You are here

WS 36 Who governs the Internet: How people can have a voice.

FINISHED TRANSCRIPT

    

EIGHTH INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM

BALI

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

24 OCTOBER 2013

2:30 P.m.

WORKSHOP NUMBER 36

WHO GOVERNS THE INTERNET: HOW PEOPLE CAN HAVE A VOICE

    

    

 

********

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

********

 

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: I thank everyone for joining us. We're just going to wait for a couple of late entrants. Some of them are making their way from a previous lunchtime meeting. So if you don't mind, we will start about five minutes late, and hopefully make up that time.

     Okay. I think we might start, even though we are still waiting on two of the panelists. We have three panelists missing from the front. But Grace Githaiga is unwell, so she is resting. But she will be on the panel as time goes on.

     And here is the ambassador now.

     Thank you very much. So yes, thank you very much for joining us here for: Who governs the Internet? How people can have a voice?

     The original concept for this panel was as a feeder workshop coming from the Best Bits gathering. Now Best Bits is a relatively new Civil Society coalition that met on the two days prior to -- or day zero, that was on the last -- on Saturday and Sunday.

     We came together to make some tangible outputs that we could agree between ourselves as a Civil Society coalition that would assist in the current Internet Governance debates. So we discussed surveillance and privacy issues. We discussed the nature of multi-stakeholderism and principles that should guide multi-stakeholderism. We discussed WSIS plus ten process. The ITU. We discussed the enhanced cooperation process. And of course the IGF itself and possible improvements to the IGF.

     And whilst we don't have a -- we're still finalizing some of the outputs from those meetings, because the discussions that we began at those meetings are ongoing. But one of the outputs that we were able to reach was a set of four principles that we think should guide the upcoming Brazil summit that was scheduled for next year, 2014. So I'll come to that in a moment and we can use those principles as one of the discussion points for this workshop.

     But before I go into that, I'll just briefly let you know who is on the panel. We have on the far right, Malgorzata Steiner from Poland. She has joined the panel to give a perspective from the Government of Poland on multi-stakeholderism.

     We have Ellen Blackler from Disney worldwide services.

     And myself, Jeremy Malcolm, from Consumers International.

     Then we have Ambassador Alexandre Fontenelle from Brazil.

     So we have a replacement. Can I write your name for me? I beg your pardon. On the left of him we have Parminder Jeet Singh from IT for Change, an Indian based Civil Society organisation.

     And then on the far left we have Grace Githaiga, from Kenya.

     And finally we have Nigel Hickson. Thank you very much, Nigel, and we understand that everyone is rushing around during the lunch hours. It's been a very busy IGF indeed, so we fully appreciate your attendance here and at such a busy time.

     So the debate about Internet Governance has come to a head this year. And for the first time since the WSIS itself, we can feel a real change in the air. There has never been a time that I can remember since then that there has been such a palpable movement for change to the existing Internet Governance arrangements.

     The fundamental underlying principles that were established at Tunis still are very important to all of us, most notably the need for involvement of all stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder process. But the way to operationalize that is a very contested one.

     Of course, the two outputs of the WSIS summit that relate to Internet Governance were the formation of the IGF itself and the mandate to commence a process of enhanced cooperation on Internet related Public Policy issues. And while the IGF was established great away, there was greater confusion on how to take forward this mandate for enhanced cooperation.

     So despite several inquiries and public consultations, we still don't have a tangible manifestation of that process. Some would say there doesn't need to be a tangible manifestation, it's simply enough that the stakeholders are functioning independently and we don't need to have a framework or process. But others disagree and say that without some kind of more tangible process to guide the cooperation of stakeholders, we won't actually be able to descend from the generalities that we're discussing at the IGF into more tangible policy principles that can feed directly into decision-making fora at other levels.

     So this is the contested question that has come to a head this year in a number of different fora that have come together at roughly the same time. So we have the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. And we have a number of members of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on this panel. It is, of course, a Working Group of the CSTD, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, which is tasked with looking at the implementation of the enhanced cooperation mandate and making recommendations about how it can be -- the extent to which it's already been fulfilled or what else is needed to fulfill this mandate.

     So it will be good to hear from the panelists who are on the Working Group to give us an update on that.

     But meanwhile, of course, we have had the very unexpected announcement and certainly welcome in some quarters but giving great fear in other quarters about a new Internet Governance summit, and now we hear it's a Internet Governance meeting to be held in Brazil in 2014.

     And I have just come from a meeting with ICANN's President, Fadi Chehade, to give us more clarity about what this process is, how he expects, from his perspective, as ICANN is one of the stakeholders involved, how does he see Civil Society and the other stakeholder groups coming together to help organise this summit in conjunction with the Government of Brazil and other Governments.

     So how does that relate to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation? Is it overlapping? Is it supporting? How does it relate to the IGF? We have heard strong statements of support from both Brazil and ICANN for the continuation of the IGF. But in real terms is the IGF going to be able to take forward the recommendations that the summit may come up with, or are we going to need new structures or processes?

     So it's a very confusing time for everyone. Nobody knows exactly how this is all going to pan out and the next 12 months are going to be extremely interesting.

     But the goal that we all have is the same. We have at the moment a system of Internet Governance that is broken in many ways. It's worked well for technical coordination in the main, but in terms of Human Rights and broader Public Policy issues, there have been a number of serious deficits, both in the coordination of the overlapping roles for many different countries and in respect by countries for the human rights of users who are not their own citizens. And of course I don't need to tell you that the most current example of that is the NSA surveillance scandal and the scandal around similar surveillance programmes from other countries.

     So with that context, let me open up to our panelists to take their views about what they would do, what they think is the way forward. How do we realign the roles of stakeholders in Internet Governance to fulfill the enhanced cooperation mandate? How do we do that in a way that all of the stakeholders can accept? The technical community, which is very fixated on not having too much Government control, the Governments, some of whom are worried about giving up too much control, and Civil Society who sometimes views itself as the weakest party of those groups, and also including the private sector. Civil Society often feels that it is the most marginalized stakeholder group.

     So the agenda for today is to focus on a number of key questions. Where are the existing Internet Governance arrangements failing? And whom are they failing the most? Is effective multi-stakeholder policymaking possible where issues are fiercely contested? Can the IGF evolve and be strengthened? And what improvements can be made to these arrangements without setting the scene for an InterGovernmental takeover of the Internet?

