[Ecommerce] Internet Governance Forum official transcript of morning session

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-1-0216.txt





 CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING
 OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM
 GENEVA, 16 FEBRUARY 2006


 (Gavel).
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Good morning, and welcome to Geneva to the consultatio=
ns on the convening of the Internet Governance Forum, which was requested i=
n the Tunis Agenda.
 It's my pleasure to meet many old friends all over again.
 I thought you all had had enough time to exchange notes and find out what =
you all had been doing between Tunis and now.
 So I thought we'd get down to work.
 I really do not wish to take much time in the beginning, but I must begin =
by a big word of thanks, a big word of thanks to the many people who have -=
- who made it possible for us to get to this point where we can sit down an=
d talk constructively about how we address this issue of Internet -- of the=
 Internet Governance Forum.
 I would like to thank particularly the secretary general of the summit, Mr=
. Utsumi, who is here with me and who will, I'm sure, tell us -- give us hi=
s reflections on what is expected of us a little later.
 I wanted to thank minister WAHLI, who is here, who, for sure, had to bear =
a great burden of the work which was done in Tunis.
 I'm really happy that he could be here.
 I also wanted to particularly thank ambassador Janis Karklins and Ambassad=
or Masood KAHN.
 I really I want to express my deep appreciation of the work that they both=
 did, particularly Ambassador Masood Kahn, in leading the negotiations and =
the discussions which led to the outcome on this very difficult issue.
 There are, of course, others who have been very involved in that process, =
but these are the people I really wanted to thank, because they are the one=
s who have given us the basis for our work today.
 I will not say much more at this point, but just a word on how we will pro=
ceed.
 I was going to suggest that we spend the morning today listening to some g=
eneral statements about what people expect out of this Internet Governance =
Forum, and also their views on organizational issues which have been raised=
 in the questions which have been -- which were sent by the Secretariat.
 After this round of, if you like, open-ended debate, I thought I would try=
 and pose a set of questions.
 And then in the second round, people can come back with more precise repli=
es if you like, or comments, on some of these questions, and also possibly =
commenting on what has been mentioned by other people.
 I would like to stress that this is a multistakeholder consultation.
 And I would, therefore, invite everybody to be very free in seeking the fl=
oor.
 I apologize for the fact that we are not well-organized for name plates in=
 Geneva.
 I hope we can correct that as we go along.
 But I will try to do my best to recognize people.
 But in case you have a difficulty in getting yourself recognized, you just=
 send a little note, saying so-and-so from such and such organization wishe=
s to get the floor.
 In any case, let me tell you that even if we had name plates, at such a di=
stance with my eyesight, I'm not sure that I would be able to read those na=
me plates anyhow.
 So I apologize for the fact that the civil society and business sector and=
 other stakeholders do not have name plates, but we'll try and make up for =
that and make sure that we do have a balanced discussion.
 So I will suggestion, therefore, this process where we have first an open =
discussion, followed by a most structured discussion around certain questio=
ns.
 And I will try and put some sort of summary of areas where there is genera=
l agreement, perhaps areas where there is a variety of views.
 Because, essentially, my job is as a messenger, a messenger to convey to t=
he secretary general what views and sentiments here are.
 So I will try and give you a sense towards the end of the session tomorrow=
 evening on what the messages that I think I have received from listening t=
o people here.
 This is the process that I hope that we will be able to follow.
 So I do not wish to say anything more substantive at this point, because I=
'm here to listen, and I will have more opportunities to speak tomorrow whe=
n I react to some of the ideas which have come from the floor.
 So with these words, I would like to turn to Mr. Utsumi and request him to=
 give us a sense of how he sees us doing our work.
 >>SECTY-GEN UTSUMI:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,=
 ladies and gentlemen.
 It is very nice to see you once again here in Geneva.
 Many of you participated in Tunis summit and you saw the success of the su=
mmit.
 There are many reasons why the Tunisian phase of the summit was successful=
.
 But I only want to emphasize that from the point of the secretary of the s=
ummit, the budget finance for hosting the summit was very important.
 And in the ITU, we have calculated the expenses we had and the income for =
the contribution -- by the contributions to the summit fund.
 And we are seeing that we most probably will not have a deficit.
 That is one of the most important items of the success of the summit.
 And I very much appreciate those countries and the donators who made the s=
ummit successful.
 Tunis phase of the summit, in my opinion, has opened a new door for Intern=
et.
 It has opened up the place for the discussion of many policy matters conce=
rning the Internet openly and transparently.
 In the past, before the summit, the Internet was discussed mostly by engin=
eers and by experts.
 Now, the Internet has been and will be discussed from more policy perspect=
ive.
 That is, I think that the -- one of the successes of the summit.
 And I am hoping that this new forum for Internet governance will have a fr=
uitful discussion on various matters concerning the Internet.
 There are many, many challenges and problems for the Internet and for our =
communications to be effective and efficient and secured.
 So I am very much hoping the success of this forum.
 And today I am sure that you will have a good consultation how the forum w=
ill be formed.
 This forum is our forum, everyone's forum.
 And I wish you a very good, successful meeting.
 And I thank you very much, Mr. Desai, for your very good leadership.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, Mr. Utsumi.
 And may I once again thank you for your sort of positive words of support =
for this exercise.
 Before we begin, there are a few announcements which Markus Kummer, who ha=
s been supporting this process, needs to make.
 Markus.
 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:   Thank you, chairman.
 Let me start by apologizing for a few hiccups with the registration.
 But I think by now I would say that most participants are in.
 And I think -- I suppose there were not too many major problems.
 We are a learning organization, and I think each time went a bit smoother.
 The list of participants, we have not received from all participants their=
 names.
 And I would like to encourage those, especially the Geneva-based people wh=
o don't need to register to be allowed to enter the Palais des Nations, tha=
t they also give us their names so that at the end of the day we have a com=
plete list of participants.
 You may have noticed that we had hoped to have Wi-Fi.
 But I'm told it's not working yet.
 But we got in touch with the technical services, and they promised they wi=
ll make it work as soon as possible.
 We also have at the back of the room the books we had started to distribut=
e in Tunis.
 There will be some people go around in the room and give every participant=
 a book.
 And if some participants would like to get more copies, there's no problem=
; we have more copies available.
 So please tell us how many you would like to get.
 And you will also be distributed an invitation by the Swiss authorities fo=
r the cocktail this evening.
 You will have noticed that we again can count on the excellent realtime tr=
anscription team, Laura and Teri, who have been with us several times.
 One important feature is that we have to try and get the names right.
 So it would be helpful if those who take the floor who don't have a name p=
late give their business card or write down their exact name and function s=
o we can give it to the scribes.
 Last, but not least, I would also like to thank those who have made writte=
n contributions.
 They are posted on our Web site.
 We have 17 general statements and 20 answers to the questionnaire.
 Five of them were from governments:  The government of Canada, Australia, =
Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Singapore.
 We did not try to summarize these contributions, as it will have been impo=
ssible.
 They have a very wide variety of views, very rich input.
 Nevertheless, I think it might be significant that all the governments who=
 responded to the questionnaire speak out in favor of a very open format, a=
nd a number of them actually cite the format we used for the WGIG open cons=
ultations, and I see this as a very encouraging start.
 And last, but not least, we also would like, of course, to post general st=
atements made during the course of this meeting.
 The easiest would be if you could send it by mail to our Web site address.
 But you can also, of course, give it on a stick and we will post it as soo=
n as possible.
 Each session will be posted, at the end of the session, we will post it on=
 the Web site so that there's also a possibility for people who are not in =
this room to know what's going on.
 And I hope that, again, our Web-casting team from TURIN, who tore themselv=
es away from the Winter Olympics will be up and running.
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, Markus.
 The floor is now open.
 Who is going to lead us off.
 Austria, then I have Pakistan.
 Good.
 We've got a good starting point.
 May I first give the floor to Austria.
 >>AUSTRIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking on behalf of the European Union and the accedin=
g countries Bulgarian and Romania.
 The European Union would like to thank the secretary general and yourself =
for holding the present consultations.
 On this occasion, I would like to present the state of your reflections on=
 the Internet Governance Forum.
 It is crucial for the first plenary meeting of the Internet Governance For=
um, multistakeholder in nature, with equal participation, to concentrate on=
 issues of substance.
 The EU is therefore particularly grateful for the present consultations, w=
hich it expects to address already a wide range of important organizational=
 issues so as to avoid having these issues on the agenda of the first meeti=
ng of the IGF.
 Regarding the substance to be addressed by the IGF in full compliance with=
 Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, the E.U. believes that spam and relevant=
 security-related aspects and multilingualism would be appropriate and subs=
tantive topics for the first meeting.
 These topics are best addressed from a user perspective.
 Mr. Chairman, the E.U. stands ready to actively participate in the prepara=
tion of the IGF discussions on these important issues.
 The E.U. believes, Mr. Chairman, that spam and multilingualism are of impo=
rtance to all countries, be they developing or developed.
 In addition, the E.U. would welcome developing countries bringing forward =
topics of particular importance in the context of bridging the digital divi=
de.
 Before moving to more organizational matters, the E.U. would like to recal=
l the guiding principles of the IGF as enshrined in Paragraph 77 of the Tun=
is Agenda.
 For the preparation and support of the IGF, the E.U. submits that it would=
 be necessary to have in line with the Tunis Agenda both a representative m=
ultistakeholder steering committee and a Secretariat which is small and cos=
t-effective.
 As far as the frequency of meetings is concerned, the E.U. believes that o=
ne meeting per year, lasting for two or three days, would be the appropriat=
e format.
 It is important that meetings focus on a limited number of well-defined is=
sues.
 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving the E.U. the opportunit=
y to present its views, and the E.U. remains at your disposal for elaborati=
ng further on its suggestions and proposals made.
 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much.
 We now turn to Pakistan, and then Brazil, and then the United States.
 And may I request members who may feel a little deprived of their name pla=
tes to start sending their little slips so that I know who to call on.
 >> Pakistan:  Thank you, Mr. Desai.
 Mr. Desai, it's always a pleasure to see you chairing any meetings.
 I did turn it on.
 Thank you, Mr. Desai.
