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

FINISHED TRANSCRIPT

EIGHTH INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM

BALI

BUILDING BRIDGES – ENHANCING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION FOR GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2013

11:00 A.M.

WORKSHOP 41

DEVELOPING AND EFFECTIVELY USING MULTISTAKEHOLDERS PRINCIPLES

********

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

********

(Please stand by).

     >> And we have our team and moderator over there and we have Sarah, who is assisting him and we have our remote moderator, Constance. Constance do we have any remote participants so far?

     >> CONSTANCE WEISE: We do, actually, we have one remote participant Jimson -- he's Chair of --

     >> Welcome Jimson. To get us going you all have this document I think that is in front of you. I would like to ask the panel to briefly and concisely talk about specific experience of multi-stakeholder corporations and what has worked in the experience and not worked in the experience and taking principles on this page on in mind,  engagement, participation, contribution, transparency, and how decisions are made. So they're not there to touch on all of those but specific experience. Jackie are you ready to start?

     >> Jackie: I think these principles are very important, very useful, and challenging to accomplish. I would like to share quickly something we did in U.S. related to privacy and mobile applications. I think it was a pretty good example of grappling with some of the challenges here and the way it worked is that our Government came out with policy of consumer rights around privacy. And if has not been introduced as legislation but rather it's something there we would aspire to in order to implement and operationalize that there then was a Mississippi process to deal with a particular issue which is transparency in mobile applications. A very inclusive process of putting together all stakeholders, industry, users, device manufacturers, et cetera, convened by the Government and the net result of that, was to come up with a set of consumer principles that were embraced by the entire group.

Now,  it took a long time. It was messy. And it was a narrow issue and the narrow issue I think was helpful in reaching a positive outcome and the idea was to try to use that process --

     >> EVERTON LUCERO: Do you think that could have been done in any different way? Is that a process thought think -- does that fall into the category of processes that cannot be done ever than in a multi-stakeholder way or do you think it could have been done in a different way. A more traditional way of doing that would have been for individual players, industry players doing that, or advocacy by consumer groups or maybe an industry code. But the idea here was to try to get everybody in. I think it gives it more credibility. The question is, as I said, it was a narrow issue. How you can succeed with more complex issue. And how do you reach decision making it was consensus decision making process and some of the challenges in the principles we're looking at today are around getting relevant stakeholders there and doing decision making in inclusive way.  

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Everton.

     >> EVERTON LUCERO: Thank you, Anriette. I have two examples and one open question for us to discussion further during the debates. One example is already well known by everyone I think it's brings -- experience in multi-stakeholder process that managed to develop a set of ten principles that are a reference in Brazil for any stakeholder group precisely because it was developed in a multi-stakeholder environment which is CGI.BR and I will not extend myself on that I would be glad to develop if there's question about that it's just example that could have been perhaps much more difficult to develop than achieve had we not had in Brazil a representative party where it is balanced in terms of representation from industry, civil society and academy and Government as well and technical community. So this is example number one. Example number two has actually been presented in the previous workshop earlier today which is related to how to combat spam by managing port 25.

It looks like it's a very technical matter but in fact, experience showed us it has been possible only because we had a multi-stakeholder in place in Brazil that was able to bring together around the same table all of the relevant actors including the telecom companies and regulator and the ISPs and content providers and so everyone, together with Government and civil society,  were able to get to an agreement on how to tackle this issue. And the result is impressive. It has been presented already. I will not repeat here. But just to summarize it brought down Brazil on top of the list of countries of originating spam and result is impressive because now Brazil is well down this list.   It's just because there was this possibility of coming together from the different sectors and working together towards the end that really allowed for the concrete result to achieved.

    

     And the open question I will leave for our discussion is in light of the recent events of unauthorized surveillance of data from Brazil and citizens including Brazilian authorities, companies, and Ministries. First question we asked was, what is the adequate environment we should take up this at an international level this is a matter not only related to Brazil it could not be dealt with, within our own multi-stakeholder environment. And the answer is of course you have IGF but IGF will not produce concrete result or conclusion about this issue.   And you are -- might be very well aware that our President made a special reference to this issue when she opened the general debate at unit nations General Assembly this September and we are actually in Brazil considering openings on thousand deal with that in most exclusive and multi-stakeholder way.

That's why, you are aware we brought this SA contribution to the IGF our Ministry of communications spoke about that at the opening session and we're looking for ways.   And the question is, where to consider that. Because we do not have today, and this is I think a relevant question we do not have a reference framework or platform that could tackle this kind of issue and present solutions or present a way forward that is reasonable and adequate to needs we have as victims of what happened.

    

     We believe we need to consider that as evolution of multi-stakeholder model in order to provide channels to address this kind of situation whenever it arises.   We don't have definite answers for how to conduct this.   But that's why we brought here as proposal actually on white sheet of paper to be filled in with contributions from different stakeholders hopefully to be producing input for the conference that we are looking forward to hosting Brazil in the first semester of 2014.   Precisely to take in account the different questions that are related to this issue. Of course we're not talking about a conference on surveillance. We're talking about a conference on Internet Governance and how to reveal trust and take the next step of Internet Governance model in ways that are effective to needs we all share. Thank you.  

     >> Thanks Everton, Johan.  

     >> JOHAN HALLENBORG: Thank you very much I'll give two examples one in regional level, actually we're involved,  members of council of Europe, 47-state member body. Located in Strasbourg really a human rights organization as you know European court on human rights is located in Strasbourg and the council also adopts various recommendations and other kinds of soft law text and I'm involved in work on developing a guide on human rights for Internet users which is initiative in the framework of council of Europe's Internet Governance strategy. And I think this is interesting example of multi-stakeholder process.   The work originates from development of draft in expert committee where only a few Governments actually are present but equal amount of individual experts representing their own personal capacity come from a variety of background, journalist,  academics, et cetera.  

