IGF 2016 - Day 2 - Main Hall - National and Regional IGFs


The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Jalisco, Mexico, from 5 to 9 December 2016. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 


>> Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. 

I'm pleased to welcome you to the National and Regional IGFs.  Please take your seats, we're starting in 5 minutes.

>> VICTOR LAGUNES: Good afternoon.

I'll read a message in Spanish and in English.

All sessions are live streamed and translated.  We invite you to go to the IGF website and YouTube channel to watch and share.

This session will be translated into six languages.  You can look for your translation headphones just outside the room.  Remember that all of this is being live streamed through our website and through YouTube.

Welcome.  It is my privilege to be Chair to this session.  It is of the utmost importance for us because the voyage in terms of governance for Mexico started a few years ago and today we're starting to see its results.  We have progressed on this topic in many events and fora that we have been able to organize in coordination with different multistakeholder parties and we had a regional Forum, we had a Forum of the Knowledge Society, and we have strengthened the conversation through initiative groups that we have generated in this country thinking of this event.  In 2003 and 2005 the National Summit of ISOC showed the interest of society in discussing matters related to Internet and its governance.  In 2015 the renewal of the mandate of the IGF reiterated our commitment to keep promoting all of these solutions that are sustainable.  We have the honor of hosting this first post‑mandate renewal Forum and we know that with each Forum that we carry out this debate is strengthened through its multiple parties. 

Throughout the years this discussion has been strengthened not only at a global level, regions and nations in the world are more and more actively participating in these fora.  Something that's greatly valuable for all parties involved.

I would like to thank Marilyn Cade who invited me to moderate and to be the Chair for this session.  The coordinator of this session Anja Gengo has been essential for the organization of this Forum.

I would like to congratulate the national, regional initiatives on governance for their collaborative work in order to organize this main session.  With this, I formally declare inaugurated this session, and I hope it will be a productive one.

Thank you.


>> ANJA GENGO:  Allow us at the beginning to tell you who this is, I'll ask the MAG Chair Lynn St. Amour that accepted to be the co‑moderator in this session to brief us a bit who are the NRIs and the principle, the history that we follow together.

>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you.

I want to say a few words first. 

I was happy and honored by the NRIs when I was asked to be a co‑moderator with Anja, and I believe they're very, very important to the achievement of our goals, shared goals and we share so many core values and so much more that I'm very, very happy to be here and looking forward to the next three hours.

The second reason I was so happy was to be able to work more closely again with Anja that's done tremendous work this year.  You'll see why in a few moments when she goes through some of the slides and some updated statistics.  It is probably appropriate that we also thank the donors to the IGF Trust Fund as well as ODESA to help us to pull Anja in to support o this activity.  We would not have made near the progress we have made, you have all made over the last year or so without Anja. 

At the same time I have to recognize the efforts of Marilyn who has played a significant rollover the last few years, Marilyn Cade, Victor mentioned her a moment ago.  She's worked steadfastly to ensure that the MAG was always paying attention to the NRIs and trying to work with them appropriately as so many more were stood up and the work you were doing came so much more front and center.

We want to work to ensure that the work of the NRIs are embedded even more in the front‑end work of the MAG, topics and things that come forward here this year were largely fed by the activities and interests of the NRIs largely through the workshop proposals, of course, submitted and there are many, many speakers across all the sessions that come from the NRIs.  We would like to continue to kind of revamp that a bit as well and use it even more front‑ending a lot of the work we do in the IGF and take advantage, if you will, of all expertise and the work and interests happening with the NRIs. to make sure that we're reflecting that appropriately in our activities and vice versa.

I think there is a lot of exciting opportunities for us to work closely together in the future, and again just want to thank everybody for asking me to comoderate here.

We have two quick slides.

The first one, talks to the origin, the background of the NRIs.  Will that be broadcast? 

Next slide, please.

The Tunis Agenda, you're all familiar with the World Summit and the Information Society.  The WSIS, the Tunis Agenda established the Internet Governance Forum, paragraph 72 through 80.  You're all familiar with it from this point in time.

It fully recognized the importance of the multistakeholder approach in solving some of the more complex public policy issues, and there was at the time no specific call for national or regional IGFs, but paragraph 80 of the Agenda encouraged the development of multistakeholder processes at the national, regional, international level to discuss and collaborate on the development of the Internet.  I think there's been a notion that we would have these efforts working in cooperation with the global Forum.  They really began to take shape in early stages in 2006, when the first IGF was held and really came in their own over the subsequent years.

I think we can move to the next slide now.

Part of the core characteristics and principles of the NRIs is that they're organic, based on community, desire, need, take direction from all the stakeholders at whatever level, national, subregional or youth.  They share a lot of principles with the IGF, such as stakeholders act on an equal footing, bottom‑up, multistakeholder, open and transparent, inclusive.  We share those characteristics and principles between the global IGF and the NRIs as well.  They're actually independent in their organization.  They agreed themselves to follow the core principles and characteristics of the IGF

In order to be identified with the IGF and to be listed on the IGF website, they had agreed to a set of basic requirements.  I should say they were actually developed by the NRIs as well.  That includes such things as an annual report to the Secretariat.  There is more detail on the NRIs, their formation, how to start up an NRI on the website.

I think I'll leave it there and turn to Anja to talk more about some of the specific statistics and the current state of the NRIs.

>> ANJA GENGO: The NRIs are growing rapidly.  I hope you can see the slide.

If you look at another view of the records over the three mandates that the IGF had, you will see that there is a significant growth starting from 2011.  At the end of the first mandate starting the second mandate, we were speaking about 37.  Currently we have 72 officially recognized NRIs and 7 initiatives in formation, which means they're organized internally, but lack support from the community and it will be interesting to hear from some colleagues with the information about the issues that they're facing.  This is just a brief illustration that this is a busy year for NRIs where many NRIs had their own annual meetings and annual IGFs and you see the majority of the meetings were scheduled for the second part of this year. 

This is to illustrate where are we located.  The NRIs are located all over the world.

Finally, allow me to tell you now after you heard who are the NRIs, who they are, what we do, we'll go through the structure talking about what we'll discuss in the next three hours.

The first segment of the session will be the presentation of the speakers on to two topics of common interest for the NRIs where each speaker will speak up to a maximum of 3 minutes.  The first is access and enhancing opportunity for the unconnected and underconnected, and the second topic is secure, resilient and trusted Internet from the NRIs perspective.  The second segment, the colleagues will identify the challenges and recommendations that are related to their work.

The first topic is reliable and sustainable funding sources for the NRIs events.  It is followed by the second topic, challenges in how to create more awareness about the Internet Governance and why stakeholders should be actively engaging.

After that, we'll be giving an opportunity to all of you to ask our speakers whatever you would like to ask and also we'll give opportunity, of course, to our online participants.

I want to recognize our Rapporteurs.  We have them here, they're sitting with us I believe on the stage.  We have four Rapporteurs.  They'll be gathering the key messages that the speakers will be sending and rather than a formal conclusion our Rapporteurs will be greeting the concrete key messages that will be sentence out to the wider IGF community. 

Since we have a lot of speakers, almost 41, if you allow me I would call the colleagues from the National IGF of Armenia which is access and enhancing opportunity for the unconnected and underconnected.

>> LIANNA GALSTYAN: I'm Lianna Galstyan. 

One of the functions of which is to organize the annual national IGF as well as to represent ISOC Armenia.  We are relatively newly formed IGF.  This year we had our second edition.

Speaking about access and enhancing opportunities for the unconnected and underconnected I would like to bring to your attention the accessibility perspective of this issue by sharing the Armenia experience on a project we have implemented lately.

It is the Earth Radio for visually impaired and blind people.  Since the formation of the Internet Society in Armenia in 1994 the support and integration of people with disabilities were among the basics of ISOC Armenia activities.  In 2011 as part of a joint project of the ITU and UNESCO INDECOPI institute of it in education, an Internet Center for visually impaired people was opened in the Capital City of Armenia, Yerevan.  The main goal of the center was to support inclusiveness and with the help of information communication technologies establish an accessible, informational, educational center, environment for people with visual impairments.  Almost a year ago by the initiative of young members from the Center of Blind People who are also a part of Armenia IGF an idea of connected them through the Internet, namely creating an Internet Radio Station to inform visually impaired of their rights and privileges, problems and solutions, new opportunities and success stories through internet Radio became a reality.

After its launch, with programs of various interests and categories, including one about the Internet, the project encounters many positive feedbacks worldwide.  Currently Radio MENK is considering developing an application for tablets and phones that will boost the average daily number of followers. 

Besides this issue, we at Armenia IGF considers the quality content creation in Armenia language of significant importance to preserving national identity, not only for people within the country but also for widespread Armenia people around the world.  We launched the Armenia Society LD this year and with this project we expect to improve the local language content creation.

Thank you very much for your attention.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Anja asked if I could drive this topic, and she'll drive those in the center.  I'll happily support that request.

We'll move to the regional IGF of Asia‑Pacific.

>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Good afternoon.  I'm Secretariat for the Asia‑Pacific Regional IGF

We had our Seventh Edition this year, and I'll be focusing on the access issues discussed at this meeting and also captured in the document that resulted.

The first issue I want to talk about is access and connectivity.  The AP region has tremendous social, economic, political and geographic diversity.  Challenges with basic infrastructure and access still exists in regions with difficult terrains.  Mobile technology has become a more accessible and affordable option for rural and isolated users.  Use cases shared by Nepal and rural Vietnam at the Forum talked about low cost, open will ‑‑ openly sourced systems that can be adopted by rural communities with limited resources.  A study published this year in June showed 57% of the global urban population is unconnected to the broadband Internet and the percentage is even higher in the AP region at 68%.

The increasing availability of fast broadband has advanced digital transformation at an unprecedented rate but they create new and deep digital divides as a skewed benefit towards those who already have access to the necessary skills and resources.

The second issue I want to talk about is the localization and local content.  Many of the next billion coming online speak in a language other than English.  Localization and support in operating systems and applications go hand in hand with the creation of local content.  As improved technological opportunities such as IPv6, internationalized domain names facilitate the access for the next billion of Internet users and it is very important that explicit measures are taken to support, conserve and enhance their uniqueness, language and cultural diversity.

The third and last issue to talk about briefly, capacity building.  Digital literacy and digital skills are imperative to digital citizenship.  Focused efforts must be made to reach the underserved communities.  Critical priorities need to be addressed from the local to the national, to the region‑wide levels and combine input from public, private and community sectors is needed to create sustainable initiatives to solve issues of affordable access to Internet connectivity, affordable services for access to information, education and digital literacy for all through the application of sustainable models.

Thank you very much.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.

Next we're moving to the Caribbean IGF

>> BEVIL WOODING:  Our Forum started in 2005 by the Caribbean Telecommunication Union and the Caribbean Community.  The goal of the Forum to date is to facilitate a coordinated effort for Internet Governance in the region and the outcome so far is Internet exchange points, IPv6 awareness, country code, top level domain strengthening and the building of awareness in Internet Governance concepts, values, principles and issues across the region.

Over the past 12 years we have exposed hundreds of national and regional stakeholders to a range of topics and has fostered certain, political, policy discussions on an ever increasing impact that the Internet is having on social and economic development in the region.  The signature output of this process so far is the development of the world's first documented regional Internet Governance framework, this has become the foundation for the regions IG development, helping shape dialogue, policy, practice and action at a national, regional level.

Our meetings so far have inspired the development and growth of groups, Internet Governance focused groups at a national level and also fostered creation of national hub for participation in the international Internet Governance Forum.  There is a platform for convergence of stakeholders and to broaden the range of stakeholders involved in various issues.  There are several significant challenges we still are considering as we go forward.  Our efforts to secure the broadest possible stakeholders participation and sustain the momentum of Civil Society interests and private and public sector interests are hampered by issues of access, affordability, awareness of the importantness and the role of Internet Governance.  Therefore the new strategy moving forward, the cornerstone, discussed in the 12th IGF held was on leveraging the experience and learnings of the government structures and capacity at the regional level to strengthen, foster support and facilitate the proliferation of the Internet Governance Forum in a national level and this is bearing fruit already.  Trinidad and Barbados, they're setting up their IGFs, and they'll hold a meeting soon.  Other countries have also signaled intentions to mobilize their national communities.

For all countries the goal is the same, accelerate Internet adoption and accelerate Internet enabled development for the Caribbean.  Our topics going forward will continue to be around issues of cybersecurity, CTLD operations, local digital content development, broadband access and affordability,  increasing stakeholders' participation in the Internet Governance process.

Thank you. 

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  That's interesting.  We'll have synergy between other IGFs coming up as well. 

I want to point out, you mentioned that it was the 12th IGF and it is certainly a long verizon extending beyond the global IGF.  Impressive.