 I'm saying it's always a pleasure to see you chairing any meeting, because=
 you do bring a lot of intellectual input and drive into IT.
 On behalf of the G77 AND China, I would like to thank secretary general Ko=
fi Annan for convening today's consultations.
 We welcome this opportunity to discuss issues agreed in both phases of WSI=
S.
 Your continued commitment, Mr. Desai, to Internet governance-related issue=
s will help us launch and keep on track this important post-Tunis phase.
 We would also like to thank the initiative taken by the government of Gree=
ce to brief the G77 and China on the preparations for the holding of the In=
ternet Governance Forum in Greece.
 Today's consultations are timely.
 They give us the opportunity to think collectively about the follow-up and=
 implementation mechanisms with reference to the creation of the Internet G=
overnance Forum.
 We intend to present the views of the group of 77 and China regarding the =
overall direction of the forum.
 Members of the group will make substantive and detailed contributions duri=
ng the consultations.
 We look forward to seeing the views of the G77 and China reflected in the =
output of these consultations and in the future work that may be undertaken=
 in this regard.
 Mr. chairman, the World Summit on the Information Society belongs to the U=
.N. series of summits that focused on economic and social development issue=
s.
 The information society should be seen as an important phase and requireme=
nt for achieving the developmental objectives by bridging the digital and d=
evelopmental divides.
 International consensus clearly emphasized the development orientation of =
the Tunis summit.
 This was aptly reflected in the opening sentence of the Geneva declaration=
 of principles where the representatives of the peoples of the world declar=
ed, and I quote, the common desire and commitment to build a people-centere=
d, inclusive, and development-oriented information society where everyone c=
an CREATE, access, utilize, and share information and knowledge, enabling i=
ndividuals, communities, and peoples to achieve their full potential in pro=
moting the sustainable development and improving their quality of life, unq=
uote.
 This, in our view, is the guiding principle of all our work and must conti=
nue to be accorded primacy during the follow-up and implementation of the G=
eneva and Tunis outputs.
 The Internet Governance Forum, in all its aspects, must achieve a developm=
ent-oriented information society.
 All dimensions of the IGF, including its mandate, work, agenda, structure,=
 composition, frequency, and venues of meetings, must be development-sensit=
ive.
 We look forward to working with all stakeholders in ensuring that this dev=
elopment orientation that was reflected in the Geneva and Tunis consensus c=
ontinues in the post-Tunis phase.
 Mr. Chairman, the Tunis agenda for the information society gives a very cl=
ear mandate for the IGF.
 In the implementation of this mandate, the Internet Governance Forum provi=
des a unique opportunity for us to harness the potential of information and=
 communication technologies in meeting development objectives.
 Internet access and easy connectivity are critical to this endeavor.
 It would be useful to recall and highlight those elements of the Tunis age=
nda that were clear, the development aspects of Internet governance.
 These may not be -- this may not be an exhaustive list, but an effort to i=
ntroduce development-oriented clarity to the discussion at this -- these co=
nsultations.
 The G77 and China would first like to draw attention to paragraph 65, whic=
h reads, and I quote:  We underline the need to maximize the participation =
of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance, which s=
hould reflect their interests as well as in development and capacity-buildi=
ng, unquote.
 We must not lose sight of the clarity in this paragraph with regard to the=
 participation of developing countries and the decision-making process in I=
nternet governance with a view to reflecting and realizing developmental ob=
jectives.
 The intent of this paragraph needs to be operationalized through a work pr=
ogram on Internet governance, a process wherein the IGF would carry utmost =
significance.
 G77 and China believes this paragraph offers a holistic perspective on Int=
ernet governance.
 On the issue of participation, paragraph 5 emphasizes the need to ensure t=
hat all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the oppo=
rtunity to participate in policy decision-making related to Internet govern=
ance and to promote and facilitate such participation.
 G77 and China would like to see this reflected clearly in the work of the =
IGF.
 The Tunis Agenda opens the door for us to think creatively about the role =
of all stakeholders in supporting developmental issues.
 It also highlights the importance of corporate responsibilities linked to =
positive contribution to the economic and social development of developing =
countries.
 We look forward to seeing the IGF as a vehicle for the realization of corp=
orate responsibility for development.
 This would form a benchmark with regard to the extended development orient=
ation of the forum.
 Mr. Chairman, the importance of interconnectivity and transfer of technolo=
gy has been highlighted in paragraph 49 of the Tunis Agenda, which clearly =
sets the direction.
 It states, we commit to foster and provide guidance in development areas i=
n the broader internet governance arrangements and to include, amongst othe=
r issues, international interconnection costs, capacity-building and techno=
logy know-how transfer.
 Mr. Chairman, we have highlighted only some of the overall development tea=
ms of WSIS.
 We hope that the consultations will be guided by these principles and inpu=
ts from all stakeholders towards ensuring development-oriented architecture=
 of Internet governance.
 It is time to put the Tunis commitments to action, based on the agenda pro=
vided for, an inclusive and people-centered information society by our lead=
ers in Tunis.
 I thank you, sir.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much.
 We have further comments.
 Let me just give a list of the people I have.
 I did mention Brazil, U.S.A.  Then I have Canada.
 After that, UNESCO.
 After that, the ICC/CCBI.
 Then Ghana.
 Then I have the world forum of civil society networks, UBUNTU.
 And then I have Switzerland.
 If I may repeat, Brazil, U.S.A., Canada, UNESCO, ICC, Ghana, the UBUNTU fo=
rum.
 Brazil.
 >> BRAZIL:  Of course, we do support the statement of Pakistan.
 Mr. Chairman, the Brazilian government would like to convey to the United =
Nations secretary general its appreciation for the organization of this con=
sultation on the Internet Governance Forum.
 This is certainly a great step forward to the international community in i=
ts endeavor to set up what our heads of state and heads of governments deci=
ded at the Tunis summit last year.
 As we all know, we have agreed upon, on November 18, 2005, to ask the Unit=
ed Nations secretary general to help us in two tasks.
 First one is to convene by the second quarter of 2006 a meeting of the new=
 forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, called Internet Governance For=
um, which is Paragraph 72 of the agenda.
 And the second task, and not less important, is to start a process towards=
 an enhanced cooperation by the end of the first quarter of 2006, which is =
paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda.
 We were told that this meeting of today is related specifically to the Int=
ernet Governance Forum, and, therefore, it is the Brazilian delegation's un=
derstanding that another meeting is going to be organized to take care of t=
he enhanced cooperation process.
 Mr. Chairman, let me be specific.
 Brazil is looking forward to the establishment of globally applicable prin=
ciples on public policy issues associated with the coordination and managem=
ent of critical Internet resources.
 Brazil is of the view that what paragraph 55 of the Tunis Agenda calls as,=
 and I quote, existing arrangement for Internet governance, unquote, has ne=
ither the mandate nor the treaty-based authority to take on responsibilitie=
s related to international public policy issues.
 Even though these, and I quote, existing arrangements, unquote, have, and =
I quote again, worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, d=
ynamic, and geographically diverse medium that it is today, unquote, the de=
cision-making process of international Internet public policy issues should=
 be taken by the world community at large, and I emphasize at large, and no=
t by a number of technical bodies or by a single government.
 The most important question to the international community is face -- that=
 the international community is facing nowadays, and that is why we decided=
 to create a forum to discuss it, is that due to a lack of any obvious inte=
rnational organization to deal with Internet public policy issues, a number=
 of entities which should ideally be only in charge of the technical manage=
ment of the day-to-day operation of the Internet are pushed to fill the voi=
d and take political, which is public policy decisions.
 Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to quote paragraph 60 of the Tunis Agenda, quote: =
 We further recognize that there are many cross-cutting international publi=
c policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by =
the current mechanisms.
 Unquote.
 In a nutshell, what we are trying to say is, technical bodies are deciding=
 upon public policy issues.
 This awkward situation cannot go on forever without causing serious troubl=
e and, as we have said before, things that cannot go on forever don't.
 Mr. Chairman, the root of the problem is the absence of an appropriate int=
ernational treaty.
 That is why Brazil favors the Internet Governance Forum should be the locu=
s to discuss the willingness by the international community at large -- and=
 I emphasize again, at large -- to create the necessary international appli=
cable legal framework for Internet-related public policy issues.
 Therefore, at Athens -- and I shall emphasize that my government is very m=
uch grateful to the Greek government for hosting the first IGF meeting -- w=
e have an excellent opportunity to initiate negotiations on a framework tre=
aty to deal with international Internet public policy issues.
 In the near future, negotiations on specific protocols could also take pla=
ce to address problems such as, inter alia, A, cybersecurity; B, cybercrime=
; countering terrorism.
 Spam, privacy and the protection of personal information and data.
 Multilingualization, as was just proposed.
 Consumer protection.
 Capacity-building.
 Global public policies related to generic top-level domain names.
 And international interconnection costs.
 Mr. Chairman, allow me to emphasize that Brazil is very much proud of its =
domestic Internet management system.
 The Brazilian Internet steering committee -- and I have in my left side he=
re the president of the Brazilian Internet steering committee -- is a tripa=
rtite, multistakeholder organization with due representation of not only go=
vernmental officials, but also of the civil society, the academia, and the =
private sector.
 Discussions are taken on a collective basis, in an open, transparent, and =
democratic way.
 Brazilians are very much attached to freedom of expression, Mr. Chairman, =
and to the rule of law.
 We hope one day we could have something similar on the decision-making pro=
cess of public policy issues at the international level.
 Mr. Chairman, to conclude, let me say that I am personally convinced that =
secretary general Kofi Annan, and especially you, Mr. Chairman, are both no=
t only patient men, but also examples of those 19th-century Tolstoy-like ge=
ntlemen that we used to get acquaintance with through literature.
 If you, Mr. Chairman, were not that kind of man, you would have already to=
ld us that most of this repetitive discussion and endless exercise could ha=
ve been avoided if we only had read with more attention and bonne volonte t=
he WGIG report, which you chaired last year.
 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I would recommend Zen Buddhism as a very suitable trai=
ning for this job.
 United States.
 >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 I'd like to make the following statement on behalf of the United States an=
d its views on the Internet governance forum.
 The united states reiterates its commitment to the results of the World Su=
mmit on the Information Society, and in particular to the convening of the =
Internet governance forum.
