The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule and separate issues related to logistics and internal procedures. The discussion took place between 1 - 28 February, 2009.

(Writer A)

Dear colleagues,

As we are starting preparing logistics for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting here in Egypt, I would like to let you know that 2 other colleauges from the National Telecom Regulatory Authority are joining me for the upcomig consultation and MAG meeting.

Nermine El Saadany, Director for International Relations - and - Manal Ismail, Director for International Technical Coordination

Markus has kindly added them to the MAG mailing list to facilitate communication among all of us.

Writer B will be shortly sending out to the list an email with hotel arrangements for the MAG members.

See you all next week in Geneva.

Best regards,

(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,  

We would be grateful if you could pass on the message within your respective stakeholder groups that participants are kindly requested to register online to facilitate the issuing of badges at the ITU. This is in their own interest, as it would minimize delays.  

Please also note that a synthesis paper summarizing all contributions received y the 31 January deadline is now available on our Web site. many thanks to those who filled in the questionnaire or sent a contribution.  

Best regards 

Markus

(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,  

We have prepared a first version of the usual programme paper (see attachment) as an input into next week's discussion. The paper should be self-explanatory, but for the MAG newcomers, it is important to note that this is a rolling document that will be revised continuously in the light of our discussions.  

We thought it would be best to discuss the paper first at the MAG meeting before making a revised version available on our Website, taking into account the open consultations and the MAG discussions. However, we are open and ready to make it available earlier, should you consider this to be helpful.  

Best regards 

Markus   

(See attached file: ProgrammePaper.18.02.2009.doc)

ATTACHMENT

Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Programme, Format and Schedule for the 2009 meeting

I. Introduction

This paper describes a proposal for the programme, format and schedule of the fourth IGF meeting, which is to take place on 15-18 November 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. The first version of the paper takes into account comments made in Hyderabad and written contributions received in the stocktaking process.

As in the past years, the paper is planned as a rolling document and will be updated regularly based on contributions, open consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings.

All of the contributions and open consultation transcripts will be posted on the IGF Web site throughout the preparatory process for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. The readers of this paper are encouraged to read those contributions and the open consultations transcripts for further details and in depth discussions.

There were some common threads that emerged in the first phase of the stock-taking process. While the innovations introduced in Hyderabad were generally well received, it was also felt that there was room for improvement, notably in the following areas:

Involvement of young people;
Gender balance;
Geographical balance;
Linkages between the main sessions and the other events.
Remote participation.

Furthermore, it was pointed out that the cross-cutting themes of development and capacity-building had been somewhat neglected and that more attention should be paid to these issues.

The view was also held that some of the issues had matured to the point that they should now be dealt with in other formats, such as, for instance, round tables.

Lastly, there was general support of keeping ‘meeting free’ time slots and leaving enough space in the programme for spontaneous ad-hoc meetings.

This paper tries to accommodate the above comments. It does not attempt to prejudge any decision on the substantive issues to be discussed; its aim is to provide a structure and framework for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting.

II. Programme

The objective of the programme is to maximize the opportunity of open dialogue and the exchange of ideas; to try and create feedback loops between the different types of sessions; to create opportunities to share best practices and experiences; to listen, dialogue and learn as well as to identify key themes that would, in the future, benefit from the multistakeholder perspective of the IGF.

The overall theme of the meeting is yet to be defined. As a default solution, Internet for All - the theme of the Hyderabad meeting – could be retained.

The programme outline is taking into account the comments made so far. In particular, it makes a distinction between issues that were part of previous IGF discussions (hereinafter referred to as ‘mature themes’ and new issues and emerging issues (hereinafter referred to as ‘emerging themes’).

The formats will be chosen to preserve and enhance the positive values of the things that worked well in the previous meetings while also trying to improve those things that did not work quite so well. The informal, interactive multistakeholder format was generally seen as one of the key factors for the success of the first three meetings and will be maintained and enhanced as a guiding principle in all cases.

Participation will follow the format used at the previous meetings and all entities and persons with proven interest, expertise and experience in matters related to Internet governance may apply to register as participants.

The basic format of the previous meetings, with main sessions, workshops and other events, will be maintained

The proposed outline would include the following programme blocks.

A tutorial “Introduction to the IGF and its Themes” will be scheduled for the first morning.

A new session will be added on the first morning for reporting on National and Regional IGF meetings and other related meetings held during 2009.

A keynote talk will be arranged on the cross-cutting theme of development/capacity building, to be followed by a Q&A session.

Emerging Themes – Panel Discussions and Open Dialogue Sessions.

Based on comments regarding previous emerging issues sessions, Emerging Themes will be the focus for the second day of the meeting. The purpose of the Emerging Themes sessions will be to explore the breadth of an emerging issue and bring to the light the many points of views that exist within that topic. Workshops can be organized by participants to follow-up on the issues presented in the Emerging Themes panel discussion and while predominantly these should be designed on the multistakeholder format used in the past, some directed workshops may be considered when useful in developing an understanding of major, prevalent or new point of view. Provisions will also be made for follow up ad-hoc workshops on issues the come up during the Open Dialogue sessions on Emerging Themes.

Examples of the above themes could include the following:

Social networking and identity management;

Internet governance and sustainable development / climate change;

Privacy and security;

Internet rights.

Mature Themes - Round Tables and Open Dialogue Sessions.

. Themes that were dealt with as main themes at previous IGF meetings are considered as ‘mature themes’, deserving focused work, based on previous discussions. They will be further refined in a half day round table discussion. These round tables will then be presented in a main session to be followed by an open discussion. These Round Table discussions will be three hours in duration and will allow for the possible development of ‘Decisions made at the IGF’.[1] Public dialogue will follow in the main room the next day for each of the four round table meetings. It will also be possible to schedule a few focused workshops on these themes to be held before the Open Dialogues on these themes. These workshops will be able to give brief reports at the start of the Open Dialogue.

Examples of the above themes could include the following:

Access: Regulatory Environment for IXPs;

Security: Children and the Internet;

Critical Internet resources:

■ Enhanced Cooperation;

■ IPv4-IPv6.

Taking Stock and the Way Forward: A full three hour session in the morning of the fourth day will be dedicated to the “open consultations with Forum participants” on “the desirability of the continuation of the Forum”, in accordance with Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda. The format will be developed in light of the open consultations in this matter.

Reporting Back from the Workshops: One session will be devoted to reporting back from the workshops and other events. Organizers will be asked to link their reports to the broader discussions that have taken place, so that the report becomes a relevant and valuable contribution to the meeting.

III. General Principles

The following principles are established for the Sharm El Sheikh meeting:

i. There will an opportunity for other workshops and ad-hoc meetings to be scheduled which will not be part of the official programme.

ii. All organizers of official events (workshops, best practices, etc.) are asked to commit themselves to submitting a report on their event. Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer from scheduling an event for the following year.

iii. Those who did not submit a report for their 2008 event, will not be included in the schedule.

iv. Dynamic Coalitions will only be scheduled if they have submitted activity reports for 2009.

v. No official events will be scheduled to start after 1800 hours.

vi. No official events will be held during the lunch-break between 1300-1400 hours.

vii. The efforts for remote participation in 2009 will be enhanced based on experience gained in 2008 in order to enable effective and interactive remote participation.

