[governance] Transcript of discussion at IGF Open Consultations

[Pranesh Prakash]

Transcript from Pre-lunch discussions on Day 1 of the IGF Open
Consultations.


***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
igf open consultations.
28 february 2013.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***ladies
and gentlemen, we're going to start in just a few minutes. there's a bit
of confusion concerning room numbers.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***
>>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. we're about to
start. can we please sit dow
ladies and gentlemen, can we sit down, please?
order. i'm going to start calling out names.
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: patrik?
ladies and gentlemen, can we start the meeting? we are a bit late as it
is.can we please be seated? need a gavel.
welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the open consultations.
thank you very much. before we open -- before we start the meeting, i
would just like to remind you that we do have transcription and remote
participation, so when you make an intervention, can you please make
sure that your microphone is on and you say your name and the
organization which you represent slowly and then you can go into your
intervention.
so before we start, i would like to hand over the floor to mr. slav on
check on, from undesa who would like to say a few words.
>> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honoring
madam chair (saying name) director of department of government and
social affairs with desa with your meaningful tribute. the kind
generosity of good friends like you has been a great help to all of us
during this very difficult time.
our desa family, and i would like myself to offer our most sincere
thanks for the messages and letters that you sent in the memory of madam
chen.
thank you very much for your loving support and i would like to ask you
a minute of silence in her memory.
[ moment of silence ] >> okay. let me continue. as you know, the
internet governance forum is a multistakeholder forum for policy
dialogue related to the internet governance issue, and it welcomes
governments, international organizations, business representatives, the
technical community, civil society organizations, and individuals to
participate in this event.
on behalf of the under-secretary-general of the united nations, mr. wu,
please allow me to start by welcoming you to all to the 2013 cycle of
the open consultations and the mag meetings on the internet governance,
and also thank you, unesco, for hosting this event.
two thousand- -- as desa is committed to improving the core ideas of the
igf and its open, inclusive, and multistakeholder platform.
2012 igf team in baku was determined by magazine as (indiscernible) and
social development. it's truly reflected the increased role of the
internet in the evolution of the various development components through
the world.
the capacity development opportunities the igf provides are truly
remarkable. let me take this time to thank the mag and mag members,
which provide extensive leadership and the guidance to past and future
forums.
i would like to thank also our general (indiscernible) community, those
contributions to the igf trust fund have enabled us to engage in
capacity-building program such as the igf fellowship program.
the funds also provide support for 11 mag members from developing
countries who are attending this event as well.
i invite everyone present here, either in person or remotely, to
actively take part in the -- all discussions regarding the themes and
substantive structure of the 2013 igf that is going to be supported and
hosted by the government of government of indonesia. it's all of us to
contribute to the sustainable development of the world we are living in.
let us also use this opportunity to discuss opportunities in
implementation of the action plan of the.
>>wsis: , wsis, and in the consultative process of the post 2015
development framework. thank you very much. okay. and now i would like
to give the floor to the honorary chair of the mag meeting, the
representative of the government of indonesia.
>>indonesia: thank you. excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies
and gentlemen, good morning.
my name is (saying name) from indonesia. first of all, i would like to
express a most welcome to all of you in paris for participating in this
first internet governance forum open consultations and mag meeting, the
preparation process of the eighth igf meeting 2013. as mentioned before,
it's planned to be held in bali, indonesia this year.
also on behalf of the entire community, i would like to express our
gratitude to the success of the republic of azerbaijan for hosting the
seventh igf meeting in 2012 last year.
let me also take this opportunity to thank the united nations department
of economic and social affairs, and igf secretariat (indiscernible) of
this igf open consultation and mag meeting.
it is, of course, a great honor for me to chair this meeting, together
with the interim chair, mr. markus kummer.
ladies and gentlemen, we have made some progress on promoting the
development agenda in igf but we think more has to be done in order to
make the internet play a very important role in promoting the human,
economic, and social development as a (indiscernible) and safe global
cyberspace. therefore, given the fact that the internet is developing so
fast -- most of the time faster than the development of the legal
aspects and the community readiness -- then we need to act fast as well,
to set up new strategies to ensure the positive development of
cyberspace at a national, regional, and international level.
the agenda of this meeting today is very important. it has to be our
priority to shape a fair agenda for the next igf that will be attractive
to all stakeholders and continue to ensure that the igf meeting is
productive and meaningful by addressing the key challenges that face all
interested stakeholders into this world.
the expected outcome of all our effort should lead to a more productive
internet world and at the same time minimizing all negative impacts.
excellencies, distinguished delegation, ladies and gentlemen, both the
positive and negative of the internet have been discussed on many
occasions, including the last three days of our wsis meeting.
last december, during the world conference of international
communication, wcit of itu in dubai (indiscernible) can be seen, of
course, in the (indiscernible) itu. even the itu itself even set up a
global security agenda, as well as promoting children protection globally.
as we are discussing today, many aspects of the internet during wsis,
our colleagues in u.n. meeting in vienna, this is their (indiscernible)
meeting, also discussing the way to protect the people, the it system.
basically all (indiscernible) including international cooperation for
cyberlegislation and so on.
many aspects of the internet will also be discussed in many other
meetings. in the next meeting in april, also the cross-border data
privacy will be also one of the main (indiscernible) group of apick in
indonesia. at the end of this year, wto will also discuss e-commerce
aspects of the internet and there are still many other discussions in
many other meetings. regarding the internet development. compleansdz,
distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, realizing that there are
so many aspects in the internet, some of them are even (indiscernible)
as well as very sensitive, i believe the next igf meeting, where
hopefully all of these aspects will be discussed comprehensively. it is
very important to the meeting that we can set up the agenda in shaping
the global internet in the near future.
for further discussion of the agenda, as well as the detailed program of
the next igf, i hereby hand the discussion process to the interim
chairman, mr. kummer. thank you very much.
