Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs



9-10:15 A.M.
WS 124


This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings.  Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

>> MODERATOR:  For the beginning, I just want to emphasize a couple of things:  that there is a big opportunity to engage in cooperation and collaboration on the challenges we face.  And we hope we can get to a place where everyone, particularly our friends from developing countries, can fully engage the multi-stakeholder system, helping to bolster its accountability, inclusiveness, and responsiveness to the needs of the global community of Internet users.
I hope we can think creatively in order to bring more developing countries, governments along with our counterparties and civil society, academia, industry, around the table on the multi-stakeholder institutions, and I hope we can grow and evolve together.  In this big pink elephant, which is noted in the room, is already recognized by the multi-stakeholder ecosystem -- I guess you already lost me somewhere after the first sentence, right?  I'm sure that this is something that you have heard a number of times:  Boring speeches about multi-stakeholders and roles of the governments and of those and civil Society.  We're not going to do that.
Now, what we want to do today is to be much more practical and up to the point.  Why did we organize this kind of a session where we focus on debates?  To try to extract some of the main arguments in a debate within a very, very limited time.  The point is to try to help ourselves understand the challenge better through very, very sharp arguments.
Now, this -- what we are going to do today is rather a theatre.  This is a game.  We are going to enjoy it no matter how many of us are around.  We have to teams of debaters for two topics.  One will debate in favor of the motion, the other one against the motion.  The motions are related to the ICANN accountability and to the equal footing, so to speak.  
I have to make an initial disclaimer that none of the debaters today is definitely speaking in his or her own or on behalf of the institutions they belong to unless they say differently, right?  
What is the procedure for today?  So we have two teams.  And we have the first team, which is related to should ICANN be globalized or internationalized, i.e., should it be accountable to governments or to another stakeholders system?  And we have the second topic, which is related to does respective roles of stakeholders equal to equal footing.  
The procedure will follow.  We will have the first topic and the first two teams.  The first team's opening arguments for three minutes.  Then we have questions from all of you.  Very sharp and very pointed questions or comments, short ones, about the topics.  Then we have the rebuttals by the teams for two minutes.  And then we'll have the closing by each team for three minutes.  
At the end, you will be voting.  But you won't be voting based on your beliefs in the topic, but, rather, based on the arguments of the teams.  So which team was more persuasive?  And I encourage you to write down the notes of the arguments that they are going to take because we can discuss it at the end of the session and go into a little bit of open discussion about it.  
Mary, who is with me, helped building this all up.  She will provide some comments and reflections on the debate afterwards but she will also act as a timekeeper with a specific noise.  (bell).
When you hear the noise, debaters, that means there is 30 seconds left to finish, okay?  Sounds okay?  Okay.
So let's move to the first debate.  And the first debate we have on one hand Parminder from India and Tracey from Trinidad and Tobago and purposely avoiding their affiliations.  If they wish, they can say later on.  On the other hand, we have Adiel and we have Desiree from UK or Serbia whatever you prefer, Desiree.
Now, listen carefully to the motion.  The motion for the first one is:  This house believes ICANN should be accountable to governments or an intergovernmental institution.  Once again:  This house believes ICANN should be accountable to governments or an intergovernmental institution.  We start the debate with Parminder and Tracey.  You have your three minutes.  You can start.
>> TRACY HACKSHAW:  My name is Tracy Hackshaw and I'm Vice Chair of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.  Governments are accountable to the stakeholders, their citizens, their publics, their electorate.  We all pay taxes on our earnings, and fees or duties are levied for services.  In return our citizens and stakeholders expect a high quality of life, effective human development efforts, sound commercial and trading rules and regimes, reliable transport and utility infrastructure, good healthcare, national security, excellent service delivery and an environment which is for generations to come.  
Is the Internet not part of this basket of expectations for our citizens, our stakeholders?  All democratic elected governments were elected to serve the public interest.  The Internet is increasingly being seen as a public good.  Indeed, in some countries it is argued that it is to be treated as a human right in the same way that other basic needs are treated with such as food, water and shelter.  
With this in mind, the public interest must be seen as equivalent to protection, affirmation of basic Human Rights.  Taking this to its logical extension, the Internet in as much as it is defined as a public good has to be protected at all costs.  The Internet must be protected against any attempts to unfairly influence its operations, to limit the freedoms enshrined in the constitutions of many of the countries that are free willed, against capture by forces inimical to those freedoms, against private sector interests seeking only commercial gain.  
As governments, we recognize and accept that ICANN currently holds the mandate for certain aspects of the growth and stability of the Internet.  However, we must recognize that ICANN is not bound by the principles governments are bound to.  As a private organisation incorporated by, and therefore subject to, the laws of the country in which it chooses to locate its head office, is the current ICANN model approach of accountability and transparency sufficient to insure that it on its own stead can achieve this?  
>> PARMINDER SINGH: Yes. I think Tracey did point to the fact that ICANN does very important work.  And I would just want us to consider why we want account ability of that work and who should that accountability to be?  And we all agree that it should be to the public, because I can does important public work.  
So I just want you guys to think for a moment that, if in our own countries, we start -- somebody starts saying that the doctors, the schools, the Pharma companies should be accountable to the community and not to the government or the regulators or the parliaments, then where would we be?  Because there is a serious matter here in politics, it's the art of the possible.  Either it's A or B and most of the time when we see somebody should be just accountable to the community in real, effective, enforceable terms, it really means nothing and that's no accountability.  Right now the biggest problem is to ensure that ICANN works with the public interest and we have to go by the mechanisms of public interest which are available which could then be evolved, but having no accountability is what is what accountability to the community is.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for keeping up to time.  Sharp arguments.
The next three minutes go to Adiel and Desiree.  You may start.
>> DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: My name Desiree and I have been given this role to defend the opposite side which means ICANN is not solely accountable to governments.  Actually, ICANN makes decisions that are in the interest of public interest.  And, therefore, it should not just be accountable to governments.  
And as an example to make it more plastic, let's say that ICANN makes decisions about new Generic Top Level Domain names.  And we all know we heard about some objections, for example, from particular parts of the world for particular application dot Amazon.  There have been objectives saying that ICANN should not go and approve dot Amazon application.  And that has been the case.  But, for example, the applicant, Amazon, could therefore go afterwards and oppose that decision and sue ICANN for having had made that decision.  
So you see apart from governments, there are other stakeholders involved.  And it's not obvious that governments should have the only say because of the complexity of the issues and interests involved in the public policy making that ICANN does.  So I'm giving you one practical example.
