2nd CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM TRANSCRIPT OF THE MORNING SESSION FRIDAY 19 MAY 2006 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Transcription

1 2nd CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM TRANSCRIPT OF THE MORNING SESSION FRIDAY 19 MAY 2006 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the 2nd Consultations on the Convening of the Internet Governance Forum, in Geneva on 19 May 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. Good morning. And welcome to Geneva. This is the second time we are meeting on this whole question of planning for the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, which, as you know, was one of the major decisions which came out of the Tunis summit. We -- as you know, we had the consultation in February. Many of you were here. There was a range of views which was expressed on how this forum should be convened, constituted, and managed. Subsequent to that, I'm truly grateful to many of you who gave your views in more detail to the secretariat. And I must really thank all of the missions in Geneva who cooperated so well with the head of the secretariat, Mr. Markus Kummer, in developing this notion. Obviously, we were not trying to get a complete sort of negotiated agreement or any such thing, but to get a good sense of what's the range of views, what would be possible, what is definitely not possible, et cetera, and conveyed that to the secretary general. And the secretary general has constituted this advisory group to assist him in convening the Internet Governance Forum. As you will recollect, this forum is something which is of a very unique character. It is in not a formal intergovernmental meeting, as most U.N. meetings are, but it is a meeting which will be convened by the secretary general of the United Nations. And therefore this -- the primary purpose of this advisory group is to advise the secretary general on the processes of convening this meeting. We also know that the first meeting, which the host is the government of Greece, the government of Greece is represented on this advisory group. And, of course, the United Nations, the secretary general's office, the secretariat, which has been set up, they're in the United Nations to support the IGF, which is headed by Markus Kummer, and the host country will work very closely together on organizational issues. I may just here just mention in -- as a slight digression that I have requested, if it's feasible, somebody from the government of Greece, possibly Mr. George Papadatos himself, to give a little briefing on logistical issues, because I don't know when we will have a chance again to come together. And hopefully we will do that first thing in the afternoon. I don't see Mr. PAPADATOS here, but I did convey to him earlier. And I do hope that he will be able to do that, because I think it's very important that while discussing policy issues, we should keep in sight the logistical questions as to the meeting access space, hotels, et cetera. The announcement about the establishment of the advisory group came, if I may be permitted to say so, in the nick of time, on the 17th of May. It's there. You will see it. And as you can see from the short preamble to the list of members which is there, the main task which has been given to us as an advisory group is to prepare the substantive agenda and program for the first meeting of the forum which is to be held in Athens, from 30th October to 2nd of November. I would like to stress that at this stage, we are only focusing on the first meeting. Questions about how the future will be handled, et cetera, we will perhaps have to come to after we gain some experience, some learning, from this process. Of course, when we discuss issues about priorities for the substantive agenda and program, we will also have to have a little thought to the format of the meeting. And I hope that when you speak, you will be able to give your views and comments on that also. What we are doing to do is a process of open consultation. The advisory group will be meeting on Monday and Tuesday. It is very important that the members of the advisory group have a good sense of what is the broad sentiment on these issues amongst the people who are -- who are likely to be very active participants in the forum. And it's for this reason that we have this open consultation. The questions from my side are basically your views on issues of what agenda, the themes which should be on the agenda, the program itself, which at the moment is scheduled to be there for -- well, it's 30th October to 2nd November, that's four days. But

2 presumably, that is something that we should address. But the provision is there for up to four days of meeting. I would also very much welcome your views on issues of format and so on. And I have no doubts that you also, in your turn, will have certain questions about the convening of the meeting to the secretary general, and I will try and respond to that as best as I can. My suggestion for our process today of open consultation is that there are -- many members of the group are present here, and I hope that they will also listen carefully to all that is going on. That we have a general discussion, open the floor for a general discussion in the morning. That if, after we've heard views which I hope will cover the range of issues that we need to decide, I will try and summarize it. And then, of course, we will take it to the advisory group on Monday. And my hope is that at the end of Tuesday, the advisory group will have a fairly clear set of proposals on how this meeting is to be organized, what its themes will be, what will be the sessions, et cetera, so that we have a basis for forward planning. The -- there are other issues which the advisory group may have to consider, like does it need to meet again before the Athens meeting. But I will leave that to the advisory group to look at. So with these words, I would like to start the discussions. But before that, I would like to hand the floor to Markus Kummer, if he wishes to add anything or if there are any other announcements that he needs to make. SECRETARY KUMMER: Thank you, chairman. Just a few words of explanation. You may be used that we have interpretation in all six languages. Unfortunately, this time, this was not possible. So we only have French and Spanish and English. Again, you're used to the system now that everything is put on the screen immediately as it is spoken. So we would ask that people who are planning to say something, that they may write down their name or have a business card ready so our helpers can go around the room and get the names and give them to our scribes so that they're correctly on the