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you, mr. chairman. it is a great
honor for me come co-chair this meeting with direct general (saying
name), and i think this comes at an important juncture. as you rightly
pointed out, we have seen at the world conference on international
telecommunications in dubai that there were a number of concerns voiced
by developing countries and the igf could indeed be a forum to address
these concerns.
the secretariat has prepared an agenda for this meeting, and i would
like to recall the agenda and the purpose, desired main occupants.
first and foremost, i think we are called upon to discuss what could be
the theme for the meeting, and in the discussions leading up to this
meeting there were two different approaches. either we decide on the
theme now or we wait a little bit and we do it in a more (indiscernible)
fashion after workshop proposals have emerged so we can what is actually
of interest to the community.
so this is a decision we have to take how do we want to proceed with
identifying the theme for the next igf meeting.
also, the selection of workshops is an issue that always comes up again,
and the secretariat has said it would be nice to have clear and easily
understood workshop selection criteria.
also, in the contributions, there are a lot of talks about the number of
main sessions, how long they should be, and what format they should
take, and then the overall number of workshops, again, their duration,
and connection to the themes and connection to the main sessions.
we have had contributions, they're all posted on the web site, and the
secretariat has prepared this paper and i will ask chengetai to sum up
the contributions we have received.
please, chengetai.
>>chengetai masango: thank you very much, markus. i'll just give a brief
summary of the paper. as we go along during the day, i will give a more
detailed summary according to the topics that are going to be discussed
so that we don't discuss everything now.
[ audio interference, please mute ]
>>chengetai masango: the secretariat called for contributions taking
stock of the baku meeting and also looking forward to the 2013 igf meeting.
we received a total of 15 written contributions and also we received
some suggestions on the igf web site discussion board on the main themes
and subthemes for igf 2013.
all of these inputs can be found in their entirety on the igf web site.
some contributions focus on evaluating the baku meeting while others
cons state trade on their recommendation for the 2013 meeting.
many expressed gratitude for the government of azerbaijan for the
successful hosting of the seventh igf meeting. the seventh igf meeting
was praised for continuing thigf's tradition of successfully bringing
together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities
interested in internet governance and providing a truly unique
opportunity to have an open discussion on a wide range of issues.
contributions stress the need for improvement in 2013 in the following
areas: main sessions. participants should increase, are focus should be
narrowed and panelists should be diversified. these are just the general
comments.
workshops. the amount of workshops should be reconsidered. workshop
selection should be made more stringent, and workshop outcomes should be
improved.
for the other sessions, the other sessions should receive increased
attention and emphasis.
for participation, they need to improve participation from developing
countries, women, youth, et cetera.
requirements. this requires an increase in outreach and participant
funding options.
capacity-building activities during the igf meetings should be increased.
and social media use should be increased.
for local issues such as -- there were comments on the local issues such
as internet connectivity, venue location, the layout, food and drink,
and also coffee. it was stressed that it's important and should be made
available.
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: we have taken all of that into
consideration planning the 2013 meeting.
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: as i said, these are just the -- a
short briefing and i'll discuss in more finer detail the requirements
under the specific headers that markus will...
>>chair kummer: okay. thank you, chengetai, for this.
now, a question.
how do we proceed? i wonder whether there are any sort of more general
statements or do we dive right into the substance? in the past, there
were quite a few more general statements so i would leave that
opportunity open.
at the outset, i would suggest not diving too much into the logistics.
the logistics is very much something between the u.n. and the host
country. the u.n. has very clear criteria, but the u.n. cannot impose
the way how to do it to a host country as long as it is within reason.
we have taken note of some of the comments. clearly, i think there's a
strong preference to have the venue of the meeting not too far away, but
the u.n. cannot impose that to a host country because many, many u.n.
conferences are held in that fashion, and that's -- as long as it is up
to u.n. standards, that has to be accepted.
the same thing, internet, yes, we do understand it is important, but it
is not easy, and big organizations like the igf, icann, have also found
it not always that easy, but what they now usually do is they hire a
specialized company -- this is not resource-neutral. this costs quite a
lot of money. the secretariat can rely on advice from highly qualified
engineers who have gained experience in advising host countries. you
know, patrik faltstrom, many of you know him, he has a lot of experience
in doing that, but things can happen. it's not -- cannot -- you can
never guarantee that it works perfectly, but we are fully aware that
this is an important issue.
and, and, and, and i think the u.n. always asks the organizer to make
sure that there's quick and cheap food available, including coffee, but
again, it is the host country that has to organize this. free food is
not a criteria. it's not required for the host country. nobody will ask
you to provide free food. but sometimes host countries are generous and
do provide it.
so to cut a long story short, i would suggest not diving into these
logistics issues. we have taken note of your preferences and i'm sure
the host country has also listened.
indonesia has a long experience in organizing international meetings,
and i'm sure we're in safe hands.
so who would like to take the floor? yes, parminder.
>>kanwaljeet singh: i'm parminder from a ngo ig for change and i thought
i would take this -- which i wanted to make -- actually ask a question on.
i would like to know what is the status of the report of the working
group on improvements to the igf, because this report was presented
quite a long time back and has now been confirmed by the u.n. general
assembly and in my understanding, the chief actor or at least one of the
chief actors to implement it is the mag, and whether there is a program
to do that, whether there is a timetable or whether the consultation is
going to be involved about how to go ahead about it. so i just wanted
clarifications on that. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank
>>chair kummer: thank you. the united nations general assembly has taken
note of the report and now collectively we are supposed to take that
into account when planning the next meeting and it is also on the
agenda. chengetai, would you like to comment?