     So a very interesting topic for us all to discuss, and I have the -- I'm going to follow the speaking order that is rather random. But I'm going to begin with, if it's okay, with Nigel Hickson from ICANN. Would you like to begin?

     >> NIGEL HICKSON: Yes. Thank you. Yes, I didn't think I was first. But anyway, it's random enough I suppose.

     Well, good afternoon, thank you, Jeremy, thank you very much for inviting us on to this panel. Sorry, I'll speak a bit clearer.

     Some of you might have been in the previous session, but many of you will not have been. But you will have been in sessions this week where you heard a number of issues being discussed concerning something called the Monta Valdosta and the prospect of a conference in Brazil or a meeting or a conclave or one of a number of other descriptors. And I'm quite happy to say something about that.

     But I think really first to address, from an ICANN perspective, the overall issue about Internet Governance. Is it broken? What's the future?

     And I'll try and confine myself to a couple of issues. First of all, I don't think it's broken as such. I mean, there are clearly challenges. And the Tunis agenda is, if you like, one of those challenges. The Tunis agenda was written in a different time. The Tunis agenda was written by civil servants like myself. I was in the UK Government at the time. It was written in a fairly compressed time scale. And it reflected the thinking of the time. It was a document which of course had compromises in, as all International documents tend to have compromises in. But it set out a very important agenda. And Jeremy referred to it in terms of supporting a multi-stakeholder approach, which was equal.

     But of course it also had the concept of enhanced cooperation, which has been brought up. And that has of course been discussed in the CSTD. There is a working party that is considering enhanced cooperation in some detail. And indeed lots of submissions have been made. And on the CSTD side I think in the very near future, there will be a summary of all the contributions that Governments and other bodies have made on enhanced cooperation. So that is going to be something very important indeed.

     As to GAC, back to the question, is it broken, because I think this brings in the other aspect. And Fadi has been saying and others have been saying whether we are in ICANN or other institutions is the WCIT, who was at the WCIT in December, who was survived by this.

     Many of us were in Dubai, but it certainly wasn't a success. And what it shows is that there is a considerable gap. There is a considerable gap in the ability to discuss issues concerning Internet Governance. Many discussions took place in Dubai on issues such as cybersecurity or privacy or various other issues, and some Governments said well, this isn't an issue for the ITU. This isn't an issue to be discussed here. We don't want to discuss cybersecurity here. We don't want to discuss spam here. We don't want to discuss some of the other wider Internet Governance issues. That is not for the ITU. And some Governments legitimately said well, where do we discuss those issues? Where can we have a fora to discuss those issues? Where can we learn from other Governments about how they tackle other Government issues? So there was a gap, this lacuna, I think.

     And that's some of the thinking in terms of how we are coming out and how we take the process forward. There will be a plenipotentiary in Korea in 2014 where some of these issues will come on the agenda again. And so there is a question about before that happens and before we discuss those issues in Pusan in 2014, should we discuss at least in this multi-stakeholder community whether a new process or whether some new dialog is needed? And that's the generality of some of the discussion.

     So I think I'll briefly conclude, if it's okay, Jeremy, with just what has taken place over the last couple of days. We confirmed. Now, Fadi, as you know, spoke in the opening of the IGF and he has spoken in several other meetings. He met the President of Brazil. This wasn't a long planning, I know that much, because it took place in quite a hurry. But it was an opportunity for him to meet the President of Brazil. The President of Brazil as you well know had addressed the UN General Assembly a few weeks back, where she had noted that there were significant problems, not the least because of the revelation, and called for a new framework, a new multi-national framework for Internet Governance issues.

     Now this of course is something that many of us feel is the wrong way forward. Others of us might feel it's the only way forward of a purely Governmental approach. But for many of us having a purely Governmental approach is the wrong way, it's the wrong way forward for many reasons which we are not here to discuss it that today.

     But we felt that as we drafted the Tunis agenda. So in this meeting with the President of Brazil, the idea of some form of conference, some sort of process, to discuss the whole area of Internet Governance in a multi-stakeholder setting, and it was discussed between the President and Fadi. And Fadi's idea amongst other people, to have some sort of coalition, to have some sort of process whereby a conference in Brazil, perhaps in May 2014, can discuss the feature of Internet Governance in a wider context.

     And I'll stop there for now. Thank you.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much for that. And next we have Malgorzata Steiner from Poland. Thank you.

     >> MALGORZATA STEINER: Thank you.

     So I think that was a very good and useful summary on recent events as we all know, and that sort of built a context for this conversation. And I think I would add to that what our Polish perspective was on those recent events. And this is because -- not because I assume that we are all very interested in the details of Polish Internet governance questions or Polish approaches, but because I think we are in many ways representatives for what other countries are going through or need to go through in order to really adopt a multi-stakeholder approach. And for us, this history begins a little bit sooner. And it began around the Internet Governance question and it begins with Acto Process, which was a turning point for Poland. You might know that we were the first country to have huge protests and we had millions of people in the streets, in the capital city and in smaller towns, and this was the biggest protest movement since the '80s.

     And we already had like a thesis among political people in Poland that we never go to the streets and protest. And then Acta came and we had protests similar to the scale of the '80s, where Poland was in transition from communism to Democracy. And that was a big wakeup call for everyone. Okay. There were missing links between the different stakeholders around the Internet Governance. And the first thing for us to do was to organise big multi-stakeholder meetings. We didn't call it multi-stakeholder at that time, but we actually invited users who are protesting in the streets, we invited artists, we invited businesses. We invited technical people and to have a big conversation with the Prime Minister. And it was an eight-hour conversation without break. I sat through it and I couldn't go to the toilet even, so it was an experience I can tell you.

     And the first reactions were that people were -- didn't even see the need for conversation. So everyone wanted an authoritative decision from the Prime Minister and they felt that the only solution was that for the Prime Minister either to withdraw the signature for ACTA or to sign ACTA. But certainly like what people across the stakeholder factions were agreeing on, is that there needed to be an authoritative decision by the Prime Minister who would tell us what to do. And one group felt that he needs to tell us to sign and the other group felt that he was going to tell us that we were not going to sign.

     And that was the beginning of a dialog. It was a hard beginning and it took us a while to make it into a process where the different factions were able to talk to each other and listen to each other and to learn from each other. And this was what we practiced since that time.

