You are here

IGF 2016 - Day 2 - Room 2 - WS150 - ICT4D: Connecting CS Roles on Access, Finance & Knowledge

 

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Jalisco, Mexico, from 5 to 9 December 2016. 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 event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

***

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Hi, everyone.  Good morning.  Thanks for joining us today for this session.  My name is Arsene Tungali, and I'm happy to be moderating this session today.

I serve as the co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, which is a global -- a group of different actors across the world who are interested in Civil Society issues, and so we -- today we are inviting you to join us for the discussion and the debates on this session today, and thank you so much for coming. 

I will give you a brief of what we'll be talking about today, so I'll be starting by a few words, to introduce the panelists and to introduce what we'll be doing today.

Later on we'll be having two presentations, so we'll be having one presentation by my colleague, who is just on my left, Mrs. Sylvia, and on my right we have Jeremy.  I'll be introducing them shortly.

And later on we'll be breaking into two different groups, and so we'll be using the two sides of the room to discuss in depth some of the issues that we'll be raising during this session, and later on we'll be reconvening.  That means we'll come back to the seats here, and we'll be having a rapporteur from each one of the groups to come and share what was the outcome of the discussion in each one of those groups.  After that we'll be finishing today.  Thank you so much for your patience as we're dealing with technical issues.  So we'll be talking about -- the theme of our session today is ICT -- sorry -- ICT4 Developments, how do we connect the roles of Civil Society on Access, Finance, and Knowledge, and we have two main panelists.  We'll be having two group facilitators.  We have Mrs. Valentina, and on the other side we have Dr. Milton.  They will be the ones facilitating the group discussions today.

And so on my left we have Mrs. Sylvia, who is currently working with APNIC, which is the -- I think the --

>> SYLVIA CADENA: Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre.

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: -- Asia-Pacific Network Information, which is the registry for that region, so she's currently the head of the program for APNIC, and she will be discussing around issues for access to finance for Civil Society organizations.

And on my right, I have Jeremy Malcolm, who is a senior global policy analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation, and he'll be focusing his remarks on issues of access to knowledge, including the regulation of data flows and international Intellectual Property roles and informed enforcement practices, so they will be presenting shortly.  They'll be giving their remarks shortly, and after that we'll be immediately breaking into groups.

So before we go -- before we kick off, I would like you to start brainstorming or to start thinking which one of the two groups you'll be breaking into, so that's whenever -- whenever it's determined for breakout so we don't take a lot of time, we'll be breaking into the two rooms -- into two groups.  Other groups will be discussing in this same room, so it will be very easy for that.

Before starting again, I would like to know how many of you are familiar with the Internet Governance Caucus or if there are any members in the room of the Internet Governance Caucus, just raise your hands.  Thank you very much.  It's good to have you here.  All of those not familiar with the Governance Caucus, we have our website down there so you can join there and be part of the Civil Society discussions.

So without further delay, I'd like to start by my first panelist, and that will be Mrs. Sylvia.  Welcome. 

>> SYLVIA CADENA: Thank you.  Well, my name is Sylvia Cadena.  I work with the APNIC Foundation.  I'm the head of programs of this just recently launched foundation that starts out of APNIC, which is the Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre.  We allocate IP addresses for people in the region to connect their users, so we have -- our main core responsibility is the maintenance of the -- of who is registry and to provide a lot of technical support for ISPs and universities and others that are connecting people to the Internet in our region.

APNIC has started a lot of development work over the years on training, capacity building, grants, awards, and a collection of programs that have kind of taken a life of its own, and now that was the reason why the foundation was established.  It's really new.  It was just established this September, so we are in the process of designing and implementing these programs.

I have worked -- before the technical community, I worked with Civil Society for, what, 15 years, in one of the known commercial ISPs in Colombia, which is an organization for communicative member, setting up telecenters, training women how to send email, doing the reporting for the women, the Beijing Women's Forum, you know, back in the day, so a long, long time ago.  Very familiar with Civil Society issues, so today I would like to raise six points, and I have seven minutes, so I hope I will be able to cover them all.

First, I think that for Civil Society organizations there are a little bit of conflicting questions in our minds when we are actually trying to look for funding and trying to implement our ideas and turn them into reality.