 In order for the forum to realize its full potential, we believe that it i=
s critical to ensure that all stakeholders from the Internet community part=
icipate in the event on an equal footing.
 The Internet Governance Forum should offer an opportunity for leading Inte=
rnet experts from around the world to share experiences and offer visions t=
hat support the continued evolution and expansion of the Internet.
 Consequently, the issue of the use of information and communication techno=
logies to advance development should be at the heart of these discussions.
 One possible approach to the Internet Governance Forum would involve a ser=
ies of panels composed of innovators, scholars, and industry leaders from a=
round the world who can debate Internet-related policy matters such as the =
free flow of information, capacity building, expanded Internet access, cybe=
rsecurity, Spam, and privacy.
 The United States believes that the Internet Governance Forum should be a =
truly multistakeholder event.  Therefore, it is important that it not be en=
cumbered by extensive, existing United Nations processes and procedures.  A=
ttendance and participation in the forum should be open to a broad array of=
 stakeholders including governments, business entities, civil society, scie=
ntists, and intergovernmental organizations.
 Linkages to the U.N. should be minimal in terms of procedures, and the for=
um should avoid burdensome preparatory processes.
 The Secretariat should be small with a mission to support the smooth funct=
ioning of the Internet Governance Forum and to facilitate broad participati=
on 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, an=
d format.
 The promise of the Internet Governance Forum, an open and inclusive dialog=
ue amongst all stakeholders of the international Internet community, to dis=
cuss critical issues concerning the future of the Internet, is viewed by th=
e United States as a positive development.
 We look forward to a successful inaugural meeting of the Internet Governan=
ce Forum in Athens, Greece later this year.
 Thank you very much.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Can I have Canada and then UNESCO.
 >>CANADA:  Thank you, chairman.
 Canada is pleased to participate in these open consultations, and we inten=
d to continue to play a positive and active role in the Internet Governance=
 Forum.
 Canada applauds the decision of the secretary-general of the United Nation=
s to organize this consultation.  We are also very appreciative of having y=
ou, Mr. Desai, in the chair along with Mr. Kummer in the Secretariat as we =
valued your important contributions to the earlier working group on Interne=
t governance exercise and hope to benefit further from your considerable ex=
perience.
 Building on the spirit of the working group on Internet governance, Canada=
 believes the IGF must be based on principles of openness and inclusiveness=
.  For Canada, it is crucial that all stakeholders be able to participate f=
ully in the IGF, and note that multistakeholder, as defined in the WSIS con=
text, includes governments, business entities, civil society, and intergove=
rnmental organizations.
 Canada believes it is vital that these Geneva consultations provide the U.=
N. secretary-general with definitive guidance on the structural and logisti=
cal aspects of the IGF.
 The first meeting of the IGF can then focus on a substantive agenda, devel=
oped in a way that will permit the first IGF to produce meaningful results.
 Canada has always maintained that the WSIS should be about development.  I=
n accordance with the successful ICT for defocus of the WSIS, the IGF's dis=
cussions should maintain a focus on capacity building throughout, fully inc=
luding participants from developing countries.
 This would permit all countries and stakeholders to participate more effec=
tively in other internet governance organizations and processes, and enable=
 the effective development of national policies and frameworks for Internet=
 Governance.  As for the agenda of the IGF, at least for the first few meet=
ings, Canada believes it is essential to concentrate on issues where positi=
ve outcome can be anticipated rather than those issues known to be divisive=
.
 Canada believes that the IGF can begin its work in a positive manner by he=
lping to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of th=
e Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.  Issues related to sta=
bility, trust and confidence significantly impact the sustainability, robus=
tness, security, stability, and development of the Internet.
 If the IGF is successful, its outputs on these issues could contribute to =
a work program for the coming years within the appropriate organizations.
 Canada does not envisage the establishment of ongoing work programs for th=
e IGF.
 The IGF must take great care to be nonduplicative in its efforts.
 Institutional arrangements around the IGF should be sufficiently flexible =
and inclusive to attract the best thinkers in the topic areas it is discuss=
ing at any particular meeting.  This implies a shifting group of participan=
ts.  Efforts need to be made to ensure such flexibility.
 Moreover, the tools of the information society should be used to their ful=
lest, both to inform on the activities of the IGF and to engage the compete=
ncies of all interested stakeholders.
 By building a significant online presence, the IGF can also facilitate ong=
oing discussion between its physical meetings.
 Canada suggests November 2006 or later for the convening of the first IGF =
meeting.  It should not be in conflict with other major international meeti=
ngs, in particular the eITU plenipotentiary conference. There is undeniably=
 a link between those parties interested in the ITU and those interested in=
 Internet Governance.  For many it would not be possible to prepare for bot=
h the plenipotentiary, and the first meeting of the IGF at the same time.
 In conclusion, Canada would like to emphasize our view that the role of th=
e IGF is to hold policy discussions.  By focusing on areas where the IGF ca=
n make a positive contribution, Canada believes that the IGF will be a succ=
essful forum for discussion.
 Lastly Canada looks forward to the discussions to take place during the (i=
naudible) and to the work of the forum itself.  Thank you, chairman.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  UNESCO, and then ICCBI.
 >>UNESCO:  Mr. President, UNESCO appreciates the opportunity to address th=
is meeting.  UNESCO, as one of the organizations responsible for essential =
tasks associated with the Internet, would like to confirm that Internet Gov=
ernance remains one of its core concerns because of the multiple opportunit=
ies for increased development and prosperity that the Internet represents.
 UNESCO continues to advocate the transparent and inclusive approach to Int=
ernet Governance, highlighting the principle of openness which encompasses =
the free flow of information, freedom of expression, and technical interope=
rability on the global level.
 UNESCO values the emphasis given to Internet Governance in the Tunis Agend=
a and endorses the statement that Internet Governance should be multilatera=
l, transparent, and democratic.
 UNESCO notes with satisfaction the frequent references to intergovernmenta=
l organizations in the paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda related to Internet G=
overnance.
 In particular, we appreciate the wish of governments to assign to IGOs a r=
oll in the coordination of internet-related public policy issues and in the=
 development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.=
  We also note with satisfaction that one of the elements of the mandate of=
 the IGF is to interface with the appropriate IGOs on matters under their p=
urview.  For UNESCO the main public policy issues related to Internet Gover=
nance are freedom of expression and multilingualism.  UNESCO also considers=
 capacity building as an important policy issue.
 As to the nature, character, and structure of the Internet policy debate, =
stakeholders should ensure that the Internet Governance forum becomes a pla=
tform for open dialogue to facilitate exchange of information and best prac=
tice. Unesco endorsed the Tunis Agenda for expressing the need to fully inc=
lude developing countries in the IGF.  This requires continuous capacity bu=
ilding and a funding model that allows this participation.  Discussion shou=
ld result in complete recommendations to relevant stakeholders.  The struct=
ure of the igf could build on the experiences of the working Group on Inter=
net Governance, particularly as regards the participation of stakeholders o=
n a need for full (inaudible).  For more focused approach the IGF may decid=
e to establish subgroups on special issues as identified on the report of t=
he Working Group on Internet Governance, drawing on expertise of the academ=
ic, scientific and technical communities.  Here again, the multistakeholder=
 approach should be fully respected.
 IGF meetings should be organized once a year.  The preparation of and foll=
ow-up of the meetings should make maximum use of electronic working methods=
.
 IGF meetings should be prepared by a preparatory committee or bureau which=
 comprises representatives from all stakeholders.  Furthermore, this body s=
hould ensure the facilitation of transparent decision-making and promotion =
of dialogue.
 An independent Secretariat with a light structure, possibly under the ausp=
ices of the United Nations could carry out the necessary organizational tas=
ks.  Any mechanisms for funding should ensure this independency.
 Synergies need to be established between the IGF and the existing arrangem=
ents for Internet Governance.
 There should also be appropriate links between the IGF and the various mec=
hanisms that have or will be established for the follow-up to and the imple=
mentation for other decisions on the World Summit on the Information Societ=
y.
 The IGF should focus its work on the policy issues that have been defined =
in the WGIG report as being potentially relevant.  The subsequent work of t=
he IGF could be inspired by the four clusters of issues inspired by WGIG.
 But as Internet Governance will be discussed in an environment characteriz=
ed by very rapid changes and new issues may emerge, the IGF bureau (inaudib=
le) committee should have the authority to modify the sequence of work.
 The first meeting of IGF this October or the end of this year should, afte=
r having taken the necessary decisions of its own structure and working met=
hods, focus on issues related to infrastructure and the management of criti=
cal Internet resources.
 In closing, I would like to reiterate UNESCO's willingness to cooperate in=
 the work of the IGF.  We are confident that it will enable greater use of =
the Internet and thereby greater participation in the modern information wo=
rld by an increasing number of citizens from diverse linguistic and cultura=
l backgrounds.
 Thank you.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.
 CCBI.
 >>ccbi :Thank you, chairman Desai, Mr. Kummer, mr. utsumi.
 I am pleased to provide initial comments on the igf on behalf of ccBI and =
ict members.
 The global business community welcomes these consultations and the opportu=
nity to provide input both online and in person at these meetings.  We call=
 attention to the inputs from CCBI and ICC in December of 2005 as well as F=
ebruary 2006, which are on the IGF and ICC Web sites.
 The business members in the CCBI have appreciated the opportunity presente=
d by the World Summit on the Information Society process to discuss how to =
bring the benefits of the information society to people around the world.
 Many business leaders believe that the post-wsis processes present continu=
ed opportunities to provide even better ties to other information society s=
takeholders.  Today -- we have outlined other fundamental principles regard=
ing Internet Governance in our written inputs on the IGF, and today we woul=
d like to focus on four important areas.
 One, the multistakeholder principle.  Two, the role and mandate of the IGF=
.  Three, the IGF process.  And four, supporting the IGF.
 One, multistakeholder participation on an equal footing.  The first and fo=
remost principle for business is that the IGF must be multistakeholder, ens=
uring full involvement of all stakeholder groups, including business, on an=
 equal footing on all aspects of the IGF, starting from consultation to est=
ablishment to operational planning and events.
