Internet Governance Forum Open Consultations 3 September 2007 Geneva,
 Switzerland

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
	3 September Open Consultations. Although it is largely accurate, in some 
	cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or 
	transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings 
	at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Good morning, and welcome to Geneva.  This is the meeting of
 the open consultations, which we -- to help the Advisory Group with IGF, which
 has been constituted by the Secretary-General, to advise the Secretary-General
 on the way in which the Rio meeting should be organized. I would like to -- you
 know me, because I've been with you for many years now.  But I am very happy
 and delighted to welcome a co-chair so that the burden of -- I was about to say
 coping, but I shouldn't used the word "coping" -- the burden of having to find
 common ground amongst the way diverse opinions which get expressed here is now
 shared by the two of us.  And I would like to introduce here Mr. Hadil da
 Vianna.  He is from Brazil.  And the Secretary-General has named him as -- the
 two of us as co-chairs.  Me, of course, as a special advisor of the
 Secretary-General, and Ambassador Vianna as the person who would be
 representing the country which is hosting the Rio meeting. So in many ways,
 this is a process which brings the -- if you like, the presidency of the
 meeting and the Advisory Group to the Secretary-General closer together so that
 we are all working from the same sheet, if you like. Our joint job, as you
 know, is not really to decide things, but to advise the Secretary-General.  And
 our job, really, is to try and crystallize the opinions which will be expressed
 here in a form which will be useful for the people in the U.N. who are
 responsible for arranging and organizing this meeting. I don't wish to say much
 more at this point, but a word, first, on the logistics for this meeting. I'm
 afraid we don't have interpretation for this meeting.  And the reason we don't
 have interpretation is that we are not a budgeted activity of the U.N.  We are
 a non-budgeted activity.  We are, essentially, outside the framework of the
 U.N. budget. And so far, we have got these services on what is described in the
 U.N. as an as-available basis. We were very lucky.  We managed to hold our
 meetings at times when there were -- there was surplus capacity for
 interpretation in the U.N.  And we could get those services at no cost.
 Unfortunately, today, we cannot get these services, because there's a major
 U.N. conference going on in Madrid.  And the capacity available in Geneva for
 interpretation services has been deployed in Madrid.  So we have access to a
 room but we don't have access to interpretation services. I apologize for this.
  But this is one of the hazards that we have to live with as an activity which
 is not part of the U.N.'s regular budget, but something which is outside the
 framework of the budget. I will do my best to try and see how we can manage
 without this.  My hope is the fact that the full transcript of our proceedings
 is always available will be of some help to people in this area. Let me just
 say a word on what I believe the goals of our meeting will be, should be, what
 we should be trying to do here over the next -- today and what the Advisory
 Group should be doing over the next two days.  And later, and then after that,
 I will request my co-chair also to add his opening remarks to this. I believe
 that we have some -- it's not as if we are starting from nothing.  After
 Athens, we have had two rounds of meetings.  And even though those meetings
 were informal, or consultations were informal, there was a certain sense of
 progression and movement in the discussions there.  And this has been taken
 into account by the Secretary-General in his proposals on the constitution of
 the Advisory Group and the organization of the Rio meeting. In particular, what
 I would like to begin with is that I hope it is possible for us to take as
 given the starting point of the meeting which is the list of themes for the
 substantive program for the Rio meeting, which, as we read it and as has been
 indicated by the Secretary-General, who is the person who convenes the meeting,
 consists of six items, A, critical Internet resources.  B, access; C,
 diversity; D, openness; E, security; and, F, emerging issues. I hope we can
 take this as given.  But, certainly, if people have reflections, comments on
 what they would expect to see discussed under these different headings, I'm
 sure my co-chair and I will be more than happy to listen to those remarks. What
 I think we should focus on over the next two hours -- we have five hours
 available to us for discussion -- is, first, I think we can begin with a
 general discussion, because we -- I'm sure many of you have broader points
 which you will wish to make.  Most of you have participated in the Athens
 meeting and have some reflections arising from that meeting which you would
 like the others to hear. And I -- let's see spend a little time, maybe an hour,
 on that. Beyond that, what we need to discuss is the organization, structuring,
 scheduling of the meeting in Rio itself. This is where we can get into more
 detailed comments on what you would expect to see discussed under the different
 heads, how did you see the organization of the main sessions in Athens, what
 are the changes that you would like to see, any concerns that you have, this is
 the time to talk about these. After that, we would like to shift to a
 discussion of the issue of dynamic coalitions.  There has been a certain amount
 of discussion over the Internet on this issue of dynamic coalitions, what are
 they, what are the sort of guidelines, if you like, for the dynamic coalitions
 which will be, so to speak, considered a part of the follow-up of the IGF
 meeting.  As you know, this was one of the major products of Athens. I know
 many of you have some points and reflections on this.  And we can have a
 session -- part of our session devoted to that. We also need to go into the
 logistical arrangements.  This is mainly a matter of presentations by our
 Brazilian hosts.  But I'm sure you may have some more specific questions on
 logistics about the meeting in Rio. And, finally, we should start giving some
 thought to the Advisory Group, because the Secretary-General has asked the
 Advisory Group to make recommendations on its own constitution, rotation, et
 cetera.  And I'm sure this open consultation will have -- people will have
 reflections, comments on that aspect, which I'm sure that members of the
 Advisory Group and certainly the two of us as co-chairs would very much like to
 listen to. The -- finally, there is just a brief thing for information more
 than anything else. Down the line, before the five years are up, we also have
 to review the usefulness and desirability of the forum.  This is not something
 that we can talk about now.  We have only had one meeting of the forum.  It is
 premature for us to enter into that discussion. But this is more a -- an
 informational thing on how we should be going about that ultimate evaluation,
 because it's time we started thinking about these things, not because we have
 to come to conclusions now, but some of these things do take a little time to
 organize.  And so that is just a brief item at the end. We -- my co-chair and I
 have had a brief discussion yesterday on how to organize this.  And,
 essentially, we will be alternating by theme, not by session.  So the intention
 is -- and, of course, we will be working very closely with one another all the
 time.  But in terms of who has the responsibility of sort of, if you like,
 managing the flow of the debate, we would be taking turns, and we will begin
 with the general discussion, which I will chair.  The next discussion, on the
 organization of the Rio meeting, the subsequent -- what is it we expect to do
 there, what is it we expect to achieve, my co-chair will chair.  Then I will
 come again when we discuss dynamic coalitions.  Back to him for the
 presentation of the logistical arrangements.  Back to me for the discussion on
 the Advisory Group.  And, of course, the last session, we will both be there.
 We have five hours.  We have about five sessions, as I've outlined it, maybe
 five and a half.  Let's try and see whether we can stick to a discipline of
 around an hour for each. But we can be flexible.  But let's try and do that. So
 with this, I would like to turn to my co-chair and request --