So the draft is then consulted and even prior to the first draft, there was a questionnaire sent out in the various networks we all have access to trying to find what are the main problems you encounter as Internet user? So we're trying from that consultation widely to find what are the most pressing issues. So from that, it was more easy to build the first draft in the expert committee. The expert committee is also open to participation from other stakeholders. We have had industry there.   We have had both IT companies and ISPs there and other Governments and we've had also other international governmental organizations such as EU for example.   And after further work and refinement,  the draft moves into the more political part of the council where it is at the present. But even so, the consultation will continue and consultation continues widely on this final draft.

Tomorrow there will be open forum here on this draft.   And it gives us another opportunity to get input from a wide array of actors.  

    

     So finally the recommendation as soft flow instrument will be adopted by ministers of 47 countries and of course, they free, of course, to do whatever they like with the draft. And there is always a risk the final product will be slightly amended.   However I still consider this to be quite the good example because we have transparency at least about how the process works. And we have been able to solicit input all the way up to final moment. So to me I think this is fairly -- first time I was involved in this I think it's fairly interesting and good example of how international organization could work with multi-stakeholder process. And the second example is from Sweden.   And it's not really about making decisions in the multi-stakeholder environment but just like to highlight it anytime way we have since many years reference group on Internet Governance and this is a completely open group for any stakeholder interested in issues relating to Internet governance.

And so there are people from variety of different Ministries and also from state agencies,  from academia and from civil society and companies present and we need every -- meet every two months and there's long agenda of issues we discuss the we solicit input if there's a possibility to do that.   We don't make any formal decisions but it's very effective way of sharing information and getting input from other people with other background and interests.  

    

     There is quite effective e-mail list as well that runs through the network. This is our way of working at the national level with these issues. Not to create any binding decisions but so solicit input and share information.   Thank you.  

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you and before I ask for comments the examples we heard are really -- I would say they fall into three broad categories. One is broad networking national forums,  CGI,  dot BR and Sweden Internet steering group which are ongoing process was different stakeholders that come together to talk about Internet and I assume you would be able to deal with issues as they arise, some probably routine and some less routine. It's a process that builds trust and relationships and understanding.

    

     And then we have example of two very specific issues I think consumer lay. We also had example of dealing with spam. Port 25 and this workshop is about De jargonizing by the way and maybe you need to explain to people that don't go and change port numbers and settings what port 25 is when you have Mack again and also I think council of European though human rights is broad issue that is where you were working together to come up with a very specific output and then we have, A crisis scenario where the issue of mass surveillance revelations,  moment of breakdown in trust, not just in the network and in the safety of our communications but also in one another. And as states, as consumers to platforms, to businesses, so, I think, and then we are looking at multi-stakeholder response to that.   I think my question to both is for you to reflect on that based on all your experience on this.

And how do you see -- I mean I think we also hear talking about hard law and soft law and most of these were soft law processes I'm right talking the consumer principles are soft law, spam was soft law and human rights guidelines for users council of Europe soft law and surveillance I'm not sure what it will turn out to be and I think that's maybe one of the things we should talk about. But,  do golf gang do you think we're at the stage where we have good experience and confidence multi- stakeholder processes for soft law but not hard law is that perhaps one of the issues we need think about?  

     >> WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: Yesterday morning we had another workshop about Internet Governance principles.   It's important to make the differentiation between Internet Government principles and multi-stakeholders principals. Multi-stakeholders are procedures of interaction among various stakeholders while other thing is more on substance or done tent oriented.   And your question on hard law is do we need let's say treaties for the substance or also roots of procedure for interaction. And yesterday morning when we had eight different project for Internet Government principles four for council of Europe and the other countries in the -- group and other governmental things more or less we agreed to move to hard law document makes no sense.   Comparison which came into discussion was situation of World War 2 when after massive violation of human rights Governments realized they have to do something.

Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the self-committee in general assembly of united nations and some Governments wanted to have a treaty and Eleanor Roosevelt said you know, wait a minute, treaty negotiations, hard law, needs 20 years. Let's agree on general principles and probably can agree on things like no torture, freedom of expression, right to education, things like that. But, the outcome was deceleration of human rights was in two years as non-legally binding document soft law instrument. The soft law instrument like human rights declaration had immense prodigal meaning an even we see still today massive rye violation of human rights you have a reference document and you can say you know naming and shaming you can do something. So far for substance. This is on multi-stakeholders principles and interaction among the various stakeholders.

    

     You know deep routes of procedure for interaction among stake holders done just by doing it, by making it. So it's -- button up. I remember the very last day in the working group on Internet Governance when we finished in Geneva to find the report and roles of stakeholders and somebody said, should we have -- for interaction among the stakeholders and you said oh, this will take time. Next time. So it means there's no paragraph in the report which defines interaction among the stakeholders and after seven years I think this is really an achievement and we should recognize this as achievement by doing it and practicing multi-stakeholder cooperation. We have a number of stakeholders. It was really fantastic example used by everton for Brazilian case, as long as they're sitting in silos every individual stakeholders will make mistakes because he ignores some elements which are needed to be introduced or taken into consideration to find final solution and in Europe we had Governments who pushed parliamentary adopted law against spend.