 We know that there is widespread support among governments, civil society,=
 academic and technical communities, and other stakeholders for this princi=
ple as has already been stated in interventions this morning.
 Two, the role and mandate of the IGF.
 Consistent with the mandate articulated in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agend=
a, the IGF should emphasize the development oriented aspects of Internet Go=
vernance, such as enhancement of capacity building, to increase meaningful =
participation in Internet-related issues by all stakeholders, particularly =
those from developing countries.
 The Tunis Agenda paragraph 72 gives the IGF a mandate to promote the expan=
sion and continued development of the Internet through information exchange=
 and sharing of best practices.  To maximize that goal and in line with the=
 other relevant paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda, the IGF should do the follo=
wing:  Only address issues that would truly benefit from international mult=
istakeholder dialogue, work with existing forA to improve awareness and exi=
sting information on topics already being considered, avoid duplication of =
the work underway in existing organizations, be consistent with the aim of =
promoting the security and integrity of the Internet, not compete with or i=
mpede the technical management and technical coordination of the Internet o=
r critical Internet resources.
 The Tunis Agenda is clear that the IGF does not have decision-making or po=
licy-making authority.
 Three, the IGF process.  This third important area of the IGF process we p=
ut forth that the IGF should do the following.  It should operate in a flex=
ible manner to facilitate open discussion among all participants.  Therefor=
e, adherence to rigid rules used in intergovernmental negotiation processes=
 is inappropriate. it Should provide the opportunity for all stakeholders f=
rom all countries to participate on an equal basis in the consultations and=
 at IGF events.  Should involve all stakeholders on an equal footing and al=
l operational planning for the IGF.  Utilize online tools to make it more i=
nclusive with no stakeholder group excluded from the discussions of the IGF=
.  And operate in a cost and operationally efficient manner.
 I would now like to comment on the purpose of the first IGF event in Athen=
s.
 In Athens we should limit topics on to the importance of the Internet and =
the success of bringing the Internet to all people.  We should limit the di=
scussion to those topics that could truly benefit from further outreach, in=
formation exchange, and human capacity building.
 To be effective, the first event in Athens and any igf events in the futur=
e should not be an attempt to open discussion of a plethora of issues.  Fur=
ther consultations both online and in person for all stakeholders should be=
 planned appropriately.  CCBI and potentially others cannot provide respons=
es regarding many igf issues until several fundamental igf attributes are e=
stablished.
 Furthermore, we call upon all stakeholders to be sensitive to limited reso=
urces of all stakeholders.  The development of the IGF should bear in mind =
the extent of human and financial resources required to establish and parti=
cipate in it.  This is especially true since these same resources could alt=
ernatively be applied to implementing the development goals of the WSIS.
 Consistent with this principle, we appreciate the fact that the proposed s=
chedule for the event in Athens is for a two- to three-day time frame.  Thi=
s will provide adequate time for a true exchange on the agenda topic.
 In addition, for example, meetings on the IGF and other relevant topics co=
uld be organized back to back to reduce travel and other cost.
 Four, supporting the IGF.  Lastly, on matters supporting the IGF, we see a=
 fully multistakeholder bureau taking any and all operational and program d=
ecisions by consensus, in consultation with all stakeholder groups regardin=
g the IGF.
 The host would take the logistical decisions necessary on the ground and a=
 Secretariat in cooperation with those providing logistical support should =
put the operational decisions of the bureau into practice and facilitate th=
e participation of all stakeholders.
 The topic identified for an IGF event should be agreed upon by consensus a=
mong the stakeholders.  A bureau that is in fact multistakeholder with all =
on an equal footing as discussed earlier.  We look forward to providing add=
itional input as the discussions continue today and tomorrow, and thank you=
 for this opportunity and your attention.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Ghana, UBUNTU, and then Switzerland.  After that I hav=
e Japan.
 I have the Internet society of Argentina and (inaudible).
 Ghana.
 >>GHANA:  Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our position to the secre=
tary-general for helping to convene this meeting and to you, Mr. Chairman, =
for steering the affairs of this consultation.
 I will be very brief, as you requested, and also because Africa being a la=
rge constituency, is holding full consultations and will be contributing in=
 detail as we progress.
 Africa's general aim of advocating for a common ground to help us move for=
ward positively on Internet Governance is paramount.
 We cannot help but reiterate the central theme of these consultations, as =
in paragraph 29 of the Tunis Agenda.  I quote, the management of the Intern=
et should be multilateral, transparent, and democratic with the full involv=
ement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international =
organizations."
 To us in Africa, the second parts of this paragraph is also important, and=
 I quote, "It should ensure a equitable distribution of resources, facilita=
te assets for all, underline for all, and ensure a stable and secure (inaud=
ible) for the Internet, taking into account multilingualism," unquote.
 As a continent most challenged with ICT development, we are practically in=
terested in the infrastructure development, capacity building, reduced tech=
nical costs, and equal participation to help us remove this digital divide.
 We commend the government and people of Greece once again for agreeing to =
host us and we look forward to an effective and results-oriented forum.  I =
thank you.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.
 UBUNTU.  Welcome.
 >>UBUNTU:
 >>world forum of civ. soc.:  Thank you.
 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 First of all, as organization of the civil society, I would like to thank =
-- express my thanks for the facilities of being here.  Although I must als=
o say that these facilities, this setup, are only, let us say, usable if on=
e has the economic means to be able to travel to Geneva, apart from the fac=
t of also the NGOs and the organizations that have headquarters here.
 Secondly, and to the extent that we are in a part where our statements are=
 general in nature, I would like to express a concern, but positively, not =
negatively.  Indeed, when I saw the list of participants in this meeting, i=
t is very clearly that there are governments, there are international organ=
izations, but then we have the entities list.  And in that list, and I unde=
rstand perfectly that at this stage nothing else has been able to be done, =
taking into account the whole process, the Geneva process and the Tunis pro=
cess, as a minimum we should have two lists at least.  The business entitie=
s, private sector, and the civil society list.  And I am saying this positi=
vely, not negatively.  But these are interested parties that are different,=
 different lists.  And in many cases, we can have synergies or points of ag=
reement, but during Tunis and Geneva, these are listed as different lists. =
 And that would be good for them to be listed as different lists.  And my c=
oncern also is the following.  Not few NGOs, and there are a few, only a fe=
w of civil society organizations on this list, and from our point of view, =
one of the organizations here, CONGO, represents many of them.  And I would=
 like to congratulate them and especially to Mr. Bloem for this socializati=
on activity of this issue.  But I consider that there are organize that did=
 not follow the Geneva and Tunis phases.  And it would be good at this stag=
e for the information not only to remain with the organizations that took p=
art in this process but also to be extended to other organizations.  Indeed=
, when we speak of civil society and when we speak of NGOs, I think that al=
so with the Internet issues and especially what follows after that, it woul=
d be very important for the civil society sector and the NGO sector be repr=
esented in this phase in a very active manner.
 I've said this first because in this phase or this phase of general statem=
ents, I would like to underscore from our point of view what, as a world fo=
rum -- as Ubuntu, my organization, what, from my point of view, these funda=
mental spirit is that is behind what is the Geneva and the Tunis phase.
 Now, I think we agreed that this -- we want to put the ICTs to the service=
 of development.
 And if that's a fundamental point, well, it has to be a fundamental point =
that inspires the design of the creation and the organization of the IGF.
 And in that respect, and I insist on this fact, the socialization of this =
process and the openness of this process to the civil society organizations=
 and NGOs is an important thing and it's still time for us to act, it's sti=
ll time for us to socialize this whole process.
 I wanted to underscore especially that as far as we understand, and we've =
expressed this to the participants in the forum, what is at stake here is n=
ot only that we fight against the digital divide, given that the -- this wo=
uld be a negative, important, but just a negative battle.
 But what we need to do is put ICTs at the service of development.
 Thirdly, and as an organization of the civil society, which, basically, is=
 concerned and monitors the developments in international organizations and=
 the operation of the international organizations and ensuring that there a=
re in-depth reforms in those institutions, we believe that the process to c=
reate the IGF is a process which in itself is very important for the life o=
f the international organizations.
 We are extremely satisfied and interested in the heritage we have from Gen=
eva and Tunis speaks to us as -- of the Internet as a globally -- a global =
facility, a global facility.
 Well, it will become that, and it should become that, and it should become=
 a new common good for humanity.
 And in that respect, the Geneva and Tunis process have emphasized what I t=
hink is extremely important in the context in the economic and political si=
tuation of the world, namely, the need precisely to have public policies th=
at are international in nature.
 And before the need to have these international public policies and unders=
tanding perfect what is set forth in the Tunis Agenda of namely what the ro=
le of IGF should be, I think that this forum, as well as operating well and=
 being operational, as well as being an example of a working experience of =
the various interested parties in the directions we have underscored and al=
so in other directions we would indicate, we are also in favor of governanc=
e and global governance going in the direction of strengthening internation=
al public policies.
 In that respect, in this general statement, I wanted to express our stance=
.
 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.
 Going now to Switzerland.
 >>SWITZERLAND:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to see you again at the podium.
 On a number of occasions, we have had an opportunity to appreciate your qu=
alities as chairman.
 Switzerland, as you know, we have always defended during the summit proces=
s a multistakeholder approach, so to speak.
 And this multiparTITE approach we think is also important for establishing=
 the IGF.
 And in setting up this IGF, we also think it's very important that the rul=
es of participation be flexible and that we should not be constrained by to=
o many rigid requirements of the U.N. system.
 With regard to the themes, Mr. Chairman, we have heard many proposals.
 But we should bear in mind that the entire process of the summit, and also=
 the reasons why we're here, are, first, to close the digital divide and to=
 strengthen capacity in the ICT.
 And for that reason, we're here to -- hear what the developing countries s=
ay when they propose themes, such as settling the problem of cost of connec=
tions, and also settling questions on multilingualism.
 We also think the question of spam and network security is important.
 All of these themes are themes which we think are important.
 And they deserve to be considered in the IGF.
 With regard to structures, Mr. Chairman, as has been indicated by a number=
 of speakers already, we think the Secretariat should be independent and li=
ght in weight.
 In this regard, I would also stress that Switzerland would be prepared to =
contribute substantively if the Secretariat were to be set up in Geneva.