Also, I think the second argument is that if ICANN were to be accountable only to governments, that means it will be accountable to intergovernmental organizations.  And I think in this context, that would turn also ICANN into a different kind of organisation with immunities, it would not necessarily be a bottom‑up organisation that it is today.  And I think we hear the IGF understand all the benefits of having a multistakeholder working environment where the policies are made and the benefits of ICANN staying the organisation that is accountable to all stakeholders.  I think I'll stop here just not to run out of time and pass it on to Adiel and then come back for more.
>> ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Yes.  Definitely ICANN should not be accountable to government only.  And taking back your argument, own argument to counter that, yes, governments are custodians of public interest, but ICANN is even more because in the ICANN ecosystem, you have all public interests represented, and those public interests have directly the power to influence the process instead of going through a government which, because they are elected, think that they have a vested responsibility to take decisions for everybody, even though they are not elected by everybody.  And that also prevents them generally to go and explore area where they see or they think that they are in danger in front of those who elect them specifically but not everybody.  And even in the innovation area.  And me coming from a developed country, I think innovation is critical for us.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Adiel.  Thank you.  I think this is an excellent ground setting.  And I think we have a couple of good arguments.  I hope that you back there took some comments.  Now it's your time to ask the questions or put the comments up.  Try to be very short, and please come up with questions or comments or thoughts of your own.  We can go around the table if you wish, if you feel comfortable.  Any one of you?  Any comment on the two sides?  Try to be provoking.  Yes.
>> First of all, my apology for just arriving and entering the room, but maybe there is an advantage because I just heard the last bit of the argument on the other side.  And what is very interesting, and you know my habit that whenever I am in conference room, I have to talk, I'm sorry for that.  Is that is the question of government legitimacy related to imperfection of democracy?  Because this is one issue.  Let's say that we have perfectly democratic society.  The question is if democracy ensures legitimacy, which maybe not all interests are represented through the parliament and government structures.  Therefore we have a bit broader problem of efficiency or inefficiency of democracy.  And then a logical question:  Is there any alternative to democracy?  Or should it be supplemented?  Or should it be on equal footing with other types of legislation.  This is a meta issue if you zoom out.  And I think that democracy is as Churchill said, whatever he said, but what was the famous saying, Parminder?  Zoom out perspective.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  I won't allow the four of you at the moment.  We'll get back at the end of the debates to provide more inputs.  Deidre is a remote moderator, any comments, do we have anyone, by the way, from the remote space?  
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  I have Ginger on Skype but actually the remote participation isn't working at the moment.
>> They need a code.
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  Apparently there is a difficulty at the moment about the remote participation.
>> MODERATOR: Please let us know if it gets back and if there are any questions or comments.
Any other questions from the audience to this point or comments?  Anyone?  Your thoughts?  Your arguments?  Or should we move on?  Okay.
>> I have a question.
>> MODERATOR: Yes, please.
>> How would the public be represented?  Who is the public?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  I hope you have noted both comments.
Okay.  Any other comments?  That is it, okay.  So we move to the rebuttals by both teams and we again start with to my left team.  You have two minutes to, well, respond to either the arguments of the other side or the questions and comments from the floor.  Tell me when you're ready.  Okay?  You can start.
>> TRACY HACKSHAW:  Great.  First of all, the argument is not that ICANN should be accountable to governments alone.  We never said that.  But it should be accountable to governments.  I want to make that point very clear.  Secondly, I wanted to make an opposition that there is an independent report from the Harvard Study of ICANN's accountability and transparency which has said that ICANN is in fact not accountable and has to review its accountability practices.  So there is an argument on the table from independent review that ICANN is not, in fact, accountable.  
>> PARMINDER SINGH:   I just take what Tracey said that it's not just government alone and take Desiree's example that if Amazon, the company, has a problem, it goes to the court.  And, yes, you are right, the court would give the final decision.  But people forget that court is a part of the government.  Government has these three pillars and they together represent the government.  
So at various levels, there could be different accountabilities but in democracy you need a back stopper, and the back stopper is the government because in most imperfect ways they are the representatives of people's will.  And in any system you don't have a backstopper, it becomes a free for all.  People decide "we are the community.  We are the representative groups," and that needs a set of rules.  So, yes, relegated responsibility but a back stopper and the back stopper is government.  And that alone is the contention.  
I agree with Jarwin that it is an issue of perfecting democracy but is not an issue of replacing democracy.  And with her that, yes, the question of what is the public will?  It is again what Jarwin said, perfecting democracy not replacing it.  And right now governments at the international level is what represents the imperfect one?  Get more participation, get more consultations, however the back stopping work has to be done in terms of public policy by the governments.  And that's where the accountability lies.  And otherwise and unaccountable Association or body is very dangerous for public interest.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Are you ready for your side, two minutes?
>> ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Yes, to answer the two questions and to talk about democracy and imperfection.  Right, yes, democracy isn't perfect.  That's why we are talking about this model which is a multistakeholder bottom‑up model where everybody has a chance to participate.  And that is a model that has been used to counter the imperfection of the democracy.  
The second aspect how do you ensure participation, and that answered the question of Parminder about who will be the stopper?  And it is the public.  It is everybody that has that responsibility and should exercise that responsibility, not delegate that to a government.
And how do we ensure effective public participation?  That is true globalization.  Globalization means what?  It means taking ICANN process and decentralize them to the local.  So to allow everybody at every country level to be able to participate and being able to make their voice heard so that at the global level, we can solve or address the issue.
>> MODERATOR:  Okay.  You still have some time, Desiree, want to jump in?
>> DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: Yes, maybe to set Churchill right  in what he said.  "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."  So I think I'd just build on to what Adiel has been saying, and I think we are not saying either, that ICANN should not be accountable to governments.  And you said correctly not solely to them.  
But what we are here discussing is these imperfections where public policy servants are usually so remote and make so many decisions on a daily basis that having an organisation such as ICANN accountable to representatives of governments who have no time to deeply get into the issues and complexity of all the stakeholders' interest would, I think, be very irresponsible.  Yes, there is an accountability issue that needs to be addressed and is being addressed.  But we're running out of time here.  So can I continue?  Or I'll stop.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Desiree.  Okay.  We come to the end of the first debate with the closing statements of both sides.  We will start with you.  You have the closing three minutes.
Okay.  Let us know when you're ready.  Just a reminder, when Mary knocks the glass, you still have 30 seconds, okay?  So just for you to know to finish or wrap up your thought.  Okay.  Are you ready?  