Next, Ghana.

>> WISDOM DONKOR: Thank you.

Good afternoon to everyone.  My name is Wisdom Donkor. 

Today Ghana is so far, so good, and the process, it is very smooth.  We thank everyone for their support.  

Ghana IGF was convened by Ministry of Communication and ISOC Ghana Chapter.  It was on the 3rd to the 8th of August in 2016 and we had a planning Committee and I'll give you some of the recommendations that we had out of the meeting. 

Ghana has a very good enabling environment for ICT.  We have infrastructure in place.  Government has been able to lay fiber optic throughout the whole country, connecting all government agencies on to one common platform, which is the national data center.

Out of this, the Ghana IGF identified some key, critical issues and one of those issues, one capacity building so moving forward, enriching the SDGs we have decided that we want to engage the Minister of Education more to see how Ghana can begin to start the process of including Internet Governance in the educational curriculum.  This initiative will help drive the Agenda, enriching the Sustainable Development Goals.

Aside this, we also are looking at open data to drive the Internet Governance with open data because this too component, while trying to empower the students and others to start creating, looking at creating sustainable jobs for the citizens.

One other area that we're looking at, looking at judiciary and the law enforcement.  That is another critical area that we need to bring to speed.  We realize that our judiciary and law enforcement lack knowledge about the Internet Governance issues that's going on.  We need to create capacity for them as well.

Lastly, we want to start actually creating communities through Internet Governance and open data.  We want to create a really important community.  We're looking at key sectors, educational sector, health sector, we're also looking at the instructive industry sector.  This key sectors, we want to create communities, build the communities ‑‑ build the communities and ‑‑ so that we'll create that enabling environment for sustainable jobs.

Thank you.  [Applause].

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you, Wisdom.  That was very interesting.  

Next we'll move to IGF Uruguay. 

>> URUGUAY:  Good afternoon. 

I'm part of the government, part of the Committee of the Uruguay and local IGF.  I would like to thank Mexico and Guadalajara for hosting us in this wonderful IGF.

I would like to thank as well Marilyn and Anja for efforts made to strengthen the development of NRIs.

Uruguay had its first national IGF on May 2016.  It had an attendance of 150 people, and through streaming 900 people were able to follow us.  Considering that Uruguay is a tiny country with 3.5 million inhabitants, for us it was wonderful to have that level of attendance.

The main topics were this:  Neutrality network, Internet Governance, Internet and the law, privacy and Internet as development and inclusion mechanism.  In this panel, Internet is a means of inclusion and development.  It is the challenges and the major achievements in the area of the capacity building. 

In terms of achievements, we mentioned the broad access to the Internet available in the country, we mentioned three programs:  The stable and the fiber optic program for households.  I'm sure you have heard about the program, a computer per kid since first grade and it goes up to secondary school.  This plan has been implemented since 2008 and computers are given to each kid and the kid can take the computer home.  They own it.  They actually own the computer.  Since they can take it home, other members of the family can use it and the research is pointing out that most of the households that are part of the most vulnerable sections of society, this is the only device that they have available.  This program has been fundamental to fill the first digital gap, access in the most poor, richer countries in society.  We can say that the digital divide between the most poor and the richest in our society has practically disappeared in terms of access.

This plan includes connectivity, and it reaches out to all primary and secondary schools in the country starting last year the second plan that has been implemented is a plan that consists of providing one tablet to every person over 65 years of age who has retired or receives retirement equivalent to 250 or less.  This device is given to all individuals that fulfill the requirements and who also ask for the tablet.  They receive the device and are trained to use it.  Another of the programs that were mentioned were fiber optics at home, the State‑owned telecommunication company developed communications policies using fiber optics for that purpose for all households, by 2020 90% of all households will be connected. 

Lastly, the pending challenges ahead are in terms of capacity building and skill building in the area of gender.  We have to develop local content and also content in Spanish.  Lastly, another challenge is the publication of more open data so that more collaborative services are available.

Thank you for your kind attention.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you for jumping in when I went out of order.

Moving back to this side of the table, we'll hear now from the Kenya IGF.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA: I'm speaking on behalf of the Committee that organized the Kenya IGF

This year the Kenya IGF had over 200 participants.  Kenya is ‑‑ there are so many that are aware of the Kenya IGF that we had to close the invitation system three weeks before because of budget issues.

Topics are crowdsourced and voted for.  This year the crowds ‑‑ the topics that were suggested and agreed on included blockchain technology, ODTs and regulation, Internet and elections and cybersecurity.  After the selection of the topics they're followed an online moderation discussion of the same topics on multiple lists across Kenya that are ICT related.  Then this was followed by a face‑to‑face meeting that had panels that discussed this topic through a multistakeholder approach where we had representative on each topic there was a representative from the business, from the government, they were sometimes represented by the regulator, from Civil Society, sometimes from academia.

What is it that we have learned out of running the IGFs?  This was I think the 9th IGF that we were running.  One, that in terms of providing opportunity to many people we have learned that one of the things that we're able to do through an IGF is to influence decisions nationally.  We meet as a multistakeholder group, including the regulator and the government, then we're able to articulate, discuss what our concerns are and we are able to make them understand and influence nationally.

The important thing is that it is always very good to have new voices every other year that you have a national IGF and new topics, topics that resonate with the needs of Kenyans, topics they relate to and topics they can see how useful the topics are in their lives.

As IGFs continue, you know, they continue to be ‑‑ the Kenya IGF continues to be a platform that gives Kenyans an opportunity to talk about their concerns and agitate for what it is that they want and this has continued to receive policy interventions.  Again in those policy interventions, then citizens are able to engage because there is a Constitution provision of public participation in any public policy making.

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.  That was a great resume of the importance and the impact NRIs can have.

Thank you.

Next we're going to the Nigerian IGF.

>> MARY UDUMA: I coordinate the Nigerian IGF.

Nigerian IGF started in 2007 when the government organized it, but it was renewed in 2012 and we had endorsement of the government, we had multistakeholder Advisory Committee and it was made up of the Minister of Communication, the regulator, the development agency, the private sector, the Civil Society, Technical Community as well as academia.

Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups.  We have cultural diversity.  We have mobile environment where the greatest users of Internet in Sub‑Saharan Africa, and for that reason we need to look at how the Internet effects our environment and what we have to discuss and adopt to what's best for us in the environment.

This year, in looking at access and enhancing opportunity for connecting the unconnected we identified about 5 underconnected groups, women, youth is a challenge group, old people and those ‑‑ and the rural dwellers.  What did we do?  We had a full‑day discussion on this.  I want to bring to you, that's our fifth renewed Nigerian IGF.  Previously since 2012 we have been making some recommendations which the government ‑‑ some of our recommendations were adopted by the Government of Nigeria for interventions.  This year we looked at not leaving anyone behind.  These groups that were identified, what are they ‑‑ what should we do to get them connected?  We looked at accessibility, affordability, availability.  Mobile phones and mobile connectivities or connectivity, it is available almost everywhere but Internet is not available everywhere.  Internet is not that affordable and there are people living in the disability that don't have access.  What did we do?  We recommended that we should develop local content, local language, local inventions or innovation, local technology and create more jobs.  We also looked at how physically challenged would be included in this new area of Internet space.  We also recommended that education should ‑‑ just as education is a right, Internet access should be a right for everyone.  We said access to Internet should be a right.

We also looked at what our government is already doing, what we call the Access ‑‑ Knowledge Access Venues, the community access centers but it does not go around.  There are few that ‑‑ the interventions, they are there, but not everybody has it.  We also looked at how Internet adds value to women lives, the Internet should be there to add value to women's life and we asked our government to implement our broadband roadmap that we think will enhance the Internet connectivity to those that are unconnected and the underconnected.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.  That's very interesting.  I particularly liked the focus on the local content as well and rights.

Next we have the Subregional Southeastern European IGF activity.

>> Thank you.  Good afternoon.  I'm speaking on behalf of the Southeastern initiative for Southeastern Europe and the neighboring areas, covering countries from Armenia, Georgia, to Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, everything around the region. 

Earlier this year we had our second annual meeting where we discuss among many other topics digital divide and we did a survey in our region and asked the community, our community, what are the most challenging Internet related issues across our countries and surprisingly digital divide was the first one.  We looked at this at our session and we tried to provide recommendations for policymakers and various other stakeholders in the region on how to overcome the challenge.  I will go briefly through the recommendations as they were made at the session by the community.

First of all, it was said that policies implemented by governments need to be based on comprehensive analysis of the real situation on the ground so they're fully anchored in reality.

The second category of recommendations, related to infrastructure.  It was said that public private partnerships are key to developing infrastructure for remote and uncovered areas with governments offering some forms of incentives for the private sector to actually invest in areas that are not so commercially attractive.

Then it was also underlined that at least in our region Internet access with mobile technology should be seen only as a temporary solution because of the limitations it brings.  For example, in terms of using the radio Spectrum and it should be followed by investment in fiber networks.

Then more efforts are needed in the region for multistakeholder groups in terms of implementing IPv6 and other new technologies like wide spaces.  The third recommendation was related to creation of an enabling environment and the adoption of an adequate regulatory framework that encourages competition and gives equal status to all players on the market.

Beyond infrastructure, the fourth recommendation was related to the affordability of access, some kind of policies implemented by the governments allowing some parts of the community to be supported to access the Internet.  In terms of meaningful access, digital literacy is key and more efforts need to be made by all stakeholders in the region in terms of educating users, not only to make users of the Internet for entertainment or education but also in their day to day job and trying to grow themselves and their businesses, for example.

The issue very close to our region, local content and local languages and scripts.  As many of you know, we have wide variety of scripts in our region, we have Armenia, Georgian, several others.  And that's a key issue in our region and more efforts are needed there as well from all stakeholders and also with international organizations in addressing the issues that are still related to universal acceptance.

This in short were the recommendations made by participants in our meeting this year on what can be done in our region to further address the digital divide challenges.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Very interesting set of activities. 

For this particular question we have two more speakers, they're remote.  We're going to go to ‑‑ I think it is the Africa IGF.

>> MAKANE FAYE: (No audio from remote moderator).

Send a message to all now saying that they can come in later.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: There was no audio too.  We had a hard time hearing.

We'll come back to the African IGF.

Are we ready to go to the Benin IGF?

>> REMOTE ANJE GENGO:  They're not responding at all and does not appear to be online.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Do you think we'll be able to get to the African IGF quickly or should we just pull them in a bit later, Marilyn?

>> M. CADE: We'll do it later.

>> REMOTE ANJE GENGO: He's now online.  We should be able to get him.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Excellent.  We can hear you so much better now.

>> MAKANE FAYE: Hello!

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Hello and welcome.

>> MAKANE FAYE: Thank you, Lynn.

It is almost 10:00 at night here in Dakar.  My presentation on the access on the unconnected and underconnected, it will deal with a few main items:  The first is the situation in Africa; the second one is recommendations and all of this is from the Africa IGF that was held in October in South Africa in the City of Durbin.

We have what I identified major challenges in terms of access and quality of the Internet in Africa where we have unbalanced infrastructure route.  We do not have fiber optic to major cities and most people are using mobile devices, but the quality, it is very poor.

It was also identified that there is no public investment in the sector and the issue of existing infrastructure.  The low access to services is mainly due to low income and low level of education and a study which was done by ICT Africa found that the high percentage of population income is spent on communications.  The communication is really by voice, and most who are connected will do it half of the time of the month.

When you look at the industry, there is a lack of incentives and high taxes on services.  As you know, we have talked about the [indiscernible] migration which is in places in most African countries.  There are issues of privacy and ONS, and on top of all, there is a general lack of political will from national governments.

To tackle above challenges, the African IGF has put forward several recommendations such as a need to have access to broadband which is not only available, but also needs to be accessible in terms of practice and so on.  The African IGF has indicated that public‑private partnerships should [indiscernible].  Marginalized communities should also be taken care of, a need to subsidized academic institutions and [indiscernible] various programs using the Internet.  Wi‑fi community access is promoted, including deployment of wide spaces to view the unutilized Spectrum at affordable rates.  The promotion of local content and open data, the use of open curriculum or eLearning and, of course, it is required to remove them, especially the taxes on [indiscernible].  All of this can be done only when all stakeholders from the beginning to the end, that means using the bottom‑up approach.  Youth should be involved and the gender gap also should be bridged. 

Finally, the last intervention, it was to put in place for better collaboration between the ICT and the education sector to make sure that the persons that are trained can be readily available to put in place the digital community and with the data networks.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what I had as a summary of the African IGF in terms of topic 1, access and as put forth to the connected and unconnected.  Sorry for the quality of the sound.

Thank you. 