 >>HADIL DA ROCHA VIANNA:  Thank you, co-chair Desai, distinguished delegates.
 First of all, allow me to express my most sincere satisfaction in cochairing
 these open consultations in preparation for the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro.
 As representative of the host country, I feel honored to participate in this
 work. I can assure you that Brazil is willing to collaborate closely with the
 United Nations, governments, the civil society, and the private sector to
 ensure that the second IGF will be a successful event. I would like to take
 this opportunity to stress that in my country, issues related to Internet
 governance are taken up by the Internet steering committee known as CGI.BR,
 which, like the IGF,includes representation from all stakeholders.  In fact,
 CGI.BR is strongly represented in these consultations here in Geneva is
 offering full support to the preparations of the second IGF. I'd also like to
 take this opportunity to sincerely commend Mr. Desai's skillful conduct of this
 process in his active contribution to the implementation of the IGF mandate. 
 His straightforward style and able guidance have been decisive to the important
 achievements of the first IGF and to the preparations for the second. In this
 regard, I consider it important to highlight that the Athens meeting proved
 itself to be a successful event, and led to grounds for the important work yet
 to be done towards the full implementation of the IGF mandate. I am aware of
 the general expectation that Rio -- the Rio meeting will represent one step
 ahead in the incremental IGF process, in accordance with its mandate as
 contained in the Tunis Agenda. In this context, the U.N. Secretary-General's
 decision to invite Brazil to co-chair this preparatory process is welcome. The
 idea of having the host country as co-chair is a step further in gradually
 involving the stakeholders in the conduct of the meeting from a substantive
 standpoint. I accepted this task in good faith and I am willing to contribute
 to my best in order to meet all stakeholders' expectations with regard to the
 second IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro. We all are well aware that the IGF cannot
 be seen as a traditional U.N.-style conference.  Its format is in the forefront
 of multilateral policy-making and may set precedents for a renewed and upgraded
 style of multilateral conferences, therefore contributing to the evolution of
 the concept of global governance in an open, inclusive, and representative
 environment with the participation of all stakeholders. As we are touching
 uncharted grounds, we all need to be conscious of the many challenges.  The
 tools necessary for convening and conducting these events are not automatically
 applicable to this new scenario that we are building.  Such challenges require
 from us creativity and innovation with regard to the format as well as to the
 substance of IGF discussions. I understand that one of these challenges refers
 to the need for balanced regional representation according to the Tunis
 mandate.  I refer not only to government participation, but to the other
 stakeholders as well, in particular, from developing world. At this stage, it's
 worth recalling the U.N. Secretary-General's mandate set forth at the Tunis
 Agenda.  He was asked to convene the IGF and encouraged to, and I quote,
 examine the range of options for the convening of the forum, take into
 consideration the proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet
 governance, and, indeed, to ensure the full involvement, end of quotation. This
 mandate clearly entails the need of a collective work.  Although we are all
 acknowledge the competent work of Mr. Desai, of Mr. Kummer, and of his small
 but efficient staff, we cannot expect that they will come out with magical
 solutions to all organizational questions raised along the preparations for the
 Rio de Janeiro meeting and for the forthcoming IGF editions. The answers to
 some of these questions depend basically on policy decision-making.  I am
 therefore convinced that the work of a co-chair can add value to our
 activities. My intention is to work closely with Mr. Desai, the secretariat,
 and the Advisory Group in conducting the preparations for the IGF in Rio de
 Janeiro.  I invite you all to join us in this innovative and challenging
 activity.  It's not supposed to be Brazilian isolated task, neither a U.N.
 task.  It's a task that requires participation from all stakeholders with open
 and unprejudiced minds. I count upon your support and contributions to make
 sure that the Rio meeting will be a success for the benefit of the
 international debate on Internet governance. Thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you very much.  May I just add one quick word to this.
  I began my international career, if you like, in Rio, where I was a deputy
 Secretary-General of the earth summit in 1992.  So I'm particularly happy to
 come back to Rio for this particular meeting. Before we begin, I thought I
 would turn to Markus Kummer, who can perhaps walk us through the sort of
 outline of the agenda that I presented, and perhaps also any further remarks
 that he has to guide us in our discussion. Markus.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Yes.  Thank you, chairman. Mainly, a few comments on the
 documentation. We had promised a revised version of the program paper on our
 Web site, but we only received very few contributions on that, two of them of a
 substantive nature.  So we thought there was not much point in revising it, but
 we will be able to discuss the program paper at the Advisory Group meeting
 tomorrow and on Wednesday. One contributions actually made a plea for
 reinstalling the speed dialogue which we had discussed in the May meetings, and
 at that time, it had not found the support of participants. So that is for the
 program paper. The other paper is the synthesis paper we had also promised. 
 You will recall that we had issued a synthesis paper of all the contributions
 received last year prior to the Athens meeting.  It was translated into all six
 U.N. languages. There again, we depend very much on the availability of
 translators within UNOG.  And it's not always that we receive the services for
 free.  Sometimes we actually have to pay for it.  Last time, we had to pay for
 the interpreters.  Last year we had to pay for the translation.  But the
 payment is only one issue.  The other issue is the sheer availability.  And
 this fall, it seems it's very difficult to get translators because they are
 very busy.  And that's why we -- somehow the deadline got postponed a bit. 
 We're still negotiating and we're not sure whether we will get translators to
 translate the document into all languages.  But we thought we would make
 available what we have.  And we have a draft working paper which is available
 at the back of this room.  And we can revise it.  And we thought we would
 revise it in light of these cautions today.  And we can also include
 contributions that come in at a later stage.  But it will depend, ultimately,
 on the fact whether or not we will get translators. If we make the document
 available in English only, then we can do that shortly before the Rio meeting. 
 If we have to go to translation, then the final cutoff date would be 17th of
 September. But your comments would also be welcome in this regard of what your
 preference would be, a later paper which would reflect more input, or an
 earlier paper which would be what is available at the back of the room,
 enriched by the discussion we're going to have today. These were all my
 comments.  And I think we will come back to the more technical details when we
 discuss the schedule and so on.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  May I now invite your participation in the overall review of
 what we did in Athens and what you would expect, without getting into the
 details about dynamic coalitions or the structuring of the Rio meeting or
 logistical issues, but the broader questions that you may have in your mind.
 The floor is open. Brazil.  Alejandro.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Co-chairman.  And please allow me to speak now on
 behalf of the delegations of Brazil and Argentina. The delegations of Argentina
 and Brazil are fully committed with the building of a people-centered,
 development-oriented and inclusive information society as envisaged by the
 World Summit of the Information Society and in conformity with the United
 Nations millennium declaration.  In this regard, our governments are convinced
 that the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum, along with all other
 initiatives mandated by the WSIS outcomes, represents a major step towards the
 construction of a multilateral, democratic, and transparent global Internet
 governance model.  While we recognize that, owing to its multistakeholder
 composition and innovative approach, the convening of the IGF poses unexpected
 challenges before us, we are well aware that Tunis Agenda paragraphs 72 to 78
 define the role and responsibilities of the IGF regarding participation, scope,
 thematic agenda, internal organization, and possible results.  Given these
 challenges, our delegations support the inclusion of a main session dedicated
 to the future of the IGF as an opportunity for the addressing of these
 fundamental issues in a constructive manner, with a view to the full
 implementation of the IGF mandate.  Both governments are confident that the IGF
 will be able to deliver on its mandate during the next four meetings already
 programmed, as expected by the international community.  In this regard, I
 would like to say a few words about the major tasks ahead. The figures
 reflecting the attendance to IGF's first edition in Athens, 2006, show that the
 participation of developing countries was low.  Notwithstanding, Tunis Agenda
 paragraph 78 provides for balanced geographic representation in the convening
 of the IGF.  In a multistakeholder and open forum, the accomplishment of this
 provision requires that specific measures be taken in order to ensure the
 adequate representation of developed and developing countries' views. We
 consider that balanced geographical representation is necessarily applicable
 not only to government representation, but also to other stakeholders.  In our
 view, balanced representation is an essential requisite for the legitimacy of
 the IGF possible results, as defined by the IGF mandate. This same balance
 should be observed with respect to the composition of the panels of IGF main
 sessions in Rio de Janeiro.  In this sense, it would be recommended that each
 stakeholder group appointed by consensus a representative with internationally
 recognized capacity to participate as panelist in each main session.  The
 secretariat could facilitate, through the IGF Web site, the receiving and
 processing of such suggestions. Similar principles could also serve as guidance
 to the United Nations Secretary-General in the convening of the
 multistakeholder bureau described in Tunis Agenda paragraph 78(b).  Taking the
 evolving nature of the IGF into account, and in view of the wide range of
 issues that need to be addressed, our delegations believe that the experience
 accumulated since the first IGF allows us to envisage the establishment of such
 a structure as a goal for the third IGF in India.  At the Rio meeting, in the
 absence of a bureau, the Advisory Group is expected to help the chairman to
 conduct business during the meetings.  The Advisory Group provides also a
 privileged locus to consider the creation of such formal structure. In Athens
 in 2006, the IGF proved to be a fruitful space for multistakeholder high-level
 dialogue on openness, access, security, and diversity aspects of Internet
 governance.  In Rio, the thematic scope will be widened so as to encompass
 issues related to the management of Internet critical resources, as provided by
 Tunis Agenda paragraph 72(j).  Our governments hope that, in the next three
 planned editions, the IGF can evolve into a results-oriented body so as to
 provide the international community with substantive recommendations on its
 findings and on the future of Internet governance as a whole. Thank you, sir.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have Alejandro Pisanty and then Portugal.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Chair, I will postpone my participation.  Is the
 microphone on? I will postpone my participation.  I was going to suggest that I
 would make a 50 Swiss Franc donation for personal names for the nongovernmental
 stakeholders, but I see that your habitual ability to foresee and forestall
 problems has made this donation unnecessary. We are late but still equal.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Alejandro, I am happy to accept the 50FRANCS [ Laughter ]

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Portugal.

 >>EUROPEAN UNION:  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of the European Union.
  The European Union welcomes the renewal of the mandate of the IGF Advisory
 Group and congratulates you for your renomination as the chairperson. We would
 also like to welcome the Advisory Group new members, and in particular the
 representative of the host country, Mr. Hadil da Rocha Vianna. The European
 Union is confident that these broad based consultations will contribute to
 another successful forum. The European Union commends the Secretariat for
 having continued relevant preparations, in particular regarding the workshops.
 I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the government of Brazil
 for hosting the meeting and for having provided online information in a timely
 manner. We are confident that by all of us concentrating and working together
 for the same goal, we are able to make the Rio de Janeiro IGF meeting as
 successful as the Athens meeting was last year. Our consultations are an
 important step in the preparation towards the upcoming IGF. For the European
 Union, it remains a priority to see the IGF continued as a forum for
 multi-stakeholder policy dialogue as foreseen in the Tunis Agenda. The meeting
 in Athens fully met these conditions, and the European Union is convinced that
 the best recipe for success is to continue the forum along the same principles;
 namely, by promoting the interactive exchange of ideas among all stakeholders
 on an equal footing. At the same time we welcome that the forum will integrate
 new meeting formats such as those that support dynamic coalitions that emerged
 from the previous forum. In this context, I understand that our Italian
 colleague will make some remarks on Italian initiative on Internet rights. We
 also welcome that the IGF will build on the four main themes of the inaugural
 meeting:  Access, diversity, openness and security, and we look forward to an
 informative and fruitful exchange on the theme of critical internet resources.
 Learning about each other's concerns can certainly help moving towards
 identifying solutions for the issues currently at hand. The IGF provides a
 platform for representatives of different parts of the world and different
 stakeholders to gather and discuss in an open, informal setting, without the
 pressure resulting from having to achieve negotiated outcomes, thus offering
 exactly the right venue and setting for increasing global understanding and
 cooperation. Due to the Athens experience, and thanks to the commitment shown
 by you, Mr. Desai, and by the host country, the European Union is confident
 that the IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro will continue the rich multi-stakeholder
 dialogue on the various aspects of Internet governance. The European Union is
 fully committed to contribute to the success of the IGF in Rio. Thank you, Mr.
 Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I go to Italy.

 >>ITALY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Italy, of course, fully supports the
 position just expressed by Portugal on behalf of the European Union. As
 anticipated during our last meeting, my delegation is glad to confirm that
 Italian governments in the framework of the Internet Governance Forum process
 and in cooperation with the U.N. and with the IGF Secretariat has organized a
 dialogue forum on Internet rights that will be held in Rome on 27 September
 2007. The forum represents a follow-up to the international debate and the
 specific workshop on Internet Bill of Rights organized by Italy at the first
 Internet Governance Forum October 2007 in Athens. And is intended as an
 important contribution to the next IGF of Rio de Janeiro. The government of
 Italy has invited all stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil society,
 academic and technical communities, and international organizations, to attend
 the meeting.  And we are now pleased to inform you that many relevant speakers
 have already confirmed their participation. To register for the event and to
 contribute to the public debate on these issues, an Internet site has been
 activated at the following address: www.DFIRItaly2007.gov.it, on which a
 dedicated online forum is also available to facilitate the international
 multi-stakeholder discussion and the opportunity of defined shared rights which
 guarantee the open and multilateral character of the Internet. On the Web site,
 interested participants can find an updated agenda with a complete list of
 speakers and an (inaudible) on the issues that will be dealt with during the
 forum and practical information on how to register for the event and join the
 online discussion.  All these information are also on the table at the back of
 this room. We look forward to working in Rome with delegations from your
 countries.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have India and then Marilyn Cade on behalf of the ITA.
 Mike, mike.

