense of the room is clear on one or more points about how to connect the future of the Sustainable Development Goals with the future of WSIS plus 10. I'm told that that we have a couple of comments from Felix Dodds about multistakeholder elements of the Sustainable Development process, which we don't yet have in the WSIS process that might get people to thinking.

In some ways, we have more multistakeholderism here, and in some ways there are some more multistakeholder elements that we don't have in other parts of Sustainable Development which people may not know.

>> R. PEPPER: Actually just one point on that is that the Internet Governance Forum as a multistakeholder Forum, we actually can be involved in and there's a role for the IGF for those of us who are here in this conversation that's rather unique to have the breadth of multistakeholder players from all of the sectors in one place, and to have this conversation.

That doesn't always happen, and so a question is: How can we use the IGF and leverage this this week, but more generally, including the regional IGFs, into supporting the UN and the WSIS process with the MDG development.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Exactly so. So Felix, I know you have some thoughts on this subject. Perhaps you might mention some of the multistakeholder elements at the National level that you know of that we might be interested in, the agenda 21 National action plans and the like. But be brief because we want to start roaming the room and getting people's thoughts.

We can hear you, Felix.

[ Scribe has no audio ]

>> F. DODDS: ‑‑ the members of the Sustainable Development Goals Working Group so it's not everybody so you can focus on the 70 countries that are members and try and influence them in and to take up issues relating to your agenda. I'm going to very quickly give you an example of what the Sector is doing.

In the goals you could say we already know what some of them are going to be. Know there's going to be one on food and nutrition. We know there's going to be one on water, on energy, on jobs, on education, on health. Pretty clear those are going to be goals. There are ones where we're not sure. We think gender could be a goal or cross cutting, Government could be a goal or cross cutting and then we have ones like urban goal, oceans, forest, peace and security, and we don't know which they'll be goals.

The urban community, what they've done is they've created a platform and they in fact are holding a two day meeting with the UN, and with Member States with our cities group in New York and they're preparing papers of our meeting. It's on the 5th and 6th of December. Papers on what kind of targets for an urban goal you'd have. What kinds of indicators you will have. Substantive input not just asking to be part of the process, but real stuff for Governments to take away and think about.

I would suggest you need to think about that, as well. It's not that you need to have a goal, but on these areas we already know that there are goals, you should be thinking: Are there targets or are there indicators which you or other groups can come together and put forward?

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Great, thank you, Felix, for those thought‑provoking ideas. So at this point we have Gordon, Patrick Ryan, and Farid, who if you like, gentlemen, you can ‑‑ one of you can stay up here and the rest of us can roam or vice versa. I've got three microphones here. You've just got to turn them on.

What's that? So a few possible ideas for how these processes can be connected. One is that each country could develop a National Action Plan for how to meet the WSIS goals using the action lines as their ‑‑ as the structure of their plans so that all these National plans could be then looked at along side one another and progress assessed this is an idea that would originated with the Rio conference on the environment where there's a National planning process in each country and the question could be now can the National action plans for Sustainable Development be coordinated with National action plans for WSIS implementation? And use that as an opportunity to bring the two communities together. And what would be the roles of the IGFs in each country and the regional IGFs, is there an opportunity for them to play a role in the follow‑up process in assessing progress? And then at the international level each action line could be mapped to an MDG or SDG and the international organisations currently responsible for each could then coordinate with their counterparts in the SDGs to ensure there's good coordination between them, but also to help Governments and other stakeholders understand how they're trying to assess how the implementation is going. And could the CSTD provide a venue for this work internationally, as it's been a key stakeholder in reviewing the WSIS progress, and could this body, could the IGF, have a role going forward in looking at how the WSIS targets are being met? So with that, hopefully I've asked enough questions to start with.

I'm guessing that there will be some thoughts on the subject. You can see Farid ‑‑ 

Wow. You might just check and make sure that the microphones are turned on. They were turned off to avoid feedback earlier. I see a gentleman in the front row.

>> P. RYAN: If there's no green light, it's on. If there's a green light and no audio, that's another issue.