 It is also important for us to have not a rigid bureau under the U.N. syst=
em, but, rather, a steering committee with the participation of all those i=
nvolved, in other words, governments, but also civil society, the private s=
ector, and international organizations.
 With regard to financing the IGF, we think that this should take place und=
er the auspices of voluntary contributions.
 We would like to have the meeting take place at the end of the year, but a=
lso taking into account other major international meetings scheduled.
 Our Canadian colleagues referred to the ITU, which at the end of the year =
has its PLENIPOTENTIARY ASSEMBLY.
 We believe the IGF should meet once a year for two or three days.
 It's important to us that we should not have any redundancy in the IGF's w=
ork with what is being done in other organizations, such as UNESCO, the ITU=
, the UNDP.
 And I would also, Mr. Chairman, praise the initiatives of those organizati=
ons which on 24 February are going to meet to make progress towards impleme=
ntation of the Geneva and Tunis decisions.
 We would like the first IGF meeting to be devoted to concrete topics.
 And for that reason, we would be very glad, Mr. Chairman, if the questions=
 of procedure and organization could be resolved before the end of the year=
.
 This would enable us to immediately get down to work and be effective.
 Thank you, sir.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.
 May I also take this opportunity of thanking the government of Switzerland=
 for all the support that it has given for this process, both at the stage =
of the WGIG as well as right now.
 I thank you for your help and support that you have extended to us in orga=
nizing this.
 I now have Japan, Quebec, ISOC Argentina, and then (inaudible) Switzerland=
.
 >>JAPAN:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 First of all, Japan would like to appreciate Mr. Chairman and Mr. Kummer f=
or their leadership and excellent contribution made in the WGIG process tha=
t we believe led to the successful outcome of the WSIS Tunis phase.
 And we are also grateful for your chairmanship at the preparatory process =
of IGF today.
 At this time, Japan wishes to mention three points that I would like to hi=
ghlight today and as well as some comments on the substantive priorities.
 Firstly, the IGF is a space for dialogue and a forum for multistakeholder =
policy dialogue, as indicated in paragraph 67 of the Tunis Agenda, to discu=
ss public policy issues and facilitate the exchange of information and best=
 practices.
 And in this regard, make use of the expertise of the academic, scientific,=
 and technical communities.
 Japan also believes that at its outset, the outcome of the IGF does not ha=
ve to be a set of recommendations, but, rather, the forum should be well-sa=
tisfied to produce a report as its output as the first step and the process=
 of discussion.
 Secondly, Japan believes that the IGF must be a space for open dialogue by=
 multistakeholders, in line with the paragraph 72, and accordingly, calls m=
eetings expected to be held.
 Thirdly, any private sector-held premiums that satisfy the criteria indica=
ted in paragraph 72 and 77 of the Tunis Agenda should be regarded as candid=
ates for additional joint IGF meetings in addition to a forum that the Unit=
ed Nations secretary general convenes.
 In order to discuss the diversity of Internet issues, the utilization of t=
hese forums should be taken into consideration to incorporate a broad range=
 of professional opinions.
 And lastly, a substantive priority issue, Japan believes that the discussi=
on at IGF should be broad and inclusive, as paragraph 58 of the Tunis Agend=
a states, namely, much broader than Internet naming and addressing, and inc=
lusive of other significant public policy issues.
 In addition, we find it's important for the IGF to identify emerging issue=
s, as stated in paragraph 72 (G) of Tunis Agenda.
 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.
 The government of Quebec.
 >>QUEBEC:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 The government of Quebec is very pleased to be involved in this work.
 We firmly believe in the importance of technology and communication as an =
important mode for economic and social development.
 We are satisfied with the results of the second phase in Tunis on Internet=
 governance and we welcome the establishment of that forum on Internet gove=
rnance, and we expect to participate actively in it to contribute to innova=
tive solutions for effective and rapid development of the Internet.
 We believe that the establishment and organization of the forum require pa=
rties -- is involved to review their -- we have cooperating.
 This presents a new model of governance on the international level.
 And this requires equality for the parties involved, governments and civil=
 society organizations and the private sector.
 We are aware that many options are available as regards the organization o=
f the forum and that they all deserve particular attention.
 We believe that the binding nature of the forum requires rules and procedu=
res for the operation of the organization, should allow the elaboration of =
consensus on various issues at stake.
 This consensus should be reflected in the results of our deliberations.
 With regard to organizational aspects, we think things should be flexible,=
 and to optimize the work of the forum, we believe that the working languag=
es should be those -- the same as the official languages of the United Nati=
ons.
 We also believe that the use of information and communication technologies=
 should be systematic to maximize exchanges within the -- between meetings,=
 as well as to encourage participation of those who cannot attend physicall=
y, integration of intermission and communication technologies as well as te=
chnological choices, should, however, be done based on the capacity of the =
participants.
 In view of the high number of issues identified, it would be preferable if=
 the work of the forum should be decentralized and that the organizational =
approach would be upward.
 We believe that for the first meeting, the forum should consider certain i=
ssues, a relatively limited number, and among them could be stability and s=
ecurity of the Internet, including cybercrime, of course, privacy, protecti=
on of personal information, education and capacity-building, and, of course=
, the question of cultural diversity and linguistic ability.
 We believe, Mr. Chairman, that creating this forum is a great opportunity =
to establish a constructive dialogue on the Internet and we would like to t=
hank you.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.
 I have from the ISOC Argentina, then WIS@key, then the main ISOC, then Con=
go, Argentina, and then Australia.
 >> ISOC Argentina:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 And thanks for organizing these consultations in such an open and inclusiv=
e way.
 My name is Sebastian RICCIARDI, I am also involved in the ICANN at-large a=
dvisory committee.
 I am talking in my individual capacity.
 It is clear and undeniable that the principles of openness, inclusiveness,=
 transparency, and democracy should be the foundation of this new space for=
 dialogue.
 To be inclusive and become a truly multistakeholder space, the forum needs=
 to recognize and welcome all stakeholders and let them participate on equa=
l footing at all levels of the discussion.
 Beyond the model we want to replicate or use, it is important to recognize=
 and follow these values.
 A truly multistakeholder, transparent, and open process lets everyone part=
icipate in the critical tasks.
 And this task includes the agenda and role of procedure-setting.
 If we are going to have a BROAD or any kind of committee to perform these =
important tasks, it should be composed in a way that, one, represents the v=
iew and interests of all the stakeholders.
 Two, conduct their work under open and transparent mechanisms.
 And, three, have no preeminence for any of the stakeholders involved.
 Setting up the rule of procedures is, consequently, a critical challenge.
 In this regard, WSIS rules of procedures should not be considered as a sta=
rting point.
 These rules were tailored for a different kind of forum and are not treata=
ble for a much broader, inclusive policy dialogue.
 The nature of the IGF is different than WSIS, and hence this should be ref=
lected in the rules.
 There are many examples of how the WSIS strict rules will undermine the re=
sults of the IGF.
 The input received by a large group of stakeholders was limited to the obs=
erver role they have had during WSIS.
 Some of these stakeholders were very representative of the Internet commun=
ity, and even when the Tunis Agenda recognized the importance of their ongo=
ing roles in coordinating technical matters, and their expertise, the proce=
ss did not recognize them as a (inaudible) GENEROUS  stakeholder, and did n=
ot allocate a specific time to hear and consider their thoughts on the diff=
erent matters.
 Fortunately, members of the civil society and the private sector were kind=
 enough to donate some of their scarce time for this proposal on that oppor=
tunity.
 There were also many organizations a member of the civil society that were=
 precluded because of the rules.
 Just as an example, the first hours of the last PrepCom here in Geneva wer=
e used to discuss the situation of an organization that was excluded becaus=
e they refused to declare their funding sources.
 This example shows some of the reason why we should not use the U.N. proce=
dures rules beyond the multilingual capacities.
 A much higher degree of flexibility is desired to promote an open and incl=
usive, multistakeholder dialogue.
 These consultations of the convening FOR THE IETF provide a good example o=
f how a multistakeholder forum should be put in place.
 The openness and inclusiveness on the process should also be a guideline w=
hen considering the mechanism of participation.
 Physical presence exclude many stakeholders, especially those coming from =
less-developed countries.
 This is why we ought to ensure mechanism of remote participation, namely, =
online discussion forums, E-mail discussion list, WIKIS, Web casts, just to=
 name a few.
 Physical presence should not be a requirement to fully participate in the =
different debates that may arise in the forum.
 IGF meetings should be done mainly through Internet-based mechanism and on=
ly one yearly meeting.
 This meeting shouldn't take more than three or four working days to cope w=
ith financial constraints and assure broad participation.
 It will be also important to promote some financing mechanisms to ensure p=
articipation of those who are in a disadvantaged position, an example, thos=
e who come from less-developed countries.
 The investment and promotion of capacity-building programs is also necessa=
ry to assure a world balanced participation in the long range.
 And this is why it should be one of the main topics addressed in the IGF d=
iscussion.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.
 I am now going to Ambassador Stauffacher, in your capacity and the private=
 sector.
 >> WIS@key: thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 Thank you, indeed, for allowing me to take the floor here and also giving =
me the opportunity to thank you again that you have agreed to be the leader=
 of this process.
 We all know, of course, that you are in well-deserved retirement, but also=
 a very busy person in your own country.
 So we are very grateful that you continue to lead this process.
 As you said, now I moved from the diplomacy to the private sector.
 And be patient with me if I transgress or make mistakes, but I'm glad to b=
e here, and I'm pleased to say a few words, while not repeating what the IC=
C and CCBI already said, which I endorse fully.
 Let me make just a few remarks and maybe precisions.
 We have talked about, of course, the intergovernmental -- the participatio=
n of the stakeholders.
 And I think it is, I think, important to underline that we do not embark o=
n an intergovernmental process with stakeholder participation, but that we =
really develop a true multistakeholder process.
 I think this is an important distinction that we have to make, in order to=
 truly benefit of the wisdom and knowledge of all members of societies, of =
the societies.
 The second point I would like to make is that WSIS Tunis has given the sec=
retary general and you the mandate now to structure and organize this forum=
.
 And I think this is important that this forum, then, also remains under th=
e auspices of the United Nations.