>>chengetai masango: yes. it has been approved the working group report
is part of the input from this meeting. if you check on the web site, it
is there. and it has been integrated into our agenda and it is taken the
point given there as if there were general inputs from people coming in.
so we are paying particular attention to the working group report.
>>chair kummer: did you want to continue, parminder. i see the united
states of america has asked for the floor.
>>united states of america: thank you very much. good morning. the
united states would like to reiterate its full support for the internet
governance forum and we believe the igf is the epitome of the process is
that have make it an economic engine. i don't need to tell it to this
audience. i felt it necessary. it provides the premiere opportunity for
governments in to be civil society technical community to address
internet issues in a broad, creative and collaborative manner. u.s.
would also like to congratulate azerbaijan, the igf secretariat, the
multistakeholder advisory group and the stakeholder participants for a
successful igf in 2012 that continue to build the impressive record for
discussion and dialogue in the information society. we thank you
indonesia for taking on that important task and hosting all the
stakeholders in bali later this year.
our observation is that the discussion matures each year and the
dialogue deepens, taking advantage of the opportunity of the annual igf
as well as the national and regional igf for the discussion to be candid
and timely.
we also note with appreciation that contributions of governments,
industry, technical communities, civil society, alike to the cstd
working group woks to the igf. we support effort while preserving a
multistakeholder model format on which it depends and the absence of
negotiated outputs. we want to highlight the recommendses that can be
implemented in the lead-up up to bali including improving the visibility
of the igf and all stakeholder groups and around the globe.
strengthening the secretariat, including its funding, acknowledging the
contributions of the host countries for their effort in the significant
undertaking it is to host the igf as well as the stakeholders for their
active participation and input and improving the participation in the
igf and its preparatory process especially from developing countries.
with everybody, we look forward to discussing themes and subthemes that
will make for a dynamic and thought provoking forum in 2013.
cross-cutting issues are inevitable and we encourage the accommodation
of those cross-cutting issues and questions and workshops.
in her o with the unesco and the plus 10 meeting, the secretariat of
state noticed wsis is a social issue, a human rights issue and, quote,
it is an economic issue as an open, reliable and trusted internet sparks
greater le rye built and greater efforts in innovation.
so in that vein and for your consideration, we suggest addressing
science and technology for development, s and t for d, if you will, and
its contribution for economic growth perhaps as a cross-cutting or
subtheme but we look forward to the discussion today and ongoing
preparation for igf bali.
just on a personal note, of course, it is wonderful to be here again and
to be here as a government representative this time. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. brazil.
>>brazil: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to take this opportunity as
well to organize this meeting, for convening this meeting. i think it is
very important to start good preparation for the bali meeting. i would
like to reaffirm brazil's full support for the work of igf. we think igf
can present a unique contribution to this process. we are engaged in the
review of the wsis implementation. we think in that regard we have
highlighted in reaction to a question that was put forward before, that
in bali, we are already looking at implementing the recommendation that
contain the working group on (indiscernible) report. we think it is very
important that we start implementing at a very early stage and very glad
to see the invitation is to take place in bali.
we concur with science and technology development should be one of 15,
so we would be very glad to look into and give more emphasis to this
theme in the igf work. and last, but not least, again i'll like to just
in this forum to inform delegates that brazil has put forward its
ability to host in 2015. we are, of course, waiting for a final decision
on this matter, but this is something that we would be very glad if we
could again host the meeting in this very important year in which it
would be a wrapup of the second phase of igf. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you for your intervention. we look forward
speaking for all participants to coming back to brazil in 2015.
icc/basis, you asked for the floor? no?
okay. are there no more general statements? then we can dive straight
into the agenda and basically issue number 1 on the agenda, the
secretariat has published to discuss the main themes and subthemes of
the igf 2013. science and technology for development has been mentioned
as maybe a cross-cutting theme and that has the merit of linking the igf
actually closer to the cstd.
but before -- we have also in the synthesis paper various themes have
been listed that have been proposed. but i think there is a binary
decision we have to take before we go into the substance. do we want to
take a decision now or do we want to take it in light of the workshop
proposals when we see in may what are the themes that are proposed from
the community in a bottom-up fashion? there is a merit to both
approaches. if we decide on a theme now, it would guide people who are
thinking of proposing a workshop, going in one direction. if we wait,
then we would, i think, act in a true democratic, bottom-up fashion and
we would then decide on the theme in may in the light of all the
workshop proposals.
comments on which approach to choose? yes, martin?
>> nominet: martin boyle from nominet. i, like you, have got very little
preference between whether we set a theme now or whether we do it in the
light of proposals. but i still think it would be particularly helpful
to those who are developing proposals to have an idea of the direction
travel of what it is seen as being at least general themes in which we
could or should be developing.
and, in particular, for me one of the things that has come out from in
particular the wcit discussions before christmas is that we should be
trying to put a bit more of a practical spin, a practical outcome, a
practical thinking, conclusions that come out that can then contribute
to help people make the decisions that they will then subsequently make.
so if we choose later, i would still like to get down on to the record
that we should be trying to get some practical support and activity and
help for people who have to then make decisions. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that.
icc/basis, ayesha hassan.
>>icc-basis: thank you, ayesha hassan for icc/basis. i think it would be
helpful for us to collect the ideas at this consultation and see what
kinds of subthemes and main themes people are focused on for this year.
i share nominet's input regarding a focus on practical outputs or take
aways, et cetera. i think if we can collect some ideas here today, we
may be in a position to shape an overarching theme which in some ways
would be able to promote the igf in bali earlier given in past years the
host country has benefited from having an overarching theme to start
promotional materials on the web site, et cetera. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and listening to both of you, i think -- oh,
yes, norbert.