>> M. NELSON: I'm Mike Nelson with Microsoft, and I also teach Internet Studies at Georgetown University, and I'm very glad we're having this discussion. One of the things that's going on with the Internet is that it's spawning some totally new ways of doing business and entirely new economies. In the U.S. there's a lot being written about the sharing economy. We have the caring economy where volunteers are doing more work and doing lots of things that aren't accounted for in the normal GDP statistics and it seems to me that one thing that we could do here is promote the collection of more data, not just on how the Internet is rolling out, but also on some of these new economies that are providing real benefit to real team not just in developed countries but in developing countries as well. Politicians like to know that their country is doing well when compared to other countries. When I was in the Clinton administration there was a lot of discussion about the OECD rankings of Internet development and after I left, we watched as the U.S. went down the ranking tables and it led to a lot of discussion about why we weren't deploying the Internet as fast as other countries. So I think if we could look at the data problem and see where the collection of information about the economic benefits of the internets could help inform policy that would be a very useful thing and I'd particularly urge us to look at the sharing economy, the caring economy and the app economy, because all of those areas are ones that are not being properly documented and quantified. If politicians and publics understood some of the benefits they were receiving because of the Internet there would be even more pressure to put in place policies that accelerate its development. Thank you very much.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: An excellent point. I should note too that Farid and Patrick, feel free if you have ideas too to chime in to help spur the discussion.

Also, if the AV people could put Cedric's mapping on one of the screens so we can see it develop, that would be helpful.

>> Nick, I've got somebody over here that would like to intervene if we have an opportunity. I'm standing over here to your left.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Perfect. Ah, yes, sorry.

>> G. McCOY:   I'm Garland McCoy with Inveneo, a not‑for‑profit that's been working on the challenges of the last mile if you have past the urban centers in developing countries that have been working with a lot of the local carriers, with the tech companies, Google, Microsoft, others, Intel, in trying to push out in challenging environments where there's low power, or intermittent power, but where there's a real desire that's been building out again, out past the urban centers for reliable, affordable broadband connectivity, and I think one of the things that we want to continue to bring to the forefront are some of the success stories, what's been working out there.

One of the things that I know was useful for me early on was not so much coming and saying, I'm from America, and I've got, you know, here to tell you what to do, but more, I'm from America. I started out back in the days when it was called "connected computing," and I can tell you, my God, all of the mistakes we made, problems, just in this experimentation, the struggle to try to get to where we are now, which isn't perfect, but it's, you know ‑‑ again, it's a work in progress, but providing some of that knowledge and flexibility in the field.

And so just keep focusing on that in these Forums I think would be good, as well. We've got challenges but also we're making some progress. We're seeing fiber cables come in, we're seeing some buildout, so it's good. Thanks.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: So it sounds from two very intentions that we have a need of capturing what works, and capturing it in a way that can be compared like for like in different places. In different countries. And then in a way I'm presuming to take those ideas that work and share them, sort of a best practices promulgation system.

I should note that we have a number of best practices seated behind us here, a number of whom who have just won Awards from the ISIF from the projects they're doing so I'm guessing they will appreciate the audience has taken this up without delay.

>> We must have a digital plan and of course the behavior or the culture of this Forum, multistakeholders collaboration, it should be also become the spirit of this cooperation in each country. It mean that inviting all the stakeholders and since the beginning I mentioned that this is very important, and we should have also the infrastructure, not only the, let's say, downstream. We should think also for the infrastructure the upstream.

Like in Indonesia, we have obligations, what we call the corporate responsibility, that 3% become the cost for the company and then for telcos it's beside that we have the 1.25 for USO and so we can invite also for the ODT, off the top service company. They should have also that kind of let's say obligation because they got also the benefit from all the availability of the network. So thank you very much.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: That's an excellent point. I just wanted to mention if we still if the AV people could put Cedric's laptop on one of the screens that would be helpful. It makes me think of a question for you, Gordon. When you're looking at the MDGs, and your plan of action is the WSIS action line process, is the WSIS targets incorporated into your work on the MDGs?

Or is that a separate process? I'm just curious. That was a question to you, Gordon.

