<html>
<body>
Here's my crude memo of today's meeting, for your reference, no accuracy
is<br>
guaranteed. Please enjoy.<br><br>
izumi<br><br>
-------------<br><br>
Consultation Meeting for Internet Governance Forum<br><br>
Feb 16, 2006<br>
<br>
10:30<br>
<br>
<b>Desai<br>
</b>Thanks to many.<br>
Will try to make balanced discussion, <br>
General expectation<br>
<br>
<b>Utsumi<br>
</b>Success of the Summit<br>
Financially no deficit<br>
<br>
In the past, Internet was discussed by engineers and experts, but from
now Internet will be discussed from more policy perspective, that is the
one of the successes of the Summit<br>
I am hoping that this new forum for IG will have a fruitful discussion on
various matters<br>
<br>
<b>Markus<br>
</b> <br>
<b>Austria on behalf of EU <br>
</b>Multi-stakeholder nature with equal participation<br>
Grateful for present consultation to discuss wide range of
important<br>
<br>
Full compliance with Para 72 of Tunis agenda<br>
Spam and security related issues<br>
And multilingualism would be appropriate for First meeting,<br>
Best addressed from users perspective.<br>
<br>
Spam and Multilingualism is important to all countries, developing and
developed<br>
Important for bridging the digital divide<br>
<br>
Guiding principles para 72, of IGF <br>
Multi-stakeholder steering committee, and secretariat<br>
1 meeting per year, 2-3 days be appropriate<br>
Meeting to focus on limited number of well-defined issues<br>
<br>
<b>Pakistan<br>
</b>On behalf of G77 and China,<br>
<br>
All factors frequency, location etc<br>
A development-oriented,<br>
Must be development-sensitive<br>
IGF provides unique opportunity to harness potential ICT in meeting
development objectives<br>
Internet access, and easy<br>
<br>
Issue of participation Para 5 emphasis<br>
Developing countries to participate in policy oriented areas from
developing countries<br>
Open the door creatively about roles of all stakeholders in supporting
developmental issues<br>
This would form benchmark to the extended development orientation of the
forum<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Brazil<br>
</b>IGF a great step forward<br>
We have agreed on Nov 18 2005 to ask UN Sec Gen in two
task<br>
1) to convene by 2Q, a meeting of
IGF para 72<br>
and 2<sup>nd</sup> task, not less important<br>
2) to starat a process towards an enhanced
cooperation by the 1Q para 71<br>
<br>
We were told that this meeting of today is related only to IGF,
therefore, another meeting is going to be organized to take care for the
enhanced cooperation process<br>
Brazil is looking forward to the establishment of globally applicable
principles on public policy issues associated with critical Internet
resources<br>
<br>
Even these ”existing arrangement” unique worked effectively - -
decisions should be taken by the world community at large, but not by a
number of technical bodies, or by a single government<br>
The most important question to the international community is
face that the I<br>
The lack of any obvisou international organization with internet public
policy issues <br>
To fill th void and take political, public policy decisions <br>
<br>
We are trying to say technical bodies are deciding upon
public policy issues.. This awkward situation cannot go on forever
without causing serious trouble and, as we have said before
the root of the problem is the absence of an appropriate international
treaty.<br>
This is why Brazil favor the IFG should be the willingness by the
international community at large to create the necessary internationally
applicable principles. <br>
Therefore at Athens, we like to start to consider<br>
<br>
Negotiation on a Framework Treaty to deal with international Internet
public policy issues<br>
In the near future, negotiations on specific protocols could also take
place to addres problems<br>
<br>
Cybersecurity<br>
Cybercrime<br>
Countering terrorism<br>
Spam<br>
Privacy and the protection of personal information data<br>
Multilingualism<br>
Consumer protection<br>
Capacity building<br>
Global public polices related to generic TLD<br>
International interconnection cost<br>
<br>
Brazil is very much proud of its domestic Internet steering
committee,<br>
Not by governmental officials, but with civil society, academia nad
the private sector in an open, transparency and democratic
way<br>
Brazil is very much attached to Freedom of expression and to the rule of
law<br>
<br>
All these endless discussion could have been avoided <br>
<br>
<b>Desai<br>
</b>I would recommend Zen Buddhism as a very suitable training <br>
<br>
<b>US<br>
</b>Reiterate commitment to the result of WSIS, in particular, to the
convening of IGF<br>
We believe it is important to ensure all stakeholders of Internet to
participate in equal footing<br>
To share experiences and offer visions to support the continued evolution
and expansion of the Internet<br>
To advance development should be at the heart of development<br>
<br>
One suggestion compose a series of panels<br>
Innovators, scholars Industry leaders<br>
Capacity building<br>
Cyebersecurity spam and privacy<br>
<br>
Not encumbered by extensive existing UN process and procedure<br>
Broad array of stakeholders<br>
Linkage to UN should be minimal, in terms of procedure<br>
