Internet Governance Forum 2 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 15 November 2007 Reporting back 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. >>NITIN DESAI: This is the final reporting session of the workshops that were held yesterday. I have an initial list here, and I would request that all the persons reporting in stick to the time limit which has been indicated to them. In any case, the reports of the workshops on the template will be available on the Web site. The first one I have is Seck Mactar of the United Nations economic commission for Africa, who will report on an African group meeting and the Kegali recommendations. May I suggest that people speak as -- come quickly to the podium, I'll go down and speak to the floor, just to save time. Is there somebody with a mike around here? For the moment, just come to the podium and you can speak from the podium, yeah. Can I request Susy Struble of the dynamic collision on open standards, yeah. >>SUSY STRUBLE: I'm Susy Struble, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards. Our mission is provide -- >> INTERPRETER: Sorry. You're reading from a text, and the interpreters have not been given a copy of it. You're reading from a written text which the interpreters have not been given. (No audio). >>SUSY STRUBLE: -- social welfare. I also represent Sun Microsystems. Our multistakeholder coalition was pleased to hear the problems and ICT standards discussed often this year, from the opening discussion panel to yesterday's panel on openness. We believe these discussions will lead to greater understanding of a system that has profound power over what we can and cannot do with ICTs and will ultimately lead to better decision-making about what changes, if any, need to be made. So we hosted three sessions this year. And we also participated in the A2K coalitions workshop yesterday afternoon. Our first workshop on Monday focused on the intersection between open ICT standards, development, and public policy. Our panelists spoke of the economic aspects of interoperability as well as existing and new activities in WIPO that are related to the issue of standards and intellectual property, such as the new development agenda and the new work on the standing committee on patents. They also spoke of how the new trend of bilateral free trade agreements, which are often broader in their I.P. protection requirements than, say, WTO TRIPS, could cause problems. And this is certainly an issue for policymakers to understand. There was also some discussion of potential exceptions and limitations to intellectual property law, such as for reverse engineering, under copyright and patent law for the purposes of ensuring interoperability in a system in which the economic network effect is so strong. The European Committee on Interoperable Systems presented on the role of -- that competition law and policy can also play in promoting ICT interoperability. Panelists also discussed the political dimension of standards, how technical standards often actually set policy, and if you don't have a seat at the table, well, most ICT standards in the world are actually created by private industry consortia, just as the Business Software Alliance representative pointed out yesterday when he said, and I quote, "BSA members are responsible for the development of the open standards, all the technology standards, that exist today." You know, that might not be the worst model, this private consortia model, but are there characteristics that these organizations and their output should have that would give them appropriate legitimacy? And our last panelist presented on the need for every IGF dynamic coalition to include promoting accessibility in its work. And that's something certainly our coalition will do. And we'll report back next year. ICT standards should have accessibility principles built in from the beginning. And I think the W3C, who we heard from, provides a nice model that, as I said, our coalition will explore more. And then our second meeting was a working meeting of the coalition on Tuesday that actually turned more into a repeat of our Monday general session. But we did spend more time there talking about capacity-building for developing economies in the public interest and ICT standard setting. And we heard how the IETF attempts to address this problem of getting more developing economies engaged with a kind of scholarship fund. And I think their model and others are something the coalition will also explore over the next year. Finally, on Tuesday afternoon, we held a best practices workshop in which the government of Sri Lanka and a representative of the Extremadura region of Spain spoke about e-inclusion programs and rely upon open standards and why and what they meant when they said "open," what were those criteria for that output, that standard, and what policies, such as government procurement in the case of Sri Lanka, were put in place to support greater competition, greater access, and lower cost. And for anyone who wants to get more involved in the dynamic coalition, we invite you to visit our Web site and join the mailing list. And all that is at www.igf-dcos.org. And thank you for your time. >>NITIN DESAI: Can I ask David Satola, who is reporting on the workshop on governance frameworks. >> Please remember that what you say is being interpreted into seven languages. >>NITIN DESAI: May I request that -- we're short of time -- but speak at a pace at which it can be translated. >>DAVID SATOLA: Thank you. I'm David Satola from The World Bank, and I'm reporting back on our workshop on governance frameworks for critical Internet resources. On behalf of our 15 organizers, seven panelists, representing five continents, I would like to thank our hosts for the courtesies extended and the facilities provided, and to thank the secretariat and the advisory group for their support and assistance in our workshop. We had about 130 people attending our workshop, which we were delighted about. In terms of the substance that we covered, our focus was to explore frameworks or methodology for approaching governance issues on critical Internet resources. First we looked at what critical Internet resources are to provide a baseline. Then we looked at what principles should be used in analyzing what governance features should be. After having set the foundation, we then started to look at a methodological approach to governance issues, and then started to look at what might be the case in the future, what are the dynamic factors affecting governance going forward. We then postulated some new approaches based on our analysis of the dynamic factors about how to address governance issues in the future. One of the recommendations was a proposal for a commons-based domain for global public goods. Our report on the workshop is being submitted to the secretariat so you can see in more details there the interventions of the various speakers, as well as we hope a link to the presentations that were made. We look forward to exploring these issues in more detail at upcoming Internet Governance Forum, and, again, thank you very much. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. I request -- may I request Mr. Seck Mactar of the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa. >>SECK MACTAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll speak in French, please. I'll very quickly report back on the meeting of the Africa group, which was convened on the initiative of the United Nations economic commission for Africa on Tuesday of this week, chaired by the excellency, the Algerian minister, post on telecommunications. The main purpose of this meeting was to analyze the Africa continent's involvement in Internet governance. Also, in particular, discussions at the regional and local level, and to identify the priorities and concerns of Africa in the issues being dealt with in Internet governance. And the meeting was also to prepare for Africa's participation in the next IGF in New Delhi and the following one in Africa, which will be on the African continent. Many speakers took the floor. And after discussion of the various issues, it was decided to delve into the issues more deeply and to carry out a benchmarking exercise on access, security, on critical Internet resources and content to see what exists in Africa and what are the strengths and weaknesses of each African country in order to identify guidelines in terms of good Internet governance for the African continent. At the meeting