>> G. MANUAIN: All right. With what we are doing at MDGs, we tried to bring together a lot of sectors that should be, we deemed that it would be appropriate to involve them to accelerate the achievement. So in terms of ICT, we think that it's very important to be integrated in our job, to accelerate achievement of the MDG target.

So I think that in the future, we need to work out a kind of a framework, some more specific framework that what we have already had now. So we could make a strong movement to speed up the achievement of the MDG target initiatives.

We have in our office, we have put a lot of focus on ICT because I think now it's the best and the most efficient way to reach out to people at all levels. So ‑‑ but we need to work out a more specific framework to support these ideas. So in the future, we'd like to see some kind of collaboration in this Sector so we can have some kind of specific framework to speed up MDG achievement by focusing on the ICT. Thank you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Perfect. That sounds like an open invitation there to work with the Indonesian Government for Indonesians in the room.

Do we have some other commenters? Please.

>> F. MARUF: I have one point that actually from this mind map it's very interesting to me, is the capturing what works. There's two elements there, promote the collection of new data and bringing forward success stories. Success story probably more on actor where promote the collection of data. It's much more incentive.

We see yesterday in presentation of one of my panel, of colleagues from eBay, showing how the effect of the data showing the effect of broadband to small, medium enterprises, export and so forth.

The question is that how do we consolidate this data, access it and make it more meaningful for us to create policy? Is this in development work, there's new approach now that to measure impact people using RCT is more rigorous way of getting into conclusion whether whatever intervention work or not work. Should we introduce this also into this? So when we design a policy, then we know it's going to be high probability that it works.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: It makes me think that maybe there's an opportunity for the economists that are increasingly engaged by both the private sector, have long been engaged by the public sector and Internet Governance organisations to collaborate perhaps on looking at how data is captured and who has the data, and can they share it.

I don't see a lot of hands raised but I see Cheryl Langdon‑Orr looking thoughtful, and as I know Cheryl well, I'm sure that she will have trenchant and pithy comments to make.

>> C. LANGDON‑ORR: Cheryl Langdon‑Orr from Australia. I wear a bunch of hats, and most people are used to me in this Internet Governance or Internet space making a certain sort of advocacy position but I want to be really clear. My thoughts in this room are about how I actually earn my money and that over the last 30 years has included running small and micro‑enterprises that are Internet dependent but one in particular does procurement for aid‑funded projects, and has been struggling with the concepts that many of you have discussed this morning, and some of the solutions I believe are being teased out in this current conversation. The need to communicate what is best practice, the need to communicate what works and what is a success, the needs to have local initiatives at a National level, but they need to be shared, because particularly as we're ‑‑ and I work with a lot of emerging and developing economies ‑‑ they're looking for examples of what they should do.

And until we share not just National initiatives and keep them internally but have a repository, and this Forum, at the Internet Governance Forum, is a good example of what could happen, but I'm wondering about: Where would my clients find this authoritative list? Where would they find the space to say what should they be doing for their role rollout of broadband that would work for them? What examples do they have right down to basic procurement of how to get ICT and infrastructure into the mainstream activities that their Government departments and public‑private partnerships are doing.

So I guess what I'd like to see as a thought bubble is, all of these "think locally act globally" stuff is great, but where do we share it and discuss it and what's the right place? Thanks.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: So, Cheryl, before you go away, so would ‑‑ being a person who likes practical and pragmatic answers, strange thing for a person like me is to be as in Geneva perhaps, but would a way be to do that, if we gather as there seems to be interest in this, we've got to gather what works. As a place to look at deciding what works and sharing what works, the National IGFs and the international IGF for larger projects, is that a possible venue? As far as meetings go I take your point there must be some place people can go online to see what works.

>> C. LANGDON‑ORR: I think it needs to be a digital on going repository we all trust in addition to these focus points that happen at the National initiatives, the subregional and regional initiatives, but it has to actually get to a top bubble, as well. Something has to happen here at IGF, because a lot of people like to think they're getting the most highest standard of advice. And so if we just leave it all at National initiatives it may not be quite as productive.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: I'm reminded by that. I started in international work in the Habitat II process for sustainable cities, and if you're interested, there's a project called the Best Practices in Local Leadership programme. It was started as a part of that, which is, it's an Awards based system but it allows anyone to propose a best practice. You submit it in comment on a Web form and it's judged by a panel of experts every two years, and the recipients receive funding to help them transfer their knowledge to other people around the world who would like to do those projects.