There should be no prepared statements read out during the main sessions. However, prepared statements can be recorded by any participant and will be made available on the IGF YouTube channel. Efforts will be made to improve the promotion of this possibility. Prepared statements can be recorded and submitted in advance to the IGF Secretariat.

IV. Meeting types

A. Main Sessions

All of the main sessions, including the introductory session, the Panel Discussions, the Open Dialogues and the Taking Stock and Looking Forward session, will take place in the main meeting hall and they will be organized around the various themes. There will be no panellists as part of the Open Dialogue sessions, though they will be moderated. In addition, there will be an opening and a closing ceremony/session in the same hall.

Duration of all the main sessions will be 90 minutes, but they will be held together in pairs as a single three hour session.

(a) Panel Discussions

The Panel Discussions on Emerging Themes will be scheduled before the corresponding Open Dialogues on the same theme, thereby allowing the input to be fed into the dialogue. They will be prepared in co-operation with the MAG and the organizers of the related workshops as well as other relevant institutions, as appropriate. The Panel Discussions will be supported/facilitated by the MAG and IGF Secretariat in co-operation with the sponsors of the workshop. One of the key considerations in choosing Panel Discussions as well as most individual workshops is the multistakeholder approach and the need to present different perspectives on the issues under discussion.

(b) Open Dialogue sessions

Many of the main sessions are planned as participant dialogues. The Dialogue sessions will have neither panellists nor designated respondents, but will have a chairperson and a moderator who is knowledgeable in the subject area, to lead and stimulate the discussion. The goal of these sessions will be to bring as many participants into the dialogue as is possible and will allow for a discussion with maximum interaction among the participants. Open dialogues will be led for both the Emerging and the Mature Themes.

On the first day, the first half of the morning will be dedicated to a tutorial or an introductory session for new and returning IGF participants. This session will cover not only the origin, goals and purpose of the IGF, but will provide a review of the ground covered in the first three IGF meetings.

A separate session held on the second half of the first morning, will provide a chance for regional IGF meetings held in 2009 to give a report on their interim activities.

The afternoon of the first day will include, as in previous years, the Opening Ceremony followed by a opening session featuring leaders from the various stakeholder groups. The first day will close with a keynote on the cross-cutting IGF priority of development/capacity building.

On the fourth day, the morning session will be dedicated to the subject of Taking Stock and looking Forward: Tunis Agenda Paragraph 76. In the afternoon, a session for Reporting Back from the workshops will be held, followed by a Closing Ceremony.

B. Round Table discussions

On days two and three, four round table discussions will be held for three hours each. These sessions will be held in a room setup for a large scale round table discussion, which will be moderated, with participants taking part as equals. The sessions will focus on Mature Themes with a view to finding common ground on some principles or actions to be taken.

Duration of Round Tables: 3 hours.

C. Workshops

Workshops are designed to explore detailed issues related to the main themes. Different procedure will be applied to New Themes related workshops and Mature Theme Workshops.

For the Emerging Themes related workshops, all interested stakeholders will be invited to submit proposals for workshops in a similar way as was done for the previous meetings of the IGF. To the extent possible, workshops that relate to the topics of the Open Dialogues will be scheduled subsequent to the relevant session.

For the Mature Themes sessions, the MAG will determine the specific topics to be covered in the Mature Themes round table discussions and focused workshops to feed into the Open Dialogue. The MAG will be responsible for planning any of the workshops on Mature Themes with the help of selected organizers. To the extent possible, workshops that relate to the topics of the Open Dialogues will be scheduled prior to the relevant session.

On a space available basis, interested stakeholders can also submit workshop proposals which are not specifically related to either the Emerging or the Mature Themes under discussion.

The scheduling of all workshops will be determined by the IGF Secretariat on the basis of maintaining a balance across the issues, efficient use of meeting space and an attempt to avoid conflicts in topic or speakers.

Duration of workshops: 90 minutes.
Each workshop will be required to produce a report on the workshop.
First deadline for providing proposals: 30 April 2009.
Deadline for providing speakers list: 30 June 2009

D. Open Forums

All major organizations dealing with Internet governance related issues will be given a slot, at their request, to hold an open forum in order to present and discuss their activities. The meetings should focus on the organization’s activities during the past 12 months and allow sufficient time for questions and discussions.

· Duration of Open Forums: 90 minutes.

· Each Open Forum will be required to produce a report on the meeting.

· Deadline for completing programmes and providing speakers list: 30 June 2009.

E. Best Practice Forums

The aim of these sessions is to demonstrate, in a multi-stakeholder environment, some of the best practices that have been adopted with regard to the key IGF themes in general and to the development and deployment of the Internet in particular. The sessions can have either a thematic or a country focus. The presentations will be based on a common template. Presentations should not only cover practices that were successful, but also focus on challenges and mistakes. Thus, ‘lessons learned’ would be an important output of these sessions. They will be moderated by independent experts/hosts and participants will be given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. The aim is to provide a space to discuss what constitutes a ‘best practice’ and share relevant information that can be transferred to other situations and strengthen capacity-building activities.

l Duration of Best Practice Forums: 90 minutes.

l Each Best Practice Forum will be required to produce a report on the meeting.

l Deadline for providing speakers list: 30 June 2009

F. Dynamic Coalitions

The meeting will provide space for active Dynamic Coalitions to meet and further develop their proposals. Only Dynamic Coalitions that have submitted a report of their activities for 2008 will be scheduled for a meeting slot.

All Dynamic Coalitions are requested to present a report on their achievements so far in general and on their activities since the Rio meeting in particular. The reports will be posted on the IGF Web site.

l Duration of these meetings: 90 minutes.

l Deadline for submission of reports: 31 August 2009.

G. Other Meetings

In general, meeting rooms that are not otherwise booked will be given, as available, to interested stakeholder groups on a first-come-first-served basis, in accordance with United Nations procedures and practice. A number of rooms will be reserved to accommodate ad-hoc requests.

IV. Logistics

A. Meeting Rooms

The following meeting rooms will be available:

Main Meeting Hall, for opening and closing ceremonies and main sessions, seat 1000 participants in a mixed classroom/theater style setting. All proceedings in this room will be video cast and will be rendered in real-time transcription. Interpretation will be provided in into all the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) for all meetings taking place in the main hall. Remote participants will be able to submit questions and comments by email.

Comment Box 1: The following additional meeting rooms are available:

· 4 rooms seating 180 participants in a classroom setting.

One of the above room will have facilities for interpretation (interpreters can be provided by workshop organizers, if desired)

· 2 rooms seating 80 participants in a classroom setting.

· 4 rooms seating between 40 and 60 participants in a round table setting

· All events held in breakout rooms will be audiocast and will have access to remote participation facilities.