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: The sound was quite good, and we appreciate you joining us so late in the evening there as well.

I'm going to turn to Anja.  She'll lead us through the second topic determined by the NRIs.  If I could ask everybody to stay to the 3 minutes which this is what the NRIs had all agreed, in order to ensure we got as many initiatives in as possible.  We also want to leave time at the end for the open mic session as well.

>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you to the speakers on the first segment. 

Dynamics on the stage, I'll kindly ask the presenters to move so that the presenters for the topic B, which is secure, resilient and trusted Internet from the NRI perspectives can take their positions.

This section will have eight speakers.  We're kindly asking you to keep up your presentations, keep them up to 3 minutes so that we have maybe even more than 15, 20 minutes for all of you to ask questions to our speakers as I'm sure you already have some prepared questions from the presentations that we have heard.  They were all very interesting.

While colleagues are taking position, I'm going to kindly ask the presenter on behalf of the national IGF of Bosnia and Herzegovina to start.

>> VALENTINA PELLIZZER: Good afternoon.  I'm together with the regulatory agency part of the Committee that started two years ago.  The IGF here, it is a very young IGF.

This was our path.  We thought and felt and we are happy that in this two years we have been confirmed by the active participation, a lot of multistakeholder, that dialogue is essential in a country that went through  war and is going along transition.  Dialogue is the key.  The thing that I will highlight is safe.

The first IGF we talked about safety in a different way.  We wanted to explore the two extremes of safety, the safety of the citizen, safety of the women and which kind of support they can get when they go to the national authority asking to be protected because they're attacked online.  We talked about the safety translated in security by the government and the State which is then resulting in complex systems of I would say surveillance and control and paranoia.  This was one of the conversation that we had at the very first.

The second IGF was more on trust, two elements, trust that everyone can participate, diversity, it is really an asset.  We had the first panel with people with disability talking and explaining to the representative, the multistakeholder, we had them talking from a technical side, talking Civil Society, academia, and we had a representative of the government.  I think this was the most important event because in a little country signed translation, having people talking about their issue in an event that's talking about something sophisticated like Internet Governance, it was an achievement.

The second element of trust was to engage the local business community, the national business community.  It is always a challenge to involve the business community in a national environment, a small environment.  We had a chance to get localized people provided to have a start‑up individuals and traditionals sitting with us, discussing the legal framework that very often doesn't exist and is very low ‑‑ very slow and doesn't follow the change of technology.  We had the regulator confronting, talking, trying to analyze.  I think that for us the he resilience will come with the third, fourth IGF hoping to host a truly conversation where everyone feels engaged and whatever we can propose, support, and build an open, safe Internet and Internet of trust for all people.

Thank you.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you.  Indeed we'll continue in that manner with Central Asia IGF.

>> ARTEM GORYAINOV:   (No English translation).

I'm terribly sorry.

Microphone wasn't turning on in the English booth,  however we have solved it now.

Given these issues are very serious in our region the governance, the governments need to take certain measures, those measures are not necessarily very obvious.  For instance, if it is an extremist video on YouTube what the government does is completely block YouTube.  If something is seen on one of the channels, then they block all international channels leaving only one national channel on the television.  If there is an extremist problem they turn the laws to be so severe that it blocks everything.  Unfortunately the measures are not efficient and they don't take into account all aspects of extremism creating an environment that it is not sound for Human Rights nor for development of the economy and trade.

Our government bodies do not have sufficient experts that could develop the measures and determine how effective and efficient they are in general terms.  However, these do exist in the business sector, in the scientific sectors and because of this, the first IGF in Central Asia took these issues on a general sense showing us how the business and scientific sectors operated and showing us how international cooperation worked.  Friends, if we're able to agree amongst ourselves then it works well; unfortunately amongst the countries, per se, it doesn't necessarily happen in that way, propaganda, extremism and the need to take the extremes for Internet Governance for Civil servants, Civil Society and scientific community.

I would like to remind you this Forum is only a platform.  We need to remember that future Fora need to be able to assess the work undertaken by us.

Thank you very much.


>> ANJE GENGO: Now moving back to Europe, we have EuroDIG present with us, the regional IGF for Europe.

>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Thank you very much.  I'm Secretary‑General of the EuroDIG European IGF.

We just had our 9th meeting this year in June in Brussels.  One of the ongoing, underlying topics of this EuroDIG was how to create a secure and trustworthy Internet.  I will read the messages from the plenary and from the workshops as they have been extracted in our messages as we present them to the IGF annually and I will concentrate on the issues ‑‑ on the open and free Internet.

There was agreement that the Internet will be only beneficial if it is free, open, secure.  Trust is key in embracing the digital revolution.  The role of the industry and government as key players has been raised in many sessions.  A better collaboration was demanded when discussing privacy and security.

Related messages to this underlying issues were ‑‑ and I will read them as they have been extracted now ‑‑ first, the trade, there is no trade between privacy and security.  The security needs to be a collaborative effort openness requires shared responsibility and companies and government may not be completely held responsible for what people do online.

Second, regulation is important but most important is an ethical approach from the design phase onwards and the development of technical tools to deal with the complexity and protecting privacy.

Third, it is not a job of a private company to solve public policy problems, especially small start‑up needs to have room to innovate.  We expect responsible, responsibility from our companies.

Fourth, cybersecurity comes with protecting the end user with a secure system, not against them.

Fifth, intermediaries cannot be the policy of the Internet, they cannot substitute the primary responsibility to protect Human Rights although they have to act responsibly.

Six, we should work on models to extend trade to protect open Internet in line with connecting economic interests of nation states to an open Internet.  .

Seven, commercial designs need to look at all minorities and facilitate full access and enjoyment of the Internet.  Internet companies share in this responsibility while government has a duty to enable the full enjoyment of Human Rights online for all users.

There were messages related to the end user.  There are four and I will read them one by one.  First, content cannot be produced and distributed by everybody and recycled without checking facts.  Information inflated by recycling occupies space and pushes out other content.  Media literacy training may help, but it should not be made with ‑‑ but it should be made with an open mind.  Even if you like free content there is a price to pay.

Second, access is not just about physical connection or terms of use, but it is also important ‑‑ but also about informed content‑related skills and education and, therefore, about having the capacity to fully participate online. 

Libraries play an important role in enabling a sustainable public access.  Libraries can help provide people with knowledge and skills to acquire capacity to fully participate online.

Third, education, particularly of the younger generation, is vital in ensuring Human Rights are understood and respected equally, both online and offline. 

Fourth, last, media literacy education should cover from formal and non‑formal learning settings.  For example, libraries and it was first of all critical thinking and critical evaluation of content.  Education on Human Rights and democratic citizenship is strongly interrelated with media, literacy and education. 

If you're interested in finding out more about these messages and background visit the EuroDIG website or get one of our brochures in the EuroDIG booth in the IGF Village.

Thank you very much.


>> ANJE GENGO: Moving to the national IGF of Germany.

>> LRENA JAUME‑PALASI: This year we had our 8th IGF with a new Steering Committee, and security was one of the topics represented in half of the panel so we had four panels throughout the entire day and half were on security.  Also during our Youth IGF we discussed security issues a lot.  So I'm going to pick two topics, the two topics we discussed during the IGF and represent the messages from the IGF and also from our Youth IGF

The first topic is encryption policy and how the German government and other stakeholders should design a sustainable encryption policy and the second topic is the control of exports of surveillance technologies from Germany.  Germany is actually a major exporter from surveillance agencies from abroad.

Encryption technology, in 1999 the German government adopted a pro encryption stance, so‑called cornerstones it followed since.  This means that also for the foreseeable future, the government will promote strong encryption and not undertake initiatives to weaken the underlying technologies or they'll back those into them.  Even in the Agenda it says it wants to be a world leader in encryption technology.  That's notably a different position than in other countries, but at the same time at the IGF we discuss new initiatives to create security agencies that are supposed to circumvent encryption in order to surveil criminal suspects.

The messages from the IGF that we have are first the government should not ‑‑ should continue to support strong end‑to‑end encryption and also together with the private sector actively fund open source cryptography and the government needs to clarify what form and legal and operational authority the new security agency designed to circumvent the encryption technologies will take and what it will look like.

Thirdly, the government should clarify and respect not only the government, but also all security agencies, legal and operational frameworks for surveillance when they surveil suspect and circumvent encryption.

Our fifth recommendation actually is that end‑to‑end linkages needs to be more accessible and much more widely used than it is now.  This can be done through digital literacy initiatives, but also by improving usability of the encryption technologies in their design phase already.

Timeout?  I'll make it short. 

Basically Germany is a major net exporter of technology for surveillance, and there are a number of legal instruments available to regulate these export controls.  The IGF determined that this is very important.  We need to regulate these export of surveillance technologies much better, but the current instruments such as the European or national agreements, others, for the export of duel used goods do not work well for a number of reasons and so other options have to be discussed here either to amend the current existing agreements that are in place or also measures such as black listing companies and more emphasizing existing Human Rights focused instruments.

Moreover, encryption technologies should not at all be part of export controls.  Those are the messages on the two topics.

Thank you.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much to the colleague from the German IGF.

Let's move on to another part of the row here and hear from the colleagues from Latin America and Caribbean IGF.

>> CESAR DIAZ: Good afternoon to you all. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here.  I represent the IGF Committee program which is the regional program for LAC preparatory for the IGF Forum.

In July we had our 9th meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica.  The NIF through its different sessions has become a space for participatory open dialogue amongst all actors.  We have discussed topics that pertain to the region establishing the priorities for the Latin American and Caribbean region understanding what the topics are that need to be included on the Agenda and the discussion on the global IGF.

With respect to a secure, resilient, reliable Internet in our NRI we have discussed issues such as how to protect the open, free, secure nature of the Internet.  In these discussions each of the actors have presented their points of view because the concept of security has different meanings depending on the vision of each of the stakeholders.  The security of users is a shared responsibility that needs to begin with education of all, how to protect information, what information should be shared and when it should be shared, what are the mechanisms and which of these mechanisms are secure and their implications for each of these mechanisms in terms of privacy.  We need to generate users that are able to discern and freely decide knowing with the knowledge of the risks of each of their actions and this is one of the basic, essential topics in each action.  One of the concerns also refers to the vision that users have to have when they use an application.  That is to say when the services are accessed to users, they need to understand the terms and conditions without having control on their subsequent use.  There is a challenge of improving data usage and anonymous use of the Internet.  We need to protect the information and the private data of people.  There is a system when those are violated but in so far as new services arise, there are new challenges for ‑‑ to the security of users that are also arising.

Elimination of data for security is also an issue.  We need to develop protocol that make the operation of the network more secure, prioritizing the security of users at the different operating levels.

Finally, with a multiple legislative process throughout the region, we need to foster these governance discussions so as to involve the legislation and participation of multistakeholders in the process.

Thank you very much. 


>> ANJE GENGO: Our Host Country is not only successful in organizing an IGF for all of us, but they're also very successful in organizing an IGF only for themselves every year.  We have the pleasure to hear from the national IGF of Mexico.

>>  Thank you for the invitation to take part from the National Mexican Internet Governance Forum.  I am very pleased to be here.  I thank my colleagues for having selected me to represent them, and I thank the organizers for inviting me to be a part of this session.  

Our group over the past few years contributed to having a reliable, resilient, secure Internet.  Over the past two years we have organized discussions in the national Forum that seeks to analyze the challenges, increase tie‑ins with dialogues and different stakeholders in Mexico.  In 2013 we began in the beginning of the year and had dialogues on governance, and even at that we have had intersessional work in which we include supporting regional work in Mexico and the IGF at the global level and national level.

Mexico is not a part from the points that effect a secure, resilient Internet.  We have worked with pioneers for many years and since the Internet has arrived in Mexico we worked with people working on local governance and regional and global Internet Governance and particularly infrastructure in Mexico is made up of different sets of autonomous infrastructures but closely tied in to one another and with the rest of the global infrastructure that makes up a single Internet.  Mexico is a very important link in that Internet chain and we need to ensure that it is resilient and not be an outside link.  We actors in Mexico are aware of that and we seek to contribute in our role that we have from each of us have from our own trench and we want to make it more secure although the actors involved ‑‑ are involved to solve governance problems in the Internet, particularly and closely linked to the problem it is true that the governance dialogues in those dialogues we see the particular challenges that are in existence in Mexico and I would like to tell you about the challenges that we have dealt with over the past two years in Mexico.

Cybersecurity, attacks online, forensic Internet, geographic structure, the legal structure of illegal actions, attributions of the State for law enforcement including cooperation with authorities, the agreement, the geolocalization and spying of the State and trans border flow of data for cooperation with the authorities.  We know this is important information and we will seek to continue to undertake the support with our multistakeholders at global level and we'll continue to work on this in upcoming months as well.