First is that the fundings have changed considerably in the last five years, especially.  It's confusing and it kind of requires different brains.  It's not the same to write a grant proposal to pitch funding to an investor, it requires a whole different -- it's a different ball game, it's a different dance, and in most cases, it's exactly the same person who is dealing with the challenges of actually writing the grant proposal and pitching to the investor at the same time.

There is also challenges in the funding ecosystem in terms of how much the eight agencies and governments have actually cut budget availability for Civil Society organizations.  A lot of organizations -- a lot of governments also have -- due to political situations happening have placed a higher bar of how a Civil Society organization can actually access funding, and in some cases, those -- those thresholds are quite high, really high, and now it's almost impossible for an NGO to get funding or to apply to funding from external sources.  That, in the Asia-Pacific region, is quite visible, especially in India, for example.

So it's -- where an NGO has to subscribed to the FCRA and they have to have clearing to get funds in so they're not linked to terrorism and all those things, and it takes a long time to get all the paperwork going.

So there is also new players in the market or the funding market where social enterprises are playing a big role and everything is about entrepreneurship and innovation, and they are all ringing the same bells, let's say, singing the same song, not necessarily in tune, right?  So my -- that's the first -- the first point.

The second point I wanted to make was that it is a division between the focus on what you really want to do and the focus of what the funding source wants you to do and how you reconcile those, you know, tear-apart kind of dichotomy, you know, inside of you conversations.

At the time where you negotiate a proposal or an investment or -- it might seem easy that the investor or the donor might be actually flexible, they might actually not, so it's very important that you know that -- you know, what dance, again, are you -- you know, what game are you playing there.  If you're going to get in a very difficult situation where you thought you had the money to do what you wanted to do and you actually got money to do something you were not that interested in doing or that is actually the wrong thing to be doing.

And then, you know, the -- they have this question of all in that context for -- in my experience is to, you know, do the sole searching and say can I really, really -- can we really deliver to that?  You know, it's not that idea we're going to change the world and we're going to do it in 12 months and here's the plan, can you really deliver to that, do you really have the staff capacity, do you really have the theme to do it, do you really have the skills? 

And it's a difficult conversation because you want the donor or the funder or the investor to come along, and so sometimes you can say, ah, and then ah, because you don't really know what's going to happen, so you can have your poker face, let's say, and, you know, deal with the investor or the donor in that way, but in the end, if you get the money, you need to get those questions answered; do you have a plan and can you deliver it, because anything you don't, even if you have all sorts of excuses -- and there are some that are really good and valuable -- might actually play against you in the future in terms of receiving other sources of funding because all the sources of funding talk to each other, so it is quite difficult to, you know, have a -- a good or a bad rap, let's say.  What goes around comes around, so everybody kind of talks to each other.

Then the third point, there are a couple of very scary words for many Civil Society organizations, when they're dealing with -- especially in both cases when you're looking at investors and angel investors and capital funding and donors and grants and foundations and all the different sources that are in the market.  There are a couple of very scary words that are everywhere, in contracts, in proposals, in their terms and conditions, and those scary words are -- or concepts are the measuring impact part and the evaluation frameworks part.  Those are words that are not to be taken lightly because they mean actually very different things for each and every one of the donors or the investors that you are going to approach.  So it -- it has totally different meanings, so -- and it has totally different connotations.

So on the measuring impact side of things, for example, and to give you a couple of very practical examples on the evaluation frameworks, from IDRC and CIDA, for example, there are two main donors funding ICT4D.  On their side, they have their own methods for evaluation that they have pushed out throughout the years, the outcome mapping and all sorts of different things.  They are very flexible, they have loads in experience in ICT4D in different countries, so they are very flexible, very, very flexible, and they're willing to risk it and learn with you, right?  But they also are accountable for the taxpayers' money that they give you, so they still need to get your reports and turn it into something they can report to, you know -- they still need some data and information from you.

On the other side, for CIDA, for example, they have the same push from their taxpayers' money that they need to report on results, but they do have a very strict evaluation framework.  If you're not familiar with the framework, the tool and how they use it and the language they use it, it will be very difficult to actually deliver to what you said you were going to do in a program funded by CIDA, so it is worth taking a look at exactly what they're asking you to do. 

Then there is another thing that you might be scared of --

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: (Off microphone)

>> SYLVIA CADENA: Okay.  -- is the flexibility versus the matching requirements of the source I mentioned in a couple of examples.