You know this is all right forgotten laws. But you know it didn't help. It means you have to have this multi-stakeholder coming together out of the silos from the various stakeholders and in the process, you produce the principles because then you understand how it works. I think ICANN is another good example and -- it is dive document reach agreement but you know, in the process, you know, we are developing procedures for interaction and you know how then to communicate and conduct advice comes into the processes and so this procedure interaction among stakeholders are done in the process. We're not yet at the moment where we can define it and I would not recommend to define this in a hard law document. Though these are really flexible things and they are developed on case-by-case basis and there will nobody silver bullet here new have -- you will reach your aim.

Each new situation will create new needs. Cloud computing creates new needs you know how to manage this so serenity of nation states and how to accommodate all these various things. New cases of surveillance you know is there need for multi-stakeholder discussion about how to bring surveillance and Spanish under the rule of law I think if you have fixed stable legal procedures you know this will block you to move forward. But if you have flexible mechanisms then you can build around special needs of special issues, flexible procedures and this would be my recommendation. Not just in categories of hard law but to keep the flexibility by working with soft law and human app rights declaration is good example that soft law works. Thank you.

     >> Thanks Wolfgang. You make a very important point.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: This is one of the challenges of multi-stakeholder processes they tend to be inclusive and legitimate among those that participate in them. It's very difficult to consolidate ledge massy of a structural level this is how it works, step, one, two, three, they create their own legit massy and I think that's challenging in a Governance environment app I want to top to the floor and remind you of the two questions that our panelists raised. And there was Jackie's question about how do we use these processes when we're dealing with more complex issues and not necessarily very narrow or specific issues. And everton's question about how do we use these processes when dealing with super complex and super contentious issue and issue that has so many lawyers of relationships at stake such as surveillance.

Is it even possible how do we go about. It so it's on to all of you introduce yourself and try to be brief.

     >> Lawrence -- from Italia and to give some suggestion to answer this question, I think that one issue we should address here is understand better the process over if they notice -- the approach -- share responsibility and but this is not mean forever equal responsibility and In other words one of the most challenging issue today is city allowed approach and reasons to change in characterizing now Internet. And, for instance, one of the most important issues today is this more active role compared to past and the Government wants to play so I think it's seemingly foreign understand if approach is my complex would allow for more flexibility In other words given all the place will be included and then on some specific issues maybe some place should take the lead. You know it was to make very clear this distinction from share responsibilities and equal responsibilities.

And issues we reorganized today workshop with also -- on this specific issue at 2:30.

     >> That's a good point, gentleman, over there.

     >> CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes from Verisign I've been -- for a long time since the beginning in fact. And I wish I could say we have solved all the complex issues that Jackie and everton raised I think we have one example at least that fits everton's category of super complex all I have to do is spell it out WHOIS, who is. Is a classic. And I also wish I could say that we've learned how to handle those. It's tough. I think first thing to answer your questions I would say is that it takes a lot of time and it's messy. And what that results in then is that people want to find another way and the other way is typically not multi-stakeholder. It's much faster though and so one of the challenges going forward in the IGF world as well as ICANN world for me is, how can we speed it up and how can we maybe reach resolutions that are mutually satisfactory at least to a degree without such inordinate amounts of time.

I don't know the answer to that and we're continuing to strive. And I look at the list of principles and they're great principles and there's one -- one compound word there and that probably is most difficult and that's decision making. It's challenging to get the input from everybody. But we can do that and we have not necessarily achieved all of it like getting things in multiple languages and things like that but there are things that we can do and figure out to do to get the input teen keep it open and to reach out to stakeholders, et cetera, the real if you have part is the decision making and that, again is a place where often minimize stakeholder model in order to get it done.

     >> Can we have a microphone to that Gentleman thank you very much:

     >> Yes thank you my name is Ernest -- I'm from Norwegian teleconference for Norway. I participate in the GAC for Norway. Thank you for this workshop and very interesting and important issue. And my comments we also have a very good example of multi-stakeholder participation, developing best practices on spam from Norway and also on principles and neutrality of that is a software example. My input to the questions is that where complex issues I think it's quite important to try to isolate the issues. Because, in our case, our experience, where we have succeeded in soft law and multi-stakeholder corporation is when we have specific issues identified. And also, it is important to isolate the issues because then also you can identify the relevant stakeholders because if the problem is too complex it's also difficult to gather all the relevant stakeholders and to get input from those stakeholders so that's also one important aspect in using these principles, thank you.  

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I agree with you. But also just to be Devil's advocate on that I think it absolutely makes sense. But if you take something like Cybercrime, for example, I heard quite a lot of criticism of the Government led Cybercrime conferences and I think Governments have tried to identify specific, relevant stakeholders to participate in those. But, there are many other stakeholders who are not necessarily specifically involved with Cybercrime issues but proudly involved with human rights issues. Sigh agree with you but I think they can also be complex and definitely identify stakeholders specifically. We don't talk about it enough. We have Rinalia and Marcon and I'll give it then back to the panel.

     >> Thank you, Anriette, -- from Malaysia advisory committee I actually agree with the comment from the gentleman just now and I would like to link it to the Brazilian experience. I think that the success of Brazilian experience in dealing with spam issue is because they have established entity with convening power and they're within the national jurisdiction, you know a lot of role players already and you are able to bring the players together and if the forum of discussion is also open, and there is -- raising already that the discussion will happen that the other stakeholders who have not been identified could participate in the process and also I would like to respond to the point Chuck Gomes made about dealing with complexity about people wanting to speeding up and people wanting less multi-stakeholder decision making progress in what I've learned speeding it up it's also something -- used to say quite a lot is different stakeholders come with their own frames of understanding about particular problem.

