Internet Governance Forum OPEN consultations Geneva 26 February 2008

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken
during the Open Consultations of 26 february 2008.  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.


  (Gavel) 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Good morning. May I welcome you to Geneva for
  these open consultations on the Internet Governance Forum. We have had a very
  successful and, what most people thought, was a very useful meeting in Rio.
  I'm not going to say anything right now to open the proceedings.  Just welcome
  what I would describe as the usual suspects plus the sprinkling of newcomers,
  and I am very happy to see you all again.  And I look forward to a day of good
  discussions. There was an agenda circulated earlier.  It is basically five
  items. The first is taking stock of the 2007 meeting, and the idea was that
  you would comment on what you think worked well, what you think did not work
  as well, what lessons we can learn which we could take on board for the 2008
  meeting. The second item was the advisory group.  As part of its mandate, the
  Advisory Group has been asked to make proposals on things such as rotation of
  members, et cetera.  And the idea was we would consult on this matter with the
  people here before the Advisory Group meets tomorrow and day after. The third
  item is the 2008 meeting.  That's now set, and the host country will make a
  presentation on the arrangements that they are making, the facilities that
  will be available there.  And I'm sure you will have questions, which they, I
  hope, will be able to respond to. Fourth is reports from related activities
  from the dynamic coalitions and related events.  People will have something to
  report since our last meeting. And fifth, of course, is any other business. So
  with your permission, I would take this as the agenda for the open
  consultations.  Taking stock of the 2007 meeting, the Advisory Group, 2008
  meeting, reports from related activities and any other business. Good.  Thank
  you very much. What I propose to do to begin with is to -- my co-chair,
  Ambassador Vianna, will make a brief statement on his assessment of the Rio
  meeting, and after that I will turn to Markus Kummer, who has prepared a
  synthesis paper which covers the first two agenda items, taking stock of the
  2007 meeting as well as Advisory Group, on the basis of the various online
  comments received.  And he will present the synthesis paper and then it will
  be open for discussions. I would suggest that we take the two parts in
  sequence, which is first we focus on the 2007 meeting in our discussion, and
  then we move on to the Advisory Group, preferably before lunch so that -- we
  may not conclude by lunch on that matter, but we should start on that
  discussion, certainly, before lunch so we have enough time for that
  discussion. And then after lunch, we will continue our discussion of the
  Advisory Group, have the presentation on 2008, and then find some time for a
  report on related activities. If we agree this is the program in terms of time
  disposition that I am proposing, to begin with the first item, try and see
  whether we can do that by, say, 12:00 or so, move on to the Advisory Group
  then, continue the discussion on the Advisory Group after lunch, maybe till
  4:00. At 4:00 have the presentation by the host country on the 2008 meeting,
  which probably will take a little time.  And then after that, the reports on
  related activities and any other business. Is that okay? Thank you very much.
  If I may now turn to Ambassador Vianna. 

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Well, thank you
  very much, co-chair, Desai. First of all, allow may to express my satisfaction
  in being here again, meeting you, Mr. Kummer, the Secretariat, as well as the
  colleagues, the members of the MAG and all those that have attended the Rio
  meeting. Thank you very much for this opportunity to share with the colleagues
  my impressions on what happened in Rio. Mr. Co-chair, the Brazilian people and
  governments were proud to host the second meeting of the Internet Governance
  Forum in Rio de Janeiro, from November the 12th to November the 15th, 2007. We
  were honored with the presence of more than 2,100 registered attendants and an
  audience of about 1,000 Webcasting visitors, including representatives of
  governments, the civil society, the private sector, international
  organizations, research institutions, and Internet users. As the
  representative of the host country and co-chairman of the Multistakeholder
  Advisory Group during the preparatory process for the second IGF, I would like
  to take this opportunity to present the Brazilian views on Rio's achievements
  and on the challenges ahead. The second IGF took place in an atmosphere of
  friendship and cooperation.  In accordance with the IGF mandate, as contained
  in the Tunis Agenda paragraphs 72 to 78, the second meeting offered a space
  for debate on cross-cutting themes.  It facilitated the dialogue between the
  organizations in charge of complementary aspects of Internet governance, it
  identified emerging issues and brought them to the attention of the public,
  and allowed for the debate on public policy issues related to the a key
  elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability,
  robustness, security, stability, and development of the Internet. The intense
  debate and participation in main sessions, workshops, open and best-practice
  fora, dynamic coalitions, and other meetings, confirmed the role of the IGF in
  shaping the governance of the Internet with a view to contribute to the
  building of a people-centered, development-oriented and inclusive Information
  Society. The Rio meeting also confirmed that the multistakeholder format of
  this forum is in the forefront of multilateral policy-making and may set
  precedents for a renewed, upgraded style of multilateral conferences in an
  open, inclusive and representative environment with the participation of all
  stakeholders. From the Brazilian standpoint, it's important to build upon the
  experience achieved so far, with a view to exploring possible avenues for
  strengthening the existing Internet governance mechanisms, adding to the
  legitimacy to the international community and adequacy to the guiding
  principles of the World Summit on the Information Society. The second IGF
  meeting moved forward in the path towards the full implementation of its
  mandate in terms of participation, scope, thematic agenda, organization of
  work and possible results. In this sense, Rio proved to be Athens-plus.  It
  contributed to the incremental process that aims at accomplishing the
  fulfillment of the forum's mandate by 2010, at the end of the five-year period
  initially established by the Tunis Agenda. In terms of substance, besides the
  importance themes of access, diversity, openness and security, the Rio meeting
  contributed to broaden the debate on Internet governance by devoting a main
  session to the discussion on critical Internet resources and the improvement
  of the global mechanisms in charge of their management. The main session on
  critical Internet resources was the best attended amongst all second IGF
  events.  Its inclusion in the Rio meeting's agenda was a sensitive response to
  the interest of the international community in considering the conformity of
  existing arrangements for the management of Internet physical and logical
  infrastructure vis-a-vis the principles adopted by the World Summit on the
  Information Society. In this regard, it is worthy recalling that the Tunis
  Agenda paragraph 72(j) explicitly provides that the IGF should discuss inter
  alia issues relate to go critical Internet resources. The Rio IGF is an
  evidence that the international community is ready to discuss the subject in a
  positive way within the United Nations system. Moreover, this background leads
  us to expect deep and fruitful discussions on the matter in a second main
  session in India. In terms of organization of work, another improvement
  achieved in Rio was the sharing among different stakeholders of the
  chairmanship of main sessions. One representative from civil society chaired
  the main session on openness and another from the private sector chaired the
  main session on security. As for possible results shall the presentation of
  the chairman summary, efficiently crafted by the IGF Secretariat, at the end
  of the closing ceremony added value to the main sessions' transcripts which,
  although comprehensive, are difficult to handle and consult. We also believe
  that since the IGF exists within the U.N. environment, at least the chairman
  summary could be translated into all U.N. languages in order to promote
  worldwide awareness of the second IGF findings. There are certainly lessons to
  be learned and improvements to be made for the next IGF meetings.  In this
  context, Brazil expects that, in the course of the five-year process, the IGF
  manages to fulfill its mandate to provide a global multistakeholder forum to
  address Internet-related public policy issues. We are convinced that if the
  IGF does not keep evolving, the whole process risks becoming shallow and,
  therefore, meaningless and irrelevant. Taking into account that the building
  of a development-oriented Information Society is one of the founding
  principles of the World Summit, we support the idea that the IGF should create
  a space for exploring linkages between issues related to Internet governance
  and to the development agenda. As for procedural improvements, Brazil believes
  that there is a need for reviewing the IGF preparation process in order to law
  for a broader, more balanced, and more representative participation from all
  stakeholders, as well as from all regions of the world. It is important to
  bring in to the process as much diversity of opinion as possible, taking also
  into account gender balance. This overall balance should be a precondition to
  legitimate the recommendations that the IGF is allowed to make. The criteria,
  nomination, rotation, proceedings, and role of the Multistakeholder Advisory
  Group or other possible body to be used as a supporting structure to prepare
  and conduct the meeting could be improved. With a view to helping the next
  host countries of the IGF to carry on their tasks, I would also like to take
  the opportunity to share the Brazilian view on the role and responsibilities
  as host of the IGF meeting in 2007. In order to meet the high quality
  standards of conferences held under the auspices of the United Nations, the
  IGF host country shall undertake a series of legal and financial obligations.
  At the domestic level, these commitments and expenses must be understood as
  legitimate and rewarding by the public in general. In this sense, we take the
  United Nations Secretary-General to Brazil for co-chairing the second IGF
  preparatory process as a recognition of the singular role and responsibilities
  of the host country. I am personally convinced that the role I played as
  co-chair was a very much valuable experience, crucial for the decisions Brazil
  had to take as host country, and instrumental for the measures taken by the
  organizers. The Brazilian people and government did their best not only to
  offer adequate infrastructure and working conditions to all IGF participants,
  a task that was carried out by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee with
  extreme competence, but also to stimulate the presence of a meaningful and
  active Brazilian audience to the event. In this regard, it is worth noting
  that the involvement of Brazilian high government officials and stakeholder
  representatives in several activities, as shown by the participation of four
  Brazilian ministers and a number of other authorities at the IGF events, was
  facilitated by the new role played by chairmen in the main sessions. As it is
  recalled, these authorities intervened in the debate and presented their
  personal conclusions at the end of the session. The inclusion of the personal
  remarks by the president of the second IGF, Minister Sérgio Rezende, in the
  chairman summary deserves special mention in this regard. Finally, I would
  like to thank Mr. Desai, the members of the MAG, the attendants of the open
  consultation meetings, and the participants of the Rio meeting for their
  personal contribution to the success of the second IGF. To our Indian
  colleagues, we will be pleased to share lessons learned in hosting an IGF
  meeting, and we are ready to make available the necessary data and
  information. I am looking forward to see you all in a Rio-plus IGF in
  Hyderabad. Thank you very much. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you very much,
  Ambassador. Let me take this opportunity of thanking to you and through you
  for your co-chairmanship of this process, and through you to thank the
  government and people of Brazil for all that they laid on for the second IGF
  in Rio. I see that Mr. Glaser is here.  He was the one who was busy organizing
  all of these things.  (Saying name) is not here, but I'm sure I could take
  this opportunity of thanking the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee also,
  which really was responsible for getting all this organized. So thank you very
  much on behalf of all the participants here. May I now turn to Markus Kummer.
  