So perhaps there's ‑‑ there are some vehicles like that, ISIF in our space is a great example. Perhaps if we can bring those systems of recognition in, then that will provide the role you seek and the feedback you seek. And give a venue where people like our friends in the back here who I hope will speak up at some point with some ideas could be recognized. Mike?

>> C. WACHHOLZ: Thank you. I just wanted to add on this point about collecting best practices. I took part in the session yesterday on trying to look at all of the different various principles on Internet Governance, and how to more or less sort of try and align that group of principles and to coalesce them around one list of principles. One thing that happened at the Seoul Cyberspace Conference was the U.K. presented a next steps paper where we tried to pull together lots of the important work on cyberspace that's happening the next few months, and what we said there was in that paper that the ‑‑ it was very important to try and kind of find greater consensus around Internet Governance Principles but then they should lead into model policies around so this is part of the capacity building agenda to help all regions and nations think about how they do this sort of thing and really kind of be able to draw on model policies to put into practice locally.

One example we gave was the Commonwealth cyberspace policy framework. This was launched in Abuja this month by the commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Council and the idea was that Commonwealth countries could sort of draw from this framework to put into place local sort of model policies. But it wasn't just limited to the Commonwealth, because the idea was this framework could also be adapted for use in other countries and regions, as well. So one practical example for you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: It's interesting you mentioned that because one of the questions I most asked in Geneva of representative countries is how do they countries that have so many Internet businesses do this? What kind of policy frameworks can we use? Who can we ask from other countries who are successfully leveraging the Internet how they did it? So I guess what you're suggesting is not only should we capture best practices in implementing the WSIS goals and process at a grassroots level, but what enabling frameworks are countries using? And why do they work and what are the pre‑conditions to them? I know Bob last night was explaining in the U.S. the process they went through of consciously choosing to do things to allow the Internet to develop.

And we were saying how rarely that's actually heard, so it sounds like you're also advocating that there needs to be a way for Governments to share what works in a structured way perhaps? Captured somehow? Patrick?

>> P. RYAN: Nick, I wanted to just take the opportunity hear to make a pitch for a project that's been taking place here on the side. It's really been developed over the course of the past six months, led by Susan Chalmers at InternetNZ called friends of IGF I has a website, friends of IGF.org that has done a fantastic job of collecting a lot of the conversations that have happened here at the IGF over the past few years and getting all of those videos uploaded in one place. That's actually something quite new. There were a few videos that were available off and on, but never before had there been a single point of collection where all of this information is available online.

And I think this is really important to know that there's an opportunity and also some risk, opportunity to really for many others here to join into that process, it's really a very open initiative. Many if not most of the participants in it are not members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. And there's a real opportunity to get that going and to continue to invest in it.

Most of the investment is in sort of blood, sweat and tears. It's not necessarily a monetary investment and the risk is that if there are not others that really look at this, like it, criticize it, but come with constructive suggestions that these types of things, risks not being taken up in advance. So I hope many of you will take a look at this, and take advantage of it.

>> M. NELSON: I think that's really important, and video is really important when trying to help reporters understand these issues but at the end of the day, a lot of policy is driven by one or two bumper stickers and two or three factoids and I kind of worry if we're going to collect all this best practices information we're going to end up with this huge compendium that nobody will use particularly if we just throw everything in there. There needs to be curation. It's really useful if you the five best or the 10 best examples of how the Internet is being used in agriculture and the five best examples of how the Internet is being used in disaster management. So people can look at them quickly and it's really useful to have those tables that rank different initiatives and show who is really succeeding and who is not.

So this isn't just a matter of having Youtube that just is the collection of everything. It's a matter of having some respected people who can go through and evaluate what's really happening.

For the developed countries, the OECD has done that. But we need a much broader effort, we need a way to really work it. I was delighted to meet the new Chief Economist at The Internet Society, Michael Kende, who I think is going to help them sort through some of the numbers but there's a lot of work that needs to be done here to make sure we're delivering in that one‑pager the information that the Minister really needs. Thank you.

