Internet Governance Forum 2 Rio de Janeiro, 
 Brazil 14 November 2007 
 Openness

 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 The 2nd Meeting of the IGF.  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.


 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  I'm going to talk
 in Portuguese. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  I am a Brazilian journalist
 from the "Valor Econômico," and I am deeply honored to take part in this
 meeting.  For us journalists in economics and finance, this issue is of utmost
 importance.  And for me as a Brazilian, there's special appeal to this.  We are
 a country full of inequalities, and the Internet has proven to be a means of
 overcoming the challenge. First, I would like to call upon Mr. Ronaldo Lemos,
 who will chair the session. However, before, I'd like to remind all of you that
 our intention is to promote a debate.  This is to be an interactive session. 
 Questions and answers -- questions from the audience.  I would like to invite
 those who are sitting at the back of the room to come up closer so that we can
 have a true interactivity, so that we can have a more joyous interaction. First
 of all, Mr. Ronaldo, I give you the floor.

 >>RONALDO LEMOS:   Mr. Secretary, (no audio), distinguished discussants, ladies
 and gentlemen, thank you very much.  It's an honor to be here representing
 civil society.  I am a professor of law at the Fundação Getulio Vargas Law
 School.  My remarks are short.  I won't keep the floor long.  I'd like to make
 a few considerations about the issue of openness. The idea of openness cuts
 across the main themes that have been discussed during the IGF, for instance,
 the theme of diversity and also the theme of access. You cannot discuss any of
 these themes without discussing the issue of openness. What I would like to do
 first is to try to give you three dimensions of the theme of openness.  And the
 first dimension is the legal dimension. One of the crucial issues that are
 being discussed locally and globally today is the issue of exceptions and
 limitations to copyright. If you think about the issue of openness, if you
 think about collaborative production of culture, information, and scientific
 knowledge, this is a crucial issue to be considered. The second issue that I
 would like to call to your attention is the liability of Internet service
 providers and the liability of online service providers which has to be
 regulated locally, but the majority of countries actually have not yet
 regulated these issues. So these are two examples of the issue of openness and
 how it's made concrete if you consider the legal realm. The second dimension of
 the theme of openness is a political dimension.  In that sense, openness has a
 very intrinsic relation with governments worldwide, some governments actively
 supporting openness, actively creating policies towards openness. And above
 all, there's another dimension to the political issue, which is the cooperation
 between the IGF and the other United Nations bodies.  And I will mention only
 two, which is the World Intellectual Property Organization, especially
 considering that the development agenda has been approved by the World
 Intellectual Property Organization, and also the UNESCO diversity convention.
 Both issues are directly related to the issue of openness and should be
 considered from the standpoint of the IGF. The third and last dimension of
 openness is an economic dimension. In this dimension, we have seen increasingly
 the effect that many businesses, many companies have included openness as part
 of their respective business models.  Actually, in some cases, we have been
 following in the recent years a sort of a race towards openness in the sense
 that openness actually increases the value of companies and it creates value in
 itself. And the second issue from the economic standpoint about openness is
 related, for instance, to the role of developing countries in regard to
 openness.  And in this case, developing countries cannot afford, for instance,
 the cost of the lack of interoperability of the systems that the governments
 worldwide contract. So the issue of openness is directly related also to the
 issue of interoperability.  And this is a crucial and fundamental issue for
 developing countries. The other dimension in the economic sense is the issue of
 innovation. Openness lowers the barriers for new entrants in the economic
 markets, and therefore it also provides innovation. I will finish my short
 intervention by giving three examples of concrete issues that are related to
 the openness question.  The first example is the case for open standards.  And
 as I mentioned, many governments worldwide are increasingly participating in
 the discussion about open standards.  A Brazilian example is the ministry of
 planning, which has created recently the AEPINC initiative, which is a
 governmental body that is worried about interoperability and standards. The
 second concrete example is open source software, which has in many instances
 also found support by some governments.  One example about that is, for
 instance, governments licensing the code that has been produced by the
 government itself so that it can be openly and sometimes freely accessed for
 the citizens of that country or maybe the citizens worldwide, depending on the
 license that is being used. And, finally, a very important issue that I think
 the IGF ought also to consider, which is the issue of open access. Open access
 refers to the broader access towards, for instance, scientific knowledge, about
 knowledge in itself.  And this is a global discussion that takes place right
 now.  One of the important documents about this issue is the Budapest open
 access initiative that claims scholars worldwide and institutions worldwide to
 make scientific knowledge available.  And in Brazil, we have the Salvador
 Declaration on Open Access and the São Paulo Letter on Scientific Knowledge
 also going in the same direction. Finally, about the issue of open access,
 there is a role here for the so-called open licensing of scientific materials
 and knowledge.  And in this sense, initiatives like the science commons and the
 creative commons have a role to play that can be used as a model of how to make
 this knowledge available for the most people possible. Finally, then I
 conclude, these are all questions for our panelists. As you know, this
 discussion is complex.  And I believe that the answer we give to these
 questions is directly related to the type of society that we want to build
 either locally or globally. Thank you.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Lemos. And I would like to present our
 panelists. We have here Ambassador David Gross, Coordination for International
 Communications Policy, Department of State, Washington, D.C. We have Carlos
 Gregorio, expert in private rights, Montevideo, Uruguay. We have Mr. Masanobu
 Katoh, vice president of Fujitsu limited.  He's chairman from the subcommittee
 on international affairs from Japan, the business federation. We have Mr. Mark
 Kelly, international human rights lawyer, from Dublin. We have Peter Dengate
 Thrush, from ICANN. We have Mr. Alexandre Jobim, chairman, legal committee,
 International Association of Broadcasters. And Mr. Nick Dearden, from Amnesty
 International from the U.K. We have also here the discussants -- they are
 sitting on this first -- is Mr. Peng Hwa Ang, from Singapore; Mrs. Sally Burch,
 from Ecuador, from ALAI; Mr. Pierre Dandjinou, from United Nations Development
 Program in Benin; Mr. Michael Geist, law professor from the United States; we
 have Mr. Benoît Müller, director, software policy, from Business Software
 Alliance. You have also Mr. Claudio Lins de Vasconcelos, legal manager of
 Fundação Roberto Marinho from Rio de Janeiro.  Our first panelist will be the
 Ambassador David Gross over here. Mr. Gross.

 >>DAVID GROSS:   Thank you very much.  It's a great pleasure to be here with
 both old and new friends.  And I appreciate greatly the opportunity to appear
 on this panel. I think all of the panels that we have over the conference are
 extraordinarily important, and were obviously chosen with great care.  But I
 would say that this panel, by the nature of the topic, is at least the one
 closest to my heart, because it really encompasses all of the other issues
 within it.  The issue of openness, particularly with regard to the Internet, is
 really meaningless without access to the Internet, and so the access panel was
 important.  All of the other panels, it seems to me, feed in very nicely into
 the issues that we will be discussing this morning and early this afternoon. I
 will keep my comments brief, because I think one of the things we really want
 to do is encourage questions both from the audience here and also from our
 virtual audience, who may be listening in as well.  And I encourage good and
 tough questions to all of us. As we look at the issue of openness, obviously,
 as the introductory comments suggest, there are many different dimensions to
 it.  Let me focus on two of those dimensions. First, when I see the term
 "openness" with regard to the Internet, I immediately think of the importance
 of the free flow of information. The issue of the free flow of information was
 one that we spent a lot of time discussing, analyzing, and negotiating about
 with regard to both phases of the World Summit. I would commend to everyone, of
 course, as we deal with all of these issues the important decisions that were
 reached by the World Summit and were endorsed unanimously by all the
 governments of the world at the highest political level. And so when I think
 about openness, I immediately -- as I hope many of you do -- think of paragraph
 4 of the Tunis commitment, which says that we, we, the world, recognize the
 freedom of expression and the free flow of information, ideas, and knowledge
 are essential for the information society and beneficial to development. It
 encapsulates in one sentence what I think it is all about. Then, similarly, the
 same basic point is made in the agenda for the information society that was
 also unanimously agreed to at Tunis by all the world's governments and in a
 multistakeholder environment, in which we reaffirmed our commitment to the
 freedom to seek, receive, impart, and use information, in particular, for the
 creation, accumulation, and dissemination of knowledge.  That is, for us, the
 beginning, and in some respects, even the end, of the discussion about the
 importance of the free flow of information.  It was agreed by all that the free
 flow of information is at the core of what the Internet and what the world that
 we hope to create is all about. So when we talk about free flow of information,
 we believe of its great importance.  We believe that -- of course, that how
 that is implemented in each country should be determined in a democratic
 fashion by the country so that it reflects culture, norms, history, and the
 like for each country, but with an eye towards that important end goal of
 encouraging the free flow of information. And then, similarly as was mentioned,
 open access, as that term is broadly construed, is extraordinarily important
 and has many dimensions to it.  That, too, was dealt with in a great degree at
 the World Summit.  I commend to everyone looking as they try to think through
 these issues about paragraph 46 of the agenda for the information society,
 which deals with the issue of privacy and access to information.  Paragraph 49,
 which deals with openness with regard to software, including issues about open
 source, proprietary, and free software.  And often overlooked but I think
 extraordinarily important, paragraph 90, which, among other things, in
 subparagraph (k), refers to libraries and the importance of access to
 information so that people around the world have access to the world's
 information.  Because that, in essence, is one of the things that makes the
 Internet profoundly different and makes our time profoundly different than any
 other time in human history, the ability for everyone, when they have access to
 the Internet, to have access to the world's knowledge. Through that access to
 the world's knowledge, people can find the path forward to economic
 development, social improvement, and, ultimately, of course, to political
 freedom. Thank you very much. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Gross. And now I call Mr. Katoh-San.