>>SECRETARY KUMMER:   Thank you, Chairman.  May I also start with addressing
  my thanks to our Brazilian host.  It was, indeed, a pleasure working with all
  of you. In preparing for these consultations, we started with a call for
  comments on our Web site.  And paradoxically, the increased participation we
  had in Rio, as compared to Athens, resulted in less comments.  We ended up
  with about two-thirds compared to last year.  Last year we had 32
  contributions.  This year, 23. I don't take this as a lack of interest.  I
  take it more as a sign that, overall, participants were satisfied with the
  meeting and had no complaints to make. We produced a synthesis paper that
  tries to give an overview of the comments we received.  Not reflected in the
  synthesis are oral comments that were addressed to us and, on the whole, these
  oral comments had been extremely positive. Most of the written comments were
  also favorable and supported the efforts to date. Many comments included
  suggestions for improvement, while a few comments were more critical and
  called for a radical re-thinking of the IGF. The comments, broadly speaking,
  focused on the format of the meeting, on the preparatory process, and
  particularly the Advisory Group, and also on the substance. It is not possible
  to draw any conclusion from the comments we received.  However, they point
  towards certain alternatives we may be faced with when preparing the Hyderabad
  meeting. As regards the sessions, again we had comments that felt that we had
  just the right number of sessions, while others thought the program, the menu,
  was too rich, we had too many sessions. Also, there were some comments who
  felt that we should rethink the main session, maybe for newly introduced
  topics or maybe also for a new format to allow for more reporting back into
  the main sessions, as opposed to steering the main sessions from a panel. As
  regards workshops, there are also two alternative views.  There are those who
  think we should follow the Rio format and allow for as many workshops as time
  and space permit, whereas others think we ought to thin out the program and
  limit the number of workshops. There were suggestions for greater coordination
  and merging, more efforts made towards merging of workshops. On the whole,
  there was a broad agreement that we should be more firm with ensuring that the
  workshop organizes a report back, and I think this is one of the main lessons
  learned and we will make sure, when we issue a call for workshops, that we
  state that up front. One interesting suggestion related to the Village Square,
  which was on the, overall, well received, that particular suggestion proposed
  subdividing the space and create thematic clusters within the space for
  openness, for diversity, for access, for critical resources, for security,
  which would then allow like-minded organizations to group together.  And
  within this space, we could have posed the sessions and informal, ad hoc
  meetings in small groups. As the conference program has to be adapted to the
  space available, we may, indeed, be in a position in Hyderabad to make use of
  this suggestion as we have the right space for a more generous Village Square,
  which could be adapted to this suggestion. Other ideas related to dynamic
  coalitions, it was functionality this they should be given more visibility. 
  And there was fairly strong support for regional IGF meetings and IGF meetings
  also at the national level. On the logistical side, again there was a feeling
  that maybe we should not use every minute available for meetings, but at least
  have one hour free for a lunch break where people could interact and have
  chances of networking. As regards the process, there were some comments on the
  synthesis paper we had produced upstream in Rio.  On the felt it was felt it
  was useful, but again, more use should be made when preparing the main session
  and they should be used as a basic input into the main sessions. Some
  commentators wanted the Secretariat to produce more, also analysis papers on
  thematic issues.  And again the point was made that the IGF might benefit if
  there were regional discussions that prepared it at the regional level. Also,
  the point was made that the outcomes of the IGF should be made more visible in
  other fora and venues. And again, to pick up on the statement made by
  Ambassador Vianna, that the paper outcome should reflect the core views.  I
  think that's what we had, in essence, in Rio. And also, the point was made by
  several commentators that there was not a need for a consensus, but, on the
  contrary, diverging views should be reflected in such a paper as we had in the
  chairman's summary. As regards the Advisory Group, there was, on the whole, a
  broad agreement on the necessity to continue with a multistakeholder model. 
  However, one contribution held the view that the Advisory Group should be more
  in line with traditional U.N. experts' groups and follow traditional U.N.
  rules of procedures. On the whole, the current size of the Advisory Group
  seems to be generally accepted, while the composition, there seems to be
  different views.  Several contributions called for parity among the various
  stakeholder groups. A general feeling seems to emerge that one-third of the
  membership should rotate on a yearly basis, and the rotations should be used
  to bring in new points of views and further multistakeholder representations.
  Most comments supported a model that would be based on recommendations from
  the various stakeholder groups, but leave the final selections to the U.N.
  Secretariat. And also, as regards the timing, one suggestion made the point
  that a new group should be appointed by the end of January and in place well
  before the first consultations. There was a fairly broad agreement that
  developing country participation ought to be strengthened, and that there was
  a need to outreach for more participation from stakeholder groups. With regard
  to the substance, again there was a broad understanding that development
  should continue as the main theme for the IGF, and in this regard, the access
  for the next billion was mentioned, and the billion after that. There were
  also comments on the role of the Internet in economic development and the
  importance of capacity building.  And one of the new emerging issues seems to
  be to put Internet governance in the broader context of sustainable
  development, and for exploring linkages, as, for instance, linkage to climate
  change, as the Internet, on the one hand, contributes to the problem by the
  use of energy, but, on the other hand, it can contribute to awareness and to
  finding solutions. Let me conclude by saying a few words on the logistics of
  the meeting.  Once again, we rely on the excellent services of our faithful
  scribes, and we have again Webcasting of the meeting, and we allow for
  comments on our Web site.  They are monitored by Advisory Group member Adam
  Peake.  And for the first time, we make experimental use of a tool created by
  the Brazilian Ministry of Culture.  We tried to introduce it in Rio. 
  Unfortunately, we did not have the time for the logistics required to
  integrate it fully, and we also did not have the time to advertise it, so the
  response, then, was very limited.  But we learned from that, that at least we
  need one additional screen. We have that up here. And today, please see this
  as an experiment, we experiment with the tool, and based on our experience we
  are planning to integrate it into the plans for Hyderabad. Last word, finally
  we have managed to put all the Webcasts up on our Web site.  So for those who
  complained there were too many meetings, they were not able to attend all the
  meetings, they have now the leisure to visit all the meetings on our Web site
  in retrospect. With that, I end my remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  The floor is open.  May I invite comments.  Initially
  let's focus on taking stock of the 2007 IGF in Rio. And please feel free to
  comment. Raul. You start off.  I'm sure others will come in. 

>>RAUL
  ECHEBERRIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will be very short. Only for
  congratulate our host of IGF 2007 for the excellent meeting, the excellent
  organization, the high standard that they have fixed for the new IGF meetings.
   I guess that the future hosts should be concerned about the logistics and how
  to try to have a meeting with a similar quality that was held in Rio de
  Janeiro. And my congratulations to the Secretariat and to both chairs for the
  good job that they did last year and the good results of the meeting in Rio de
  Janeiro. Thank you very much. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you. Can I turn to
  Slovenia, speaking on behalf of the E.U. 

>>EUROPEAN UNION:  Thank you,
  Chair.  As you said, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European
  Union.  We would like to thank you for convening these consultations which
  constitute a welcome opportunity for an exchange of views on the Rio meeting
  and on all our ways ahead. We would like to thank the government of Brazil for
  having hosted a very successful meeting for the forum. Of course we are
  particularly grateful to both you co-chairs, as the Secretary-General special
  advisors for Internet governance, Mr. Desai, and to your Brazilian colleague,
  Ambassador Vianna.  And our thanks are aimed again to the Internet Governance
  Forum Secretariat, headed by Mr. Markus Kummer. As to the first point of
  today's agenda, the stock-taking, we find that the second meeting of the IGF
  in Rio demonstrated that this forum successfully established a broad and
  inclusive platform for all relevant stakeholders to contribute to the
  implementation of the Geneva Plan of Action and Tunis Agenda. The
  multistakeholder basis of the IGF, with its members operating on equal
  footing, allowing for sharing points of view and best practices among very
  diverse groups, is the cornerstone for the success of the IGF and needs to be
  maintained in the future as well. The European Union stands ready to engage in
  exploring further developments of the forum on questions of format as well as
  to the themes and the substance.  Rio demonstrated that innovative approaches
  like dynamic coalitions can bring added value to the IGF. The IGF should
  continue to deal with the overall and cross-cutting theme of Internet
  governance for development, which was so effectively addressed in Rio.
  European Union would like to take this opportunity to thank the government of
  India for having agreed to host the next IGF meeting.  And for this upcoming
  meeting in India, we believe that future-oriented themes should remain on the
  agenda.  In particular, we would welcome, for instance, the Internet of things
  be addressed in the framework of this new forum. Sharing conclusions once
  again, the European Union would like to express its continued support for the
  IGF process as a forum and as a whole for multistakeholder, public policy
  dialogue, and for our commitment to continue to cooperate with all
  stakeholders to ensure the continuation of its success. Thank you, Chair, for
  this opportunity to speak here, and we would like to ask for the floor in a
  second for item two. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Council of Europe and then China.
  

>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  Thanks the Brazilian government and its people for the
  good arrangements. 

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   Council of Europe.  I request you to
  start again, please. 

>> Council of Europe, your microphone is not on.
  

>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:  On behalf of the Council of Europe, I would like to
  thank the Brazilian authorities for having hosted the Internet Governance
  Forum in Rio. The event was well organized, and in our view, it was conducive
  to fulfilling the IGF objectives. In particular, as an international
  organization, the Council of Europe was able to pursue and enhance its
  interaction with industry and civil society actors as well as with other
  international organizations. This relates to the interface function of the
  IGF, which was very productive for us. Paraphrasing also the IGF mandate, the
  attention of the Council of Europe was drawn to emerging issues, something
  which has stimulated our Internet governance work. I will come back to how
  this has come to effect and fruition since the IGF, under item 4 of the
  program, from the angle of participation in the IGF, we are exploring the
  possibility of facilitating a civil society or non-state actors platform, in
  order for stakeholders who are not otherwise represented in the IGF also to be
  heard. Still as regards participation, we think that the gender and youth
  perspectives should also be strengthened at the IGF. Together with other
  welcome initiatives, which can foster regional discussions, such as the
  European IGF as proposed very recently by the European parliament or the U.K.
  IGF, which has been proposed by some British M.P.s our proposed civil society
  platform could contribute to widening participation in the IGF process.
  Looking forward towards Delhi 2008, we would like to propose already at this
  early stage that attention be paid to three emerging challenges which have
  not, so far, been explored sufficiently within the IGF framework. One concerns
  the relationship between, on the one hand, the fundamental right to privacy
  and its corollary data protection, and, on the other hand, cyber crime. On the
  issue of cyber crime, in particular, enhanced cooperation and dialogue among
  different international agencies -- including, for example, Interpol and other
  stakeholders such as Internet service providers -- would be desirable. The
  second challenge concerns Internet governance and health issues, with
  particular emphasis, perhaps, on Internet pharmacies and the sale of
  counterfeit medicines through the Internet. The third relates to the
  possibility of establishing an advisory structure of relevant international
  organizations in order to discuss and work out responses in respect of
  Internet governance issues from the international law and the human rights
  perspectives, and to provide advice to various entities which exercise some
  form of authority on behalf of the Internet community globally. Inspired by
  the 2006 IGF in Athens concerns the public value of the Internet.  The Council
  of Europe's position on the public value of the Internet between Athens 2006
  and Rio 2007, the suggestions from the participants suggests work should
  continue on this subject, perhaps also in India. In the Council of Europe, we
  continue to believe that Internet governance should seek to secure people's
  enjoyment of a maximum of rights and services subject to a minimum of
  restrictions while, at the same time, seeking to ensure the level of security
  that users are entitled to expect. The functioning of the Internet must also
  be underpinned by democratic values that guarantee its openness and
  accessibility. Openness and, mostly, access are, for many people -- in fact,
  for most of the world's population -- a legitimate aspiration linked to the
  very prospect of democratic citizenship, enjoyment of fundamental rights and
  development. As someone put it in Rio, now that the first billion have access,
  what about the next, and the next, and.... Let me finish, Chairman, by saying
  that the IGF process is very valuable for us in the Council of Europe as a
  source of inspiration.  For the collective policy-making of our 47 member
  states, through discussions and exchanges of expertise, the IGF gives meaning
  in an Internet context to our core values; namely, human rights, democracy,
  and the rule of law. We look forward to this process continuing in Delhi.
  Thank you very much. 

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:   China followed by Egypt.
  

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  China followed by Egypt.  China. 

>>CHINA:  I would like
  to express on behalf of China's government our sincere thanks to the Brazilian
  people and to the secretariat.  The Chinese government believes the second IGF
  was a success.  The success was thanks to the meticulous arrangements made by
  the government and people of Brazil.  The success was also represented in the
  fact that the critical Internet resources was included as a main theme for
  discussion.  Participants attached great importance to the management of
  critical Internet resources, such as root domain servers, I.P. addresses. 
  Lively and full discussion were conducted during the meeting.  This has proved
  important to the parliamentary,democratic and transparent process of Internet
  Governance.  We believe that the third IGF to be held in India in December
  will continue to be another success with the help of the Indian government. We
  believe this year's IGF should focus on the key issues in the views of
  Internet Governance, especially on the discussion of management of critical
  Internet resources such as root domain name servers and I.P. addresses so that
  the amount of democratic and transparent process -- principles established by
  the summit will be implemented in reality.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Egypt. 

>>EGYPT:  Thank you, Chairman.  First and
  foremost, let me also as previous speakers have done thank the organizers for
  the wonderful working conditions in which we are working in.  There has been
  very good corporation between all stakeholders which has led to the success of
  the last meeting and this one.  And the chairman's report confirms the success
  of our work and the other report on emerging issues was a very good idea. 
  That allowed us to build on the success of previous sessions.  But we very
  much hope that there will be more working groups to allow the participants to
  profit from these workshops and for more space to be given for consultation
  and for dialogue. To conclude, I wish the Internet administration every
  success as they organize the next meeting.  Thank you. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI: 
  Canada. 