 >>INDIA:  Thank you, Chairman.  On behalf of the government of India, I would
 like to thank Mr. Hadil da Rocha Vianna, Brazil, and Mr. Markus Kummer for
 convening the present consultations and making all efforts to make Rio a
 success.  We are pleased to provide all the possible support and cooperation in
 this effort.  In this connection, while moving forward, my submission would be
 to look at the IGF in the larger perspective.  It is imperative that we keep
 reassessing the direction that we are moving in.  There should be clearly
 defined long-term goals and short-term goals within the Tunis framework.  Our
 perspective should be proactive, futuristic, not to be confined to Rio IGF. 
 With the upcoming IGF events in India in 2008, thereafter in Egypt in 2009, and
 subsequently in yet another country in 2010, this is the time to formulate the
 strategies for achieving our goals.  What are we going to achieve in Rio and
 thereafter?  We need to crystallize our expectations. There are issues.  As the
 technology is moving fast and new applications are evolving in the Internet
 space, we are having to constantly adjust to the public policy domain.  How do
 we do the benchmarking of the issues and parameters from one IGF to another. 
 Is there any minimum set of recommendations and best practices which need to be
 applied to all?  Once we have addressed these and other similar concerns, we
 can move onto the next stage. There are issues of access, diversity, security,
 openness, critical internet resources, which need to be discussed so that it is
 clearly understood how these issues get interpreted differently in different
 context. Country-specific case studies, technical economic models and other
 similar exercises would go a long way in developing and understanding of these
 issues in proper depth. The varied and complex ecosystem of Internet space
 needs to be appreciated, and we need to acknowledge that the strategies need to
 be multifaceted.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you. I have Marilyn Cade from WITSA.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chairman Desai.  My comments are offered on behalf
 of the Information Technology Association of America and the larger
 organization, WITSA, that represents close to 70 associations around the world
 with more than 65% of our membership from developing countries. We have been
 longstanding participants and attendees throughout the WSIS process, and in the
 previous consultations, and we welcome this opportunity to participate and to
 engage and further the dialogue about the upcoming program. We thank Chairman
 Desai and the Secretariat, Markus Kummer and his staff, for the work that they
 have done to date to ensure that all can comment and contribute productively
 and pragmatically to the development of a program. We also thank the government
 of Brazil for their willingness to host the 2007 IGF and to welcome all
 interested stakeholders to Rio, as we understand the significant commitment of
 resources required to host such a meeting. And we welcome Minister Vianna as co
 chair and as representative of our host in Rio IGF. We are strong supporters of
 the IGF as a unique forum.  We believe that by fostering and enhancing and
 examining issues in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance issues, in a
 multi-stakeholder, with all parties on an equal footing, that we will be able
 to enhance the security, operation, access, stability, openness, and diversity
 of this thing we all call the Internet. The Internet will benefit from this
 dialogue that we are trying to have, and we think the value of the IGF is, in
 fact, it's open and informative nature which allows a variety of views to be
 expressed and the full range of experience and expertise to be shared so that
 all continue to learn, not only about each other's perspectives but about the
 benefits and the technologies that the Internet utilizes and brings. Our first
 recommendation is that we all work together to ensure that the IGF remain
 consistent with its mandate for facilitating dialogue and understanding. We do
 not support engaging in negotiations of formal documents or outcomes.  But we
 do support continuing and deepening our work together in understanding the
 issues. We also wish to support the importance of the IGF's focus on engagement
 with developing countries, and seeking ways to encourage participants and
 support participants from those countries to participate both in the
 consultative process and in the annual forum. We believe that it is important
 to build on the four main themes, and we welcome the exchange of information
 and views on critical internet resources. Generally, we support the addition of
 other new forums, such as the open and best practice forums, as new sessions to
 the program for 2007.  And we recommend that before any new approaches be
 turned into a concrete addition, that we evaluate the effectiveness of those
 new forums in a follow-on session early in January, as we evaluate the outcomes
 and the achievements of IGF 2007. I will reserve my further comments for the
 areas in which they apply.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I don't have any more speakers on the list, which is
 understandable -- yeah, we do.  One more, and then Matthew.

 >>ETNO:  Thank you, chair.  Chairman, I should say.  And good morning,
 everyone. I speak on behalf of ETNO, which is the Association of the European
 Telecommunications Network Operators. ETNO consists of 41 operators from 34
 European countries. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Desai,
 for your reappointment as chair.  We look forward to contribute in the
 preparations under your chairmanship.  We would also like to welcome you, Mr.
 Vianna, as co-chair, representing the host country. We are certain your work,
 especially in the organizational and logistical issues will be most valuable.
 Also thanks to Mr. Kummer and the IGF Secretariat for the hard work so far.
 ETNO and its members are looking forward to the Rio IGF in which we will be
 actively engaged. We have submitted a written contribution on the draft program
 and schedule, which should be posted on the IGF site like all the other things,
 but until last night it was not and today we heard that it will not.  We hope
 that in the name of transparency, the problem will be fixed. In any case, there
 are some hard copies in the back of the room, and our contribution is posted in
 our Web site, which is www.ETNO.B, as in Belgium and not as in Brazil. We
 recognize that good progress regarding the preparation has been achieved thus
 far.  ETNO supports in general most of the modifications to the revised draft
 program regarding the format, although there is still room for some
 improvements.  As regards content, ETNO supports the four Athens themes and the
 two cross-cutting priorities as in the revised program. However, we note with
 concern the addition of critical internet resources as a fifth main theme, and
 we question the added value of a separate debate considering that there are no
 clear boundaries from the other main themes which also cover the issue of
 critical resources and have not been exploited enough yet nor is there point of
 entry nor a specific framework of discussion. Yet, ETNO respects the views of
 many other stakeholders who want the addition of critical internet resources
 and, in a good-will spirit, will participate in the debate. As business
 representatives we would like to stress that it is crucial not to challenge
 market-driven solutions or commercially negotiated agreements.  In the absence
 of critical internet resources definition, ETNO insists that in that session
 participants must have in advance a clear and common understanding which
 aspects of critical internet resources will then be discussed. By all means,
 the framework of the debate, of the debate should be clarified, bearing in mind
 that there will be no official outcomes, no re-opening of issues decided in
 WSIS, no duplication of efforts nor unjustified and obscure challenging of work
 of exist existing organizations. If the framework is clear and accepted by all,
 this session could act as a scouting one in terms of what the landscape is. 
 What has been done and by whom, aiming at a better understanding of critical
 internet resources, and boosting discussions on other relevant themes as in
 access and security. Moreover, ETNO proposes to discuss under that theme issues
 such as DNS security, IDNs, new gTLDs, IPv4 exhaustion. Regarding the emerging
 issues and the taking stock, if I may add, ETNO would appreciate further
 clarifications about these two sessions, especially whether the Athens approach
 will be kept, or if there will be another one.  In other words, if the emerging
 issues will be about how experts or youngsters see the future of Internet or it
 will be about what has emerged in the Rio IGF and should be taken on board the
 next IGF. ETNO can accept both approaches.  In any case, if the second one is
 chosen, then it makes sense to have the emerging issues session first and then
 the taking stock, which should consider emerging issues. Mr. Chairman, ETNO has
 remarks for other items of the agenda but for these you will allow us to come
 back when appropriate.  These remarks in any way are based on ETNO's belief
 that the multistakeholder balance achieved in Athens should be preserved, if
 not improved, and certainly not challenged. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I wanted to clarify that the contribution of ETNO will be
 posted on the Web site.  It may have been overlooked.  There may have been a
 slip some way, but I assure you it will be. Matthew Shears, followed by China.

 >>MATTHEW SHEARS:  Thank you, co-chairs.  Just a couple of quick thoughts about
 the learnings from Athens. One of the reasons why we enjoyed Athens so much,
 and it was deemed to be a success, was that we saw the multistakeholder model
 in action in an environment that provided for frank discussion of a range of
 important issues to the future of the Internet.  Athens was free of
 negotiation, arranged seating, and lengthy policy statements.  It was, as
 intended in the mandate, neutral, nonduplicative and nonbinding. In its
 novelty, it succeeded, more perhaps than many would have imagined.  What is
 clear is that the format of the event allowed for a dynamic and collaborative
 experience.  The discussion-among-equals approach made for a broader and more
 open exchange of views than would have been possible in a more traditional
 meeting setting. Within each of the four theme areas -- openness, diversity,
 security, and access -- many of the major issues facing developed and
 developing countries were addressed, both in the main sessions and in the
 workshops. The horizontal focus on capacity building and development was the
 glue that tied the sessions together, and we should not forget this, with many
 speakers raised the needs for skills development and supportive enabling
 environments. We also heard in Athens from those who are dealing with issues
 related to the four main themes at the local level.  What their concerns are,
 what has worked and what has not, how they have built communities and know how
 to address these concerns, and how they have leveraged the Internet for
 development. We must ensure that this useful and productive environment
 continues.  Steps that would take us away from this novel forum structure,
 steps that would seek to impose more structure on the IGF or the IGF Advisory
 Group would be contrary to the spirit of the IGF and would limit its value and
 potential to facilitate constructive change. The IGF is a new model, one that
 will grow in stature and deliver increasing value for so long as it encourages
 dialogue, best practices, dynamic collaboration, community building and
 experience sharing. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  China.