So the first challenge is to come up with a common understanding of what the issue is and if there is already some kind of analysis of the range of understanding and trying to understand what the commonalities are and differences are that could speed up the process of getting deal with the differences. And that would also help in terms of trying to achieve a faster decision. That's not to say that it will not be less contentious. Thank you.

     >> Yes, good morning everyone my name is Marcan -- from Africa. As most of you know, the policy processes are led by Government in most countries especially in Africa where the steel code of participation is not always seen or not always welcome. So, what we have suggested in after began IGF is to make sure that the process is formalized and still making sure that the Government or parliament -- enact where it's mandatory for other stakeholders to participate in the process and so has been done in several countries like in South Africa and Malaia and in any particular protest they'll bring all the stakeholders to part of. It so I think this is an element which also can serve us an example for other processes and for other countries. By the way we're inviting you to do a workshop on deepening stakeholder activities this afternoon from -- to six led by African group in room 7.

Thank you.

     >> Thanks, Marcon I think it's a very important point and that's about just making public consultation and policy processes, obligatory which I think probably many of you take for granted but there's still many countries where Government and parliament doesn't actually have public process and that's what we're trying to achieve in Africa. One also needs to look at multi-stakeholder processes in broader context of what the political and decision making culture is in a country. Panel for you to respond I think the things that stood out for me was (Anriette) shared responsibility and it's shared responsibility equal responsibility to do stakeholders play differ roles in different faces of a multi-stakeholder problem solving or policy development prog is and there's the question from check and speed getting things done.

And being more efficient particularly because if these multi-stakeholder processes do not deliver, there is a tendency for other stakeholders, business, usually, or Government, to just you know go and follow the gap. And then there's the question from Norway or the point about specificity not just of issues but of making sure you have relevant stakeholders as part of process and -- and did we do that and in the point of our differences and beginning to speed up a process by consolidating where the commonalities are and where the differences are at the outset with that process. So, yes, who wants to go first?

     >> I'll start again. I think -- fist of all it's important to step back and remember we're talking about Internet-related issues. Because to me that drives a couple of the conclusions here and one is that soft law is most likely to be the right answer. I thought that Wolfgang's point of soft Lou versus hard law was instruct tough for a number of reasons one which is for what we were talking about we really are most often looking, I think,  for agreement on things that are going to be changing over time and that are very consumer user oriented et cetera, so they're looking for soft law norms in a lot of participation. They really lend themselves to that. And I think on the speed question yes, we should be trying to speed things up. And that does then help convince others that this is the right way to do things and right mechanism to use.

On the other happened there is the point ever comparison. Because again, Wolfgang said you know two years to get to a declaration and 20 to get to a treaty and some of the other issues we've been talking about may be spam issue if you had some very technical kind of standard or something to be developed that could take many years and did you it quite quickly. But, all of these things I believe -- I'm optimist and the more we do them the more we develop the practice of auto approaching these kinds of things in a truly multi-stakeholder way including on decision making then it will get easier over time and we'll be able to -- I know we have some things to deal with short term that are complex but longer term we will also develop more practice experience and willingness to use these sort of mechanisms. Those are my thoughts.  

     >> So first Anriette I we defer the question on port 25 that has a better background. That's not my case definitely and I welcome to for anyone to step up and explain that. My comment was, regarding the questions that were posed first, on the question of shared responsibility versus equal responsibility think that this debate is already reflected in the result of WSIS in Tony's agenda you ask that each stakeholder on their respective roles and according to their respective roles and responsibilities, for instance, when it comes to public policy clearly there is a need for Governments to step up and do their job because it's their responsibility. They are responsible for public policy. So that's one point. And it goes also it relate to the question of McCann when he said that in some African countries, for instance, and that's a good example thank you for bringing this up.

In some African countries where tradition is to have Government centered making process without licensing to civil society is precisely enacting laws you to mandate participation and that you might see that as top down approach but it's top down decision that requires a law to allow for a bottom up participation. So there is an action of the two lawyers that initially help evolving a model towards more participation and multi-stakeholder processes. So it's a great example. And on the -- on isolating issues I totally agree with our colleague from Norway I think it's definitely a feed to focus or establish some border lines or focussing on what is the question we need to address otherwise each stakeholder and each different perspective will bring in a different agenda and then it will be really impossible to reproduce the same debate over and over.

I agree with Wolfgang when he said that yes, there are no -- we will develop the road along the way that we are walking it. I mean we built the road when we walk it. This say good image provided that we have eye north, provided that there are certain principles and goals that we all share. Otherwise we might end up just by going in circles and that's a real danger in case we do not have a common understanding prior to that. And, lastly, I would like to say that the decision we had at the highest level w within the Brazilian Government to bring to this forum and to bring to the united nations the sensitive issues that I mentioned of unauthorized surveillance of communications. It is actually concrete example of our genuine believe in multi-stakeholdersism and we could have as Chuck said chosen easier path of a top down approach and going to other four that might all be limited to Government participation but we took the decision at the highest level to bring this to an open -- to open this to all stakeholders for us to build a solution together because we believe it affects all of us but only the Brazilian Government it affects all of us.

And this is a proof that Brazil is fully committed to multi-stakeholder deducement and I say that cloudy because I want you to understand once and for all that there are no reasons to doubt our commitment to multi-stakeholders when we come up with idea of hosting a meeting next we're about this issue. We wanted to be multi-stakeholder and our President tweeted she depend multi-stakeholderism and there's no point in continuing questioning that. So, this is for us a point that is actually really important for you all toll understand and we believe this say basis because if we are rebuilding trust in Internet Government processes we need to do it starting from trusting ourselves who are in this issue.

     >> Thank you.