>>CANADA:  Thank you, Chair.  The Canadian government would, first,
  like to extend thanks to Brazil for hosting a successful second Internet
  Governance Forum in Rio.  We further look forward to participating in the IGF
  to take place in India in December this year.  Canada would also like to
  extend its appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat and the ongoing
  chair of the Advisory Group whose efforts have helped made the IGF such a
  success. Canada continues to strongly support an IGF that is multistakeholder,
  neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding in nature.  Experiences now
  demonstrated that this is a sound basis for meaningful policy discussions on
  Internet Governance-related policy issues to occur, all for the benefit of
  development and capacity-building. Consistent with previous submissions made
  by Canada, we believe that the overall cross-cutting theme of
  capacity-building and development to be the crucial underpinning of the IGF's
  activities. In this respect, we would like to offer our support for the
  proposal made by the International Institute for Sustainable Development to
  further explore the link between Internet Governance and sustainable
  development.  This is precisely the kind of innovation that the IGF is
  designed to encourage and this area of work promises to generate a lasting
  contribution to the field of Internet Governance. Participation from
  developing countries remains a concern for the IGF, and we encourage all
  stakeholders to identify ways to better address this issue going forward.  I'm
  pleased to report that Canada has, again, been able to provide funds to
  support participation from developing countries.  This 200,000 Canadian Dollar
  Fellowship Fund will be administered by the International Telecommunication
  Union. Canada looks forward to working further with the IGF and its
  participants to ensure its continued success.  We also have views on the
  Advisory Group and might ask for the floor this afternoon.  Thank you very
  much. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Thank you.  May I just pose a question to you. 
  One question that has come up in terms of the organization of the meeting,
  turning from some extent Athens, is the difference in the question of how many
  workshops.  There is a feeling on the part of some -- the feeling on the part
  of some that we had too many workshops, too many things going on.  People felt
  that they ought to be somewhere, in half a dozen places simultaneously. The
  country view, however, was that in some ways the workshops do provide that
  space for networking, which is what we also look forward to.  And I would very
  much welcome some reflections on that. I'm sorry, which group is that? I don't
  know which group that is. It just says NGO, please. 

>> NGO:  Hello, I'm here
  representing the NSPCC which is a child protection organization in the U.K. 
  I'm also representing an emerging coalition of 14 NGOs in Europe who are
  coming together to develop a shared platform and set of recommendations around
  child protection. One of the positives -- First of all, sorry, thank you for
  this opportunity to feed in to this process. One of the positives of Rio for
  us that was noted in the synthesis paper is the emergence of child protection
  as an issue and the acceptance of a dynamic coalition on this theme, and of
  which we're a member and we hope to work with and through that dynamic
  coalition. One of the feedbacks that we have around Rio was that the formal
  child protection discussions were not well-structured and were not
  particularly representative in terms of the speakers and the issues.  And I
  think that was widely felt among a range of stakeholders. So, for example, two
  of the key sessions on child protection were run simultaneously so that
  stakeholders were split between two session that is they were very interested
  in.  It was also noticeable that often there was the same speaker speaking
  several times on a number of panels, despite the fact in Rio there were a wide
  range of expertise that could have also been called on to discuss the issues.
  There was also an issue that there was perhaps a limited opportunity for
  debate and discussion from the floor and for interchange between those
  representing child protection issues and those talking about freedom of
  expression and privacy.  So we would have liked greater -- a greater number of
  forums really to discuss with other interests. I think that's what I would
  like to highlight.  We want to work with and through the dynamic coalition and
  hope to have a greater input into what is said and chose child protection
  discussions in Hyderabad. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I'm sure the details of your
  reflections, the organizers would very much recognize them because the point
  you raise is an important one.  And I think it is important that we take
  cognizance and reflect it in our future organization. The point that you made,
  the idea does allow communication across groups who otherwise meet separately
  is, I think, something which we should exploit.  Privacy groups meeting
  somewhere, child protection groups meeting somewhere.  The advantage you have
  in IGF is they can both be there and, therefore, there can be a conversation
  on the issue.  That should be something we should recognize and see how we can
  promote that. I have now a few more speakers.  I have got Khaled Fattal, Emily
  Taylor, Milton Mueller and ICC/BASIS. 

>>KHALED FATTAL:  Good morning,
  Chairman.  My name is Khaled Fattal.  I am the chairman CEO of Live
  Multilingual Translator.  And I am also the chairman and CEO of MINC, the
  Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. I would like to, first, pay tribute to
  the Brazilian for hosting the IGF.  From personal experience from what I have
  seen and their ability to respond last minute and making last-minute changes
  and implementations was commendable.  I think that sets the bar for the next
  meeting in India. I would also like to take note of many of the observations
  and the comments that have been stated by the previous speakers and would also
  ask you to perhaps work with me to take a step back. In 2003 the WSIS out of
  Geneva in December, I recall, a declaration of principle and action plan was
  agreed.  We're now almost four years later and the many references in the past
  that we've heard from the many speakers about the current 1 billion Internet
  users -- well, guess what?  We're still around the 1 billion Internet users.
  That's not to say that we have not made some significant advances.  On the
  contrary, I think we have done some significant work ahead.  But factoring
  into this formula emerging issues, I think, unless we keep our eye on the ball
  and push the envelope, as they say, and live up to the challenges ahead of us,
  we may end up not living up to the expectations or perhaps failing those next
  billion or next billion as well. I would like to point out that one of the
  significant issues that we need to really look at at IGF -- and I am always
  reminded of the wise words of our friend Markus -- that this is a
  non-negotiating, non-binding forum. The next 18 months should be focused to
  try and provide a new transition to the JPA as we all have been aware of so
  that a void does not exist.  I am very pleased by the statement of the new
  chairman of ICANN going ahead and working to see how ICANN can move forward
  without a single government oversight and I think this is positive. We also
  need to help them and the international community needs to help them and this
  is where the leadership will need to come in so that the transition can be
  created so that we all can work together and take it to the next level.
  Otherwise, we're going to fail the next billion, and at the same time we will
  still be stuck on the current 1 billion.  So if I may interject, I think,
  perhaps, the focus and the leadership that this forum can actually provide
  through yourselves and the organizations and different events that should take
  place should help focus on how to create the transition and who the
  participation should come from and then help take it to the next level. And I
  think if we can do that, Mr. Chairman -- and I am saying we will not succeed
  in 18 months -- but if we can at least give it our best good-faith effort, we
  cannot lose.  That's my closing remark.  Thank you very much. 

>>CO-CHAIR
  DESAI:   Emily Taylor from Nominet. 

>>EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you, Mr.
  Chairman.  Like others, I would like to thank the Brazilian host and
  organizers for a meeting that built on the success of the Athens meeting and
  was very, very well-organized. In preparation for this meeting and for our
  work in the coming year, we asked those U.K. stakeholders who attended the Rio
  meeting to give us their feedback on what they liked and disliked about the
  meeting. We got feedback from parliamentarians, the government, business,
  Internet industry and civil society.  And these are some of the messages that
  have emerged.  We've produced a booklet which I will be very happy to send to
  the secretariat. So some of the messages were that the IGF is an exciting and
  innovative process and general commitment to creating national processes which
  some of the speakers have referred to. The emergence of child protection as an
  issue was highlighted by several of our contributors, as was the role of
  Internet exchange points in development.  One writer highlighted that many
  developing countries were interested in the experiences and what Internet
  exchange points could bring in their countries. There was also encourage --
  people were encouraged by the interest in good practice and exchanges of best
  practice, and others were just simply interested to meet new people who were
  interested in their work.  From our own perspective, the Village Square was a
  great success and one, I think, that can be built on further in the next
  meeting.  We found it very useful as a space to meet people who were
  interested in our exhibits, and we were also, of course, very pleased to see
  the inclusion of best practices in the central agenda and would like to see
  that continuing.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Milton
  Mueller. 

>> MILTON MUELLER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Can you hear me?
  

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Yes. 

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I want to address very
  specifically your question of were there too many workshops.  From my point of
  view -- I am with a civil society organization, the Internet Governance
  Project, University-based research and policy analysis consortium, and we have
  contributed to the workshops.  We organized two in both the Athens and the Rio
  sessions. In my opinion, the problem is not the number of workshops.  It
  should not be conceived as cutting down or expanding the number of workshops. 
  The problem was the relationship between the workshops and the main sessions. 
  They were going on at the same time.  This created a de facto competition
  between people's time and attention between workshops and main sessions.
  Generally, with the exception of the critical Internet resources main session,
  the main sessions lost that competition and that was because most plenaries
  were too generic in focus and the process of selecting speakers probably too
  political, and many of them did not have a true governance angle.  Nothing
  substantive was at stake and, therefore, why should people come to listen to
  opinions about general Internet matters. The other problem with the workshops
  was already alluded to by the speaker by the child protection organization. 
  Workshop speakers were completely segregated by ideology and perspective. 
  Freedom expression advocates were in one workshop talking to each other. 
  Advocates of stricter controls on content in the name of child protection were
  in another panel.  Those people need to talk to each other, not past each
  other.  And, perhaps, this provides some ability to consolidate panels or
  workshops. Basically, the problem is you need to construct a way to have a
  more constructive and complementary relationship between workshops and main
  sessions rather than thinking of it solely in terms of reducing the number of
  workshops.  Thank you. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Thank you.  I turn to ICC/BASIS.
  

>> ICC/BASIS:  Thank you, Chair.  On behalf of the International Chamber of
  Commerce and its members of its initiatives business action to support the
  Information Society, I would join others in thanking the host country of
  Brazil as well as all the organizers involved in the IGF and Rio.  ICC-basis
  members believe that IGF built upon the success in Athens in 2006 and provided
  an open and informative forum among all stakeholders. We believe that
  continued multistakeholder participation on an equal footing in all aspects of
  the IGF is essential to its future success. I don't want to go through the
  nine pages of very detailed input that the ICC/BASIS members have contributed.
   It is on the ICC/BASIS Web site as well as the IGF Web site as well in the
  back of the room.  I would just like to respond to your question and also
  highlight a few of our points in terms of improvements as we all look forward
  to the IGF in India later this year. On the main sessions, ICC/BASIS supports
  the continued inclusion of main sessions but encourages an involved format
  that would make the discussions more meaningful.  Many people who were
  involved in the Rio main sessions came away with, perhaps, less than they
  could and in building towards India, thinking about the format of the main
  sessions to ensure that there is more attendance.  Few considerations to
  having fewer or no parallel events to make the main sessions more of a focal
  point in the schedule, to focus the discussions in the main sessions on
  specific topics within the broad themes that have been put forward, to ensure
  that a range of viewpoints on those specific topics are brought out in the
  main session discussions and that there is more interaction.  We've expressed
  in our contribution that the emerging issue session worked very well in Rio
  and encouraging more in-depth discussion on specific issues allowing people to
  make a connection to workshop topics that have been explored and to get
  detailed input and interaction with the audience should be a part of the
  consideration of how the main sessions are formatted going forward. In
  addition, we've suggested that descriptions of the main session should be
  simplified and confirming the main sessions earlier.  Overall shaping the
  program earlier will help to increase the value-add for participants of the
  main sessions. In general, ICC/BASIS members would encourage the planning for
  the IGF in India to really look at the topic areas in both the main sessions
  and the workshops to ensure that these sessions really add value for people
  who are there. In that respect, we do support a focus at the IGF in India on
  the capacity-building cross-cutting theme, focusing on the development agenda
  issues and human and institutional capacity-building measures. In terms of the
  workshops, there were several formats for workshops and open forums and best
  practice sessions, et cetera.  I would highlight a few points.  We believe
  that the best practices, or practices in general, are an extremely important
  part of what participants take away from the IGF and would encourage practices
  to be a part of the discussions in the main sessions and the workshops and
  integrated on the issues. To pick up on what a few of the other speakers have
  mentioned about workshops, we did feel that there were too many competing
  events, whether they were workshops or open forums or best practice sessions
  or meetings, et cetera and an overall look at the program to ensure that there
  is real networking time. Many of our members have felt that the take-away for
  them has been the informal interactions that have led to very concrete
  initiatives or partnerships or discussions after the IGF.  We've made a couple
  of specific suggestions in our contribution.  For instance, in keeping the
  lunchtime free to facilitate that kind of action and create opportunities for
  people to meet each other. As others have said, the IGF is a unique space
  where many people who never see each other in other forums get an opportunity
  to interact in a very important exchange of information and experience which
  we believe should be continued priority in the planning of the IGF in India.
  We've given specific comments on the dynamic coalitions and the reporting
  sessions.  I would really not like to go through all the bullet points at this
  stage, but I would ask that Advisory Group members and participants note those
  suggestions and consider them as ways to address some of the improvements that
  many have stated need to be considered for the IGF going forward. For the IGF
  in India, we have put forward the idea which is reflected and echoed in the
  input from other stakeholders as well in ensuring that we valorize the
  take-aways that people really are getting from the IGF. One of those is that
  there are many partnerships and alliances that could be showcased at the IGF
  in India, perhaps having a session to allow people to announce their
  commitments and the actual outcomes they're feeling at the national or
  regional level on these issues would be helpful. And, lastly, I wanted to
  highlight the fact that we've put forward the fact that innovation is a very
  important area and we would consider a session or a stream of discussion on
  how to promote innovation as being a complement to the development agenda
  issues that others have also emphasized and a way to allow participants to
  have, again, a discussion on practices -- best practices, the challenges faced
  on Internet Governance issues to continue to promote innovation in this area.
  With that, I will close.  Thank you, chair. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I have
  Senegal followed by Japan and  Heather Creech from IISD and then ETNO and then
  GICC.  Senegal followed by Japan and then IISD. 