 >>MASANOBU KATOH:   Thank you very much. I would like to emphasize that
 openness is not a matter of freedom prevailing over regulation or vice versa. 
 What do you imagine when you hear the phrase "I.P."? For many probably in this
 room, it means "Internet protocol."  However, others think of intellectual
 property when they hear "I.P." The Internet protocol experts often say that
 free use of the Internet and freedom of expression are critically important,
 but intellectual property experts say that copyrights, other legal rights, and
 regulatory frameworks, are crucial. On the surface, it appears that these two
 "IPs," are in relationships of dichotomy or opposition.  On the one hand, the
 Internet is universal, autonomous, borderless, and common property.  On the
 other hand, intellectual property is characterized as regulatory, exclusive,
 and proprietary. A question, then, is, can these two IPs coexist? My answer is,
 yes, they can. Let me show you an example of achieving this balance. A serious
 problem in the Internet space is illegal activities online.  Governments tend
 to introduce regulations to maintain an orderly, secure environment.  These
 regulations sometimes suppress the freedom of citizens.  Policymakers worldwide
 therefore try to strike the right balance. After the U.S. Congress enacted the
 Notice and Take-Down Regime of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, called the
 DMCA, and the European Union adopted the horizontal reliability provisions of
 e-Commerce Directive, lawmakers in Japan developed a similar law named the
 Providers' Liability Act, which covered not only copyright infringement, but
 also other illegal acts, like defamation. The Providers' Liability Act of Japan
 requires ISPs to forward infringement notices from copyright owners to the
 alleged infringers.  If the alleged infringer does not object to the
 infringement claim within seven days, the ISP may take down the allegedly
 infringing materials. But if the alleged infringer does object, then the
 parties concerned can resolve the conflict. The law was criticized from abroad.
  People asked, why must seven days pass, even if the materials are clearly
 infringing?  Because of the potential damage during those seven days, a
 procedure for immediate take-down must be established." In response to such
 criticisms, the Japanese ISPs established industry guidelines.  Under the
 guidelines, if a sufficiently detailed notice of infringement is sent by an
 association determined in advance to be reliable, the ISPs can remove the
 materials before the expiration of the seven days. JSRAC, Japan Society for
 Rights of Authors, Composers, and Publishers, is a good example of a reliable
 association.  These guidelines have proven successful over the past five years.
  The combination of the act and guidelines provides great flexibility. The act
 covers wide areas of illegal activities, including copyright infringement, but
 also considers the importance of freedom of expression. The guidelines
 supplement the act by enabling ISPs to respond immediately to clear cases of
 infringement. Self-regulation has another benefit.  Reliance only upon
 government for compliance with laws can lead to increased cost for enforcement
 and even the risk of a surveillance society.  Self-regulation by the private
 sector can supplement government action by asking people to regulate themselves
 at their own risk. This can be more efficient and can avoid some of the risks
 of the surveillance society. In sum, the dichotomy between freedom and
 regulation on the Internet can be resolved by, one, striking an effective
 balance among various stakeholders' interests; and, two, by combining real laws
 with guidelines and authority established by the private sector. Thank you very
 much. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Katoh-San. And now, Mr. Mark Kelly.

 >>MARK KELLY:   Thank you, madam moderator. Firstly, I'd like to embrace this
 definition of openness as including as cardinal elements freedom of expression
 and the free flow of information.  And certainly where the Council of Europe is
 concerned, that has led that organization to conclude that there must be
 affordable, safe, and diverse access to the Internet. But in order to try and
 move forward with the Tunis commitment, one of the things that we've been
 trying to do in the course of discussions this week is to suggest that there's
 value in a concept of the -- the public service value of the Internet, by which
 is meant the notion that the time has come to recognize that the Internet has
 become such an integral part of people's lives, that they rely on it so
 significantly in all of their everyday activities online, that there's a
 resulting expectation, and I think a legitimate expectation on the part of
 individuals, that Internet services will be accessible and affordable, secure,
 reliable, and ongoing. And the Council of Europe in the week immediately
 previous to this meeting, in fact, adopted a recommendation at the level of its
 Committee of Ministers reaffirming exactly those principles. But what I want to
 put to you this morning is the question of whether that notion of public
 service value is being fully respected by all of the relevant stakeholders who
 are represented here in the IGF process, because I do think it's clear from the
 discussions that we've been having in the various groups, there's lots of
 evidence of activity by international and intergovernmental organizations: 
 Council of Europe conventions on cybercrime, on the protection of children
 against sexual exploitation, and so on, both of which, by the way, are open for
 signature by non-European states, so not Euro-centric instruments in any way.
 And I think there's also evidence that has emerged of good practice and of
 cooperation between certain groups of stakeholders, and, in particular, civil
 society and intergovernmental organizations do seem to be working together with
 a common goal.  And there have been some very interesting discussions this
 week, for example, on a new code for public participation in Internet
 governance, perhaps looking at the model of the Aarhus convention and picking
 up on this notion of public service value. Equally, where states are concerned,
 it's clear to me, as an international human rights lawyer, that states have
 become very familiar with the concept that they will be held to account by
 citizens, that they will be held to account by civil society for their respect
 or lack of respect of certain core principles, especially where freedom of
 expression is concerned. And I just wanted to pick up on Ambassador Gross's
 reference to paragraph 4 of the Tunis commitment.  And, of course, that
 paragraph is an absolutely vital element of the Tunis commitment.  It
 encapsulates, as he said in one sentence, the thinking of the world community
 at that stage on this issue. But I did just want to recall that while it's
 sometimes very good, Ambassador, to be able to encapsulate things in one
 sentence, sometimes, from a human rights standpoint, it's also important to
 unpack a little bit and to recall what is the essence of the right that we're
 speaking of when we speak, in particular, of freedom of expression, because
 paragraph 4 of the Tunis commitment certainly wasn't plucked from the air any
 more than paragraphs 4, 5, and 55 of the Geneva declaration of principles were.
  They were drawn from, they were distilled from relevant international human
 rights law standards. And certainly from a Council of Europe perspective, the
 essence of freedom of expression very clearly applies not only to information
 or ideas that are favorably received and regarded as inoffensive or as a matter
 of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb the state or
 any other sector of the population, because such are the demands of pluralism,
 tolerance, and broad-mindedness, without which there would be no democratic
 society. So I just wanted to recall with you the essence of that right of
 freedom of expression from a human rights standpoint, and to put to you, madam
 moderator -- and to conclude -- a question. Two years, almost to the day, since
 the adoption of the Tunis commitment, are all stakeholders genuinely playing a
 full part in the observance of freedom of expression in the sense that I've
 just enunciated?  And, in particular, I'm thinking of the private sector,
 thinking perhaps also of ICANN, which I'm very pleased to see is represented on
 the panel today, in decision-making processes, in the internal processes of
 private corporations which, in reality, now often are the repositories of power
 in terms of the delivery of freedom of expression.  Can we say with confidence
 that we believe that a human rights-based approach is being taken in their
 decision-making processes? And if we can't say that, is that a legitimate
 subject for us as a multistakeholder forum to be exploring in greater depth?
 Because a human rights-based approach means more, I think, than paying lip
 service to a right like freedom of expression.  It means taking a human
 rights-based approach to the way we reach our decisions.  Asking ourselves if
 we're going to interfere with someone's right to freedom of expression, whether
 we're a regulator, a domain name provider or a private corporation, is that
 interference prescribed by law, is it lawful, is it necessary in a democratic
 or other society?  Is it proportionate?  And is the way in which we are
 deciding whether or not our action will interfere with a right in itself human
 rights compliance. So I would like to put that to you, and perhaps put it also
 to the discussants. Is there a site of inquiry in respect of the observance of
 human rights in private corporations that deserves to be explored in greater
 depth in order to ensure that in future, this multistakeholder process actually
 leads to the more effective protection and promotion of the right of freedom of
 expression. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Kelly. And we have just a first question
 for the debate, no?  We have to talk about this later. And now I would like to
 ask Mr. Jobim to talk with us.