>> P. RYAN: Mike, since a lot of these initiatives are coming together. Am I hearing you're volunteering to help pull that information and recommendation set together?

>> M. NELSON: I'm one person, but I'm certainly involved in a lot of different work and Microsoft has some incredible analytic tools that will just do it all automatically.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: So Maarten, I think you had a comment.

>> M. BOTTERMAN: I very much appreciate that. We're really looking forward to what you're going to do in this area to make it work and I think there's an opportunity, it may seem facetious, but I mean it. We don't need to wait for the rest of the world to be ready to have some kind of best practice exchange or award‑winning thing that everybody is behind. I think we have some players in the world that at their level all can do these things and very much aim to what they believe is necessary and I do believe Google and Microsoft are amongst us, dot org as such being global steps up there as well seeking such opportunities to emphasize best practice, and let's make it visible and let's take a responsibility.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: I just should mention that part of the process of consultation did produce a few questions for this segment, which we should keep in mind. Amongst those being: How does the development of the Internet's open standards contribute to innovation, economic growth? I think we talked about some of those things, and maybe creating some standards and gathering success stories almost from this session.

In what ways does the Internet edge power people? I'm sure we could make a long list of answers to that question.

How can we encourage investment in physical Internet infrastructure without compromising the global nature of the Internet? It seems to me there's some pretty obvious connections in there with the comments about infrastructure, and the virtuous cycle which infrastructure can play. Were we to really integrate the WSIS goals process in the development of the Millennium Development Goals, we would see that infrastructure is a common thing that both require.

Local content of course, how can stakeholders cooperate to create multilingual content? And how can international organisations contribute to building Internet infrastructure, in developing in least developed countries? I know there's an increasing push in the private sector to collaborate on doing that, but it seems to me there's an obvious link there with the WSIS goals and the SDGs where there's an obvious use, remote diagnosis in rural areas for health.

I was talking to the WHO Director of the maternal health programme before I came here, and she was saying that they're actually trying to make a priority of how can they use technology to optimize the delivery of health care especially to remote areas, and in particular, things like, is there a Smartphone app that could be installed on every device in a country that would allow people to report births via SMS, via structured SMS. Because in many countries births are not recorded and without that many things are not possible. How do you vote? How do you register to vote? How do you get a passport, et cetera? So we were literally talking about, there's probably an app that could be built for that and then distributed with every new mobile phone.

So I think we should probably start to wrap up a little bit. We have half an hour, but it looks like there's some common themes on the standardizing and collection of what works at the level of delivery, and at the level of policy formation.

There's an argument for action lines at a National level with respect to the WSIS targets, how those relate to the action lines and how the international organisations compile information there, and the MDGs.

There's it sounds like some interest in the IGF participating in these projects, the compilation judgment of what works. I'm trying to read and talk at the same time. Always a dangerous thing. This is really a great tool, I have to say, Cedric. This is a great way to capture a sense of the room. Patrick?

>> P. RYAN: Nick, when I was talking to, whispering with a couple of the audience members back here two or three pointed out there's some interesting comments from the remote participants we should be sure to integrate, just to make sure that we're looking at that.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Yeah. Do we have any questions over there? The remote moderators are behind a cameraman so if you've been trying to get my attention, sorry.

We have nobody at the moment? Okay, looks like none so far.

So I noticed that the group behind me is being very quiet.

>> M. KUMMER: Also one of the recommendations to the IGF from this Working Group on IGF improvement was that we should try harder to capture a take‑away from a session. This was a very big session and it's very difficult to find ‑‑ I have to go closer to the microphone, sorry.

I recalled that one of the recommendations was that we should try harder to produce some take‑aways from each session. This was a very rich session. There's many little take‑aways, but I suppose the major take‑aways for the IGF would be how they relate to the IGF, and that we should work towards that, and especially I think capture good practices seems to be a way where we could work further.

And also, in planning ahead for the next meeting, should we follow up? Should you make recommendations? Also yesterday at the session where when we discussed how to follow up, there was one suggestion that was a discussion on cybercrime that we should maybe organize a two‑day, one‑day technical event prepare to the meeting just to ‑‑ where people can get trained.