I was talking earlier if you have a plan and a team and you can actually deliver, there are very big challenges in terms of the administrative capacity, the communications capacity because now everybody wants the photos, tweets about everything you're doing, interviews and videos, plus the hundred pages' report with all the data analyzed on an open data set available online, so really, can you really deliver to all of that versus the project rhythm.  Is that what the -- the way that particular community moves and evolves? 

And then there is also the challenge for Civil Society organizations and many organizations in all of the -- although the stakeholders about the roles that people play, are you an implementation kind of person or are you fundraising kind of person, or are you actually the techie that implements and reports, and you do the whole show and you tweet in between? 

So if that is the case, that your organization is overworked and understaffed and all that sort of stuff, you know, be careful when you design those proposals because that's -- the challenges are not to fund those proposals, the challenge is to do it right, to do it well so more funding will come, and that will end my initial points.  I hope they spark some questions for the breaking groups. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you so much, Sylvia.  I think if you -- that was really, really brilliant.

So if you closely followed the presentation, you will understand that it's really, really not an easy task, right, to get funding for Civil Society organizations, and Sylvia had liked to mention some of the issues like myself being from the nonprofit sector, there is those issues like when you ply apply for funding, right, you have what you want to do, what you wrote in the proposal about what you want to do, but on the other side, about the funder, is it the same thing the funder wants you to do, and sometimes some funders will tell you, well, this is what you wrote in your proposal, but we would like for you to do, for instance, this and this and this and this as well, and there you need to have a balance, to satisfy the funder but also you need to make sure that you did the right -- the job that was supposed to be done in that specific manner.

And I think another important point, you mentioned, I think the CIDA, right, which is good, which I think people will learn about the CIDA who are funding Civil Society organizations who are having nice projects.  I think those funds are for Africa, Latin America, and I think for Asia-Pacific region as well, so if you are here and you have, like, good idea, try to link up with Sylvia during the break-out sessions so you can learn more about how to get funding as well through the CIDA. 

>> SYLVIA CADENA:  We have a booth at the IGF villages, and there are lots of information about the grants and awards programs and how we do.  Sorry. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Perfect.  If you're going to join the breakout session with the financing, you should get ready for your questions and sure your experience how you deal with funders, how you're dealing with submitting proposals, how you're dealing with when those funders are putting higher the bar to give or to provide funds in those Civil Society organizations.

So now I'll turn now to my second panelist, who is Jeremy Malcolm.  As I said, he's a senior global policy analyst as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, so he'll get to explain himself and tell us in a short minute -- I mean in a few minutes what they usually do at EFF, and of course, he'll give his remarks as well.  Jeremy. 

>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thanks very much.  So, yes, I've been asked to address this workshop on access to knowledge, and this is a phrase that's often associated with copyright activism, particularly copyright from a development perspective, but it's actually broader than that.

There's -- because it literally just means what it says, access to knowledge, what are the barriers that prevent people from accessing knowledge, and in this context, we're talking about online.

So there's -- there are legal barriers and there are technical barriers, and copyright is only one of them, so copyright would fall into the basket of the legal issues around access to knowledge because, of course, copyright rules can impede us from gaining access to information, particularly when the copyright term is being lengthened, for example, it may take works out of the public domain and make it more expensive to access those, but other legal issues that impair access to knowledge include privacy and data protection.  Why is that? 

Well, when we access information online, sometimes that's in exchange for giving up some of our personal data, isn't it?  And also, there are legal regimes such as the right to be forgotten, which may take information away from us and, therefore, that also impacts on access to knowledge.

There are also other legal regimes that may censor information for various reasons, whether they be religious, moral, or any number of reasons why there may be censorship of information online, so these are some of the legal issues that can impact on access to knowledge.  Those are copyright, privacy and data collection, and censorship, but there are also technological issues that can have a bearing on our ability to access knowledge online, so net neutrality is one of those, because if particular players in if the content providers have a special priority or special access to the end user through the network, then that unbalances the playing field and will skew the kind of knowledge that the user has access to.

Also, other technological issues, geofencing is one that may lock off particular sources of knowledge from people in particular regions, whether that's for copyright licensing reasons or for other reasons, but the technology there is the technical one that enables this sort of geofencing so that we can no longer access information online.

Encryption is another technology that can affect access to knowledge.  For example, if you want to access information that's blocked in your region, maybe you can use something like the Tor Browser to bypass that block and access that information, so access to knowledge, far from being just about copyright, it impacts a lot of this that we discuss at the Internet Governance Forum, the ones I mentioned, encryption, net neutrality, copyright privacy.  We're pretty much covering the board of Internet Governance Forum to access to knowledge.