Thank you very much.

>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you.

Moving to colleagues from South Korea IGF.

>> JUNGBAE AN: I came here on behalf of South Korea IGF

We have been holding IGFs since 2014 incorporating activities on the Internet Governance conducted sporadically by different stakeholders in Korea.  Although we in South Korea had good experiences on cooperation of different structures on Internet since the 1980s, we have had ebb and flow. 

I won't go into the details in South Korea, but the recent report South Korea and Internet Governance, the present and future which was shared in the 2016 IGF stresses out the institutionalization of the Internet Governance.  The main issues to enhance the multistakeholder participation to ensure the maximum capacity of the Internet community South Korea has a domestic law which specifies that a governmental agency takes the ultimate responsibility on the critical Internet resources in Korea.  We cannot generalize all of these, the government approach is often functioning as destruction or hindrance of the multistakeholder cooperation and effective adaptiveness in expending this and the Chapel lengths of the global Internet Governance regime.  ‑‑ challenges ‑‑ to go forward to a secure Internet, I would like to point out the IGF and that maybe together they can develop the good monitoring schemes for the interrelated policies and inclusive matters in all policymaking processes, including specifying the national IGF's role in the Internet and related public policies.  For example, we may be able to develop a regulatory base with wider ranges of information of national and regional development of Internet public policy and the government scheme and we will have the efforts of all initiatives and activities.  I believe if we can possibly use the related initiatives such as Sustainable Development Goals and that mechanism, it would enhance the effectiveness a lot more.

Also in terms of capacity building to make all these kinds of things happen to cooperate with other related initiatives such as Internet Governance that are expanding and it would be helpful too.

Thank you very much.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

Now the pleasure to close this section goes to the national IGF of Sri Lanka.


I'm Chairman of the organizing Committee of IGF Sri Lanka. 

8 March 2016 we had the first ever national IGF in Sri Lanka.  It is a hectic task to conduct an Internet Governance Forum, but we managed to create an open, transparent, inclusive Internet Governance Forum.  It was a one‑day event.  We had four topics.  We had four sessions including the official inauguration ceremony.  First IGF Sri Lanka, we included three subject topic discussions.  The next billion user initiative and Sri Lanka contribution of it, Internet and Freedom of Expression and new media.  IGF Sri Lanka was teamed to inform the community of multistakeholder model and the discussion which it is open for all.  I encourage you to visit our website for information regarding our initiative.  Pictures, videos, transcripts and last but not least the final report you can find on our website.

After the 10th of March we created a few projects which was highlighted at the IGF Sri Lanka 2016.  Here today I will introduce one project from that, which aligned with today's topic that secure and trust of the Internet.  This particular topic on safer Internet, you will find that in the session transcript of IGF Sri Lanka 2016, this topic, legal, psychological perspective being discussed as a developing country we understood that we were behind in knowledge sharing towards behavioral and attitude changes. 

With ISOC Sri Lanka with the fund of ISOC global we created a camp with the most vulnerable young adults.  The camps were conducted for school levels and educators within their vocational institutional classes.  Working with creativity too they could change attitudes more favorable to safer use of Internet and make them motivated to promote the safe Internet knowledge among their colleagues.  This camp concept worked, and we are being invited in many institutes being handled by the students that trained as trainers in our program.

With this success of this project we're looking forward to conduct more camps and other activities with related to safer Internet with the local and international partners and organizers.  Many say that IGF is the program which isn't outcome oriented, do you agree with it?  I ‑‑ I close my speech.

Thank you.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

This will conclude the second segment of this session.

Again, I kindly ask the colleagues now to take your name plates and move to the audience so that the other colleagues for the third segments can take the positions.  This somehow is going smoothly because we have a good floor management.  Thank you, Marilyn, a lot for helping.

Thank you very much.  We'll start with the third topic of this segment, the second segment, reliable and sustainable funding sources for the NRIs events.  We have been kindly asked by Mary from West Africa to start first.  If colleagues agree, I would ask her to open the floor.

>> MARY UDUMA: Thank you.  I'm speaking on behalf of West Africa IGF, a regional IGF

In West Africa we have Ivory coast, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, and Togo, others.  We have 14 countries.  And we have been holding our IGF for over nine years ‑‑ only one we missed because of Ebola.  This year, it was the ‑‑ it was the 8th African IGF, and the topic was implementing a multistakeholder model for development of Internet in West Africa, and it was majorly to restructure the West African IGF

In terms of reliable, sustainable funding source of the NRIs, we want to first of all thank FOSFA that's helped us to get the funding for the West Africa IGF, but it has not been that easy and it has not been stable, it has not been sustainable.  Each year we go behind begging for funds to be able to organize our event.  For this, we are restructuring and we're developing a chapter in the West Africa IGF to define rules and have structure that will be sustainable and we want to be ‑‑ we want to start planning early enough to be able to get our partners and collaborators, to be able to know what we're doing and ask them to get funding.  We want commitment from both governments, the heads of States of West Africa to commit to funding West Africa IGF as well as other stakeholders in the region especially the private sector, that the private sector that do business and earn a lot of revenue from the West Africa subregion should be able to commit to funding our events.  Our new structure will spell out all of that, all that we will do. 

Finally, we want to make sure that at the West Africa level we would partner with all traditional founders as well as create new ones, and we're happy to announce that our ‑‑ that the regional organization called ECOWA, the Economic Commission of West Africa, they're ready to support us to bring on board more funders, more supporters and it is going to be a Secretariat.

Thank you. 


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you to our colleagues for sending notes on behalf of the West Africa.

Now I would go to the Arab IGF.

>> KHALED FOUDA: Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everybody. 

We are the co-initiator of the Arab IGF.  Our original experience was relying on the host for the main event originally, and mainly financing the intersessional meetings or activities through funds from the Arab States together with some support by in‑kind donations from many entities, including ICANN and other bodies.  We realized that this could threaten the sustainability of the Forum and can limit the intersessional activities and their actual need due to limitation of funding.  We established a central fund at the UNESCO based on donations and voluntary contributions from other parties.  This fund could actually help support gaps in case of host failure, but we don't believe it is enough to ensure sustainability and good, quality of the process.

Recently we launched actually a process to evaluate the sessions and the Forum to revise all different aspects of the process starting from the executives and component and the different components to the processes and content and outreach and finally and very important the financial process.  The financial aspect that was devised is intended to ensure sustainability and guarantee bust results and outcome from the process and also ensure that the multistakeholderism process is not bound or effected by the financials.  I believe that government contributions to the financial processes is crucial to providing reliability and confidence in the Forum.  However, if there is a key message I want to convey, it would be that if the financial process is very important for the sustainability and the quality and effectiveness of the process and can also have impact on the transparency of the process then considering the multistakeholder nature of the IGF process I believe the financial mechanism must be the responsibility of both stakeholders combined.

Thank you very much.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

Now moving to Argentina IGF

>> ARGENTINA IGF:  Good afternoon. 

I participate in this panel in representation of the Agenda Committee of the IGF Forum of Argentina, of which the first edition was held this year in October in the capital of our country.

I wanted to tell you for its realization we had preparation meetings that were open to many participants and we agreed on forming a sectorial Committee which I represent and that I am proud to tell you that all sectors are represented in this Committee, something that is not very common in many of our ‑‑ in many initiatives.

The funding is one of the main challenges for local initiatives but thanks to our work in our local communities and we consider of great value to have initiatives of this type for carrying out these fora.  The five sectors have collaborated with their times or funds.  As you can see in a map, Argentina has a large territory which makes it difficult for people that do not reside in the area in which the fora are held to participate.  Therefore we organize an event without any luxury but with the participation of everybody around the country.  With this, we give it legitimacy and a participation of all so that we can improve our work.

I'm happy to say that almost 80% of everything that was received was destined for scholarships to help them that in another way couldn't have participated.  With funding from ‑‑ with participation from national and international parties we were able to work on different types of influences regarding these matters.  We obviously made a detailed analysis of all of the funds that were destined for the fora but I would like to finish by thanking Marilyn and everybody else that have ‑‑ who has collaborated with this valuable session.

Thank you.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

Now moving to the national IGF of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

>> ARSENE TUNGALI: Thank you.

I represent the Secretariat of the IGF in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I would say that all of this, it is still in process.  We haven't had our first Forum yet.  I would like to talk a bit about the challenges that we're facing right now.

I would like to say that we have an executive Secretariat that's in charge of the organization of the Forum and many ‑‑ the people who work there, they're familiar with everything having to do with Internet Governance.  There is an office that's been organizing several meetings in preparation for the Forum and MAGs also.  The territory of the country, as you know, it is difficult for us to meet regularly for these meetings and so we resort to emails and other means of communication in order to organize the fora.  We wanted to organize our first Forum this year but it was not possible because of many logistical problems on which we're currently working on.  I know these are difficult matters, as I said, due to the situation of our country and it will be difficult for us to bring participants from around the country.  This is one of our objectives.  We don't want the participants in our first Forum to be people only from our capital city and we're trying to think about different ways to have people from around the country be able to be present.  We're making efforts now in order to constitute a Forum in which everybody can participate and this maybe what's taking so much time in the launching and organization of our first Forum.

We're thinking about the different programs possible for our Forum and regarding development of infrastructure or violations of Human Rights which are permanently happening in our country especially regarding the Internet matters.  We're looking into matters of Internet access, children security and safety and maybe you will have news in the near future on the IGF that we want to have during the next year.

I would also like to mention that we haven't organized a national Forum, but in 2013 we managed to host a regional Forum of Central Africa and this was a great success.  However, matters of security weren't able to be tackled in that Forum.

Thank you very much.


>> ANJE GENGO: Italian IGF.

>> STEFANO TRUMPY: I'm the Chair of the Italian Chapter of the Internet Society. 

This organization, it started to organize in Italy in ‑‑ in IGF Italy since 2008 and we had eight editions.  This year, it is the first year of a tent because we're going to have IGF into 2025.

When talking about the cost, it is important also to try to reason about the organization of the ‑‑ for the IGFs.  So we have to consolidate also the organization.

Another thing I want to say about the Italian Chapter, the Italian IGF, I want to give you also some numbers because these are quite important.

We have an organization that's called the NOMADIC, like the EuroDIG because we tried to change regions in Italy every year.  This is not so easy.  Each year we have to find a local host.  We succeeded in organizing all of the eight editions with a cost that varied around 20,000 euros or similar to dollars at this point, 22, 25.  Then we have ‑‑ we have people that is attending the IGFs ranging from 150 and 170 persons.  In the future we would like to have even more people and to try to attract the most part of society, get them involved, and then perhaps the cost will increase a little bit.

To cover this cost, normally we have some support from registrations and also support from the Internet Society.  In the future, we have to think more about ‑‑ more about the contribution of the private sector that should be sensible to finance and then to move ahead.

Thank you.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

Now moving to hear perspectives from the national IGF of Peru.

>> CARLOS GUERRERO: Thank you.  I'm going to speak in Spanish.  Today I'm here to speak about the experience of Peru to organize its first IGF.  Since I'm short on time I would like to refer to two specific points which are linked together.  The first one, they're the challenges of working in a small digital ecosystem such as is the case with Peru and the second one is the topic of this table.  The Chapel lengths to overcome ‑‑ the challenges to overcome to finance the event. 

On the first point I would like to mention the following Peru is not a small country if we refer to the geography.  It is not a country with a small number of inhabitants, but we're a small country in connectivity.  Only half of the population is connected to the Internet.  In that system there has been growth, but in spite of efforts of different sectors we still have a long way to go. 

In this context, the first challenge in order to establish a first IGF was to create a space in a country whose digital economies are greater every day.  It was something spontaneous.  We had to connect with different sectors playing different roles related to Internet topics in Peru, but at the same time don't have a space in order to reach each other in an organic matter and to discuss matters together.  In this case ‑‑ as is the case for countries in similar situations ‑‑ financing, how do we finance the cost that supplies the organization of the IGF and how do we do so without betraying the main goals of different parties that have no lucrative goals or such?  There is no answer to this. 

In the case of Peru, our IGF, what we did, we asked for whatever the stakeholders could bring to us in matters of funding.  This was very new, that should have to be as neutral as possible, technological facilities so that people could follow the Forum remotely and a website through which we could disseminate all of the information being handed out at the Forum.  We had to pay for all of this, unfortunately the answer is yes, and we had to do this jointly but we could have obtained these three essential elements without needing financing, and I think the answer to this question could be yes.  I think this is the next step within this type of initiative which will make local IGFs sustainable in time.

Also, this is a way of promoting transparently the development of give different sectors in a way ‑‑ in terms of long‑term financing.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

Now finally to hear from the national IGF of South Africa.