The Secretariat is responsible for the allocation of all meeting rooms.

B. Other facilities

l An AV-studio to record prepared statements. The studio can also be reserved for TV interviews.

l A media centre, with a room for media conferences, seating 250 journalists in theatre style setting and workspace for journalists.

l An “IGF village”, located next to the Main Meeting Hall, to allow interested entities to present themselves for free and have meetings and poster sessions. The village will include squares (with chairs and rostrum) for ad-hoc meetings and poster sessions. This “IGF village” will be organized in the form of different “neighbourhoods” or thematic clusters.

l Restaurants/refreshments:

A restaurant with moderately priced food is available in the Conference Centre.

Coffee/Tea will be served in the conference premises.

Event organizers and participants with special needs are requested to contact the Secretariat and communicate their requirements by 31 August 2009.

C. Remote participation

A public remote chat capability will be provided for the Main Meeting Hall and all other meeting rooms. Other provisions for remote access, including Regional Hub meetings, will be announced in September. Regional stakeholders interested in organizing a hub are advised to contact the IGF secretariat as soon as possible.

V. Deadlines

The following deadlines have been set:

<TBD>

IV. Schedule

A proposal for a main session schedule is made available below:

Proposed Main Session Schedule

Sunday 15 Nov

Monday 16 Nov

Tuesday 17 Nov

Wednesday 18 Nov

10:00 – 11:30

Tutorial: The IGF and its Themes

Emerging Theme I

Panel

Mature Theme I

Open Dialogue

Taking Stock and Looking forward:

Tunis Agenda Para 76

11:30

- 13:00

Reports from National and Regional Meetings

Emerging Theme II

Panel

Mature Theme II

Open Dialogue

13:00 –

14:00

Lunch

15:00

16:30

Opening Ceremony/Session

Emerging Theme I

Open Dialogue

Mature Theme III

Open Dialogue

Reporting Back

16:30 –

18:00

Keynote on Development/Capacity Building

Emerging Theme II

Open Dialogue

Mature Theme IV

Open Dialogue

Closing /Ceremony

(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,  

We have been able to fix the dates for the September meetings.  

The open consultations will take place on 16 September and the MAG meeting on 17-18 September. The European Broadcasting Union has kindly offered us their meeting facilities. The meeting will take place back-to-back with the European IGF (EuroDIG), which will also be hosted by the EBU.  

This means we have fixed our calendar of meetings for 2009. Here is a reminder abbot the dates:  

23-24 February: Open Consultations 

25-26 February: MAG meeting 

Location: ITU  

13 May:Open Consultations 

14-15 May: MAG meeting 

Location: UN/Palais des Nations  

16 September: Open Consultations 

17-18 September:: MAG meeting 

Location: EBU  

15-18 November: 4th IGF Meeting in Sharm El Sheikh.  

Best regards  

Markus  

(Writer B)

Dear Colleagues,

Last we week we had the first official site visit by Markus and some colleagues from the IGF Secretariat. The visit was successfully conducted in Sharm El Sheikh to check the venue plus some suggested hotels nearby, as well as some key meetings in Cairo.

We were able within to conclude the deal with what I call the headquarter hotel and its twin venue too.

Below are some details about our Sharm event that you may find useful:

* The IGF meeting will be held in Maritim Sharm EL Sheikh International Congress Center; http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/meeting/hotelsearch/sharm-el-sheikh-icc/picture-gallery.html <http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/meeting/hotelsearch/sharm-el-sheikh-icc/picture-gallery.html>

* The headquarter Hotel is Maritim Jolie Ville Royal Peninsula Hotel & Resort; 5 minutes walking distance from the congress center (semi attached) http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-royal-peninsula-hotel-resort-sharm-el-sheikh.html <http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-royal-peninsula-hotel-resort-sharm-el-sheikh.html>

* The Twin Venue is Maritim Jolie Ville Gold & Resort; 7 minutes by bus from Congress Center; http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-golf-resort-sharm-el-sheikh.html <http://www.maritim.de/typo3/english/hotels/hotels/jolie-ville-golf-resort-sharm-el-sheikh.html>

[EDITED]

We will be announcing the above information as well as info about the other 9 official hotels with their special rates soon on the host country website (http://igf09.eg <http://igf09.eg/> )

However, if you want to reserve your own room now in either of the two hotels you could use the following email:

[EDITED]

As well, until the website is up & running, if you need further help while booking, you may contact two of my team whom I have assigned to back you up in that:

[EDITED]

Until we meet next Monday, accept my best regards

(Writer C)

Dear Markus & all,

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to comment on the

draft program to elaborate a bit on an issue which in my view needs

consideration by the IGF.

A review of workshops and DCs, as well as the main program themes of the

past IGFs shows that one relevant issue, mentioned in five of the 122

paragraphs of the WSIS Tunis Agenda (*), is not being properly

considered in the IGF processes and events. It is mentioned in

paragraphs 27(c), 49, 89 and 90, but especially in paragraph 50. It

refers to connectivity cost sharing and, implicitly, to national and

international Internet transit pricing arrangements.

In Athens it was included as part of the main Access theme but in

practice it was not debated. In Rio it was drowned by the idea of

connecting the next billion, and remained dead in Hyderabad. How to

connect the next billion or improve connectivity of the currently

connected billion without regard for the costs it implies, in particular

connectivity and bandwidth charges?

This continues to be an unresolved issue, lacking any international

forum for exchanging proposals and seeking consensus practices. ITU,

through its study group SG3, has been involved with the issue, but so

far its effort is limited to the telecommunications cost sharing

component, with attempts to include voIP cost-sharing criteria in the

recommendations. And, of course, this issue goes beyond ITU.

Besides interconnection per se (which belongs to the realm of

telecommunications and might fall into agreements/regulations already in

place), the main issue is Internet transit pricing. This means the

pricing for transferring data of any network to/from the global

Internet. As a trivial example, a final user might have its connectivity

problem solved by having at home a phone line connected to a digital

exchange. But it needs to contract an ADSL service with the carrier,

which has a pricing policy completely detached from the cost of the

connection itself (which is regulated by telco policies in each country)

and is usually unregulated.

This situation repeats itself when a local ISP purchases bandwidth from

a backbone provider, and national providers purchase bandwidth from the

large international providers. So, the issue which is mentioned in the

Tunis Agenda as “international connectivity costs” ought to be more

refined, to consider especially the pricing arrangements for the

Internet transit component of connectivity.

Viewed as such, I think this continues to be a major theme which the IGF

ought to somehow consider as quite relevant.

This is not, incidentally, the only issue regarding Internet transit. We

ought to consider as well "international Internet transit neutrality" as

a related theme -- several cases exist of filtering international

Internet transit, a problem confronting some landlocked countries, for

example.

(Writer D)

All,

I am writing this note to provide my thoughts regarding Hyderabad, Sharm el-Sheikh, and the IGF review process. I do this because I have an unfortunate conflict with the forthcoming Geneva Open Forum and MAG meetings, and will not be able to be there for the meetings. I regret this, but I really had no choice. I certainly expect to join you at the meetings in May.