>> civil society internet caucus: (saying name) talking about whether we
should fix the theme now or later, this is not a question that we have
had a chance to ponder really. one thing i would note though, there is a
great value in having integrity in the sense of the theme that is
obviously anounsed actually fitting what is going on at the igf meeting.
i would -- trying to be not too politically incorrect -- still say that
internet governance for sustainable development in the various aspects
that were mentioned at the last igf theme is a wonderful theme. but what
was actually accomplished at the igf did not actually match that
wonderful theme. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. annriety.
>>anriette esterhuysen: i was one of those who proposed the idea of
developing the main theme afterwards. there are definitely different
ways of doing it. possibly this year it is too late. but the reason why
that occurred to me as a more appropriate way of doing it was because we
spent approximately 1 1/2 days at last year's mag meeting arguing about
what the main theme should be because the issue becomes very split have
politicized. so, in fact, what the mag then does is to spend time on
trying to achieve consensus on what the main theme should be rather than
really trying to understand and absorb and process what the igf
community expresses as its priority.
>>chair kummer: thank you. lee, please?
>>council of europe: lee (saying name). just one pragmatic idea about
taking stock really. there is a lot of things that are being discussed
now. i used the example of, for example, two weeks ago in vienna there
was a meeting on internet 2013 on issues. there was a lot of events
throughout the year which have a foreign policy dimension to them. the
european dialogue has already started its planning process. we already
have a draft outlined to be discussed so i think it is very important
that we try to take stock of what's already been discussed. i would
really appreciate some information collected together about what
national igfs are thinking about if they had meetings and these sorts of
things.
>>chair kummer: izumi and then marilyn.
>> izumi: a member of (saying name) and civil society. i would like to
integrate the main theme in a substantial manner. however, given the
time this year, it is slightly earlier than last year's one, we may need
to conclude early. so what i would like to see is some kind of
discussion today not spending too much time and taking some kind of
temperature or the preferences of the defined stakeholders and maybe we
try to come up online to narrow down to choose from, say, some of the
major candidates kind of themes. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. marilyn.
>>marilyn cade: thank you, my name is marilyn cade. i would like to
support some of the comments i'm hearing about the importance of sort of
generally taking stock of the options and the -- maybe the driving
concepts that are coming out. i serve as the chief catalyst for the igf
usa and certainly one of the things that has always been very helpful to
us as an initiative has been being able to feed into and benefit from
the igf. it would be extremely helpful, i think, to the national and
regional igfs to have a general understanding of the direction of the
theme and subthemes will go in.
of course, they reflect both national and regional perspectives and
won't be completely dedicated to that. but i think it helps us to
support the bottom-up input process as well.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i'm tempted to say the other way around
would equally helpful, that those are here that organize national and
regional meetings, what are issues of concerns to them.
but i think listening to the various statements, it doesn't seem to be
an either/or question. it is rather a hybrid that seems to be an
emerging consensus, that we don't need to agree right now on what is the
main theme but that we listen a bit and see which direction it could
take and then we finalize that at the next meeting.
raul, please?
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. in latin america, we usually
organize regional preparatory igf meetings at the end of august or more
or less sometime in then. usually with meetings here in the room, there
are a lot of of people involved in the organization of those meetings.
but i think that's -- organizing the meetings in that part of the year,
it is good for the regional purposes, but it is not enough good in order
to influence the agenda and the main topics of the local igf. probably
we could encourage the people who organize these kind of meetings around
the world to do that early in the year in order to produce
recommendations that could be taken in consideration by the mag and the
organizers and probably at the time of the may meeting every year.
that's an idea that came to my mind now. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that suggestion. i think that's also in
line what others have said, that we maybe ought to revisit the whole
planning process maybe to make it more organic.
adam, yes, please.
>> adam peake, glocom. i was wondering if we could hear the proposal
that is have been coming in from the different stakeholders that have
been staying on this issue. and then perhaps just take it to the mag
tomorrow where they might give a very brief bit of thought to this
responding to those proposals as they have been submitted and put it in
the program paper as a general outline of what this is generally
suggested and take it for a comment to come back in may and then the
program paper would give some general direction to people and we
wouldn't have to worry about wordsmithing which is annreitte's concern
which is a hybrid approach listening to what people have said in
consultation and then asking for more thought later.
>>chair kummer: yes, i will ask chengetai to read out the proposals that
have been made. i mean, what i heard today is also to have a more
hands-on practical approach that was, i think, martin and aayesha. and i
myself was struck that spam became an enormous issue and in the igf
context, we dealt with spam back in athens in 2006 and it fell off the
table. obviously people that were in athens were not the people in
dubai. and we may revisit an issue like spam which may not be the top
concern of people assembled here in this room, that we have to take into
account that there are people out there who consider this a major issue.
chengetai, please read out the proposals we received.