     And we organised two Congresses, two big meetings for those parties to engage. We had workshop groups that worked on topics that were relevant to Internet at that time. And that was a workshop on privacy. There was a workshop on copyrights. A workshop on how we run consultations around Internet dialog. And those workshops were to give us proposals on how to go along with the dialog. But it was a new approach, and it really took some adjustments, both for the Government, from the businesses, and from the users. And at first it might sound weird, but as we invited like business people to talk about business models, different business models that -- and what they need to implement business models in Internet, they would sit there and they would be like you know why should we talk with these companies?

We are competitors.

     So what are the common interests that we have that we can bring to the table? Why do you put us in one room at all?

     So even it was hard for us to organise a discussion between business people. And of course they discuss with each other like in different trade representations and so on. But I think at this time we needed like a real -- so we needed people who on a daily basis deal with people, and not people who on a daily basis deal with Public Policy issues. And to get them into one room and to discuss it took us a while.

     And another concept, because that was a consequence, the dialog process, the consequence on our internal dialog.

     Now we wouldn't think of something that we wouldn't discuss with everyone. Because we learned our lesson and we exhausted people, but we think there is no other way.

     But in terms of our International involvement, what has changed is that, for example, in preparation for Dubai, so we all knew that ITRs would be discussed and we felt it could been a turning point. And we had a little trouble because we -- well, it wasn't a custom until then that you would release the documents before they are negotiated in those conferences. And we knew that after ACTA it's not the thing that we wanted to do. So another document that wanted to be consulted with Civil Society before it would be adopted.

     So what we actually did, we allowed the public consultation of the document and we put it on our website and nothing happened. So then like ITU also put the document on its website and I think we all benefited from it.

     And it was really, I think, I cannot imagine Dubai with documents being kept secret. That would have been -- well, I'm not sure who would have survived, Nigel, such a conference there.

     And we had an open consultation process on ITRs, and it helped us to feel where the possible problems arise. And when we went to Dubai, because of that we had a stronger mandate as a Government, because we knew what Civil Society is about on this issue. We knew what business means on these issues. And it helped us to prepare much better for it and as we were in Dubai.

     So my colleague Martin who sits there and was in Dubai and we had a big delegation in Dubai, but we also had a delegation in Poland, and I was doing that work and was in charge of keeping our stakeholders informed on what was going on in Dubai. And that was a 24/7 job. Because some of them, of course Civil Society especially, couldn't go to Dubai for financial reasons, but it was our job to keep them informed enough and to keep them up to date on what is going on, so that they won't become suspicious about what is happening or that the same issues are going to be out of control.

     And I guess that what -- what was also the consequence -- so, at at this conference in Geneva in May, there was an approach like trying to apply a more multi-stakeholder method of working. And as a first step, we think it worked okay, and that is why Poland also made a written contribution afterwards for ITU to encourage it to keep and continue this process, and this is not of course, so we still think, you know, there will always be an important role for ITU in telecommunications questions, not that much in Internet questions, but the telecommunications and Internet are connected. So we won't get rid of this problem and issues. And the only thing we can do is yes, improve our multi-stakeholder bodies that we are talking about, and on the other hand try to help ITU evolve in a way that was also more multi-stakeholder. And we all know that it's not the problem or that the main systemic problem is not with ITU as an organisation, but with the fact that it's a membership organisation. And as long as we have different members, different approaches to policymaking, as long we will have difficulties with installing those kind of processes. And I hope that the example in Poland that I described in detail will show you what difficulties I'm talking about.

     So even in a fully Democratic society that is used to a lot of dialog, it was not easy to implement what we call multi-stakeholder on the ground. So that's a long process, and well we are all practicing it with IGF and with other bodies all the time, and ITU also needs to practice that. And the two next years will be crucial. Because we have a number of reviews and initiatives on the table.

So it shows that the time is ripe for some new steps. And they will be taken step by step. But I'm sure that they will be taken.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much indeed. That is extremely interesting about the activities in Poland that set the ground for multi-stakeholderism there.

     So I'm going to actually skip across to the other end of the table now, because I'm trying to balance out the Civil Society and the Government speakers, with a Civil Society speaker now.

     So Parminder Jeet Singh from IT For Change.

     >> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Jeremy. You have really laid out a slate of some very difficult questions which cannot possibly be addressed in such a short time. But I think I'll step back a little.

     The governance issue, why does a governance issue arise in a particular context? Now if I asked you guys what does the Internet do, you'd be taken aback and ask me what kind of question was that. It does practically everything and so many things. The problem is that the Internet is so many different things, its governance is seen by a lot of different people from many different sides. And they stick to their vision of it and it seems to be in conflict with the other visions, when they probably are talking about different things. And I think we now need to start understanding that fact.

     And on another axis, there is an issue about maintenance and political issues for the Internet. And I'll try to give an example.

     If we have to leave our office space and the room is leaking and we don't know where our office is finally, and we find it finally, that is a technical problem. Because we all agree what needs to be done and we all agree. The only thing left is how to do it. And that's the question.

     Everybody is giving expertise and everybody has the same interesting mind and there are conflicts, et cetera, et cetera, and that's about the maintenance of the Internet, the technical issues about the Internet that largely the domain name registration issues and all those things, and that requires kind of a very collaborative process where everybody's expert. Whoever knows more should contribute more, and we see that associated with ICANN-like processes.

     However, if we have to start deciding who will live in which part of the room and how big would that office be, and the total space is limited, then we have issues of what would be a political issue. There are conflicts of interest that would have to be managed in different kinds of processes. And that is what this Public Policy is about. It cannot be decided in the same consentual way in which technical issues get decided.

     But I think before we go to the governance issue of the Internet, we need to agree on the problem. We all agree that it needs good maintenance and that's why we have the technical maintenance organisations. But perhaps many of us do not see another side of the problem or a challenge. Internet is an artifact that redistributes political, social, economic, cultural powers in many, many huge manners.

     Internet has reorganised global business. It has concentrated economic power in some ways, some forms; it has decentralized it over other places. It has changed political power in many countries. It's changing geopolitical powers. It's huge and the whole cultural content can be huge. And in other places its giving rise to plurality of content. So these are political issues. And these issues cannot be decided in the same manner in which we decide technical issues because there are conflicts there. And the fact that they need to be decided in some way or the other is more important to the people who are on the receiving side of the, you know, the wrong side of the public.