So these are some thoughts on how we could maybe then take it forward, and also make recommendations to the planning process for the next meeting.

>> R. PEPPER: From the conversation in the previous session, there seemed to be a building consensus on the importance of messaging involving for each of us, whether it's business, Civil Society, or Government, or the technical community, to reach out to other participants in each of those groups that don't really understand the value and the importance of this process to expand the constituencies within each of the multistakeholder spheres. And that was something I was hearing whether it was from Government or Civil Society or business or technical, so I think that is also a recommendation take‑away that was the sense of the group.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Okay, so Cedric, do you want to try and ‑‑ I keep looking away and you're capturing madly. Do you want to read through a couple of sort of the elements where you could say there was a reasonably solid conclusion of something that should be done or could be done?

>> C. WACHHOLZ: It's not easy to wrap up and come up with some conclusions but I think one as a question is very much on how to link ‑‑ how to strengthen the ICT's presence within the post‑2015 process. I think one really important message in the beginning is to look at where we stand at the post‑2015 process, and look also at what are the different topics which are currently known to be in the future SDGs, or in the future goals, and how to get into the targets and indicators and benchmarks related to them.

And we heard about water, energy, jobs, education, health, and you yourself had proposed to link it somehow to the action line work. And I think there were others which were not sure which were mentioned too but for example, education. We have the action line C7, e‑Learning, where you could try to target and I mean strengthen and emphasize within the ‑‑ this future goal the importance of ICTs. So this is one of an important message to look at where we stand for the time being, and look how we can get into the existing big Chapters of the SDGs.

Then I think you're right, a lot of the discussions went really about, let me expand that ‑‑ about the questions of capturing what works, and I think it is ‑‑ I think there were really two categories: Promote the collection of new data, and bring forward success stories and good practices.

And I think there have been many ideas and examples mentioned of success stories, and how to collect them, the idea, but it is a question which was raised which is an important one, how to create authoritative lists, how together it would work which is not a long shopping list no Minister will ever look at and this is an important question, and Markus also linked to it in saying how do we take the essentials of the sessions out and can somehow summarize it even though everything is of course captured?

And I think really important I mention is really also the idea of promoting the collection of new data. It is a lesson also from the MDGs to try to really be more concrete and then to be able to measure progress, and we had also one of the interventions saying money goes where the goals are, and one could say also money goes where the goals are, the targets are, and the targets are not met. So it is an important question about data collection and how to do that in the future.

I think that is an intermediate summary.

>> N. ASHTON‑HART: Perhaps one thing that could be done given the interesting collecting what works and deciding on what is a best practice is perhaps for the next IGF there could be a session on some of the ways in which that has been done related to Sustainable Development and other areas. I happen to know of the one in Habitat which does exactly what you're suggesting. Anyone can propose a best practice but they are then judged and the ones that are the best are easily found and highlighted and searchable across years. And there are also opportunities at conferences related to the habitat agenda where those people are brought to attend and talk about what works and maybe that could be ‑‑ the IGF could have a part in looking at what is collected, how it could be disseminated and especially in the governance area, where have people come up with governance ideas that really have been very effective at a local level and even at a National level, if there are National action plans.

Patrick?

>> P. RYAN: This is on the question of best practices, I wonder if there's any thoughts from the audience about what other groups we mate want to look to in order to encourage this tape of activity. The IGF is one place. But it also depends on the topic, right? I mean, if we're looking at the aspects of bringing more broadband out to communities, well, in that case, the International Telecommunication Union provides some good best practices for the infrastructure layer. Perhaps the world economic Forum or the OECD does a really good job when it comes to the business models associated with that.

And certainly the, maybe the IETF could do a great job when it comes to the technical standards that relate to those types of things. I'm just throwing some ideas out there. But one of the things that would be good maybe as an outcome here would be to think about what some of those organisations are, and to be able to go to them and let them know that there are some ‑‑ that there's been a discussion here and that there's an opportunity for them to weigh in on these things.