 >>ALEXANDRE JOBIM:   Thank you very much. First of all, I will speak in
 Portuguese, but I would like to say thank you for the invitation and I am
 honored to be here as the panel for Mr. Kummer and also Mr. (saying name).
 Broadcasting as a whole, be it public or private, has greatly contributed to
 discussions at the World Summit on the Information Society, the origin of this
 discussion on Internet governance. As those discussions concluded in Tunis, the
 different organizations representing broadcasting -- The World Broadcasting
 Union, such as the North American Broadcasters Association, Asia-Pacific
 Broadcasting Union, International Association of Broadcasting, Arab States
 Broadcasting Union, Caribbean Broadcasting Union, European Broadcasting Union,
 Organization De Telecommunications Americanas, (saying names) -- presented a
 joint declaration and the summary is worth pointing out. One, technological
 communication is not an end on itself but is a means to provide information and
 content. Two, freedom of expression, pluralism of the media and cultural
 diversity should be respected and truly promoted. Third, electronic media. Are
 a vital importance to the Information Society. Four, television and radio are
 key for the consistency and development of the digital world. Finally,
 information should be accessible and available to anyone. The Internet maybe is
 the fastest and most efficient means of distributing content for the future. 
 Therefore, we understand that broadcasting can and should be the greatest
 source of content.  Becoming part of the content distribution chain on the
 Internet. The broadcasters are the greater producers and distributors of
 content today. Why not deploy a win-win model in which the population may use
 technological opportunity for content diversity and plurality, making possible
 on the other hand for new opportunities for the present players, production
 programming and content distribution.  Using this fantastic technological
 phenomenon known as the Internet, these generic assumptions translate the
 discourse of broadcasters in the environment of Information Society at large.
 However, we ask what is the pragmatic position of this sector regarding
 governance on the Internet? First of all, as it is obvious, it is necessary to
 clarify that at no moment we defend any restriction to the freedom of
 expression. However, given the fact that broadcasting is a highly regulated
 sector as regards content, with obligations, limitations and responsibilities
 on programming, adding reliability and quality to information, we should not
 say that technology has the power to simply ignore these limitations which
 intend to protect precisely the viewers themselves, the children, cultural
 diversity, maintaining local culture, et cetera. Therefore, as we face
 technological innovation, we cannot speak of, with all due respect, of an
 absolute right to freedom if this may go against this also protected individual
 and collective rights, especially the rights of the viewers.  As was mentioned
 here, human rights also. That is to say, the fact that the Internet is a
 network, to a certain extent an article, ownerless, without content
 responsibility and eventually used by those who are irresponsible and even
 criminal, no offense meant to the great and vast majority of people who
 participate of this beneficial and magnificent phenomenon, it is unacceptable
 that there be no control nor responsibility over those who do not use the
 Internet for licit objectives. Personally, I believe that effort should be made
 with a view to the fact that countries should adopt in their domestic
 legislations control mechanisms and punishment to the violations, criminal
 violations using the Internet.  We cannot compare eventual excesses in
 entertainment programs or journalism for instance with severe violations such
 as pedophilia, fraud, consideration for terrorism, and the encouragement to
 violence. The simple fact that there is no governance already causes surprise
 because we would have to admit that we participate actively or passively of a
 truly free technological phenomenon leaving the people totally unprotected
 without any intervention or protection, even if timid, on behalf of the state.
 We go from criminal violations to those which are civil violations regarding
 broadcasting. There is a debate, for instance, regarding intellectual property.
  It is well-known that the Rome convention of 1961 discourses about the
 so-called derived rights of broadcasting organizations where broadcasters have
 the exclusive right to authorize or to forbid the transmission and
 retransmission of their programs. It so happens that with the arrival of the
 Internet the violation of these rights has become usual practice, leaving
 broadcasters unprotected, those who are the owners and producers of content,
 because there are no legal instruments for coercion to prevent this type of
 violation vulgarly known as piracy. The WIPO has debated and thought over the
 topic with a view to update the convention. Making efforts for the
 consideration of a new treaty, new situations and perspectives in face of
 technological progress, especially the Internet. On the other hand, what other
 type of manifestation or regulatory discussion of such an extent is underway
 today. My question is, should we accept the continuing intense regulation of
 traditional media such as radio and television and leave totally free any type
 of content distributed by the Internet, or should we eventually bring up to par
 the responsibility and the regulation for these new players of entertainment in
 this market. This is precisely the point for discussion that broadcasters bring
 to this debate. That is to say that broadcasting will continue to struggle in
 favor of the freedom of expression without, however, closing eyes to the new
 and necessary regulations regarding the possibilities of violations by means of
 the Internet, especially those which are criminal and should be the concern of
 the different states and organizations which are here represented. Thank you. [
 Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Jobim. Now Mr. Nick Dearden, please.

 >>NICK DEARDEN:   Thank you. Most people here I think will probably sign up to
 the fundamental importance of freedom of expression.  It's made clear in the
 Tunis Agenda, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which most states
 here have signed, and also it's the basis for the multistakeholder initiative,
 which various companies and civil society groups are involved in. But despite
 this, we're still faced with the situation whereby Internet filtering is
 spreading rapidly across the world.  Where activists are increasingly harassed,
 arrested, and imprisoned for their legitimate online activities.  Where
 companies continue to work with governments to impose censorship. And I think
 as Internet access continues to grow, this repression seems certain to increase
 as well. And if we're not careful, threaten ultimately the nature of the
 Internet itself, to turn it into something very different from what we see
 today.  A tool of repression and limitation rather than liberation and
 openness. And I fear very much that for many governments across the world,
 human rights are actually slipping down the agenda. I've heard many governments
 in Europe speak over the last year about the Internet and focus almost
 exclusively on child pornography, on credit card fraud, and on the threat of
 terrorism.  But I haven't heard human rights mentioned once, or, indeed,
 freedom of expression. And I think we need to start thinking far more
 fundamentally about human rights and freedom of expression as the answer to
 some of these problems rather than as in conflict with our attempts to sort out
 some of these issues. So I think a key question has to be the creation of
 political will around defending freedom of expression on the Internet. Of
 course, there are many problems with the Internet, but we need to build
 solutions to these problems on human rights.  And that doesn't mean simply that
 we agree in principle that freedom of expression is a good thing.  It's not
 simply about theory.  It's about outcome.  About making these principles into
 reality. How we operationallize and enforce these principles. And I think in
 the same way that we need to build diversity and increase access, we also need
 to make sure human rights are essential to those themes as well. That's the
 only way to ensure that the Internet can genuinely reach out with its true
 potential to educate, to empower, and to change.  And that it truly reaches
 those who can most benefit from having access. So I think the key question
 today is how freedom of expression takes that fundamental role in discussions
 about Internet governance.  How we ensure that governments start promoting the
 Internet in terms of freedom of expression and ensure they don't fall into the
 trap of seeing dangers everywhere in cyberspace.  Or move from having
 legitimate concerns about material online to simply removing what they don't
 want to be online. Or, indeed, of seeing the Internet as simply an economic
 tool where business holds all of the answers. We need to ensure that companies
 realize that human rights are fundamental duties on them as well, and not
 simply add-ons. And companies need to take all legal, political, and technical
 means at national and international level to prevent possible compliance in
 violations of freedom of expression. And moreover, it's the duty of governments
 in the countries where those companies are headquartered to ensure that this is
 enforced. We need to make sure and the test really for Amnesty is that
 companies won't be complicit again in a case like that of Hetow (phonetic).  It
 could very easily happen again.  At the moment, the necessary procedures
 haven't been put into place despite the fact that human rights and freedom of
 expression underline everything that we say here. So I think that we need to
 decide really how we use the Internet Governance Forum to collectively commit
 to these human rights standards as the essential basis of the Internet.  Not as
 one theme amongst many, but as the underlying theme that underpins everything
 we're discussing. How also we get the views and input from those directly
 effected by censorship and repression on the Internet which we hear far too
 little of in governance discussions. And finally, how we get the IGF to input
 into other United Nations agencies, and get other agencies, international
 agencies, to take seriously fundamental freedoms and human rights on the
 Internet.  And I very much look forward to discussing these issues today. Thank
 you. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Dearden. And now Mr. Peter thrush,
 please.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much, and good morning. As has been
 announced I have recently been elected the chairman of ICANN, the Internet
 Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  But my day job is as a trial
 lawyer.  I am a barrister in intellectual property law, and so it's a real
 pleasure for me to be putting that hat back on and sharing this panel with
 other intellectual property experts. On my election, I think one of the German
 reporters described my appointment as a bridge perhaps between the I.P. world
 and the I.P. world that Katoh-San so neatly encapsulated. It's clear that
 freedom of expression is one of the most fundamentally supported views and
 there's been reference to it already in the Tunis declaration.  There is also
 the fundamental freedom to enjoy the fruits of your labor and also the freedom
 to enjoy the undisturbed use of your property. So there is, as others have
 suggested, a potential conflict between those freedoms. And the Internet makes
 the copying of people's property so extraordinarily easy.  And not only easy,
 but available all over the world. We have the ability now to take the images,
 the music, the text, and all and any combinations of the above and to use them
 instantly, without authority. So how do we balance those various freedoms.
 Well, it's important to understand that the law, as others have said, is a
 product of society.  It's not a separate institution that lives by itself or
 lives by its own rules. The law is the development of the will of the people. 
 And it attempts to follow community standards. And meetings like this are an
 essential element in enabling the law to understand and appreciate what those
 community standards are. So I welcome inclusion of this kind of topic on the
 IGF program. I think I'm the last or nearly last speaker, and I think what we
 want to have today is lots of freedom for questioning and freedom for answering
 so I will just pick on a few topics. One of them is to remind you of the
 concept that copyright law in particular has developed on the notion of a fair
 use of other people's property. Trying to balance exclusive right to use by the
 owner and the right by others to use. The law of most jurisdictions, and mine
 that I'm familiar with, has developed quite clear notions that there are
 circumstances in which the right of the owner can be abridged, can be limited
 slightly. And the classic example of that is in the area of education. Most
 states place an enormous premium on the value of education.  And in the
 balancing of the right to educate is usually an exception to allow other
 people's property to be used. Another one, and this will be the last one I
 refer to, although there are others, is the freedom of expression available to
 reporters, and reporting in the media is usually, and certainly in my country,
 another very special exemption in relation to the use of other people's
 material. So what our exercise is, is this balancing.  How do we balance these
 rights? We need the community to tell us how to tilt the balance on any
 particular occasion. The second point I would make is to remember that
 copyright doesn't protect ideas.  What copyright protects is the expression of
 the ideas.  There is no conflict between the freedom of information, spreading
 of information, the spreading of ideas, and copyright. Copyright protects the
 labor that someone has put into expressing the idea.  And once we separate the
 issues, there seems to be no problem between protecting the effort that someone
 has made and to taking an idea and turning it into a useful, readable, or
 watchable, or listen-to-able product, and the idea itself.  The idea remains. I
 want to respond just while I am here to the suggestion -- the question from Mr.
 Kelly about ICANN in particular. I agree that decisions of organizations should
 be judged in part by their ability -- by their compliance with human
 rights-based approach. I would like to say, I think, publicly that in my view,
 ICANN's decisions survive that scrutiny and are based on a human rights
 approach.  But, on the other hand, I think compliance with human rights
 principles is a journey, not a destination. We will strive to make sure that we
 continue at ICANN to meet those requirements, but we welcome contributions from
 anyone else as to how we might improve those processes. Back to ordinary
 intellectual property law.  The exercise is drawing those boundaries and
 recognizing that those boundaries shift as the community shifts.  We see
 examples such as the creative commons exercise, which is, in summary, a
 licensing scheme to make material more readily available.  With the Internet
 comes innovative solutions to the problems posed by the Internet.  Creative
 commons is an example. So we need to strive to keep the balance between those
 different rights.  The Internet is an enormous challenge.  I think we're up to
 meeting it.  Thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Thrush. Now Mr. Carlos Gregorio.