     And consistent consensus which could meet people in many situations, then you stick to the status goal that goes to the favor of certain people. And as I was commenting in another session, I saw the Lincoln movie, whose name I have forgotten, but the movie was good. And I saw that process in the Congress U.S., and we all know here that if we had insisted on a consensus, slavery never would have gotten abolished, and that was a big thing. Because it got abolished and many things of a political nature happened, there were many political processes around them.

     So we have to separate the technical part of the Internet and the Public Policy part.

     Now, I come to the question of multi-stakeholderism, which is the second question of Jeremy's list. And I don't think I'll be able to reach the end. I would support multi-stakeholderism if I knew what it is. I was impressed with the Polish experience and it shows how people can exert pressure and make political claims. And how, with the fear of God in the minds of the Government, who change the processes therefore. We have always called it participatory Democracy. It's huge in Brazil, in parts of India, and yes many other countries. And I have asked people, how is multi-stakeholderism different from Democracy? And I see multi-stakeholderism as a sophisticated kind of a sustained mechanism of engagement, and that's what they did. They listened to them, they went to WCIT, they still were informing them that is a beautiful engagement. They need to be engaged, and it should be sustained and real. That's what multi-stakeholderism is in Public Policy making.

     But when you come to decision-making powers, that's already a tricky thing. Decision-making and Public Policy involves invoking the powers which lie with the State which impacts people's interests. We cannot allow, let's say, some companies who may give privacy guidelines probably block the guidelines and framework. The same with eCommerce issues, integration, competition law, these cannot be decided in a multi-stakeholder manner, decided in the engagement process which is important. I think these distinctions need to be made and Public Policy is a process which requires a different kind of decision-making framework altogether from what are known as the technical processes.

     IGF should be strengthened. There was a proposal by India on the IGF improvements, and some parts were retained in the final process. And yes, I think our organisation considers IGF as version 3 of the Democracy.

     And let me take a minute on that. Version one was that Governments get elected and that is that they will take policy decisions. If you don't like it, go to elections and decide the new representatives. And slowly we had consultative processes which happened in many countries. But it was ad hoc. A Government had a certain set of people and have a Committee and talked something, but on their own terms. But there was some kind of consultation going on.

     And I think IGF is an institutionalized organisation. Kind of a mechanism around issues on a certain subject which is ongoing and takes place a little autonomous of Public Policy making. So that is an excellent framework and that's IGF. But still, decision-making is a tricky issue and should be left to people who really are contributors and can exercise that kind of political power.

     What improvements should be made to the arrangements without setting the scene for an InterGovernmental takeover of the Internet? There is a bit of discourse here. We talked about corporatization of the Internet. But it was said that we shouldn't use these terms, which make some stakeholders unhappy. But we have seen the Governmental taking over of the Internet. So yes, nobody wants State controls over the Government. But roles of the Government have to be recognized but they should take this in a very, very clear work of multi-stakeholder engagement. And once we agree to the principles, we can I think make a lot of process of improving the process. There is a lot of meeting of minds everywhere that something needs to be done, and I think we agree on those principles.

There is a lot of hope that we can move forward.

     Thank you.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much, Parminder. And so then if I can move the other direction on the panel again, Ellen Blackler from Disney.

     >> ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. Hi. I'm Ellen Blackler with Disney.

     I thought I could talk a bit about the enhanced cooperation working group, that is at the CSTD. I'm on that group as is Parminder.

     I view it, really, as, you know, part of the mix here. We're responding to the mandate from the UN General Assembly who asked the CSTD to put together a Working Group and to explore what further needs to be done to further advance enhanced cooperation. We had our first meeting a few months ago and at that meeting the Working Group is made up of representatives from the business community, from Civil Society, and from Governments. There is about 40 of us altogether.

     And at the first meeting we spent some time talking about what enhanced cooperation meant or should mean or could mean. And we spent a lot of time talking about that. And we ultimately worked up a questionnaire that I hope many of you responded to that outlined some questions for input on what enhanced cooperation meant, what the opportunities for further cooperation were, and really started to get at the question of what are the issues that are not being addressed where we need to do a better job of finding a place to address them.

     So we're analyzing those answers now and we actually are having our meeting the week after next, November 5th or 6th or something like that, where we will begin to answer -- look at those answers and figure out what we can learn from the input.

     So I just want to address for a second kind of this bigger question about Internet Governance. I think one of the things that is always interesting to me is we sometimes -- I guess even the question says, you know, is it broken or failing? I think -- I don't think it's helpful to talk about it that way. I think we have to keep in mind that like any process it can always be improved. And that one of the things here that is really so interesting is that we're inventing something new and this is why it's really hard. And it's really hard because we're doing two things. Not only are we inventing something new, literally, that has never been done before, we're taking functions that had traditionally or in society we traditionally deal with these things through our Governments, and we're saying that we think we need something new on the Internet that is more multi-stakeholder and brings in all these other points of view into the decision-making.

So this is new.

     In the past we had focused on improving openness and transparency in the Governmental processes, and we can continue to focus on that. And I think Margo talked about some great examples of how Governments are working to improve openness to transparency. But really in the Internet space when we talk about multi-stakeholder, we are talking about something brand new. And this is why we don't quite always know how to do it. And at the same time we are addressing problems that are really hard, and these are the same problems that exist offline that we haven't solved. When you think about things like expression, there are all kinds of freedom of expression problems that have nothing to do with the Internet. Governments have a range about how to deal with them. And people are oppressed in many ways offline.

     And so we're taking really hard problems and we're inventing new ways to solve them. So that is why sometimes it seems confusing and things are failing, but we have to remember that we're inventing something from scratch and that it's all part of a process that will get us to, you know, a better place. And I think it's helpful not to think of any one event or any one forum or any one meeting as the answer. And it's really part of a panoply of solutions.

     And one thing that always strikes me about coming to the IGF is how many people are engaged and how many people are putting in resources of time and money and their brains. And it seems like if we keep focused on that, and that all these different kinds of suggestions on the table, whether it's, you know, a meeting in Brazil or the enhanced cooperation work group or the IGF itself, you know, no one thing is going to get us there. But if we're all in the mix, kind of going in the right direction, it seems like that is kind of a perspective, an important perspective to keep.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much indeed.