Hyderabad

Looking back on Hyderabad, I felt a real difference in the ambience between Rio and Hyderabad. Rio was a more tense, somewhat more angry meeting; Hyderabad was calmer, somewhat more focused on substance. Perhaps Nitin is right; we are moving toward a state in which we have met our opposite numbers and we are beginning to communicate more professionally with them, but even that doesn't explain all of it.

It's also possible that we have talked a lot about a limited number of hot topics and that we are beginning to be bored by repetition. Of course, that is generally not the case for local attendees. So, is the goal of moving between countries now evolving more to one of inclusion of all regions in the global conversation than it was at the beginning of the IGF, or not? Or is the level of boredom with the process slowly increasing? I think this deserves some discussion.

I felt that the open sessions in the afternoon were not really very useful. I had hoped that these sessions would have been informed by the morning sessions and would therefore respond more to the material presented and to the points made, but in my view, that did not happen. at least during "security day." I find it difficult to know whether the morning sessions were worthwhile. Were the same people in the room? in the morning and the afternoon? Do we have different classes of people with significantly different interests?

Admittedly I didn't look in on all of the workshops, but my observation was that that workshop attendance was generally disappointing. For example I chaired a root server system workshop in both places. In Rio, in a room sized for 300 people, we had standing room only; in Hyderabad we attracted about 20-25 people.

I can attribute a part of the change to the Mumbai attacks, and part to the excellent room sizes that were made available for us, so tha attendance may have looked somewhat smaller than it actually was. The set of topics was fairly similar to what was presented in Rio. Perhaps the main sessions were just more attractive. An'end of conference' evaluation might have been able to shed some light on why attendance was skewed as it was.

I hesitate to add to the work of the organizers -- indeed the Indian team worked very hard and provided really excellent hospitality and should be very proud in so doing, especially after the devastating attacks in Mumbai -- but it would have helped if there had been some way to record the reactions of the participants on the spot either comprehensively (session by session) or even more generally. It's very difficult to provide comments after fact, after you get home, and after you see the mountain of work that has accumulated in your absence. Some further incentive beyond altruism may be necessary - perhaps the 10 most helpful responses get a dinner of their choice at a restaurant at the next IGF, or maybe they are given special recognition in some manner. Regardless of the "carrot" that is used, if we had some frank appraisal of the sessions or the Forum from enough people, it would serve as a good guide for evolving the program to a better state the following year.

Sharm el-Sheikh

Network neutrality

There has been a lot of discussion about using network neutrality as a major theme in the next IGF. I would like to question this, essentially because network neutrality means so many different things to different people. I find myself in agreement with an excellent and provocative interchange in the February 2009 issue of Communications of the ACM between Barbara van Schewick and David Farber, when Farber says:

"Let's say that I am completely in favor of network neutrality. But what would such a strong position actually mean? the definition of "network neutrality" reshapes itself like our lungs. It expands, drawing in causes ranging from freedom of speech to open access. Then it contracts, exhaling a lot of hot air, and starts all over again."

I have the same concern regarding "rights" as a major theme for the next IGF, without qualifying the discussion in ways that make it impotent. While we may all be completely in favor of "rights," just as Farber is completely in favor of network neutrality, inevitably the discussion gets into politically sensitive areas that go well beyond the Internet and thereby lead to a much broader discussion that has much less to do with Internet governance than it has to do with national politics. Furthermore, as a result of such breadth, the discussion becomes more contentious and polemical and it becomes impossible to reach any conclusion.

Rather, I would be more interested in focusing upon that is closer to the concept of a service level agreement between Internet users and those who determine the actual quality (in a very broad sense). These include ISPs at various levels(although the local loop may be the most meaningful), the national government through its policies, laws and regulations, and some international organizations.

For example, at the local level, I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that allows/encourages/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. Likewise it would be very useful to see the same thing from governments -- a short, readable summary of what are the gross policies it has specifically with respect to users of the Internet. One could then discuss the implications of such statements with respect to some of the dimensions of previous IGFs, viz. access, openness, security, privacy and security.

Such an orientation puts the focus upon relative user expectations. One could argue that this is a bounded discussion of rights within the context of Internet use, and I have no problem with that characterization. However it should be bounded within the a context of Internet use.

Note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."

Multi-lingualism

One of the constraining factors in the past has been the difficulty of using computers and networks on character sets other than the Latin alphabet. Major strides have been made since then, due to Unicode for character sets, implementation by suppliers, efforts by local groups, etc., and through the work of the IETF and ICANN. Perhaps increased emphasis should be put on this, with emphasis on the techniques of dealing with specific character sets, emphasizing the holes that remain at all levels and discussing ongoing work and difficulties to fill them. Surely in terms of increasing access to the net, this is a major component.

Capacity building

Although capacity building is a cross-cutting theme, I believe that it could benefit from additional attention. How, for example, are we building our Internet technicians and policy makers of the future? What should they learn? Which organizations have ben involved in this training? what are the training opportunities now? where are the roadblocks to enabling countries to become more self-sufficient in growing and exploiting their Internet capabilities?

I assume that there's general agreement that Internet governance will be better served if technical and policy leaders are trained, well-informed of developments, and can network to solve common problems. How are we going to approach this state of affairs?

A mixing suggestion

One of the awkward things about a conference like IGF is meeting people you don't know and haven't seen before, even though you are likely to share common interests with them. It's usually the case that you talk with your friends and colleagues, and to the extent that they are talking with others, you meet them. Assuming that you would like to meet others having common interests, meeting only the colleagues of your previous colleagues is not efficient.

If there were a commonly known good solution to this problem, we would know it already.

However, at the GKP Conference in Kuala Lumpur in 2006, there was a moderately successful approach to the problem, based on small group lunches. Given that the IGF seems to be establishing a tradition of host buffet lunches, it might add value to the next IGF. The process is as follows:

1. Set up round tables seating probably 10 people so that conversation among people, especially across the table, is possible. (The level of ambient room noise is an issue here.) Number the tables visibly.

2. For each table choose a topic, such as "legislative approaches to child protection on the Internet," or "trends in national policies with respect to VoIP," or "prospects for increased broadband in landlocked African countries," or "People who want to continue discussing the issues raised in workshop 41," whatever.

3. For each table/topic, have a volunteer who eats at the table and who leads/facilitates discussion.

4. Ensure that a list of topics and table numbers is made available to participants, by bulletin board, or individual distribution, or Web, or some combination.

5. Invite people to have lunch at the table/topic of their choice.

6. Given that not everyone will be around at lunch time, and that some people will have other things to do, I'd size the number of seats at 50-65% of the number of participants.

This has nothing to do with whether the food is simple or elegant; it's just that the seating arrangement and the injection of substance can provide an interesting way for people having similar interests to meet each other on a more than superficial level.

The IGF Review Process

I have concerns about the review process, both in terms of the selection of the review team and their approach to the review.