also, we had a presentation of the recommendations of the Kegali summit on "connect Africa." These recommendations focused on four points: On infrastructure and access networks, on capacity-building, on content, and the regulatory framework. So let me very quickly describe to you on infrastructures recommended that -- in those African countries which have not contributed to the digital solidarity fund to do so, to build public-private partnerships, particularly for Internet governance, and to adopt flexible regulatory policies. On capacity-building, the priority was to be given to skill-building in sufficient quantity and quality and to include these subjects in education systems to build centers of excellence at each subregion of Africa on services and content, to promote the development of local content and cultural diversity. On the regulatory framework revision of the regulations was to be carried out, capacity-building for regulators, and international and regional interconnection points were to be established. That, Mr. Chairman, is the results of the work of our session. You should realize that the main recommendations that emerged from our deliberations were the benchmarking exercise to be carried out by the economic commission for Africa in cooperation with the African Union. Thank you very much. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. Our next (No audio) -- is Henry Judy, who will report on the best practices forum, on data breach notification. >>HENRY JUDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Judy. I'm with the American Bar Association. We held a best practices forum yesterday on the subject of data breach notification and consumer protection. We reviewed developments in the law on that subject globally, and we literally walked through the design of an ideal statute on the subject. We explored the connection of the subject to the themes of access, of security, and development, and we noted that literally the day before our session, the European Union announced a draft new directive on the subject. We were fortunate enough to have on our panel a member of the European Parliament and a member of parliament from the United Kingdom, who was able to address this new directive, and we were even more fortunate to have in the audience a member of the United Kingdom House of Lords, who was a principal author of a report of the House of Lords on personal security, and, in particular, on this subject. So we had a very rich discussion and a very timely and pertinent discussion on the subject, and we look forward in the future to more detailed discussions and a connection of this subject to broader and more lateral subjects of personal security on the Internet and its connection to the themes of the conference. Thank you very much. >>NITIN DESAI: I now have Wolfgang Kleinwächter, on the broadening of the domain name space. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter, from the University of Aarhus. I was, together with five other organizations, the convenor of a workshop on the critical Internet resources on broadening the domain name space, top-level domains for city, regions, and continents. It was the first summit of projects of TLDs existing in emerging projects of top-level domains which has a reference to a geographic name, city, region, or something else. And we started with the presentation of three existing top-level domains, dot EU, dot Asia, and dot cat, for Catalonia. And then we had the presentation of emerging projects, which included cities, regions, and continents. It was done dot NYC for New York City, dot Berlin, dot Paris, dot cym for Wales, dot GAL for Galicia. Dot BTN for Britannia, and dot (saying name) for a group of Latin American countries, dot lat also for Latin American countries, and dot Africa. And then we had a discussion about whether it makes sense or not to have such kind of new top-level domains in the process of the introduction of new gTLDs. We heard comments from the user community, the individual users and the business users. And then we had a nice discussion with members from the audience. We had around 130 people in the room. And the three messages from the workshop are, one, there is a growing wave of projects, you know, for new top-level domains which have geographical element in it. And this is seen as a new opportunity for global cultural branding and for the stimulation of new local business and for giving the consumer more choices. Number two, geoTLDs would enrich the domain name system, would introduce a new elements in the DNS, and would give users more choice. And the third message is, ICANN should speed up its procedures and to open the door for the accreditation of new gTLDs as soon as possible and to include geoTLDs into this process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. I now have Mr. Tomohiko Yamakawa on the workshop on international cooperation in the -- and the capability-building for information security. >> TOMOHIKO YAMAKAWA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to report the workshop on international cooperation on the capability-building of information security, representing four organizers. JPCC, ISOC, GIPI, and Nippon Keidanren. We had one moderator from JPCC and six panelists. Two are from business organizations, Nippon Keidanren and IDAA; two from information society, GIPI and AfriNIC; and two from civil society communities, one from Brazil and the other one is also the representative of a government of Vietnam, Southeast Asia. First of all, we discussed what is the issue for information security, capacity, and capability-building. It was pointed out that the lack of national (inaudible) under some solutions are not available for all regions. In this sense, this building national point of contact would be a good solution for the information security. But most panelists have pointed out, not only for the Internet response capabilities, not only (inaudible) but involving many other issues in information security capacity, for example, legal framework, critical infrastructure protection, business involvement, and especially in the perspective of user protections, end users' perspectives. And, finally, at the end of the discussion, moderator proposed the panelists and audience to try any proposed solutions and encouraged to bring back cases as success stories to the next IGF meeting. There was not a special answer or response at that time, but several stakeholders, some of which may be panelists, would be expected towards the next meeting. For example, it is an existing activity in (inaudible) and the other example would be bilateral cooperation in the broader context of information technology between two countries, for example, Japan and Vietnam. In the happiest case, it may result in a specific commitment to the IGF, for example, dynamic coalition or any other cases. As a closing word, it is the greatest pleasure of us to make a great step of further collaboration in information security capacity-building. Thank you very much. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. I now have Gurumurthy Kasinathan of the dynamic coalition on the framework of principles for the Internet. >>GURUMURTHY KASINATHAN: Thank you, Chairman, for this opportunity to report back on the dynamic coalition proceedings workshop yesterday on the dynamic coalition on the framework of principles for the Internet. We will give, of course, a detailed report on the proceedings to the secretariat. But I will briefly share with you what transpired what the basic idea of this workshop was. The Internet and Internet governance processes are still in a very evolving and a nascent stage, and a need was felt by various people belonging to civil society to look at framing a broad set of principles that are actually held and underlie the very process of Internet governance itself. The IGF is basically a forum where we get multiple stakeholders to come, discuss, participate, and hear views. It doesn't have a substantive or (inaudible) mandate themselves. And where these issues come up, there are contestations, conflicting claims, it will be very useful to have a broad set of principles that underlie what would be the mechanisms of understanding and reflecting on these issues so that we can take forward a more fruitful process of acting on it. So that was the basic idea of forming this particular dynamic coalition, which met in Athens, the first IGF was the first meeting of this dynamic coalition was held. And yesterday we had the