     >> And before I give it you to Johan I want to point out quickly I think there's a bit of contradiction between what I think the speaker from Norway said and what the agenda says. Because I think -- partly, the identification of stakeholders to participate on very specific issues is very specific process and different stakeholders would have different draws on different issues so I think what we find that is restrictive in the two agenda techs that doesn't reflect resolution of Internet or Internet governance it applies civil society has one rule and Government has one role and technical community as one role and just to plaque that because I think none of us agree those rules are rigidly fixed we need to recognize different issues often require stakeholder groups to play a slightly different draw in the process. Anytime way to give to Johan we have quite a few people on the floor that want to participate.

And we are more than halfway. So let's be quick.

     >> Thank you. Just brief comment on importance of principles -- principles and soft law and I'm very pleased to hear references to the work the of international bill of rights which is -- consists of declaration and two covenants which then were adopted in 1960s. But universal declaration although it was and still is a declaration, it's considered by everyone I would say that most parts of that is not soft law anytime more it's become hard law because of status as customary international law which then is minding. So don't under estimate of power of soft law. It may take time. But, over time, it will develop into real binding norms which is good of course. And on the Government policy making and different national sort of characteristics on consultation and multi-stakeholderism I like to mention in my country there is since many many decades and established consultation procedure for every police of legislation we don't.

And in that process, civil society, industry, academia, everyone is well able to contribute and this is since it's part of the political culture in my country which is sometimes people accuse us of being consensus driven and being slow but it is developed into something which is very natural for us to do. And it opens up the Government actually because it gives access to every piece of new legislation and in that way it creates legitimacy for Government actions taken also improves transparency which is important. So just wanted to mention that on general level not related to just Internet issues.

    

     And the final point is that I -- I think we have in some forum there are particular challenges in realizing a multi-stakeholder process of course. And I totally understand what Everton is saying and I respect that bringing issue to UN and it's very good and we are strong believers in UN and I also think that realizing multi-stakeholder process in UN context could really be a change sometimes. And so, looking at the work in the CCD for example and also looking at other consultative processes in the UN it's not that's easy to make the change there which doesn't say we shouldn't try. But I'm just saying it would be a challenge. Thank you.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Wolfgang do you have manage we have a remote participant and we'll have them and Constance and get to the floor.

     >> Decision making in multi-stakeholder environment is -- we have to face this and invent something new because we know decision making procedures in one stakeholder organization Government private sector but to do it together share it, that's really a big problem. And you know in the definition of Internet Governance, the first part speaks about the participation of all stakeholders and their respective roles and second part speaks about shared principles, programs, and decision making procedure. I asked a question inform first men are are what the government thinks -- whether they're willing to share with civil society and public sector neither of these -- from the U.S. department ever states gave unprecedented discuss. You don't know how to fear that. The Internet is about cheering. We have to move forward.

That means we have to invent something which goes beyond the existing structures. And you go back to history this is not so totally if you. After the industrial revolution, you know, one of the affect from industrial resolution is challenge for existing Governance system and decision making was made mainly by team and he consult ready meniscus and made it to safety to do this or that or go to war something lying that. People said wait a minute, we have a parliament. Parliament was invented and it was more complex decision making procedure in parliament than a power structure because De pal's and -- and the question was how to then share decision making capacity to its king and Manistas and environment and it took 100 years or long to see how it worked out. We're talking now about sharing decision making procedures.

This is also sharing about how power. We should -- decision making power. We should not ignore this which would face there and the consequence is this is much more complex than traditional system. And one stakeholder procedure is much -- you could say it's it simple and complex enough visiting Government and it's compared to multi-stakeholder processes he and if somebody gives you a problem to a complex situation he's a liar. We have to face we need concept -- to reflect this Raza complex reality and it will take some time. We should not lament it you know. It's time consuming and things like that. We need time to do this. We should not be in a hurry and we should work very hard to achieve something but we should be aware, we enter unchartered territory and we have to invent something and existing experiences are good and not good enough to meet all the new challenges.

     >> Thanks, Wolfgang. We'll come to -- first I would like to give the floor to Benedicto from Brazil and we had a gentleman over there. Just -- and (Inaudible) and Jepson so those others speak. Thank you actually I have not asked tort floor but since you gave me the floor I have a comment. Thank you. Just briefly referring to point that was made that it is hard to reconcile UN approach which was taken by our President when she -- needs to develop what is called international framework to reconcile this UN approach and stakeholder approach which is exemplifies and shown by our willingness and content ton come to this median and ask for support in season defining how we can go about it. And not -- even though in our -- was at the UN there was a clear realization that anything related to Internet cannot be done purely inter governmental setting especially if we talk about norms.

So the President at that time already had this understanding so it is completely consistent that we are doing this since we consider that if we work in a purely inter governmental setting or the kind of amortative document and authoritative documents along the lines of possibly what was mentioned in the form of soft law and convey authority that was indeed representing something new and then when we have today. And that then we need to work in stakeholder environments. And we are -- I think this is the way we see things moving on in preparation for our meeting and we are very glad about this -- the discussions we're having in the context of this IGF. I think the work IGF has been doing is principles and discussion that has taken place here for this particular IGF, I think it's very happy coincidence that we have so many important discussions on this issue taken was decided even before the disclosures We had about -- it provides -- very good setting for further refining ideas and I want to ensure the willingness on proper Government to fully take into account what is being said or is being discussed and everton was saying we are convinced that the mood stakeholder environment is something that must undoubtedly be the -- for Department of the follow up to what you state at the UN and we're looking forward to working with the stakeholders involved.