>> GABRIEL RAMOKOTJO: Good day, everyone.  I'm from South Africa.  I'm part of the team that coordinates the South African Internet Governance Forum, and I will be sharing our experiences in terms of the findings and strategies we have been able to come up with in order to fund the South Africa Internet Governance Forum. 

The South Africa Internet Governance Forum, we had it on the 22nd to 23rd of September which was in Johannesburg and it was our second Internet ‑‑ Second National Internet Governance Forum, but then we had two ‑‑ we had two Internet governance Forums that were not recognized as National Internet Governance Forum due to participation of our government.  This year, it participated and we had a successful National Internet Governance Forum.

South Africa has one of the most vibrant IT sectors I think in the continent.  We have never really had a problem with the cost of accessing funding of our IGF.  With the IGF that we had this year we not only had funding from the IGF SA, but we also had support from the IGF Secretariat and important also we had support from the local ICT sector in the country which basically they too host what we call an annual Internet week in South Africa and for the past two years we have partnered with them in terms of having the IGF within their iWeek. 

To give you a week understanding in terms of the iWeek, it is a one‑week event and between those ‑‑ between the five days, the IGF, it had allocated this year two days, and for the previous year the IGF was also allocated two days.  I think for us that is very important, one, because in terms of the cost of organizing the IGF, if there is already initiatives that they also are more aligned to our ‑‑ aligned to the IGF so it does really ‑‑ it does really work in our favor with regards to ensuring that the IGF is well funded because the whole Internet week that they mostly have difficult on getting partners on board.  That's key.

Also, with the cost to the funding models that we have come to develop is that we ‑‑ we work on our IGF six months prior.  By the time that we have our IGF we have already had identified the key stakeholders that we want onboard and already identified who the other key funders that we want onboard.  When I say onboard I'm not just referring to sponsors but referring to other organizations in the country, academic institutions that also even though they don't sponsor the IGF or fund the IGF with the cost to monetary value, but they do provide other support for the IGF, which is also important.

With this year's IGF we had partners coming from all the different stakeholders.  We had academia and we had the Technical Community within the ICT space in South Africa, and we had ISOC Global also supporting the initiative.

It is very important that when we organize or host the national IGF that we come up with frameworks for funding.  In that way we're able then to have a successful IGF, that we're able to also have outcomes to feed into the policies in our countries.

I thank you.


>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you very much.

This will conclude this panel.  I'm going to again ask colleagues to go back to their initial seats and ask the colleagues that are already lined up here on the left side to take their positions as we're going to continue with the final topic, which is the challenges and how to create more awareness of Internet Governance and on the national, regional levels and why stakeholders should actively engage.

If you could take your positions here on the stage.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: While everybody is taking their seats, I have a quick logistics. 

There is an hour left in the session, with the interpretation and ‑‑ interpretation, it is not normally possible to go beyond a hard stop of 6:00.  There are 17 speakers in this panel times 3 is 51 minutes which leaves little to no time for open mic or the Rapporteur report out.  I want to ask everybody on the panel to stick to the 3   minutes.  It is unfortunate I think that we're asking you to adhere to that so tightly, but I do think it is important to at least try to get 10 minutes I would hope of open mic at the end.

If people are seated now and we can start, I won't make comments through them, we'll march through the individual preparations, those are the comments that you want to hear in any case.

We'll start with the Brazil IGF, and again this topic is challenges and how to create more awareness about Internet Governance at the national and regional levels and why stakeholders should be actively engaging.

Thank you.


Could you turn on the remote microphone on at the end?  They need to know the number, but I have no idea ‑‑ Brazil, if you don't mind, we'll move to the next speaker and come back if there is no ‑‑ we could just have C go before B.

>> HARTMUT GLASER: Here we go.


I work with the executive Secretariat with the Brazilian Steering Committee which is a multistakeholder Committee where related Internet Governance are debated. 

In 2011 the Committee has decided to organize the Brazilian Internet Governance Forum which is our national IGF.  We have organized 6 editions so far which counted with expressive participation of different segments of society and each Forum had an average of 500 participants.  I'm supposed to talk about examples of participatory practices at the national and regional levels to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues, and there are various mechanisms that we use to organize the Brazilian IGF.  I'll share with you experience that we had with three initiatives.

The first one is the decision to use the CGI consulting chambers which have a representative from several entities from different stakeholder groups as the pillar of the Agenda of the National IGF.  We are able to increase the permeability of the themes of the National IGF through the Agendas of policy networks and fields of rights and security, innovation, digital inclusion and culture.  Those are the terms of our consulting chambers.

Secondly,  grants are offered to participants in different events.  Every year we offer grants to attend these for national IGF and we also organize a Brazilian School on Internet Governance where all attendees are selected from different stakeholder groups and are fully funded.  Recently CGI has decided to finance the youth program in Brazil.  We count with the participation of nearly 50 young students in our Brazilian IGF.

The third initiative I would like to mention is the connection with the organizers of the World Social Forum in Brazil.  We produced a full panel linking the terms of the national IGF with the World Social Forum with an Agenda named a New World is possible to discuss challenges and the opportunities in pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals.  This strategy aims at creating synergy‑sharing knowledge and building bridges between the two tracks while we are entirely open to share experiences with other national and regional IGFs.

I finish here.

Thank you very much.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Chad IGF.

>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG: Thank you very much.

I'm the Executive Secretariat of the IGF from Chad. 

As you know, the first Forum on the Internet Governance in Chad was held in December, 2015 at the House of Women.  The central topics were the Internet ecosystem in Chad which is a topic that was ‑‑ that helped us to identify the main stakeholders of the Internet environment in Chad, also all the new entrants participating.  The firm was organized by the Ministry of Communications from Chad and the Forum began with a small taskforce, and this small taskforce decided to organize the first Forum. 

After that, the first Forum, we created a local MAG to give continuity to the project.  In 2016 we organized the second edition of the local MAG, and the main topic was Internet and Sustainable Development.  That edition ‑‑ it had 185 participants and here we had invited all participants of the IGF in November the 12th, and we organized the first Forum of the Youth and we had a large participation of the Youth.  Since the topic were the main challenges to disseminate nationally the Internet Governance with the attitude of creating more outreach activities, that was the main topic that we analyzed.  Different parties needed to participate more, and I would like to highlight that first we needed to communicate, to communicate and to communicate.

We needed to disseminate the information first, what were the main purposes of the IGF and the Chad Forum was the only one that managed to gather all the main stakeholders related to the Internet, academia, operators, universities operators, among others.

The second challenge was the linguistic barrier.  As you all know, when we talk about Internet Governance 90% speaks English.  We had to translate to other members of MAG.  In Chad we speak French and Arabic officially, and that was the first main challenge and we had to as well consider different skills because at the local level we needed the same skills and needed to start on the capacity building level first. 

In our 2017 strategy we're going to create Internet Governance School to train all the local MAG members, and afterwards continue by training the Youth.  This is part of our initiative.

The third challenge is to analyze the legal sphere because are we going to create an association?  How are we going to manage our organization?  The IGF is related to the Tunis Agenda, and we're going to incorporate the WSIS and other topics and we would like to identify in the different members of MAG if we're going to work through the Secretariat or through the ministry to cover more ground locally.  It is difficult to create a bank account to receive resources that we could receive.  That's one of the biggest challenges.

Also we want to help the Chadian government to link our efforts to the Marrakech, meeting and we would like to also contribute so that the Internet is always open.  We want to have access to the Internet in Chad nationwide and the fourth member of the local MAG, we would like to participate in the meetings of Central Africa.  .  We're aiming our efforts to have sustainable, regional MAG.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: We have managed to negotiate a slight extension of time with the interpreters.  I want to ensure everybody stays to that so that we get to the open mic.  It is important to hear from everyone in the room.

I mention that with reluctance, I don't want people off the hook for staying within the 3 minutes.  I point out that there are timers on the stage if you could pay attention to them when making your remarks, maybe you could work closely to the timeout period.  I have to be hard on this, but I understand it is something that the NRIs all agreed to so that we could get as many speakers in as possible and we have to do our best to adhere to that.

With that, we'll go to the Colombia IGF.

>> JULIAN CASASBUENAS G.: I'm going to speak representing the National Colombian Government Initiative starting in 2013 and after organizing the Colombia participants in the regional governance in Argentina we created the Colombian Panel on Internet Governance, a local space without a formal structure, which is open to different stakeholders to discuss general topics related to Internet Governance in Colombia from the creation of this taskforce we have organized 17bi‑monthly meetings with themes from connectivity initiatives, growing zero rating offers and our concerns in terms of Internet‑related regulations, privacy, data retention, copyright, among others.  The government has discussed through the Communications Committee and through the Communication Ministry different policies, and they're open to receive comments, the Civil Society and private sector presented their own feedback, and in response they have presented other projects and have shared their concerns.  There is this time that we have been able to have a respectful dialogue and a candid dialogue between the stakeholders. 

A main topic developed by this taskforce was to look for spaces and mechanisms to involve new stakeholders in Internet Governance and introduce a broad audience in the discussion of these themes.  This taskforce annually starting in 2014 has organized an Internet Governance Forum as the taskforce has the support and participation of every single sector the government, Civil Society, academia, private sector.  During the first year we presented cases and experiences from all participants.  In the second year we debated neutrality of the network, cybersecurity, neutrality of the net and this last year we ‑‑ we discussed Internet Governance and debate in the region and the gap between rural and urban areas, access to having inclusion, intelligent cities, environmental impact of the use of technologies and gender equality.  This third Forum was a success in terms of remote participation and the use of social networks.

That represents how important this topic has become regionally.  This is not autonomous in its function in terms of resources for the annual Forum, all contribute themselves donating spaces, time and organizing efforts and they contribute with their own resources and third‑party resources in kind and in cash and in the future we're planning to address the following challenges to become landmark for local discussions related to Internet Governance.  The development of information spaces for the Youth and to present to this topic to other areas where these discussions will take place and also to take this topic at a national level and to provide the opportunity to have more active participants, specifically the Youth and SMEs identifying innovative ways to help us to have more participation and want to have independent participants and be open to a having more participants in the events.  We want to take these results of the discussion of the regional and global Forums.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.  Very innovative way to start up. 


>> CARLOS VERA:  Thank you very much.  Good afternoon. 

I'm the liaison person for the Governance Panel of the Internet from Ecuador. 

I believe we're breaking a record not only due to number of speakers but the  level of patience that you have to listen to us.

Having identified different topics that are discussed here, I would like to say that we share the same problems and challenges that the organizers have faced at a national and at a regional level in terms of organizing a Forum.  We have learned a lot from the innovative solutions and different ways to face such problems and also to identify the best way to implement our national, regional initiatives.  We organized our Internet panel with the five stakeholders we have identified with the participation of more than 200 participants. 

The first IGF in Ecuador was organized in 2016, and in 2014 we had talks and gatherings that were able to get ‑‑ we were able to get the important results from, and then the government couldn't attend the  Forum and we had 200 people participating from all over the country and that is a good source and we hope to organize another Forum next year. 

With this report I'm sharing with you we begin today the road in our 2017 IGF in Ecuador.  We are hoping because we have shared more of the concerns and challenges and even the solutions that we're considering to address the topics, that always happen when it comes to organizing complex groups, we hope to meet anywhere else and to learn and to share mutual experiences of what has worked in our own Forum.

I would like to congratulate each one of the organizers of country initiatives because it is very important to note your greatness.  It is courageous to have people sit down together to think of the best things for our country.  Thank you to the organizers to allow us to be here, specifically the IGF who has helped by funding our Forum and we would like to continue on this path for the benefit of all of us.

Thank you very much.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

Next we're going to hear from the Finland IGF.

>> JUUSO MOISANDER: Thank you.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Finland IGF on the experience of 7 annual Forums of about 150 participants each.

A bit of background on the Internet Governance Forum:  It was born through the national WSIS coordination, a multistakeholder group of 50 participants and hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  The group is open to all, and it is a preparatory Committee for the Internet Governance.  I would address the topic through three points.  The points are institutional support, process, topics.

First, the role of stakeholders, especially government and parliamentary commitments.  In Finland we're fortunate to cooperate with the national parliament with the Committee for the future.  This gives the multistakeholder process visibility, legitimacy.  So the Committee appreciates to hear what topics are brought up in the discussions bottom‑up and joins the discussion in our sessions.

Secondly, how to create awareness:  We consider the Finland Internet Governance to be a process rather than an annual event.  This is an umbrella for the Internet Governance‑related issues of stakeholders.  It is a channel for all stakeholders to share information amongst each other, and keeps the group active and creates added value in participation.