>> TRACY HACKSHAW:  I want to end by quoting from the European Union Commission's Principles of Internet Governance and for accountability and transparency that governments have.  One, Governments need to be transparent.  ICANN needs to be transparent.  Two, government needs to participate and show inclusiveness and balance.  ICANN needs to have that, as well.  Three, government needs to be accountable.  There should be clear public commitments to give regular stakeholders or independent bodies, ICANN doesn't currently have that.  ICANN should do that now.  Without accountability and transparency, without inclusiveness, without the quality and balance, what are we left with?  Just a whole lot of names and numbers.      Parminder?
>> PARMINDER SINGH:   Thank you, Tracey.  I think I'll start with Adiel's point of taking it to the people.  Ideals and institutions and facts are different.  And ideals have to be put in place and made into institutions and facts because they are real lives of people which matter here.  And we cannot run governments or run politics by ideals.  
There is no institution which has been able to take it to the people.  And any institution which actually takes it to the people and also has that other aspect ‑‑ now, I digress.  Accountability always needs control of coercive power.  If somebody is accountable to me, if that person doesn't behave, I should be able to do something to make it behave.  And this element of coercive political power is a very serious business and cannot be left hanging in the air.  And you need certain clear institutions to exercise that.  
Therefore we need what we have, and just throwing that anybody do it generally gets cornered by the most powerful people as we see the big businesses rule ICANN, rule any kind of multistakeholder space because when it is open, the one with the resources comes and will dominate it.  And there needs to be countervailing forces.  And these are political institutionalized forces and the ones which we have now are governments.  And nobody said alone.  But the back stopping is done by the government.  
And the allied issue is about participatory democracy and I keep on challenging multistakeholderists that call a conference of all practitioners of participatory democracy and multistakeholders if any agree that multistakeholderism is participatory democracy, I would start speaking the same language.  Nobody from the participatory democracy agrees that multistakeholderism is part of democracy.  
And if anybody has proof, they can produce it and the elephant in the room is big business.  Big business cannot have the same power as the people's representative group.  And multistakeholderism says that big business is equal and becomes much more equal.  And the last Desiree's point about time and knowledge.  Meritocracy is a very dangerous concept in democracy.  Social Darwinism should be avoided and everybody has a time who has an interest to do and has the merit to be able to participate.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Parminder.  I wish we could continue with these.  It seems like it's just warming up.  The last three minutes to the closing for your side.  You can start.
>> ADIEL APOGLAN:  Yeah, who should be accountable to who?  To the users, to the public, to the end.  So we come to the same thing.  Why having somebody in the middle if at the end those in government are accountable to can directly exercise their accountability.  
Second thing is power.  That is valid even for government.  Even if, coming from developing country, know how much more powerful and economy and big business are influencing policy in developing countries.  Saying that, I think accountability has to be seen as something disputed.  In the Internet world, accountability is a distributed thing and we have to work to strengthen that distributed bottom‑up and multistakeholder model to insure effective participation and accountability of everyone.  
And that is our challenge today, to work on how do we strengthen that multistakeholder by being more innovative.  If I give government only accountability in 1994 when I start my first ISP, I will have never been able do that because government were telling me "we do not have any recommendation at the ITU level that would allow us to do Internet."  Thank you.
>> DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: I'll just add a couple of things.  We will be definitely on the wrong track if we're trying to refine what ICANN does to be accountable to the governments if we would be focusing on that.  Because as the question has been asked:  Who is the public?  It is the global Internet community.  It is the users.  It is ICANN who need to globalize and get involved and get closer to all the Internet users around the world like it has chapters, like it has offices, and internationalization of ICANN itself to make it more accountable to governments would actually trigger off this really, I think, an unfortunate track of becoming a more bureaucratic institution, having needs and getting away from the Internet users and their ability to participate in the process.  
And I think this second wave of globalization that we need to experience is actually not about a power.  It's about setting norms and making everyone included in that process.  And therefore when we're reforming ICANN's accountability, as a first need, I think, we ought to get as close as possible to the Internet users, majority of those who are currently not even involved in the process.
So I think then it in itself it would increase the interdependence, I think.  Such process would increase the interdependence whilst giving focus to the nation states and giving focus to the governments may actually major a few because that's how you get international topics and international related dependencies built.  And what we are doing here is actually undoing those dependencies.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Desiree.  Thank you both teams.  I enjoyed it.  I took a number of notes and I'm sure Mary did, as well, while counting the time.  Now before we turn to a little bit analyzing what we went through in this first part, now it's your part back there in the audience to try to vote, to help us decide which side was better in this debate.  Now, whoever has been following the debate, tried to reboot your brain for like two minute and forget what your personal opinion is on this topic and tell us who do you think was more persuasive and who had better arguments in this debate?
So who of you think that this team was more persuasive, please raise your hand.  Five, right?  Okay.  Who of you think that this team was more persuasive?  You had two hands for both sides?  Is it?  No.  Just this one.  Okay.  So it's 5‑5 in fact.  It's a draw.  Okay.  Is it really 10 people in the audience.  Wow, that's great.  Okay, excellent.  Thank you.  Well it's really interesting to see.  We have a comment or a question, Deidre?  
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  We have a vote from Tracey ‑‑ I mean a vote from Ginger.  For Tracey and Parminder.
>> MODERATOR: So this is the team that won.  Thank you, Ginger, for joining the voting.  
>> TRACY HACKSHAW:  There is some conspiracy here.
>> MODERATOR: When we started preparing the debate, initially we thought of first voting before the debate what the positions are.  But the problem might be tricky but that mean people actually vote on their positions and someone may say listen, you actually voted at the IGF.  Okay.  Let's vote based on the arguments.
Okay.  Now we do have time to open a short round of comments by any one of you on this debate.  Since there were not too many of us, there were not too many questions.  So let's just maybe firstly give a throw to Mary.  Yeah, you should go through the analysis of a debate quickly, the arguments.  And then we pick up a couple of thoughts from you.  Mary.
>> MARY MURPHY:  I'm not going to be commenting specifically on the arguments given but more on the way in which those arguments were delivered.  I would like to second what said earlier about the propensity to have extremely long, boring speeches that are anything but engaging.  
And I was very, very pleased actually to see that there are quite a few rhetorical devices used in this morning's presentation.  And I like the fact that, Parminder, you actually got really involved with the audience, and you said I want you guys to think about.  And your use of personal pronouns.  It was very inclusive.  It was "we," it was "our" so bridging that gap between you and your audience was done very effectively.  