     So before we move on to our next panelist, I'm going to take a little break and tell you the principles that we agreed at the Best Bits meeting. And this is sort of a work in progress, because we're also planning to issue a more detailed statement about these, about the upcoming summit or meeting in Brazil. But this is sort of an interim, a step along the way. So these principles may be tweaked a little. In fact, they have already been tweaked a little. But the version that we -- the working version that we reached agreement on at the meeting was on these basic principles that should guide the development of the planned summit on Internet Governance.

     So first we thought that the event should discuss what Internet Governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people centric, development oriented Information Society. We believed that this requires, at the minimum, that such a structure is Democratic. It should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights.

     Second, we said that the full participation of Civil Society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced.

     Third, we said a strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet Governance governance to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked on the CSTD Working Group on enhanced process as a appropriate.

     And, fourth, the event should go beyond speeches, and it should involve all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate with an equal footing.

     So with that, I'll turn to our panelist from Brazil to tell us a little more. Ernesto Benedict from Brazil.

     >> ERNESTO BENEDICT: I'd like to start with the context of the decision that was made regarding the summit. We intend to convene in Brazil. It was spelled out by our President as a summit, so I'd like to retain for the moment this notion.

     First of all, as it was indicated before, the speech that was delivered by President Dilma at the opening of the general debate of this General Assembly, she made reference to the idea that Brazil would promote an International civil framework. And it's important to bear in mind that her speech was very much inspired by what we are doing internally. Indeed, the members of the Brazilian steering Committee, which of course is a multi-stakeholder body that oversees Internet in Brazil and is responsible for the management of dot br met with President Dilma a week before her speech at the UN Assembly. And if you compare the principles she spelled out and the principles that were developed in Brazil, in a multi-stakeholder environment, within CGI, you would see a lot of similarities. It's not a coincidence.

     So it is -- I would say it is not accurate to say that what President Dilma was proposing was something to be done at a purely multi-lateral setting in the International community.

     And here I refer to something that was discussed in previous events and panels in this IGF, which refers to the issue of language of concepts that sometimes are used by different stakeholders containing different meanings and leading to different interpretations. Since this President Dilma's speech was inspired by the Brazilian experience, we have an experience of dealing with the Internet and in a multi-stakeholder format, and she expressly indicated even at the UN that the Government did not intend to do it separately, that Civil Society and the other stakeholders should be involve.

     So the use of the word "Multi-lateral" in that context should not be seen as something excludant. I want to be expressive about that, otherwise that might lead to misleading interpretations that there was an intent at the opening, and that intent changed because President Dilma was shown the light by a few parties. And then she found out that the idea was wrong, that this is not the case.

I want to be very clear about that.

     I think if we are forming a partnership and we want to have a partnership, some things should be made very clear so we have a respectful relationship towards each other. We, as a Government, want to be very respectful of Civil Society, of the private sector, of all stakeholders, and we expect the same treatments.

     By the way, after the speech of President Dilma, extensive consultations were held there by the various Governments in New York and received overwhelming sentiment of support for the notions that were expressed by her in her speech, and this encouraged us in saying that we are reflecting a way, let's say the sentiment of the community of States there.

     Later on, as you all know, the Monta Valdosta, it was from the entities from the technical community, also clearly indicated a willingness and the sentiment that changes should be made regarding the start. The way we have been doing things. International cooperation, I believe the language that was used in that regard, that International cooperation should be reviewed. And there was a particular reference to ICANN.

     And I do not want to dwell too much on this, because I think sometimes the debate on Internet Governance is too much centered around ICANN or ITU, and we lose maybe sight of so many other important things. But there was a reference to ICANN in the Monta Valdosta declaration. And it's also important to indicate that after that, the President and CEO of ICANN met with President Dilma.

It was not an expected meeting, but he met with her. And he himself has endorsed what was already in the Monta Valdosta declaration. And President Dilma was encouraged by this, that the technical area, including ICANN, can look into the technical architecture and what adjustments can be made.

     So I think the basic assumption that we are working in the outcome of the Tunis agenda, and the output of WSIS, we are not good with all the changes, but we want to make sure that things are looked at. And this was concurred by the President of ICANN himself. So we all agree that that is the case. And I don't think that Mr. Fadi Chehade was going to change functions from ICANN and moving to ITU. I don't think that was his intent.

     But anyway, he said that he thinks, he concurs with the view that some changes have to be made.

     So I think we might depart from his idea that if we are any -- any criticism that we make implies a certain set of direction. Things are much more complex than that, and we are concerned that the President of ICANN himself concurs with that vision.

     And therefore the meaning of our presence here and our Minister of Communications came to this meeting, it was the first time a Minister of State or Brazil comes to an IGF meeting outside of Brazil. We held the second edition in Brazil, and of course the ministers were there. But outside the first time. And the meaning of his coming here is to hold extensive consultations with other stakeholders.

     And then I repeat, we have an overwhelming sentiment on the part of Governments and the technical. So the intent of coming here is to reach out to the other sectors and to say we are ready to work with you. We want to construct collectively the agenda and work towards an outcome of this meeting in Brazil that could come up with something that could be a contribution to the process.

It's important to say that we want to be respectful of the existing processes, particularly the one that directly refers to the theme of this panel, "enhanced cooperation." "Enhanced cooperation" is a process that Brazil and others, we have been very keen about that and pushing for that for a number of years. So now that we have a process in that direction, we want to make sure it's -- it can yield the most productive outcome.

     So we do not want in any way that this event in Brazil would harm in no way the enhanced cooperation. And also the process that is being led by ITU and the other agencies regarding the review of lines and that will converge to this meeting either in Sharm El Sheikh or I heard in some other place in the first quarter of April. We also want to be very respectful of that.

     And we see that our event can provide for inputs and a way forward that could be -- that's a further -- let's say can further energize those processes.

     And of course we want to be very respectful of IGF. We do not see any way our event competing or superseding IGF. We aim at one time events. We have a particular focus which is yet to be completely defined as per the consultations that are being held. But we do not aim to have -- to initiate a process that will have the scope and the continuity that IGF conveys.

     And although we are now finishing the second cycle of IGF, with the IGF as a permanent budget, we don't see an alternative as we look into the architecture of Internet and any alternative going to IGF. And indeed Brazil is a candidate to host the 2015 edition of IGF, and this is a very clear statement of our commitment to this process. And the fact that our minister came here to consult.