>>SENEGAL:  Thank you,
  Chairman.  As previous speakers I, too, wish to congratulate the organizers of
  the Rio forum.  I would like to congratulate the chair of the forum and the
  secretariat, in particular Mr. Markus Kummer and all of his team who
  accomplished some remarkable work during the second forum.  Now, I would like
  to make two comments and then a suggestion. The first comment is on the
  plenary sessions.  As we feel that issues relating to access, openness and
  security were quite broadly debated at the WSIS and at the Athens and Rio
  forum.  And we believe that there is no point in dealing with these issues in
  New Delhi.  So we will suggest to the organizers of the third forum to
  envision a different format for the discussion groups during the plenary
  sessions. Then the second comment I have is on the workshops.  We believe that
  if they cannot be organized within the time limits from 8:00 to 10:00, there
  is no point in having them later because our experience in Rio demonstrated
  that any workshops organized after 6:00 p.m. attracted very few people because
  everyone was tired. There was the presentation of best practices, in
  particular for developing countries such as Kenya, Tunisia and Senegal.  Those
  workshops did not see many participants at all because they were organized
  after 1800 hours.  So we think that, perhaps, the organization of these
  workshops should be reviewed.  If you can reduce the number, that's fine.  But
  if not, they should at least be programmed within the time limits between 8:00
  a.m. and 1800 hours. And then on the suggestion I have.  We believe that on
  the important topic of Internet Governance, we believe there should be further
  work carried out.  Thank you. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Thank you.  I have Japan.
  

>>JAPAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We would like to join our colleagues in
  thanking both the Brazilian government and the IGF Secretariat for the
  hospitality and effort. I have several comments to make.  First of all, as for
  the question you asked, Mr. Chairman, we think it was successful to have
  several sessions in order to cover many issues to be talked. We believe that
  one of the main purposes of IGF is to reflect validity of new points as much
  as possible.  So this kind of structure should be maintained at the next
  meeting in India as much as possible, with possible improvements, reflecting
  some comments we have today. With regard to the opening ceremony, we
  appreciated to have high government officials and CEOs to address their
  overall views on the issues related to Internet Governance.  To get their
  involvement in the IGF process will help us very much to disseminate and
  understand the concept and contents of the discussion at the IGF. Finally, we
  would like to have a finalized agenda and program a little earlier in order to
  prepare ourselves enough in order to be able to participate to maximum
  capacity.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Thank you.  Can I
  turn to IISD. 

>> IISD:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, I wish, too, wish to
  congratulate Brazil and the chair and the secretariat for a wonderful meeting
  in Rio which we all gained a great deal of knowledge and new partnerships
  from. I was particularly pleased that the emerging issue of sustainable
  development was recognized during the closing plenary session.  IISD has been
  working on the connections between Internet Governance and sustainable
  development for several years now.  And we have recognized that outside of the
  Internet Governance Forum there has been a growing recognition, particularly
  the environmental impacts of these technologies.  The OECD will be reviewing
  this this year in 2008.  It has its own internal working groups looking at the
  connection between ICTs and environmental impacts.  The World Business Council
  on Sustainable Development within two weeks is going to be raising the
  environmental footprint considerations for the Internet sector and the ICT
  sector, and the ITU is also beginning to look at issues of greening this
  particular community. But sustainable development is not only about the
  environment.  And we also want to recognize that the development agenda is
  very much a part of sustainable development.  The Brundtland Commission when
  it defined "sustainable development" 21 years ago said this was about
  development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
  ability of future generations to meet their needs.  And the "needs" issue is
  very much a central part of sustainable development. But what many have
  forgotten perhaps in reviewing the Brundtland definition is it goes on to talk
  about limitations.  And the limitations posed by the environment by the state
  of technology and social organization. That was 21 years ago and technology,
  in particular communications technology, has radically transformed
  organization and that's where I think that the sustainable development
  connection is with Internet Governance. How is communications technology
  really allowing us to transform how we organize our trading systems, how we
  organize our meetings, how we organize our partnerships. Everything is
  changing as a result of the power of communications technology. And how we
  choose collectively to share responsibility for managing this is central to
  Internet governance. We would suggest that any group, like the forum, that a
  committed to good governance should be thinking not only about what we do now
  in the present, but how we should be planning for the future. And so we would
  encourage, therefore, that sustainable development be given some space within
  the next meeting of the forum as a major theme for discussion. It will allow
  us to explore some of these linkages more thoroughly. Thank you. 

>>CO-CHAIR
  DESAI:   Of course I would naturally welcome that since sustainable
  development has been my main line of business.  And I actually wrote the
  chapter that you were quoting from.  So I would be more than delighted to
  bring all that in. I have ETNO and then Mr. Fujisaki speaking on behalf of
  GIIC. 

>>ETNO:  Thank you, Chair, and good morning to all.  I speak on behalf
  of ETNO, which is the association of European telecommunication network
  operators.  We are the providers of network in Europe, but the activities of
  our 41 members from 34 countries expand in many other parts of the world. 
  ETNO and its members are fully committed to the IGF process and we would like
  to contribute to the preparations of the third IGF. But before we do that, we
  are in the regretful situation to comment on the synthesis paper prepared for
  this meeting. ETNO was one of the few organizations that respected the
  deadline put and submitted comments in writing.  However, we felt our views
  were not fully considered for the synthesis paper, and for that we express our
  great disappointment.  As a matter of fact, being used to a certain quality of
  the documents prepared by the IGF Secretariat, we regret to say that this
  synthesis paper, in our view, actually lacks full balance, and we have
  difficulty in considering it as the sole preparatory reference document for
  this meeting. For us this is quite important considering this paper is what
  all parties who want to know about this meeting look first. We understand that
  the Secretariat has extremely limited resources.  However, we hope in the
  future more attention will be given to the synthesis paper. Also the fact that
  very few stakeholders responded to the call for written contributions should
  be a major concern.  We agree that broader participation in the submission of
  comments is of high priority, and we intend to continue to work with our broad
  membership to encourage participation in the consultation process. Coming out
  of the taking stock of the Rio meeting, we would like first of all to thank
  the peoples of Brazil for their hospitality and arrangements and to highlight
  certain issues referring to the program, schedule, and themes which could be
  useful to the preparation of the India IGF. Good organization and good
  programming are fundamental.  After two IGFs, it is essential that the rough
  program and schedule -- and by that we mean themes, specific topics, format
  and framework of discussions, as well as timetable of the preparatory process
  for the India meeting -- become available before the second open consultation
  and that they are finalized by September 2008. As regards the program and the
  types of meeting, ETNO acknowledges that most of the main sessions in the Rio
  IGF were not well attended.  In our view, this is due to the fact that there
  were too many parallel events but also due to the structure of the session. 
  And by that we mean general discussion, repeated views, too many remarks from
  the panelists, not enough discussion from the floor. We believe that the main
  sessions are the most important meetings of the IGF and that special attention
  must be given to them in the schedule. We think it is best to have fewer
  events held in parallel domain sessions but with better quality. The two
  hours' duration of the main sessions worked well.  However, discussion many
  times lacked focus. It is worth examining the idea that one of the panelists
  act as a keynote speaker to stimulate discussion rather than having the
  moderator trying to do that. The number of panelists also worked well, and
  should be kept to a maximum of four to five people.  However, panelists,
  besides representations, should limit their remarks so that there are more
  views presented from the floor. As for the idea of discussants, we believe
  that it did not add anything and that it should not be repeated. Regarding
  workshops, the resources must be optimized.  The Rio experience proved that
  there should be less workshops and a strong effort to merge similar ones,
  which is very much needed.  And a recall would help in this direction. Also
  the titles must reflect the content and, most importantly, the description
  must be clearly announced and followed. We believe that one of the main calls
  of the workshop should be to fuel discussions in the main sessions.  Also, we
  found the number of best practice forums in Rio outstanding, while many did
  not justify why they fit it under this type of meeting.  We strongly believe
  that a discussion about best practices or, rather, lessons learned fits better
  within main sessions or workshops. ETNO believes that there should be more
  restructuring regarding the format of the next IGF by using criteria such as
  simplicity and efficacy. ETNO proposes that there is a core IGF program
  consisting only of main sessions and selected workshops closely related to the
  main sessions, integrating best practices in both types of meeting, and the
  parallel program consisting of open forums, dynamic coalition meetings, any
  other workshop as well as any other event. More specifically, ETNO suggests
  that there is a core meeting for which the Advisory Group in conjunction with
  the IGF Secretariat taking into account the open consultations take the
  responsibility for organizing, or at least selecting in the case of workshops.
   All other events could be freely organized providing that their linkage to
  the IGF is justified and that there is enough information about them. This
  way, all participants will have a clear view of the IGF and additionally, the
  organization of the IGF will also be easier and simpler. I do have a couple
  more comments. The next one would be regarding the themes of the next IGF, and
  we suggest that the five broad themes are kept.  However, they should not be
  resided with yet another general discussion.  Instead, there should be more
  specific topics within each theme according to time lines announced well in
  advance. These specific topics must be chosen after wide agreement.  This way,
  participants may explore them better and provide added value to the
  discussions, rather than repeating the same general positions. Regarding the
  synthesis paper, finally translated in all U.N. languages, ETNO believes this
  is very much useful.  In our view, the synthesis paper must set the scene and
  it must be the starting reference of the IGF meeting, and the tool to boost
  the debate and maintain a tempo.  It can be a critical review of the situation
  over the previous year, not heavy on statistics, and/or the contributions
  received after a specific call. If the synthesis paper is just an overview of
  the contributions received, then an introductory report could also be
  considered as a means to stimulate discussions and work in conjunction with
  the synthesis paper.  This introductory report could be prepared by the IGF
  Secretariat or by an individual commissioned by it. In the latter case,
  prepared by an individual, the report should be spherical, neutral and not
  reflect the particular views of any individual person or organization. It
  should be clear that we are not suggesting that the introductory report
  replaces the synthesis paper.  Rather, it should work in conjunction with it.
  Mr. Chair, time does not allow me to go through all the issues that ETNO would
  like to comment.  For that reason, I ask those interested to consult our
  contribution which is posted in the IGF site, but also in our site which is
  www.etno.b. Thank you. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  I now have Mr. Sogo Fujisaki of
  Fujitsu speaking on behalf of GIIC. 

>>GIIC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Today
  I represent Fujitsu Limited and would like to make a summary statement on
  behalf of Global Information Infrastructure Commission, GIIC, based on its
  written comment to the IGF. In addition, we are also closely working with
  other business group, like Nippon Keidanren, with ICC/BASIS.  Let me start by
  saying that the GIIC appreciates the hard work by Ambassador Vianna, Nitin
  Desai, Markus Kummer, and the Brazilian host for their support for the
  successful IGF Rio. The most important thing business regions can do to
  contribute to the IGF is to familiarize all multistakeholders about the
  realities that come from business firms.  Therefore, we are pleased to see
  that the private sector provided 15% of the participants at the IGF Rio, up
  from 13% at the IGF Athens. Fujitsu chairman, currently the GIIC chairman,
  addressed the opening session in Rio.  He spoke of the growing need to
  consider the impact of the Internet on the environment. And for businesses to
  have top management that take into account the viability and the safety of the
  Internet. GIIC thinks that the current structure of the IGF program works well
  and supports the four key themes complemented by additional issues as agreed
  by the broader community during the IGF events.  We thought discussions on
  critical internet resources and emerging issues to be useful and informative.
  I won't say what is the appropriate number for the workshops, but we observed
  that attendance at the main session was limited due to the conflict with the
  main workshops.  It would be better to manage the main stations with as few
  conflicts as feasible.