 >>CHINA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you Mr. Desai and Mr. Kummer
 and also the distinguished representative from Brazil for convening this very
 important round of open consultations. And this is the last round of open
 consultations before the convening of the real meeting.  And we believe that we
 should base our discussion here on the results of the previous rounds of
 discussions. And so we -- and we -- at this juncture we would also like to
 express our appreciation for the work of the Secretariat in the time between
 these two rounds of consultations. And we are quite satisfied with the paper
 prepared by the Secretariat.  In particular, concerning the substantive
 programs.  And it is our understanding that in the last round of consultations,
 we agreed upon the five basic themes, and we do not believe that we should
 re-open a discussion on whether one should be out or should be in. And I will
 not like to reiterate or to repeat how much importance the China attaches to
 the issue of critical internet resources.  And we only want to appeal to
 delegates here to -- not to re-open a discussion on that one.  In particular,
 in view of the -- in view of the fact that this is the last round of
 consultations. And another point I want to make is that although the IGF is
 called a forum, but we should try our best not to -- or to make it a little bit
 more than a talk shop. And so we hope that some concrete and practical results
 can be achieved from this meeting, from the IGF Rio meeting. And so we should
 design our method of work accordingly. So we would support the idea of having a
 sort of a final document to reflect the work of the Rio meeting. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  ICC.  Ayesha Hassan.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Chairman Desai.  I just wanted to briefly, on behalf of the
 International Chamber of Commerce and its initiative, Business Action to
 Support the Information Society, join others in congratulating you on your
 reappointment and also expressing our appreciation to the host country Brazil
 for all the work that they are doing to prepare this important event in Rio in
 November. We'd also like to express our appreciation for Mr. Vianna's comments
 about the importance they place on collaboration and cooperation with other
 stakeholders. That said, we'd also like to say that ICC/BASIS believes that the
 addition of a co-chair from the host country of Brazil should be considered an
 experiment.  And we believe that a link with the host country and the Chairman
 to provide logistical and organizational support will help in the planning for
 the IGF in Rio. We believe that the co-chair from Brazil can play a productive
 role in providing a link between the host country and the Advisory Group on
 these matters, and that there may be a logic in creating a co-chair with
 responsibility for logistical arrangements, which our Greek host performed so
 ably last year and helped to make the first IGF a real success. We do support
 the role of the Advisory Group that Mr. Desai, you, have provided in the past. 
 And we believe that you continue to be an important guide on the substantive
 issues as the U.N. secretary-general's special advisory for Internet
 governance. We would also like to just reiterate our support for Mr. Kummer and
 the IGF Secretariat, and all of the substantive support that he and his team
 and you, Mr. Desai, have provided as we prepare. With that, I just want to also
 take this opportunity to reply to a few comments that were made by others this
 morning. We realize that the novelty of a multistakeholder dialogue discussion
 forum is challenging for some, but we believe that it's very important to
 continue to focus on the multistakeholder on an equal footing principle that is
 the IGF in all of its aspects as we continue the organizational planning and
 discussions here today. With that, I thank you very much.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Alejandro Pisanty.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Thank you, Chair.  After your kind offer to accept my 50
 Swiss Franc donation --

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  On behalf of the U.N.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  I absolutely understand that you wouldn't do anything but
 an institutional reaction. The -- several of the comments I would like to have
 made have already been made, for example, most recently by Ms. Hassan's on
 behalf of ICC/BASIS.  I have also expressed some of them, I have some concerns
 about the organization role, rules of operation, and so forth in a note that
 was distributed to the Advisory Group but was -- had also a number of
 participants outside the group copied, while we establish what will really be
 the application of Chatham House Rules and so forth.  I'm glad that people are
 telling us that despite their formalistic concerns, they are very open to
 dialogue in this multistakeholder environment. Those of us who have been
 participating in multistakeholder environments for years with equal footings of
 the government sometimes very unequal footing, as governments have been
 somewhat adverse to a few of the actions that were needed to build the Internet
 in many countries, we don't see so much of a challenge in listening to many
 different parties and to coming out from forums with what don't seem as
 concrete results because they are not uniform for everybody. I will only
 address now the point of concrete practical results. Knowing the weakness of
 analogies and metaphors, I will still make one. The Internet Governance Forum
 is first and foremost a learning experience for all participants.  As has been
 said from the WSIS process on, it's an occasion for learning from others'
 experience.  I completely agree with the ETNO view that this is not a forum to
 establish best practice, but to find out what other people have identified as
 lessons learned from their experience.  And we will each go back home with our
 lessons learned, with our understanding achieved, and with our views of what
 others are doing.  We will not necessarily go all back home with the same
 thesis paper, as we would not expect all students living at university to have
 written the same thesis. Nor will we expect all students to have achieved the
 same grade.  And in this case, each person that attends or each organization,
 corporation, or government that attends the Internet Governance Forum will go
 back home with the lessons learned and be subjected to the tests of reality in
 their own environment.  We expect already from WSIS and not only on the
 Internet governance front, that companies, governments, academics, NGOs, and so
 forth, will test themselves against reality and will be graded by their
 constituents.  And this is what I think will happen also in the field of
 Internet governance.  People will go back and will be achieving something or
 not with the lessons they have learned in the environment they will face.  And
 there will always be a social accountability for their learning.  And that
 won't be represented by any single paper.  That will be represented by action
 in the national and international arenas for the years to come.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Louis Pouzin from Eurolinc.

 >>EUROLINC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Louis Pouzin, from Eurolinc. 
 I am one of the founders of the Eurolinc Association. I wish to use this
 opportunity to announce the creation of a new working group in civil society. 
 This group is called Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks
 Governance.  So why create another working group on Internet governance?
 Indeed, there is already a work called Internet Governance Caucus. from our
 observations, there is a strong presence of the Internet community.  They have
 ties with some governments, with the business sector, with the NGOs, and also
 with the domain name milk cow.  Quite a few people in the civil society do not
 share these interests.  As a result, there is no majority for a consensus on
 the significant reforms of Internet governance. It appears that it would be
 better to draw clearer lines, let the Internet community lobby for its own
 turf, and have a civil society working group with a distinct agenda. What
 agenda? What it is, to identify and promote enablers of societal development,
 taking full account of existing diversities, for example, culture, language,
 geography, political systems, and so on. To adjust governance structures to
 people's needs, rather than the opposite.  In short, implement the Tunis
 Agenda. What structures do we propose? This working group is now created as of
 3rd September, 2007.  It is international.  Its chairman or coordinator,
 whatever term the group prefers, is rotated every six months.  The first one is
 myself, LOUIS Pouzin.  The group is multilingual, starting with English,
 French, Spanish, and other languages when it becomes practicable.  There shall
 be an ethics committee in charge of evaluating potential conflicts of interest.
  Additional mechanisms are needed, for example, for nominations, votes, events,
 and so on, and so on. They will be defined by the group. Participation is open
 to everyone abiding by the group rules and not involved with the Internet
 community. A discussion list is open.  Anyone may subscribe. The URL is
 gov@WSIS-GOV.ORG. People interested may join in now.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you.

 >>:It's not GLD.  GOV.  GOV@GOV.