     And the event in Brazil is not finalized. We do not have yet a complete outline. Because as the President Dilma said, she wants it to be built, constructed, collectively and fully reflect a multi-stakeholder dimension.

     So this is -- maybe I should stop here, but just to reinforce and reiterate our willingness to work with all parties, this is a message that we have been imparting that we want to -- we have a challenge of time. The timeframe for organising and making it happen is very short. But we do not want, at the same time, to lose the political momentum, the momentum that has been generated in the aftermath of the disclosures. Not to react, not to do something, only that would be seen as a negative reaction to this, but to put in place, let's say, some new ideas that will allow us for a framework that in similar situations, as a collective community, have mechanisms to address this.

     And this refers directly to enhanced cooperation in the aftermath of the disclosures, and we have been dealing with this internally. We are taking steps internally to address situations. We are reinforcing our legal framework regarding the protection of privacy and freedom of expression. This is part of our, let's say, reaction response to this. But it is not enough. We are doing also bilaterally. We have been in discussion with the United States. But this does not belong to you. And regionally, of course, now we are working with other regions to address and the abilities to work on the infrastructure.

     So there are different levels of response. But at the multi-lateral level, it's important that we can collectively devise ways that we can address existing gaps, existing shortcomings in the sense that we could not find an appropriate way to channel and to follow up on what President Dilma proposed.

     What would be the appropriate place to follow up on this? So the Brazilian summit is a proposal and we want to construct it with you. How can we maybe have an aim at some kind of along the lines should propose some declaration, principles, norms, or any other that would be authoritative enough to deliver the issue.

     And on top of that, what related Internet Governance issues or aspect or the operating of this would be dealt with either by providing some ideas or coming up with some rough consensus.

     The emphasis is to again provide for positive contribution that would be in some cases incorporated in the existing process and be further digested within this process. We want to play this role, but we want to do it collectively. It's not a Brazilian proposal or an ICANN proposal, it's something that we want to do in a collective setting. And therefore the importance of IGF and the importance of the full participation of all stakeholders is very dear to us and we want to reinforce the importance of this for us.

     Thank you.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much. That was extremely useful and informative, and it's very interesting seeing this picture getting clarity as we're hearing from the Brazilian representatives here. And still a lot of clarity still to come, I'm sure.

     Now, let's move on to the final panelist, and on her behalf, I would just like to let you know that she is not feeling too well, so I hope that this is not going to place too much stress for her to participate. So we thank her for being here despite how she is feeling. Grace Githaiga from Kenya.

     I'll just walk with the microphone. That is the easiest.

     >> GRACE GITHAIGA: My name is Grace Githaiga from the Kenya action network, KICTANet. We are basically a multi-stakeholder group that looks into policy issues and contributes whenever there is a need or raises issues that need policy or legislation attention in Kenya.

     For those of you who may not know, Kenya is one of the countries that got involved very early in the early stages of IGF. So Kenya has had I think this year we had what is it, the sixth Kenya IGF. And Kenya has always participated in the global and regional IGFs.

     However, there are certain changes, and I will be speaking to them shortly. But I want to go to the questions that Jeremy had put to us. And the first one is are you aware the existing Internet Governance arrangements are failing? And for us in Kenya, what has happened is that since WCIT there seems to -- some mistrust seems to have cropped up between stakeholders, and there is a feeling that some stakeholders have been privileged more than others, and therefore their input has been taken seriously.

     I have in mind the business community that also takes a large proportion of the technical community, and they seem to be wielding more influence than other stakeholders, and therefore you know the inference is seen more in policymaking. And that has actually started bringing that mistrust among stakeholders.

     So, you know, there has been a lack of reflection of certain stakeholders' input in whatever final outcomes that result. For example, in WCIT.

     Now, is effective multi-stakeholder policymaking possible where issues are fiercely contested? And again the example of WCIT still stands, and my answer at the moment is no. It's because as I say it, some stakeholders have carried debate. And because of this, we have been debating on the needs to have frameworks that provide for input and output on an equal basis for all stakeholders, whenever there is an issue of concern or whenever there is a policymaking process that relates to Internet.

     Now, one of the positive things that has emerged from the Kenyan Government is Kenya has -- we are still calling it a new Constitution, but it was promulgated in 2010. And in this one multi-stakeholderism has sort of been legitimized or justified and now is enshrined in the Constitution, where there is a call to involve all stakeholders in a sector in any area of policymaking processes. So that is there and the stakeholders can demand to participate.

     However, the challenge remains of how this is going to be implemented or implementation of involving all stakeholders. Because we know that true multi-stakeholder can only be actualized if the stakeholders are ordinary people and people push for participation and that their contribution is reflected in the final outcomes.

     So that remains the challenge, that we lack a clear framework on how to incorporate all stakeholders in this whole policymaking processes, including the Internet.

     Now, how can IGF be strengthened? And from the Kenyan perspective, unfortunately, is that there seems to be fatigue around the IGF. And yet we know that the IGF is a very good space for bringing onboard issues of concern that are debated very honestly. And, therefore, allow Governments also to respond, though sometimes not very honestly, but at least there is that opportunity.

     So (Audio faded)

     So the question we are, you know, that keeps cropping up is how do we then make IGF, you know, that perception that IGF is a talk shop, how do we stop it from making it look like a talk shop and offer practical lessons? Because the new leadership in the Minister of ICC, you know, they are asking for practical leadership. So if you're talking of affordable, you want affordable Internet, you want affordable work, but they wanted to offer practical lessons. And maybe that's where we need to go back on to the drawingboard.

     Now, how can the suggestions that we are making be taken forward? And just looking at -- one of the speakers spoke about the "enhanced cooperation" and the fact that there was a questionnaire that people responded.

     Now, the Kenya Civil Society responded to this questionnaire. And one of the things that emerged is that enhanced cooperation must listen and understand different views in terms of cultural and geographic diversity. And the Civil Society then sees the significance of enhanced cooperation as a place where deliberations and outcomes of Internet Governance policy will be arrived at consensus, at a consensus, and that all stakeholders will feel their input has been considered.

     They also feel that enhanced cooperation will enable the stakeholder to participate in International Public Policy issues, again on an equal footing. And they see that happening through a multi-stakeholder model.

     And I want to end there. Thank you.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much. Can we check the other microphone? Because we will probably need to use this for roaming for questions. This one is not working anymore.