  One solution might be to devote time during the plenary sessions to have one
  representative from each workshop join a plenary session panel for further
  discussion on specific topics. In addition, as an emerging issue, as many
  people mentioned we note that there is a growing need to consider the impact
  of the ICT and the Internet on the environment and sustainable development. We
  should explore further how best these topics might be incorporated into the
  IGF program. The GIIC will hold its annual conference in Tokyo on April 25,
  inviting a number of CEOs, government leaders, heads of international
  organizations.  Also, we will hold a joint event with Nippon Keidanren on the
  day before.  The theme of the (inaudible) event will be the impact of the ICT
  and the Internet on the environment. We are happy to provide the summary of
  the discussion in May. Finally, the GIIC would like to express its thanks to
  you, Mr. Markus Kummer and Chairman Desai and Ambassador Vianna for your
  continued support. The GIIC is ready to work with you to ensure the success of
  the IGF in Hyderabad. Thank you very much. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   I have five
  speakers on my list.  I will just read the names. Chris Disspain, Wolfgang
  Kleinwächter, Bill Graham, -- yeah, I don't have -- and then ITU. Can I have
  Chris, please. And then Bertrand De La Chapelle. 

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank
  you, Mr. Chair.  Just a couple of points. First of all, I would like to echo
  Milton Mueller's comments on the workshops.  There were too many competing
  events.  And I also agree with the gentleman from Senegal about the timing of
  workshops.  It really is quite hard to expect people to attend a workshop at
  6:00, sometime between 6:00 and 8:00 in the evening having spent a full day
  attending other workshops or the main sessions. My other comments in respect
  to the main sessions and the main panels, in Greece -- after Greece, after
  Athens, the Advisory Group agreed, and the general feeling amongst the open
  session was that there were too many panelists. In Rio, we agreed to cut the
  number of panelists, and we did this by creating a new category called
  discussants. As someone who facilitated one of the main sessions in Rio, let
  me assure you they might as well have been panelists.  It really made
  absolutely no difference whatsoever, and effectively meant that we had the
  same, or in some cases more, panelists in Rio at certain sessions than we did
  at Athens. The panels must be smaller.  The topic for the main session panels
  does need to be more specific, and the moderator or facilitator does, in my
  view, need to create a more dynamic environment evolving a significant
  increase in audience participation. And as an example of how that can be done
  and was, in fact, successfully done in Rio, one only needs to look at the
  emerging issues session which was interesting, lively, and evolving for all
  those in the room. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Thank you,
  Chris. I have Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Bill Graham, Louis Pouzin and ITU.
  

>>IGC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter.  I am a
  professor at University of Aarhus, but I am here speaking on behalf of the
  Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.  The civil society Internet
  Governance Caucus is chaired now by Parminder from India, and we were able to
  prepare three statements for this meeting, so this is the result of a long
  discussion process we had within our group, which includes various different
  groups representing the civil society from all over the world. My statement
  refers to the format of the IGF and is a little bit looking forward to
  Hyderabad. The IGF Hyderabad marks the halfway point in the IGF's mandate.  It
  is, therefore, central that the meeting addresses all aspects of the IGF
  mandate.  We should use the two years of IGF experiences to assess how well
  IGF is fulfilling its Tunis Agenda mandate and make improvements, as
  necessary, to the format and processes of IGF. It will be appropriate to use
  the stock-taking and way forward session at Hyderabad as a midterm review of
  the whole IGF process, considering that the IGF process is supposed to be
  completely reviewed at the end of the five-year period. This main session
  should be intensively prepared for by a working group. The IGC, that means the
  government caucus, would like to repeat its successful Rio workshop on the
  theme of the role and the mandate of the IGF at Hyderabad to feed into such a
  main session. We are of the opinion that the IGF mandate and functions can be
  put into two broad categories. One is of providing an open space for
  discussing any and all public policy issues regarding the Internet for all
  stakeholders.  Therefore, inter alia, encouraging closer interaction between
  stakeholders and groups who often do not often talk to each other. The second
  set of mandates and functions can be clumped into a category of providing some
  relatively clear directions and possibilities in the area of global public
  policy.  And for this purpose, block the gaps in terms of ideas,
  possibilities, interactions in the global institution and framework for
  Internet governance. The structure of the IGF meeting should be adequate to
  meet both of these purposes. The first purpose listed above is largely being
  achieved, and the IGF is now recognized for its characteristic of a town hall
  meeting, where anyone can come and voice own opinions and concerns. However,
  the requirements for the purpose 2 listed above, that of some clear
  contribution to the global public-policy arena, may require us to explore some
  structural improvements for the Hyderabad IGF meeting without taking away its
  open town hall meeting character. In fulfilling this aspect of its mandate, as
  we mentioned, we think that the IGF is making good progress. We should
  continue to allow as many open workshops at IGF as possible, subject only to
  the limitations of the logistics. In fact, we should encourage connected
  events on the sidelines of the IGF as well, some of which were held around IGF
  in Rio. The process of selection of open workshops should, inter alia, involve
  the criteria of, one, sponsor's readiness to structure the workshop as a space
  for an open dialogue and not just one-sided advocacy is I. The
  multistakeholder criteria should be seen more in terms of a demonstrated
  willingness of the sponsor to invite different stakeholders, and those with
  different points of view to participate as panelists rather than in terms of
  sponsorship of the workshops. The later criterion leads to the possibility of
  some stakeholders, especially those with a relatively tightly organized and
  relatively monolithic structure and policy political approach to veto some
  subjects. In any case, the variety sought should be in terms of more different
  points of view rather than just different stakeholders, because it's possible
  to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a
  particular subject.  So pluralism is important here. Workshop themes staying
  as closely as possible within the IGF's broad mandate of dealing with
  specifically IG issues that are global and have some relation to public-policy
  arena. Specific overall thematic emphasis for each IGF meeting may also be
  indicated. There is a general impression that more can be done to ensure that
  the Internet Governance Forum fulfill its mandate of providing directions to
  global public policy on Internet, as indicated by many parts of its Tunis
  Agenda mandate. The main sessions should be spaces for fulfilling this set of
  objectives. Many of those who attended Athens and Rio meetings felt that the
  main sessions could be made more compelling and productive. We did see
  attendance at these meetings shriveling off from Athens to Rio and within Rio
  from day one onwards. We think the main session should be focused on specific
  issues regarding the content of Internet governance per se, rather than on
  more broad issues pertaining to the Internet and environment generally. These
  specific issues should be framed and prepared for well in advance. The main
  sessions can be made more productive and fruitful by having a couple of
  thematic workshops connected with and feeding into each of the main sessions.
  There should be a limited number of such thematic workshops with a vigorous
  effort to merge proposals for workshops in a manner that preserved diversities
  of clear politics, special interest and different viewpoints, but retains the
  clear purpose to increase effectiveness of the main sessions. Not having
  thematic workshops run at the same time as the main sessions is also
  important. And using working groups to intensively prepare for each of these
  main sessions and the connected workshops. These working groups should also
  synthesis some kind of outcome documents on each theme, taking from the
  discussion, the domain sessions and connected workshops.  These working groups
  could consist of members of the Membership Advisory Committee plus some other
  experts and stakeholders. Dynamic coalitions, too, have a great potential to
  increase effectiveness of the Internet Governance Forum.  There should be
  greater clarity on the format in the creation of dynamic coalitions into the
  overall structure. Dynamic coalition pertaining to the theme of our main
  session should be involved in the preparations of the sessions.  They must
  also be able to report back on the activities in the main session. To enable
  proper preparation for Hyderabad, a call for workshops should be given out as
  soon as possible, since this will also require early decisions on main session
  themes, postponing these crucial activities will leave us with inadequate time
  to make all the needed preparations for Hyderabad. This will hinder the
  possibilities of our moving ahead on achieving the full potential of the IGF
  that we all desire to do. A final point on participation at the IGF. We should
  further explore innovative message within the IGF to improve the active
  participation in the IGF proceedings of all those who attend the IGF. It is
  also important to improve the participation of currently excluded and
  underrepresented groups in both the IGF's public consultations and the annual
  meetings. Adequate financial support should be provided to potential
  participants from developing and least-developed countries. There's also a lot
  of scope for improving participation through online means, which should be
  fully explored.  However, improvement in online participation cannot fill in
  for creative face-to-face participation of currently underrepresented groups.
  As the IGF goes to south Asia region, which is home to more than half the
  world's poor, special focus needs to be given to realizing the vision of an
  Internet for everyone. The first of all requires obtaining the participation
  of disadvantaged group and communities in the governance of the Internet.
  Hyderabad should take all possible measures to make outreach to and include
  those groups in the IGF meeting.  This can be done by galvanizing the local
  civil society around the Hyderabad meeting, and we welcome the call given by
  our chair, Nitin Desai, to do so in the recent ICANN meeting in New Delhi.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Thank you. I have Bill Graham,
  followed by Louis Pouzin, and then ITU, Bertrand De La Chapelle, and Marilyn
  Cade. 

>>ISOC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I am speaking here on behalf of the
  Internet Society.  First we would like to add our voice to those which have
  already congratulated Brazil for the conduct of the meeting in Rio. We feel
  that the Internet Governance Forum's cross-cutting themes of capacity building
  and development plus the original four focus areas have continued to provide a
  foundation for the work that was done in Rio. The decision to build on the
  successful discussions of those themes and the positive interaction among
  stakeholders at the first IGF led to the addition of the topic of critical
  internet resources. That decision was clearly justified by stakeholders'
  confidence in the able of the IGF to address various difficult topics. We
  think the success of the IGF precisely depends on the fact that the IGF
  remains multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic and transparent, and that
  it is neutral, nonduplicative and nonbinding consistent with the WSIS
  guidelines.  ISOC believes it is essential to retain those characteristics in
  all future IGF meetings, but we must find ways for the IGF to become more
  practical and more useful to those interested in the practice of Internet
  governance. We believe it's time now for the IGF to really draw out the
  concrete work and the concrete developments that have happened as a result of
  its work, and I speak here of all stakeholders' experiences. I am not talking
  about concrete conclusions in typical United Nations terms, but in terms of
  the work that's being done by various stakeholders and various communities. 
  This work has not yet been adequately captured, and I think we don't yet have
  a good picture of how successful the IGF has been to this point. We would
  also, therefore, recommend that moving forward to India, the IGF focus more on
  fostering contributions to Internet governance at the appropriate national,
  regional, and international levels. Successful multistakeholder Internet
  governance discussions at the local level are essential to progressing
  Internet governance at the global level, and this was recognized in Rio. There
  really is much to be done at the local level, and all stakeholders should
  contribute to encouraging the creation of suitable and sustainable local
  multistakeholder structures, including the technical and regulatory capacity
  building programs that are necessary here. Looking forward to the third IGF,
  ISOC would recommend that we really build on opportunities to expand the work
  by dynamic coalitions and others who are working together in formal and
  informal gatherings organized to progress that work. The increased interest in
  the workshops that we saw going into Rio, and the potential of those workshops
  for producing collaboration should be major goals for the third IGF. This can
  be facilitated by reducing the number of formal main sessions. We in ISOC
  believe the main sessions on the four major themes have really almost served
  their purpose now, and there should be fewer main sessions in Delhi.  Perhaps
  only three, one on each day. Speakers in the opening session should be
  selected for their ability to focus attention on the urgent need to show real
  results from the meeting in terms of promoting access, security, diversity and
  openness.  But concentrating on the needs of developing countries and capacity
  building.  And I speak here of capacity building for Internet governance, not
  more generally on ICTs for development. The second main session should
  concentrate on a major new theme for the 2008 forum.  ISOC recommends this
  session, and much of the work of the IGF going forward concentrate on the
  overarching issue of connecting the next billion and the billions after that.
  As we heard in Rio, getting the next billion online highlights many, many
  challenges for governance of the Internet itself, and not least among these
  are scalability and sustainability issues. Taking this very practical focus
  will allow us to include many facets of the themes discussed so far.  It also
  will have direct and important linkages to development and capacity building.
  Focusing on the next billion gained prominence in Rio, and we believe it's now
  time to better understand and to address the challenges that will face getting
  the next billion online. This is something the IGF is uniquely positioned to
  contribute to. Learning and collaboration are essential to identifying the
  challenges and highlighting the solutions of Internet governance. The Internet
  Governance Forum should serve primarily as a facilitator, providing
  opportunities for action oriented, formal and informal workshops and meetings.
  Thus in our contribution, which is on the Internet Governance Forum Web site,
  we outline that we believe that New Delhi should really -- or, sorry, the
  India session should really provide a large networking and display space for
  all stakeholder groups to present their real-world experiences and their
  efforts to make Internet governance happen locally, nationally, regionally,
  and internationally. This space should be structured around the IGF themes. 
  It should encourage dialogue and synergy among practitioners, and it really
  must include meeting areas for small and medium sized groups to get together,
  exchange experiences and plan future work. So in concluding, Mr. Chairman, we
  believe it's time for the IGF to become a forum promoting action on the entire
  range of themes outlined in its mandates.  Singly and in combination.  The
  focus should be on capacity building for Internet governance.  And we believe
  that the IGF has now established a degree of trust among its participants that
  should make that possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  
  Thank you. Mr. Louis Pouzin. 