 >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Okay. Let me try and conclude this part of the open general
 discussion. If I may just draw a few bullet points from this. One, I think, is
 everybody has stressed the importance of the multistakeholder environment, an
 effective multistakeholder environment.  In some ways, this was the success of
 Athens. At the end of the Athens meeting, when I spoke with some of the people
 who came there, the basic message I got from them was that, look, as groups, we
 meet separately, the Internet community, governments, NGOs, and so on.  What
 was unique about the space in Athens was that we were meeting together.  And I
 got this basically from the Internet community people, who were, at the end of
 the meeting, did welcome that experience, because, in a way, it got them out of
 the relatively narrower -- well, the same groups that they would tend to meet
 in in their own meetings, into a much wider meeting where they were exposed to
 people in governments responsible for this policy, people in industry, people
 in other NGOs who were not part of the Internet community, and so on. So I
 would say this was, in some ways, the uniqueness. And I must say, there's a lot
 of interest in this, not just in this group which is involved in the Internet
 Governance Forum, but also lots of people outside who see in this a potential
 for a model for other areas of governance, a point which my co-chair referred
 to very clearly in his opening remarks. The second thing is that with perhaps
 some occasional reservation, by and large, people have accepted the structuring
 of the themes as have been put forward by the Secretary-General.  I would like
 to stress, it's already there.  This is not something that we are being asked
 to advise on.  People, of course, people will have questions on what we
 discuss.  And some of you have mentioned that aspect. In terms of the way in
 which the meeting is organized, I hope the next round of discussions will lead
 to more concrete suggestions.  But certainly the broad point about balance,
 geographical representation, which has been raised, is something which we need
 to note and ensure when we get into the Rio meeting. A basic theme that I have
 heard from several people here is for the need for us to have a certain vision
 on how the IGF will evolve, that the sense is that you can't just keep on
 repeating a dialogue forum year after year in the same format, the same themes,
 because it would then become somewhat tedious for everybody.  And this is a
 message that I clearly get from what several people have said.  We must have
 some conception of how this forum is going to develop. And as part of this, one
 of the issues, two issues have struck me, listening to you.  One is for a more
 active engagement of stakeholders in managing the process.  And two is for the
 process to be result-oriented.  How is a bold question in a process like this.
 Some aspects of this will perhaps come up a little in our discussion of the
 dynamic coalition.  But these are some of the broad lessons that I draw. My
 suggestion is that we close this general discussion and we move on to the
 specific themes.  And the first of these is the organization of the Rio
 meeting.  And at this point, I will hand over to my co-chair.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Well, thank you very much, co-chairman Desai. At the
 outset, I'd like to thank all the nice words that were addressed to me for my
 appointment as co-chair, as well as the words addressed to the Brazilian
 government as host of the second IGF. Well, as you can notice, our second item
 of the agenda refers to the schedule of the Rio de Janeiro meeting itself, much
 more practical issue to be dealt with. I think we should take into account that
 this is the last opportunity we have before Rio to come up with proposals,
 ideas, suggestions, comments, and opportunity to express concerns with the way
 the meetings in Rio are scheduled. I understand I resort to Mr. Markus Kummer
 that there is displayed in Internet a schedule, and it's updated.  And I think
 what you have to do now is to take a look at this schedule see what changes you
 think should be done. But before passing the floor on to you, I would like to
 ask Mr. Kummer to tell us what's the situation of the schedule and what are the
 possibilities of changing. Thank you.  Mr. Kummer, you have the floor.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will recall that we have
 posted on our Web site -- and it's still there -- a tentative schedule for the
 Rio de Janeiro meeting, which is by and large based on what we had in Athens.
 In Athens, we ended up, I think, with 36 workshops.  But there we had the
 perfect match between supply and demand.  We were able to accommodate each
 proponent of a workshop with the slots we had prepared. This will not be that
 easy anymore in Rio de Janeiro, as we have a demand overhand.  Yet, all in all,
 for the various types of meetings, we counted more than 120 requests for
 meeting rooms.  And that clearly cannot be accommodated in the draft schedule
 we had proposed and discussed, which was a comfortable schedule with the first
 meeting starting at 9:00, having a lunch break, and finishing at 6:00. Now, we
 have, I would say, three broad options.  One would be to stick to the original
 schedule and be very tough with all the people who want to stage a meeting and
 say, "Sorry, there is no space for you," which I personally think would be a
 bit hard when we have people who put a lot of effort and work into their
 proposal and we do have rooms in Rio to say, "No, we keep these rooms empty
 while we're having lunch." The second option will be to use all the rooms
 available and to squeeze in as many meetings as possible.  And then I think we
 might be able to accommodate all requests.  However, that would be at the cost
 also of some free space, as we are planning to have a meeting point for --
 where people can exhibit themselves.  Somebody called it a village square.  I
 think last year we call it a plaza, but plaza being a Spanish word, we think it
 would not be appropriate for Brazil. But -- so the middle way could be that we
 try to expand the schedule a little bit, that we start with slots early in the
 morning, maybe already at half past 8:00, that we have slots over lunchtime,
 which, by the way, proved very successful during the PrepCom, the WSIS PrepCom
 in Geneva.  We had many workshops at lunchtime, brown-bag lunch-type workshops
 where people went in with a sandwich and took part in a workshop.  And before
 they went back, then, to the negotiations.  And we could have a last slot also
 after 6:00.  And in that way, I think we could easily accommodate some 70, 75
 different type of meetings, which would be a very dense program, but which
 would allow for a quality control so that not absolutely everybody can reckon
 to have a meeting.  And that would be, in a way, sort of the middle way, which,
 to ask the secretariat, would seem the reasonable way forward, with also having
 some comfortable physical space for the meeting space. And there, to pick up on
 our correspondent who wanted to reintroduce the speed dialogue, we could, in
 one of these rooms also have a table for ad hoc sessions, very informal, where
 participants could sit down and discuss anything. Now, I would not assume that
 this large meeting will go into the details, but I think it would be helpful to
 get a little bit of feedback which of these three options would be the most
 welcome one, the very rigid option with not enough workshops or the very open
 option with meetings from midnight to midnight almost, where all the room is
 used, or a kind of middle option, where we expand on Athens and have roughly
 twice as many parallel events as in Athens, but at the same time, we would tell
 some people, "Sorry, no, your proposal does not fit into the program." Thank
 you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer. Well, I would like, then, to open
 the floor for comments on the three possibilities raised by Mr. Kummer. I
 recognize -- I don't know the name, sorry.  I still have to know you better. 
 But my colleagues will identify the speakers for me.

 >>:Marilyn Cade.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chair. On behalf of ITAA and WITSA, I would like to
 offer a comment about the importance of balance and adhering to our commitment
 to maintaining multistakeholder participation in all of the events that are
 part of the IGF. I think that, of course, there are many interested parties who
 do wish to participate and offer their views at the IGF.  And that is, of
 course, both interesting.  But our view, from ITAA WITSA is that
 multistakeholder must be a baseline criteria.  It may not be feasible for each
 workshop to have all five of the categories represented, but our thought is
 that there must be a minimum of at least three. While it may be possible that
 best practice sessions are about a single country, for the rest of the
 workshops, the thematic sessions, the open sessions, of course, will be about a
 single international organization.  But other than that, we believe that there
 must also be geographic diversity. And I think that by establishing and
 adhering to those foundational criteria, that it will be possible to perhaps
 guide some of those parties who have put forward an interest in speaking but
 have not yet built the broad support and participation geographically and from
 other stakeholders that may encourage those parties to combine together and
 thus consolidate. So our suggestion at this point is, we do think that there
 needs to be this fundamental baseline criteria, multistakeholder, and
 geographic diversity.  We also think that there is significant value to
 enabling interaction outside of the formal workshops and main sessions, and
 that some time must be incorporated for that mingling and interaction.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Well, thank you very much for your comments, for sure very
 much valuable.  Your reference to the need to maintain a balanced
 representation is -- I consider, myself, very much important, as well as to
 maintain the multistakeholder format. Then I would like to offer the floor to
 ICC.

 >>ICC:  Thank you, Chairman. I would like to support my colleague, Marilyn
 Cade's, input on behalf of ITAA/WITSA, and also build on that on behalf of the
 International Chamber of Commerce and its BASIS initiative. We still remain
 concerned about the number of ongoing events all at one time.  In general,
 ICC/BASIS believes that reducing the number of events going on at any one given
 time should be a priority as the schedule is revised, and we wouldn't support a
 sort of 24-hour schedule expanding as one of the options that was outlined. We
 note that there are 31 open workshops at this time and suggest that where
 appropriate, a few of them should be considered as the thematic workshops in
 order to reduce the overlap in the schedule. We would also suggest that there
 be no additional workshops, open workshops, added to the schedule. In addition
 to the 31 open workshops, we should all remember that there are also five main
 sessions.  There are going to be a dozen best practice forums, all of which are
 very important.  And an undefined number of open forums, as well as possible
 meetings and dynamic coalitions, not to mention the morning reporting sessions.
 This is a very full and complex schedule which really may be very difficult for
 some people to maximize the opportunities and choose where they should really
 be at any given moment. From the business community's perspective, here
 represented by ICC, it's going to be a challenging schedule for us to ensure
 that there are business experts and business participants in the room for each
 of these events in order to both take advantage of the opportunities and the
 learning opportunities, and also to share their expertise and experience.  And
 we imagine that this is a challenge that will be faced by many other
 stakeholders as well. For those of us who have been closely involved in the
 development of the schedule, it might not be that confusing.  But there are
 first-time participants who are taking a look at this schedule who find it very
 confusing and quite overwhelming about making choices for the schedule and
 where they should be. We also wanted to emphasize our members believe that
 informal discussions and the sharing of information and experience that will
 occur at this meeting and in the meeting place, in the hallways, are really an
 important part of the IGF that should not be ignored in the scheduling.  We'd
 encourage and look forward to receiving information about the meeting place and
 encourage the schedule for Rio to remain sensitive to the need for participants
 to have enough time to fully take advantage of what has been described as this
 opportunity to meet and interact and learn from and exchange with people that
 they may not have other opportunities to do that with. Thus, from our
 perspective, attention to not overburdening the program is essential, and we'd
 also like to strongly urge attention to be given to make sure that events have
 a solid audience, which several overlapping events will really, clearly, not
 achieve that objective. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, ICC, for your comments.  For sure we'll take
 note of them.  Very valuable for our planning. I'd like to give the floor now
 to the Council of Europe.

 >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And congratulations
 on your reappointment. I would like to start by welcoming Mr.  Hadil Da Rocha
 Vianna as co-chair of this meeting.  I'd also like to thank the IGF secretariat
 for its organization and preparation of this year's IGF so far, including the
 synthesis paper, which provides a clear and comprehensive overview of many
 concerns and issues regarding the governance of the Internet. The Council of
 Europe supports the draft program for the Rio meeting and welcomes the addition
 of the theme on critical Internet resources, which has important aspects
 touching upon international human rights law. Mr. Chairman, giving a voice to
 the Council of Europe in the IGF means, in effect, giving a voice to what we
 believe to be at the core of Internet governance, the need for a
 people-centered Internet which is safe, open, fair, and democratic. In this
 regard, Mr. Chairman, you may be aware that the Council of Europe has made a
 considerable contribution to strengthening the security of the Internet with
 regard, for example, to the Convention on Cybercrime, or the Convention on the
 Protection of Individuals and the Automatic Processing of Personal Data, and so
 on, more on which is to be found in our written submission to the IGF. Now, as
 an addition to this acquis, I am pleased to announce the adoption of a new
 international standard to strengthen the security of the Internet, with
 particular regard to children, the Convention on the Protection of Children
 Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, to be opened for signature in October of
 this year for all states, both European and non-European.  This convention
 inter alia requires states to criminalize conduct such as knowingly accessing
 child pornography on the Internet and the soliciting of children for sexual
 purposes, also known as grooming. Mr. Chairman, the security of the Internet
 and the protection of children to this end is a priority for the Council of
 Europe, and we want to make this a central focus of our open forum in Rio de
 Janeiro.  As part of the solutions to the issues that arise from the use and
 misuse of Internet, of particular concern to everyday users, the Council of
 Europe has also recently produced a practical information guide on
 pharmaceutical products and counterfeit medicines which shows how to
 distinguish doubtful from reliable medical information, and warning about risky
 behavior regarding the purchase of medicines through the Internet. We are also
 currently developing a new standard on public service value of the Internet,
 understood as people's significant reliance on the Internet as an essential
 tool for their everyday activities and the resulting legitimate expectation
 that Internet services are accessible, affordable, secure, reliable, and
 ongoing. Mr. Chairman, as we all become more and more dependent on the
 Internet, states and other stakeholders need to be alert to the reality of the
 challenges that our second lives are having on our lives and freedoms as the
 line between these overlapping multiple lives, offline and online become
 increasingly blurred.  The public service value of the Internet is a way
 forward for the IGF in developing the public policy of the Internet and is a
 developing acquis as the Council of Europe, which we plan to present and
 explain in Rio. Mr. Chairman, we are very proud to play a very active role in
 the upcoming IGF, in organizing, co-organizing, and participating in numerous
 workshops and other events in order to share expertise and present and explain
 our international standards as part of the mission to secure people's enjoyment
 of a maximum of rights and services, subject to a minimum of restrictions,
 while at the same time seeking to ensure the level of security that users are
 entitled to expect. Thank you for your attention.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, the Council of Europe. I would like to
 give the floor now to Mister -- I would like to ask Mr. Pisanty if he has
 called the floor -- I represent Mr. Peake and then ETNO.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I'm a researcher at a
 university research institute in Tokyo and a member of the Advisory Group and
 speaking as an individual. Looking through the schedule at the moment, I count
 there are 60 slots for various meetings, workshops and other meetings.  That's
 in addition to the main sessions.  And I do think that it would be good to
 accept as many other meetings as possible, lunchtime and others.  But at the
 moment, we are, I think, ten weeks away from Rio, and we do not have speakers
 arranged for the main sessions.  We don't have an idea of how the thematic
 sessions will build into and link into the main sessions.  And I think it would
 make sense to focus on getting the 60 slots we have at the moment right and
 getting the sessions organized and understanding how those thematic sessions,
 those thematic workshop sessions, will lead into the panels.  That should be
 our priority. And if we can, in addition, add people's sessions at lunch-time,
 then do so.  But, please, let's focus on getting Rio organized.  Because it
 really is ten weeks away, and there isn't a program in place. And this is
 important, because people won't plan their trips to Rio on an empty program.  I
 can't imagine people from the private sector being able to go to their bosses
 and asking for a plane ticket when there is an empty schedule.  And the same
 for governments, and the same very much for developing countries, and, of
 course, for civil society, which I'm a member of. So we really must focus on
 getting this schedule, well, together.  And it's not at the moment.  So let's
 focus on the 60 we have and the main sessions.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Peake.  Indeed, I totally agree with you,
 that our intervention must be very much focused on what's going to happen in
 Rio.  Actually, I need your help to know what's going to happen there. And I
 notice some difference of opinions, not very much different, but there are some
 emphasis on the need to accept the most -- the largest number of proposals,
 others that it should be more moderate. We totally depend on your opinion to
 organize the works there. I would like to give the floor to France with asking
 France to be very much practical in addressing these questions of -- of the
 work that's going to be done in Rio, the schedule of Rio. And, I'm sorry,
 before I give the floor to France, I recognize ETNO that has raised his flag
 before France.  ETNO, the same suggestion.  Thank you.