     So let's open it to the floor. We have about 20 minutes for questions and discussion. And so who has -- now it's working now. Great. Thank you.

     So who has something they would like to ask or comment on?

     Yes. At the back. I can get you to do the running around. Thank you very much, Anita.

     >> AUDIENCE: Thank you for the wonderful workshop and thank you for all the speakers. Actually, I wanted to say something about the references to WCIT. It's funny enough from my own experience, I've been involved in ITU work for some time, especially the Working Group that worked on preparation for WCIT for some time. And the notion I want to stress, actually, is that the community and the Internet community, the IGF community, some of them were aware of discussions about ITRs. I recall seeing Mr. Peter Dengate-Thrush, the ICANN President at that time, in one of the meetings of that Working Group. He was informally there and he was informed about the discussions.

     But it took the community too long to recognize that something is really happening, and it's coming on the way.

     And I didn't see much action by many stakeholders, including Governments, in terms of making consultations, until the very last month before the Conference in Dubai, which made it very difficult for the Conference in Dubai to actually conclude on a more solid ground.

     And I think now we are in a similar position. We know that the model is not perfect. I don't know if it's broken or not, but it's certainly not perfect. There is something that could be done.

     There is another event happening, coming up in Brazil, and we keep discussing other issues related to it, whether it's multi-stakeholderism, multi-lateral, what are the norms and what are the modalities. But we also need to keep our mind focused on what to propose at those coming meetings. There is something happening and we should be prepared early on this time.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you. Does anyone on the panel want to comment? I'm sure we all agree with that, but does anybody have any specific remarks?

     Yes.

     >> NIGEL HICKSON: Yes, thank you very much. Just two brief points. I mean, yes, indeed, I think we agree with you.

     Clearly it did seem to be that there was a lack of understanding in the process leading up to the WCIT, which was a reasonably open process. Lots of people were involved in the preparation of the ITRs. But then the ITRs were labeled as the International Telecommunication Regulation. So I suppose for some it was a surprise to see proposals for changes to those ITRs that included naming and addressing and other Internet-related issues. Perhaps that reflects some of it.

     I think as we move forward, then, clearly, and The Honorable Ambassador, I think his very wise and measured words to us earlier, I think we should, you know, we should take to heart and follow very carefully.

     Clearly Brazil is entering into this venture in a very open and pragmatic and in a way which I think that hopefully will result in an excellent discussion on Internet Governance. And I mean, clearly, you know, wherever we come from, wherever, whatever our views are, there does seem to be a real desire to find perhaps better ways forward in certain areas on how we can deal with these very important issues to us.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you. Parminder, do you want to --

     >> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Are there any hands up?

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Maybe you can respond briefly and then we will go to this question.

     >> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yes, we agree completely that the way you suddenly throw WCIT at people and the kind of things which really happened there, and in that context, again, we seem to have developed a very big distrust of the processes. How many of you were at WSIS? Did you participate in any of the WSIS processes? The WSIS process is the most participatory process that I have seen. It's not like ICANN because dealing with the Public Policy issues, you have to be careful about what you capture. Over two years text was developed and there were Civil Society caucuses, disability, gender caucus, they were self organised, they were inputting material, other groups were inputting material. It would all go on the screen in a negotiating room. You could go up and write a line and it went on the screen and it had to be negotiated down.

     So it's a huge two-year process of developing a document, which finally you all agree has done really well and given us a lot of support for the kind of things that we are doing. So yes, I think it should be an elaborative process and WCIT was suddenly thrown at all of us.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Where is the microphone? Can someone pass it to the gentleman here? Thanks.

     >> AUDIENCE: Hi. My name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm a geek. So I'm somewhat -- perhaps I'm familiar with the situation here. But I've been struggling a little bit with the discussions for this week, trying to figure out sometimes what people are talking about. And it has occurred to me that part of the problem may be that we're trying to talk about Internet Governance, and an awful lot -- you know, that covers an awful lot of ground. It's a very big topic. And I wonder whether the panel members might have a view about how we might divide the space set up into more reasonable packets. You know, somewhat more digestible lumps, so we can talk about different kinds of things. Sometimes people seem to be talking about Internet Governance and what they want to talk about is how the DNS works and how packets flow. And sometimes they want to talk about child pornography, and those are very different problems. And it seems to me that they require different kinds of solutions and they require different sorts of stakeholders be involved in that. And I'm just not sure how we -- how we can have meaningful conversations about Internet Governance at this high level without dividing it into smaller groups and then engaging the relevant people.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: That is a problem that we have had for a long time. To some people it means names and numbers, and to other people it's broader. The Working Group on Internet Governance that reported to the World Summit was responsible for supposedly settling that question in favor of a broader definition. But the confusion still reigns.

     Do you want to talk to that on the panel?

     >> ELLEN BLACKLER: One of the interesting things that happened at the IGF is the way it gets sorted out is many of these different pieces of it are addressed. We happen to be at a session that is talking kind of about the process structure. But you can look on the agenda, there is a whole bunch of sessions about child safety, there is a whole other bunch of sessions about big data and another one about freedom of expression. There are other sessions about naming. And one of the things that is a phenomenon as you come here, you can go through the whole five days and be here, and there are just some people you never lay eyes on because they are on a different track. So in some ways I think the process by design was meant to self organise in that way, and not decide for other people what is or isn't in the boat.

     And there is a pretty elaborate multi-stakeholder process that decides what is on the agenda, where anyone can make the proposal, and the MAG works through the proposals. And sometimes it seems process heavy, but I think the -- it's a way to deal with that very issue that you raise. And I don't hear many complaints about ultimately what is and isn't allowed. There is much adjustment that has to go on as we try to make room for everything. And maybe someone who is on the IGF improvements Committee, I don't know if Parminder has additional insight on how we tried to sort that out.

     >> ERNESTO: In my view, the importance and also the beauty of working in a multi-stakeholder environment is that each party, each stakeholder, can come up with its strengths and its expertise and exercise their roles and responsibilities in an informed way that is taken into account by others. In that sense I fully agree with you that sometimes it's quite confusing to understand and sometimes it's even maybe when we hear some statements on Internet Governance, it's better to see to which part of the discussions are relating. It clearly indicates that it refers to ICANN, ITU, critical resources, and in other contexts something larger.