Now, where are these issues dealt with?  There are some specific venues where different aspects of access to knowledge are discussed, so, for example, copyright, of course, discussed at WIPO, encryption may come up at the U.N. Human Rights Council, but there is also one venue in which all of these issues are discussed together, and I'm actually not talking about the Internet Governance Forum because at the IGF, while we may talk about these issues, we don't really develop policies on them that have an impact on the end user, at least not a very direct impact.

In fact, I'm talking about trade negotiations.  Surprisingly enough, trade negotiations, such as the TPP and the T -- the other agreements that have followed and which will follow in the future, will deal with all of these issues, so just to take the TPP as an example, the TransPacific Partnership, although it may have failed in the United States recently, it will be a template for future trade agreements, and we have a session dedicated to that tomorrow, which you should attend, but looking at TPP, there were rules on copyright, extending the minimum term to life plus 70 years, there were rules on privacy, not very good rules, of course, but it did say they had to be the least trade restrictive rules on privacy, but still, there was some treatment of that topic.  Net neutrality also not dealt with very well.  That was a weak and nonbinding provision on net neutrality.  There was a provision on encryption which would limit the policy space that countries had to make rules on encryption.

There were rules on the free flow of data, which had impacts on things like censorship and on geofencing or geoblocking, so all of the issues that I mentioned that have an access to knowledge were a part of the TPP and are a part of ongoing trade agreements.  Many of those are in the trade and services agreement and many will be part of bilaterals and future trade agreements, such as a possible renegotiated NAFTA, which might be in the wings, and future bilaterals.

So the difficulty here is that when we're talking about connecting Civil Society and its role in access to knowledge, there is no role for Civil Society in these negotiations because we're locked out.  It's very difficult for Civil Society to have any influence on what is happening behind closed doors in these trade negotiations, so that's one reason why my organization and I personally believe that it's very important for us to reform trade negotiation processes so that Civil Society is given a voice and can have a role in expanding access to knowledge or at least safeguarding access to knowledge when these rules may come under threat by the sort of restrictive provisions that the trade lobbyists would like to see.

Either we need to have a voice in these trade negotiations or we need to draw a line and say, look, some of these topics, like net neutrality, don't belong in trade negotiations at all and there are better fora to discuss these issues, such as the IGF itself.

So I'm probably out of time, and I'll leave it there, and we can discuss more in the breakout groups.  Thank you. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Perfect.  Thank you so much, Jeremy.  I think you raised very, very important issues about how do we access content, and you specifically focused on the online content, right?  And you mentioned some of the barriers that as Civil Society or anyone else who wants access to knowledge are facing as barrier.

And one of those issues, the copyrights -- the copyrights issues, you also mentioned the privacy and data protection, because not everyone would be willing just to put away their information, and I think you also mentioned some of those technical issues, like net neutrality or geofencing or encryption, and you gave even a suggestion to anyone to probably or in some terms use browsers or any other -- any other apps that can help to bypass some of those blockages, but one of the things probably that will need to be discussed in the breakout group on this specific topic will be -- because you also mentioned that as Civil Society, we quite have nothing to do.  I think you said that.  It's really, really difficult for us to have access to knowledge, especially when it's online, but you also mentioned that your organization is giving people the voice.

I hope you'll be able, yew, to discuss in-depth that issue and how we can help -- we can help people, how we can help Civil Society organizations to have access to information.

And sometimes probably I'm wondering whether even accessing information about funding or funders, is it really easy for Civil Society, whenever you do a research online, to be easily directed to those organizations who are providing funding or to some of their criteria, and I think some of those will be some of the other questions that will need to be discussed during the breakout session.

So I'd like to just point out this is also followed by some remote participants, so we have some remote participants that are following our session from I think across the world.  I can see some names popping up on my screen, so thank you so much for following.  They had an issue with the sound, but thanks technical -- the technicians for solving that issue.  Thank you so much.

For those who are following us from the remote, if you have a question, don't hesitate.  Just type your question, and I'll be really pleased to bring your question on the floor.

So for now, I think we'll be moving to our second -- the second part of this session today, which will be the breakouts, the breakout groups.  As I said, we'll be having two sessions, like two breakout groups, and one will be on this side, and I think the group on financing ICT for development initiatives will be on this side.  Sylvia will be also joining to discuss and will be -- and we'll have our wonderful facilitators.  That's -- I'm really pleased to introduce to you in a minute.