>>chengetai masango: thank you, markus.
proposals for the main themes received were internet governance for
openness, sharing and improving the lives of all humanity. human rights
and the implications for internet governance. public interest principles
for the internet. shaping global principles for the internet. new
service oriented approach in the world based on the internet of services
and internet of things. the most popular proposals for possible
subthemes included issues pertaining to human rights and principles,
human rights, enhanced cooperation and internet for kids. the report of
the working group on improvements to the igf recommended that a set of
quality questions should guide the discussions and debates in the main
sessions and throughout the annual igf meetings with a goal to then
report the outcomes of such debates by stating clearly the convergent
and divergent views and opinions on the guiding questions.
some contributors gave suggestions on possible policy questions that
could be considered. how to maintain net neutrality as the key
architectural principle of the global internet and what should be the
mechanisms and executions involved in this process?
what kind of general internet principles or principles for internet
governance can frame relatively coordinated and harmonious policy
responses to key global internet-related issues that impact global
public interest.
how to maintain the principles referring to -- referred to by some as
net neutrality, that the price which an isp charges their customer for
exchanging data packets via the internet shall not depend on the content
of the data packets nor shall it depend on the party with whom the
packets are exchanged. how shall (indiscernible) architectural
principles for best service for all global traffic in the internet be
preserved? that's the end of the principles.
and then all proposals on main themes and subthemes are listed in the
synthesis paper, so are the proposals for the main themes or subthemes
-- oh, sorry.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. some of it went already into the
main session. i think right now we are still at the higher level of main
themes. what i heard this morning i think in both the interventions of
brazil and the u.s. were science and technology also for development
which i think is interesting in that it so far links the igf maybe
closer to the work of the commission of science and technology for
development and the economic growth, the internet as an engine for
growth and innovation. this is also something that was mentioned. i
think i sense there is a general agreement that it makes much sense to
listen a bit which direction we could go without taking a final decision
so that we have a sense of direction.
indonesia, please.
>>indonesia: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm (saying name) from indonesia
on behalf of indonesia delegation. it is also a multistakeholder
advisory group member and civil society. we proposed some keywords that
may be could -- would be formulated in igf main theme such as
development, internet (indiscernible), multistakeholder, cyber society
and (indiscernible) cyberspace. we are also offering some of the main
themes (indiscernible) that will be used in the next igf as follows:
internet governance multistakeholders, two words, information society
through participation. the reason behind this, the multistakeholder
participation is the process of internet governance requires a brief of
the review of the concept of governance itself. governance can be
understood as the formation and operation of the joint rule of the game
which define the actors and their responsibilities in the collaboration
to work toward common goals and in resolving any disputes that arise.
government arrangements are open, translated into a partnership between
(indiscernible) and (indiscernible) actors.
secondly is internet governance is the (indiscernible) of the
development goals. this issue of the mpg is to be the benchmark of all
the countries involved in the internet governance forum. this issue is
particularly (indiscernible) because in the near future, there will be
an evaluation to see the achievement of (indiscernible) throughout the
world.
and the third theme is internet governance to achieve sustainable
development through people participation.
and the last -- the fourth theme is internet governance for sustainable
development through (indiscernible) and secure cyberspace. thank you
very much.
>>chair kummer: yes, please.
>> my name is mary anne frank lynn. i'm speaking on me boo half of the
principle price coalition. while we talk about substantive themes, i
would like to read a brief -- an abbreviated version of the statement we
sent in because we believe strongly that this next igf needs to be
talking about substantive outcomes. so if i may turn to my screen for a
minute.
we think this would be a very worthwhile approach to be focusing on what
needs to be done rather than on who will do it and which -- so that gets
us out of constant discussions over a day a half as anretta pointed out.
we think it would be worthwhile on developing principles on internet
governance as touchstones. thee are general terms we are proposing that
can guide global internet governance to help take away required public
interest policies and other activities in this area.
it will give us important leaves on what kind of constitutional
framework best suit a global agreement on internet governance and we
think -- and we hear, and we can see quite visibly this is the hot topic
coming up to wsis in 2015.
we also note in our statement that in vilnius 2010 this was made clear
by the chair's report. we also noted in the statement that
(indiscernible) has been leading the way with truly multistakeholder
process by which principles can be moved forward into legal terms. and
it is time for the igf to have the courage of its conviction and have a
theme that can include principles as a touchstone that can allow also
subthemes for people to explore these particular priorities and interests.
so in that sense, i would just finish now to say that we propose as i
have just said the overall theme of bali, the internet principles,
possible overall themes being put forward public principles or shaping
global principles for the internet because we know that titles are
important. we would like to make that very clear now. principles for the
internet. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. you rightly pointed out there is a tradition
in the igf to have this discussion. we have that in vilnius, also last
year in baku, taking stock had a strong segment on principles.
i see apc and norbert again, apc, please.
>> apc: good morning, my name is (saying name) from apc. we just wanted
to make a few contributions for this topic. a general point on the igf
improvements, apc propose that is an implementation form is formed to
promote the recommendations of the cstd working group on igf
improvements. such a group can be made up a combination of mag members
and volunteers from the igf community. an ideal number would be around
10 people.
we suggest there is flexibility in terms of main session themes. some of
the traditional themes are necessary such as emerging issues and taking
stock. but other themes can change from year-to-year based on priorities
that the igf addresses. in in slight, we propose that the igf in 2013
focuses on the following theme. we leave it to the mag to decide whether
this should be dealt through main themes or roundtables but we do
believe it would be useful to use the entire last day of the igf as
synthesizing the discussion that took place at workshops. the following
themes for the igf 2013 or topics, enhanced cooperation, support input
from ball. the igf can complement the efforts of the cstd working group
on enhanced cooperation.
number two, human rights. the apc proposes that human rights become one
of the main themes for the igf. this seems to be a natural step forward
considering the prominence of human rights at the igf, s
>> it will facilitate a substantive continuation of the debate,
particularly around diverse ways in which the technical and policy
decisions surrounding internet governance contend with human rights. the
mag and workshop organizers should include new human rights issues
areas, such as anonymity and less talked about (indiscernible) lgbt
rights. approaching issues such as network neutrality, affordable access
(indiscernible) and also part of the -- thirdly, internet governance
principles. apc supports a decision put forward by the internet rights
and principles coalition that the igf should provide a space for
establishing whether there is consensus on what principles should
underpin public interest internet policy and policymaking processes.
many institutions are framing their principles, such as the council of
europe and the oecd. at national level governments are establishing
principles that can be used to frame national policymaking.
with the naming of these principles are how they will be applied and how
they relate to existing global agreements and standards is still not
clear. we, therefore, support the proposal that igf 2013 addresses these
topics in more depth than previous igfs have done and what public
(indiscernible) principles for the internet or shaping global principles
for internet governance be considered as main themes.
fourth, how to deal with spam animal wear.
there's an area where capacity-building, and policy issues can be dealt
with.
and finally, to outcome or to not.