 >>CARLOS GREGORIO:   Thank you. I will speak in Spanish. So as I have been last
 and we're going to talk about the theme of privacy, this is a symbolic thing
 and an advantage we have, to summarize this concept of openness and find out
 what is the role of privacy.  As I see it, openness is a balance amongst three
 rights:  The right to access, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy.
 Privacy may not be the best word.  Maybe we should use, in this context,
 openness and speak about a vulnerable people and people who become vulnerable
 as a consequence of this openness, which all of us want to keep at the highest
 level possible.  As my colleague Jobim said when he spoke, there are many
 violations which are crimes committed on the Internet.  We don't want this.
 This is clear.  But what I want to say to you is that the main risk, what
 creates vulnerable people in this concept of openness is the state itself.  And
 I will be more specific, speaking of Latin America, and give you one example of
 how the state unnecessarily exposes people. There are basically -- basically,
 it's the following.  There are Web sites for the legal -- the judicial
 departments in Latin America.  They have become open, with the idea of
 transparency.  So their decisions and their case law is on the Web.  So we have
 a -- highly powerful search engines have access to all of this material, and
 very powerful providers.  And this is extraordinary in terms of openness. So as
 an example, the HIV-positive individuals, there's a country in Latin America in
 which they have listed almost all HIV-positive people in their legal site with
 that provider and the social security numbers.  These are victims.  Usually
 they are children who are the victims of sexual exploitation and the victims of
 other crimes. This is a model for a vulnerable group. Another vulnerable group
 are the workers, workers who request something be done, who have claims against
 their former employer.  The labor courts will rule in favor or not.  But,
 however, in the future, these people will be blacklisted and they will not be
 hired once again by another employer. So therefore lies discrimination, which
 comes as a consequence of vulnerability. And this is not paranoia.  People will
 access these sites and investigate. In Mexico, there's a company dedicated to
 downloading every day the information of these legal sites, and they sell them
 online to their customers.  And these are personnel selection companies. So all
 of this happens because there are gaps, legal gaps, because there are lack of
 policies and definitions.  And that's the first example I wanted to submit to
 you.  The state is a main destroyer of the balance between access and privacy.
 When we talk about balance between privacy and freedom of expression, the issue
 is different.  The issue usually comes in the blogs.  In the blogs, you have
 all types of creation, for instance, photo logs.  Teenagers take normal
 pictures, they change them, and they create pornographic content photos, and
 they use them for sexual harassment.  And this means that we have to create a
 system of responsibility on the Internet.  The Internet is open, but it is not
 a space for irresponsibility.  There should be rules, rules where you can have
 criminal and civil punishment.  And we follow the rules of living together, so
 the balance between access and freedom of expression and privacy, as I see it,
 is, access is greatly increased.  However, it is at risk also.  I believe that
 we are captives of people who allow us to have access, given their own
 priorities.  This is a problem today.  And we should ask ourselves if the
 freedom of expression is not being made vulnerable when the priorities of how
 we can have access to information are established by Google, Alta Vista, and
 other commercial companies. Privacy, regrettably, I believe is being lost.  And
 it will be very difficult to keep it up.  Presently, this is a situation that
 -- it does not mean that we shouldn't fight for it.  But the freedom of
 expression, as I see it, not on the Internet, -- well, the Internet has not
 demonstrated the fact that it has been made possible for criminal people to
 have access. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   (No audio)....  I will ask for our discussants to make
 their considerations. Mrs. Burch, do you want to be the first one?

 >>SALLY BURCH:   Okay.  Thank you.  Hello?  Is it working? Yes. Well, there are
 a lot of things one could react to.  Something I'd like to draw attention to
 that maybe didn't come out sufficiently from the panel, and that maybe the
 panelists could refer to, one is obviously the threats to freedom of expression
 are real and important to consider.  But threats don't only come from
 governments.  And as the Internet becomes a form of media, one serious threat
 to openness in content and content provision is the possible growth of virtual
 monopolies in this field.  In the previous reporting session, somebody
 mentioned that less than 1,000 content providers now concentrate most of the
 audiences on the Internet. And in democratic societies, the establishment of
 limits on media ownership has been an accepted norm to ensure pluralism and
 democracy. But now it's increasingly giving way, even in normal media, to
 pressures to allow greater concentration. So there's a growing trend in online
 media that major corporations are controlling increasingly large portions of
 Internet content.  And there's no clear mechanism on how that could be
 regulated, because it's international.  There's a sort of vacuum at that level.
  And I think this is something we need to be looking at in the future.  But the
 kind of policy issues that it could relate to are, for example, the attempts
 now by some broadband providers to give faster access to their users, to
 services that pay for that faster access. Now, this is to do with a network
 neutrality problem, but it also has to do with a problem that would tend to
 reinforce monopolies in content provision. So I'd like to see what the
 panelists have to say about this.  And this also has to do with the free flow
 of information idea.  Is the free flow of information about having no
 restrictions so information can flow or is it about creating conditions so that
 people from different parts of the world and not only large corporations and
 not only northern countries can contribute equally to that free flow?

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mrs. Burch.  One of the panelists wants to
 answer? No, not yet.  Yes?  Mr. Gross, please.

 >>DAVID GROSS:   I'll jump in where everybody else fears to tread. The issue of
 media concentration is one that we are looking at on an ongoing basis in the
 United States.  And it is certainly a very serious issue. As we analyze it,
 however, it is interesting to see the different approaches.  We certainly are
 concerned, as we always have been, about the role of localism, that is, the
 content that is specific to local areas and the relationship between media
 ownership and localism. And there's an ongoing debate in the United States on
 this very issue, both before our Congress and before the Federal Communications
 Commission, and the like. Without trying to delve into the specific domestic
 debate going on in the United States, I would say, from my international
 perspective, I see the opposite happening.  And by that, I mean I look at the
 way in which people have access to information today, and I see a world that is
 so much more diverse than the world that I grew up in.  When I grew up, I only
 had access to a couple of media channels, whether from television, radio, or
 newspapers. Today, I can access almost any newspaper in the world.  And if it's
 not in English, I can do a quick translation using free software that
 immediately translates those things.  And I use them all the time. I look at
 the way in which my son, who is at university, and his friends no longer listen
 to the radio the way I did, but, instead, they use Internet radio and listen to
 the world's radio stations and listen to content from all over the world in
 ways that before were virtually impossible. And I see video, how blogging
 happens and how people have access very directly to individual expressions
 without having to go through the filter of media companies, their ability to
 provide that information directly. So I see a tremendous diversity of voices. 
 And, in fact, as I travel, the complaint I now start to hear more and more is
 that there are too many voices, that it's too hard to be able to pick and
 choose and to find out what the trusted sources of information may be in ways
 that are different. So, again, without taking away from any of the domestic
 debates that are very legitimate and very serious about media ownership in
 particular countries and how that works and recognizing the importance of
 traditional media, at least on an international basis, I see very much a trend
 towards internationalization and a great diversity of media sources.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Gross. Now, Mr. Peng Hwa Ang,
 could you make your considerations.