The government is open to using the Internet Governance for informing the stakeholders and listening to their views.  As it is a process, we aim to organize smaller events and go to other events to speak about the Finland Internet Governance and the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance.  We have seen this as an ‑‑ we don't think of it as an annual thing but an ongoing process.

For example, next year, in March we'll go to a fair for IT professionals.  This gives us opportunities to reach out to approximately 4,000 new potential participants in our Forum, and we will be providing them with content on two multistakeholder discussions.

Third, why should stakeholders be actively engaging?  The process must be able to convince individuals that participation and dialogue will make a difference.  In our case, the events we have recently held in the parliament, the legislative body of Finland gives us this credibility.

The discussions, the topics must be bottom‑up and they must address issues that are of interest to the local community.  The topics have to be something that the people relate to.  We have throughout years have had experiences of issues that are not felt so relevant and they are more hard to sell to the audience.  The more actual national level topics, what they are, the better the discussions and participation.  That's why annual event topics are decided only a few months before the event. 

The Finland Internet Governance is looking for more participants always, new participants and active stakeholders.  It is a challenge that will always exist and, therefore, there is no final target to be achieved.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

We'll move next to the Georgia IGF.

>> UCHA SETURI: I'm a representative of Georgia IGF.  I'm coordinator of Executive Committee. 

Briefly about Georgia IGF:  We have five stakeholder groups and some problems at the moment of two stakeholder groups related exactly with private sector players, players of the Georgia market and also related with a ‑‑ involving problems of technical society members of Georgia. 

What we're doing for involvement of the parties, this process, first of all we created quotas in our Executive Committee.  All members of our Forum have quotas, and technical society members have separate quotas and they decided the topic for them, on this Agenda, and the speakers and participants in the sessions, and also how encouraging all society members, we're using for this public ‑‑ we use media, online platforms, social networks, and in the last IGF we had 150 members of local society.

Thank you.  That's all.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  I'm excited to hear from a German IGF, the German Youth IGF

>> GERMAN YOUTH IGF:  I'm speaking on behalf of the German Youth IGF.

I'm coordinating the German Youth IGF together with Isebelle, who had a short 3‑minute slot here as well a few minutes, not more than a half hour earlier.  I'll start.

I'll thank you first for the great opportunity of having us here as a Youth Forum.  The thing about feeling recognized together with real national IGF, it is a unique structure with our IGF.  The German Youth IGF is a pre‑event of the national IGF.  We usually do one to two days in advance, our own program and prepare some young people for the event.  Last year we worked with the topics, also the topics of the national IGF.  We don't use youth topics as a certain special thing, all topics are topics for young people and it is not about being a topic for young people but about a youth perspective on several topics.

We have our connection to the IGF that we produce on the one hand messages which are also part of the national IGF messages and on the other hand we bring the youth into the national IGF.  Without the Youth IGF there wouldn't be probably not that much people interested, young people interested in going to the Internet Governance Forum in Germany so that's one of our tasks.

It is important to mention, I think, that the whole thing is organized by ourselves.  It is not like from adults for young people, it is from the Youth organized for the Youth.  We decide on the programs because on application, we have our own budget and also being a part of the Steering Committee of the national IGF we have the direct input into the whole event and ‑‑ yeah, maybe also to mention we have a great European project that's supporting us.  We have four more Youth IGFs in Europe with regular exchanges and trainings over the last two years and so far it was a great experience.  I think we learned a lot from each other which benefits our local events.

We're trying to make the whole thing more sustainable and also let to grow year by year but that's also a challenge because of limited resources and time.

Okay.  Just to summarize once more, we at the Youth work under the focus of generational justice and we want to shape the whole IGF thing from the youth perspective.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you.  That was excellent.

Next, we'll hear from the Indonesian IGF.


Indonesia Internet Governance is open, inclusive and non‑discrimination with the stakeholders initiative Forum. 

Stakeholders of Internet Governance in Indonesia it is established in 2012 with the purpose of transparent, democratic, inclusive Internet Governance to support national development in Indonesia.  After the successful collaboration of IGF 2013 in Bali and inspired by multistakeholder Internet Governance dialogues in other countries, therefore, the representative of government, private entities, academia, Technical Community and Civil Society organizations initiates the discussion to strengthen the coordination and dialogue regarding the Internet Governance at the national level. 

Last month we held our national dialogue, which was a huge success and attended by more than 400 participants with four main topics which are economic, intersector, and social sector.  Aside from the national dialogue, we have a monthly gathering.  By participating in this initiative we can create the opportunity for us to respond to the emerging issues of Internet Governance in sustainable ways. 

The objective of the Indonesia IGF is to bring together all stakeholders who are having their own perspective and interest to be able to compromise and to collaborate in order to have common position in ways of understanding to solve problem of Internet Governance.  We can identify this during the process, and are among others first it is how to have the participation of the stakeholder and to encourage the process and activities of Indonesia IGF; second, it is to build awareness and trust among the stakeholder and how and show them that the IGF is relevant to them and their interests; third, to engage participants across the country on the issue of the Internet Governance.

To conclude, we aim and look forward to strengthening Indonesia IGF and to nurture  the next generation of Indonesia IGF who will actively contribute in ensuring the impact of IGF to the wider coverage of participation.

Thank you very much for your attention.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Thank you to the last few speakers for keeping so well to time. 

Japan IGF.

>> YURI TAKAMATSU: I would like to introduce the typical features of Japan IGF.  We try to overcome the challenges, how to get more participants from various sectors and how to create more awareness about existences of various issues by devising a unique model on top of existing IGF activities.

Japan IGF consists of two typical types of activities which are mutually complementing and synergistic:  One is annual meeting.  From its inaugural meeting in 2011 it has dealt with hot topics that were usually discussed in global arena.  The program is designed by the Steering Committee with diverse members, most individual participants are from Internet‑related organizations, academia, national governments.  They share an exchange of the information regarding various issues related to Internet Governance discussed in global arena.  Through these kinds of activities we try to attract participants from various stakeholders sectors mainly through related organizations.

The other is bottom‑up continuous discussion which is a discussion platform that anyone can bring in topics.  This has bimonthly physical meetings whose Agenda is designed by diverse members of coordination group.  There have been 16bi monthly meetings so far.  We also operate a mailing list with decent traffic for information sharing and discussions.  About 300 participants contribute to the discussion in his or her personal capacity.  This leads to expansion of awareness, mainly by human network usually in a topic‑based community or in an organization.  Also a scheme is defined and used to create a team to produce tangible products through bottom‑up continuous discussion.

A stigma about the transition and the document of the security principles is the product of such teams, by having and synergizing this, many more are aware and are involving in the platform.  We can expect the discussions to be more energetic.

Thank you very much.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Eight to go.

>> I'm the coordinator of The Dutch Initiative.  The Netherlands Internet Governance was established in 2010.  We prepare meetings before every   IGF since Athens and in 2010 we started as a foundation for the domain regulations and an independent platform for the Information Society.  These parties are collaborating to bring the attention of the Dutch stakeholders and put the IGF on the political Agenda more strongly.  One hand it is to look at our national policy and on the other hand efforts are made to make the Dutch voices heard internationally and to put important Dutch themes on the international Agenda.  In the Netherlands we're convinced that ongoing exchange between the national Internet debate and international developments is crucial.  Both sides of the coin reinforce one another.  New national issues that come up can progress to the international Agenda and international insights can inform the debate.  The IGF facilitates the exchange.  The permanent Dutch position in the field of Internet infrastructure and use invites us to actively participate in this debate.

The IGF is vital international Forum where policymakers to private sector, academia, NGOs and politics come together to give joint input for future policy.

The presence of a nationally organized multistakeholder Delegation is therefore of significant importance.  By convincing an increasing number of actors in the Netherlands of the importance of the IGF a mutually beneficial sharing of knowledge and perspectives can be achieved in the IGF.  And the Internet knows no borders, if you want to address issues in the field of Internet Governance, including cybercrime, IPv6 and the development of digital skills, it has to be done in an international, multistakeholder framework.

Annual IGF emphasizes the relevance of the numerous activities around the world, monitors developments and communicates results through organizing various meetings and through the website Twitter, linked in and we organize a big event, the annual IGF event.  This also is a multistakeholder Forum for all stakeholders to meet.  The aim is not only to share knowledge and experiences related to the Internet Governance but also to engage in those discussions surrounding Internet Governance that are thorny and tricky like the IGF itself it is an open consultation for participants to set the Agenda of is the event itself.  The outcomes of the annual Internet Governance event is an important input for the preparations of the Dutch Delegation attending the global IGF.

As the voice of young people should not be missed in our national discussion, but also international discussion, the annual IGF also organizes an annual Youth IGF but we also think it is very important to have the young people at the IGF event itself to.

Also we organize a thee mattock is event, an important topic, it is a preparatory to a workshop at the IGF because we really want to organize workshops at the IGF itself too. 

I'm sorry.  I'm out of time.  I think it is very important that you have a strong Delegation with all multistakeholder at the IGF itself, and we're very proud that we managed this year as well that we have 25 multistakeholder from all over the Internet world in the Netherlands to come together to join us at the IGF.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  That was excellent.

Thank you.

Next in the queue, Portugal IGF.

>> ANA NEVES: Thank you. 

I'm here on behalf of the Portugal initiative which was set up in 2010, and I will share with you today the main messages from this year's edition related to the topic we're discussing.

At the Portugal initiative of the IGF it was acknowledged that the evolution of the Internet has been greatly driven by the Technical Community and the monitoring of agents such as this is much slower.  This finding allowed recognizing that Internet Governance, multistakeholder model is not perfect, but there is almost a concordance around the idea that it is the best model guaranteeing the greater counter balance and power sharing between stakeholders.  It was also recognized and underlined that there's been a continuous evolution of the role and vision of the various stakeholders throughout the years.  There are still questions about who should participate in the discussion, what role stakeholder should play and whether it should be re‑evaluated over time.

The truth is that different stakeholders are not on equal level as they follow their own political and economic Agendas, and others that are not always very clear.  So who has the decision‑making power?  We deeply acknowledge the need to achieve a greater involvement of the Portugal multistakeholder community, in particular the private sector and Civil Society in the discussions.  Private sector participates if we're discussing net neutrality, big data, Cloud computing, emerging technologies, but hardly if the government Internet issues are involved.  Therefore our challenge, Civil Society in the private sector, it is from the other national, regional initiatives, they conduct our Civil Society and private sector, as they have their own networks to establish the dialogue and to show them how important it is to be onboard in these discussions as they share the same language. 

From the discussions of the Portugal initiative of the IGF, it was recognized that the greater dialogue between government, Internet users, Technical Community, Civil Society, private sector, it is more than limited, it is only through this way that it is possible to truly Democratize the Internet Governance and share power in the Internet.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

Moving now to the Spain IGF.


I'm here on behalf of the Spanish IGF.  This initiative started in 2008, and it is a successful experience based on public private collaboration and active participation of all stakeholders including universities, private sectors, Civil Society, the Technical Community and the government.  They are all present on the Steering Committee.

I would like to underscore several points of the key areas that have had significant contribution to the success of the Spanish IGF which was undertaken last October.

First, using general topics from the information society that are known by the public at large social media, encrypting data as leverage to discuss Internet access.  With this strategy specialized journalists operated as moderators of different panels as to foster dynamic-ism, raise awareness and to draw the attention of the media to the topics and debates. 

Secondly, we developed a dissemination book on the Internet with the cooperation of all stakeholders involved in the Spanish IGF organized in work groups that are of the multidisciplinary nature.  The book will be updated continuously so that it is a guide for anyone interested in the evolution of the Internet and governance in Spain.

Finally, we believe that it is essential that any national or regional initiative be adapted to the local environment, and that it deal with the problems and concerns of the community in which it has undertaken.  In addition to the typical issues of the Internet Governance, it is important that the topics debated be attractive for the local community so that they ‑‑ so that their involvement is maximized and guarantees the success of the initiative.

Thank you very much.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

Next we have the Uganda IGF.  

>> UGANDA: This year's focus for the Uganda IGF was to use Internet as a tool for peace and development.  We have seen continued growth of Internet access in Uganda with an estimated 14.6 of million users in the first quarter of 2016 compared to 13.8 million according to the Uganda Communication Commission.

Since its inception in 2006 the Uganda IGF continued to discuss and address Internet Governance and Policy issues pertinent to the country.  To date, 9 Forums were held and each addressed different areas, at this year's Forum held in August we had 136 participants representing different stakeholder groups such as government, Civil Society, private sector, Technical Community, academia as well as the general users of the Internet.