Part of this comes from having worked within the UN system for 13 years and periodically since then. My observation was that the tendency within the system was to ensure that reviews were almost always blandly positive, and that to understand the reality behind them, you had to read between the lines that were between the lines! Now if he entire community understands this particular language, then there is no problem. However, when such a report is read by people outside the community, who are not aware of specific nuances, then a great deal of misinterpretation is possible.

So my first suggestion is that the terms of reference include the obligation to report frankly (really frankly!) in simple language, so that there is a common understanding of what has been said. There is bound to be disagreement regarding what is reported, but it should not emanate from different interpretations of what was meant to be said.

My second suggestion is that the report not be done by any internal review panel within the United Nations system. This is not because the people are not capable -- there are some extraordinary people working there -- but rather that they are administrative prisoners of the system.

Third, there is a wide range of opinion regarding the future of the IGF, ranging from euthanasia to eternal life, and the report will be read critically by those wanting a voice in the future of the IGF. Now any fair review of the IGF is going to contain both positives and negatives. I think it is important that the review NOT attempt to net these out in any way; doing so would impose the reviewers sense of priorities on a potentially contentious situation. Further, I believe that the mandate to have such a review does not include any instruction to assess the net benefit of the IGF or to make recommendations regarding its future.

If you are still reading this long message, congratulations!

I have been frank in my opinions in this message, as I would have been if I were able to be physically present with you. I hope that you find some merit in at least some of the above thoughts, and I wish you success in your constructive deliberations.

Best regards, 

(Writer E)

Dear Colleagues:

I had to apologize before too, sorry I could not be in Geneva for these consultations and MAG meeting. Please Markus if there is an online way to participate to let someone send to me the information.

Best regards,

(Writer F)

Dear Mr. Markus and Colleagues,

I also would like to apologize for not able to join this meeting because

of another assignment. Hopefully I can join the next May meeting. I will

try to follow on the progress.

Best regards

(Writer G)

Dear colleagues

Likewise unfortunately I will not be in Geneva for the meeting. I will try to participate remotely.

Best regards

(Writer H)

I will also be interested in participating in the MAG meeting online.

I spent last week at [EDITED] and am sorry that I am not able to make it to Geneva for this my last week in the office(!) -- I’ll be taking a long period of leave prior to retirement.

This is not goodbye. I hope to be online and participating remotely. But meanwhile, to stay in touch with all my friends on the MAG, I should let you know my email contact after the end of February will be [EDITED]. In the office here, [EDITED] will be maintaining an interest in internet governance issues.

(Writer C)

I've just said this in the MAG meeting.

I am concerned about the outreach of the IGF process.

The goal of the igf, as Writer I says, is to provide outcomes (meaning at a

minimum a better understanding of Internet-related issues) which can be

useful to governments and other stakeholders in advancing the overall

goals of the Tunis Agenda, or more generally of leveraging ICTs for

sustainable human development. How to carry this out in practice?

I understand this is a process, not just the IGF event per se.

What are the formats and mechanisms which would best capture what the

IGF has produced, pointed out, enhanced in terms of a collective

perception of issues, or, through its satellite or parallel groupings

(around workshops and DCs) helped in building consensus, in a way that

reaches the stakeholders who can act, who can influence national

policies, or can decide on such policies?

I refer particularly to the many stakeholders (including many

governments) who cannot be present (either physically or virtually) and

end up by having no useful information on the outcomes of this process

or the process itself.

This reflects of course in how the meeting processes are structured or

organized. Not necessarily if the tables are round or square, but how

effectively the themes which are judged by a rough consensus as relevant

are handled to achieve some outcome -- even it is just to enhance

perceptions of the participants. But will this enhanced perception be

confined to the closed realm of the participants themselves?

But, in summary, there is this prime minister or this human rights

organization in the Democratic Republic of GenericLand, or whoever, and

they have several questions about this thing called the Internet, never

heard of the IGF and possibly never will. What to do to make sure as

much as possible any stakeholder will somehow get some palpable

contribution from the IGF process?

I do not think, by the way, just labeling the event with a nice,

appealing title, will significantly change this.

(Writer C)

Willie Currie (APC) has elaborated an interesting short document arguing

why "control of the root zone file [is] pertinent to the mature theme

section of the programme of the IGF in Cairo. He concludes with the

following reasons:

- The Obama administration is committed to overturning the unilateralism

of the Bush years and the completion of the JPA midterm review is now in

the hands of the Obama administration.

- If the control of the root zone file is not transferred to ICANN as

part of a legitimate internationalization process it will continue to

generate international tensions over the control of the internet that

could threaten the long term stability of the internet as the Chinese

government’s threats at the IGF indicate.

- The IGF leadership has accepted that where there is a mature theme

then a special format of round table discussions can take place which

could result in “Decisions made at the IGF”. This is subject to further

discussion in the MAG.

- In its input to the USG on the JPA midterm review, the Internet

Governance Project has suggested a role for the IGF as a space for ‘a

bi-annual review and public consultation regarding ICANN’s record and

accountability’

http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf

The full short paper is attached in PDF format.

(Writer I)

Here is the link to the IPv6 resolution of ITU-WTSA

http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/res/T-RES-T.64-2008-PDF-E.pdf.

Here are other resolutions dealing with ccTLDs, WSIS Follow up , ENUM, iDNs etc.

http://www.itu.int/publ/T-RES/en

(Writer C)

Writer D, my first reaction to your excellent review and thoughtful

comments is below.

I would like to comment on your views regarding net neutrality, which,

has you rightly say, "means so many different things to different

people" and on this basis you seem to wish to dismiss it as an IGF

theme. So do "critical Internet resources" and actually several others,

if you do not properly specify, but we did include them. "Net

neutrality" refers to several issues regarding restrictions or freedom

in data flows at several levels.

Just negotiating service level agreements with ISPs will not solve

essential problems, for a simple reason: for most of the issues

involved, there is no clear regulation (or, more precisely, there is no

regulation whatsoever) to resort to in empowering the weaker side of

these negotiations.

One example why this issue should not be dismissed is the known case in

which landdlocked countries run into problems similar to the ones which

affected Europe regarding Russian gas pipelines going through Ukraine.

Fiber links might pass through, let us say, unfriendly countries, and

the risk of filtering, degradation or any other sort of manipulation in

the data flow running through this fiber is real and unbound by any

international agreement.

Another, crucial component of the overall "net neutrality" ample suite

of issues, as I have already argued in my recent message to this list,

is what can be summarized as the "bandwidth pseudo-market", or better,

the bandwidth food chain. This is the space in which prices are defined

for Internet transit at local, national and international levels. This

definition is carried out by completely unregulated monopoly or cartel

practices.

Pricing of Internet transit by commercial providers might vary several

times within a country (eg, ADSL transit pricing in Brazil being 20

times higher in Manaus than in Rio, and 20 times higher in Rio than in

Lisbon). If we want to keep the theme of universalization of access (or

"reaching the next billion" or any similar wording) in the IGF, I cannot

see how this can be left aside.