I think one thing I find very confusing when it comes to public speaking is that a speaker starts by saying “I” and then goes to “we.”  And then goes into “you.”  So as a listener, I'm trying to decide what part and what position they're actually saying.  So to pick to a voice and to stick with that voice throughout your argument.
Tracey, I think when you started initially, there was a fast train going somewhere that you were in danger of missing.  I think above anybody, your use of content was excellent and your structure and the language that you used, but slow down, because I found it very, very difficult to keep up with you.  
And I think generally punctuation is something that we don't use well enough when we speak.  We have a tendency to replace the full stop or the period, whichever part of the word you're from, with "and" so instead of discrete opinions and positions, we get six or seven thoughts strung together with and.  And this makes it very, very difficult for an audience to actually understand what it is you're talking about.
With Desiree and Adiel, I thought the ‑‑ it was much more personal, I thought, your interventions.  There was a lot of references to I, I think, I'd just like to say, I'd just like to add.  Again, if you're speaking as a team, that needs to be we.  The position is.  And ask yourself, really:  Are we interested in what we think individually as people?  Or are we interested in what our position is?  So the use of I as a personal pronoun when you're making interventions, I don't think carries nearly as much weight as use of the phrases like the position is, the current thought on this is.  So it's a much more broader and more effective aesthetician.
The signaling from both parties was excellent.  When you have a certain period of time during which you want to talk and that time is limited, to say things like my first thought is, the second point to make.  Use that signaling to show that you have a limited number of points and you're clearly indicating to me what they are so it makes it easier for me to follow your argument.
The personal entreaties I thought were really, really good, the citing of sources, the citing of studies, it adds to references.  The use of quotations is very effective and a very nice way to actually add a little bit of extra spice to an intervention.  But for the most part, I would say speed of delivery, punctuation and then being careful about which pronoun, which personal pronoun you use.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mary.  Well I hope this will be very helpful for all of us in future to make interventions more sharply and the arguments more sharply.
Now let's go to the floor and a couple of comments.
>> I don't know if Mary was introduced.  Mary Murphy is our Director of Operation and Mary's one of the champions of Toastmaster societies and the specialist in public speaking.  Mary has been following the speeches at the IGF.  And she has been making comments.  And she was a bit surprised with -- Mary, you may reflect later on the overall level of the use of rhetorical devices in speeches.  In Diplo, whenever we have the exercises, you ask Mary to sit in the room and to also give this capacity building aspect on the rhetoric and delivery of statements.
>> PARMINDER SINGH:  Yes, I had read Mary's email earlier but I read it before I came in, as well, and I saved it because I do think I tend to get passionate and carried away.  I thought before going and reading this stuff would be good for making an intervention, thank you, Mary.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  
Any comments about the topics, any one of you?
>> I thought ‑‑ I was a bit unhappy that this side was not a bit stronger using facts because the argument, of course, at government, we represent the public is very strong.  But the trouble is that only a minority of the governments we have in this world represent the public.  So that argument is very easily supported by facts from the World Bank on the openness and transparency.  
So, in fact, we have a minority of countries which have transparency and open.  So that's really a good argument for not giving the accountability to governments.  And I think this data is readily available.  So I think aside from using so many personal interventions, it would be really good to just use facts.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  
Deidre, do we have comments over there from remote?  No.
Should we move on, then to the next one which is closely related to that and you might even have a chance to incorporate something that we went through.
Now, Roxana will join Desiree on one hand and on the other hand instead of Tracey, we have Marilia while Parminder will stay with us on this team.  And the topic of the second debate or the motion of the second debate is:  This house believes that respective roles of stakeholders in Internet Governance imply their participation on equal footing.  Once again:  This house believes respective roles of stakeholders in Internet Governance imply their participation on an equal footing.  
Now, at this time we start with Roxanna who is from Romania and Desiree who you already met.  On the other hand, we have Parminder from India and Marilia from Brazil.  Mary, are you ready to take time?  Thank you.  Switch off your microphone, Mary, thank you.  Okay.  The first team, you have your three minutes opening.
>> ROXANA BASSI:  Thank you very much.  The equal footing of different stakeholders as a new approach to public policy relatively new development, encapsulates the lessons learned throughout history.  It reflects an evolution in our thinking about the democratic processes.  And we got to this point because we had so many problematic decisionmaking processes before that in which the very few were deciding for the many.  
Four main arguments support our understanding for equal footing in Internet Governance.  Firstly, better decisions can be achieved with more diverse expertise in the room and with better checks and balances.  The more people involved, the better the chances for achieving balanced governance structure and improved account ability at the end of the day.  
Secondly, avoiding power concentration is a principle we should uphold no matter what.  Otherwise we risk that disproportionate contributions will be made by the most powerful.  That could be the governments, the corporations or even secret societies.  If respective roles is just a legitimacy enhancing exercise, our interests won't be represented properly by the most powerful and what will happen to the interests of marginalized populations, for example?  Who is in a position to defend their interest in the best way possible?  
Thirdly, we need to move from the illusion of participation to the reality of participation and go beyond just consulting the different actors.  We need to give them a voice in the process to integrate their views and allow and incentivize them to participate in decisionmaking.  And I think Desiree would like to add something.
>> DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: I'd like to add the important of having diversity to use not solely the expertise in the process of equal footing participation where stakeholders could be consulted on the merits of their expertise and day‑to‑day involvement and interest in the issues.  Certainly I think it's worth pointing out that decisions made solely by the governments end up not being implemented.  The majority of those end up in failure because not all of the stakeholders have been consulted.  There hasn't been a sort of buying in while the policies have been developed.  If they're developed with the participation of stakeholders who have participated in a process, the bigger chance of the certain decision being implemented at a higher rate of its success in the implementation.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Desiree, thank you, Roxanna.  We have then three minutes for the other team.  You may start.
>> MARILIA MACIEL:  Thank you very much.  The first thing that I would like to consider is that the word multistakeholder itself is not well‑defined.  A sign of it is how the word has been used in different contexts in organizations from the IGF to the ITU.  
When we try to apply multistakeholderism to areas of Internet policy development, some kind of questions we are dealing with right now is:  All actors should be effectively participating to call a process multistakeholder stared or the participation of two or three groups already means it is multistakeholder.  Have we identified all in the Tunis Agenda civil society, technical community, academic communities?  So since the multistakeholder approach was not well‑defined in WSIS, it became highly influenced by the most important institution which emerged from WSIS is the IGF.  