>> M.N. EL HIMAM: Thank you. We realize that ICT Internet is important. It is right now it's the engine of growth in any Sector, be that economic, social, even political. Our colleague from Indonesia mentioned before that the Government role in providing this infrastructures is very important.

Now, the thing is, many of our leaders has not realized the importance of the information be it infrastructures or content. And I suggest that one of the, if you can recommend through this IGF meeting, this work group, somehow e‑Leadership, e‑Leadership, meaning that the understanding of these leaders about the importance of the information be one of the goals as a tool to achieve all these goals, and in that case, we can put the importance, if somehow we can ‑‑ the ‑‑ after the MDGs goal ‑‑ as someone has mentioned that somehow it doesn't even mention the word ‑‑ the information, the Internet in that goal, if we can somehow put that in the information, if we have that information is important to solve all these problems, then there might be a way, a step forward, for us especially in the developing countries to achieve all those goals. Thank you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Please.

>> J. ABIN DE MARIA: Thank you, Sir. In the specific case of a country like ours with Internet access and the other issues involved, I think you can't say that everything is the responsibility of the Government, however important the Government's part in this is. There are other structures that also have a part to play alongside the Government, things like the regional authorities, or sometimes international bodies to assure things like equality of access because sometimes it's an international issue and not just something to do with the individual country, particularly if it's a developing country. There is a limit to the costs that a developing country can bear or even more if it's a single enterprise so I think we need to be very precise here and this is one thing that we should be discussing as we talk about this in the different fora.

There is the Montevideo Declaration and so on, which also deserves mention, but there are other texts, too, where we have definitions of Internet Governance. It's important, of course, that the Internet itself should be defined, but I think perhaps we should be thinking not in terms of individual Governments' vision but of countries issues, countries approach, and that would include Civil Society and other elements of the multistakeholder community, not just the Government itself. That is important if we're to establish the kind of programmes that really will get somewhere that will be useful and that will help us to achievement our goals. Thank you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Sorry, I was just waiting for the interpretation to finish before the next person started speaking. So it sounds like that's an argument for a National Action Planning process that brings all stakeholders together to decide what the objective is, because then you can say: Here are the resources we have. Here are the resources we need. Here are where the resources are. Maybe they're in the country or as you say, maybe in the region, or maybe they're international resources.

We've got a comment from behind me.

>> T. ZAMAN: My name is Tariq Zaman. I'm from the University of Malaysia and we are here from ISIF and APNIC. We are working with the indigenous community of Malaysia around 25 different indigenous communities throughout Malaysia. One of the points that has been made is that participation of the other groups, I believe that the indigenous communities should be in the debate for the next IGF and on whatever is happening in the coming days or in the coming weeks.

In this ‑‑ in the previous IGF, I have seen that the UNESCO and the other groups really contributed to bring the indigenous people on Board in these tape of discussions, and, yes, with my experience I really see that their wise really counts and did all the best. Thank you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: An excellent point. We have a comment from over here.

>> M. JENSEN: Thank you. Mike Jensen from South Africa. Just to follow up on Patrick's suggestion about groups that may be useful to involve in this process, I would like to suggest that the multistakeholder group called the Alliance for Affordable Internet, which was established by the World Wide Web Foundation, is an important vehicle there, because a lot of these best practices and effective uses of the Internet can only happen when the Internet is affordable, and it's certainly not affordable in many developing countries. And they've already set out a fairly clear set of National and regional policies and strategies that need to be adopted to achieve a more affordable Internet and I think it would be useful to involve them in the process. Thank you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: An excellent notion, and it sounds like the recommendations there would be an excellent addition to any collection of what works at a policy level, if you have the policy best practices idea.

>> We have one here.

>> I, too, will speak Spanish, if I may. My name is Moltatera, and I'm representing a development organisation called EMAC which is more than 20 years old. We work on using IT in the field, and use different kinds of means, for instance, medical uses. There are also things like the use of mobile telephones not for sending SMSs, but using messaging systems for distant communities so that they can use ICT much in the same way as city dwellers do. But this hasn't been done for Uruguay before.