This results in impossible transit rates for poorer countries (who have

far less leverage, if any, to negotiate "service level agreements"),

reinforcing the growing gap affecting their populations as regards

leveraging ICTs for human development.

I cannot see how these issues can be brushed aside.

(Writer D)

A quick response -

I do not dismiss something similar to net

neutrality as a theme for the IGF, but I think it

is important to delineate the theme in a manner

that centers around a way of defining net users'

expectations at various levels (ISP,content

providers, local government, national government,

international expectations, rather than using the

words 'net neutrality.'

I also would not like to go so far as to call

these 'rights' since (1) they are not rights; and

(2) the concept of 'rights' is even much fuzzier

than network neutrality.

I do want, however, to focus on users and the

levels and types of service that they might

expect to achieve from the entities listed above.

i wish that I were in Geneva and that we could

talk this out. I think that we had an e-mail

exchange a couple of months ago in which we

discussed this -- at that time I was in favor of

using the words 'net neutrality.' I am still in

favor of using the concepts in that e-mail as a

theme; I'd just like to tie it to services and

not use those specific works.

i hope this helps,

(Writer J)

> - If the control of the root zone file...

What I think is important is that when discussing "the root zone" in

any way, shape or form, it is important to be clear on what one talk

about. There are several issues hidden in the details regarding the

root zone, and unfortunately I must say, some evolution of the

management of the root is stuck in political processes just because

they have not been separated from some issues that are harder to

resolve.

For example, if we talk about the root zone, there are a number of

different issues, and I take the freedom of listing some of them here,

in no specific order:

1. Decisions of what TLDs should exist in the root zone

2. Decisions of who should be the registry (manager) for each of the

TLDs

3. Decisions on what data should go in the root zone for a given TLD

4. Compilation of the root zone data itself

5. Signing of the root zone with DNSSEC (management of the zone

signing keys)

6. Signing of the zone signing keys for DNSSEC (using Key signing keys)

7. Distribution of the (signed) root zone to root servers

8. Publication of the root zone by root servers

I claim some of these are more technical / operational than others,

and already today not everything regarding the root zone is managed by

the same entity.

Personally, I would like to have tasks move a bit between the

organisations, and yes, I would like to:

- Move more technical / operational tasks to IANA (from Verisign)

- Give more power to the organisation that is the registry for each

TLD, so that it can decide over "their" TLD

And at least the 2nd of these gets better and better with the new

processes and automation IANA has developed.

The really political decisions here (in the list above) are really 1

and 2. The rest falls from those decisions.

But, of course there are other things to discuss as well, such as

contractual arrangements, financing of the shared resources (like IANA

that do a lot of the operations).

My point is that for the issues regarding the root zone, as well as

some other issues ("Internationalized Domain Names" comes to mind), I

think we now on the fourth year of the IGF have to be more specific.

In [EDITED] we say that people sometimes are walking like cats around

the hot porridge, and with that I imply people do not let the rubber

hit the road. What is the real issue that should be discussed?

Earlier, and maybe still, I did not hear the specifics because people

simply did not know the various issues. They could not divide the

overall issue in the components well enough so that one could decide

what component to discuss.

But now people should be able to do so. Else I think we should

continue to more educational discussions. And in many cases I think we

should continue with best practices sessions, just to rise awareness

on what the different components are, because WHEN we talk about the

actual governance issues related to specific components, it is

important that everyone is on board.

We have, I hope, many IGF meetings in front of us, and I see no need

to rush here. The more people agree on what the components are, the

better the discussion will be about each one of them.

(Writer K)

There are also several issues hidden in the details of the other IGF themes (openness, security, diversity and access). They are all multi-faceted with varying degrees of technical, operational and policy aspects. The same analysis used for the root zones can therefore be applied to these other themes.

(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,  

Please find attached a summary report of our meeting. It is a rough version of what we plan to send out on Monday. Please check your name on the LOP and let us know if you have any comments before Monday noon Geneva time.  

Best regards 

Markus  

(See attached file: MAG.Summary.26.02.2009.doc) 

ATTACHMENT

INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM

Multistakeholder Advisory Group Meeting

Geneva, 25-26 February 2009

Summary Report

1. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) met in Geneva on 25-26 February 2009. The discussion was based on the agenda for the Open Consultations held on the preceding days.

2. The MAG agreed on the broad outline of a meeting schedule, as attached at Annex I to this Summary Report of the Meeting. The schedule reflects the taking stock process of the Hyderabad meeting and takes into account the written comments and the suggestions made at the open consultations.

3. “Internet – an opportunity for all” was suggested as the overall title of the meeting. While the suggestion found some support, it was also felt that the wording was too general and that there was a need for further reflection on the title. “Internet rights and principles” was another proposal for an overall theme, but the view was held that this would be too specific. The view was also held that the overall theme should take into account the challenges to the global economic downturn.

4. The draft schedule is based on the recognition that different themes need to be dealt with differently. The MAG identified three different types of formats:

Type A): Issues where there is no convergence of views. In these cases there is no need for any panel or introductory speeches. An open discussion is best suited for these issues.

Type B): Issues that are generally understood, but which need further exploration. For these issues, an introductory panel of experts followed by a discussion was seen as the most appropriate format.

Type C): Issues where there is a convergence of views on the principles and the need for action. These issues could be dealt with by round table discussions which could look at solutions and best practices.

5. On the first day, there will be an session giving participants background on Internet governance in general and the IGF in particular. It will explain the functioning of the IGF and the issues it has been dealing. The session will also give an overview of the programme and allow regional and national meetings to report to the IGF.

6. The traditional opening ceremony/opening session will be held in the afternoon of the first day. It will be followed by a key note panel of two or three high-level personalities. The suggestion was made that the panel should deal with the current economic situation and its relevance to the Internet.

7. The titles in the schedule are working titles. They are indicative of the broad themes to be discussed and will need to be discussed at the next open consultations and defined at the next MAG meeting. The following issues were mentioned to belong under the respective headings.

8. Critical Internet Resources: the following issues were mentioned to be addressed under this heading: IP address allocation; IPv6 and the role of governments; the JPA and the role of governments; the IANA contract; the internationalization of critical Internet resources management; the importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development; enhanced cooperation. ‘The evolution of Internet governance arrangements’ was proposed as a possible title. It was felt that these issues would best be dealt with in an open discussion and there was general agreement that no relevant issue should be excluded from the discussions under this heading.

9. Security / Openness:

One possible title mentioned for this cluster of issues was “Balancing privacy, openness and security”. There was a general understanding that this balancing effort should not be a zero sum gain, but rather a win-win situation. Issues to be discussed could include the respect for privacy as a business advantage and issues such as identity theft, identity fraud, information leakage. Another cluster included Web 2.0 , social networks and privacy, e.g. control of one’s own data and data retention. Other issues mentioned were URL blocking; regulatory models for privacy and cybersecurity.