screen. And last, but maybe most importantly, I have to apologize. An error occurred when we put up the list with members of the advisory group. And for some inexplicable reason, the member proposed by the government of Ghana got left out. The list has been corrected now. It's on our Web site and also on the U.N. Web site in New York. His name is Issah Yahaya. He is head of the policy planning, monitoring, and evaluation of telecoms in the Ministry of Telecommunications of Ghana. We have apologized to him, and he will be attending the meeting of the advisory group. Thank you, chairman. Brazil. Okay. The floor is open. Japan, Pakistan, United States, >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. federation. Russian >>JAPAN: Let me congratulate the IGF on its establishment and, more specifically, its secretariat. Japan welcomes Mr. Desai and Mr. Kummer. Japan welcomes excellent nomination of the members of the advisory group, who are quite appropriate in addressing the diversity of issues on ICT that are emerging today. Let us reiterate our understanding that the private sector has played a significant role in the development of the Internet. At the same time, since the Internet has become an important part of social infrastructure, not only the private sector, but also government, as well as various users, should be involved in addressing issues of social and global importance. As there are many emerging issues related to the Internet, it is greatly beneficial to share experiences among multistakeholders. Japan welcomes such a multistakeholder meeting where thorough discussions can take place and Japan can share the diversity of experience in broadband and ubiquitous network environment, including issues related to capacity-building, spam, as well as issues related to the benefit of broadband and ubiquitous society and so on. On a final note, Japan wishes the IGF every success. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3 Then I have Pakistan, Brazil, United States. >>PAKISTAN: Thank you, Mr. DESAI. I'd like to thank you and Mr. Kummer for arranging this meeting, these consultations, which are extremely useful. I take the floor on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. Most of you may know already that this statement is therefore on behalf of 133 member states of the United Nations. Mr. DESAI, we are glad to see the process of preparations of the IGF getting on road with the composition of the ad hoc advisory process being posted on the Web site, and with the meetings being proposed for next week. As mentioned in the discussions held yesterday, the Group of 77 and China believe that WSIS belongs to the series of U.N. summits that focused on economic and social development issues our declared commitment in the Geneva Declaration of Principles that began the objective of the summit, including all aspects dealing with the Internet governance, was to create a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. The Internet Governance Forum should operationalize this commitment of a development-oriented information society. With therefore believe that the mandate, work, agenda, structure, composition, frequency, and venue of meetings of the IGF must be geared towards achieving this objective. Internet Governance Forum must be structured on the basis of regional representation and convened on the principle of geographic rotation, with particular reference to developing countries. Mr. Chairman, the Group of 77 and China would like to reiterate paragraph 65 of the Tunis Agenda that underlines the need to maximize participation of developing countries in decisions of Internet governance. IGF must be characterized by a balanced approach to its multistakeholder participation. Such an approach, from our perspective, would necessitate ensuring adequate and effective participation by governments, civil society, and businesses from developing countries, as well as international organizations that are representative of their development aspirations. The objectives must be to seek balanced representation both in terms of physical presence and intellectual input in all formal and informal meetings, in all deliberations, and in any decision-making processes. This would ensure diversity of view, a transparent, democratic, and a multilateral process on Internet governance that would be inclusive and responsive to the needs of developing countries. Mechanisms must also be devised, including through support through businesses and NGOs to fund multistakeholder participation from developing countries. We would also like to reiterate in this context and recall paragraph 17 of the Tunis Agenda, which underscores the principles of good corporate governance and corporate social responsibility towards economic and social development of host countries. Mr. DESAI, paragraph 65 of the Tunis Agenda needs to be operationalized through the IGF. The Group of 77 and China believe that this paragraph is not limited to capacity-building issues only, but highlights the systemic perspective of development-oriented governance. We've said this earlier, we'd like to reiterate that instead of a reductionist approach to the development aspects of Internet governance, by limiting it to capacity-building, the Group of 77 and China reiterate that these issues have to be dealt in a comprehensive manner. The development aspects have been addressed in a number of paragraphs in the Tunis Agenda. Paragraph 49 is one example that affirms commitment on behalf of the international community to turning the digital divide into digital opportunity by ensuring harmonious and equitable development for all and addressing issues like international interconnectivity costs, know-how, transfer, multilingualism, and providing the users with a choice of different software models, including open source, free proprietary software. It would therefore be important for our deliberations to development -- to develop a substantive agenda that is development-oriented. In this context, the Group of 77 and China have already sent forth a list of subjects that it considers of priority for discussions within the IGF. While outlining a multiyear program, the IGF must not lose the development perspective in examining all these issues and seek to operationalize the development content of the Tunis Agenda, with particular reference to the following -- and this is the list that has already been provided to Mr. Kummer. The list is as follows: A, bridging the digital divide, access, policy, and financing. B, affordability and availability of the Internet. C, international interconnection costs. D, technology and know-how transfer. E, multilingualism and local content. F, local development of