Avoid bureaucratic preparatory processes<br>
Bureaucracy<br>
<br>
Multi-stakeholder bureau is extremely important to act as program commit
to offer input as discussion topics<br>
<br>
<b>Canada<br>
</b>Be Open and inclusive,<br>
All stakeholders to participate on equal footing<br>
About development ICT4D focus<br>
Focus on capacity building<br>
<br>
Agenda concentrate on issues where positive outcomes be
expected, rather than dividing issues<br>
For use and misuse of Internet, of particular concern<br>
Stability, trust and confidence, <br>
Significantly factors Sustainability, development of Internet <br>
<br>
Institutional arrangement be flexible and practical<br>
Shifting group of participants<br>
Tools be used in fullest<br>
<br>
Suggests November, 2006 <br>
Not conflict with ITU plenipotentiary at the same time<br>
<br>
<b>UNESCO<br>
</b>Any funding should ensure this independence<br>
<br>
Links with other bodies be established<br>
Focus on Policy issues defined in WGIG report<br>
In 4 clusters<br>
Focus on Internet infrastructure and core resource<br>
<br>
<b>CCBI/ICC members<br>
Aisha Hassan<br>
</b>Inputs <br>
Business members <br>
No discussion on plethora of issues<br>
<br>
Meeting to organize with other meetings back to back to reduce cost<br>
<br>
<b>Ubuntu<br>
African Civil Society<br>
</b>Concern: list of participants it is clear that
governments, intl organizations, then we have “other entities”
listed - as minimal, we should have private sector and civil sector
list positively<br>
Not many CS organizations are here.<br>
<br>
<b>Switzerland<br>
</b>Multistakeholder approach important for IGF<br>
Rules of participation be flexible<br>
<br>
<b>Japan<br>
</b>Three points:<br>
<br>
1) IGF is a space for dialogue and a forum for MS policy dialogue<br>
<br>
Japan believes its outset is not a set of recommendation, but rather to
produce a report and the process of discussion<br>
Multistakeholder,<br>
Private sector-held preminius that satisfy the conditions set by para
72?<br>
Incorporate a broad range<br>
<br>
Substantive be broad and inclusive,. Namely much broader than
Internet naming and addressing issues, inclusive<br>
To identify emerging issues as in 72 (G) of Swiss agenda<br>
<br>
<b>Quebec government<br>
</b> <br>
<b>Ghana<br>
</b>Africa is holding full consultation<br>
Para 29 full involvement of governments, the private sector,
civil society and international organizations<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Sebastian Riccardi<br>
ISOC Argentina, ICANN ALAC<br>
</b>Openness, transparency, inclusive- <br>
Forum needs to recognize participation on equal footing in
all modes<br>
Truly multistakeholder <br>
Let everyone participate agenda setting
<br>
<br>
No preeminence of one stakeholder<br>
WSIS rules should be not considered as starting point<br>
These rules were tailored <br>
The nature of IGF is different from WSIS<br>
Input of stakeholders were limited <br>
<br>
Remote participation<br>
Online, forum, e-mail, wiki, webcast, podcast<br>
<br>
<b>Ambassador Stauffacer, from private sector<br>
</b> <br>
<b>ISOC<br>
IGTF-J/ ICANN ALAC from AP region, CS IG Caucus <br>
but my personal opinion<br>
</b> <br>
Appreciate the opportunity. Thanks to all.<br>
Appreciate the Multistakeholder principle on equal
footing.<br>
This may be the real achievement of WSIS on IG. But we need to be very
creative in implementing this. We may have different ideas as to what MS
approach really mean.<br>
<br>
I want to make clear, that when it comes to Internet, even public policy
related decisions cannot be made by governments alone. Whether you like
it or not. There are good needs and pragmatic reasons for this fact, I
believe.<br>
<br>
Practicing or implementing the true MS approach is not an easy thing. As
a member of ICANN AtLarge Advisory committee, and ICANN has been trying
to be a MS organization, and it is more so than most international bodies
or forum we know of, there are still challenges.<br>
both governments in their advisory committee, GAC and AtLarge have not
been given equal footing on decision making process. Again there are good
reasons for this framework, but I would ask you to seriously consider
what is the best mode of MS approach.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Singapore<br>
</b>Lightweight<br>
Open participation<br>
Multistakeholder<br>
Any one stakeholder group be given preeminence<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Desai to wrap up<br>
</b>Questions on the table<br>
Everybody accepts multistakeholder nature<br>
But what do we actually mean, in terms of participation<br>
Consultation participation is very open, to establish
some competence and relevance, any quota, no process of screening<br>
Essentially open-door process<br>
<br>
Importance of having MS group to direct the work, to organize work,
terminology varied, PC, Steering group, etc, <br>
How do we constitute such MS bureau?<br>
<br>
Once a year, 3 days was most mentioned<br>
Underpinning this virtual meeting will go on
continuously to create a community <br>
<br>
Plenary only or structured?<br><br>
<b><i>Meeting adjourned for lunch, 1t 12:30, earlier than the original
schedule.<br>
</b></i></body>
</html>