>>EUROLINC:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name
  is Louis Pouzin, and I am speaking for Eurolinc, a nonprofit association
  promoting the use of native languages in the Internet. We are a member of the
  MAYA network. About Rio, a number of our colleagues have already expressed
  their great satisfaction and at the same time they have also made a flurry of
  recommendations in order to improve the organization of the next IGF annual
  meeting. We agree with many of those recommendations. The crux of the matter
  is that the IGF is not putting into practice, or at least very little, the
  mandate assigned to it by the Tunis Agenda. Without a bureau, without
  transparent financing and without tangible objectives, IGF annual meetings do
  not provide to participants the quality of information on critical issues
  expected from professional conferences. The European countries have little
  opportunity to partake in IGF meetings.  Travel and accommodation costs are
  too expensive.  Translation is only done for main sessions, not always the
  most relevant ones. Speaker slots are hard to get without lobbying capacities.
  The IGF meeting is a large conference.  There is no reason why it should not
  be organized in a way usually adopted for such events. A year ago we made a
  proposal for a structure including an international Program Committee.  This
  is still eventuality. This is in no way a criticism of the people in charge of
  the IGF organization.  We know they have been extremely dedicated and
  efficient.  The difficulties result from the inadequate structure of the IGF
  organizational structures as I've said already. At this stage, it is not clear
  that the IGF meeting format could change substantially due to the tendency of
  established structures to ensure their continuity.  In addition, at a world
  level, the amount of issues to be studied is probably too large.  We think
  that regional IGF meetings would be more productive, easier to attend by
  people from developing countries, more focused on their specific needs such as
  native languages, and much easier to organize. Reports from the regional
  meetings would be presented at annual IGF meetings.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Can I turn to Mr. Michael Johnson from ITU. 

>> ITU: 
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Good afternoon, everybody.  ITU congratulates the
  host country and all those involved in making the Rio event such a success. 
  We appreciate the efforts undertaken in the organization of the meeting and
  support the approach followed in providing several mechanisms of dialogue and
  cooperation. ITU has made use of this platform in collaboration of other U.N.
  agencies, especially UNESCO and other relevant stakeholders such as ICANN in
  implementing the Tunis Agenda for the information society. We generally feel
  that the organization program and the agenda in Rio was successful and needs
  little change.  However, we do believe that the proposal mentioned by Markus
  in his introduction of creating a thematic space for networking would greatly
  facilitate follow-up collaborative actions between the different stakeholders.
  As a concrete follow-up to the second IGF meeting, we have discussed with
  several stakeholders who participated in discussions in Rio on the
  establishment of a dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability.  This is
  an area of activity that ITU is particularly active in and which we're willing
  to offer our resources to support.  We have a paper available on this proposal
  in the back of the room and we will be happy to discuss this further under
  Item 4 of our agenda this afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.  May I turn to Mr. La
  Chapelle and then Marilyn Cade. 

>>FRANCE:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, on behalf
  of France I would like to thank the host of the second IGF for the quality of
  the meeting.  To be as concrete as possible right now, a few suggestions
  regarding the next meeting and the lessons from the Rio meeting.  We're of the
  view that an ideal format would be to turn the main sessions into reporting
  sessions for the workshops dealing with the corresponding themes. One-slide
  format for people who would be designated by the corresponding workshops would
  allow to launch the discussion in a very short and concise manner so that the
  participation and the people in the room can fully participate in an
  interactive manner. This would in addition alleviate the burden of the
  advisory group in terms of choosing the panelists because the panelists would
  be somehow self-selected by the workshop organizers. In that context, no other
  session should be held in parallel with the main sessions -- main reporting
  session. The second element is that actually we're toying with different
  workshop formats or smaller session formats.  One interesting feature of Rio
  was the opportunity for a certain number of organizations to actually hold
  open forums which were reporting sessions on their activities of the year. 
  This was very beneficial.  Sessions by ITU, by ICANN, by the Council of Europe
  and few others have allowed a broader range of actors to understand what those
  organizations are doing, and this is a format that should be encouraged. The
  present workshop format initiated bottom-up has to be kept because this is one
  of the major features of the IGF because proposals can emerge from various
  actors. In order to keep the number of workshops relatively limited, there is
  a need for criteria and some of the criteria is that actors could not or
  should not be allowed to organize a workshop if they organized a workshop the
  previous year and did not produce a report. The second thing is, as was
  mentioned earlier, the important pluralistic dimension is the plurality of
  viewpoints and not so much the plurality of stakeholders.  You can, indeed,
  have a very nice panel with stakeholders that are pushing exactly the same
  position. Then this is not a workshop.  It is a advocacy group.  In this
  context, the purpose of the workshop is to provide a space for discussion
  among participants and not only for presentation by panelists so that the
  dialogue is nurtured by the IGF. But I would like to suggest, following a
  remark that was made in particular by Milton Mueller before, that another
  category of workshop or session that could be called a "debate session" could
  allow a number of actors who organized the previous year parallel workshops
  with different viewpoints to get together when an issue is particularly
  contentious.  I think the IGF shouldn't -- we think the IGF shouldn't shy away
  from addressing contentious issues.  Quite on the contrary, it has proven in
  Rio that the critical Internet resources issue could be addressed in a fair
  manner, even if people disagreed on substance. So a third dimension or a third
  format would bring together actors who do not share the same position but
  would be able to debate. Finally, we suggest that a call for themes of
  workshops be issued as early as possible, even without any information on how
  the participants of the panelists could be chosen, just the themes, to get an
  aggregate view of the perspective. Organizers of workshops should be
  encouraged to produce issue papers before in order to frame -- help frame the
  issues they're addressing and the various workshops could have or should have
  the possibility to produce propositions to the IGF that would be presented as
  an outcome of the workshop, providing that the signatories and the
  participants are clearly identified and this is not confused with an IGF
  proposition.  Workshops or dynamic coalitions could have the possibility to do
  this. A final remark is that we are very keen on promoting -- or exploring the
  idea of an European IGF preparatory meeting, and we'll certainly have this in
  mind when we get into the presidency of the European Union in the second half
  of this year. We have also launched at the national level a consultation
  mechanism on the multistakeholder basis, and we'll be very happy and have
  already conducted consultations with the U.K. and Finland on the perspective
  of organizing a workshop in India on national multistakeholder consultation
  processes in the framework of the IGF. And we're welcoming any other actor who
  would be willing, in particularly Brazil, that would be willing to join in
  this perspective.  Thank you. 

>>CO-CHAIR DESAI:   Marilyn Cade. 

>>ITAA: 
  Thank you.  My comments this morning are as the chair of the global public
  policy committee of ITAA.  ITAA is an industry association with membership
  ranging from very small companies to very large companies.  We have also a
  sister relationship with the World IT Services Alliance, an organization
  representing close to 70 associations, the majority of whom are from
  developing countries. We thank the -- we welcome the opportunity to thank the
  chair and the supporters of the Internet Governance Forum for this public
  consultation and repeat earlier statements we have made about the value of the
  public consultation, both online and face-to-face. We also wish to recognize
  the work of the executive secretariat, the chair, the co-chair of IGF Brazil
  and the government of Brazil and the NGOs of Brazil for their efforts to
  ensure a well-attended and successful IGF 2007. ITAA remains committed to the
  IGF as a unique multistakeholder forum with equal participation by all and to
  maintaining the IGF as a unique venue where ideas, experiences, expertise,
  challenges and problems can be discussed in an open manner. We believe it is
  very important to maintain the multistakeholder approach on an equal footing.
  And here we pause to say, we think that means that all parties, governments,
  IGOs, individuals, businesses, civil society NGOs, all parties must respect
  that in this fora we operate on an equal footing. We think that that is unique
  and incredibly valuable.  We also believe that the early establishment of the
  consultation process should be continued and that it should become rootinized
  or formalized so that on an annual basis we know roughly which week, which
  month the public consultations will take place and we know that there will be
  three so people can plan ahead in order to participate. Informed by our
  relationship with WITSA, we believe it is incredibly important that all of us
  to find ways to increase the participation of the stakeholders from developing
  countries in the consultation process and in being able to attend and
  participate the IGF itself. We continue to support the reflection of the four
  themes but we also support the concept that more concrete learning should
  become more visible and that we should find ways to take more concrete
  learning and experiences and share them.  We think this can be done without
  moving to a conclusionary or a negotiating status. ITAA's members and WITSA's
  members have long been concerned about the issues of access, of deepening and
  broadening access for all users.  And as such, we find ourselves intrigued by
  the concept of the theme "connecting the next billion" which is to us an
  extension of the access theme. We also believe that it is very important that
  we maintain a consistent focus in the IGF on the broad definition of Internet
  Governance and that we not become captive or captured by any particular debate
  but remain open to the consideration of the broad set of issues and concerns
  and that we remain focused on the concerns and interests of the developing
  countries. We have a number of additional observations, and we will hold those
  for the afternoon.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