4 software and open source software. G, capacity-building and participation of multistakeholders from developing countries. H, equitable and stable and -- resource management. I, Internet access and international transit arrangements. This, basically, will be the focus of the agenda of the Group of 77 and China in the discussions that we hope to be -- that we hope that will be held in the context of the IGF. We believe that the IGF process must stay close to the WSIS model and build and draw on the established concepts and practices. The Group of 77 and China, being the largest stakeholders in the process, would be willing to work closely with all other stakeholders to ensure a development-oriented future for Internet governance that promotes interconnectivity and affords universal accessibility. We look forward to working with the advisory group in preparations to prepare for the first IGF meeting in Greece. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Brazil and the United States or the United States and Brazil. Which way? Would you like to go? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Desai. I would just like to reiterate the views of the United States on the Internet Governance Forum. The United States reiterates its commitments to the results of the WSIS and, in particular, to the convening of the IGF. In order for the Internet Governance Forum to realize its full potential, we believe that it is critical to ensure that all stakeholders from the Internet community participate in the event and its planning on an equal footing. The IGF should offer an opportunity for leading Internet experts from around the world to share experiences and offer visions that support the continued evolution and expansion of the Internet. Consequently, the issue of the use of information and communication technologies to advance development should be at the heart of these discussions. One possible approach to the IGF would involve a series of panels composed of innovators, scholars, and industry leaders from around the world who could debate inter-related policy matters such as the free flow of information, capacity-building, expanded Internet access, cybersecurity, spam, and privacy. The United States believes that the IGF should be a truly multistakeholder event. Therefore, it is important that it not be encumbered by extensive existing United Nations processes and procedures. Attendance and participation in the IGF should be open to a broad array of stakeholders, including governments, business entities, civil society, scientists, and intergovernmental organizations. Linkages to the U.N. should be minimal in terms of procedures. And the IGF should avoid burdensome preparatory processes. The secretariat should be small, with the mission to support the smooth functioning of the IGF, and to facilitate broad participation in the event. Finally, a multistakeholder bureau will be extremely important to act as a program committee and to offer input as to discussion topics, speakers, and format. The promise of the IGF and open and inclusive dialogue amongst all stakeholders of the international Internet community to discuss critical issues concerning the future of the Internet is viewed by the United States as a positive development. We look forward to a successful inaugural meeting of the IGF in Athens, Greece, later this year. Thank you very much. If I may now turn to Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you here again. I wish you all the luck that you are going to need. That doesn't sound very promising. [ Laughter ] I hope I will manage without luck this time. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, let me say at the outset that Brazil fully supports the statement delivered by the delegation of Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 77, which is composed of more than 100 countries. A development perspective shall be the background of our debate. This umbrella should also encompass capacity-building, global public policies related to the generic

5 top-level domain names, and international interconnection costs. Mr. Chairman, Brazil would like to convey to the United Nations secretary general its appreciation for the organization of this second consultation on the Internet Governance Forum. This is certainly a step forward to the international community in its endeavor to set up what our heads of states and heads of governments decided at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis last year. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to repeat myself. Nevertheless, as the Brazilian delegation has already stated during the first consultation on the IGF last February, we decided in Tunis to request the United Nations secretary general to help us on two tasks. The first one was to convene by the second quarter of 2006 a meeting of the new forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, called Internet Governance Forum, which is paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. But we also asked the secretary general to start a process towards an enhanced cooperation by the end of the first quarter of 2006, Mr. Chairman. I think it's March 31st, which is paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda. We are aware of the fact that this meeting is related specifically to the Internet Governance Forum, and therefore, it is the Brazilian delegation's understanding that another meeting is going to be organized to take care of the enhanced cooperation process. Brazil is confident of that, Mr. Chairman. In fact, not only Brazil is confident and eager to help; Latin America and the Caribbean region, the GRULAC, is also confident. To be precise, Mr. Chairman, the European Union is also ready to support the United Nations secretary general on this task, which is to start a process towards an enhanced cooperation. Let me quote paragraph 6 of the Lisbon declaration approved at the fourth European Union, Latin America, and the Caribbean ministerial forum on the information society, held in Portugal last April. And I quote: We -- and this "we," of course, means the E.U. and GRULAC. We welcome with satisfaction the efforts put forward by the secretary general of the United Nations to organize the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Athens next October. We also -- and this is the most important thing. We also reaffirm our conviction that the process towards an enhanced cooperation initiative on Internet governance shall deserve the full commitment of our governments, and we express our support to and offer our help for the United Nations secretary general during the preparatory process aiming at the first meeting of this initiative in End of quote. Mr. Chairman, let's turn to the topics on discussion today. On the paper prepared by the IGF secretariat, which summarizes the discussions and contributions to the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, one topic was underplayed, which is, Internet governance itself. One has to agree that it would be ironic not to discuss Internet governance at an Internet Governance Forum. One may argue that this would depend on what one means by "Internet governance." That is fair. For Brazil, Mr. Chairman, Internet governance is a set of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. The paper prepared by the secretariat mentioned what we mean by Internet governance marginally, and I quote: "Another frequently discussed issue involved the transparent and equitable management of critical Internet resources." End of quote. Only two lines in a five-page report. Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude by quoting paragraph 60 of the Tunis Agenda. "We further recognize that there are many cross-cutting international public-policy issues that require attention and are not -- not -- adequately addressed by current mechanisms." End of quote. After more than two years negotiating how to reach a globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources aiming at a transparent and equitable management of critical Internet resources, Mr. Chairman, we cannot, we should not, go to Athens and not debate this central topic. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think I'm going to need the luck. Austria. >>AUSTRIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the floor. Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of the European Union and the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania today. The E.U. would like to thank you for holding the consultations, which we appreciate very much. We appreciate this opportunity to further exchange views on the Internet Governance Forum, as we attach great importance to making this forum a success. In this context, the

6 present consultations, as well as the meeting of the advisory group in the following days, constitute for us a welcome opportunity to work towards ensuring that the first meeting of the IGF will focus on substance. We hope that the upcoming meeting of the advisory group will decide on the agenda of the inaugural meeting of the IGF in Athens, the themes to be discussed there, and the number of working groups and/or panels. We looked with great interest into the submissions by other participants, as we have already stressed during the previous consultations, we consider the multistakeholder nature of the forum as essential, and we are glad to see that, indeed, this forum attracts the interest of a wide range of representatives on the different stakeholder groups. On issues of substance, we had already the opportunity to present the topics that we would consider appropriate for a first meeting of the IGF at the last consultations, held in February. Spam and relevant security-related aspects and multilingualism. We had already welcomed developing countries to bring forward additional topics of importance to them in the context of bridging the digital divide. Therefore, we reassured to see that those topics were also raised in other contributions and that there is broad consensus on an overall development orientation of the IGF. We would also like to reiterate our view that aiming at the constructive debate, the IGF meetings might benefit from focusing on a limited number of subjects. We welcome the establishment of the advisory group. We would also like to stress that the participating E.U. members are committed to supporting the effective work of this group in the following days. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Russian federation. >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for giving the floor to us. The main task for us that we have to avoid the risk of very deep decomposition of the subjects and putting the results of this decomposition into the agenda as a separate topics. According to that, Russian federation submitted proposals to the Internet Governance Forum agenda. And they are as follows: First, information security, the consideration of the international information security issue should, in our view, constitute one of the priority directions in the work of the Internet Governance Forum. Within the framework of this issue, we propose to examine inter alia the following interrelated topics: Spam, cybercrime, and cybersecurity. We have to avoid the risk of very deep decomposition and loss of understanding the information security as it is. We would like to pay attention to the fact that serious concerns are caused by the potential to use Internet means and resources by states to exert hostile military and political influence on other countries. Such potential is a great threat to international security and stability. Therefore, in the context of security-related matters, we propose to examine the topic of international information security in a comprehensive manner, including the issues of cyber security, Spam, the threats of cyber crime, cyber terrorism, and hostile use of the Internet potential by states. Second, bridging the digital divide. The problem of digital divide, or that of the non-equal access to the information, is one of the key problems of development in the framework of creation and development of the global information society, as well as of the information society in individual countries. Second -- excuse me, third: Ensuring the stability, security, and continuity of the Internet and the affordability, reliability, and quality of service. Ensuring the stability, security, and continuity of the Internet is required for any activity that is carried out in this global information network or uses it. The international community should give close attention to the principles of the Internet Governance Forum. We also would like to mention that the above-mentioned problems could not be started and resolved within ITU participation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: I have two -- >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Excuse me, I do apologize for my mistake. The last sentence was definitely not "with ITU," but "without ITU participation." [ Laughter ]