 >>ETNO:  Thank you, Chair. I could have spoken after France.  It's all right.
 Anyway, on behalf of ETNO, we support the views of ETA and WITSA as well as
 ICC, and of course we were very happy to hear Mr. Peake, because he expressed
 our concerns as well. So we would like to make the following remarks on the
 schedule, especially on the workshops and best practice forums.  There are a
 large number of points which raised many concerns. As there will be five main
 themes in the Rio IGF, three thematic workshops per theme are no longer viable.
  And a new theme besides the four Athens themes should not be treated
 necessarily as the first four but according to its nature and maturity. 
 Therefore, ETNO suggested the critical internet resources theme is treated
 differently than the other four themes and that there are no thematic workshops
 on this fourth theme.  Of course it should be clear that open workshops can
 take place on critical internet resources. In general, when it comes to the 12
 thematic workshops, as they link to the main session, for us it is essential
 that the IGF secretariat, with the help of the Advisory Group, takes
 responsibility for their selection and has a last word on them. The organizers
 of the thematic workshops should be under the supervision of the IGF
 Secretariat.  As regards workshop reporting or results, ETNO suggests to keep
 the workshop template developed in Athens, who participated, what issues were
 discussed, what were the main points, which worked very well. And of course,
 the number of workshops needs to be limited. Regarding the best practice
 forums, indeed their number is above expectation.  It should clear that the IGF
 itself does not sponsor nor recommends any best practice. We strongly believe
 that the best practice forum should not go further than an exchange of ideas,
 but about the practice that has worked well or not well and why. ETNO stresses
 that best practice forum should be about lessons learned rather than about best
 practice and they should not promote the views of a sole stakeholder or the
 views of certain stakeholders of the same interest. In principle, there should
 be a straight distinction amongst the best practice forums, thematic workshops
 and main sessions. We believe that the number of best practice forums on
 certain chosen topics must be very limited.  Best practice forums must be
 chosen on the basis of taking stock from experience and must foster
 discussions. ETNO would appreciate further clarifications on the criterion
 selection process.  To conclude on this issue, we believe the number of
 workshops and forums must be limited.  This way participants, especially those
 from small delegations, will be able to attend the events they want and at the
 same time it would be easier to maintain a certain quality of multistakeholder
 balanced dialogue and efficiency of debate. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, ETNO, for your clear-cut remarks. I'd like to
 pass on the floor to France and then to Mr. Katoh, and I will be recognizing
 another flag later on. France, you have the floor.

 >>FRANCE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  A few concrete remarks, as you suggested. The
 first thing is that in as much as we would all like to have as many sessions
 and accommodate as many workshops as possible, it is obvious that one of the
 main advantages of the IGF is the intermingling and interaction that was
 mentioned both by Marilyn Cade and Ayesha Hassan before. So it's a delicate
 balance.  And we all know that it's very difficult to handle the two
 contradictory objectives. In addition, we all know that did he beginning of the
 morning, usually a lot of groups are meeting before the discussion of the day,
 either to prepare the workshop or to prepare their positions and what they are
 going to say. So in as much as I would like to support the notion of extending
 the whole schedule in the beginning and in the afternoon, it's true that it
 would probably prevent this kind of an interaction. Another element is that, if
 I understood well the number of workshops or proposals and time slots that have
 been requested of 120, if I understand Markus correctly, it means all types of
 events, including the sessions on best practices and so on. What I was
 wondering is whether, among the workshops that have not been accepted -- I
 mean, beyond the 31 -- whether some of the proponents were actually proposing
 workshops mostly to raise awareness on a given issue. If that is the case,
 maybe they do not need or they do not want as long a session as other workshops
 who really want to discuss in depth issues that have already been raised
 before.  And in that respect, maybe there's a possibility to introduce
 something that would be an equivalent of a posit session whereby in the period
 of two hours, slots of five minutes for a certain number, or ten minutes,
 whatever, for different actors who want to raise awareness on a specific thing
 or a specific activity that will take place during the year, would be allowed
 to do so. That maybe could take some of the subjects and some of the workshop
 proponents out of the whole list. Another element is the question of the
 reporting templates or the different workshops.  I think it is a very good
 element that was used in Athens.  And maybe there could be some minor
 refinement to the format. The reason why I raised this is, first of all, it's a
 good discipline for all workshop organizers.  It allows a better description of
 who are the promoters of these workshops.  And it also provides some short
 documents that could be used in the future for the publication of the
 activities of the forum. Two last points. I agree that the question of the
 thematic workshops is a little bit too fuzzy at the moment.  It occupies 12
 slots.  And it is not really clearly defined. We believe that there is an
 interest in using some of those slots maybe for reporting back of the different
 open workshops, so that an in-depth discussion, but in a more compact manner,
 can be done to feed into the main sessions. We have 31 concrete workshops, 12
 slots for thematic ones.  And maybe this is the opportunity to converge
 progressively to the main sessions. And the last point is we understand fully
 the financial constraints that put a burden on the Secretariat regarding, in
 particular, the question of translation and so on.  It would surprise nobody
 that we believe that it's an important element that will have to be addressed.
 I must confess that in as much as I would like to say right now that we are
 able as France to put as much money as is needed for a contribution, I
 unfortunately didn't manage to do that so far, but it will be necessary to
 address this issue in the question of next year and the perspective of the
 forum, because the multilingual dimension of the forum is a very important
 element, both in the main event and in the sessions like this one.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, France, very much for your comments.  Especially
 those related to the need to avoid duplication of treatment of issues. That's
 something that seems quite logical, but practically, it's not that easy to
 address. And I really appreciate your comments on the template that a previous
 speaker had touched as well.  Something that I find very useful, and will be
 examining the possibility of maintaining the same practice in Rio. Before
 giving the floor to Mr. Katoh, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Kummer,
 some reference he would like to make with regard to France's statement.  Thank
 you.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Also some previous speakers
 referred to the distinction between what we had on our Web site, thematic and
 open workshops.  But this distinction was made well in advance, when we
 actually made a call for workshop proposals.  And then it was overtaken by
 events.  As it happened, we had many workshop proposal referring to the five
 main themes of the Rio meeting.  And then we had some proposals we classified
 under the heading development capacity building, which is the big, overarching,
 cross-cutting priority.  And the few others, which we put under "others,"
 because they did not feed into the other main themes, such as workshops on
 multistakeholder cooperation and so on. So the new schedule will reflect these
 new categories.  So in a way, we can forget about open workshops and thematic
 workshops, as they all have some kind of theme and some kind of heading.  And
 by scheduling, we will have to take that into account. Also, allow me, Mr.
 Chairman, just a quick reaction to the last comment on translation. This is not
 only a financial issue.  It's also a question of capacity of the U.N. and also
 of the freelance translators that are available here in this area.  And
 sometimes due to a heavy schedule, they are all taken up by working for
 meetings that are on the calendar of the United Nations. We are not.  So we
 always come last.  Even if you have the funds available for paying, it depends
 whether the services are actually available and whether we can hire the
 services with the quality control of the United Nations. That is always
 included when you actually get U.N. services, you get a U.N. quality control,
 which was the case last year, for instance, for the input document. So it's not
 just a question of funds.  It's also a question of availability of services.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer.  Now I would like to give the floor
 to Mr. Katoh, and then Mr. Francis Muguet.