Some issues pertaining to openness were also discussed, including ensuring the open architecture of the Internet; Net Neutrality; Internet rights and principles; enabling frameworks for freedom; ethical dimensions of the Internet. The discussion of this cluster of issues could benefit from being introduced by a panel, followed by an open discussion.

10. Access: Issues mentioned included national and international regulatory issues; national and regional backbones; infrastructure; interconnection costs, IXPs; modes of access and regulatory challenges; safely and redundancy of access, e.g. cable cuts; and issues in mobile access.

Access was seen as a poverty issue and the importance of developing infrastructure was seen as part of kick-starting the economy. While some of the access issues might be best dealt with by round tables, such as IXPs, others might benefit from being introduced by panels, such as mobile access issues.

11. Round tables on issues where there is a reasonable chance of consensus include the empowerment and protection of children and the accessibility for people with disabilities. The respective dynamic coalitions would be asked to help prepare these round tables. Other round table on other issues would be defined in light of proposals for workshops. Multilingualism was mentioned as another possible issue area for round tables, including access to local content. The afternoon of the third day will be reserved for the reporting back of round tables and workshops. However, the point was also made that the role and function of round tables needed further discussions.

12. The morning of the last day will be reserved for the “formal consultations with Forum participants” on the “desirability of the continuation of the Forum” as stipulated by Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda. These consultations will be prepared by an online process, starting with a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat and a rolling document synthesizing all commentaries received and posted on the IGF Web site. It was the aim to produce a synthesis paper in all six UN languages as a direct input into the discussion of this agenda item.

13. One slot in the afternoon of the last day remains open for the time being. It will be filled in the light of further discussions.

14. As regards the request made by Dynamic Coalitions, namely that they be admitted to the MAG meetings as observers, it was felt that this question needed more reflection and should be revisited in light of the further development of the Sharm El Sheikh programme.

15. A first version of a draft programme outline, taking into account the discussions a the MAG meeting and at the open consultations, will be made available next month.

16. It was agreed that a call for workshop proposals should be issued by the Secretariat. To facilitating the merging of workshops, there was no need to submit a fully fledged proposal. A short description of the proposed theme would be sufficient at this stage. Proposals can also be submitted by people who would not be organizing the workshops themselves.

17. 15 April 2009 was set as a deadline for submitting workshop proposals. An online form will be made on the IGF Web site for this purpose next month.

18. A list of participants is attached at Annex II.

Annex I

Proposed Main Session Schedule
	Sunday 15 Nov	Monday 16 Nov	Tuesday 17 Nov	Wednesday 18 Nov
10:00 – 11:30	Internet Governance - setting the scene	Critical Internet Resources	Access	Taking Stock and Looking forward: Tunis Agenda Para 76
11:30 - 13:00	National and Regional Meetings
13:00 – 14:00	Lunch
15:00 - 16:30	Opening Ceremony/Session	Security and Openness	Reporting back from Round Tables and Workshops
16:30 – 18:00	Keynote Panel			Closing Ceremony

Annex II

MAG MEETING 25-26 FEBRUARY 2009

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Name	Position
Chairman
Desai, Nitin	Special Adviser to the Secretary-General for Internet Governance
Members
Al Shatti, Qusai	Deputy Chair of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS)
Arida, Christine	Director of Telecom Planning and Services, National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA), Egypt
Betancourt, Valeria	Coordinator of the Communication and Information Policy Programme in Latin America, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Dardailler, Daniel	Associate Chair of Europe, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Diop Diagne, Ndéye Maimouna	Director of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and ICT, Senegal
Disspain, Chris	Chief Executive Officer, .AU Registry; Chair, Council of Country – Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)
Dryden, Heather	Senior Advisor, International Telecommunications Policy and Coordination, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Industry Canada
Echeberría, Raúl	Executive Director/CEO, Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC)
Fältström, Patrik	Consulting Engineer, Cisco Systems; Member, Board of Internet Society; Member Swedish Government IT Advisory Group
Filip, Ondrej	Chief Executive Officer, CZ.NIC
Graham, Bill	Global Strategic Engagement, Internet Society (ISOC)
Hassan, Ayesha	Senior Policy Manager, E – Business, IT, and Telecoms, Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
Hofmann, Jeanette	Senior Researcher, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)/Social Science Research Center, Berlin
Jamil, Zahid Usman	Senior Partner and Barrister-at-law, Jamil and Jamil, Chairman, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center
Katoh, Masanobu	Corporate Vice President; President of Law and Intellectual Property Unit and Security Export Control Headquarters, Fujitsu Limited
Katundu, Michael	Assistant Director, Information Technology Communications Commission, Kenya
La Chapelle, Bertrand de	Special envoy for Information Society, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France
Lau, Stephen K.M	Chairman, Electronic Data System (EDS), Hong Kong
Matulis, Aurimas		Director of Information Society Development Committee, Lithuania
Papadatos, George		Minister – Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Greece to the United Nations Office at Geneva
Park, Youn Jung		Senior Research Fellow, Delft University of Technology
Piñeiro, Lorena		Head of International Affairs Department, Undersecretariat of Telecommunications, Chile
Primo, Natasha		National ICT Policy Advocacy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Riehl, Frédéric		Deputy Director, Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications, Switzerland
Selaimen, Graciela		Executive Coordinator, Núcleo de Pesquisas, Estudos e Formação da RITS, (NUPEF), Rio de Janeiro
Swineheart, Theresa		Vice President, Global and Strategic Partnerships, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Tang Zicai		Deputy Director for International Organizations, Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, China
Warren, Jennifer A.		Vice President, Technology Policy and Regulation, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Members Participating Remotely
Cavalli, Olga del Carmen		Adviser for Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina
Kārkliņš, Jānis		Ambassador of Latvia to France and Permanent Representative to UNESCO
Lohento, Ken-Gemma Brice		Panos Institue West Africa, Coordinator, Center for International ICT Policies for Central and West Africa (CIPACO)
Oliver, Colin		Assistant Secretary, International Branch, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Australia
Sha’ban, Charles		Executive Director, Regional Office, Abu – Ghazaleh Intellectual Property

Intergovernmental Organizations
Hibbard, Lee		Council of Europe
Jeoung Hee Kim		ITU
Maloor, Preetam		ITU
Markot, Elisabeth		European Commission

Regional Coordinators
Bu, Gracibel		GRULAC Mission of Honduras
Murdin, Boyke		Mission of Indonesia

Advisors to the Chair and Others
Afonso, Carlos Alberto		Head of Technological Development, RITS
El Saadany, Nermine		Egypt
Glaser, Hartmut		Director of NIC.br
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang		Professor, International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus
Kurbalija, Jovan		Director, DiploFoundation
Mazzone, Giacomo		European Broadcasting Union
Mekkawy, Youssef		Egypt
Singh, Parminder Jeet		Executive Director, IT for Change
Yasser, Hassan		Egypt
K.Nandini		First Secretary, Permanent Mission of India

Advisor to the Chair Participating Remotely
Heather, Shaw		United States Council of International Business

Secretariat
Kummer, Markus		Executive Coordinator
Masango, Chengetai		Programme and Technology Manager
Doria, Avri		Consultant
Sadaka, Bernard		Fellow
Arata, Seiiti		Intern

(Writer L)

Dear Markus，

Thank you very much for your hardworking on the summary report.