second workshop. The participants are primarily from civil society. I am Gurumurthy Kasinathan from I.T. for Change, which is one of the participants. We have (saying name) from PANOS, John (saying name) from Syracuse University. We also have (saying name) from the Chinese government, and the discussions began yesterday by John (saying name) actually opening what I said, that the principles would be an excellent base for IGF actually to take forward its own work. And he mentioned issues such as the expansion to IPv6, the issues of ICANN reporting to the U.S. government, the need to interpret issues of standards, whether they're technical standards or public-policy standards. All these required some kind of underlying base for interpretation and taking forward. The question might arise, how come a group of actors are taking upon themselves the whole burden, so to say, of defining the framework of Internet principles. We have an excellent example before us of the disability caucus. And Sylvia came and shared with us the experience of the disability caucus of sharing the -- she spoke about the various dynamics of that whole process, that it is very time-consuming, it requires enormous interaction with several stakeholders persistent over a period of time, and that we should actually view this whole process as equivalent to the framing of a new contribution. Of course, I need to go back to the WSIS principles so that we don't reinvent the wheel. There are a lot of principles out there in the WSIS documents and Tunis documents which talk about some of the principles that can underlie this framework of principles for the Internet. (saying name) talk about the new Internet document that has come out which underlies some of the principles that (inaudible) for creating the new order on the Internet. And we had Erick from Peru who talked about the (inaudible) declaration. So people who came up with different base documents that can be used for arriving, discussing the framework of Internet principles. There's also a lot of discussions on this from the audience as well. One person talked about the whole issue of a (inaudible) corporation and how that needed a stimulus to take it forward. In terms of taking it forward, the group felt we needed to have regular discussions through a mailing list and the creation of a virtual space and also maybe through face-to-face meetings. And then, of course, taking it forward in Delhi as well. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: I have Emily Taylor, on the U.K. country best practice workshop. >>EMILY TAYLOR: Good morning. I'm here to report on the U.K. country best-practice workshop, which was called "partnership in practice." And it looked at two aspects: First of all, how an enabling environment promotes investment, innovation, and a partnership approach to Internet governance issues, and also supports economic growth and competitiveness, while ensuring stakeholder inclusion. And secondly, the workshop featured case studies which looked at a couple of players in the U.K. environment, and then secondly, focused on a U.K. IGF experiment that we are undertaking in the United Kingdom. So first of all, the participants came from a range of stakeholders. We had the U.K. department of business, the confederation of business industry, the London Internet exchange, which was the first peering point, Internet exchange point in the United Kingdom, and NOMINET, the dot UK registry. We looked at the government's attitudes toward regulating the Internet, which is a light touch, creation of an enabling environment rather than direct regulation. And then we moved on to looking at the two not-for-profit membership organizations, the London Internet Exchange, and how peering and Internet exchange points have massively reduced the costs of getting online and provide, perhaps, a model for reducing access costs in other parts of the world. And also NOMINET, a not-for-profit registry and the effect of price reduction over the years and how that promoted growth. The second part of the workshop focused on the U.K. Internet governance experiment. And first of all, we brought messages from U.K. stakeholders. A meeting was held in October, and more than 100 attendees gave us messages for Rio. They emphasized that the most important and relevant IGF theme for a U.K. audience is security. But that for the global development of the Internet, access is the most important issue. They also wanted the IGF to focus on positive experiences and partnership approach, rather than on direct regulation or recommendations. The workshop looked at a competition held by NOMINET, the best practice challenge, and the results are exhibited down in the village square here, as are the actual comments made by U.K. stakeholders. There were a number of questions from the audience. There were about 60 or 70 people present. People were reflecting on how transferable are these lessons, and one message that came through clearly was the direct transferability of the concept of Internet exchange points in reducing costs and promoting access. But otherwise, the emphasis was not on telling people what to do or how to behave but on promoting ideas that they might want to adopt or not, depending on their local environment. There was also a reflection on how the relationships between stakeholders have evolved, often through quite animated and often sometimes hostile discussions, moving towards general understanding of perspectives. And the issue of child protection was discussed as well in this context. The conclusions of the independent moderator were that there was actually an impressive consensus amongst the different stakeholders: private sector, civil society, and government. But that things are still evolving. They are still in a state of flux. And the roles of the relevant parties are changing. For the private sector, in the moderator's view, this meant a higher degree of responsibility for social matters, that they might otherwise have preferred to ignore or merely regard as a potential cost. And likewise, the public sector is transforming, too. It might have to become, in her words, more laid back regarding interventions. Overall, the sense was that this is a continuing changing environment, and sometimes it is unclear who should take the lead. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. Next I have (saying name) Rodriguez who is going to report on a workshop for the Portuguese-speaking community. >> Good morning. I come here to present the report of the workshop, of the seminar on free access to scientific knowledge in Portuguese-speaking countries. It was held on the 13th November. On the 13th November, a seminar was successfully carried out by the Brazilian Institute of Information on Science and Technology related to the Ministry of Science and Technology. Presentations were of high technical level. They discussed free access to scientific knowledge in Portuguese-speaking countries and the content of all presentations are on the electronic site. representatives of Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal were present, and representatives of the executive Secretariat of the community of Portuguese-speaking countries. In a short meeting before the seminar, these representatives exchanged impressions on the prospects of articulation of Portuguese-speaking countries to promote free access to scientific knowledge and to foster production and access to Portuguese digital content. Of this discussion, we should underline the agreement on the need to undertake concrete actions of cooperation, even if they are just in pilot project shape. And as a result of this meeting, there were the following consensus. That a technical dialogue should be established, and that effort should be promoted before their governments for the identification as soon as possible, of focal points that will coordinate efforts and exchange information to create technical conditions to become responsible for their sector and their respective governments. To understand that the proposal by the Brazilian government called protocol of intention between governments, part of the CPLP for the union of efforts in the sense of compatiblizing their data banks and free access information as a way to disseminate access to scientific and cultural production originated in Portuguese-speaking countries. This represents a solid basis for future negotiations as a result of the aforesaid commitment on free access. The IBCT and the University of Mignon (phonetic) are committed to offer technical assistance to all countries at the end of the meeting. All organizations present reaffirmed their interest in working jointly to promote the expansion of free access in the scope of the CPLP. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you very much. (No audio) I now have (saying name) who will report on the workshop on measures to prevent and fight child pornography on the Internet, strategies for developing countries. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will speak in Portuguese. The workshop was held by the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil. And safer-net Brazil was one of the sponsors, representing the civil society in Brazil. The general attorney's office for the rights of citizens and also one of the sponsors was the Children's Clarity Coalition for Internet Safety from the United Kingdom. As invited, we had the Brazilian association of providers of access and services in the Internet. And also the INHOPE (phonetic) Association from Holland. We discussed the implications of the exponential expansion of child pornography using the Internet and especially the recent movement of migration of criminal networks acting in Eastern Europe and in countries such as Russia, to countries in Latin America. We are very worried about the growing use of the Internet in developing countries, particularly in Brazil and in other Latin America countries, by users who use international services to distribute on a large scale images containing explicit sex scenes involving children. In Brazil in the last 20 months, we discovered more than 50,000 cases involving the distribution of child pornography by Brazilians using services which are provided by international companies. In developing countries, normally there are no headquarters of large companies or large Internet providers so the services are provided remotely and there is much difficulty on the part of Brazilian authorities to obtain information and to obtain data, the data required to prove the authorship of the crime. And therefore, this difficulty makes it hard to identify the criminals, and therefore their punishment. Finally, we suggested that countries in Latin America should create Internet hot lines in order to establish cooperation mechanisms in the legal and police sectors. And that they should adopt policies to harmonize their respective legislations in this respect. Thank you very much. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you very much. (No audio). Report on the dynamic coalition on access to knowledge. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robin Gross, and I am I'm the executive director of IP Justice which is an international civil liberties organization that works to promote balanced intellectual property laws. I am going to report back on yesterday's session on the dynamic coalition on access to knowledge and freedom of expression. It's called A2K@IGF. The focus of this dynamic coalition is on the impact of access to knowledge and freedom of expression from overbroad intellectual property rights. We had a number of speakers yesterday at our session. Susy Struble from Sun Microsystems, she spoke about the role of open technical standards in providing access to knowledge. Brad Biddle who is a senior attorney at Intel Corporation, he spoke about the impact on secondary liability rules on innovation and competition in the digital environment. And also on the economic value of robust limitations and exceptions to intellectual property rights. There was a co-presentation from a Don Katz of Yale Information Society Project and Ronaldo Lemos from the (saying name) Foundation and they spoke about some country-specific case studies that they had done on access to knowledge. Pedro (saying name) also from the (saying name) Foundation spoke about the impact of technological restrictions to enforce copyright and digital rights management systems, or DRM, on access to knowledge and freedom of expression. Mary Wong who is a law professor at Franklin Pierce University provided us an analysis of the anticircumvention measures of digital locks that are contained in bilateral trade agreements, and she also provided some recommendations for policymakers who are negotiating intellectual property rights rules in these free trade agreements. And our last presenter was Natasha Primo from the Association for Progressive Communications, and she gave an overview of some global civil society efforts to promote ICT for access to knowledge. If anyone is interested in learning more about our coalition, our Web site is WWW.A2K dash IGF.org. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you, robin. I have Peter Van Roste who is going to report on the best practice forum on one size fits all. >>PETER VAN ROSTE: Good morning, everyone. My name is Peter Van Roste. I am the general manager of CENTR, the European regional organization that groups the ccTLD registries. I'm reporting back on the session, the best practice forum titled one size doesn't fit all. This was a joint session organized by CENTR, APTLD, LACTLD, and AfTLD. We were able to get five high-level speakers from five domains that were a model for the different approach that is taken in the different countries. We had speakers from South Africa, from Austria, from Japan, from the dot EU domain run by EURIT, and from Chile. These models, as I mentioned before symbolized the whole range of different approaches that have been taken in different parts of the world. Dot ZA, the domain for South Africa, is a not-for-profit organization that was redelegated as recently as 2005. The focus of the presentation was on the current restructuring of the dot ZA domain, and how the new structure will allow dot ZA to efficiently tackle a whole range of challenges. Austria is run by an organization called NIC AT. It is a for-profit organization, but interestingly, the profits are transferred to a not-for-profit organization who uses the surplus integral for the benefits of the local Internet community. The Austrian government does not see any reason to manage or regulate the dot AT registry. In particular, because the domain is run efficiently and in the interest of the local Internet community. Particularly worth mentioning is the net ID initiative which allows numbers of the local Internet community to apply for sponsorship for their own educational initiatives. Japan is run by a for-profit organization, a private for-profit organization, and their registry is based on a sponsorship agreement with ICANN. And the government endorsement. So there is no contractual relationship. The surplus is again used for educational projects and the operation of one of the root servers. Dot EU is a registry under contract. The legal framework is based on European regulations. And the manager of dot EU demonstrated that his model allowed for recreation of a successful registry and a truly international environment. The last presenter from Chile, Margarita Valdes, was able to demonstrate that dot CL is a prime example of a university-based registry. Even though working as part of the government and in an academic environment, dot CL was able to minimize bureaucracy and provide an excellent service to the local registrants. And offer a highly interesting and interactive Q&A session, the independent moderator, Jeanette Hofmann, was able to conclude that the different local needs required different solutions. And the models that were presented -- that were presented convincingly demonstrated that there is no such thing as a global best practice in this area. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you, Peter. I now have David Bekele (phonetic) who is going to report on a best practices forum on multistakeholder partnerships. >> Thank you. I am reporting on best practice forum on multistakeholder partnership organized by APC. I am reporting on behalf of Valerie D'Costa, who unfortunately was not here for the reporting. The session explored how multistakeholder partnership. MSP, work in practice by highlighting a number of cases in India, Ethiopa, Nepal, Kenya, and the LAC region. These MSPs were diverse in their reach and purpose ranging from community technical network efforts to engaging the media to a nationwide plan to wire-up India. It was noted that although different stakeholders have unique interests and perspectives, MSPs can work effectively when the value proposition for each party to collaborate with the others is clearly spelled out. Each party must have a sense of the value of engaging other stakeholders and must be able to articulate how participation in the MSP helps them attain their goals. This value proposition for all parties to engage with one another for mutual benefit was also described as creating a win-win scenario. There must be a realization that the other stakeholders provide a unique and valuable input or perspective which helps each stakeholder attain their own goals more effectively. It was noted that for MSPs to work, a champion or broker is often needed. Some felt that civil society best played this role. The broker is one who brings different partners together and provides a neutral forum for collaboration to take place. All panelists reiterated that successful MSPs take time and effort and are hard work. Given the multiplicity of views, it is a big effort to bring those views together and into a cohesive whole. All participants agreed that for MSPs to work in practice, trust was critical. This trust is only built over a period of time. After hearing how MSPs were started in Bulgaria and Ethiopia, it was noted that MSPs can be learned behavior. In other words, governments who are not used to engaging other stakeholders in transparent, participatory process could learn the value of these processes by starting with small, with less controversial topics and by getting used to engaging other stakeholders in less formal venues such as these sessions and informal workshops. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: We are running a little over time but since we are not going to have any further session, we just have three more so we will try to accommodate that. (Saying name) of AFNIC who is reporting on a workshop on worldwide and ICTs for development. >> The workshop that I'll be reporting to you on dealt with a success story on the co-development of a computerized management tool for a register of ccTLD, the top-level domain name country codes. We are speaking of an national Internet register of a small size in terms of the number of domain names and also small in terms of resources available to it, but which, of course, naturally seeks to grow, to become as competent, as diversified, as the large geographical registers of the world's main countries. And major managers such as Afilias, NOMINET and others. The workshop emphasized co-development. This was a solution, we made a solution co-developed from the beginning to completion and deployment. But also co-development in the socio and economic sense, seen as a means for working together to move forward. Several countries were involved in this project. Cote d'Ivoire, Madagascar from Africa, Haiti from the Caribbean, Albania and France from Europe. This tool takes charge of several different naming tools and it has one major characteristic. That is, it is implemented with free software, free ware. It is currently being deployed in some registrars, in some NICs, and is currently about to be deployed in others. The session was followed very closely and with great interest. Many questions were asked, and areas for cooperation were identified. The most important thing is that the turnkey solution for projects was needed to be avoided. Rather, a codevelopment approach should be taken, as I already described, from the very initial conception stage to -- right through to deployment, going through the coding stages, testing stage, and implementation stage. This experience should be duplicated in other domains as a powerful tool for capacity-building through the use of science and technology as a strategic way of going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>NITIN DESAI: (No audio). >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm reporting on the workshop that was held yesterday afternoon on the root server system. As you know, the root server system is an essential part of the domain name system. It is essential in resolving domain names, and therefore, if we're going to use domain names, we have to have a root server system that works, works well, works reliably, and does not fail. We had six presenters. The first three talked about the root server system itself, and the second three gave their experiences regarding the implementation of root servers in various parts of the world. The first speaker, Desiree Miloshevic, described the root server system in general. And it was interesting. One of the things that came out, I believe, during her talk was that some people, when they hear the word "root server system" and are not necessarily English speakers, they spell root R-O-U-T-E, as opposed to R-O-O-T. And the problem is that there's enough semantic linkage between rooting and the route and routers, that that can be confusing. That was one of the myths that was dispelled during the session. Lars-Johan Liman, who runs a root server in Sweden, gave the history of the root server system. He's been associated with it for probably the last 20 years. And it was interesting to note how it has evolved from a plain text file, updated part-time by Jon Postel in the early 1980s, to first a system of 13 root servers, and now, with an anycast protocol extension, 134 root servers that exist all over the world. This is an impressive expansion of a system which was designed to handle maybe several thousand, several tens of thousands of users, that has scaled reliably and effectively up to handling one billion users. Suzanne Woolf talked about the security problems associated with the root server. The largest threat to the root server system, as well as to the entire domain name system now turns out to be distributed denial of service attacks. And she talked about how the root server system handled those and how the operators, together with the redundancy built into the root server system, was capable of denying, effectively deflecting such attacks. The presentations from the regions were from Bangladesh, Africa, and Mexico. The Bangladesh experience highlighted the importance of cooperation in the core Internet community. The APNIC in Australia has been responsible for helping both financially and technically, the deployment of root servers in that part of the world. And it turns out that the costs are not high enough to -- let me say it a different way -- the costs are sufficiently low that it is possible to deploy anycast servers in many countries of the world now. And this deployment will increase, and as a result, the robustness, the stability, and the reliability of the root server system will continue to increase as that happens. The -- Michuki Mwangi talked about the African situation and described the deployment of root servers there. He pointed out that it's very helpful to have a root server when you have an Internet exchange point in the country. Internet exchange points are now proliferating. In the early days of the Internet, it used to be that sometimes if you wanted to send e-mail to a colleague across the street, the packets went through Europe or North America. As we deploy the Internet exchange points, that situation will change. Global -- sorry, intercontinental communications costs will go down. And it was interesting to note that there is a tradeoff, if you deploy a root server in a country where you have a very long way to go, say, from someplace in Africa to someplace in Europe, that you save -- you have the possibility of saving in communications costs by deploying the root server as well as giving good service, better service, better response time to your users. Finally, Oscar Robles talked about the deployment of root server in Mexico, and then there was a general discussion. The session was characterized very much like a tutorial, I think. This is obviously a technical subject. There are operational issues involved, there are security issues. And I think that the audience, both the audience and the panelists treated the subject seriously and well. And I think that we had a good learning experience altogether. Thank you very much. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. Bill Drake on the workshop on towards the development agenda for Internet governance. >>BILL DRAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This workshop was organized by a coalition, a multistakeholder coalition, comprising the office of -- the office of communications of the federal government of Germany, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, consultative committee on U.N. technology, the China Association of Science and Technology, the Internet Society of China, the Association of Progressive Communications, and the Center for Global Communications at the International University of Japan. The speakers included the -- a representative of the Brazilian government, (saying name), Olga Cavalli, an advisor to the Argentine foreign ministry, Raul Echeberria, of -- the executive director of LACNIC, Anriette Esterhuysen, the Association for Progressive Communications, and Peter Hellmonds, the head of corporate responsibility at Nokia. The focus of the event was on the notion of developing a development agenda for Internet governance. There has been much discussion, of course, of development concerns off and on throughout the WSIS and IGF processes, but we often have not been able to focus intensively on how do Internet governance mechanisms, institutional arrangements and procedures, impact development trajectories either positively or negatively. The concept was can we learn from other experiences with putting forward development agendas in different international institutions, and is there anything that we might be able to do in the context of Internet governance, recognizing the very highly distributed nature of the governance environment here? By a development agenda, we meant a holistic program of analysis and action intended to mainstream development considerations into global governance decision-making across the range of Internet governance mechanisms, which means in the first instance aggregating information and monitoring trends and analyzing the extent to which governance mechanisms are promoting development concerns, and then secondly, identifying possible paths for action, including any kind of reforms that might be useful, or best practices that could be generalized, et cetera. We talked a lot about some experiences in the other international issue areas, the development agendas that have been adopted in the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization, both very different types of experiences, but both, in effect, established mechanisms by which development became built in as an overarching objective in the decision-making process. In the case of WIPO, in particular, they've established a committee that would monitor on an ongoing basis the implementation of recommendations within the intellectual property sphere in order to try to encourage movement towards the realization of development objectives. So the question becomes, in the case of Internet governance, is anything like that useful or possible? We talked about different ways in which one might construct a development agenda, either by aggregating the issues that are coming up in different international forums on a vertically segmented basis, those governance mechanisms dealing with infrastructure, those dealing with the use of the Internet, et cetera. And also horizontal approaches that focus on good governance principles such as transparency, inclusion, and so on, as they do facilitate development. And the conclusions, I think, of the group were several. First of all, there was a strong feeling among most people present -- and it was a very well-attended workshop -- that development should, indeed, be viewed as a cross-cutting criteria for evaluating the performance of Internet governance mechanisms. At the same time, I think people recognized that the highly distributed nature of Internet governance would require probably a different type of approach from what has been pursued within single organizations like WIPO or WTO. Obviously, a development agenda in the context of Internet governance would have to be something more of a conceptual framework and a normative framework that would inform decision-making in other arenas rather than being a focus of decision-making in itself. And the group also felt that the IGF would be a logical context in which to take forward this concept. And we talked about different ways of doing that. And at the end of the session, a lot of people expressed interest in the possibility of establishing a new dynamic coalition focusing on a development agenda. And we took a lot of names. And so I think from here, perhaps we will try to take that forward, depending on resources and other considerations. So that's the essence of what we did in our session. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: We are running out of time. And I still have new people coming in with requests for the floor. I will go on for a little while longer, because we don't have another reporting-in session. But I'm going to request the people who come to really be very short. You can cut out the bit about who spoke. It's all available on the Net as to who spoke at these meetings. Just, in telegraphic form, give the salient points of this. And if you can do that in a minute each, then I think it's fine. But I think we need to be much faster now. Bertrand de la Chapelle on multistakeholder policy development, the workshop on multistakeholder.... >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, Nitin. Very briefly, this is a report on workshop 27 on multistakeholder policy development. This workshop was cosponsored by the French Foreign Ministry, APC, Congo, the Swiss Federal Office of Telecommunications, and the International Chamber of Commerce, BASIS initiative. 11 panelists and 90 people in the room, half of which wanted to continue interaction on that issue, which we find very encouraging. Three major points that I want to convey to you before we make a fuller report that will be distributed. The first highlight is that any policy development process that has multistakeholder has a very important part in the early stages, in engaging the actors in the very early stages of any process, is of the highest importance, so that they can map their differences and map their different mental prerequisites or implicit assumptions that they sometimes don't know they don't share. There are cases where people do not have the same mental framework on a given issue, they don't share the same vernacular. That's the first point. This is the main purpose of multistakeholder early stages. The second thing is, trust and respect is built by the ongoing interaction. And in this respect, multistakeholder processes is about building common understanding of the issues before you get into drafting solutions. But the most important point is the third element that we'll have the opportunity to discuss further on different occasions. Some discussion emerged on the fact that in various organizations in which the panelists are participating in, processes are documented in charters, in international process documents. And the value of documenting multistakeholder processes and methodologies is that it enhances transparency and accountability for the participants and the people who are outside. And in that respect, the fact that, for the IGF and for all multistakeholder processes, drafting or formalizing some of the working methods as an issue that has to be discussed emerged from the discussion. This good interaction here in Rio encourages us to think about ways to continue the discussion. What I said here is very preliminary and just an introduction to something that is, how do we discuss further among those who are interested the best working methods, processes, protocols, as I said the other day, for working together? And we are very happy that people wanted to do this. And you're welcome to contact us further when we issue the report, to work with us on this. And I thank very much the cosponsors that accepted to engage in this. Thank you, Nitin. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you. Vittorio Bertola on the bill of rights. Quick, telegraphic. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you. I am Vittorio Bertola, reporting about the workshop of the dynamic coalition. >>NITIN DESAI: That doesn't mean you speak very fast, because they can't translate then. Telegraphic means you use fewer words, not necessarily speak. [ Laughter ] >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Okay. Reporting on the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights, whose aim is to promote a process and instruments for the advancement, framing, and enforcement of rights on the Internet. So I'll cut out the part about what people actually said. I'll just remind that we had very high and distinguished panelists, professors Stefano Rodotá, Gilberto Gil, Catherine Trautmann from the European Parliament, and Carlos Afonso from the coalition. What emerged is general support for the vision of the coalition, which is to try to produce a process throughout the set of documents and instruments, some hard level, some soft level that could help in promoting rights over the Internet in working in parallel on two areas, one on the existing rights where you just have to build on what actually exists, is recognized at an international level, but you maybe need to specify it better, and especially to find ways to enforce the rights and bridge the gaps between the policy processes and the high-level principles. And the second part is about recognizing new principles. There's much talk about many of them, network neutrality, open standards, interoperability. These new principles need to be formalized and recognized and we need to understand how to promote them. We also want to build a sort of process framework because we think this coalition is sort of a common role for glue between all the areas and all the work of the other dynamic coalitions. And so, in the end, an activity plan also came out of the workshop and was agreed by the coalition participants. Of course, outreach, so we encourage everyone to join the work of the coalition. We want to do an inventory of existing instruments and existing literature, and also existing issue areas and coalitions. We want to monitor the situation and even maybe promote the -- make it known what happens in terms of violations of these rights. And there was a lot of open discussion. We made it a point to devote at least half of the workshop to open discussion. Actually, it was very hard to close it. There was a lot of interest in continuing to contribute. And even if there are differences in priorities, and some people have different areas, are interested in different areas, but, in the end, everyone agrees that this is a fundamental theme, and this could be one of the fundamental issues of the IGF for the next few years. So, in general, the request that was made by the dynamic coalition was generally supported for this to become one of the main themes and objectives of the IGF over a long-term period. And we think this could actually become one of the reasons to be for the IGF. I just will add that two of our governmental members of the coalition -- I mean, the minister of culture, Gilberto Gil, and the Under Secretary of State of Communications of Italy, Luigi Vimercati, signed a declaration to support the request of the coalition and invite all stakeholders to participate in this workshop. This was also an achievement after the workshop. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Ralf Bendrath on the dynamic coalition on privacy. >>RALF BENDRATH: Thank you. The dynamic coalition on privacy was established last year at the IGF in Athens. And today we're looking back to a quite successful year and looking forward to the next year further. Today we have over 70 members from industry, government, international organizations, and civil society. Just quickly what we did over the last year. We had two physical working meetings, in Geneva in February and in Montreal in May. We focused on three issue areas: Privacy and identity, privacy and development, and privacy and freedom of expression. And drafted some papers on that, which we are still working on. At this year's IGF, we organized two workshops to discuss new issues that have emerged over the last year. One, again, on privacy and identity management, where there was a lot of conceptual and technological innovations over the last year. And one on security and privacy challenges for new Internet applications, especially Web 2.0. And new instruments for privacy protection, like multistakeholder partnerships, global standards, and emerging instruments. We discussed all of this further at the coalition meeting this morning. And one of our conclusions was that there's a need to build bridges, bridges between the technologists and the policymakers to help policymakers understand what kind of security and privacy-enhancing technologies are available nowadays. Bridges between the privacy community and the development policy community and the developing countries, because a lot of developing countries are now starting to enact privacy legislation, and some of them are asking for help in this field. And, of course, bridges between experienced actors and newcomers on best practices on how to deal with privacy in the corporate and public sector. So we are at the moment thinking about preparing workshops or best-practice forums on these three areas for the next year's IGF. We will also keep on working on the issue areas I mentioned. We are thinking about how to link to the Internet bill of rights coalition. And we also found that there is probably a need -- and that's what we will also focus on -- to go a bit more to the fundamentals in two ways. One is to explain a bit better what the value of privacy is in the first place. Because a lot of people nowadays have this understanding of "I have nothing to hide." And we want to try to argue against it, so to speak. And the other one is to make a bit more explicit and dig a bit more deeply into the question of what changes when you move from the offline to the online world. So what is really the difficulties and tricky questions if you talk about Internet privacy? So that's what we did over the last year and our work plan for the next year. And the coalition is still growing. We got a couple of new members this morning already. So we're looking forward to more of you, if you're interested, please join us. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: These last two, (saying name) is going to talk of the dynamic coalition on gender and Internet governance. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am (saying name) from Brazil. I speak on behalf of the dynamic coalition of Gender and Internet Governance. The gender -- the dynamic coalition, Gender and Internet Governance convened yesterday with participants from Philippines, India, Ecuador, Brazil, Costa Rica, Italy, Senegal, Pakistan, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Czech Republic, and other countries. Our members are also from academia and NGOs. The organizations and individuals who convened this dynamic coalition here to the IGF have contributed to the discussions of the last few days by bringing the dimension of women's rights and gender perspectives included in the key debates around Internet governance issues, such as access, content regulation, privacy, freedom of expression, among others. We are here to ensure that we can be equal partners in shaping the policies that will make a difference in the lives of millions of women around the world. Towards this end, the dynamic coalition on gender Internet governance, we will work to increase women's participation and visibility at the IGF, to support capacity-building on gender advocates and to promote more effective linkages between local, regional, and global initiatives relating to gender and Internet governance issues. In moving forward towards IGF 2008 in Delhi, we call on all stakeholders to ensure that there will be more participation by women, who can make a substantive contribution to IGF's agenda. We trust that organizers will fully support this effort by ensuring a better gender balance among speakers, especially in the main sessions, on the next IGF. And we will collaborate with the IGF secretariat to identify experts to the various themes on the forum. Thank you. >>NITIN DESAI: Patrik FŠltstršm on the open forum on malware. >>PATRIK FŠltstršm: So the OECD -- Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- OECD, together with APEC, joined forces last year to examine this issue of malware. One of the main findings was that a wide variety of actors is combining malware, but still we have a fragmented local response to a global threat. Based on that, we had a discussion that had a few findings. First of all, the landscape is not that different than the physical world, but we are also not living in a perfect world. There's a need for partnerships that brings the actors together. Identify and promote best practices. And both use bottom-up and top-down processes. Specifically, the actual operations that is happening at the moment is according to bottom-up process, but governments and regulation is mostly working top-down. There might be a need for a structured map for who contacts who regarding various kind of threats. It was also identified, though, that the map will look different depending on what kind of -- for what use you're going to use the map. For