7 >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that. I do apologize. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: We would not dream of doing this without their help. And repeat, I have a couple people. I would like to invite some people from civil society now because I think we need to get a mix of views. And I have Art Reilly from Cisco Systems and Robert Guerra from Privaterra. >>ART REILLY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Kummer. My name is Art Reilly speaking on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce and the CCBI. The first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Athens will set the stage for future IGF events. The global business community, represented here by ICC/CCBI, has the following preliminary comments on a few critical issues to make this first IGF a success and to ensure that it can have positive impact and results and tangible benefits for the discussions. The heads of state at WSIS clearly recognize that all aspects of the Internet Governance Forum are a matter for all stakeholders. We are pleased that the U.N. Secretary-General has announced the members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, and we welcome the selection of this group. Those business advisors and indeed the whole business community look forward to contributing to a successful first IGF meeting in the same way that our colleagues from civil society, the Internet community, and governments contribute. Careful selection of the agenda consistent with a few well-defined criteria will be essential to meet the goal of a successful IGF in Athens. This preliminary input proposes a few of these criteria and demonstrates how they can be applied to a given topic. Innovation, creativity, and investment by business is a major driving force behind development of the Internet. To ensure its continued positive development with the involvement of all stakeholders from around the world, we believe it is critical to increase the ability of people to participate in the Internet's development and must be addressed as a priority. Business firmly believes that the first IGF meeting in Athens and future IGF events will be more successful if there is focus on one overarching topic and perhaps a few closely related issues. This view has also been expressed by a number of governments. This would ensure effective use of limited resources, both financial and human, to achieve substantial progress. Some of the main objectives of the IGF are to encourage dialogue, exchange of information and experiences, raise awareness as well as foster a better understanding of all dimensions, challenges, and the existing and ongoing work on a particular issue that could benefit from such global multistakeholder discussion. With this in mind, an end-up discussion and exchange among all the attendees will be much more constructive. We believe the participants at the IGF should come away from it with substantive experience, and this can best be achieved by ensuring true focus and sufficient depth of discussion on key aspects of the topic. Given the topics selected will be of general interest to all attendees who are likely to participate and want to participate. For example, especially small delegations will find a single-topic approach will allow all delegations to participate in the entire program. We believe that the following criteria should be given and applied to the agenda topic, considered for the first IGF, and future IGF meetings, and should be evaluated in light of the WSIS objectives and in particular the Tunis Agenda. Any topic to be considered for the IGF agenda should be important to the continued development of the Internet and it should help bring the benefits of the Internet to all people. The topic should truly benefit from further outreach and information exchange in order to build human capacity at the global level, to foster a common understanding among all the stakeholders. It should be ripe for discussion at the time of the IGF, and would further the economic and social development objectives contained in the WSIS commitments. And the topics should also respond to a need expressed by many stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, for assistance in building a knowledge base for their involvement and participation in the Internet Governance processes. It is clear that any topic selected will require a variety of experts and their selection as speakers or panelists for the IGF program must reflect the range of expertise required for the topic under discussion. We appreciate this opportunity very much to provide these initial views on the subject, and we look forward to additional contributions

8 over the course of the day. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Next Mr. Robert Guerra from Privaterra. >>ROBERT GUERRA:Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished IGF attendees. I would like to first say that it's my first IGF consultation and would like to thank the IGF and the Secretariat for the virtual methods being used to transmit the proceedings of this meeting. I followed the meeting in February virtually, and I must say it was quite useful to have the transcripts real time. I would suggest any further consultation and the IGF forum itself not only use these tools but also use more real-time tools as well. Not everyone can attend these meetings. Not all countries can attend these meetings. And the use of such technology emphasizes that we are using tools of the information society for the discussions of the information society in the Internet Governance Forum. I will limit my comments to three very short points. One is in regards to the advisory group, and secondly on the Internet Governance Forum itself. In regards to discussions that have been taking place on civil society discussion spaces on the advisory group I think it would be important over the course of the day to more idea and information on the exact scope and term limit of any of the advisory group. There is perhaps a misunderstanding, perhaps it might be personal, that the advisory group has been set up only to prepare the Athens meeting. Shall it be set up to prepare other meetings, that should be known in advance because it would be important to have that information. And specifically, how the advisory group will work with stakeholders between now and the Athens meeting itself. I think that working in a collaborative fashion, in an open fashion, in a consultative fashion would be appropriate. In regards to the forum itself, and specific areas or themes it should address, I want to make reference to point 23-A and 90 of the Tunis Agenda that emphasizes capacity building. Privaterra's focus area is capacity building around security and privacy, but we would call that the forum specifically focus on capacity building to both understand but to develop policy areas. I think another area as well, too, that if the Internet Governance Forum is a process that will go forward for the five-year mandate, something that has not been mentioned earlier is the area of benchmarks and indicators to track the progress of the Internet Governance Forum, whether we're going forward in a positive way or not. That was called on other areas of the WSIS, and that might be useful for the IGF. With that, I conclude my comments and wish us a productive couple of hours. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Just a clarification on a question you raised. Your understanding is correct. At the present stage, this forum's job is preparing for the Athens meeting. And what press release says is, decisions on how to prepare subsequent meetings and on any future structured working methods of the forum will be taken in the light of experiences gained during the preparatory process for the Athens meeting. Let's put it this way. This is an experiment. And we will see how it works out before we jump in and commit ourselves to a particular model for five years. We don't know. This is the first time we are trying something like this out in the U.N., and let's see how it works out, and how effective it is in generating a valuable and useful meeting. So we'll take stock afterwards. Nothing is ruled out, nothing is off the table. But right now, our focus is just the Athens meeting. May I say this, that this does not mean that we cannot give, if people have some suggestions on how the agenda could be structured over two or three years, because you can't possibly deal with everything that has been mentioned in one full-day meeting. That will also be welcome. One can always transmit it to whatever process will be carried on beyond Athens. But please do not feel inhibited on commenting on the full sequence of meetings, though our primary task is that of Athens. Yes, I have the government of Chile. >>CHILE:...preparatory meeting looking ahead to the IGF. I would also, on behalf of Chile, to state that it would be useful to identify the most significant major themes, and then move on to consider the format that would be most appropriate for dealing with these themes. We feel that the themes that we

9 have been discussing, such as security or the question of access are important. We also feel that we should do what we can to avoid duplicating our work. And we also feel that we should try to benefit from the -- to the utmost from the work done by working groups. We have to bear in mind that there are other groups working on the same issues and avoid overlap. Then with respect to those issues that we feel should be on the Athens agenda, as has already been said by the Pakistan delegation, it would be useful to consider ways of helping developing countries to fully participate. We think that would be important. And also, as was said by Brazil earlier, we also feel that it is very important that we consider what is enshrined in paragraph 70 and what it has to say about Internet resources. Thank you, sir. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: I have one more person from ICC, Zahaib Jamil. >> Opportunity on behalf of the developing community private sector and for this opportunity to make this intervention today. On the behalf of the CCBI I would like to make an intervention. Business endorses the topic of human capacity building. Human capacity building, training, and education are the fundamental basis for progress on all other issues in the IGF and the Information Society. Human capacity building in developing countries is essential to effect meaningful participation in government processes at all levels. It also enables the meaningful exchange of information and experiences among all stakeholders to build human capacities true the IGF that can make a substantive contribution towards increasing and improving the involvement of all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries in Internet Governance. Furthermore, since the human capacity building must be implemented at the national, regional and international levels by the concerted efforts of all stakeholders, the multistakeholder nature of the IGF will support this very objective. We believe that meaningful participation and discussions on access and policies is essential for effective Internet Governance. If we apply the criteria outlined earlier to the issue of bridging the digital divide or increasing digital opportunities, particularly from the perspective of increasing and improving access and shaping policies to support this, we believe that focusing on human capacity building permits us collectively to address the other important Internet Governance issues of today and starts preparing us now to address the issues of the future. If all stakeholders from around the world were to have a greater understanding of both Internet policies and Internet technologies, they would be better able to address such key Internet issues in the various organizations addressing them. Education and training, [inaudible] capacity, human capacity building are the cornerstones of success, not only in the use of ICTs, but also for participating in meaningful and productive deliberations and decision-making bodies, thus promoting the beneficial goals of an Information Society for all, which lies at the heart of the Geneva and Tunis commitments. From a business perspective, for economic and social development to flourish, all people must have access to basic education as a first step, and this must be followed by ICT-related skills development. Business recognizes the size of that task. In this regard, human capacity building in the area of ICT-related skills can be advanced through partnerships among stakeholders that would ensure that ICT training is widely available which would help apply the power and potential of ICTs in schools, communities and in the workplace. Indeed, such partnerships exist today. The IGF environment could naturally provide a place for stakeholders to share and network and potentially pursue new partnerships. For these reasons, business supports a focus on education and skills training for ICTs as essential elements to promote an information society for all as the ideal first topic on which to focus IGF attention. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Kummer. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Mr. David Wood of EBU. >> David Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, hello. Hi, my name is David Wood, and I am representing here the World Broadcasting Unions. They are eight unions of national broadcasters in the world and the combined club is called the world broadcasting unions. So we