[ laughter ]
apc believes it is a discussion that should be put to bed. when mag
members debate whether the igf should produce outcomes or not, it is
doing just that. outcomes are emerging in multiple ways, in the form of
follow-up events, better understanding of stakeholder groups' concerns,
informal negotiations of (indiscernible) and upcoming policy processes,
brainstorm solutions for difficult policy problems, suggestions for
research and capacity-building programs, statements from presents and so o.
these are negotiated agreements but they might eventually lead to such
agreements. the more interesting question is how these outcomes should
be captured and communicated.
this is a task the mag must take seriously.
these are not negotiated agreements but they might very well inform such
agreements in the future.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. what is the order? i think norbert is next
and then we have martin from nominet, india, and brazil.
okay. quite a number of speakers. norbert, please.
>> thank you. again, norbert (saying name) for the civil society
internet governance caucus, the intervention from the internet rights
and principles coalition resonates very strongly with what we have in
mind, as we have put forward not only a general theme as it was read,
human rights and the implications for internet governance which we
suggested at the main theme, but we also suggest some subthemes, which
are: effective participation of all stakeholders in internet governance
and internet rights and principles and internet for kids, which we
suggest as overall subthemes.
and i would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the
igf, especially in recent years of emphasizing human rights and it would
be very valuable to take that forward in an even more outcome-oriented
and implementation-oriented and moving it from the talking about it to
actually getting it done stage, and i would very much appreciate if the
program for the igf specifically encourages this kind of practical side
to it to move the igf from being very much a talk and social event to
something that has a very strong practical policy impact. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. before continuing the discussion, we were
told by the interpreters to speak a little bit slower. especially when
reading something. and also, after speaking, not to forget to turn the
microphone off.
now we have already moved in many ways forward from the subthemes into
how to do it, but this is all relevant to the discussion. we have still
quite a number of speakers.
i think martin is next, then india, brazil, icc/basis, bertrand, andrea.
okay. martin?
>>martin boyle: thank you, chair, and we've heard a lot of issues being
raised around the table, and i must admit i agree with the relevance and
the importance of an awful lot of the subjects that have been raised.
i thought it might be useful to -- as somebody suggested that we should
take input from national and regional igfs to say something about some
very preliminary thinking that we've done in the u.k. about -- about
issues, and one of the things that interested me about that exercise was
that we came up with quite a lot of consensus on just a few topics.
the topics included cybersecurity, but very firmly put in the framework
of human rights, and this came up in a lot of our discussions that human
rights not being seen stand-alone, bolt-on, extra, or sitting in its own
little group talking about human rights issues but to try and bring the
understanding of human rights, of privacy, of freedom of expression into
discussions on other topics, and doing that on cybersecurity was a very,
very big and important area for doing this.
and of course cybersecurity is a massively large subject.
we also identified doing -- trying to do some convergence, trying to
understand better the principles in which we work, was again seen as
something that was worth doing, but again, i think that this is seen
very much as providing a base, a starting point, for further
deliberations on other issues, to give ourselves a better understanding
of where we're going, and certainly if we look at practical outcomes,
practical thinking, helping people make decisions, then starting off
with principles is a very important thing to do.
and then of course we had youth engagement and things like identity
management and building trust.
so i've run through those last ones very quickly. i'm sure they'll come
up again in more detail.
but where that then led me for thinking about where we should go as the
-- an overarching theme, and i think somebody -- and i forget now who --
suggested that the overarching theme could well be the internet as an
engine for growth, for me that seemed to be encapsulating an awful lot
of discussion that we had had in the u.k. as being -- well, you know,
that's where we would like to get to so long as we understand these
other issues, these other themes that feed into doing that.
i liked the idea that the u.s. came up with for science and technology
for development as a subtheme -- sorry, as the main theme, but i don't
see that as being out of step with the internet as an engine for growth,
and, so in fact, i wonder whether we could go for something like the
internet as an engine for growth, and then a second line of science and
technology for development, and whether that gives us a good framework
in which to to build in a lot of the rather more detailed work that
contributes to achieving that. thank you, chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that.
india? (saying name), please.
>>india: thank you, chair. this is (saying name) from the government of
india.
first of all, having taken the microphone, i just would like to extend
our thanks and -- to the government of azerbaijan for hosting the
seventh igf, and to congratulate the government of indonesia for being
our next host.
i would like to just touch upon a small point, and that is, i would like
to express support for the idea from the government of the u.s. and
brazil for science and technology for development, and then to slightly
suggest a little change to say "science and technology in internet," to
make it a little more focused, because that may help many people to join
in.
secondly, the idea to bring in science and technology as the
cross--cutting, overarching theme maybe a little early, and my minister
has proposed a theme in the igf baku. there he has mentioned the theme
of transforming the internet to econet, and i would like to repropose
the same for consideration for this next igf.
and then in the end, to suggest whether the two issues which are very
important to india, too. the issue of science and technology in the
internet, the issue of internet principles, and the issue of enhanced
cooperation, whether they could be considered as main themes for the
eighth igf.
thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. b brazil?brazil.