I will highlight a few of the achievements we have had.  The Forum is one of the main platforms that brings together different stakeholders to deliberate on key issues that are effecting the country.  Key contributions from the Uganda IGF feed into the national IT policymaking process leading to the adoption of the legal and regulatory instruments such as the CTLD policy, the 2011 cyberlaws, IPv6 migration strategy and the draft data protection and privacy build 2016.

The Uganda IGF also always has key recommendations that are presented to key decision makers, and some include call for government involvement in ICANN discussions including a call for Uganda to host the next ICANN public meeting. 

Respect for Internet freedom and government refraining from Internet shutdowns, call from other multistakeholder groups such as children, women, Persons with Disabilities, private sector and others in the Uganda Internet Governance dialogue, calling the awareness about strategies and ICT regulations in places that infringe the Internet.

I will speak about a few of the challenges we have had, Uganda has only two active stakeholders funding the Forum, these are Civil Society and government.  We have less private sector involvement.  As such, few of them come to the meetings we hold.

The second challenge is financial sustainability.  The Forum is not yet sustainable, and as such we have lack of an operational budget which effects outreach and planning activities.

Also due to programming priorities there is a lack of greater collaboration with existing technology spaces such as innovation.

Thank you so much.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you. 

I'll move to the U.K. IGF.

>> UNITED KINGDOM IGF: I'm the U.K. government member of the Steering Committee of the U.K. IGF.

I want to focus on four criteria relating to adjusting challenges in creating awareness about Internet Governance.

Firstly, organizational structure of the national, regional Forum, that must be inclusive.  Multistakeholder; secondly, that there are advocacy and advisability mechanisms ‑‑ visibility mechanisms for promoting engagement and awareness both to the wider national stakeholder community and across government because many ministries have an interest in Internet policy and are wishing to develop future policy relating to the Internet.

Thirdly, the program design and process must be inclusive, bottom‑up and fourthly that the national Forum should not lose sight of the global context of the Internet policy.

How do we apply these criteria in the case of the U.K. IGF?

The aims of the U.K. IGF are to identify national relevant Internet issues and providing an ongoing discussion to form wider thinking in the U.K. and decision making regarding the Internet, to engage with the global IGF, including in recent years the intersessional work on Best Practice and access and also to provide an opportunity for government ministers to set out their vision for Internet policy within a Forum of stakeholder discussion and interaction.

The process for preparing for the U.K. IGF, well, we have multistakeholder Steering Committee chaired by a nomination, the U.K. registry and the partners are the London Internet Exchange, London Watch Foundation, the Internet Society and others.  The program for this year's U.K. IGF will reflect the kind of inputs we got from stakeholders through the Steering Committee.  We had a keynote speech on the stewardship transition, the global policy landscape, the impact of the U.K. leaving the European Union on Internet policy, the impact of the Internet on political debate, the identification and future of privacy and how the U.K. is prepared for cyber attacks and we had a Youth panel.  It was a very full program, cutting into many, many relevant issues.

Across government, we have a multistakeholder advisory group and we look at various topical issues within a sort of session for engaging with stakeholders and government policy regulators.

I'm out of time.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Thank you.

We have three speakers left.  I think they're ‑‑ they may be out of mic runway there.  We'll get the mobile mic going. 

I just want to point out, we have, again, support from the interpreters to stay late.  We'll have an open mic section.  We want to hear from you and I appreciate the speed of which everybody is sort of running through all of these presentations here the last few hours.

They're all so extremely interesting.  I have to admit to a slight case of frustration of not being able to follow‑up, ask more questions on the topics here.  In the first instance it is important to do just a broad showcase of all of the activities.

With that, did I kill enough time to get the mobile mic working?

>> I think so.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR: I can't see that far down the table.  The U.S.A. IGF?

>> DAVID VYORST: I'm the Co‑Chair of the IGF U.S.A. and the Executive Director of the Washington D.C. Chapter of ISOC.

I'm very, very honored to represent the IGF U.S.A. here in this session.  I would like to thank Marilyn and Anja for their hard work and vision in organizing this, and allowing me the opportunity to talk about how we create awareness and engage stakeholders in the challenge we face going forward.

As we all try to connect the next billions of people in the next 50 billion devices, the challenges we face will increase in scope.  Meeting these challenges will necessarily require increasing levels of multistakeholder engagement and the IGF movement must be at the front and center of this.  Among our objectives is to generate a more informed discourse about Internet issues and policy in order to contribute to a more enlightened consensus.  The IGF the U.S.A.'s entire organization and programming process is in fact designed to maximize our engagement with stakeholders in our community.  Our program is developed through an open and public consultation and calls for suggestions which are then channeled into a survey disseminated to the entire community through multiple channels.  The results of this survey determine the subjects of our sessions.

During our planning process we put substantial time and resources towards leveraging social media to best engage and increase our community.  We begin the social media program six weeks out and utilize our own Facebook page and Twitter account as well as the digital assets of ISOC, DC and ISOC global.  We utilize a communication channel for workflow and a Listserve and broadcast email actively.

On Twitter we track each session subject, we make tweet columns of hashtags of subjects and listers of speakers and organizers and target influencers in the subjects.  A key objective is to turn all of our organizational and panelists into social media activists.  We have benefited greatly from our engagement with a university and their imagining the Internet program.  This affords the opportunity to bring the next generation of Internet Governance leaders into the fold and it produces an invaluable multimedia record of our conference.

An important and even more ‑‑ pardon me ‑‑ and also importantly, we stream the entire program live over ISOC's global live stream channel to thousands of people worldwide.

Due to the efforts of our social media and web team and dedication of our community we achieve solid metrics in 2016 on the ‑‑ as of the event day, 281 people attended in person, over 3,000 people viewed it live on live stream and 1500 people roughly viewed it on Facebook and there were 1423 live tweets with the main hashtag and thousands of others with other hashtags and we received 929,000 impressions on our main hashtag.  Our main challenges going forward are to bring new people into our process and to expand our programming to other U.S. cities.

As an initiative facing growing pains, we're continually learning how to bring new people in to our planning process, while balancing the need for broad‑based input with the critical objective of accomplishing the workflow necessary to produce our annual conference.

Looking forward in order to expand our community involvement in accordance with IGF and IGF U.S.A. it values we will establish a Working Group to actively conduct outreach to stakeholder organizations and communities while leveraging ISOC North American chapters to begin the process of developing IGF U.S.A. programming in other cities.

We also look to engage with other initiatives in order to foster an increasing environment in which shared knowledge and resources can emerge.

Finally, we need to acknowledge our ‑‑ I'm ‑‑ as our representative here, quickly, yeah ‑‑ we need to give a shout out to our organizer and founder Marilyn Cade.  Not only did she bring us here and actively stage manage us, she's the founder and chief catalyst of the IGF U.S.A.  Without her, I wouldn't talk to you now.

Thank you, good‑bye.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  I thank you.

We have two speakers left.  I'm pleased to say that they're actually from Youth IGF initiatives and this fourth session of this particular topic was so subscribed we not only ran out of fixed mics but table as well.

Appreciate you jumping in here there on the end.  We have the Youth Asia‑Pacific IGF.

>> Youth Asia‑Pacific:  I'm David.  The coordinator of the youth Asia‑Pacific.  We have been organized for seven years since 2010 and we just had our IGF this past summer.  Talking about the challenge, about raising awareness, we have talked to our participants this year.  There is no education about the Internet Governance in school and no trainings for the teachers to give guidance to students and this leads to lack of understanding on the issue and this is to encourage the Internet Governance education in the curriculum and to encourage such activities such as seminars and other forms of the world IGF.

Second point is about the motivation.  Youth can feel the direct input.  Referring to what we have done in empowering the youth, the organizer and also the supporter of the initiatives, and the Ambassador, and to embrace for youth and by youth, that approach that youth can actually make changes.  For the third point, I would like to mention about the continuous participation in the discussion.  Right after the global, regional IGF discussion it is important to create a path for participants to continue their discussion locally.  It is a reason we initiate local discussion platforms to try to build linkage with the regional IGF and we have created a toolkit as to how to host the Y IGF to see the local initiatives to happen in the region.

In answering the question why multistakeholders should be active and engaging in the process, it is more than happy to see youth initiate their own Y IGF however it is not successful without different stakeholder support.  For example for one IGF, one of the core elements of the AV IGF, but as I mentioned, the organizer of the event, steering the multistakeholder Steering Committee of APIGF.  Suggestions from the Steering Committee is useful to making some improvements in the process.  Meanwhile it is also showing that exploring the creation of the youth pattern in the existing in our eyes, it is another way out for organizing more and more Y IGF in the coming future.

A closing remark, I would like to share that empowering the next generation in the Internet Governance discussion should be of everyone concerned, it is great to see that it is more on youth initiative to allow the IGF, the youth IGF to be happening in the coming future.  It is not just a critical platform for the capacity building of Youth, but also engaging Youth directly in the discussion platform and making some new changes and active participation as part of the multistakeholders.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: Next year, rather than going Youth Asia‑Pacific we'll exchange that, that will put you in the middle of the discussion instead.

In any case, our final speaker is from the Youth LAC IGF.

>> LOUISE MARIE HUREL: I'm a representative of the Youth Observatory and member of the Youth LAC IGF.  I'm excited to share some of our experiences in that organization which was the first initiative on Internet Governance aimed toward Youth in Latin America and the Caribbean and our forum was undertaken on the 27th of July.

Youth LAC is an initiative made by the youth observatory made up of young people in Latin America interested in Internet topics that they develop an important rollover the past decades and within that role we need to create a space that includes a multistakeholder aspects to include all of the perspectives on the issues that we face every day in the Internet included in the strategies that we have to promote participation I can say that the Agenda was defined by a public consulting process amongst young youth of our area, they included infrastructure access, security, surveillance, and one interesting aspect was young people and governance.  We also wanted the format of the event to be bird of feet temperatures promoting the horizontal nature and more active participation aimed at young people making up a panel that we see often in national and regional IGF fora.

The idea was to change the traditional structure of panels.  Thanks to the support of ICANN and Internet Society we were able to have a partial grant and bring in 13 grantees from Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the participation of multiple multistakeholders.

Moderators of sessions to men and women, we had the participation of 31 women and 36 men, more than 15 countries in the region were represented in the event.  The result of our call for the event was promoted through the Internet site and through YouTube observatory social media.  With this, we were able to have empowerment and active participation of young people in the region hearing new voices that had have never before been heard related basically with the topic of multidiversity and multiculturality from an ethnic point of view that we see so often in Latin America and had the Caribbean.

Thank you very much. 


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: We're moving to the last session here.  There is no way to summarize how interesting all of these discussions have been.

A final point, on this panel alone by count, there are five current or serving MAG members or one or two MAG members that have just exited off a year ago.

I think that's great and it shows, you know, the complementarian of the efforts and really allows us to reflect in both ways the work happening at a local level as it feeds the global and vice versa.  I want to thank everybody very much, I'll turn it back to Anja for the open mic session.

>> ANJE GENGO: On my behalf, thank you to this panel.  They were useful and wonderful remarks that came from the respect respective communities of the NRIs, and now if you agree we would give up to 15 minutes for the segment that's devoted to open mics.  If you could raise your hand and Marilyn is keeping the order here.

>> I'm a MAG member, a fabulous session.  I'm reporting back on an initiative in Poland, Poland IGF it appeared on the slide that was produced.  We're in the process of formation.  We have two stakeholder groups that took the initiative to start the process with the government, with the governmental agencies and academia.  After hearing all of you, I'm so excited about the opportunities that have come up. 

I see three major issues, first of all, making sure that we are multistakeholder and we have great experiences with that and the ‑‑ we have been running the multistakeholder model for the last three years, I Chaired that until now and I want to make sure we use that experience going forward.

Bottom‑up approach, I think that's an amazing second task, collaborate with all of you.  I think that's three takeaway items for me.  Thank you very much.  I look forward to seeing you next year.

>> ABDUL YOUSSEF:  Thank you very much.  Thank you. 

I would have liked to made my intervention in Arabic, but I will make it in French because there is no Arabic translation.  Madam, thank you!  Thank you!  Thank you all for the fantastic work you have carried out.  It is truly amazing.  All of the nations of the world and only one session!

My intervention regards the second part of the session, what concerns financing or financing resources of regional fora.

I completely share the ideas of the intervention from our colleague ‑‑ I don't remember her name ‑‑ the one representing the African Forum because she said that they have great difficulty in finding financing resources coming from operators ‑‑ Internet operators, access providers or ‑‑ or Internet service providers.  So I will present to you our case, a case concerning the Arab IGF and so as President of the Arab IGF ‑‑ I actually was President of the Arab IGF in 2015 and 2014 ‑‑ but Arab IGF started in 2012 with 80 participants in 2013, then with 150 participants and in 2014 we were up to 750 participants and in 2015 to 1,200.