In the IGF, everybody participates on equal footing, but they participate like that because the IGF is first and foremost a place for policy dialogue and not policymaking.  But as the Internet mirrors the complexity of the offline world, choices sometimes will need to be made between contradictory policy options.  And in some topics, sometimes dialogue will lead to a decision.  When this happens we need clear criteria for a presentation and we need to bear in mind the sources of the legitimacy of the actors that are participating on the table.  
So take, for instance, an area where decisions are effectively made today such as technical standards.  Technical standards do impact on policies.  Should technical standards be discussed on equal footing?  Should governments have the power to say no to a technical standard or should the technical community take the lead in discussing and implementing and deciding what is the best technical standard?  
I think we need to bear in mind that equal footing, that nonequal footing does not mean that governments will take the lead all the time.  It just means that in different areas of policy development, some stakeholders can take the lead, and different moments of policy development can be carried out in equal footing and others not.  I think that one of the good things about multistakeholderism is that it is a flexible concept.  
So exactly what are the different roles and responsibilities is something that we need to discuss on a case by case basis.  Adding equal footing to multistakeholder is unnecessary and just adds complexity to the decisions that we are having here.
>> PARMINDER SINGH:   I'm so happy that everybody who spoke before me has agreed that the respective roles in Tunis Agenda meant equal footing.  It is not much left for me to say except for the fact that I understand the nuances that equality of all stakeholders is equality of all people, the real stakeholder, and we shouldn't miss the wood for the trees and the structures in front of us may not be equal but they are always pointing to actual equality of all stakeholders.  And that's what precisely was meant in Tunis Agenda which we all seem to be agreeing here.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Good from the beginning.  Then we move to the questions and comments about the topic.  Once again I'll read the motions so that you can remember.  This house believes respective roles of stakeholders in Internet Governance imply their participation on an equal footing.  
Any comments, questions from the floor?  Let me start with Deidre, do we have anyone online?  Ginger is still there?  
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  Ginger is still here, but she doesn't seem to have a comment at the moment.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Deidre.  You can also pose a comment on your own, if you wish.  Any comments, questions, suggestions?  Come on, guys, don't be shy.  We have to provoke the debaters.  Yes, please.
>> Well, I think that the multistakeholders are actually defined, and there are a couple of documents relating to this.  But maybe, more importantly, we also can understand this multistakeholderdism as a new form, as an emerging form of policy making which does not only apply to Internet Governance but also to climate change and a lot of other global issues where we don't have functioning decisionmaking processes at a global scale outside the UN system.  So maybe despite the IGF multistakeholderism not being 100 percent defined, we need to understand it as a new form of global policy making and live with the imperfection that it has at the moment.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
>> Let me add some space.  I would like the groups to reflect on what they consider as equal?  This is a philosophical issue of equality discussed since time immemorial, and what does it mean to be equal?
>> MODERATOR: We also have remote comment?  
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  This is coming in from Ginger.  She says "we sometimes use multistakeholder as if stakeholder groups were homogenous.  We don't always take into account that stakeholder groups are very diverse within themselves.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  
Any other comments from the floor?  Anyone?  You are so shy today.  The topic is quite hot.  Okay.
 Then we move on to two minutes of rebuttals.  And we start with Desiree and Roxanna, you have two minutes to provide your versions.  Go ahead.
>> ROXANA BASSI:  You might have noticed that in our intervention we deliberately avoided using multistakeholderism because there is no proper definition for it.  So this ambiguity in fact allows for confusion over who should take the lead in what situation and who should have the final say on things.  And we don't believe that this should be the case.  The sources of legitimacy are diverse.  And we argue in favor of all affected interests to be represented in the decisionmaking processes.
On equality and what it means in this case, I think in our view, equality should be an equal opportunity to contribute to the decision‑making process.  Now, some people may work with this more and others may decide to do less about it.  But having this equality of opportunity at the start is very important.
>> DESIREE MILOSHEVIC:  Yes.  I think I'd like to also comment on the comment from the audience.  And I think the Internet is just the beginning of this beautiful cooperation, you know, in the world and it's therefore with its new models also changing the world but it's also changing the institutions.  It's about changing the UN, as well, a long term view because there are other participatory processes based on democratic participatory processes in the UN that include other stakeholders and they also participate on the equal footing but mainly the principles, I think is it's important that they engage people and bring more worldwide legitimacy when you have participants that are not solely governments.  They are not solely private sector.  Not solely NGOs but working together.  So it shows also, the experience shows that anyone who engage with the stakeholders and draw from a base of a community expertise are the most effective in creating the environments in which the Internet access, for example.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Desiree.  The two minutes on your side start.
>> TRACY HACKSHAW:  Yes, again I'm repeating myself that we agree that what was meant was equality of all stakeholders.  And the respective role statement is a method to insure equality.  And I will be appalled by any policy process which speaks of anything less than equality of all stakeholders, equality of all people because that's what democracy and policy making is about.  And the respective roles is just a method.  And is an old tradition within policy making to ensure equality through inequality.  
And there is this proverb which said we treat everybody equally because the poor and the rich are equally banned from sleeping under the bridges.  Now that's not equality.  The equality is a discriminating treatment in many ways, and it is that sense that the respective roles are being mentioned but the respective roles always meant that finally we want equality of all stakeholders.  
We should not miss the wood for the trees.  Equality of stakeholders is basic.  The trees is a method.  And the method at different times is about respective roles and responsibilities in a Forum where different people have different things.  But it always, always means the equality of all stakeholders.  And that, I think, is beyond debate that that's what Tunis Agenda really meant.
>> MARILIA MACIEL:  Well, I totally agree that multistakeholderism is emerging form of policy maker and I believe the Geneva principles sets down the most important principles for multistakeholder participation, which is not only openness to all those who want to be involved but also effective outreach to make sure that those that want to participate are involved.  
I think none of that is being debated here.  Everybody agrees that all those should be involved in the process of making decisions.  I think that just we need to look in a case by case basis on areas of policy development and maybe on phases of policy development.  
And it's different phases than some stakeholders may be able to take the lead.  That does not mean that the stakeholders are not accountable to the other actors anymore.  If decisions are made, they need to be clear.  They need to be explained and so forth.  And to make sure that all the voices that have been channeled into the process have been represented in the final decision that is made.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  So we go to the final round of comments.  Desiree, Roxanna, your three minutes of closing statement.
>> ROXANA BASSI:  Okay, I'll first by saying that multistakeholderism and those processes provide the long term and wide legitimacy to the organisation that carry out this process.  And it also empowers communities and whether you define them as stakeholders or just participants or interested parties.  