>>CO-CHAIR
  DESAI:   Thank you very much.  It has been very helpful, these comments. 
  Before we move on to the next item which is on the Advisory Group, I thought I
  would just try and draw a few strands together. May I say first that in many
  ways the way the IGF as actually operated in Rio and in Athens and possible
  how it can operate in Hyderabad onwards is possibly quite different from what
  people thought it would be like when the decision was taken to set up an IGF.
  Do remember that the origins of the IGF lie in a political compromise in
  Tunis.  And the idea was to create a -- I think when it was done, people
  didn't have a very clear idea as to what exactly was wanted out of this
  proposed thing that they had. And in a way, the IGF has made its own identity
  by the way in which it has operated.  One key feature has been the way in
  which the multistakeholder character has been maintained.  It does operate
  very differently from a classical government, intergovernmental U.N.-type
  meeting where you do have people from outside participating but they do remain
  people from outside. I believe this particular feature of IGF, it is true
  multistakeholder character, not just in a generalized sense that everybody
  sits in the same room but it really does operate in a way where compromises
  are being made by everybody.  And this is most important.  The governments
  make compromises because they're accepting procedures and modalities which are
  very different from a normal intergovernmental negotiating meeting. I think
  NGOs have to made the compromises because they are used to operating in
  intergovernmental meeting as advocacy groups.  They have to now start
  operating as partners.  The corporate sector, the technical community, I think
  everybody has to make cultural adjustments. And what I find very positive is
  that over two meetings these adjustments are taking place.  People are
  adjusting to different ways of connecting. I'm not going to try to summarize
  or try and conclude, I will just and try of think of a few things that struck
  me.  I'm sure the members of the Advisory Group, you are here, you will take
  away maybe very different lessons from this discussion. But, first, it struck
  me that -- one that struck me is that almost everybody seems to be agreed that
  we really do need to look more closely at the main sessions.  Nobody said so
  explicitly, but my feeling is that people felt a little disappointed that it
  didn't quite work out the way they were meant to work out.  And there were
  many suggestions made, one very compact one that came from Chris, make the
  panels smaller, and instruct the moderator to ensure interaction.  Three key
  points that were raised.  This is one thing that we can look at. Another
  suggestion which came was to connect it with certain workshops, use them more
  as a way of reporting in of things which are discussed in greater detail in
  workshops.  I don't see a contradiction, incidentally, between these two
  approaches.  In a way this ties in a little with a thought which I thought was
  implicit in what ETNO had said, is the idea that there are certain workshops
  that so to speak are consciously promoted in order to feed into the main
  sessions and that these are, in a sense, distinct from the sort of more
  free-for-all workshops that are being held.  We will make a more conscious
  effort to do that. And as part of that same sort of idea of maybe a more
  conscious effort at designing certain workshops to feed into the same session,
  one could also take on board the question which arose earlier when people from
  the child protection group was speaking in which (inaudible) was referred to
  later.  The idea of consciously proposing debates rather than closed meetings
  of groups.  And that would take some decision saying, yes, this is an area
  where we have people with perfectly legitimate views but different views,
  let's try and see whether we can organize a debate on this. These are some of
  the ideas which I think have emerged.  What it, basically, amounts to is a
  closer look at the organization of the main sessions, how do we make them more
  specific, more interactive, more interesting.  Probably a closer look at the
  way the workshops are being organized.  Do we start thinking in terms of
  certain workshops which are more consciously promoted that are distinct from
  others that are a little more of a free for all.  I am not coming to any
  conclusion on this.  I am simply raising this as something that arises from
  the discussion which I would urge the Advisory Group to look at it. There
  were, of course, many suggestions that came about the logistic call issues
  about the workshops, holding them at night, were similar workshops being held
  simultaneously.  I'm not entirely sure it's possible to have -- logistically
  possible to say there will be no workshops when a main session is being held. 
  But we may need to look at how suggestions are on at any given time, given the
  number of people who are there. If I have 1,000 people on average present and
  if I have events, each one of which requires ten events, each one of which
  requires 500 people to be there, it doesn't work.  You only got 1,000 people
  in a place and you can't obtain 500 people for each event.  If you would like
  the audience to change, something will have to be done so we don't come up
  with absurd propositions where we create space for 5,000 people to attend when
  there are only 1,000 there. There are things like that we may have to look at
  in terms of the way in which we structure and organize the main sessions and
  workshops.  I'm not entirely sure it will be possible to have a rule by which
  you cannot have workshops during main sessions.  That may be logistically very
  tough. But given that, I think -- I certainly hear the message from many
  people here that we do need time during the day where there are no meetings. 
  Maybe it is only an hour, but there are some time in the course of the day
  when there is nothing happening so there is time for informal interaction.
  There were many positive statements made about the Village Square. 
  Fortunately the place we are going to be in Hyderabad at least has excellent
  facilities which would allow us to do more on that front.  And I'm sure the
  Advisory Group would take note of that and see how that can be done. Two or
  three other broader issues which came up which we need to look at is that one
  was the question of connecting the Internet better with other areas of policy
  concern.  There were several references, couple of references, to connecting
  the governance issues with governmental-type issues, sustainable-type
  development issues.  This is, of course, as I said something I have been more
  involved with than the Internet, so I would be host happy with that.  And we
  could certainly see. I'm not sure how it will fit in, into our mandate in
  terms of reference and work.  Perhaps, there is a space that we can create
  which would allow us to connect Internet governance to other areas of global
  governance, like environmental governance, sustainable development and so on.
  One other area I failed we need to explore is economic issues; economics of
  competition, for instance.  There is no space where these get discussed.  But
  Internet does affect competition policy.  But there is no space where these
  things are being talked about right now, I can assure you, as somebody who is
  involved in economic governance matters. And maybe we have to put our thinking
  caps on and see how we create a window, a space where these types of issues
  can be discussed. Finally, I think there is a feeling that we need to focus
  more sharply on issues of capacity, on issues of development and one theme
  that seems to be coming up is an Internet -- the next billion.  In fact, I can
  tell you one thing that in India there is actually an interest in exploring
  the implications not just of the next billion but of the universalization of
  the Internet.  What does it mean?  What are the implications for management
  for governance of the Internet? It connects with the issues about the
  inclusive Internet which people have talked about which could subsume
  questions of multilingualism, question about disability which was mentioned,
  the question about low-cost access, questions about gender, about youth, about
  old people.  Maybe these are things that we could explore. Because some of the
  sort of, if you like, signals, messages I get none of this in the nature of a
  conclusion.  It is simply what I am taking away from here.  I suspect there
  are members of the Advisory Group, they may take away other different, more
  nuance messages which I am sure we will look at as well. Okay.  This is what I
  thought we could conclude, stop on as far as the review of the past is
  concerned.  We need to have a more focused discussion on the Advisory Group. 
  There have been a few references to this already.  And I'm just going to hand
  over -- it is 12:30.  I think we can start the discussion now and then
  continue -- stop at 1:00 and then continue after lunch.  I know quite a few of
  you have comments on this.  At this point I will ask my could he chair to
  share the burden -- my co-chair to shared the burden of managing this these
  questions. 

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Chairman Desai.  I would
  like to thank you all the kind words that were addressed to Brazil as host of
  the second IGF.  With regard to all the contributions that were made, I must
  tell you I see them more -- very much positive and constructive.  I have the
  impression that we are on the right way as far as the fulfillment of the
  mandate of IGF. I'm also very happy to notice that the Rio meeting has
  contributed to the situation.  I think that the more important thing is to
  recognize that a confidence-building process has been established and we have
  to take into account that Rio was just the second step in the five-year period
  time frame that was established in Tunis.  We have three more steps to
  strengthen this confidence-building process and to be sure that we are very
  much able to discuss issues that we not necessarily agree on, but it's
  possible to discuss and explore them in a very fair and open way. For this I
  think that the work of the multistakeholder Advisory Group is fundamental. 
  That's why I would like to open the floor for comments on the MAG, on its
  roles, on issues that have to do directly with its functioning. Please those
  who intend to take the floor, please do now.  Thank you.  Slovenia, please.
  

>>SLOVENIA:  Thank you, chair, again for giving us the opportunity to speak
  on behalf of the European Union.  European Union stands ready to start a
  proposal for rotation schemes and renewal of membership as they may emerge
  from the Advisory Group. Let me add that while rotation is a good idea as
  such, we should trade carefully in order to safeguard (inaudible) and
  innovation into the work of the Advisory Group. Now, what makes Advisory Group
  such an effective mechanism is its multistakeholder composition.  The
  secretary-general has managed to serve in their capacity and chosen from the
  governments, private sector, civil society including the academic communities
  within the stakeholder groups, such representing all regions. This balanced
  composition needs to be remained.  The Advisory Group has been instrumental in
  moving the IGF forward.  It is, therefore, of crucial importance that the
  Advisory Group starts the preparation of the next IGF meeting in India as well
  as others in the next years as soon as possible.  Thank you, chair.
  

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:  Thank you very much, Slovenia, on behalf of EU.  I would
  like to call on the representative of IGC. 

>> IGC:  Thank you, chair.  I
  Parminder Singh on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.  At
  the outset, I would like to appear to all stakeholders that we should use the
  full term multistakeholder, Advisory Group or a very convenient acronym MAG as
  for purposes as Chairman Desai just described multistakeholderism as the most
  important feature of the IGF.  And I'm happy that Chairman Desai also just now
  used the full term multistakeholder Advisory Group. Multistakeholder Advisory
  Group or MAG is the driving seat of the IGF and restructuring MAG is basic to
  making IGF more effective and productive.  We very much appreciate the new
  measures of transparency which had been taken with respect to MAG's working
  and we are of the view the Advisory Group should work through two (inaudible),
  one open, others closed since the Advisory Group discusses issues of public
  importance.  Normally discussions should be open to public scrutiny.  However,
  we do understand there can be circumstances that require closed discussions. 
  All discussions taken to the closed list should be listed and summaries of
  them provided as appropriate. By the same rule, transcripts should be provided
  for all face-to-face meetings of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, unless
  some topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case
  such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as
  appropriate. I will now make a couple of comments on the membership of the
  Advisory Group. The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring in
  the required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, but
  not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the present
  circumstances, the caucus thinks that 40 is a good number for the group's
  membership.  One third of the members should be rotated every year. In
  interest of transparency and understanding the responsibilities of the
  Advisory Group members, when making appointments to the group we request that
  Secretary-General explain what interested group that person is associated
  with. The rules of membership of the group should be clearly established and
  made open along with the justifications. Civil society, in our opinion, has
  been underrepresented in the group, which was appointed in 2006, and
  reconfirmed in 2007. This anomaly should be corrected in this round of
  rotation and a fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured.  Fair
  civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this
  experiment -- new experiment in global governance. We agree that organizations
  having an important role in Internet administration and development of
  Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented in the
  Multistakeholder Advisory Group.  However, their representation should not be
  at the expense of civil society participation. Stakeholder representatives
  should be chosen based on appropriate process of self-selection by stakeholder
  groups.  However, we do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one
  stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them as completely representing the
  whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of
  selection, especially in case of civil society and business sectors, and
  provides scope for the final selecting authority exercising a degree of
  judgment. However, this should be done in a completely transparent manner and
  deviations from the self-selection process should be kept to the minimum. 
  And, of course, when recommending members to the group, all stakeholders
  should ensure diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable,
  special interest groups. I think while we are at the issue of the rotation of
  the group, we should also revisit the role and structure of this group.  And
  to start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that the group is
  expected to perform. One function is, of course, to make all necessary
  arrangements for the annual IGF meetings.  We must review the group's
  experience with carrying out this function, what more needs to be done by the
  Multistakeholder Advisory Group to further improve the effectiveness of the
  IGF.  We are of the opinion that the group should review their decision-making
  processes to make them more effective, and this is especially important if the
  IGF has to move on to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. It will be very
  useful for the group to work through working groups.  This suggestion has come
  through many quarters here.  These groups should prepare for each main
  sessions and the set of workshops which are connected to that main session.
  Working groups can also be used to manage internal tasks of the group more
  effectively. We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the
  Advisory Group has any substantive identity other than advising the U.N.
  Secretary-General.  For instance, to carry out other parts of the mandate
  which require interfacing, advising, identifying issues, giving
  recommendations and such.  All of which, of course, are quotations from the
  Tunis Agenda. It is highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in the U.N.
  Secretary-General, and we would like to understand the role the group would
  play in this part. The group should prepare an annual report for the IGF. 
  This report should mention the IGF activities and performance for the year
  against relevant parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out the mandate and also
  outline plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report once adapted by
  the Secretary-General would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of
  the Tunis Agenda and prepare for discussions about the desirability of
  continuing the forum beyond 2010. IGF should actively encourage regional and
  national level IGFs which should be truly multistakeholder and a special plan
  should be drawn out for this purpose. The United Nations should recognize that
  IGF is the outcome of a U.N. process and should ensure that it has the
  resources it needs to fulfill its mandate as defined at Tunis summit in 2005. 
  We express our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF
  Secretariat, while severely underfunded it has been responsible for many of
  the IGF's successes.  The Secretariat should be provided with resources needed
  to perform its role effectively.  In addition, a fund should be established to
  support the participation of people from developing and least developed
  countries in the IGF annual meetings and in IGF preparatory consultations. 
  And lastly, a couple of comments about the special advisors to the group and
  the chair. The need of special advisors, their role in the group and criteria
  for their selection should be clarified.  Considerations of diversity as
  mentioned above in case of Advisory Group members must be kept in mind for the
  selection of special advisors.  And the number of them should be kept within a
  reasonable limit. On the issue of the chair, we are of the opinion that in
  keeping with the multistakeholder nature of the group, there should only be
  one chair nominated by the U.N. Secretary-General. The host country should be
  able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful
  regarding logistical issues for the annual IGF meetings. In any case, we would
  like to understand if there is any division of work and responsibility between
  the two chairs in the present arrangement.  It may be too late to move over to
  the suggested new arrangement of one chair plus the host country deputy chair
  for the Hyderabad meeting, especially if the Indian government representative
  has already taken over as the co-chair or arrangements are in place for them
  to take over, but we should take a decision about this for the post-Hyderabad
  phase. And lastly, the caucus supports of continuation of the present chair,
  Nitin Desai, as the chair of the Advisory Group.  We recognize and commend the
  role that he has played in guiding the MAG and the IGF through difficult
  formative times. Thank you, Chair. 