[ audio interference, please mute ]
>>brazil: thank you very much, mr. chairman. regarding the themes that
are being suggested, brazil certainly agrees that the issue of
international internet governance principles would be an interesting
discussion to take place in the igf, as it has been one of the themes of
the workshops that we have here in this -- in the meeting that ended
yesterday and we think there is a great road that is open for the
discussion of this issue and the igf is certainly a place where it could
be discussed.
we concur with the suggestion from our colleague from india, but i
understand that her suggestion does not delete the word (indiscernible).
[ audio interference, please mute ] >>brazil: (indiscernible) is a very
important (indiscernible) for the debate that we want to -- to have.
there's another point that i would like to raise, not exactly a theme,
but i concur with the colleagues that spoke before me on the -- on the
value that the -- the discussions that we are having here today and
tomorrow on defining the issues and the themes for the global igf, the
value that these decisions will have for the national processes. the
national igfs and the local -- the regional igfs that could benefit from
this sort of (indiscernible) of issues that would be also a guide for
the organization of these national and regional igfs as deemed appropriate.
but we would like to raise the opposite point. i mean, i think the -- it
would benefit if we also took a look and thought on spaces in the global
igf where the regional and the maybe national igf, as considered
appropriate, could sort of have a venue where to -- to -- to summarize
and also to offer their perspectives that the process that they had
regionally and nationally to the global igf.
i think it's the case of many countries, and it certainly is the case in
brazil, that we would like to have all the processes in a more organic
manner. i mean, the national igfs, the regional igfs, and the global
igfs, and then if we had this two-way approach, i mean, the local and
regional benefitting from the things that are decided here, and on the
other hand, having a space in the global igf to express their views and
their conclusions and so on. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this is also an agenda item on how to
create these better linkages for -- i mean, we have already touched on
elements of overall organization, outcome, and so these are important
elements but we definitely will revisit them, and i suggest maybe
closing the list of speakers on the main theme issue. i still have a
fairly long list on that, so -- but i mean, the mag can also revisit
that, but i think there is an agreement that we don't need to decide on
this now, and there are some strong statements coming out, principles i
hear that -- by many speakers. also the economic aspect, science and
technology for development, that don't necessarily make up -- it's not
the overall theme, but they are here and i think they will guide the
direction.
human rights has also been mentioned, so -- and cybersecurity has been
mentioned, and there is an overall, i think, also general thrust that we
should think a little bit more about having hands-on sessions that
provide practical guidance. spam animal wear, for instance, was
mentioned as best practices, and also document outcome, but this will
take us further in the discussion and i would now go back to my list of
speakers.
>> thank you.
>>chair kummer: (indiscernible) andrea from (indiscernible) u.s., mary,
finland, council of europe. is there anybody else who would desperately
like to add something? yes, i can see canada and with that, can we close
the list on -- u.s. yes, yes, sorry, i have you down. i did not read you
out.
[ laughter ] >>chair kummer: and yes, paypal, bill smith, okay. and --
yes. mathieu shares, yeah. okay.
all right.
icc/basis.
>>icc/basis: thank you very much. we support the prior comments about
perhaps framing the main theme in terms of the internet for development
and growth, and we feel like this can be used as an umbrella-type
concept to wrap in a lot of the discussion this morning.
we really feel like the -- the igf has a unique ability to talk about
the internet as a fundamental catalyst and engine for transforming
economies and for transforming societies, and that can be a nice linkage
of all the different things that we've heard today.
one point that we wanted to emphasize is, sometimes the igf is always
looking around the corner at the next issue, but we think it's extremely
important when we look around at the broader landscape that the igf
tackle the fundamental issues of investment, infrastructure, deployment,
the practical issues of how countries and how societies are going to
deploy the internet and get access to the internet in the first place.
secondly, to take on some of the issues around security and the
practical issues of operating the internet and making it safe and
secure. and third, dealing with the transform able impact as others have
mentioned that the (indiscernible) science and technology can make on
society. we think that can be wrapped into both economic growth,
responsible social development, as well as the human rights issues that
we heard today.
the internet has a transformational effect on all fronts, and what we
are urging is that there be a balanced approach to this igf that really
incorporates the unique breadth that the igf has to offer in assessing a
global view on both these fundamental aspects of deploying the internet,
as well as dealing with the practical concerns with operating it, and
then finally the -- the important social impacts that the internet has
on society.
and we look around at the landscape and think that the igf has to both
assert its own space and -- and not let other organizations or processes
fill that space, but it also has to look around and figure out how can
we, as others have said, provide valuable inputs into others, and the
unesco meeting this week was a great example of how there can be a great
interrelationship between the igfs and other organizations.
so i think the positive thinking we've heard this morning on all of
these things can be very helpful in thinking about the main themes as we
do our work this week. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. robert guerra, please.