We'll be having on one side -- so I think this side we'll be having Dr. Milton, a professor at the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology.  He also works, I think, for Internet governance projects, so he'll be leading the crew on this side, discussing the issues affecting on financing the ICT4D initiatives, so Dr. Mueller will be joining the group on this side.

And we'll be having on the other side Mrs. Valentina, who is I think the head of One World Platform Foundation, so she'll be also entertaining or discussing with the second group on my right, so if you're interested in discussing, Jeremy will be also joining the second group on this side, and please, we'll be having less than 20 minutes, so when you go there, I expect you to raise some of the issues that the panelists raised regarding either what's your experience on financing your own initiatives if you're running a nonprofit or if you need more information on how to get access to funding, or those are some of the challenges you're meeting in your own area.

I think those kinds of experiences would be really, really important for us so we can inform some future actions as Civil Society.

On the other side will be -- I think you'll be also talking about what are those challenges that you're facing as Civil Society on accessing knowledge or knowledge distribution when accessing online contents, and Jeremy will be also joined by Valentina to discuss on those -- on those issues.  Yes. 

>> I just would like to make a suggestion also.  For both groups, if we could kind of think the other side as well.  It would be very good, for example, I would like to know from Jeremy, for example, as what he sees as challenges from your organization to actually fund the topics you discussed and how difficult or not difficult it is to communicate what -- what was it? -- geofencing mean.  I can't remember exactly. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Geofencing, yeah. 

>> SYLVIA CADENA: What exactly that means and how difficult it is to get money for it or funding for it, right?  And on the other side, what are the issues that you're raising that are not represented in groups here, that are not about funding, that are particular to, I don't know, a Bitcoin solution for refugees, how difficult it is to sell that idea to someone, so it's not only about the money and not only about access to knowledge, how you -- because the workshop is supposed to be titled "Connecting" right? 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Yes. 

>> SYLVIA CADENA: So I will get a lot of notes of all your comments because that's what I need to be doing, connecting the --

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you so much, Sylvia.  I would like you -- if you've already made your minds about which group you'll be going on, but our substance facilitators will be the main one leading the discussions, and our panelists will be shifting probably -- as suggested by Sylvia, shifting from one group to another one to try to bring some -- if there is a need.  Every group, I suggest you have a rapporteur, someone who will be taking a few notes, because hopefully we'll still have time, so I would like three or four or five main points that you had from your discussions, so thank you so much, and we'll be reconvening, I think, in less than 20 minutes.  Let's say 15 minutes.  Thank you so much. 

So maybe to recap if you didn't get it right.  On this side, we'll be talking about financing or ICT initiatives, so this is on my left, and on my right, you'll be discussing about the nonetheless and the barriers we're having in accessing knowledge services or the contents online.

So please join any of the groups and contribute.  Thank you so much. 

(Breakout sessions started)

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Hello.  Hi, everyone.  So we'll be reconvening, please.  Please do join us.  You'll be presenting? 

>> MILTON MUELLER: Yes. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Okay.  Perfect.  Mr. Mueller.  Thank you so much, everybody, for your contributions during the group discussions.  Yeah, we are short on time, and I really hope you had good conversations in the -- in your respective groups.

So now we'll be listening to two people.  We'll be listening to Valentina and Dr. Mueller, that will be giving us just in a few minutes two or three points, main points that they had as discussion in their group, and after that, we'll be wrapping up this session today.

So I'll start with Valentina. 

>> VALENTINA HVALE PELLIZZER: Okay.  Thank you very much.  Our group was on knowledge, and what we realized, that there are several levels, so there is the first level of user, the users that are seeking for knowledge and that very often don't know how to find, and there are different issues.  It can be because of the current culture, issues that are not there, not developed, or can be incriminative of themselves, and this is one level, so how user can seek knowledge and where they can go to seek and find this knowledge.  Very often those are Civil Society in their diversity.

And then there is the layer of the Civil Society, the ones that produce knowledge and don't know or are not able sometimes to distribute this knowledge and to reach out because of different layer of misunderstanding or also capacity issues, and then there are also the other Civil Societies that are seeking for knowledge and would like to know what the others are doing.