 Third point is that, as it has been stressed before, I think this is not a=
 forum for decision-making and legislating, but, really, to help us to crea=
te awareness with policymakers, with leaders of all quarters, on the challe=
nges and opportunities, and through that, help us to advance the objective =
that we have set out.
 I think with Pakistan, of course, I believe the development orientation is=
 very important.
 And if I look at the themes, if you allow me to make a few comments here, =
as Brazil said, I think the field of cybersecurity, privacy protection of p=
ersonal information and data protection, and, in particular, the field of i=
dentity protection and management is something that we should look at in th=
is forum as well.
 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you.
 May I now turn to the Internet society.
 Who is speak from ISOC?
 Where is ISOC?
 >>ISOC:   ISOC Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here and to be working =
with you again.
 The Internet society believes discussions on Internet governance should fo=
cus on those issues that will help bring the Internet to the billions of pe=
ople not yet connected.
 This is supported by the WSIS reaffirmation of the importance of ICTs and =
capacity-building to nations economic development and future welfare and th=
e United Nations secretary general's call that the follow-on from the summi=
t, quote, generate new momentum towards developing the economies and societ=
ies of poor countries and transforming the lives of poor people, end quote.
 We believe at the Internet society that there are some key points that we =
need to bear in mind in our discussion of convening the forum.
 We believe that the IGF, the forum should ensure inclusiveness, in other w=
ords, maximize participation in the Internet Governance Forum by all intere=
sted stakeholders, individuals, et cetera, particularly for those from deve=
loping nations.
 We believe the IGF should use the technology we are discussing, we should =
facilitate participation through innovative and aggressive use of electroni=
c communications.
 We believe the forum can do a lot by facilitating knowledge of and partici=
pation in existing structures and organizations.
 We look to the forum and the stakeholders to suggest better ways for stake=
holders and interested parties, particularly those from developing nations,=
 to learn about and contribute to the key Internet governance discussions a=
nd decisions.
 We believe the IGF should focus on capacity-building and access needs, it =
should identify priorities, needed programs for capacity-building, especial=
ly in developing nations.
 We believe the IGF should focus on the fundamentals.
 It should explore a limited set of Internet governance-related case studie=
s that are cross-cutting and central to capacity-building and ICT deploymen=
t.
 The forum should build on existing forums and organizations.
 It should leverage existing knowledge and expertise, while promoting the s=
haring of experience and best practices.
 And, finally, it should minimize costs of participation.
 There should be a limit to the forum-related organizational structures and=
 the need for meetings.
 And while maximizing the use of Internet-based collaboration and communica=
tion tools.
 Chairman, the Internet society believes that the emphasis in the IGF shoul=
d be in two areas, first, the disseminating and sharing of information, bes=
t practices, and expertise across a limited set of issues in a case study a=
pproach.
 And the second should be encouraging a greater understanding across stakeh=
olders of the roles and responsibilities and means of participation in thos=
e organizations that are responsible for the current governance mechanisms.
 The Internet society recommends that the Internet Governance Forum begins =
the case study approach with a limited set of issues, one or two that are c=
ross-cutting and do not fall within the scope of any existing body, and als=
o build on the WSIS achievements and contribute to reaching the millennium =
development goals.
 The forum should draw heavily on existing bodies of work and institutional=
 and individual expertise, highlighting the work already done to address th=
e issues, and then focus on concrete proposals of how governments, the U.N.=
, the World Bank, the private sector, and key Internet governance organizat=
ions, et cetera, can work together to ensure that the best available expert=
ise and resources are brought to bear.
 These case studies should include areas such as interconnection arrangemen=
ts and connectivity, ICT education and training, spam and multilingualism, =
all of which report to the WSIS discussions and require further development=
.
 We would note, however, that it would be important for the forum focus on =
workable issue areas and not on those subject to clearly entrenched views t=
hat would make discussion unproductive.
 Clearly, the more focused the forum, the greater its chances of enabling a=
 fuller understanding of the issues in question and of making a difference =
in the number of people who can access and benefit from the Internet.
 A recurring concern in the debate over Internet governance has been that k=
ey stakeholder groups feel that they have insufficient input into the decis=
ion-making processes that are affecting the development and management of t=
he Internet.
 Many of the key organizations involved in Internet governance have made cl=
ear throughout WSIS that they are eager to find ways to involve more people=
 in decisions, processes, roundtables, workshops, et cetera, and, in partic=
ular, they are eager to ensure that civil society and others have a full an=
d active role in the governance processes.
 Promoting a greater understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the=
se organizations and the mechanisms for participation will be a particularl=
y useful focus for the forum.
 It follows that success will depend upon the fullest participation by all =
stakeholders and interested parties.
 With regard to the functioning of the forum, it will be essential that the=
 time, personnel, and financial constraints all stakeholders are subject to=
 are taken into account.
 An operating principle of the forum should be to maximize efficiency and c=
ost-effectiveness through limiting organizational structures and the need f=
or meetings, while encouraging the use of Internet-based collaboration and =
communication tools.
 Finally, with regard to WSIS commitment to multistakeholder processes, the=
 Internet society believes that the broad recognition of the achievements o=
f the organizations responsible for the administration and management of th=
e Internet is a clear endorsement of their continued and vital role in its =
further development.
 While the representational model for the forum has yet to be decided, the =
Internet society believes that the Internet community should be recognized =
as a principal stakeholder in the Internet Governance Forum, given its reco=
gnition in the Tunis Agenda.
 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 >>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Thank you very much, ISOC.
 And thank you for your steady and continuous support for this entire proce=
ss.
 I now have RENATE Bloem from Congo.
 And then Argentina.
 If others want to speak, just raise your....
 >>CONGO:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 And, Mr. Desai, it's great to see you in the chair, and Mr. Kummer next to=
 you.
 We know that we are in good hands.
 And for the conference of NGOs CONGO, this is really a great day, because =
I have never heard so many governments really in full support of the multis=
takeholder approach.
 We are here in -- under the roof and under the leadership and also under M=
r. Kofi Annan's designation of the forum.
 But yet this meeting here is already somehow a signal for the future of, I=
 would say, even future diplomacy.
 This is when we can really speak on equal level to these issues which are =
so important for all of us that we see something coming out which the whole=
 WSIS process has put into -- has put into a process which we are very, ver=
y happy of.
 I had not prepared anything, because as you know, civil society was very m=
uch organized with particular working groups, and we have a very specific w=
orking group on Internet Governance forum here, and the members will take t=
he floor on the specific issues.
 But there is one thing which I want also to reiterate, and what we heard a=
lready earlier from the UBUNTU representative.  We have the possibilities t=
o have the governments here because all government missions are in Geneva. =
 We have possibilities maybe for limited private sector people, but we have=
 still very limited presentation from civil society.
 We need to see, when we want to take a development-oriented, I would say, =
process, that we need to hear from those people in those areas, not only fr=
om the governments, also from Civil society, which are directly affected fr=
om any decision which can be made from those deliberations which we hope th=
is forum will take on.
 I wanted to say also one thing.  We have heard various, now, mentioning of=
 dates for a meeting later on this year in Athens.  The need is absolutely =
essentially that the consultation comes with a clear date.  How can the mee=
ting be -- even be organized if there is not yet a clear date?
 So at the same time, need to see that the rules and procedures will be as =
flexible as possible, and we'll take on this, what we had already here, in =
the same way as it has been applied here for this consultation.
 And I think the IGF forum should not duplicate in general the whole Tunis =
agenda, but should really focus on the Internet issues, and we have heard m=
any of them which are vital.
 But at the same time, I would like to see that the Internet Governance For=
um has the linkages and has the synergies with all other mechanisms for fol=
low-up, including the mechanism of the commission, including what will happ=
en in other areas; that it will benefit from all the thinking and from all =
the input from all areas.
 Once again, Mr. Desai, we thank you for this meeting today, and I hope tha=
t all our other -- our representatives will take the floor later on.
 Thank you.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Argentina.
 >>ARGENTINA:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 And I'd like to express my thanks to the secretary-general for having conv=
ened this consultation meeting, and this first chance we have to take the f=
loor and exchange general ideas and contribute initial points of view.
 First of all, I would like to point out that with regard to the outcome of=
 the WGIG, the Working Group on Internet Governance, we hope that the IGF p=
rovides contributions with working guidelines to bring about an Internet Go=
vernance system that is multistakeholder in nature and preserves fundamenta=
lly the concept of Internet as we know it to be today, as a communication t=
ool that is homogenous for all the users.
 And we don't want the risk of the Internet being fragmented and losing its=
 advantage of being a tool for everybody.
 So it's accessible to all, and everywhere in the world.
 With regard to the organization and the procedures to follow for this foru=
m, one year -- one meeting a year could be an appropriate number frequency =
of meeting.  The use of ICTs, virtual ICTs would help us to enable a multis=
takeholder participation, especially for developing countries that are loca=
ted far away from places in (inaudible).  Clearly in this meeting, experts =
from the whole world and their participation is extremely important.  For c=
ountries that are actors on the national/international scene, experts from =
these places should express their will to participate in this whole process=
.
 With regard to the funding, clearly the Secretariat should be small, minim=
al, and have enough to carry out an effective work with the least cost poss=
ible involved.
 These are very preliminary comments, and my delegation, like the other gro=
ups, the G77, believe that this should be a development-oriented enterprise=
.  We want to express our agreement with the opinions of Brazil; namely, th=
at we should begin to develop tools that deal with specific issues of Inter=
net Governance, such as cybercrime and others that have been raised by this=
 delegation.
 Finally, we agree with the appropriateness of having broadened cooperation=
, as Brazil mentioned, to achieve a result in the near future.
 Thank you very much.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  I have Australia.
 >>AUSTRALIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Australia welcomes the multistakeholder consultations on the establishment=
 and operation of the IGF.
 The IGF has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the developme=
nt and expansion of the Internet, but how it is set up will be crucial in t=
his regard.
 At this stage, rather than focus on details, Australia would like to make =
some comments on the principles that should underpin the IGF and what the I=
GF should aim to achieve.  These two be considerations are fundamental to t=
he design of the forum.
 In doing this, Australia will be adding its support for many of the points=
 already made this morning.