Thank you.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much. Before I get to the next person can I have a quick show of hands and how many people in the room are from Government or public sector? Business? Civil society? It's fairly balanced. So now I'm just technical I'm so sorry is that the biggest Faux PAS one could make at IGF technical? Not that many technical? That's interesting. There are some though. I was thinking about that buzz of the comments about walking the talk and building this process in practice. So I was checking whether we are all working together or not. Over to you.

     >> I'm John Kern President and CEO O of ERN one of the few technical ones in the rhyme guess I speak loudly hopefully that makes up in numbers . I don't know where this formulation of multi-stakeholder principles are but it's remarkably good and it's very clear and succinct found myself Recently working on a very similar list of principles and I very nearly upon seeing this threw them out and just said I'm going to use this and I'm successful I'm done because I can adopt it. I didn't do that. I actually did look very carefully and I have four points I would like to raise with no right or wrong answers. Relevant stakeholders versus relevant inputs. Relevant stakeholders I have something that talks about relevant inputs being weighed in the decisional process and interested parties or interest folks participating because in some forums it's hard to tell someone they're not a relevant stakeholder if you actually want to be open.

You actually have to let all the inputs come and weigh them based on their relevance. So, it's worth thinking about whether if we converge on multi-stakeholder principles whether we're talking about relevant stakeholders versus interested stakeholders and open versus multi-representational multi-stakeholder and it brings in a specific comments of public comment and remote participation where available which is not mentioned but in a technical community we probably couldn't get away without a statement that said everyone can comment regardless of if you're a dog you can still comment. It's fine. And so, two other points transparency is reflected for process and decision making but not really clear whether it's reflected foreign puts and that could be important for people. The fact that decisions made and we've documented the inputs for decision, doesn't mean that people know there are other inputs have been reported and it's worth thinking about and the last point is and may not belong in here it may belong as mit the of organization using these principles plies but there's no mention D we have discussion of all these wonderful processes and what they have to come form to there's no mention of due process for appeal when those processes are not followed.

Now it may be -- that may not be provided for as part of the framework of multi-stakeholder principles that may be something some organizations do and some don't. But I found when I wrote them out I inevitably had to put something in that considered that all the principles has to be followed and due process if not. I thank the panelists and organizers for the work workshop.

     >> Thanks so much. Gemson and Rinalia.

     >> We have two interventions from two remote participants and the first one is Igor Ostrowski, Denton founder -- I think based in Poland and anybody of the MAC and all panelists assume there are equal -- do the panelists believe stakeholders work when one of the most important participants mainly Government withdrawals from the process. This was case in Poland where multi-stakeholder approach was great approach and until when the Polish Government limited areas of cooperation leaving other stakeholders in limbo and the second question comes from Jimson Mayhi. Jimson says I agree with moderator, panelists and/or present. Good morning I really appreciate the comments made so far and that of Wolfgang in particular. Let me cite case of Nigeria using put tie stakeholders was a first challenge until the government stepped in to aid the formation of multi-stakeholder organization for management of the Dot N gccTLD and that intervention and with epidemic leadership of .NG organization what we call Nigeria internet association and open transparent and inclusive forum began in 2012 and this year's edition is superlative success.

First, can we therefore generalize that we need some Government muss toll gets multi-stakeholder model going just as it helped in the first place? And second is there a possibility that multi-stakeholder model can turn into a multi-stakeholder council with binding decision. Thank you.

     >> Thank you very much. Rinalia.

     >> Thank you Anriette I'll comment on interventions about the role of Government in I think capitalizing a multi-stakeholder empty process or initiative and in my experience I think Government can do it but it's contextual if some countries taken may work in others it may not depend on the influence of the actor and their experience in the subject matter. And now on to my other comments Anriette I would like to touch on principle of inclusion because I think this is a great challenge. And tie it with the problem of speed in copping to a decision.

    

     In trying come to decision making you have three stage as agenda setting, then you have options generation, and then you have decision making.

     >> And in the agenda setting part that is the broadest level where you can bring in shake holder participation and unfortunately you were quiet to have iterative process and you cannot affect one event or forum and get all the information and input. There's a build up to that. And if the speed of all the stages go too fast you risk including some people especially if the issue is complex and they don't really the impact of that issue for themselves or their stakeholder group so there's like some patience needed in the process itself And wanted to say that it's important to be clear in the mind of people, handling multi-stakeholder processes off these stages because it gives you a better perspective of who needs to be at the table and scholars who studied policy of participation is wide enter at agenda setting and narrows in policy formulation or options -- that requires knowledge and specialized skills and decision making you have delegated authorities for decision making for a specific group.

May they be multi-stakeholder or not thank you.

     >> Thanks very much. Go for it and then we need start doing our closing phase of event.

     >> Microphone, sorry, sorry.

     >> Yes, thank you. -- from Norway just a quick comment on identifying relevant stakeholder and I think the example of CGI in Brazil is good example and have done quite a bit of ground work to do that and identify the relevant stakeholders and I think that might be a process that is worth exploring for other opportunities As well because then they will be able to take into everybody's conference so I think that is a good example that country can use. An a comment which was made from AARON as well and in your comment in of course in the traditional law making we have public consultations and all inputs are allowed and of course not all inputs are relevant. That put a did description and you gave on sort of the different steps and at the ebb enter in until sis of inputs then of course you wait and evaluate if inputs are relevant or not and then of course you make a decision on how it should sort of be at the end.

That source is also relevant issues to take into consideration. Thank you.

    

     .