One thing that is emerging is the role of library, library as an entry point for knowledge that is there and knowledge that is very often prevented because it's costly.  We discussed briefly the fact that there is -- there are costs, and if there the content should be available, they're not, so we were talking about the possibility on how to strategize better and consider a library as an entry point, a place that can help in the distribution of the knowledge, also guiding the research of the knowledge, even if, of course, the libraries are not at the same standard everywhere, but this can be one of the points.  Thank you. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you so much, Valentina.  That was brief, and thank you so much.  Dr. Mueller. 

>> MILTON MUELLER: Thank you.  Hello, everybody.  I'm Milton Mueller at Georgia Tech Internet Governance Project.  So we had quite a -- an informative discussion, but mostly it was about obstacles to financing rather than solutions.  Basically, we learned about the different problems that the group members had in achieving funding, and one of the most significant ones, I think, politically is the increasing a number of restrictions that are placed on transnational funding flows by national governments because of money laundering or -- or terrorist restrictions or sometimes just political discrimination, Civil Society groups that have a better chance of getting funding maybe from outside the country, but they might have obstacles in actually getting the money in the end, so Sylvia's recommendation was to start looking inside your own country, even though the most promising sources might be outside.

There was a brief mention of micro finance.  One of our members was studying that, and that was something we didn't really have time to explore, but we would encourage various kinds of entrepreneurial initiatives in that regard, but we didn't really have time to go into it.

And we also had a strange talk about how eligibility -- how countries might get classified as a whole, so maybe Peru, for example, was -- graduated from being low-income to middle-income, and suddenly many funders will no longer give money to Peruvian proposals because they're no longer considered low-income, even if there are obviously parts of the country where they would really still be in the same situation and still need it.

So the other problem we encountered was the difference between a donor and an investor, so you go to a donor and you just want them to give you money, and if -- but many people consider themselves an investor and they want more control over what you do, and then there can be a mismatch between that might fatally affect and kill your project because they want you to do things that you don't want to do or vice versa. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Well, it looks like you really had a very nice discussion.  I note that you mentioned, which is true -- I can agree that those restrictions on transnational funding.  I had a chat this morning with a lady from Brazil who -- they're running a project, and they received a grant from an international donor such as from the islands, but it took them, like, a very long time for them -- for their bank to even accept that transfer because their government is very, very restrictive and they're worried about all the issues of terrorism or the issues of money laundering, probably, and they said they had to explain, like, for quite a few number of weeks for their bank to be able to accept the transfer to entry into the country.

I think that's also something really, really important, and you also mentioned that sometimes it's not easy to differentiate with the donor -- who is a donor and who is an investor because most of the time in the Civil Society world, like nonprofits world, we don't deal too much with investors, I think, unless we have, like, an entrepreneurship idea, and so sometimes that can also bring into confusion.

From the other group, I note that you -- you spoke a lot about libraries and if there are ways to fund some of those libraries so they can make the content available.  Also, you mentioned some of -- there are so many users who are looking for knowledge online but they don't have -- like, they're not aware of where to go to look for that knowledge, but also for some Civil Society organizations who have something to share but probably they don't have where -- they don't know where to put that information available to their readers.

We are running out of time.  I'm sorry.  And so we -- we really need to wrap up this session.

So I'd like to thank every one of you for showing up to our session today.  We'll be hopefully continuing this discussion on our mailing list.  We'll have a mailing list, and if you can -- there is the igcaucus.org website, and you can request to have an account, and we can allow you to go -- to access the mailing list where we are having constantly discussions on Civil Society issues, so thank you so much on behalf -- thank you so much for our panelists.  If we can give them a round of applause, please, for our panelists. 

(Applause)

I was saying to give a round of applause for our panelists today and for our session facilitators.  Thank you so much for being willing to share your knowledge with us, and I hope you can share your reports with our main rapporteur so we can -- whenever the reports -- the final reports of the session will be available, we'll be also sharing it on the list.  Thank you so much, and have a wonderful day. 

>> MILTON MUELLER: Thank you, Arsene, for doing a lot of work for organizing this panel and has the unthankful task of chairing the IGC, so thank you. 

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you, Mueller.  Please join our mailing list and I hope you'll be able to be part of our discussions at Civil Society.  Thank you so much.  Bye-bye. 

(Session concluded at 11:51 a.m.)


 

Additional Information

 

Contact Information

United Nations

Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Dependance La Pelouse

Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

+41 (0) 229 173 678


Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.