10 have really a wide parish. I personally am with the European Broadcasting Union which is the organization of the 72 national broadcasters in Europe. We are very pleased and honored to be part of this discussion, and we were particularly pleased to be allowed to be part of the advisory group in a sense to bring the media industry, or part of the media industry's dimension to this discussion. And our feeling is the media industry is an important actor in the discussion about Internet, and that we have quite a lot to offer. We have activities in terms of technology and, in fact, if you are interested, tomorrow night we have what will probably be the world's largest peer-to-peer live stream with our large audience program which is called the EURO-vision songs contest. I am not responsible for the songs but I help a bit with the infrastructure. Anyway, that you can watch along with 100 million other viewers tomorrow night, or see on the Internet along with a couple of million people on the Internet. But our real core business is to deal with content, to do with media content, that is really what we do. When we look at the replies you had had, it did seem as if the number one on the hit parade for the song contest or anything else was capacity building. That seemed to be, and naturally seemed to be, the key component, the key job that the Internet Governance Forum has to do. And we've heard about how this discussion on capacity building might take place in Athens, and of course there are important issues to discuss concerning infrastructure, concerning open standards and so on, the technology. But my point, the reason I ask the floor is to suggest to you that that is not all that is needed. Capacity building must include for developing countries arrangements, measures which are associated with giving people the capacity to make good, compelling, interesting content, which people will use for education, for cultural, and for knowledge. If it is the case that the know-how, the audiovisual literacy resides, if you like, in the developed world and not in the developing world, this may well be a downstream passage of education, cultural, and knowledge into the developing world. It has to be that we have to equalize the Internet literacy, the audiovisual literacy of the world if we are to make use of the capacity. In the end, people do not want wires and resistors. They do not want rules and regulations. What they want is the content, the education, the culture and the knowledge. And we have to help people, at the same time as giving them the means, we have to help people be able to be creative. We have to help people on the creative side. So when you think of having a workshop on capacity building at Athens, please think, if you will, in terms of the different dimensions. Of course the technical dimension, the legal dimension. But please not forgetting that there has to be a creative dimension, there has to be a content side, there has to be measures and discussions about how to achieve and help people to achieve audiovisual expression if we are to make the full use of Internet capacity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: UNESCO. >>UNESCO: Thank you, chair. UNESCO is delighted to see you back in the chair, and Mr. Kummer in the Secretariat. Congratulations to all members of the advisory group. My name is Liz Longworth from UNESCO, as you have heard. On the topic of structuring, we would suggest that structuring around discrete topics, separates topics, without showing the linkages or end goal could possibly risk a lack of coherence, and perhaps we might miss an opportunity. By way of illustration, I have just participated in some of the action-line facilitation meetings, and one of the challenges in those meetings was how to deal with interlinked, interconnected, interdependent topics. Frequent, if I look back to the February discussions on how we should structure this forum, I note that freedom of expression and human rights sits in isolation from the other topics of where there is clearly a huge interdependence. And so to treat that subject, as one example, separately from others would not do justice to such an important issue. So UNESCO suggests that we could approach structuring around what needs to be done to ensure the Internet does grow and develop in a way that the potential and the power of the Internet can be harnessed for social and economic development, and particularly empowerment of people through access to knowledge. That takes us to an idea that perhaps we could approach the forum by looking again at the key attributes of governance of the Internet, and plenty of work and understandings now exist

11 on that. And we look at what is desirable, and then we articulate a series of strategic objectives for the Internet, and we can structure around that. I have two examples. The first is one of the key characteristics of the Internet is its openness, its transparency and its transversal nature, meaning it's not fragmented, not yet. Therefore, we could focus on what is needed to ensure that its evolution builds on these characteristics that would take you into dialogues on ways to ensure it remains open, that would take you to discussing the free flow of information, its technically distributed and interoperable nature. And within that context we could then be discussing freedom of expression and the importance of multilingualism on the Internet. The second idea, the second strategic objective, could be to structure around the democratizing effect of the Internet, where the forum could build on this by looking at ways to ensure that there is far greater participation by ordinary people and ordinary communities. And that would allow you to build in the development orientation that was discussed in February. I should note, though, just a little caution, that we do not end up replicating the action line facilitation and doing what is being done in the other fora. However, an approach like this would then allow you to take the second strategic objective of increasing participation and break it down into the number of issues that were raised by some of the first speakers this morning, where they had specific issues around Internet costs and all the other barriers. The other point I want to endorse is that this forum is a great opportunity to keep the dialogue going on how to respond to the challenges of the future. So I would endorse previous speakers who have called for the broadest possible participation in the forum, the broadest possible multistakeholder approach, and I would support the idea of using the forum as an opportunity for innovators and experts to actually come, present their ideas on how the Internet can be evolving. And we can bring some of the different communities around the Internet together. The -- To conclude, then, if we are to take a cross-cutting approach, then the forum could be a lot more -- a much better opportunity to bring all these experts together. So perhaps, to summarize, the two strategic objectives, without excluding any of the other good ideas that have come from the floor, first