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much. You know I think this is quite a rich discussion and I think there's been a lot of harmony and I think seriousness about this actually I think we had previously workshops on this topic that have been much more contentious and I think it's interesting to reflect that we've come from space of fairly conflict actual tends to debate to one we're dealing with it in a more details and nuance level, I think I'm going to let the panelists you know have freedom on what they want to focus on in closing states and I think issues that stand out for me is the question about can the process work? And can a multi-process -- multi-stakeholder decision making progress work if Government crawls and I think that's a really, real question for me. As someone from civil society who tries very hard to work with Government and Government is usually stakeholder that it is most difficult and to bring to the table and keep at the table throughout the process.

And so that's I think an important question. And I think the question it's point that Wolfgang made about walking the talk and building the process as we do it. And I would like the panelists to reflect on that as well. From the perspective of John's input as well this is a process that has to start with agenda setting but it also has to include some kind of accountability and report card -- counting for whether inputs have been taken into -- at the IGF we made recommendations if inputs on not nine account they should be exacting for that in explanation of why those inputs were not taken into account so. That was a point that was made. How do we walk this talk and do this process in a way that self-improves And actually involves assessment and learning that goes back to it. And I think maybe the other question which we should not ignore is that we are sitting in the IGF and in IGF we're never quite sure for how many years we'll be sitting in IGF.

And there are also other processes C CD on -- corporation and world summit on information society +10 which includes some assessment on whether Attona's agenda decision around internet Governance have been implemented and there's Brazil meeting coming in in pivotal way and catalytic way to deal with specific issues. So if you can perhaps reflect on how we deepen this process, get beyond the general and looking at some of these specific questions and then some of these processes and the roles you see them playing.

     >> I think part of deepening and making progress is what has been expressed as we're building the process as window. It and we're sharing experiences I think -- and I would be able to have other examples of things we're doing in the U.S. that are multi-stakeholder. They're not all of them comprehensive with all of the elements which I think is another take away here that there will be some variability depending what the issue is and what the context is and what's important, again, looking at these kind ever Internet related issues, is to try to move as far possible in these different settings to observing all of the principles here if that makes sense you know try to kind of push the environment as you say as one says to be as comprehensive as possible. One issue we have not discussed a lot but I think is important, are, what does con sent Tuesday look like.

How does consensus happen. And again, there I think will benefit over time from sharing of experiences and examples as to how that can work because I think it is really important the other final point I wanted to mention is this question on articulating how input from multi-stakeholder process was integrated, there in a way delays lining I think from our traditional way in the U.S. and I assume in other places. When we have our regulator make a decision in certain types of proceedings, not that the regulator works on Internet issues but nonetheless under administrative procedure law there is an obligation to make a decision based on the record. Of course it's a decision in the public interest. But, it has to be based on what's in the wrecker and therefore an explanation of how that was or was not taken into account.

So again maybe there's learnings we can take from different places to try to come as close as possible to these principles over time.

     >> Well I have three comments. First on the question of transparency of inputs I think it's a very relevant point and I have a concrete example to give you to that Brazil the draft build is now being analyzed by our national congress on the civil framework for Internet and -- CPU as we call it it actually is result of very transparent to the Government prior to sending to congress and it's been done using internet through the Internet. It was first time that this was done. And we were very proud to note that there was a huge interest on behalf of your society and public to consider to it -- all commends open each specific Article and subArticle are there to anyone to see and then including two follow up on to each extent they were taken to or not in the end the draft presented from by the governments, was a inspired basically by ten principles that were developed in the multi-stakeholder environment which is our internet Governance engineering committee.

    

     The second comment is that related to what if Governments decide to brawl. That's a good question. I have in any mind on the idea that there is no Government without the concept of governed which means that Governments require legitimate massy. It is not up to a Bureaucrat somewhere just to decide, okay, no, I'm not kind of attending this meeting any more it doesn't interest my Government and it's not my Government in the sense that I work for the government and I am therefore speaking on behalf of. It it's actually I would say my Government because I'm a citizen of country that empowers its Government to Act on my behalf. That's how I see. It when it comes to withdrawing I don't think it's possible for the same it it's not possible for any country today to withdrawal support for the universal declaration on human right.

It became an international norm he said and it's -- I will withdraw this because it doesn't interest my specific objectives, policy objectives for the next term or so. So, that's my --

     >> What if the Government is simply disregarding it?

     >> Well then we have a question on accountability and responsibility and implementation. It then is taken to next level of debate. It is not that there are possibility of just withdrawing and by saying okay I'll withdraw from this other set of principles and it doesn't mean that the Government will be able to go against them and just fact disregard of them. This is the possibility that cannot circumstantial lies because of what I said. And the third and last comment is related to conceptualizing and I think this is one of the great words that came up during the debate and I thank our colleague from Malaysia for presenting this work because we need to keep in mind it there's no solutions that will fit all of the questions we have. And we need to contextual lies not only in terms of geography but in terms of substance and issues.

Which issues will be taken up in which forum or which approach or which environment and when we do need towed have, perhaps, is a way that will encompass all these different frameworks and all these different context, shut that was framework for various approaches that would be a reference at the international level at the global level to say and Lynch miles each one of these individual processes regarding geography and issue,  oriented, approaches.

     >> That's why we are very keen on what ambassador said having an international civil framework that's the idea behind T a reference that will not rewrite what we have but will be used as a reference in which all the process will be recognized and will be checked against our shared principles and values that we've been discussed both in terms of multi-stakeholder principles and as well as substantively Internet Government principles.

     >> Everton.