So the participation on equal footing is something, is a statement that we defend in order to give enough of diversity, to provide enough diversity of views to provide a more wholesome picture of the issues that are being discussed, rather than giving privileges to a particular stakeholder group and dismissing the participation on equal footing in what the other parties are arguing for.
>> DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: The question here is do we argue in favor of power distribution or power concentration?  For us distribution will be more important.  And just to end on a quote from Orwell, something we have to fear is that we are all equal but some are more equal than others.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  You had some more time, but you were very short below that.  Thank you for that.  Okay.  We leave the last three minutes for the second team.  You may start.
>> PARMINDER SINGH:   Thank you, yes, Roxanna, we need to be equal.  And I think if you judge a bit lack of energy in this debate is because all four of us seem to be speaking for equality of all stakeholders.  And I think we judge just build on those agreements now rather than any differences which there doesn't seem to be much of it left.  
And I do understand that equality requires intermediate structures which defines things.  Equality, when you start constructing an institution, you have to be unequal.  The sizes of the walls cannot be equal.  There will be many design principles put to it and the respective rules are a set of design principles.  They always, always mean equality of all stakeholders.  And what is equal is important.  And here the equality is a basic equality which is the basis of the social contract of democracy.  All people are equal.  
The systems would evolve on the top of them, which would work in a differentiated matter which is the roles and responsibilities but always with that end point in mind that all people are stakeholders.  And therefore this connector of Tunis Agenda, the respective roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders implies equal footing is a very important principle which we all are supporting here and we need to support here.  And I agree that this kind of thinking should be taken to other areas as well because the quality is most important.
>> MARILIA MACIEL:  I think that both teams are in agreement that participation, diversity of voices is something that we need to provide to the process.  But I also think that it helps when we come down to concrete examples.  
So when we think about the IGF, for instance, discussions should always be held on equal footing.  The IGF has a very important role in terms of problem shaping of issues.  Issues are shaped here in the IGF.  And they are taken for decisions elsewhere.  So a lot of the steps of the policy process are already made on an equal footing.  
I think that what we are arguing here is that different organizations, when we take sometimes issues that are defined here in the IGF on an equal footing to other organizations such as the AITF, when you gather topics such as mass surveillance and then the technicians are going to gather around the topic and define what is best technical to protect privacy something we discuss here in the IGF, then the final decision should not be made by civil society or governments, it should be made by the technical people.  Of course the more open this process is, the more we understand the importance of technical standards, for instance, or what is the impact, the terminal standard would have in our lives.  The process will be more robust.  
But I do agree and I do trust technical people to choose the last standard that is going to be implemented in order to protect privacy.  The same I feel should be said about treaties for instance.  Sorry.  I was looking here.  Sorry.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Well, we came to quite some agreements, which is not ‑‑ that's not good.  We didn't expect it.  But it was really good.  Okay.  Time for all of you that have been following the discussion to tell us who do you think won this debate based on arguments and persuasion?  Those that think that this team one based upon arguments and persuasion, please raise your hand.  Three.  Okay.  Those of you that think that this team one based on arguments and persuasion, please raise your hand.  Four.  What does Ginger say?  She's quiet.  
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  Ginger said neither one.  They both co-opted talk of substance.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for the comment.  Okay.  So we have this team winning this time.  Thank you for your strong arguments.  It was really fruitful debate.  I'm not going through arguments maybe a little bit later on when we maybe discuss a little bit, but I'll try to put all the arguments that we caught up on a piece of paper and share with you because I think this is really an excellent set of arguments that sharpen the discussions much more and find place for agreements, in fact.  
Mary, up to you, brief reflections?  
>> MARY MURPHY:  A couple of things to add to what I said earlier.  What struck me about this particular debate was the use of vocal variety.  The use of emphasis, Marilia, I think your change in emphasis to make your points was really effective.
Also the variety in speed.  When you slow down, if you want somebody to remember something and then speed up if you want to get them really engaged in what you're talking about.  Again, I would come back to the use of "I think." We had one phrase that said "I think one of the good things about multistakeholderism is."  And it would have been stronger to say "one of the good things about multistakeholder is that I think was unwarranted."  I think to say “in our view,” the phrase “I think” is a phrase that is used a little bit too much.  
Timing.  Respecting timing.  One of the biggest critiques I have of speakers at conferences like this is that they are given a limited number of time to speak that they completely ignore because they actually believe that what they have to say is more important than the time in which they're given to say it.  
Another issue I have with speakers is that we seem to forget that we actually have a duty and an obligation to our audience to entertain.  Now, I don't necessarily mean, and I'm certainly not saying we should all turn into standup comedians.  It's not about amusing; it's about engaging.  It's about getting your audience to come with you on your argument and rather than just stand up and deliver your content, delivering that content in a way that actively engages the audience to listen and really hear and understand what it is you're saying.  If we have a room of 20 speakers, the speech we remember is not the one who made the best point; it's the one who best delivered the points they were making.  To leave you the opening of your intervention and the closing of your intervention are the two key points.  Anything in between, it's just you relating to your audience.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mary.  Again, we learned something where I think the next contributions even today of ours around the tables are going to be much better.  Comments from you about the topic or about debate?  
Now, we just opened the floor.  We have some more minutes to chat a little bit if you wish about the arguments and about the topics.  Any comments with relation to the roles of the government?  For instance, what I liked personally as an interesting argument that Marilia raised in defending or going against equal roles, in some parts of the decision‑making process there can be equal footing.  But she didn't use the argument to support it.  She didn't use the argument of governments but of technical community.  So, see, it doesn't have to be only governments who need to be on the top of others, sometimes even technical communities has to be on the top of the others.  And this is what I like to hear, just a different argument.
>> CARLTON SAMUELS:  Thank you.  Carlton Samuels, for the record. I wanted to talk about equality of stakeholders in the process.  We are all agreed that multistakeholderism presupposes that all stakeholders are equal footing in the process.  But we have a slight problem with equality of opportunity.  
Let me give you an example.  When you have a debate, we're talking about the policy dialogue.  When you have a debate and not all stakeholders are represented and in the room, that is ipso facto not equal.  It is not equal for stakeholders to be out of the room in a debate.  It is not equal for stakeholders to be out of the room when the policy's being developed.  Remote access, as much as you want to think is equal opportunity, it's not the same quality of opportunity.  