As far as the cross‑cutting communications are concerned, the Ministry of Health has its own plan. The other Ministries have their own plans, and they never interact. They behave as though they all lived in separate vacuums, and I think what's important is to create the kind of environment which will bring them together and show them that they have to work in concert. Otherwise if they're all working in a totally isolated way, nothing will be achieved.

So it's a question of access, too, as well, but this means capacity building. There is the infrastructure element, that's true, but the people who run it, the people who use it, they also need to be trained. They need their capacity to be built up. Otherwise, nothing will be achieved. We need to integrate everything and to make sure that it functions in an integrated way.

For that, it's very important to have policy, political plans, which will show how all this interacts with the economic Sector, the social Sector and so on. And this requires political will. Decisions have to be made. There have to be the politicians. There have to be the people from business, there has to be people from Civil Society, the social aspect, as well, because it's only if these all work together that we will get somewhere.

The important thing is for us to be able to work together and make sure that whatever initiatives are taken are taken collectively by all these different aspects of society. Thank you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: That was an excellent point. I understand Felix wants to make a brief last comment, and then we'll begin wrapping up. There's only a couple left. A final comment from our Chair. Felix, go ahead if you can.

>> F. DODDS: One thing that I would point out that we have now four things for the Sustainable Development Working Group left. One in December, one in January and one in February. We have a very short window. It seems the one that is the most relevant to you is the Sixth Session from the 9th to the 13th of December which will deal with means of implementation covering Science and Technology, knowledge sharing and capacity building, global partnership for achieving sustainable development, and then that's the two days. It's two days in addition on the needs of countries in special situations, African countries, LDCs, SIDS, as well as specific challenges, and it seems to me that that offers you a real focus trying to get some of your agenda on to the Sustainable Development Working Group.

So I would suggest they coordinate an effort by people who have attended this workshop try and influence that and attend that meeting.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Thank you, Felix. That's an excellent, very practical and very specific suggestion. Standing at the mic and you have a comment briefly.

>> U. AHMED: Usman Ahmed with eBay Inc. Just another thought on who else to involve in this process. A recommendation would be the trade community at the international trade community level. The WTO Public Forum this year was focused on the digital economy. UNCTAD is doing very interesting work on international trade and the international trade center in Geneva also focusing a great deal on how the Internet is impacting traditional industries and so I think they could be helpful not only from a data perspective. They have a lot of data on the impact of the Internet, but also if we're going to be working on best practices here, they're also focused on creating their own set of best practices, and so you don't want to have a disagreement between these groups and so probably tying them in early on might be really helpful. Thanks.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Well, and in that vein, since I do a lot of work with the trade community, there is a trade and development Committee at the WTO and it seems like perhaps some of our Government friends could usefully suggest that that Committee look at how trade impacts development delivery of the MDGs and the technological dimension. Because I suspect that Committee is, candidly, not terribly exciting, shall we say, at the moment, and that would be a welcome comment to bring the trade community into that discussion.

But I'm cognizant of the time. With 7 minutes to go, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you have any ‑‑ oh, Stuart, do you want to go briefly?

>> S. HAMILTON: I'll be brief to let you know that IFLA has spent the last couple of months taking a very close look at how the WSIS process and the MDGs process might link up and in relation to Felix's commence, IFLA will be trying to organise a side event at that meeting on the 9th of December in New York on the theme of access to information in relation to development, and if anyone is interested, the idea is it's not just IFLA, it's a Coalition of groups that would be interested in bringing that theme more into the discussions of the open Working Group so that could really provide an opening for getting some of our issues on the agenda. And you can see me afterwards if that's something of interest to you.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Excellent, thank you, Stuart.

>> M. KUMMER: And I would suggest take the message from this discussion to New York.

>> N. ASHTON-HART: Mr. Chairman, the last word is yours.

>> M.N. EL HIMAM: Thank you, Nick. I believe we had a very productive and fruitful session and I hope that the many take-aways that we produce today can be followed up. And I thank our moderators and our participants for the valuable discussion and contribution in this session and the session is now closed and please join us this afternoon in this main hall for the Focus Discussion on Human Rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information on the Internet. Thank you.

[ Applause ]

[ End of session ]

********

This text is being provided in a rough draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

********

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411