     >> After this question I don't have much to add to be quite honest. You actually said many thing I wanted to say. Emphasize the question of legitimate massy and I think Governments and particularly at this point in time, we need to -- we need to keep other stakeholders very close in all decisions that we make. And this is a -- an increasingly important I think. And not league a civil society having mind what transpired in the last six months or so I think one practical example of that was the reaction from my Government to the 13 principles on surveillance that civil society developed over the last half year. We have taken the time to analyze them and come up with a response. Which my minister delivered at the conference in Seoul last week and we are happy to use the framework which the civil society developed let's continue the discussion on these extremely important issues.

It's important for Governments to continue to talk to other stakeholders including civil Staten Island society and others it has to do with ledge massy. Trust, and issue of transparency which I think is close. Who is to say the Government should also complain why they do not accept certain proposals. That would also increase transparency and trust in what wear doing, thank you.

    

     >> And I'm happy to give the -- unfortunately was late go for. It.

     >> And I apologize tremendously for being late. And I'm going to launch right into it and say that as John said, one of the things that we've done in the technical community and at AfriNIC is engage the community as regional Internet registry we're not only technical but from the beginning we have taken seriously our development purpose. Which meant that we were technical people speaking geek maybe but having the duty to actually make sure that from civil society to private sector to Government, in our region that everybody was involved you foe from the beginning in what we were doing. And so in terms of being multi-stakeholder I can't say that from the beginning that our community was completely multi-stakeholder but was made sure along the way, we've come to the point, for example, that today you know some of the people from the region are here to testify that the technical community has been out of its way in the African region to make sure that you know nationally, regionally, today the regional economic commissions, the African union, AfriNIC, is an observer at the African union commission and it participates in the ministerial meeting.

And it's like the sounding board on things technical. So, slowly we can't say we were cohesive in integrating everybody directly in the policies that were developed at the beginning of the AfriNIC today for example we have Governments that are members and we have private sectors that are members and civil society that are members and policies are really vibrantly discussed on List and issues are put forward taking into account everybody's perspective. Now we do work by consensus and this is one of the things that I think of quite a few people eluded to what is consensus? Consensus where we stands is where the majority in policy development process agrees that something should go forward so everybody has a say and not every say counts to the end and at one point, yes, one of the issues we have with multi-stakeholder processes is that somebody, somewhere one woman has to make the decision.

And so policy and process has people from the community representatives of the community that everybody agrees can make this final decision after they licensed to everybody. So it's trance parent and it's open and it's inclusive in so much that it's open that everybody can participate. But, I have to be honest an say for example today we still I cannot -- say we're speaking for majority of African community for example because not everybody is connected and not everybody can participate remotely they we have mechanisms for it and not everybody comes to meetings where policies are debated but these are things that touch everybody today in terms of you know, the infrastructure and architecture of Internet. So it is important that everybody participate. And it's progress. Some of the principles we're putting here are very important that for I guess future mechanisms coming and I'm glad to say that in the technical community we've come a long way and we have included quite a lot of people in the discussion processes so far.

Thank you.

     >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. And thank you.

     >> Thank you very much. I want to make a brief comment to one of the questions raised by remote participant when he asked you to go to western dozen we need might multi-stakeholder counselor. I think it's good questions. Because if you have principles and procedures in place at the end of the day you'll have to have also a mechanism and how to deal with this. I was in due buy conference and we had this long discussions about 5 A and 5 about spam and security (DUBAI) and there was agreement in the room at least a lot of countries that the ITU should not deal content of information spam related and security related issues and other places to discuss this but the question is where? So it means you cannot say to Governments you should not do this in ITU and then they ask, weighty cannot discuss this,  it means we have to have a place where we can discuss these issues and while there was come on understanding at least among other Governments in Dubai the foot may not go back to -- and I think ICANN has little mandate it's technical organization.

Can I not deal with security and content related issues and immediately you discover here's a gap in the mechanisms and multi-stakeholder ecosystem and this has to be you know vested that we need something like I would call it multi-stakeholder Internet policy organization and it could be MIPO and acronym for multi-stakeholder Internet policy organization. That should not make decisions and this multi-stakeholder body where all stakeholders are represented in the way of 5 or 700 representatives could dive advice. Technology advisor legal status of advice is very interesting one. It give you a lot of flexibility. It means stakeholder -- can give advice to Governments and say here you have to do something and you have decision making capacity and this is juror under U.S. responsibility and now you have to Mack a decision based on competition and/or they have to say you need a new property -- call could do you.

It it's not because we need a new decision making body on top of all of this it's a network among equals but we have to have in center something like a clearing house. And such multi-stakeholder body at WIPO could function as clearing how a and could give -- stakeholders on case by case basis I think this is step forward in this unchartered testimony.

     >> Thank you.

     >> Thank you very much. I think we almost have just opened a whole new line of discussion which is multi-stakeholder body and several framework and do we need both or one or the other where does IGF fit in. I think I want to get the feel of the room on something. Do you feel that we have reached the point with multi-stakeholder participation and IG that people sometimes reach and in relationships or life partnership there enough in that that you can really start complying about all the things you're unhappy about and working on how to improve the relationship. Or do you think we still are phase where we have some fear that they'll be -- that the discrepancies in power and influence and commitment to working together, is not as solid as it should be. So everton are you ready to repeat your marriage vows to --

     >> Thank you I'm not heard actually. But anytime way.

     >> You are to multi-stakeholder processes.

     >> I prefer to leave that question in the open. I don't think we need to reply directly to that now. I think we should observe the developments we'll have in the next few months and see how the Internet Governance community can react to specific demand to see how our relationship is involved thank you.

     >> Thanks very much everyone and thanks to the remote participant and remote moderator and to the people that prepared the session and everyone in the panel and everyone in the room. And the conversation will continue thanks.

* * *

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