 >>PENG HWA ANG:   Okay.  Thank you. I have a couple of comments and a question.
 I think openness is a very tricky concept, because I think that -- I'm going to
 put it in a strange way, but I think you open to openness.  It's a very Zen
 sort of thing, because it's sort of like carrying moderation to the extreme,
 because you can have openness in a sense that it's like one view, open or
 closed, but I think as Katoh-San has said, it's neither open or closed, it's a
 spectrum.  And so openness isn't just a matter of being open or not open, but
 there is a spectrum. I like what he said about self-regulation, but I have some
 comments here.  And I think there are limits to what we can do with
 self-regulation.  I think the issue of self-regulation is that it's not truly
 democratic or open, because what happens is that the discussion is internal to
 the industry association.  So you can trust the regulation where you discuss it
 in parliament.  But self-regulation, oddly enough, it's not truly open.  It's a
 form of delegated regulation.  And what it means is that, actually, the social
 harm of the event or the matter is not really considered important by the
 government.  So, to some extent, the part he talked about, Katoh-San, the
 government thinks it's not important, not truly important, so we're not going
 to regulate it.  We're going to let industry regulate it, and so we're going to
 allow self-regulation.  So that's my comment on that. I have a quick question
 to Mr. Kelly here and Mr. Gregorio about privacy. And my question is this:  To
 what extent can you put the human rights perspective to the Internet and, in
 particular, to privacy?  Because when you talk about human rights, you cannot
 negotiate human rights.  You have it.  You cannot negotiate your human rights
 away. But in Europe, you have -- so that's a human rights position in Europe.
 But in many parts of the world -- in Asia, certainly -- human resource are not
 -- privacy, sorry, is not a human right.  It's a negotiated matter, and you can
 negotiate your rights away, you can go to a Web site and say, well, I agree to
 give you my e-mail address.  In exchange, you allow me access to the Web site.
 So to what extent do you see human rights being applied?  Can they be applied
 to privacy and to the Internet?  Thank you.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you. Who wants to answer?

 >>MARK KELLY:   Thank you for that very interesting intervention. I think as a
 human rights advocate, the essence of it, for me, is that whether we're talking
 about freedom of expression, assembly and association, or, indeed, privacy, the
 core concept for me is that the right is inherent in the individual human
 being.  It's not something that needs to be given to the individual by a state
 or by an intergovernmental organization.  Nor is it something that the
 individual can choose to give away or choose to forgo.  It's inherent in their
 humanity. The difficulty, I think, is in the effect of implementation of those
 rights, securing full enjoyment for those rights. And you're right that we're
 fortunate in Europe that we have a more developed regional system, and, in
 effect, a sort of constitutional court for Europe in the form of the European
 Court for Human Rights, and that in certain other regions, those norms and
 standards are not yet as effectively implemented as they could be. But for me,
 that's all the more reason why, in a forum like this, we retain cardinal
 principles about what the essence of those rights are worldwide, and we look
 for new ways to make sure that people are able effectively to enjoy them. And
 if it's the case, as I would contend -- and I repeat it -- that states can no
 longer be looked to as the guarantors of human rights, they may simply, as a
 matter of fact, not be in a position to ensure that those whose privacy is
 invaded in fact have their privacy properly protected. I think it is absolutely
 incumbent upon the private sector, Internet service providers, and others, to
 live up to their responsibilities to protect and promote human rights according
 to standards which are the standards of the world.  They're not European norms.
  The Tunis commitment was a global commitment to those human rights standards,
 as Ambassador Gross and others on the panel have also emphasized. So I
 absolutely do think that the protection of the right to privacy in the online
 environment is a vital consideration, and I think exactly the same sorts of
 checks and balances, the same sort of reasoning process which says that the
 default position is respect for privacy has to be respected, and that ways need
 to be developed to ensure that private corporations and regulatory authorities
 and others approach the question from that perspective.  And that's what I mean
 by a human rights-based approach.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.  Mr. Gregorio.

 >>CARLOS GREGORIO:   In order to add onto this argument, the balance between
 privacy and freedom of expression, there's a thin line there.  The only way to
 support this balance is with an a posteriori regime, which would not imply
 previous censorship.  This means procedures of civil and criminal
 responsibility.  Even today, this is a problem on the Internet.  Who should we
 address the question?  This is not an easy issue.  And this is probably the
 best way to ensure human rights on the Internet.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   (No audio)....  Read the questions from the audience.
 Okay?  Mr. Balasubramaniam.  Where is he?  Okay. He's from knowledge ecology
 international.  He has a question for Mr. Ronaldo Lemos:  What is the
 development dimension, if any, of open standards and interoperability? Where is
 Mr. Thiru Balasubramaniam? Do you want to add something for your question?  No?

 >>THIRU BALASUBRAMANIAM:   No.  That's fine.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.

 >>RONALDO LEMOS:   Really quickly, basically, open standards is directly
 connected to many aspects of development.  One of the important things I have
 already mentioned in my initial presentation in which I mentioned that the open
 standards promote lowering barriers for new entrants.  So anyone is free to
 build upon those standards, and especially for a developing country, in which
 access to knowledge and access to (inaudible) forms that can be studied and
 improved are crucial to the building of capacity.  This is a crucial issue that
 is connected to open standards in technology and in the Internet.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you. We have a question from Tsukasa Makino, from
 Japan business federation.  You didn't -- I don't know who wants -- you want to
 answer a question. The questions -- do you want to make your own?  Okay.

 >>TSUKASA MAKINO:   I say or you read my question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My
 name is Tsukasa Makino from Tokyo Marine, a member of the Japanese Business
 Federation.  My question is about protecting copyright. Recently, I was very
 surprised to note an American woman was ordered to pay $220,000 by downloading
 24 musics illegally.  And a general question.  Do you think it's appropriate to
 impose a heavy penalty for a download or violation of intellectual property or
 there could be another way to protect copyright?

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.  Thank you. I'm sorry, but just one is going to
 answer, because we will not have time for many answers.

 >>ALEXANDRE JOBIM:   I just want to complete your question.  If it was only
 downloading or downloading and resell these phonograms? The violation was only
 for -- to make a download or to resell the -- use the -- the commercial use of
 these phonograms?

 >>TSUKASA MAKINO:   It was --

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Mr. LEMOS wants --

 >>RONALDO LEMOS:   It's okay.

 >>TSUKASA MAKINO:   Only downloading.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   It's okay.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   I just wanted to comment. It's very difficult for us
 to comment on some other jurisdiction's systems.  But punishment regimes and
 intellectual property usually have a number of components.  One is
 compensation.  So if there's been a taking of someone's rights in a way that
 has deprived the owner of an ability to exploit them themselves lawfully, then
 there's usually a component in the regime for compensating that. Other
 principles in the punishment include making an example.  We call these
 exemplary damages, where there is an amount that's just designed to say, "We
 disapproved of this conduct.  We do not want this to go on.  And you are going
 to have to pay more as an example to others." So unless you know the regime and
 unless I know the actual situation, it's difficult to know how this measure of
 damages was calculated. Certainly, the sum of $220,000 may be a lot of money. 
 But unless we know whether there was profit made by the infringer and what the
 cost was to the owner and what the nature of the example that was needed to be
 made, it's difficult to know whether this was an appropriate punishment or not.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.  Thank you. And now we have our third question is
 from Mr. Helio Kuramoto, from Brazil, from the science and technology ministry.
 The question is not a real question.  Where are you, Mr. Helio Kuramoto? He
 says, open access in Portuguese-speaking countries. What do you want -- really
 want to ask, mister -- Microphone, please.

 >>HELIO KURAMOTO:   Okay.  My question -- actually, my comment is that
 yesterday, we held a seminar on open access, free access to scientific and
 cultural knowledge in Portuguese-speaking countries.  Brazil and Portugal
 submitted their initiatives, and it was proposed that we have a protocol
 involving all Portuguese-speaking nations and the CPLP, the Community of
 Portuguese-Speaking Languages was represented by its executive secretary, so
 that all countries should discuss this protocol.  This is a set of actions with
 a view to deploy possibilities to provide free access, scientific and cultural
 access.  And the result of this meeting was a great success.  All have agreed
 to this protocol and have agreed upon the importance of free   Access to
 scientific knowledge.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Now a question from Jameleddine Khemakhem.  I'm telling
 the -- where is -- I'm not sure if you can tell like this. Jameleddine
 Khemakhem, no, it's not here? So I will go back to the discussants. I will ask
 you to be very -- to speak just a little bit. Mr. Pierre Dandjinou from the
 United Nations development program.

 >>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Thank you very much, and as I sit here listening to this, I
 remind this desire of a painter sitting somewhere in Africa, developing
 countries, in a cyber cafe which is staffed, and the whole country only has two
 megabytes per second as a bandwidth, and he is paying a high amount for this,
 but he is trying to update his Web site, because he think that he could attract
 some money.  Not local money but some dollar or Euro. But then his country has
 no electronic law, whatever.  He knows no lawyer. And then one day, on a TV, he
 found this sort of exhibition, and the way the craft were presented resembled
 some of his work. And then he knew, what do I do? So I'm putting the question
 to the panelists.  What should we do for this guy who, of those who would like
 to contribute to innovation, has everything to contribute, but except there are
 a few capacities are not there, meaning the conducive law regulations. So my
 question is that one.  And also briefly there is a saying in those parts of
 Africa where they say there is no copyright.  There is only a right to copy in
 Africa. Would you agree to that?

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay, please.

 >>MASANOBU KATOH:   Well, this is a very interesting case where we need a lot
 of thinking on the intellectual property system. Obviously, if you have a law
 in your country to protect whatever aspect of intellectual property product,
 that's fine, you are protected in your country.  But unfortunately,
 intellectual property system is a very domestic, nation-based system, and
 that's why you first have to have your own country legislation, and then also
 you have to have a global harmonization of all the intellectual property
 systems.  In your case probably you could be protected by design content,
 sometimes copyright, sometimes a trademark system may protect your products. 
 But again, you need your national law, which I think should be harmonized on a
 global basis. This is a challenge for everybody to do business.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay. Thank you. Mr. Michael Geist.