1, With regards to the Para.8 on the Critical Internet resources, which reads in your draft:

"8. Critical Internet Resources: the following issues were mentioned to be addressed under this heading: IP address allocation; IPv6 and the role of governments; the JPA and the role of governments; the IANA contract; the internationalization of critical Internet resources management; the importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development; enhanced cooperation. ‘The evolution of Internet governance arrangements’ was proposed as a possible title. It was felt that these issues would best be dealt with in an open discussion and there was general agreement that no relevant issue should be excluded from the discussions under this heading."

my comment is that, to my recollection, the meeting had talked about "Who should be responsible for the IPv6 address allocation", while MAg meeting hadn't touched upon "the IPv6 and the role of governments". And the meeting had talked about the "JPA / IANA contract and the role of the government(s)". The meeting had proposed to use "the internationalization of critical Internet resources management", ‘The evolution of Internet governance arrangements’, "The internationalized management of Critical Internet Resources", "Managing the Critical Internet Resources" as the possible titles. The meeting had discussed and agreed that no contentious issues should be excluded from the discussion list under this heading.

2, As the meeting had also proposed titles for the other two main themes, it would be better to take the same treatment on the other two themes. In your draft the other two themes didn't mention the proposed titles.

3, For Para. 9, with regards to internet rights, the meeting had discussed this word, and had agreed that because there is no established definition on it, it would be better not to discuss it in Egypt meeting.

For your reference.

(Writer M)

Dear All,

My responses to Writer L's two comments are a follows.

On (1), I implore members to allow moving the discussion forward on what we all know was a key public policy issue at WSIS, which context, inter alia, framed the birth as well as the role/ mandate of the IGF, and still is a key issue. I think we were caught at the MAG meeting in an unfortunate hair-splitting on whether and how 'internationalization of IG' is mentioned in WSIS docs ,when we all know that this was certainly a key issue. I can quote a lot of text in WSIS docs and the WGIG report that can best be represented in a brief phrase required for a session topic as 'internationalisation of IG (or of CIR management)'. I too propose that this be the topic for the CIR session and that we move towards clearly focussed areas of discussion under this topic rather than broad ones. JPA and internationalization of root zone file are two important specific issues in my view, as also have been suggested by some other members. I can assure you that there are enough number of stakeholders who urgently want these issues to be taken up, and for that reason alone we should not shy away from taking these up. Many people who speak about democracy and openness have been found dragging their feet on discussing and making progress on these key issues of global democracy and the right of self-determination, which is considered basic and prior to any other right.

That brings me to the point (2) raised by Writer L. This issue of 'Internet rights' also went into a debate regarding congruence with WSIS documents. As I argued at th e meeting WSIS declaration of principles opens with the need to shape an information society that is in accordance with internationally recognized human rights - which include all kinds of rights - economic and social rights as well as civil and political ones, as also right to development and so on. WSIS documents go on to mention that Internet is the central infrastructure of the information society. I think it is a obvious derivation to make then that IG should be informed by an rights based framework. That is all what is being sought to be placed on the IGF agenda. Now if the term 'internet rights' gives an impression that there is already a new and accepted category of new and accepted rights we can address this concern by instead proposing a theme title of 'Internet and rights' or 'rights based approach to IG'. But let us allow this discussion to take place, as to how a possible rights based framework can be explored to develop public policy principles for IG.

I think MAG may need to show more political will (something we often easily accuse others in charge of political/policy related functions of lacking) to discuss the most important political/ policy issues in the space of IG, the purpose for which the IGF was created. I think in this year of IGF's review, those in charge of conducting the IGF may need to be a little more anxious about how we may be seen by the world than perhaps we are. Kind of examination time for us :) . We may need to move from a reductionist lowest common denominator mode in which the MAG meeting got dangerously struck on the second day to (at least partly) a more pro-active strategic negotiations mode, recognizing the primarily political nature of the work that is being carried out here. Something like OK we will discuss this issue, but then lets also discuss this other one which other stakeholders think is most pressing. That may be the only way to preserve the relevance of the IGF, in my view.

Thanks.

(Writer N)

I refer to Mr. Writer L’s kind contribution ie.:

“to my recollection, the meeting had talked about "Who should be responsible for the IPv6 address allocation", while MAg meeting hadn't touched upon "the IPv6 and the role of governments". And the meeting had talked about the "JPA / IANA contract and the role of the government(s)". The meeting had proposed to use "the internationalization of critical Internet resources management", ‘The evolution of Internet governance arrangements’, "The internationalized management of Critical Internet Resources", "Managing the Critical Internet Resources" as the possible titles. The meeting had discussed and agreed that no contentious issues should be excluded from the discussion list under this heading.”

From my recollection:

1. "Who should be responsible for the IPv6 address allocation""

Only the allocation of IPV6 was mentioned –not who should be responsible.

2. "JPA / IANA contract and the role of the government(s)"

The meeting did not speak about JPA and the role of Government(s) nor the IANA contract and the role of Government(s). What was discussed was the status and future of the JPA. Only one mention from Writer O mentioned that the IANA contract’s existence but not what the role of government(s) would be.

3. The meeting had proposed to use "the internationalization of critical Internet resources management", ‘The evolution of Internet governance arrangements’, "The internationalized management of Critical Internet Resources", "Managing the Critical Internet Resources" as the possible titles.

I disagree. We had been clear that there was no such thing as “internationalisation of CIRs” in the Tunis Agenda. As already mentioned in the meeting I repeat:

Tunis (Geneva Declaration) Para 48 states:

The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.

This sentence cannot be read in part being contentious and the result of compromise. It does not mention ‘internationalisation’ and especially not in regards CIR.

Tunis Para 70 states:

70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles.

This only mentions coordination and management of CIR.

Let’s not create terms and issues that do not arise from the Tunis document especially since that would go beyond the mandate of the MAG particularly since we all know that there is no consensus on this and is a contentious issue.

Also Internationalisation sounds like a goal. It is not a goal since there is no consensus on this. The MAG needs to remain objective and cannot be objective or else is taking a decision or at least may be perceived to be taking a position on a subject which does not have consensus. For the sake of the credibility and maintaining the responsibility of the MAG I would advise against this.

(Writer N)

In response to below please see my comments to Mr. Writer L’s coments.

Dear All,

My responses to Writer L's two comments are a follows.

Thanks.

(Writer P)

All,

I support Writer N’s recollection of the discussions we had together with his comments on the use of the word ‘internationalisation’.

Cheers,

[1] . Any such decision would be taken on an opting-in basis, committing only those who subscribe to it.

1 - 28 February, 2009

Proposed Main Session Schedule

Proposed Main Session Schedule

Contact information