 The IGF is being established in the context of acknowledgement by WSIS tha=
t the spectacular rise of the Internet is the result of multistakeholder ac=
tion in which the private sector and civil society have played key roles, t=
hat there is value on ongoing dialogue on public policy issues and this dia=
logue to be effective must be multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic an=
d transparent.
 This acknowledgement recognizes the new paradigm that was entered by the i=
nternet that while governments may have authority in public policy, the leg=
itimacy and utility of that authority is questionable unless it is exercise=
d in consultation with other stakeholders. Multistakeholder involvement and=
 openness are therefore fundamental to the IGF.  They must be genuine and e=
ffective if the IGF is to be genuine and effective.
 These principles mean the design of the IGF must have certain features.  F=
rom Australia's perspective, these include open and ongoing consultation li=
ke that we are currently engaged in on crucial issues; a strong preference =
for the IGF to be run as a multistakeholder entity by a competent multistak=
eholder organization or consortium; an IGF Secretariat and advisory group b=
eing multistakeholder; accreditation and procedural rules that support incl=
usiveness, openness and equal participation; active promotion of the IGF an=
d its relevance, particularly to developing countries and the use of ICTs t=
o the maximum extent to maximize access and engagement.
 The second principle that Australia would like to emphasize is that the IG=
F as a whole should be lightweight and cost effective.  As many have noted,=
 financial and other resources are limited and we all have competing priori=
ties.  In interprets of the IGF's design, this suggestion a relatively flat=
 structure without a proliferation of subgroups and subcommittees, relative=
ly short, focused annual meetings, possibly back-to-back with related event=
s, both intergovernmental and private sector or civil society.
 Potentially, a fixed central location for both meetings and the Secretaria=
t.  Use of external expertise and voluntary contributions, and again, the e=
ffective use of ICTs.
 From a broader perspective it's suggested that IGF discussions should be n=
onduplicative and should be productive and this leads us to our final theme=
, the aims of the IGF.
 Australia considers the IGF can make a valuable contribution to the develo=
pment of the Internet but this opportunity may be squandered if discussion =
is too abstract and diffuse.
 We may end up with a set of fine principles but of little practical value =
to stakeholders, everyday users of the Internet and world communities, part=
icularly in developing countries.  The igf must consciously aim to produce =
in relevant time frames substantive outputs that are of real practical valu=
e.  In terms of its design, Australia therefore considers that the IGF shou=
ld have it's procedural and organizational structures decided before the fi=
rst meeting.  It should focus on key issues or themes at each meeting.  It =
should be responsive to real issues of relevance to stakeholders and Intern=
et users generally, particularly those from developing countries.
 The IGF's discussions should be structured and focused and rigorously -- t=
he igf should be structured, focused and rigorous in its operation so it de=
livers useful outcomes quickly.  More existence -- it should make extensive=
 use of inputs from experts and practitioners with on-the-ground expertise =
and experience from all stakeholder groups but particularly from developing=
 countries.  There should be emphasis on information sharing and the develo=
pment of best practice models and should publish reports that are accessibl=
e, documenting its substantive discussions and concrete ideas including bes=
t practice, and that provide a basis for action.
 The question of broad aims inevitably leads to that of priorities.  Austra=
lia considers the IGF's top priority should be the issues relating to the u=
se and misuse of the Internet and in particular, Spam, E-security and cyber=
crime.  The interlinkages between them and the mechanisms for addressing th=
em.
 This is top priority because of the consumer harm these issues propose and=
 correspondingly the benefits to be derived from tackling them.  These bene=
fits will accrue not only to developed countries but also to developing cou=
ntries.
 In addition, Wsis and wgig identified a range of other issues, particularl=
y with a development focus such as access and multilingualism which also wa=
rrant attention.  We consider identification and discussion of new and emer=
ging issues in the IGF is also important to the Internet's ongoing and incl=
usive development.
 .
 This focus is in contrast to a focus on the issues that have been discusse=
d at length throughout the WSIS and which are receiving attention in other =
forA.  A process -- a focus on these types of issues in the IGF would diver=
t its limited and valuable resources from tackling issues of real significa=
nce to everyday users.
 Australia looks forward to working constructively with other stakeholders =
to help ensure the IGF realizes its full potential.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  David Allen from the world collaboration for communica=
tions policy research.  And I have the OECD.
 David Allen.
 >>DAVID ALLEN:
 >>COLLAB. FOR COMM. POLICY:  The name of the organization is long, but the=
 intervention is mercifully brief.
 Mr. Chairman, you have suggested this is the occasion to consider objectiv=
es for the IGF.  We suggest that the, perhaps, overarching aim forgive be t=
o create processes that allow the participants to get beyond the stalemate =
that developed in WSIS.
 This is, if you please, a pregnant proposal in that it does not say how we=
 might go about doing such a thing, but if we should decide that this is a =
compelling aim forgive, there will be opportunity later to discuss just exa=
ctly how that might proceed.
 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.
 OECD.  And then I have the IGTF, Internet Governance Task Force of Japan. =
 So let me turn to OECD first.
 >>OECD:  Thank you, Mr. chair.
 We at the OECD look forward to the formation of the IGF and we look forwar=
d to contributing to it as seen appropriate by the various stakeholders par=
ticipating in it.  I want to make two BRIEF points about the OECD and OUR w=
ork THAT i feel ARE PERTINENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF the IGF.  The first is =
the OECD is in fact a multistakeholder group such as what the IGF will be a=
s well.  We enjoy the active and diverse participation of many groups in ou=
r work.
 The second point I want to make is we see consensus on issues at the OECD =
that are nonbinding but in fact, bring with them moral pressure for countri=
es to adopt them.  In this sense, I think the functioning of the OECD may r=
epresent a model for the IGF and we would be happy to provide further detai=
ls if so desired.
 The second point I want to make is one on substance.
 We at the OECD have been working on a range of issues associated with the =
information society for some time, going from that of infrastructure to ICT=
 and growth, to privacy and security.
 And in particular we have a TASK FORCE on combating Spam which after two y=
ears has completed its work and will issue a final report as well as A TOOL=
KIT OF VARIOUS ways to EFFECTIVELY combat Spam in the next FEW weeks.
 This may be of use in IDENTIFYING best practices of the IGF, and we look f=
orward to contributing it to the IGF if so requested.
 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.  IGTF and then Singapore.
 >>IGTF: Thank you, chairman Desai.  Also, I REALLY appreciate this opportu=
nity given again, and maybe again and again, to continue our dialogue.
 I'm here not on behalf of the IGTF, but I am a member of the IGTF as well.=
  That's Internet Governance task force of Japan, but I am also a member of=
 ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee for MORE THAN THREE years, AND ALSO A =
MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE FOCUS, but this is simply m=
y personal observational comment or contribution.
 I really appreciate the multistakeholder principle, and especially on equa=
l footing to be implemented in this new forum.  Perhaps this may be the rea=
l achievement of the WSIS on Internet Governance issues.  But perhaps we ne=
ed to be very creative in implementing this multistakeholder principle into=
 real forum operation.  We may have very different ideas as to what multist=
akeholder approach really mean.
 I want to make clear that when it comes to the Internet, even public polic=
y related decisions, whether you like it or not, cannot be made by governme=
nts alone, and that's part of the reason why, perhaps, we agreed to have th=
is Internet Governance Forum as multistakeholder approach.
 And there are good reasons or needs for this fact.  But practicing or impl=
ementing the true multistakeholder approach is not an easy thing.  As a mem=
ber of ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee which is trying to bring the indiv=
idual user's voices to the ICANN'S public policy development process, that =
was not an easy task.  ICANN has BEEN TRYING TO BE a multistakeholder organ=
ization, and it is more so, I can testify, THAN most international bodies o=
r forA we know of.  But still, there are good challenges.
 Most governments in the advisory committee at ICANN, the GAC, and At-Large=
 Advisory Committee again, it's an advisory committee, ALAC, have not been =
given equal footing on the decision-making process.
 Again, there are good reasons, perhaps, for this framework, but I would as=
k you to seriously consider what is the best modality or the mode of the mu=
ltistakeholder approach in this Internet Governance Forum.  And thank you v=
ery much.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  Thank you.
 We have Singapore.
 >>SINGAPORE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Singapore would like to express it=
s appreciation to the secretary-general for convening these consultations.
 We would like to state some principles on the structure and composition wh=
ich we believe the IGF should adopt.
 Singapore believes that any structure and composition of the IGF must be l=
ightweight and scalable.
 We would LIKE to see that the IGF start small and evolve.
 Singapore does not believe that the IGF should have a weighty structure.  =
Like any successful organization, there should be milestones in place and o=
pportunities to review progress and for self-evaluation.
 Singapore believes that it's crucial that the IGF embrace the principles o=
f open participation and multistakeholderism in all aspects of its organiza=
tion, composition, operation, and rules for participation.
 We do not believe that any one stakeholder group should be given preeminen=
ce in the IGF, as this only precludes that the Internet is the purview of t=
he stakeholders.  And doing so will not further the spirit of multistakehol=
derism as called for in the Tunis Agenda.
 Therefore, Singapore believes that the IGF should recognize the different =
competencies of all actors, and bring together the best abilities to the ta=
ble.
 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We look forward to contributing to the discussio=
ns in the next two days.
 >> CHAIRMAN DESAI:  So I think we've had a very useful discussion in this =
morning's session.
 And I think in order to move forward, it would perhaps be useful if I were=
 just to place a few questions on the table.  And since there are no more s=
peakers, I probably could even break for an early lunch.
 But we could -- the questions that would be -- some things are clear.  Eve=
rybody accepts the multistakeholder nature of this.  I don't think we need =
to go over that ground.
 What I think we do need to go over is what do we actually mean by this in =
terms of participation.
 Is the model that of the open consultations that we have had for WGIG wher=
e essentially the participation was very open, you simply had to establish =
that you had some competence and relevance to the issue, and you are welcom=
e.  There was no sense in which you had sort of any quotas or any heavy pro=
cess of screening.
 So is this a model which would work, which is essentially open-door proces=
s?
 I'm talking of the actual physical meeting, which will be held.
 I hope that when you come back you will give a little more thought and ref=
lection to this.