one, the first objective, would be how to ensure or to ensure that the Internet develops in a way that builds on the positive attributes of being open, transparent, and nonfragmented, and in this context, we address the importance of fostering the free flow of information, which includes the ability to communicate across linguistic boundaries. And in that way, we would incorporate the importance of multilingual Internet, and we would also incorporate the importance of respect for article 19 or freedom of expression. The second strategic objective would be to ensure that another attribute of the Internet, namely, its democratizing effect, is fostered by building the capacities, policies, and approaches that will result in increased participation by ordinary people and ordinary communities, in other words, that's the development perspective. I thank you, chair, for giving UNESCO the opportunity to participate. We are extremely interested in the outcome of this forum, and we will be with you and supporting the Advisory Group all the way. Thank you. Thank you. Azerbaijan. >>AZERBAIJAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, Mr. Kummer. I'm really thankful for, first of all, I'd like to extend sincere gratitude to secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, for allowing for the prompt and very easy convening of our meetings. And I would like also to extend thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for being the very democratic and very comfortable facilitator of our discussions today. I would like also to thank Mr. Kummer for the comfort he gave, at least to my delegation, to my mission, to work in this respect, in this regard. Now I'd like to turn and thank also the Greek government, the government of the Hellenic Republic, in advance. Now, I'd like to concur, of course, with the distinguished delegate of the Russian federation in his voicing his concern about information security as a broad conceptual and fundamental approach. It could not be discussed or may not be discussed, as he requested. From the other side, I would like also to concur with some other distinguished delegates in their comments, in their visions of how we should go

12 ahead. Now, as it comes to my delegation, we are of the view that the Internet Governance Forum should address the following three topics: First, cultural diversity. And here, congratulations also goes to the distinguished representative of UNESCO for also voicing this concern of hers. Second topic would be information security. Again, I would reiterate our position as a broad, conceptual, and fundamental crucial component, not to lose on our cultural. And third, the last but not the least, is, of course, the ethical and objective information exchange, which is management of Internet resources in an ethical and responsible fashion. I would like also to mention that the references to United Nations general assembly resolutions need to be ensured. Yet, in such a context that they should be also an accurate and clear mechanism which would allow for active participation of civil society, private sector, and, of course, mass media. Hence, process must be inclusive and allow for as wide a spectrum of debates as possible and as required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (inaudible). >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Drake. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I would like to make three quick points by way of suggestion. First is, in thinking about the question of selecting topics, it's clear that lots of people have many different ideas about what should be put forward. And it's also clear that we can't accommodate all those if you are planning to address things primarily through sort of large plenary-type sessions. There will be real tradeoffs imposed by creating artificial scarcities, and, obviously, some parties will go away quite unhappy. So I can't help thinking that it would be really useful in thinking about the structuring of this event to have a very good blend between the sort of large and plenary type sessions and smaller breakout workshops and that some of these various items that people have raised that they're very concerned about could be addressed in those. Many of them are issues that are, after all, subject to ongoing work in many different institutions and are probably not soluble over the course of four days in Athens, anyway. But they could at least be the subject of some focused conversation and perhaps workshops like this could then generate some preliminary recommendations or points of consensus which could then be brought back into plenary sessions. And the plenary sessions could also, then, focus more on the cross-cutting issues and the linkages between the recommendations that have been put forth by some of these workshops. So I guess, as a general point, I would just say that I do hope that as the Advisory Group contemplates the structure of the event, that there will be sufficient room for more specialized sorts of events which would then feedback into larger plenary things. A second question which I think is related to this, there's been a lot of talk about principles. And I do think that the plenary sessions in particular would be well served by focusing on guiding, overarching principles that should shape the way particular problems are addressed. And a number of people have put forward different visions of what the key principles are. Clearly, article 65 and a sort of systemic development approach is one very important sort of guiding principle. Another, of course, are the WSIS principles that were agreed throughout the WSIS process and which article 72 says the IGF should promote and assess on an ongoing basis with regard to their embodiment in existing Internet governance processes. And it would seem to me that, in particular, of those principles, that transparency and inclusive decision-making are important, overarching principles that should be looked at in relation to how we go about doing Internet governance in a variety of different forums. And that one could productively look at this and think about it in terms of identifying best practices, which then might be replicated in different environments. So I would simply suggest that perhaps this focus on principles would be very much consistent with the kind of blend that I was talking about. The last point I would make is, I hope that the Advisory Group will also consider the question of whether and how to recognize or incorporate parallel initiatives that might be launched by stakeholders that would be productively linked to the forum. I'm thinking in particular of the discussion that's been going on amongst many of us, including yesterday, about creating a