example, depending on what is at stake, there will be different maps. There are various issues that had to be addressed, for example, legal cover for ISPs, the industry to continue and do more with consumers, law enforcement to be more effective, and there might be some need for some political support, and that specifically referenced (inaudible). >>NITIN DESAI: (Saying name). Marcelo Thompson from the Oxford Institute. May I request people to be very telegraphic in their statements, because we are seriously overshooting. >> MARCELO THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to report the panel on human rights and neutrality in the Internet that was held on Tuesday. The panel was organized by the Oxford Internet institute and the Center for Technology and Society of the (inaudible) in Rio de Janeiro. And besides me and Professor Ronaldo Lemos, countered with presentations from Professor Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa and Johanna Shelton, policy counsel and legislative strategist for Google. Professor Geist's presentation focused on the emerging intersection between net neutrality and Internet governance. He discussed concerns associated with net neutrality, including blocking content and applications, traffic shaping, and the development of a two-tiered Internet. He also argued that Internet governance has long been concerned with neutrality, that much of the discussion about ICANN is focused on the question of whether it is sufficiently representative neutral in terms of decision-making and structure. According to him, today there is convergence between these concerns, as many argue that ICANN must keep the core neutral, that this ensure a content-neutral approach to its decision-making process. (saying name) reinforced the perspectives by professor Geist in regard to network neutrality and explained that Google seeks to represent the very decisions made by users themselves in its search results. Shelton argued that this mission of users' empowerment is also reflected in Google's current decisions with regard to wireless communications. Professor Ronaldo Lemos alerted for the dangers of criminalizing behavior in the Internet before attempts to solve problems by means of the civil law in an approach that he called legal net neutrality. Marcelo Thompson, myself, on the other hand, raised awareness to the fact that the principle of net neutrality law in policy has been used in contradiction with its regional and well-studied sense in legal and political theory and that this matters if we want to make sense of laws and policies for the information age. He argued that neutrality is a principle of political restraint in the doctrine of exclusion of ideals, that it advocates that states should not choose between different conceptions of the good life, and that prominent neutralists denied intrinsic value of one of the most fundamental goods of our time, knowledge, as well as the legitimacy of state action directed towards promoting knowledge. More broadly, he noted a (inaudible) incompatibility between advocating the principle of neutrality in the information environment and being committed to the indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness of human rights, a series of political neutrality tend to exclude the intrinsic value of many of the rights ensured in the international governance, economic, social, and cultural rights. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>NITIN DESAI: The last one, Jeremy Malcolm of the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition. Quick, quick, quick. >> Jeremy Malcolm: My name's Jeremy Malcolm. As mentioned, I'm going to deliver only half of the report before me now and make the rest available for people to read. The Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition met yesterday in person and with a live chat and audio stream link for remote participants. The meeting opened with a presentation from myself, which began by outlining the genesis of the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition and more generally about the unusual relationship between dynamic coalitions and the Internet Governance Forum and its secretariat. The Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition was so-called because its aim is to achieve more than just remote participation. The distinction is that although we use similar tools to, say, those that are used by friends chatting on the Internet or for the broadcast of a concert over the Internet, our objective is quite different. It is to constitute online participants as members of a multistakeholder, democratic community. This involves more than just participation; it involves collaboration between local and remote participants, and, ideally, it also involves democratic deliberation, which is a process whereby diverse participants deliberate as equals, with an objective of producing consensus. A distinction it was drawn between e-democracy, which is the use of online tools as an adjunct to a real world democratic forum, and Internet democracy, which is constituting an online community as a democratic forum in its own right. The Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition in my view is about both models. Firstly, allowing remote participants to join in on discussions taking place in Rio, but, secondly, providing parallel electronic deliberative fora that can take advantage of the particular qualities of online discussion that don't exist face to face, such as cutting across barriers of class, gender, race, and disability. And, thirdly, linking between the two to create online collaboration between local and remote participants. It's clear that a much lower priority and far fewer resources have been devoted to the development of an online forum for Internet stakeholders than have been devoted to the meeting in person here in Rio. This differs from the approach of most other Internet governance organizations, such as the IETF and ICANN, which have vibrant and integral online communities that the IGF lacks. The Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition being completely unresourced, has had its work cut out for it in addressing this lack. What we have done most visibly is to build a server on which to host community resources for online collaboration, and which also brings together resources of the secretariat and the host country. This can be found at the address IGF-online.net. (saying name) spoke in the meeting about a tool that he had developed with the Brazilian ministry of culture for the Rio IGF meeting. It combines chat and webcasting and as well as being used by remote participants is designed to be used by participants at the meeting the comments that are being made by remote participants in realtime. For the purpose of the IGF meeting, Jose and his team also developed an interface to allow what people in the auditorium see to be monitored to filter out inappropriate remarks. He was disappointed that this was not used in the Rio meeting. When the meeting reached the end of its time slot, productive discussion were going on, so it was agreed to complete these online, which is open to new members and accessible from the Wiki at Wiki.IGF-online.net. I'll make the full version of this report available for download from the IGF's Web site. >>NITIN DESAI: Thank you, Jeremy. That completes our reporting in. And I don't think I need to say a few words. I just want to say one word, that one of the things -- impressions I gather is that in many ways, as Markus pointed out to me, the IGF is becoming a bit like the Internet itself, that a lot of the value is being added at the edges rather than in the main sessions, which is in the workshops, which is a good thing. And this is what the Internet is, and this is, in some ways, what the IGF is becoming. And I'm truly enthused by the quality and the -- of the workshops that have been held here. So I just want to end by saying a big thank you to all of the people who put in this effort into organizing these workshops and into running the dynamic coalitions, the best-practice forums, and so on. Just a reminder to workshops that you can submit your report via the IGF Web interface, exactly the same way as they updated their event information for the schedule. We now move into our delayed session. And I'll just break for two minutes to allow them to set up the podium and to allow some of us to prepare ourselves for this. Just, please don't move from here. And we start the next session straightaway. [ 11:33 a.m. ]