I have been involved in these things since 2006.  When you are a volunteer in a dialogue or in a Policy Development Process sitting with people who it is their payday, that is their work, their day job to sit in that room, it is not equal.  I can tell you for fact.  
I am sitting as a volunteer, truly a volunteer.  Nobody's paying me to be here.  And I am being asked to involve myself in policy development with colleagues who get paid high six figures to be in that same room.  And that's their day job.  Somebody is going to assess them on the outcomes of that discussion as part of their job.  
So, we ‑‑ I don't know how you would wish to deal with that or treat that.  But I will tell you from my experience, equality of opportunity also has to do with the quality.  When you go into a room to build policy and you are not as prepared as the other person, then that is not -- the outcomes are definitely not going to be one that is shaped from an equal perspective.  
When you are remote and you're in an area where the communications is such that people cannot hear what you say or you get interrupted, then that is not equal.  
I have personal experience last year at Bali.  I tried valiantly to integrate into a panel.  And I couldn't make it into the panel, although I was up all night trying to get in because of the communication.  These are absolute ‑‑ these are things we know.  It's not our experience.  So I would like you to consider equality of opportunity as well as the quality that is associated in the participation.  Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Carlton.  Very valuable comment.  By the way, I notice that the folks that you mentioned that are paid to do the job are paid by us, by the way.  So that's also one of the problems.  Why are they not doing if they are doing the job that we are paying them to do?  Tracy?  
>> TRACY HACKSHAW:  I'd just like to add to what Carlton is saying and probably add the two debates together with a provocative statement.  So I think it's fair to say that I could speak this out.  
In the GAC, there's a debate going on as to whether or not governments are in fact on equal footing.  So for those who don't know in ICANN rubric, they are supporting organizations which make policy, advisory committees that advise on policy after it's been formulated.  The governments have recently or maybe not recently been saying that advisory committee is not on equal footing as a supporting organisation.  And therefore in a multistakeholder model, they are not on equal footing in the ICANN world.  
How do you reconcile from a government perspective and others who are I believe at large but also qualify in that category as advisory that they are not involved in the same way as the policymakers in spite of the efforts to really engage and all those sort of things?  
At the end of the day, it's said that the advisory can have veto power, which is not really true.  However, what is the response along the lines of governments having equal footing in the ICANN discussion in which case the accountability argument may not be as necessary in that standpoint?  That's been some of the discussions we've been having in the GAC.  And in the absence of that equal footing discussion, the accountability argument has come up more often because of that lack of participation.  Thank you.
>> PARMINDER SINGH:  I think Carlton raised the most important question.  In the room inequality and outside the room are two different things.  And basic concept of political equalities outside of the room, equality among people.  And that's basic and everybody agrees.  And the question then is the equality outside the room, how does it convert to equality inside the room?  That's not small question.  That's the very question of democracy not to be treated lightly.  
And the problem with multistakeholderism is that it does treat it lightly.  It says who is present have made it and they are equal.  And we have heard that presence is mediated by huge number of facts, and multistakeholderism consistently refuses to look into those facts, factor them in and create filters to counter those facts.  And until that is done, the equality inside the room is a huge inequality for those outside the room.  
And that basic proposition is a problem.  The equality of what is happening inside the room has to represent an equality outside of the room.  And therefore since it will always be .0000001 percent inside the room, how much equality you do inside the room, the room cannot fill with 7 billion people.  Representativity is the basic question.  Multistakeholderism hates that word.  
You can go and do a check of the documents of multistakeholderism if you don't believe they hate that word, you wouldn't find that once in 1,000 words.  Why democracy is wholly based on converting outside equality to inside through representativity and that's the basic problem with multistakeholderism.  
And closing it with the point you made, I think this anti‑governmentalism which the upper-middle-class, because of their economic interests and cash in the pockets to which they can manage their business, is a huge problem, because we easily talk about democracies not working.  Governments don't work as big business works.  
And I don't agree with all those reports who say that a very small minority of the world's governments are democratic.  I know that scent of democracy in countries.  I know it in India.  I know it in Nepal.  There are struggles.  But there is a huge degree of democracy in many, many places and I don't think it is less than 50 percent in this world today.  
That is a better thing.  And we all compare A versus B.  That's less democratic.  But the other side is big business and how democratic the big business is between A and B, what do we choose?  And imperfect representativity should not be thrown away because of its imperfection because then we go to worse models which are hugely, hugely unequal.  And representativity should remain the basic question.
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  I have two sets of points.  One from Ginger first.  She says:  She much appreciates Carlton's point about unequal footing of both volunteers and remote participation and suggests the next debate might be:  Is there equal footing for remote participants?  Should there be equal footing for remote participants since?  Some don't think so.  That's Ginger.
The next one is me.  Can I?  Carlton's example -- in fact he did get to speak on that panel because I was in the room and we were in contact on Skype.  So he gave me the words and I gave the words a voice.  I believe that's what we have to start doing.  We have to start helping each other.  We have to start working around the technology.  If the technology lets you down, you need a plan B.  This was plan B for Ginger today until the WebEx began to work.
I also think that ‑‑ I agree, I think, with Parminder.  The stakeholder, the idea of stakeholder is divisive because it separates people into one group and one group and one group where they may in fact have sympathies in several groups.  So I think that we, we, as individuals, need to create our own democracy by offering hands and pulling each other in.  We can do it.  I think that's how we're going to have to do it.  Rather than depend on groups doing it for us.  That's not very after you articulate or well‑argued, but I know what I mean.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Deidre.  Quickly getting back to what Carlton said about the quality.  So it's not only the equality out of the room and equality in the room, but it's also the quality in the room and quality out of the room because if we miss equality of contributions in the room out of the room, we just do anything.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA:  Rarely disagree with Ginger but today we are in debating mode.  I'll give you one example on discussion of remote versus in person participation.  We had event in Geneva.  We opened it to remote participation and people came to the room and said it's not equal treatment of us.  You made an effort to come to the room to the event.  And you want to treat us -- retry really to treat equally, to do in vivo experiment.  Remote participants and in sitting participants.  And one of the comments from the in sitting participants, these guys are sitting in their offices.  We made an effort.  We are here in the room.  We want to be treated better than just equally with remote participant.  
(Off mic)
Just one idea.  
Second point which is extremely interesting.  And I attended a few sessions but I found really marshaling of arguments extremely important.  We have to address some problems immediately.  Probably one way to sort out this problem what Parminder said equality outside the room inside the room, equal opportunity to participate is to have really full transparency but general transparency of processes and to start in building check and balances very fast because check and balances in this process still we create the ideal designer or close to ideal design are extremely -- because we have to sort out these problems now.  Decisions are even during IGF, some decisions are proposed on the basis of multistakeholderism.  They have to see how this check and balances because there are strange things.  