     I think the beauty of the exercise that we are engaging in, in enhanced cooperation, is exactly trying to come up with a way to, first of all, have a better understanding of what is there, to have a mapping of what is there. And on the basis of this, to devise ways in which cooperation could be further improved within the existing institutions, processes fora. How can we work with what we have to improve, but also to identify existing gaps or something that might be -- it's a very complex exercise because it deals with so many different things at the same time. Because the Internet today is an overwhelming mechanism that deals with each and every aspect of life.

     So I think it's -- maybe we started the discussion and we must limit the scope and maybe focus on some particular aspects before moving on. But I think the enhanced cooperation exercise will provide us with tools at least to initiate this in a more informed way.

     But building on extensive work that has been done, things that were done in the past, so I think we are building on something that is already there. We are not working apart, of course. But I think we are -- I think the new environment in which we live, from our perspective, is providing much more legitimacy for each stakeholder to accept each other, for mutual acceptance, and we wish this will be the final outcome.

     And on the basis of this, to work, to have a more sovereign look at what we have but also a look that will not impede us to make any decisions that are required to make the system work better.

     We think we would lose an opportunity if we just engage in a bureaucratic exercise, that in itself, that we are not bold enough or creative enough to find new ways. And I think what we are proposing is more or less in that direction. We want to come up with some ideas that can be interjected in the process and make it work better.

     So it has been asked in this panel, is the Internet Governance broken? No. It's not. We are -- fortunately, it's not. But can it be improved and adjusted? Certainly, from our point of view, in many aspects.

     Thank you.

     >> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I appreciate a geek's desire for efficient classifications, and actually that is a problem. And as for broken, also, I mean, there are different areas. A geek in ICANN, they can say it isn't broken, but somebody's e-mail is being read globally, that guy would say it's broken. So it's a difficult situation to decide whether it's broken or not.

     But on classification, I think there is an effort and I think we have to go and categorize, otherwise nothing would move. The Tunis agenda commented on day-to-day cooperations. And so there are requirements, and it's Internet Governance it has requirements, but it cut out enhanced cooperation. What the Working Group on enhanced cooperation did in the last meeting in June. I think, the first week of June, is to do another classification. It separated the Public Policy issues which are pertaining to the day-to-day technical functions from general Public Policy issues which pertain to social, economic, privacy, economic competition, and they have separated two parts. And we agree each of them have different requirements.

     And first, separations are important. So that is happening. And when you said they have to be dealt with separately. There is a challenge. All of them are Internet, so it's not really, you know, trade and climate change, though they are related, but they're not that different.

     So we need a converging mechanism which deals with the Internet related aspects of security, trade, intellectual property, and develop some frameworks, and then hand it over to the concerned organisation. When we look at the security issue, it has an IP issue, it has a technical issue, it could have a trade issue. And if we allow just the specialized organizing to deal with it, they wouldn't do very good work about it. Because they would bring traditional -- ITU would bring telecom thinking, IP would think about IP. So you need a converging mechanism but also an interactive relationship with the specialized ones, and that would be popular.

     Thank you.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Anyone else? Yes, at the back. Can someone pass over the microphone?

     Thanks.

     >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. My name is Michaka in from the Polish organisation.

     This was informative, and especially hearing the different views about WCIT, to which I participated as well. It was very enlightening, because we all have different opinions about that and it was very enlightening to hear different opinions.

     But coming back to the issue, so I would like to ask the question concerning how to -- because we are all discussing how to make multi-stakeholderism more multi-stakeholder, so involving more actors. And often I hear arguments that basically there are a lot of organisations that are participating in various foras, but mostly these organisations are western based. And what we hear at least in Poland is, and for example in the preparatory process for WCIT, that these organisations that we have in Poland, they cannot really travel and then be active participants of the whole process because of lack of resources.

     And, of course, and on top of that, and some of the colleagues already discussed that since the Internet Governance is such a complicated issue, that it includes the privacy, cybersecurity, IP questions, et cetera, et cetera. So it's even more difficult to follow different streams and different organisations and different works.

     So the question would be how would -- what do you think about how the Member States or various organisations like IGF can address this issue? And I'm trying to answer it myself to this question would be to -- one possibility would be to provide a more virtual participation solution. But I want to know how -- I don't know how successful these are, how many people are following these debates.

     And the second one is by encouraging Member States to really embrace multi-stakeholderism and try to fit in the -- this process from the national point of view. Because as we know, it's all very nice to be -- to come here to Bali and then discuss, but I guess we are all kind of privileged to be here. But I guess the majority of stakeholders are not really present at the discussion.

     Thank you very much.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: There are other sessions that have been specifically talking about how to improve the way that national and regional IGFs can act as inputs into the global IGF. But maybe some of the panelists here have particular comments?

     Yes.

     >> ELLEN BLACKLER: I agree. Also one thing that we do is we work with organisations that try to grow Civil Society, particularly in the countries where that needs to be grown. So part of it is about bringing the folks who are poised to come, come. Trying to figure out a way to attack that. And the regional IGFs, and the, you know, everyone who is coming should have an open multi-stakeholder process behind them before they even get here.

     But one of the things that we also do is work with organisations like Freedom House that both is growing Civil Society in countries where that needs a boost, and then bringing a delegation here. So it's a long tale to making this work and you have to do all of those things, including really support the growth of Civil Society in countries that, you know, even that is new.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: And thank you.

     >> ERNESTO: Yes, in relation to this, I was very glad when I heard the statement that was issued in regard to the summit returning to Brazil, and we can fully agree with the terms there. I don't think that exactly concerned me is the call for the participation to be guaranteed and resourced, which is something that entails something that would go far beyond the kind of support we could provide.

     But I wanted to confer the positive experience we had in Brazil with the Brazilian steering Committee. They are responsible for management of dot br. One of the most important I would say activities relating to providing support to multi-stakeholderism is to provide assistance for members that represent different sectors to come to those meetings. As you see, even in IGF there are a number and a very representative group coming from the Brazilian. So this is a way maybe to use, that Governments and multi-stakeholders take and enhance this by working together with the multi-stakeholder institutions that are dealing with the Internet and relying on different sources. But our experience is very positive in that regard.

     Thank you.

     >> JEREMY MALCOLM: Thank you very much. That is all we have time for. So thank you very much and let's join in giving a hand to the panelists.

     (Applause)

     And also to the audience. Thank you for your questions.

     (End of session, 4:00 p.m.

    

 

********

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

********

 

 

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 678