 Several people, not many -- several.  Quite a few people mentioned the imp=
ortance of having a multistakeholder group to direct the work, to organize =
the work, if you like.  The terminology used varied.  Some people called it=
 a program committee, some called it a steering group, some called it a bur=
eau, but everybody said something like this is required.  You can't just or=
ganize it like this open consultation because this open consultation has a =
very simple purpose, a very simple agenda.
 It's simply to listen to people on one issue, and then carry back that mes=
sage.
 But obviously, a structured forum has to do more than that.
 So it requires some direction.  Some decisions have to be taken on what wi=
ll be discussed in the morning, what will we discuss in the afternoon, what=
 will we discuss tomorrow.  Some decisions will have to be taken.  Will eve=
rything be discussed in a big plenary meeting or will we have PARALLEL meet=
ings discussing different things. Somebody has to decide that.  How will we=
 constitute such a multistakeholder bureau.  WHEN we constitute a group suc=
h as this, there are certain well-established proceedings we can follow in =
terms of representation on an equal basis from all regions and so on.
 We don't have proceedings in the case of this, and I invite your thoughts =
and reflections; if necessary, IN A thinking ALOUD, which is how could we d=
o this, what are the categories that we would have, who would name the memb=
ers of the (inaudible).
 In the case of the member states, there's a very simple process we have in=
 the U.N. which is easy to use, which is you simply turn to the regional gr=
oups and say that we need two names from that regional group and they have =
their own process, and say these other two names.
 Now, how do we follow -- what's the process that can be followed for the o=
thers?  Is there perhaps a distinction between the way the first group of d=
irection gets constituted and the subsequent ones?  In a sense, a problem i=
n the first one is we have no starting point.  We have nobody to whom we ca=
n pass the responsibility and say please a constitute a bureau bECAUSE WE H=
AVE NOT HAD A MEETING.  SO MAYBE THE PROBLEM IS LESS AFTER THE FIRST MEETIN=
G.  BUT please give A LITTLE thought and reflection to this and come up and=
 see what sort of suggestions you have.
 As far as THE meetingS ITSELF are concerned, everybody has said not more t=
han once a year; THAT the general number that I heard in terms of DAYS is a=
round three.  That is, clearly people don't want a week long meeting, nor d=
o they want something just one day.  And the typical number that I have bee=
n hearing is three.
 Some said two to three, some said three to four, but essentially around th=
ree is what most people have said.  And I think it's good for us to keep th=
at in mind as a basis.
 If you feel strongly about this, what my sense is most people seem to be c=
omfortable with the notion of once a year, a three-day meeting.
 I think there were some very interesting and valuable reflections which ca=
me from ISOC and the others on underpinning this with a, if you like, a vir=
tual meeting which will go on continuously on an Internet basis to allow pe=
ople time to -- allow people who are not in a position to attend to partici=
pate, to create a, if you like, a community which is involved in this proce=
ss.  And I heard this from several people.
 This does not really pose big issues of principle because there's no reaso=
n why we cannot have an online forum as a base for such a physical forum.
 We had WSIS online which provided very valuable material for the meetings =
of WSIS itself.
 But if there are any further reflections on this notion of an underlying b=
ase of a virtual forum, then I would very much welcome that in the afternoo=
n session.
 What of the meeting itself?  We have been using this phrase, let's use the=
 model of the open consultations.  But as I said, the open consultations, o=
thers had a single task in most cases.  The single task was to focus like w=
e are focusing on just one issue here.  And in the very nature of things, w=
e want everybody to interact.
 But obviously if you look at the IGF, we will be looking at multiple thing=
s.
 Do you see that organized entirely as a plenary or would you expect to see=
 a little more structure in it in these three days?
 I think it's very important, because at least as far as the first meeting =
is concerned, some guidance has to go for the people who are to do this org=
anization as to what are you expecting when you come to Athens.  Is it just=
 a big meeting like this going on for three days or do you see something wh=
ich is more structured?  And it's very valuable if you can give us your tho=
ughts, your reflections.
 Again, I say, in the spirit of thinking aloud, if necessary.  You don't ha=
ve to commit saying this is our country position or civil society position.=
  Let's treat this, if you like, as a joint working session to see how we c=
an make sense out of -- or make this a useful outcome.
 I think many people referred to the possibility of making sure that this m=
eeting acts as a way of bringing best practices to light.
 One thought was to highlight it in terms of case studies, of successful an=
d good management of things like Spam or interconnection or cybersecurity. =
 But there are other things people mentioned.  And one thing that strikes m=
e here is how do we make sure that this forum is attractive for the people =
who are really making a difference in these areas?  The scholars, the think=
ers, the innovators.  How do we make this an attractive forum for them?  Be=
cause those are the people that we need there if this is what we want as pa=
rt of the IGF process.
 So any thoughts you have on what can be done in terms of designing this me=
eting so that we really -- so people would say, okay, yeah, this is a meeti=
ng which sounds interesting.  Let's go there.
 There are other issues which -- many issues which have been raised about h=
ow do we bring in developmental orientation.  I saw that again as a theme c=
ommon theme.  Just about everybody mentioned this.  It started off as a str=
ong statement from the G77, but I think many others echoed this, which this=
 is a meeting which should have a strong development orientation. And partl=
y THIS WILL be reflected in the nature of the themes that will be picked up=
.  But also, most important of all, many people refer to the importance of =
ensuring developing country participation and engagement of governments, of=
 civil society, especially from developing countries.
 This is a troublesome dimension because I'm not sure that we are all that =
successful in various exercises we undertake here.
 And any thoughts, reflections that would come in this area from you in the=
 afternoon session would be, I think, very valuable.
 In terms of teams, many different areas have been mentioned, areas like mu=
ltilingualism, spam, cybersecurity, interconnection cost.
 I will not try and list all of these.
 But my own sense is that there seems to be reasonably -- reasonable agreem=
ent on, provided one can just fix these things so that they're reasonably c=
lear from an early stage, so that we can mobilize your talent to support th=
e process, by and large, I don't -- I don't see these as big controversies.
 But what is very important is to see how we reflect the developing country=
 dimension.
 Do you see, for instance, this forum acting as a space where we can talk o=
f the digital divide?
 I did hear a couple of contributions which, to me, sounded like as if the =
forum was about ICT for development.
 Now, that's fine.
 If that is the general sense, then certainly the developmentally dimension=
 of Internet governance has to be there.
 But ICT for development is a much bigger thing.
 You talk of e-education, e-health, e-governance, and many other dimensions=
.
 You talk of the whole telecom infrastructure.
 I do want to point out that as part of the Tunis follow-up, apart from the=
 IGF, there is a whole implementation mechanism which is being set up, and =
it consists of -- which is where the ITU is taking the lead -- which consis=
ts of a layer of -- which is involved in translating the substantive outcom=
es of the summit into action in a multistakeholder environment, a regional =
dimension, possibly involving the regional commissions, and a global dimens=
ion, where three institutions, the ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP are expected to ta=
ke the lead.
 So a great deal has been launched.
 There's also an Internet society committee, I think it's called, in the ch=
ief executive's board which is being set up.
 This is, of course, in terms of how the U.N. is taking up the challenge of=
 implementation.
 So do keep in mind that there are things happening in that area.
 You also mandated a role for -- a potential role for the commissions for s=
cience and technology of development.
 And that's going to be discussed in July in Geneva.
 So I think it's very important that we don't try and load everything from =
Tunis onto the IGF agenda.
 We must keep in mind that there are other things which are happening.
 So I would say that when you come back in the afternoon, let's try and get=
 some clarity on what is the expectation when we say that developmentally d=
imension must be reflected, what is it that we are expecting to see in IGF?
 So that's, I think, you know, would be helpful in terms of organizing at l=
east the first meeting, the question that I posed to you.
 I think there are other aspects that will come up in the course of this di=
scussion.
 One which I will mention which has not been mentioned, which is the import=
ance of flexibility, that let us not treat this as an exercise of setting t=
he IGF for its full term, which I think is five years, its full term of fiv=
e years.
 It's treat our job right now as having a good shared understanding of what=
 do we expect the first IGF to look like.
 And then leave open the possibility that the process itself may change its=
elf, finds that this has worked, this has not worked, and we will change.
 So is this a good way of proceeding, that instead of sort of asking the se=
cretary general to set everything in stone, let's just say, okay, the first=
 instance, let's focus on getting the first forum off the ground and making=
 sure that that first forum is substantive.
 A certain amount of discussion did take place on the objectives of the for=
um.
 Some were discussion also on what was the expectation on the outcome, and =
particularly on the latter, I sense much more variation and difference.
 On what is the expectation on what will come out of this forum.
 At one level, some people say the main purpose of the forum is to bring pe=
ople together so that they're able to talk to one another, learn from one a=
nother, and there may be some things which may emerge as a consensus, which=
 would then influence a process somewhere else.
 At the other end, people see a stronger role for the forum in shaping how =
the appropriate discussions take place elsewhere, perhaps, in this area.
 I do sense a greater difference in this area of outcomes.
 My request here is this:  I don't think it's our job to fix the outcome.
 It's the job of the forum to fix the outcome.
 It's the forum which must decide, rather than, you know, the secretary gen=
eral or anybody else.
 I don't see that the secretary general needs to say, "This is what the for=
um, its outcome is going to be."
 It's up to the forum to decide on what the outcome will be.
 Whereas what we need to focus on is, how do we organize this forum, struct=
ure it?
 Of course we will have to keep in mind what our expectations are when we a=
nswer these questions.
 But we don't necessarily have to agree on those expectations fully in orde=
r to agree on how the forum should be structured.
 So let's try and focus on the structuring of the forum and some of the que=
stions that I have raised.
 I just thought it would be useful if at this point I would propose some qu=
estions so that when we come back, we can address these and you can come ba=
ck and try and give your views on each of these, perhaps even reacting to w=
hat some of the other statements that you have heard have implied with rega=
rd to some of these aspects.
 So is this okay as a starting point?
 Shall we say that we break now, and that we come back at 3:00 and continue=
 this, which will give you time to think about this, discuss it, and then c=
ome back.
 Okay?
 Good.
 Meeting stands adjourned.
 (Adjourned for lunch.)