I attended one event where the all panelists had twice salary according to public information than diplo's annual budget.  And I said my God, that's something ‑‑ there is sort of instability in the room.  You say what's going on?  And for this situation, you have very good rules in Washington, D.C., in Brussels now on lobbying.  Lobbying is legitimate exercise.  But then lobbying involves certain rules and procedures, check and balances, conflict of interest and other things.
Probably to approach these disbalances, we have to start with full transparency and inbuilding checks and balances.  And the move from the general rhetorics.  Well, in this case rhetoric is not used in negative way.  But move to concrete issues and concrete problems.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  I see, Deirdre, you wanted to jump in or not?  I just want to see is it Ginger back there?  Probably she wants to respond to yours, so yeah.  
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS:  She says you, Jovan, illustrated my point.  There are those who believe remote participants should not have equal footing.  Are they right?  Is it so easy for me, that is Ginger, to be up at 1 a.m. to join you today?  I'll take you on, Jovan.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Ginger.  Everyone puts the effort, seems like.  
Parminder, yes?
>> PARMINDER SINGH:   Yeah, maybe agree that equality often has to be insured through inequality.  I mean this equality cannot be used for your own purposes which multistakeholderism sometimes uses.  Basic equality is a highest value remains the biggest issue.  And we should always be checking.  
And about checks and balances, and I am saying let's go beyond rhetoric.  And I think transparency in checks and balances itself has become really rhetoric.  Problem with multistakeholderism is they don't want rules.  And they don't want any remote arm's length account ability.  
These groups say that we are the community.  That's the biggest misappropriation of a term for many, many centuries.  Then the people who decide things also declare themselves the community because then they abolish accountability.  It always works where somebody else at a distance, whether it's a court or some uninterested party who can say excuse me, as per these rules, what's your problem?  But multistakeholderism says we will decide.  We will be accountable to ourselves.  We know about the charade that's being played about ICANN's accountability right now.  We will not have rules about transparency, conflicts of interest, civil society involved in these spaces say they don't want to tell you their financial disclosures.  I mean I've never heard of that kind of thing in any civil society.  
So this group is completely anti‑checks and balances and transparency and that's an issue.  We need rules‑based and separation of powers.  Separation of powers is something this group doesn't believe in.  And this is the huge problem with the multistakeholder system which has to get diversified.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  
We have a couple of more minutes.  Anyone wants to put some final comments?
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA:  I will discuss Ginger's comments.  I felt a bit ashamed after she said that she had to wake up at 1:00 in the morning.  Well, bye‑bye Ginger.  Vladimir you're a member of the MAG.  And one practical Mary indicated give the scanning of the rhetoric level of the IGF is there any possibility to do capacity building.  IGF is about capacity building, sometimes vaguely indicated.  Also in quality of discussion, I don't know how to do it, but you may propose it as a member of the MAG.  
Second, to have this -- to have the type of discussions more frequently in the IGF activities.  I don't know how that can be structured because this was more academic exercise and free exercise when it comes to the workshops is probably more challenging to have opposing views.  
But is there any way to increase the quality of discussion at the IGF?  Because we have this inflation of the workshops.  You know the analysis of our transcripts doesn't show the same level of discussion marshaling the same argument.  That could be ‑‑ this could be two ideas.  I don't have a concrete proposal, but you may open this issue during the next meeting of MAG.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  It's probably multiplying Mary into thousands of copies and putting her at every single panel to comment after every single panelists.  No, I'm joking.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA:  Let me disclose my interest.  Obviously I want to give Mary some consultancy at the IGF.  Joking.  Joking for transcript.
>> MODERATOR: No.  It's a serious suggestion and I totally agree.  We did a lot of improvements from the early years of IGF, at least with the formative sessions.  And now we see many more open sessions and even the seating is better.  But you're totally right:  The discussions, if we go probably through the transcript, it will be the same level.
>> PARMINDER SINGH: I wanted not to come back having intervened a lot of times, but I have to comment on the quality of the discussion.  Capacity is not the real problem.  When medicines are being discussed, when water is being discussed, the right people reach not the right arguments but the best arguments because they are the people that are getting affected and they say the tap water is an issue like this.
The problem is IGF refuses to discuss what all the rest of the world is discussing in the name of Internet Governance.  The problem of the right to be forgotten, names are being removed, whether it is a violation of freedom of expression or it is a violation of privacy where the courts are asking from one to another.  
The construction of the debate has to be on what the newspaper and the people on the street are talking about in Internet Governance and the conversion rate is extremely poor.  And that reduces the quality of the discussion.  And I think capacity building and policy dialogue spaces basically should be kept separate.  Because this feeling -- I mean, a person is coming to a debate knows what they want to do.  And if they strongly feel about it, they would do it.  We need capacity building outside.  
But it's not that you come to the IGF and then you are told what kind of things you should discuss.  That's not the right real participation into the IGF.  And people would be coming with the right issues if the agenda was allowed.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA:  Let me just reply to Parminder.  Conceptually speaking, yes they should be separate, but in reality, Diplo's experience over the last 15 years is that sometimes the question how to ‑‑ where to enter the UN in Geneva.  How to speak.  How to intervene.  Handholding.  Giving people a push, support, encourage them to speak.  This has been a mission of diplo for the last 15 years.  And I'm very proud there are quite a few members of MAG and GAC from global community.  
But sometimes this elements of capacity building is important.  I would say complete capacity, not just the course or training or this and that but even encouragement and small support, facilitation, giving the people encouragement to be part of the process.  On that level, this general binary distinction, which I agree about, in reality is moves into the more subtle interplay.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  I think both of you are quite right because you're talking about different levels.  One is knowing the topic.  Thematic area.  One is knowing how to present it and how to communicate and where to communicate.  And the third one is making a chance and organise the session in such a way that people can really contribute what they want to.  
So those are all the levels that do not confront each other but rather go hand‑in‑hand, right?  Okay.  
Well thank you for coming today.  I think we had really fruitful discussion.  One interesting thing is that I know that I forgot as a moderator and it's my fault to transcribers.  I didn't mention any single name.  I didn't even introduce myself.  But that means at the end that the transcripts are going to be done in‑house which is not that bad.  So thank you for coming.  Enjoy the session.  We will go on discussing, well, with coffee.  Thank you.  
(End of session.)

This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings.  Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.