 >>MICHAEL GEIST:   Thanks very much. I just want to quickly, in response to the
 question about the damages for the 24 downloaded songs, that was actually a
 case under U.S. law -- I am a Canadian, but that was a case under U.S. law that
 provides for up to $150,000 statutory damage per infringement.  It's not a case
 of making an example out of anyone.  It's the reality of a legal system or a
 copyright enforcement system that provides the prospect for literally millions
 of dollars in damages for acts as simple as the one described and has resulted
 in tens of thousands of people settling cases because they face the risk of
 those kinds of damages. So that's in response to that issue. The point that I
 wanted to make was to pick up, there's been a lot of talk about the freedom of
 expression in the context of openness.  It's important for us to realize, as I
 think many do, that we are not talking about people standing on street corners
 or publishing letters to the editor.  In many instances we are talking about
 millions of Podcasters, people who are using video, who are doing a range of
 incredibly creative things.  They are in a sense what people used to think of
 as broadcasters.  And rather than struggling in this environment, many of them
 are thriving.  If they face risks or challenges or barriers it comes in part
 from copyright, because millions of them create not because of copyright and
 not because of compensation that they think they might be able to obtain but,
 rather, because of our innate desire to create and to express ourselves. And
 copyright, to the extent to which things like anti-circumvention legislation
 create barriers to that kind of expression, there is a concern.  So two, as
 raised earlier, such as net neutrality where those voices are treated on a
 separate tier from the voices of those who can afford to pay some of those
 larger established corporations. So I think we are seeing an enormous amount of
 diversity taking place, yet some barriers do remain.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay. Now we have a question from David Fares from News
 Corporation. A microphone, please, for Mr. Fares.

 >> DAVID FARES:  Thank you very much.  It's an interesting follow-on to what
 professor guise was just saying.  And actually, I think it's important for us
 all to remember the -- one of the founding principles of intellectual property
 protection is that is the inextricable link between intellectual property
 protection and the incentives for the dissemination of information and
 knowledge. And intellectual property protection also helps facilitate cultural
 diversity by ensuring that people who can protect their works can make their
 works available, because they can ensure that they will get some sort of
 remuneration if they choose to get remuneration. Their clues exclusive rights
 can always be exercised by allowing that information to be made freely
 available without compensation. So with that fundamental principle of
 intellectual property protection I would welcome input from the panelists on
 how we can utilize the IGF as a forum to highlight the urgent need to combat
 counterfeiting and piracy so we can all pursue our shared goal of facilitating
 the information and knowledge. Thank you.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.  Now again with the discussants, Mr. Benoît
 Müller. It's Benoît?  It's a French name?

 >>BENOÎT MÜLLER:   That's right, yes. Thank you. I would like to address Mr.
 Chairman Lemos' points about open source software and open standards. By way of
 background, I represent the Business Software Alliance, which is a trade
 association representing most of the leading software companies and their
 hardware partners developing and licensing software on their proprietary, open
 source and increasingly mixed models. On open source software, I think we all
 witnessed that open source has really gained -- open source is not new.  It's
 been around since the inception of the Internet.  But what has really happened
 over the recent years is that open source has really become much more
 mainstream, and has made its way into the commercial marketplace. As I
 mentioned, increasingly BSA members work on both models and a lot of products
 we all use have incorporated both open source as well as proprietary
 components. So I think in terms of the policies that address these issues, what
 is very important to remember and to note is that both or any type of software
 licensing development and licensing model is really based and facilitated by
 intellectual property.  And it is really, then, a choice for developers,
 innovators to compete to innovate both on the technical side but also on the
 business model side.  And that's what really we have witnessed over the recent
 years. So in terms, again, of public policy, with again I think intellectual
 policy pro tech is really what is available to enable all of these development
 models to flourish and to compete as opposed to preferences.  Because
 preferring one over the other limits choice, limits competition, and ultimately
 for the user, including the government user, reduces the opportunity to get
 best value for money. Because also of this increasing trend to see mixed
 solutions, and the way the marketplace has evolved where customers, including
 government customers use products on the different models and from an
 increasingly wide range of suppliers, interoperability clear is becoming more
 and more important.  And open standards are one of the ways to achieve
 interoperability. So it is absolutely true that open standards have gained
 significant interest among policymakers as well as in the marketplace.  BSA
 members are responsible for the development of the open standards, all the
 technology standards, that exist today, and it is very, very important to BSA
 members to continue, obviously, to collaborate on standardization and compete
 on implementations. What is important, again, here is interoperability is the
 goal, and actually the ultimate goal is efficient IFT infrastructure with the
 right level of interoperability.  But these are very complex and market
 sensitive issues where different interests, such as also reliability, security,
 value for money have to be balanced. So it is mostly a marketplace issue. Now,
 turning to Chairman Lemos' point about government roles on open standards, I
 think, again here governments can enable the environment, facilitate the
 industry to innovate, including in the area of intellectual property -- sorry
 of interoperability by recognizing the value of intellectual property also in
 standards.  Mandating standards is very risky because particularly in areas
 where mandating a standard would ultimately result in mandating a particular
 product. So what I would contend is the goal for government, and particularly
 when government acts as purchaser of software, should be an efficient I.T., a
 part of which is the right level of interoperability and open standards are one
 of the means to achieve this end.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay. Thank you, Mr. Muller.

 >>RONALDO LEMOS:   I ask your permission once again to take the floor.  I will
 be very brief in my comment. First, there is no contradiction between open
 source and intellectual property. This is a common mistake, in which people
 oppose intellectual property to open source and free software.  And actually,
 open source is just a modality of licensing. So the creator, the legitimate
 owner of the software uses these exclusive rights in order to license the
 software by means of a license that allows the free distribution, free
 modification, free changes of the license.  So there is no contradiction
 between that. The second thing is intellectual property is, indeed, a very
 important incentive for the creation for the promotion of culture, for the
 dissemination of culture. But it's one incentive.  There are other incentives
 that should be taken into account. Nowadays, there has been large academic and
 business discussion about other incentives that are not related.  They are
 called nonmarket incentives.  Other people call it commons-based pier
 production.  Others call it simply collaborative culture, and that should also
 be taken into account. Especially because these incentives are not primarily
 linked to intellectual property as their main goal or as their main incentive
 for being generated. And, finally, regarding the governmental role, it has to
 be taken into account that different constitutions, for instance, for different
 countries have principles that actually embed the adoption of open standards. 
 That is, for instance, the case for the Brazilian constitution, in which many
 of the principles and the rules of the Brazilian constitution mandate the
 adoption of open standards, diversity, transparency. So that's it.  Thank you.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you. I will ask Mr. Claudio Lins de Vasconcelos to
 be very brief, because we have many questions that were sent by Internet and
 from the audience.

 >>CLAUDIO LINS DE VASCONCELOS:   Thank you. We are in a very interesting
 position here, because the organization I represent is both a consumer and a
 producer of protected content. So for us, the importance to have a predictable
 and healthy market and, as Mr. Katoh and Mr. Kelly and others at the table
 said, a healthy market is the market where all interests of all stakeholders
 are duly respected.  And the stakeholders include those who invest in the
 creative process. It's surely -- I surely think that over-restricting access to
 information in Internet is something wrong, I mean, without considering the
 basic human rights to access to information, is certainly wrong.  But it
 doesn't seem to be right to allow companies, private companies, huge companies,
 to use third parties' content and profit from it without sharing the profits
 with the content providers. So I surely wouldn't go as far as arresting a final
 user or something like that.  But we are not talking only about this.  We are
 talking about business here. To sum up, I would think that -- and with the
 remark that intellectual properties as a key element in the Internet world, as
 it was in the pre-Internet world.  And without intellectual property revenues,
 the market would just become poor.  I mean, investors will surely find
 something better to do with their money, and creators or would-be-creators
 would surely find something to do with their time. Thank you.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you. Now I know that (saying name) he or she is
 not here, because the question was sent by e-mail. The question, I don't know
 who wants to answer, it's:  Do we need a free and savage Internet or an
 Internet where people are accountable? Who wants to -- are you understanding?
 Okay, Mr. Kelly.

 >>MARK KELLY:   Well, I think you can probably guess, madam moderator, that my
 answer is we need an accountable Internet, because I think accountability and
 transparency is also a core and fundamental human rights value. And I just
 wanted to pick up and make a bridge between a number of the points that have
 just been raised and this question just raised of accountability, because I
 fear there's a danger that this might turn into a very interesting seminar on
 intellectual property law, which perhaps isn't covering as broad a range of
 topics as we can assume under openness. I just wanted to flag up that in this
 recommendation on public-service value that I was speaking about earlier from
 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, there's an explicit
 reference to the right of reusers -- meaning those who wish to exploit existing
 digital content resources in order to create future content or services -- to
 do so, but to do so in a way that is compatible with respect for intellectual
 property rights. And, of course, as Peter from ICANN has underlined -- and I
 would absolutely agree -- intellectual property rights and other property
 rights are also, in their own way, human rights, and are also protected under
 international human rights law.  So, again, I would like to suggest that the
 framework that we could consider adopting, namely, a human rights-based
 approach framework, is exactly the framework that could assist in the kind of
 balancing process that people in the audience have been calling for, not just
 where the balance between classic civil and political rights are concerned, but
 also where the right to property and some of the more sophisticated aspects of
 intellectual property law are concerned. So, yes, my answer is, absolutely, the
 Internet needs to be rendered accountable, which means that those who make it
 possible also need to be accountable.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Kelly. And now Patrice Lyons. Okay.