 >>MASANOBU KATOH:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Masanobu Katoh
 with Fujitsu Limited.  Today I am representing the Nippon Keidanren, one of the
 major industry organization with more than 1600 corporate members in Japan.  I
 am serving as subcommittee chair of ICT related international issues at the
 Keidanren.  I am also deeply involved in the Global Information Infrastructure
 Commission, GIIC, a senior level private sector initiative to foster the
 deployment of ICT infrastructures all over the world. First of all, we highly
 appreciate all the efforts by the IGF Secretariat, especially Mr. Desai, Mr.
 Vianna, and Mr. Kummer, to organize the event. I would like to reiterate the
 importance of multistakeholder participation. You might recall that the private
 sector represented only 13% of the number of participants in Athens, with
 government accounting for 28% and the civil society 29%.  Considering the role
 that the private sector has played in the deployment of the Internet, we think
 this number is too small. We observed very few number of company CEOs in Athens
 while I saw several top leaders from other sectors.  To encourage greater
 private sector participation in process of the IGF, we need to attract the
 attention of CEOs to the Rio meeting. The Nippon Keidanren in collaboration
 GIIC, ICC/BASIS, ICANN, the Japanese government a civil society like GLOCOM
 held a Tokyo IGF event in May this year. We thank Markus Kummer again for his
 excellent keynote address there. In this event, the Chairman of Toyota motors
 and also the chairman of Fujitsu limited attended the meeting, and emphasized
 the importance of active private sector involvement in the IGF process.  This
 event raised the awareness and positively changed the mindset of Japanese
 industry. As a result, Nippon Keidanren will send a delegation to the Rio
 meeting and will be part as joint organizers of two thematic workshops on
 access and security. Asia accounted for only 11% of all the participants at the
 IGF Athens.  The Nippon Keidanren would like to pursue more promotional
 activities in the Asia region where the IGF 2008 will be held in collaboration
 with other groups, such as GIIC. The Nippon Keidanren submitted written
 comments to the IGF on August 10th.  I would like to briefly introduce a few
 issues to be discussed in Rio. Nippon Keidanren acknowledges access as one of
 the primary issues especially for developing economies. Here we would like to
 emphasize the importance of education as well as infrastructure development
 itself.  We believe developed countries should contribute more in times of in
 times of human resource by providing materials, technical know-how and so on.
 Security is one of the major concerns of ours, too. Raising user awareness
 about Internet security is very critical. The Nippon Keidanren believes that
 national or reasonable efforts cannot respond to all the problems effectively,
 because the Internet goes beyond national boundaries. Therefore, it is very
 important to share know-how and the best practices on a global basis. From this
 point, we believe Computer Security Incident Resource Teams, CSIRT, is an
 effective framework for providing rapid notification of security incidents and
 for adopting measures against current and future threat. Education on security
 is a key for developing economies in order to build secured infrastructures for
 people to access the Internet. In this respect, developed countries should
 consider providing assistance to promote access and security in parallel. Thank
 you very much, Mr. Chairman.  We all look forward to seeing you in Rio.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Katoh. I would like to offer the floor to
 Mr. Muguet.

 >>FRANCIS MUGUET:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I am Francis Muguet from ENSTA, a
 French educational and research institution, and the Chairman of civil society
 working group on scientific information, co-chair of the group on patent and
 copyright, member of the Civil Society Bureau, member of Eurolinc and the most
 important group WSIS dash gov, and speaking in my personal capacity. First, I
 would like to welcome the appointment of Brazil as co-chair of this meeting of
 the Advisory Group. The main point of my contribution relate to the emerging
 issues session, but before I would like to stress the following procedural
 point. As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked to enhance the
 transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow of
 information between its member and the various interest groups.  A continuous
 flow implies transparencies of ongoing groups meetings and, therefore, on the
 basis of the decision of the secretary-general, we kindly request from the
 co-chair that all (inaudible) meetings should be open to observers. Chairman
 Desai spoke at length about good faith.  Good faith implies that all
 stakeholders accept the full extent of the IGF mandate and do not try to
 indulge into renegotiation.  The question is not if, but how.  Eurolinc already
 has proposed a four-continent multistakeholder bureau, a supported view
 reiterated by Brazil, of a multistakeholder bureau which is required to better
 solve procedural issue. The emerging association is one of the most important
 session of the IGF and more time should be allocated to this session, because
 the IGF is mandated to make recommendation on issues that are emerging for the
 forum. As a constructive procedural proposal, we propose as first step that
 thematic workshop and (inaudible) session propose a limited number of draft
 recommendation.  Then, only a full and well prepared recommendation should be
 submitted to the emerging issues plenary session. Please, it is kindly request
 from all stakeholders of good faith not to make answer before question because
 there are procedural concern of membership.  It is a procedural issue that may
 be overcome with imagination and good will.  And from learning from the
 experience of multistakeholder international organization such as ISO.  (Saying
 name) to the attention to all stakeholders, the ISO international workshop
 agreement for a careful examination for a basis for IGF innovative procedure.
 Lastly, and this is a separate issue, on the (inaudible) of linguistic
 diversity during the session and at the IGF, it is suggested to rely on a
 multistakeholder Secretariat with the help of volunteer translators and
 consultants. In this regard, we kindly request from the Secretariat to disclose
 the list of existing consultant to the Secretariat. Thank you for your
 attention.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr.  Muguet for your suggestions.  We will be
 taking note. I wonder if there are any other flags raised.  I'm sorry, Brazil. 
 I didn't see Brazil. Brazil has the floor.

 >>BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just would like to build upon the
 comments that were made in previous interventions regarding the possibility of
 using a template as a reference of what will be discussed in each workshop. And
 I would like to support this idea. And bear in mind that we are learning
 lessons from Athens and we are in an incremental five-year process. I believe
 it is also important to note that in the case of the first IGF in Athens, the
 workshops were not direct -- were not selected based on their relevance to the
 forum and issues that were in the thematic agenda, but it was, rather, a free
 opportunity for all those who wanted to prepare workshops and not necessarily
 linked to the four themes. And now, we believe that the difference in Rio will
 be that workshops are being selected in light of their relevance to the five
 thematic clusters that we will have. And in this case, it will be -- the
 workshops will be much more linked to the main sessions discussions that we
 will have in Rio. In this sense, it seems to us that it is a good idea to ask
 that each workshop prepares a brief summary based on a template to be
 previously distributed.  Such template might have some basic information about
 the title, the description of the theme, brief reference to the ideas
 presented, including the diversity of opinions that were presented at each
 workshop, suggestions for possible actions by various stakeholders, and
 possible conclusions in all recommendations, as well as a list of participants.
 I think we should also consider the possibility of putting together all those
 templates as an annex to a final chairman's summary to be presented at the last
 -- at the closing session of the IGF in Rio. That could constitute a good
 reference, future reference for what was discuss -- what will be discussed in
 Rio, and could be regarded, perhaps, as a Rio message for future events. Well,
 if we are able to do that, we are also paying attention to the fact that we are
 progressing towards the full implementation of the IGF mandate according to the
 Tunis Agenda, with a view of the five years' term, five years term of the IGF
 as mandated by Tunis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Brazil. Thank you for raising this
 idea of having an eventual chairman's summary, a summary on the responsibility
 of IGF chairman.  And the idea of having as annexes templates regarding the
 other events.  This is a useful idea that for sure the Advisory Group will be
 considering. And I'd like now to give the floor to Mr. Malcolm Hutty of LINX,
 and then I would like to recognize Mr. Pisanty's flag. You have the floor, Mr.
 Hutty.

 >>MALCOLM HUTTY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would like to say few words, if I
 might, on the subject of participation in the forum as a whole and in the
 workshops in particular as we are on the subject of the workshops. Nobody yet
 has mentioned the subject of remote participation so I hope it is not out of
 order to be raising it now but I think it is important to the ongoing success
 of the workshops, that we build upon this. In his closing remarks for the last
 session, Mr. Desai mentioned that the risk that may be this whole event, if it
 does not evolve could become, I think in his words, tedious, now my
 recollection from Athens is that it was flowing very far from tedious.  That it
 was a very, very worthwhile exercise where people came together and exchanged
 information and knowledge in a way that had never been such a great opportunity
 to do so before. But many of those workshops were, indeed, comprised of quite
 small rooms of people.  And small rooms of people, for the first time, is a
 useful starting point.  But I think it can be built upon. If over the course of
 successive years we have nothing more than the same small rooms full of the
 same people, then I think there is, indeed, a risk that Mr. Desai's rather
 dismal prediction could come true. Of course that is to be avoided if it is at
 all possible. So how might we evolve the format of the workshops over the
 course of time so as to avoid that outcome, which I think, worse than tedious,
 it poses a risk of degenerating, of deteriorating into a process of
 disagreement and argument and political grandstanding which very much has been
 what the IGF has not been about. And in order to avoid that, and building on
 the principles of multistakeholder, I think remote participation is extremely
 important. But if we're to have that remote participation, we need the
 logistics and infrastructures to support it. At the last meeting, I'd like to
 pay tribute to the efforts of the organizers for what they did to start off
 that process.  There was wireless network access, although it was a little
 flaky, there was wireless network access throughout the facility.  And the main
 conference was Webcast.  That is a good starting point. But having paid tribute
 to that, I think we can all recognize that the facilities there were fledgling.
 If we can build upon that for future years, and particularly in Rio, by
 providing far better infrastructure to support both the communications within
 the forum, and within the workshops, and to provide better facilities for the
 workshop organizers to have Web-based discussion forum and document
 repositories online to support remote participation and advance organization,
 and ideally -- and I say this knowing the deep practical difficulties that this
 will give you, Mr. Chair -- ideally, high-quality, high-bandwidth webcasting of
 all workshops would be an ideal thing to aim for. Now, we have the opportunity
 now of a co-chair from the host country who can have particular reference to
 these kinds of logistical issues.  So, Mr. Co-chair, I would urge you to
 investigate what may be done in that area, because I think that if you could
 provide a step change in the level of remote participation, then your
 co-chairship would be judged a remarkably successful experiment.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Hutty.  One more responsibility, anyway. 
 But thank you so much for your suggestion, being serious, it's something that
 we will check back home, what possibilities of resorting to remote
 participation and simulating webcasting. Now I would like to give the floor to
 Mr. Pisanty.  And I don't recognize any other flag.  So I intend to close the
 list after Mr. Pisanty. You have the floor, Mr. Pisanty.