How ‑‑ since we found with the Arab League and the United States, we managed to make an operator of telecommunications interested in the problems and the schemes of IGF.  This was a Lebanese operator, Ogene Telecom, in 2013 the strategic partner and in 2015 financed 80 to 85% of the total cost, including the construction of the website and the mobile application.

Why do I say this?  I say this that because for regional Fora we must find, Madam, operators that are interested in the matters and problematic of Internet Governance even if they are telecom operators.  They were telcom operators, but they were interested in these Internet matters and in your activities.  If they're interested, then we must keep them nearby.

Thank you.


>> HARRY BROWN:  Very quickly, Harry Brown, I'll speak as a representative of Civil Society and a contributor to the Arab IGF.

I believe that the multistakeholder approach is not fully implemented as the rule of Civil Society is not properly recognized ‑‑ the role of ‑‑ we're not and never consulted on major decisions like the consultation of the IGF 2016, we don't know how, why, who is making these decisions.  Now I welcome what was said from the Arab League that there is an evaluation going on.  I call on all of the officials and other institutions who are in charge of the Arab IGF to give full recognition for the rule of Civil Society ‑‑ role of Civil Society as an equal partner and other Arab IGFs, without that, we won't get anywhere.  We are here to support the Arab IGF to modify it, to improve it, we're ‑‑ we're not enemies.  We're trying to protect Human Rights.  We're going to work hard to protect freedom and we have worked with them for so long.  I believe strongly that the Arab IGF should be a platform to protect freedom of ‑‑ the Arab Association should support initiatives that give poor areas Internet, cheap Internet, provide the schools with free Internet, Internet is not just a commodity, Human Rights should be in the heart of the Internet.  There is no time, I stop here to give the opportunity for others.


>> Thank you.  I'm Braun from Malawi, I wanted to share the experience we have had in our national IGF.

And to also allude to some of the experiences that have been shared with other national IGFs.

I feel like there is a lack of information that's actually provided to the regional IGF to build the capacity and we have talked about the issue of sources, funds to sort of hold the national IGF annually.  So we have also had the same situation which actually makes sense that we're not registered on the national ‑‑ in our website of the global IGF, so my proposal is that maybe if there can be sort of a guideline where the Secretariat is actually putting more effort to sort of communicate with the local IGFs and then giving them the tools, attending this IGF has actually allowed me to talk to various organizations that are also participating here and to tap into some of the efforts that they're doing within the region and sort of providing the funds, allowing the national IGFs to hold meetings and everything.  The local funding, the funding issue, I wouldn't say it is actually lack of resources, but I think lack of information that is provided within the community to say that if you want the funds to allow you to hold your national IGF, this is the way you can go, this is the organization you can actually contact so if there can be a document that actually provides the Pointers to the national IGFs in terms of resource acquiring, that would be helpful.

Thank you.  I hope I was on time.

>> M. CADE: I'll see you later and explain where we are on that work so that we can get more involved.

>> Thank you.  I'm Marcus Gumera speaking of the IGF Support Association.

This session confirmed once again the great variety of national regional IGF initiatives.  There is no one‑size‑fits‑all and none of these initiatives are one like the other.  It confirms also the saying good Internet Governance begins at home and it confirms what we the IGF Support Association believe in that's important to support the national, regional IGF initiatives.  Wet set up our association ‑‑ we set up our association to support and promote the national IGF and to support the regional, national IGF initiatives and we have membership and had try to collect funds and last year we were able to support 20 national and eight regional, subregional IGF initiatives.  We have flyers here and the map to show the ones we supported and please visit us at our booth and we would really enjoy it if you join us as a member, you would strengthen the movement and I think it is a win/win situation for everybody.

Thank you for your attention.


>> I'm Izumi from Okutani, Japan. 

My question goes to the panel, all the people.  What are the challenges, the headaches?  For my own, being in Japan we have little actually of the IGF or the IG from mainstream organizations, businesses, governments as well as through Civil Society or citizens.  There is some gap of perception about the differences between the technical community and those who are more involved on a daily or their professions and the users or others who are not really involved and a huge gap.  These are the issues as well as it is mostly common in the Asia‑Pacific.

What are your headaches?  How do we overcome that together?

Thank you.

>> M. CADE: We're not responding, but I will get the questions and come back to you.

Our last speaker, and then Chair, a short summary, we have a remote speaker and then we have a very short summary of the key messages that you will then decide whether or not we're able to do.  We can display them. 

We'll take this speaker, remote speaker, Chair, up to you whether we can review the key messages.

>> I'm Samuel from Hong Kong, and I'm speaking for the Hong Kong and AP region.  It is my first time to participate and experience this global event.  I'm very excited.  I hope to share my view in promoting the IGF to the remote region because we have toolkits for all people to make their own IGF

I guess it would be great for all people to be easier to get the right material for making IGF and I guess it would be great to have IGF to really experience the IGF to have ‑‑ to ‑‑ to raise their awareness in Internet Governance.  Yeah.  That's what I wanted to share.

Thank you.


>> REMOTE ANJE GENGO:  I'm the founder and President of Internet Society and IGF Pakistan. 

I organized three workshops on governance for Internet of kids, teenagers and youngsters for the same context recently formed Youth IGF Pakistan as coordinator.  Our Youth is more concerned on the privacy issues condemn the hate speech and the use of Internet for the study of everyone's personal life.  Behaviors and movement through most of the application tools and mobile apps.  We need secure, reliable, civilized global Internet accessible to everyone without any fear.  We need online safety and protection against common threats.  We suggest frequent interactive awareness sessions related to Internet Governance issues and policies and we're interested to participate at global and regional Forums but we have financial constraints.  Our small steps and little initiatives are mostly neglected.  We need unbiased recognition at global Forums.

That's it.

Thank you very much.

>> ANJE GENGO: Thank you for the excellent question and for all of the deserved complements you send to our colleagues.

We'll use this opportunity to announce on Friday there will be an important session, many questions that came from the floor now I think are suitable for the Friday session.  On the Friday session that will be on at 10:15 a.m., workshop room 9.  We'll discuss what are the headaches, biggest challenges and how can the global IGF community, how they can be helped.  This session only proved we need the help, we need to work together as partners.  On Friday I'm inviting you all to join us in workshop room 9 and to discuss how can we work together on starting from 2016.

Thank you.

>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  I think there was one more item.  A report out from the Rapporteurs. 

I'm not sure I understood, Marilyn, what the ‑‑ most of you will know, I will stay here all night, but I appreciate we have gone over time.  What was the recommendation?

Is the room willing to stay here for another 3 to 5 minutes to hear the summary of the Rapporteurs who are working very hard for the last three hours to capture these points.

I frankly think there is very little harder than trying to summarize sessions like this that covered a variety of ground and efforts.

Christine is going to go first.

>> RAPPORTEUR: I'm going to read part C, which I have done this for and opening up the topic, the first and second topic.

The third topic was on reliable and sustainable topics, funding and fund‑raising, it is identified as a main challenge for NRIs in areas with small digital ecosystems and threatens the stability of existing NRIs by limiting intersessional activities and continuing the earlier event and delays the launch of the NRIs information.  This is true when funding sources, when they're depending on in kind contributions, they need to define funding strategies and to create funding mechanisms with long‑term reliable funding although it may not be enough depending on the availability of the nations and the contributions.  You have to ensure that the multistakeholder process is not limited or effected in any way by financials for that it is important to maintain the neutrality, transparency and a multistakeholder nature of the funding mechanism.  Further the diversity of funding sources is important to avoid assumption of influence, government contributions were identified as important and critical for NRI funding and to provide reliability and confidence, nevertheless there is a consistent need for the support from the private sector and need for collaboration of all stakeholders.  It is evident stronger engagement is increasing their appreciation for NRIs and dialogue space and hence their licensor willingness to support the NRIs where needed.  It is important for the benefit of NRIs to define their structure and rules through charter in order to secure funding commitments from the different stakeholders and it is more important to support wider participation to the NRIs rather than providing luxury events that could be achieved by directing funds more towards scholarships, remote participation, getting regions and cities rather than going to just capitals and also providing ‑‑ getting various sectors and parts ever society on board.  This could mean a more cost and it is not always easy to find local hosts.  Finally, there is a need to maintain an increased funding sources such as the IGF SA and support provided by the IGF Secretariat.

In some cases, it could be good to align with relevant events and partner with them to decrease the cost and secure the presence of funders.

Thank you.

>> I'm going to read for topic A, access and enhancing opportunity for the unconnected and underconnected.  The first is the process of the national dialogue IGF it is important to the development in the region, the foundation for the Internet Governance development to help with the dialogue and policy shaping and to the success and connectivity, the localization and content, it has a socioeconomic political and geographic diversity.  Three, the efforts to secure the stakeholders participation and sustain the momentum of Civil Society interest and private and public sector interest is hampered by issues of access, affordability and at role of the Internet Governance, enhancing opportunity for connecting the unconnected will identify for underconnected groups such as women and Internet access with mobile technologies that will be seen as only a temporary solution because of the limitation it brings.

The changes need to have access to broadband which is not only available but also needs to be accessible in terms of practice.  The multistakeholder approach and also collaboration will increase to access and support each others.  More efforts are needed in the region for multistakeholder groups in terms of implementing IPv6, fiber optics and other new technology like wide space. 

Digital literacy is a key of more efforts need to be made by all stakeholders in the region in terms of educating users and then topic B, several IGF initiatives, the Internet needs to be preserved as an open, secure, stable, resilient space, dialogue and collaboration among all stakeholder groups, governments, private sector, Technical Community, Civil Society is a key thing in addressing cybersecurity and cybersecurity changes and contributing to an open, stable, secure, trustworthy Internet ensuring the safety of the Internet users is a shared responsibility with governments and private sectors playing a key role, trust is key in the digital age, trust in using the Internet is something that needs to be built so that everybody including Persons with Disabilities marginalized can participate in the digital society.

Human Rights should be taken into account when devising policies aimed at enhancing trust and security on the Internet.  Education and awareness raising are key for enabling users to protect themselves online and content control policies undertaken by governments to deal with problematic content such as this needs to be proportional, users are often counterproductive, there should be no trade of privacy and security, the two shall be kept in balance.  The regulation is important in addressing the cybersecurity issues and it is not sufficient in itself and it is an important tool in protecting Human Rights online, the governments have different approaches towards the use of encryption tools, clarity and predictability is needed when it comes to the conditions and will allow enforcement and security and you can circumvent encryption, sharing events between security and Human Rights.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR: We move to the next speaker, and I want to point out that fantastic support that came running in from the volunteers to help, it is just showing the support we have gotten from everybody here in the local hosting country.  It is excellent.

Thank you.

>> RAPPORTEUR:  Thank you.

I'm summing up on the last session.  I haven't had much time.  It is a very, very basic summary.  It should be quite quick.

This section was on challenges to create awareness about Internet Governance at the national, regional level and why stakeholders should be actively engaging.  We heard from a variety of models and it is true to say that there is no one‑size‑fits‑all approach but there were similarities from all of the speakers in front of you.  The key one seems to be the multistakeholder model, the key in setting the Agenda across pretty much all initiatives that were just spoken.  It helps to be outreached through networks to spread the news and spread the message of the IGF.  It allows the topics on the Agenda to make sure they're appealing to the region and to the nation and it helps with engagement of all stakeholders and means that the members of the Committee and speakers in national, regional IGFs Ambassadors to spread the word.  We also heard education and awareness raising is key through capacity building and also through youth engagement.

There is also opportunity for collaboration and linkages with other groups and Forums as well as engaging the regional, national network and through the global IGF.  We also heard initiatives need to continually develop, not resting on their Laurels and outreach strategy is needed and continual effort is needed to continue to grow.  An end point is not fixed, there is continual involvement and   improvement needed.  

Online participation, innovative formats, social media, engagement with journalists is needed to appeal to new people and to continue to spread the word.

You also need to have outputs and effects of the discussions.  People will not participate if they do not see the effect of the discussions.

This can vary from producing outputs and ‑‑ outputs and recommendations or to linking with national and policy making.

There is also a key message that it is not a one‑off event, engagement is needed through the process.

Thank you.


>> LYNN St. AMOUR:  Was that the end of the Rapporteurs?

I think it is time to close.  I think we're going to invite all the panelists and the organizers of the session up on the stage for a picture. The only thing that remains after that, of course, is to thank the interpreters for staying late with great appreciation, it really helped us round the whole picture out nicely.


We have to thank the moderators and Rapporteurs as well.


Anja and Marilyn for their great support.


Most of all, the NRIs themselves all of the panelists and speakers and certainly everybody here who hung in here for this late session.

Thank you very much.

(Concluded at 6:26).