 >> PATRICE LYONS:  Thank you.  I very much appreciated the discussion of
 copyright, being an intellectual property lawyer for many, many years.  But I'd
 like to invite comment on openness from a different perspective, from a larger
 business community perspective that I don't see really represented. Just a
 brief example.  I know we're short on time.  There's been some discussion about
 uniquely and persistently identifying data structures for doing business in the
 maritime industry.  For example, such structures would be bills of lading,
 letters of credit, and similar information. Now, this information would
 normally be encrypted.  But I would look at this as open in the sense that you
 can communicate in an Internet environment in a wholly encrypted way.  And, of
 course, copyright would not normally come into play here.  There would be
 multiple bodies of law. So in the IGF, I would hope that as we move forward, we
 could accommodate other kinds of considerations of openness that would allow
 the business community to play a larger role.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you.  Okay. We have another question from Marilia
 Mavel, the Federal University of Santa Maria.  The microphone. It's Marilia?

 >> Macial, Marilia Macial. I'm also from DiploFoundation.  My question is to
 the ICANN representative. Some permanent professors have been discussing in the
 Internet and we have been discussing here in Brazil, too, a proposal that is
 being examined in ICANN about the registers of new top-level domain names.  The
 top-level domain names will be approved not only considering ICANN's
 regulations and formal processes, but also considering their convenience. So if
 they represent, like, a sensitive topic, ICANN would have the power to conclude
 that they are sensitive and deny the registration. Last time I checked, this
 proposal was still being examined and discussed in ICANN. I'd like to know what
 is the state of art, it is still going to be discussed and maybe approved.  And
 if you don't think that this maybe affects the right to freedom of expression
 because, yes, someone could register it in another top-level domain name.  But
 I don't think that ICANN would or is able to have the competency to evaluate if
 they are sensitive or not.  And maybe this is a dangerous thing, because it can
 create a consensus on the international field that I don't think that ICANN
 could be -- could have the competency to do that. Thanks.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Marilia.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Your question was, what is the state of
 the art on that. The board has received in Los Angeles a full set of -- a
 policy -- of policy proposals from the GNSO that is responsible for developing
 the policy on the introduction of new top-level domains. That policy has now
 been posted for public comment.  The staff have commenced work at ICANN on
 implementing that policy. So that's where we're at with that. If all goes well,
 we expect that implementation discussion to result in applications for new
 top-level domains to be received from about June or July of next year. My own
 guess is that that may take a little bit longer because of the difficulties of
 this.  But that's the projected timetable. Whether or not ICANN is competent to
 make those decisions is a very interesting question. What is proposed is, as
 much as possible, to remove the ICANN board from making subjective decisions
 about the value of a new top-level domain and creating an appeals process or an
 objection process so that if there is a string that's selected that causes some
 contrivancy, there will be a mechanism for a community to protest and it will
 be sent away for adjudication to someone other than ICANN.  Happy to talk to
 you about that later if you want some more.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay.  Now we have questions from our chat.  It's from
 Linda Misek-Falkoff.  Should judges, whether elected or appointed, be required
 to be Internet-knowledgeable as disputes about openness and privacy arise on a
 case-by-case basis? Who wants to answer?  Okay. Mr. Kelly.

 >>MARK KELLY:   I'd like to start by ensuring that judges are fully aware of
 the implications of international human rights law probably.  And then move on
 to making sure that they were technically savvy and well-equipped.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Okay. João Brant, Intervozes.  Are you here, Mr. Brant?
 The microphone, please.

 >> JOÃO BRANT:  Hello.  Good morning. At my point of view, freedom of
 expression is not jeopardize only by states, but also and in some countries
 mainly by the private sector, as it was said by some people that said before
 me. As Mr. Gross reminded us, the idea of free flow of information bringing us
 back to (saying name) report, I recall the notion of right to communicate.  The
 complete lack of regulation makes the law of the jungle to prevail and
 threatens millions of people's human rights, such as freedom of expression and
 the proper right to communicate. We could mention many examples of that, but
 let's just stick to the current threat to Internet neutrality by big telecom
 companies. Of course, overregulation and control can strongly affect freedom of
 expression.  But underregulation is as dangerous as overregulation. To strike a
 balance, we could learn from the traffic regulation.  Traffic lights, parking
 rules, speed limits, and car and trucks cohabiting rules are fundamental to
 guarantee people's right to come and go. Of course, if you put traffic lights
 in a place that a roundabout would be enough, you're overregulating.  But if
 you do the opposite and do the wrong choice and just believe in the free flow
 of vehicles, you create a picture in which you affect directly the freedom of
 those who are not big enough. Considering that, I would like to ask Mr. Dearden
 if he doesn't see big companies as a dangerous threat to the freedom of
 expression as much as the states can be. Thank you.

 >>NICK DEARDEN:   Yeah, I think that it's an extremely good point you've made,
 and I agree with everything that you've said, actually. I'm quite disappointed
 that somebody said that there weren't many people from the business community
 here, because they didn't think that this issue affected them, because I think
 this issue affects them very fundamentally. Maybe we've not done enough to make
 clear why that is. There is a, as I said before, a multistakeholder initiative
 going on where some companies are discussing how they can protect privacy
 rights and also freedom of information on an ongoing basis.  But it's a very,
 very small amount of companies.  And some of the companies that are involved
 most heavily in complicity with suppressing freedom of information, for
 example, companies that invent technology that allow governments to censor Web
 sites and so on, aren't involved in it at the moment.  And that's one reason
 why I think that self-regulation really can't work in the long term, because
 without enforcement, a company may like the idea of human rights, may try and
 abide by freedom of expression guidelines, but, ultimately, it's going to come
 second to securing markets and producing a profit, because that's what
 companies do.  That's their whole purpose. And so I think that governments need
 to regulate and need to take responsibility.  It's not good enough for a
 government to say, "We don't like what that government's doing over there and
 we don't agree with their censorship" if you have a company based in your
 country which is complicit in that censorship.  So I totally agree with you. 
 In order to truly realize freedom of expression, we do need to have regulations
 based on international standards.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, now we have a question from Ms. Carolina
 Aguene. Again, I'm not sure. Good morning.

 >>CAROLINA AGUENE:   My question is a very brief one, and it goes back to the
 commentary made by Carlos Gregorio.  What do you think is the role played by
 the current big search engines on the experience we users have the Internet
 nowadays in terms of flows of information, access, and diversity? Thank you
 very much.

 >>CARLOS GREGORIO:   The role of the search engines is essential for access and
 freedom of expression.  There can be no freedom of expression if people cannot
 read, listen to the expression or the manifestation together with it. So the
 search engines should be totally transparent.  We should be able to know how
 the search tools are a danger capturing information.  We should also be able to
 see what kind of exclusion the filtering tools do.  So as I see it, the search
 tools should be not subject to regulation but they should be open to
 competition, more competition.  The idea I bring up is not the solution.  There
 should be official search engines, neutral and impartial.  Therefore, you can
 search or query without a filter or change of priority.  Regrettably, today,
 our only access are the search engines. If we think about those search tools,
 we cannot talk about freedom.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Do you agree.

 >>NICK DEARDEN:   Yes, I agree.  I think it comes back to a point at the
 beginning about the virtual monopolies being created online.  And one of the
 things that concerns me is the companies I have spoken to this week involved in
 this don't see the kind of threat dominance proposes and they say at the end of
 the day you can go to another search engine if you don't like our search
 engine.  But that isn't based in the reality of market dominance.  And as a
 company becomes more and more dominant in the market, actually people do have
 less and less choice and less and less freedom of information about where they
 can go, and all the while those search engines are collating more and more
 private information on people.  So I think it's a very important question that
 we need to address.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you.  Mr. Jorge Machado, University of São Paulo.

 >>JORGE MACHADO:   Thank you for the opportunity of using my mother tongue. Any
 person who has knowledge, basic knowledge, on the Internet knows that it is a
 network of sharing.  It is a network to share, database to share information
 processing, to share transmission bands, so that it is a sharing network.  So
 if you have any doubts, you can ask Vint Cerf. The problem is that the laws
 that regulate intellectual property are prior to the Internet, and we know
 that. And the laws after the Internet, they are just patch-ups of the former
 laws. And so a lot is said about the Bern convention and the U.S. laws, et
 cetera.  However, these laws are not adequate to the technology, concretely
 speaking. So my question is addressed to Mr. Thrush, but I think he has left.
 So I address my question to anyone at the head table, if you can give me an
 intelligent answer.  How could we efficiently apply the old and outdated laws
 and not rupture the neutrality of the network without violating the fundamental
 rights of freedom of expression and privacy?  This is the heart of the matter. 
 We should not forget it. Thank you very much.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Jorge.  All could answer in an intelligent
 answer, I would like to point that out.  Mr. Jobim will answer.