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Thank you, IGF, for
  your detailed comments and suggestions. I recognize now the Russian
  Federation. Russia, you have the floor. 

>>RUSSIAN FEDERATION:   Thank you,
  Chairman. Yes, firstly, allow me to thank the government of Brazil for the
  excellent forum which they organized at a very high level. And when I talk
  about the success of the forum, it would be remiss of me not to talk about the
  work of the consultative group, the Advisory Group. The Advisory Group played
  an important role in organizing the conduct of the forum. In closed
  consultations, the Advisory Group discussed the agenda which had been drafted
  and prepared, the agenda of the forum, the themes for the seminars, workshops
  and other events. They decided upon the most important aspects of the
  organization.  And the mandate of the current group has now expired since the
  Rio forum, and now we need to talk about the changes which we believe are
  necessary to introduce into its work. Last year, during the consultations in
  May, we made a proposal to improve the work of the Advisory Group. In
  particular, to increase the transparency of the work of the MAG. The rotation
  of the composition, the membership, and through this, making sure that there
  is proper succession. And we have a few more details on the proposals which
  were made to the meeting of the Advisory Group before this meeting that you
  can find on the Web site of the IGF. In particular, we believe that every year
  there should be a rotation within the Advisory Group of a third of the
  members, which we believe would increase the effectiveness of the work of the
  group, and also the responsibility and accountability of the people working
  within the group. And we think that it would be interesting for everyone to
  know which members of the working group are working in the group, and their
  attendance at the meetings last year. And a second issue, or the second
  proposal that we have on the work of the Advisory Group we believe is the
  following. We are in favor of changing the format of the group in conformity
  with the procedures within the U.N. system.  I would remind you that the
  mandate of the forum and the group come under the auspices of the United
  Nations.  So we would suggest that we apply to the group of governmental
  experts which is formed on the basis of geographical representation, according
  to the principles of one country, one vote, so that these experts can use the
  services of their national experts, who took part in the closed meetings of
  the Advisory Group, but without the right to vote and without the right to
  speak. We also support the proposals on a new, clearly defined regulation,
  rules of procedure for the work of the Advisory Group. We believe it necessary
  to clearly define the scope of the work of the working group and its members
  and the special advisors to the members of the working group. And we believe
  that bringing new order into the work of the group will make the work and the
  conduct of the work and its meetings much more productive. Thank you, Chair.
  

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Thank you very much, Russia. I would like to know if
  there are further requests for the floor. Mr. William Graham, please.
  

>>ISOC:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ISOC has a few recommendations concerning
  the renewal of the Internet governance Multistakeholder Advisory Group.  The
  first of those is to stress the importance of appointing the new advisory
  group early so that work can begin in preparation for the next session.  This
  has been a problem in past, and it's something that really needs to be
  regularized and addressed, we believe. Related to that, we think that it's
  very clear that the Advisory Group's work must be continuous.  For example,
  through the sessions this week and going forward until a new Advisory Group is
  appointed.  And therefore, we would recommend that there be a recognition that
  the Advisory Group continues to function until a new one is in place.
  Secondly, we would like to stress the importance of appointing Advisory Group
  members as individuals rather than as representatives of any specific
  organization. We are recognize that in reality, the members of the group have
  been appointed in a way so as to ensure the voices of all relevant
  stakeholders are heard, and with respect to balance on a whole range of
  grounds that everyone here is familiar with. But we feel that the individual
  responsibility that has resulted from the Secretary-General's method of
  appointment so far has really contributed to the caliber and amount of work
  that the people have put into it. Like other speakers, ISOC would support
  rotation of about one-third of the Advisory Group members each year, and we
  think that the current size of about 40 members is about right. The gradual
  rotation in the group should certainly be used to address the balance of
  stakeholders in the groups, which we believe now leans a little too heavily
  towards government membership. We would like to make the point that past and
  present Advisory Group members drawn from the technical community have made
  vital contributions to both the Advisory Group decisions and the overall shape
  of the forum itself.  For that reason, we believe it's essential that the
  expertise of the technical community continue to be a major component when
  selecting members of the Advisory Group Whether the individuals themselves
  come from the business community, the civil society community, academia, or
  government. Finally, various proposals have been put forward in writing for a
  nomination process. ISOC thinks that a number of groups and individuals should
  be able to submit nomination for Advisory Group membership, but they should
  not be able to restrict or in any way interfere with the choice of Advisory
  Group members.  That choice must remain the final authority of the United
  Nations Secretary-General, giving the Secretary-General the ability to ensure
  the best possible balance among the stakeholders, regions, and so forth in the
  membership. Finally, I think we have made it clear that we feel that Advisory
  Group members should be chosen on the basis not of who they represent but of
  the size of community they connect to.  This is a subtle but really relevant
  difference, and something that affects very strongly the openness and the
  consultative nature of the Advisory Group. We would also recommend, I guess,
  just to add a final point, that maintaining a consistent single chair of the
  Advisory Group has been very valuable and should be continued.  We would
  recommend that in 2008, the Secretary-General appoint Chair for the remainder
  of the five-year mandate of the Internet Governance Forum, and we would
  strongly support, if possible, the appointment of the current Chair who has
  performed admirably in that role for the first two Advisory Group mandates and
  who has won the respect and loyalty of all stakeholders. Thank you.
  

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Thank you very much, Mr. Graham, for your valuable
  comments.  I would like to ask ETNO to take the floor. 

>>ETNO:  Thank you,
  Chair. Once again, I speak on behalf of ETNO, and we would like to contribute
  to the debate about the multistakeholder Advisory Group. We continue to
  understand that the members of the Advisory Group work on a voluntary basis
  under their personal capacities.  We appreciate the work effort and time put
  so far by the individual members.  However, we recognize that there is room
  for improvement as regards transparency and composition.  And by composition,
  I mean rotation. For us, transparency in the whole preparatory process is the
  most important issue.  We recommend the Advisory Group publish its agenda and
  produces minutes of its meetings, as it has initiated already. We already
  suggest the Advisory Group increases its efforts to disseminate information
  regarding the preparatory process by producing regular reports of its
  activities. The discussions made public, even if it was an anonymized is a
  great step toward that direction and we highly appreciate it.  Still, the
  Advisory Group should strengthen its efforts towards becoming fully
  transparent and democratic and accountable to our body, debugging the
  impression of a closed structure which alone decides about who controls the
  preparatory process. In order to increase transparency, we support the idea of
  having a limited number of observers for each Advisory Group meeting. 
  Besides, we have learned that there are observers already, like OECD that
  comes from Europe, ITU, who already attend the closed meetings with an
  informal right to speak when asked.  We believe this can be extended to other
  organizations as well on the condition that they are really observers and that
  they don't speak, but only if and when asked. But coming up to the second
  issue of rotation, we insist that certain criteria are established from now
  on.  By all means the Advisory Group must continue to be multistakeholder in
  nature and its balance must be kept. The number of its members should not be
  extraordinary, and it should not exceed the current number.  We think that 40
  is a good number. We recommend, as all the others have said already, that
  one-third of the members are replaced each year after a call by the IGF
  Secretary-General, while the remaining two-thirds are reconfirmed. Within the
  one-third rotated, there must be a proportional spread within the various
  multistakeholder groups.  We support the idea that new members, as selected on
  the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to is, the
  Advisory Group should be formally renewed every year by the U.N.
  Secretary-General as soon as possible, preferably by February of each year. 
  And like the colleague from ISOC said, in the meantime, the Advisory Group
  should continue to function until the new one is in place. Each new member
  originating from the rotation process should have a term of three years with
  the possibility of reappointment, preferably after a one-year break. One
  member should represent the host country so that he or she can act as a
  liaison for logistical and organizational matters. This member, exceptionally,
  must have a term of one year. As regards the co-chair, we continue to
  understand that if there is a need for a co-chair from the host country, that
  person's tasks must be devoted to the organizational and logistical
  arrangements.  However, we strongly believe these tasks can be fully covered
  by one member of the Advisory Group, as we stated before, and not by a
  co-chair. Finally, regarding special advisors, we recognize they can
  facilitate the work of the chair, but if they are to remain, they should be
  just advisors to the chair and not some other members of the Advisory Group
  but not called so. Thank you, Chair. 

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Thank you very
  much, ETNO.  Any other requests?  I recognize Nigeria. Nigeria, please.
  

>>Nigeria:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to place it on record that we
  do align with most of the recommendations made by ETNO and Russia, and would
  like to say in respect of -- especially those in respect to the size,
  rotation, and membership rules.  But we want to state that no matter the model
  that is taken into consideration, there should be a special mention and
  consideration made for developing countries and for gender to be represented.
  Thank you very much. 

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Thank you, Nigeria. Mr. Adam
  Peake, please. 

>>ADAM PEAKE:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. Firstly, a comment from
  the e-mail that's been coming in and being monitored. Just one comment so far
  from Jeremy Malcolm, and he says, his question is who are the regional
  coordinators of the Advisory Group?  Which regions do they represent?  And how
  were these regions selected?  And I believe Jeremy is talking about
  representatives of regional government groups.  Who they are, what they are,
  and how they are formed. So that is a question from Jeremy that came in in
  e-mail. And then a personal comment responding somewhat to the Russian
  Federation's belief that the mandate of the MAG is at an end.  And I think we
  have had some discussion on the Advisory Group mailing list about this.  And
  the general thought was actually that because of the nature of rotation
  suggested by the Secretary-General when he reappointed the MAG in August, that
  the MAG is now an ongoing process.  Its mandate does not end.  The MAG's work
  does not stop.  It continues on this rolling basis as new members rotate in
  and old members rotate out.  So we don't have a stop-start process.  The
  mandate doesn't end.  We continue to work.  We should continue to work in this
  meeting and beyond to call for workshops, to call for themes.  And there is
  not the stop-start process that we, unfortunately, experienced last year. So
  that is certainly my opinion of what was meant by the idea of rotation. We
  should continue our work and our mandate is not at an end. 

>>CO-CHAIR
  VIANNA:   Thank you, Mr. Peake. Yes, I would like to give the floor to Mr.
  Kummer that will explain or try to answer the question that was raised online.
  Thank you. 

>>SECRETARY KUMMER:   Thank you, chairman. The regional
  coordinators refer to the five regional groups as we use them in WSIS.  That
  is Asia, Africa, Latin American and Caribbean group, Eastern Europe and
  Western Europe and others, meaning Western Europe plus U.S., Canada, also
  Australia and New Zealand. But the regional groups nominated -- or made the
  proposals for the government representatives for the group and in the courses
  of the actions of deliberations, we felt it was useful to associate the
  coordinators of these respective groups to the meeting so they have a link
  with their regional groups who brief them on the proceedings and so on. So
  this is -- has been well established now for the past two years or so, and we
  have found it to be a very useful link to the diplomatic community in Geneva.
  

>>CO-CHAIR VIANNA:   Thank you, Mr. Kummer. NGO is asking for the floor.
  

>>NGO:  Yes.  I'm Francis Muguet.  I am a member of the WSIS working group
  on information network governance.  And the focal point of the dynamic
  coalition on linguistic diversity. But I am pressing myself in my personal
  capacity, since we have been caught a little off guard to prepare the comment
  reflecting a formal consensus. It is a paradox that the governance of the
  Internet Governance Forum itself is raising serious legal issues. The origin
  of the prevailing malaise and ambiguity of the IGF process is that the Tunis
  Agenda for governance has defined the mandate and organization IGF has been
  negotiated by one set of stakeholders, implemented by the different set of
  stakeholders. First of all, the U.N. traditional distinction between
  procedural and content matters has not been followed. The bureau as mentioned
  in this text to deal with separate issues and has not being created.  A
  program committee to deal with content matters has not been created either. 
  Instead, an all-powerful Advisory Group has been created to deal in a fuzzy
  way on both issues.  This