 >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:  Thank you, Mr. Vianna.  I notice I have made an omission
 of -- publicly, as also I have already done in the Advisory Group mailing list,
 to congratulate you for taking up this responsibility. I see that others are
 taking up the idea of loading you with additional aspects of responsibilities,
 like making everything webcast and available internationally and so forth.  And
 I -- having been to technical meetings that have been organized in Brazil by
 the Internet steering committee, I am sure that there is the capacity out
 there, and I only hope that the demands don't overwhelm the organizers. Coming
 to the point of the summary papers and the results papers, again, I would -- I
 find it necessary to reiterate what -- and bring together several different
 strands of thought that have already been expressed along the several years
 that have preceded this meeting. The summary papers that can be produced after
 three hours of a workshop or after 60 or 120 events are bound to have numerous
 imperfections that make it very difficult for them to carry the weight of
 anything other than the narration of the events that have taken place. If they
 have to carry -- if anyone aspires for summaries of a single workshop or the
 whole 120, 60, 30, 15 sessions, there will necessarily be parties that feel
 that their points of view are not adequately weighted, have not been properly
 translated into one or another official U.N. language, and so forth.  We know
 this process very well from all the technical and nontechnical bodies in which
 you have taken part.  As I look around, I see even the youngest members of this
 -- the youngest people present in this room, no one has less than ten years,
 and some people have 35 years of experience in decision-making bodies, many of
 them in a multilanguage environment. I think that we will have to choose, and
 this will be a very hard choice. How do we want to spend and how do we want to
 invite people to spend their time in Rio and in the further sessions of the
 Internet Governance Forum?  Do we want to spend the time in dialogue, formal
 and informal, informal sessions, and in coffee shops?  Local or international? 
 Across time zones?  Across cultures?  Across languages?  Do we want this
 dialogue and this time spent, this energy and intellectual investment, to be
 made in learning, in transferring knowledge, in let me call this massaging
 ideas, in the collective construction of knowledge that is so much proper of
 the modern information society environment?  Or do we want to spend it
 hammering text, making sure every paragraph represents in a balanced way all
 the points of view and still means something, it doesn't only report in the end
 that there were frank and open discussions, which people will understand were
 close to coming to blows, or even more frank and open discussions, which were
 not close to coming to blows?  Do we want to really have people spend their
 time that way?  Do we want in the Rio forum and later on to have everybody
 arguing before a screen like this whether a comma, a colon, or a semicolon is
 indicated in order to provide the balanced views of all the participants?  Or
 even worse, do we want to convene a small committee whose representativeness
 will always be questioned to spend the night, as the saying goes, in a
 smoke-filled room, hammering out the text, only to be disavowed by a third of
 the participants and cause the disrecognition of the forum later on?  Do we
 want to risk the credibility of the Internet Governance Forum, its acceptance
 in the broad community, by having people tell themselves, "I won't go next
 year.  I will step -- I won't wait to be there to step out.  I just won't step
 in, because I fear that my points of view will be represented in such a way
 that it will be detrimental to the very growth of the information society"? I
 think we should not stick such a magical value to the summary document.  They
 are an unachievable task and they are not only a waste, but actually a terrible
 misuse of the time and intellectual energy and emotional energy that will be
 convened in Rio.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Pisanty, for your very reasonable remarks.
 What I could tell from the chair is that I understood from the statement of the
 Brazilian delegation that there will be a suggestion of a summary of the
 chairperson of the whole IGF meeting on this person's own responsibility.  So I
 understood the Brazilian statement is that the element, negotiation of text,
 would not be a blunt to limiting Rio.  And with regard to templates, then I
 would need some more information if templates would require negotiations. I
 totally agree with you, I don't see the Rio meeting as a moment for
 negotiating, as we usually do within the U.N. system or in other international
 organizations.  I totally agree with you. Our nature, the nature of IGF,
 multistakeholder, is a nature that will, at this stage, at least, would not
 welcome this type of negotiation. But, anyway, these are things that we should
 keep talking.  And I thank you very much.  Your point of view is important to
 counterbalance other ideas that were put on the table. And I would like to give
 the floor to Mrs. Emily Taylor.  You have the floor, madam.

 >>EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the floor. And congratulations to
 Mr. Desai on renewal of your mandate. Thank you to the secretariat for your
 continued excellent work against the backdrop of tight constraint on resources.
 Welcome, Mr. Co-chair.  And I look forward to working with you, as a member of
 the Advisory Group, and to echo the comments of ICC/BASIS, look forward to the
 logistical link that you will provide with the host country. Like Katoh-San, we
 were struck that, given the -- given the contribution the private sector has
 made to the development of the Internet, that there was rather a low turnout of
 only 13% of participants in Athens.  And so reflecting on that, we started to
 make steps within the U.K. to create a national process which would engage with
 business in the U.K., and other stakeholders as well. And I just wanted to
 update you on some of the things that we are doing, with the hope that we can
 bring those experiences to the Rio meeting, with the hope of giving ideas on
 how this process can evolve. We have formulated a best practice challenge aimed
 at encouraging business and others to give examples of what works, perhaps
 challenges that have been faced, and as part of that, have been engaging with
 parliamentarians at the national level and are hoping to support and encourage
 a cross-party delegation of MPs to go to the Rio meeting. On the October the
 11th, we will be holding a meeting in London to try and formulate messages that
 we might bring to the Rio meeting on behalf of the U.K., a multistakeholder
 meeting it will be. So there was one question posed by Mr. Kummer that I wanted
 to respond to, and that is how to manage the vast number of workshop proposals
 within limited space and time. The analogy that struck me was with the
 Edinburgh International Arts Festival, which is a completely chaotic, bottom-up
 type of approach, which shouldn't work, but sometimes -- somehow does.  And
 that is, I think that the choice that the secretariat and all of us face is
 whether to go for a controlling, top-down approach, quality control, how do we
 get the right focus.  And, of course, we want focus.  But equally, I think that
 there is a lot to learn from these sort of chaotic events where, somehow,
 participants vote with their feet and choose to participate in issues and
 events that are of interest to them. And perhaps the one thing that we should
 learn is that what they need in order to make informed decisions about what
 they're going to do is timely information about what is happening. And that
 leads me to a second idea, which is a question, really, Mr. Co-chair, for you. 
 Please, could you update us on what's happening with the exhibition space which
 has been suggested as part of the early papers?  Because this, again, may
 provide an environment, echoing the thoughts of France here, in which people
 can participate perhaps by way of poster exhibitions and so forth, which could
 perhaps reduce the strain on workshop rooms. Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Miss Taylor.  Thank you for your messages. 
 Thank you for your ideas. And since there are no other flags raised, I would
 like to pass on the floor to Mr. Kummer for some comments and some answers. I
 think, Miss Taylor, Mr. Kummer can reply to your last question.  And then will
 make some final remarks. Mr. Kummer, you can have the floor.

 >>SECRETARY KUMMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe a brief word to begin with
 on the template and the reporting. We tried that in Athens.  As you will
 recall, we handed out this template.  But for some reason, it didn't work.  The
 organizers just didn't fill in the template.  They did not report back.  And we
 -- after the event, we chased some of them, and we got some reports and posted
 them, but not of all of the events.  So I think this is one of the lessons
 learned.  There was not a great enthusiasm to fill in the form.  If we want to
 do that, we need to have some enforcement of the system.  And there may be the
 Advisory Group members could be helpful that they would be the watchdogs and
 make sure that these forms are filled in.  But I think this is something we
 will have to discuss also tomorrow. The other question I very much like the
 analogy with -- and I suppose that's the Edinburgh fringe festival where
 everything happens in a chaotic way but still happen.  And I think the
 bottom-up would be a better approach when it comes to some Internet-related
 event. But I think we can accommodate with the given space we have and with the
 given space slots a significant number of events.  And we will prepare
 something we can present also, then, tomorrow, a possible schedule. The
 question I thought we were going to address this afternoon about the exhibition
 space, but I can already give an answer.  No, there will not be a commercial
 exhibition, because there was not enough response to that.  Our Brazilian host
 tried to get it together.  But they had to give it up.  Which means we will
 focus on the noncommercial exhibition space.  And we can also expand a little
 bit on that.  And this is one of the remarks I tried to make when I introduced
 this.  We can give a little bit more space to it and also have an extra room
 where we could have a table, as the delegate of France suggested, have poster
 sessions.  This was very much what we had in mind, that we could have ad hoc
 meetings, which would take the pressure a little bit for the more formal
 meetings and would be more convivial, more informal, where people would get
 together. But there, the architecture is not yet ready, and I think maybe we'll
 get more information on how this will look like in the presentation of the
 logistical arrangements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you, Mr. Kummer. Well, -- one more request for the
 floor. Senor Echeberria.

 >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  Due to the time constraint, I will not speak now.  But I
 think I would like probably in the afternoon to come back to the issue of the
 reports and the templates.  So just to say that.  Thank you.

 >>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you.  Thank you for your comment. Well, I would like
 to thank you very much for all the contributions.  Really, I find them very
 useful.  We have such important issues.  I heard reference to the need to
 maintain the multistakeholder format, the need for maintaining balanced
 representation, the challenge of maintaining representation, accommodating
 requests for participation in events, this important question of the chair's
 independent summary was raised, the question of templates that I think is also
 something that we should pay a lot of attention to.  There was an important
 reference to the possibility of remote participation and a strong position on
 the idea of not bringing to the meeting the ideas of negotiating texts,
 something that I am very sure you have already talked about. And I must
 guarantee you that as representative of the host country, I would hope that
 very much different ideas would not contribute to turn Rio into a chaotic
 event, but, anyway, all your contributions will be taken for sure to Advisory
 Group and will help us to architecture a good solution for the Rio meeting. 
 It's 1:00.  I think we should break and resume at 3:00.  Thank you very much. 
 It's over. (Recess)