 >>ALEXANDRE JOBIM:   I will also answer you in Portuguese. I have -- There's no
 doubt that there's a problem between laws that came before the Internet and
 after the Internet.  The fact is we cannot use this as an excuse not to comply
 with the law. And secondly, there's a need, and this was mentioned here, the
 law is the result, a product of society and there's no protection in the case
 of intellectual property for ideas. Now, how can you make compatible freedom of
 expression and, let's say, a sharing network, but the legal objectives to
 curtail that. I don't see a problem.  The problem is that the Internet cannot
 be seen, with all due respect, cannot be seen as a simple sharing network, as
 if this were a general waiver for people to violate and commit crimes. The fact
 that given countries have specific laws regulating or not the Internet, the
 simple fact, as I understood from your comments, that this is a network for
 sharing is the argument that if you are on the Web, you can do everything.  So
 Internet users are users of the stratosphere and because they are on the
 Internet they can commit this type of violation. I fully agree that the law
 should be updated, adapting itself to concrete cases. In Brazil, there's a
 difficulty of the legislators following technology. The fact that the laws came
 prior to the Internet, came after the Internet, this is not invalidated because
 the principles of intellectual property is the principle in which the person
 wants or does not want to have his production protected.  Not the idea.  This
 is the property right.  Don't want that broadcast on the Web.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   We have just one question and I ask Mr. David Wood if he
 would be very, very brief. Where are you, Mr. Wood? Could you present yourself?

 >>DAVID WOOD:   Yes, I am David Wood from the European broadcasting union.  So
 I apologize if this is a little parochial, but it is a question for Mr. Kelly,
 so if he could stop writing for the minute.  Thank you. Mr. Kelly spoke, and we
 read about the notion of Internet having public service value.  This is a well
 founded assumption and we certainly agree with it.  But I wonder if Mr. Kelly
 really thinks it's some contradiction in terms in the sense that we just
 finished several years in Europe discussing what we call the media services
 direction where we have assumed that the Internet is somehow a child of a
 lesser God that doesn't require anything like as much regulation as other kinds
 of media delivery service. So I do see a contradiction there which our European
 regulators may need to think about. But perhaps it's indicative of a general
 problem that all of us may have, and that is how to make time independent
 regulation in the media business. Perhaps it isn't possible, but I would be
 interested to hear about whether Mr. Kelly also thinks there is some
 contradiction here. Thank you.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Please, Mr. Kelly, very brief answer.

 >>MARK KELLY:   Well, I think the possible contradiction can perhaps be
 dissolved by ensuring that we retain clearly in our sights the cardinal
 principles that we're seeking to protect.  And I think that would apply equally
 to the previous questioner as well. If we're clear that we are in the face of
 new technologies and new broadcast technologies in particular, looking at new
 means of delivery, that is one thing which may need to be regulated with a
 greater degree of sophistication. But the rights involved in their essence have
 not changed, and the quote that I gave you in my little four-minute speech at
 the beginning is actually from a case which is 31 years old decided by the
 European court of human rights.  And I think it's as valid today as it was
 then. Can I just emphasize as well, though, to very briefly rise to a challenge
 that Nick Dearden put to us as well. I think it's right that we haven't done
 enough, clearly, to make the case for a human rights-based approach, whether to
 broadcast regulators or private corporations. And really, in just a couple of
 words, I think the essence of it for private corporations is there's a huge
 degree of corporate risk in not taking into account human rights standards in
 the way in which they reach their decisions and in the content and quality of
 the decisions that they reach. And to take just one specific example, we had a
 discussion there about the attribution of global top-level domain names.  That
 can raise issues of freedom of expression in which it's absolutely conceivable
 that a little bit down the line, decisions being made now freely by private
 corporations in their own right may be subject to human rights-based
 challenges, and states themselves may seek, in a regulatory fashion, to hold to
 account those companies that make those decisions if they don't make them in a
 way that is in conformity with the highest possible internationally recognized
 standards. So my answer is, let's stick to first principles and let's be
 prepared constantly to human rights proof, new policy, practice and law that we
 produce and review old law to make sure it's human rights compliant.  Because I
 think if we do that, there shouldn't be a contradiction between freedom of
 expression and intellectual property rights.

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you, Mr. Kelly.  I once again speak Portuguese. I
 would like to thank all of you for attending. I would like to call upon the
 chairman for his final words and I would like to remind you this is a
 controversial, far-reaching issue, and I'm certain this meeting has helped us.

 >> MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you, madam chairman. (no audio). Concluding remarks,
 I will just give a Secretariat's reading of what I heard. And not as ambitious
 to call it a summary, as that would be very difficult to summarize such a rich
 discussion. It clearly appeared that openness is a multifaceted and
 multi-dimensional issue.  It's a cross-cutting issue with linkages to the other
 IGF themes:  diversity, access, and security.  And it has legal, political and
 economic dimensions. Several speakers pointed out that there are questions of
 balance. There is a balance between the two I.P.s, as several speakers referred
 to.  The I.P. for Internet protocol and the I.P. for intellectual property.
 There is a question of balance between freedom of expression and free flow of
 information and the freedom to enjoy the fruit of your labor. There is also the
 question of balance between privacy and freedom of expression. The panel and
 the discussion gave a strong emphasis on the fundamental freedoms, the freedom
 of expression, the free flow of information, as contained in Article 19 of the
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva declaration of principles
 and the Tunis Agenda in the WSIS context. It was pointed out that human rights'
 perspectives should go beyond paying lip service to these universally accepted
 principles. The observance of human rights should be part also not only for
 governments but should also be part of the business plan of international
 cooperation, and it was pointed out that compliance with human rights is a
 journey rather than a destination. One speaker was concerned that human rights
 -- that human rights slipped down the Internet governance agenda somewhat, and
 that issues such as child pornography or credit card fraud, terrorism, are
 treated as a priority issues, and there should not be an either/or.  Solutions
 to these real problems should build on human rights. The principles that were
 accepted by all need now to be translated into practical solutions on human
 rights-based solutions. There was a lengthy discussion on various legal
 aspects.  And as a nonlawyer, I hope the many eminent lawyers in this
 discussion will forgive me if my reading is not 100% precise.  But, again,
 there was an interesting discussion on the relationship between the two IPs. 
 And it was pointed out that while on the surface there may be a dichotomy,
 there was no real dichotomy between the two. It was also pointed out that law
 is always a product of society and reflects common held standards and that laws
 can be abridged, exceptions can be made, such as in the case of education. It
 was pointed out that open access to scientific knowledge was an essential --
 was very important element in the development process and therefore very
 important for developing countries.  And these movements, such as Creative
 Commons, were mentioned in this context. There is also a discussion on open
 standards and free and open source software.  It was pointed out that they may
 lower the barriers of entry and promote innovation.  Again, they were seen as
 important for developing countries.  But there was -- was not seen as a
 contradiction between free and open source software and intellectual property. 
 And it was recalled that in WSIS declaration of principle and Geneva
 declaration and the Tunis Agenda, that both models were seen as equally
 valuable and both models have their merit. I think I will try to abridge
 somewhat as we are running out of time. There was also a discussion on what
 kind of regulation we want, should we have laws or should we have
 self-regulation.  And my reading was that there was general favor for a mixed
 solution between hard and soft law instruments. With regard to the economic
 dimension, there was a discussion on market dominance and virtual monopolies
 and their relationship to openness and freedom of expression.  And it was also
 pointed out that the discussion we had in the IGF had a relationship to
 discussions held in the World Intellectual Property Organization, such as the
 development agenda and also in UNESCO, and there, the conventional cultural
 diversity again was mentioned. The discussion just towards the end actually
 recalled very much the discussion we had in Athens last year, that the
 legislation needs to be adapted to cyberspace.  And again it was pointed out
 that legislation is not something that is taking place outside society, but it
 needs to reflect the wishes of society and be adapted to what society really
 wants. I think the chairman in his opening remarks said it is ultimately a
 political choice of what society we want. And with that, I hand back to the
 chair, who will make his personal concluding remarks. Thank you.

 >>RONALDO LEMOS:   Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. All my remarks should be
 deemed as personal.  I'm not trying to summarize or synthesize what's been said
 during this panel. Basically, it's clear that the openness topic is a pervasive
 topic in Internet governance, and with significant developments and questions
 related to access, diversity, and security. In its economic and regulatory
 dimension, the debate has made a point that different regimes of intellectual
 property or different licensing regimes in intellectual property, either for
 software or for other components of the network, as well as the dissemination
 of open standards, might generate in the economic sphere distinctive
 opportunities for innovation and for the autonomous insertion of developing
 countries. The debate also pointed out that the new possibilities and
 challenges brought by the Internet must be considered in the debates about
 intellectual property and must also be contemplated in -- vis-à-vis issues like
 privacy rights, right to information, and the fight against criminality. Also,
 the theme of openness is an essential requisite for the freedom of expression,
 which is recognized as a human right and must be ensured on a global
 perspective. The free circulation of information and content on a diversified
 basis is also intrinsically connected by the openness issue. The Internet is a
 particularly well-adapted means to accommodate pluralism and cultural diversity
 and is essential, too, for both to be preserved and enhanced. The maintenance
 of the opening characteristics -- the open characteristics of the Internet,
 which was the original Internet conception, is an essential requisite for the
 fulfillment of the Internet potential in all these aforementioned aspects.
 Accordingly, the variety of aspects that have been introduced by the
 distinguished panelists and the distinguished discussants and by the audience
 as a whole demonstrate that the theme of openness must be -- continue to
 receive full attention and priority attention in the future discussions about
 Internet governance. Thank you very much. [ Applause ]

 >>HELOISA MAGALHÃES:   Thank you very much.  And have a nice afternoon in Rio
 de Janeiro.  Thank you. (1:10 p.m.)