>>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab at the
university of toronto.
chair, thank you for giving me a few minutes.
i'd like to just comment on some earlier points that you made. first of
all, in regards to the igf being mentioned in other spaces such as the
wcit, i think if there are other spaces where the igf has been mentioned
as a space that key issues can be discussed, it would be interesting to
make a list of those issues to make sure that everyone is aware of them,
and so they can be on the agenda possibly to be discussed.
i think in regards to whether setting the overall theme now or in may, i
think as we're going forward now, identifying possible themes and then
having a call i think would be good, but i think identifying some issues
and getting feedback on that, i think, could be useful.
i'd also like to echo something that hasn't been mentioned by some of
the other commentators, and that is the -- the delegation from indonesia
did make comments and they're the host country and the country from the
region, and they have done a consultation and put forward ideas from
consultation of different stakeholders, so i think we should give those
considerable thought.
and from the perspective of the citizen lab, i think the idea of science
and technology for development is definitely one that we would support.
and it might be worthwhile also to talk about cybernorms and the right
approach to some of the issues as well.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. bertrand de la chapelle.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle from the internet and
jurisdiction project.
i've listened carefully to the different comments today.
i would like to suggest that we take a moving picture, rather than just
a still picture.
the igf is now entering its -- approaching its eighth annual meeting,
and if i look at how things have evolved in the discussion, the igf has
produced a remarkable outcome that was very visible during this week
here. i.e., progress on sensitive topics.
if i look at how the issue of enhanced cooperation and principles were
discussed six years ago, it's very simple. six or seven years ago, it
was not even possible to put them on the agenda.
yesterday and the day before yesterday, there were two workshops on
principles and two workshops on enhanced cooperation. both of them have,
in my view -- and i hope it's shared by other participants -- displayed
a remarkable move forward in terms of the desire of the stakeholders to
work together on those issues and to address those issues.
i think, therefore, we should recognize, irrespective of the other
discussion on main sessions, workshops, and so on, that there are two
key threads that have emerged as an outcome of the discussions in the --
in the igf, and that those two threads are, at the higher level, the
issue of principles -- and they are very strong messages both in nairobi
and in baku, and i happened to have had the privilege of being either
moderator or a panelist on both taking stock and way-forward sessions in
nairobi and in baku, and the message already at that time was very
strong towards this notion of a compendium and so on.
so principles and how to deal with the proliferation -- positive
proliferation -- of principles is one track.
the other one being the evolution towards understanding enhanced
cooperation or enhanced cooperations as a desire to identify concrete
issues and make the different actors collaborate together to solve them.
it is, therefore, an interesting second track.
operationally, i would suggest to use those two tracks to encourage the
articulation with different workshops that are necessarily going to be
proposed, and to have something that makes an introductory session at
the beginning of the week, and have a closing session at the end of the
week for each of those two tracks, so that the discussion can evolve
during the week instead of having the usual problem that we encounter in
terms of articulation between workshops and main sessions.
so for instance, without getting into too much detail, the goal would be
to have at the beginning of the week two maybe 1 1/2-hour sessions on
each of those two threads and to allow people to organize their
workshops during the week to feed into those two threads, so that at the
end of the week, we can come back to two other sessions and see how
progress has been made. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and if you allow me to pick up on what you of
said on the impact and outcome of the igf, i fully agree with you, the
igf has not been very good at documenting the outcome and the impact.
particularly (indiscernible) impact. and i would add the use of the term
"multistakeholder."
there's no organization that respects itself that does not use the term
"multistakeholder." that was clearly, i think, a notion that was
pioneered by the igf.
next speaker, united states of america.
>>united states: thank you, chair. i just wanted to make a point of
clarification in the discussion of the main theme.
first of all, i'm glad if the notion of cs -- s&t for d is resonating
with folks. i'm glad for that.
but i had put it forward as a cross-cutting theme or a subtheme, and in
recognition that really the main theme needs to be as overarching --
more overarching, as possible, and possibly -- and so i just want to
make that clarification and take that sort of maybe off the table for a
main theme, but to incorporate it as people like.
and with regard to a main theme, i think overarching is very key and not
weighting one element of the discussion necessarily over others in the
discussion of main themes. something that can encompass all the ideas
that people have been putting forward.
thank you, chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you. point well taken, but it is on the table as a
direction to go, but i also agree. i think when we formulate the main
theme, it should be a little bit snappier. science and technology for
development sounds very u.n.-ish.
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: but we need to have a theme that sounds attractive, i
think, also to people who maybe don't normally go to u.n. meetings.
i think economic growth sounds maybe more attractive to policymakers,
but it may be a little bit one-sided as it is not as overarching as the
full societal and transformational -- i think jeff mentioned; i like
that word -- -- the transformational impact of the internet. i'm not
sure whether that's snappy enough, but i think we also have to think a
little bit on how to attract people who might not necessarily have been
to an igf before.
andrea, speaking (indiscernible) correct?
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chair, and first, let me say it's really
nice to congratulate you for your appointment. it's really nice to see
you there. actually, it makes me feel younger to see you back there.
[ laughter ] >> i think when i was -- back four years ago, it's a
familiar feeling and so i must give you (speaking in a non-english
language.). to the point of the main theme and then to add a few points
after.
as a main theme from (indiscernible), we propose to evolve the main
themes that have been suggested so far, particularly in the
(indiscernible) diversity are proposing to have a main theme focusing on
public access. we have seen that. it has been coming through different
sessions and workshops in the past igfs.
and we think it deserves its own space. it's important how you access
the internet. it's important that the world has public access to
internet (indiscernible) can lead to that, and (indiscernible), of
course, is willing to work more into that's correct and there is also a
dynamic coalition on public access, so that's one of our points we want
to make for this mag.
just a few things briefly is regional events. we're really pleased to
see that regional issues are mushrooming across countries and regions,
and we are -- as (indiscernible), we are libraries from 160 countries.
we actually are doing a great work involving them into participating in
the regional event nah (indiscernible) to figure out where niece events
are happening. i know it is not always so easy. and ways to involve
local stakeholders into that.
we are happy to give our support into that, to tackle into the
(indiscernible) library's network.
on the dynamic coalitions, as part of the dynamic coalition won access
and dynamic coalition (indiscernible) outcomes of the igf, i think there
should be also thinking on how to make them more active and how to
reword them. probably the wording is a function of the how to make them
more active.
one idea could be to get them on the mag and if they are active enough,
we are proposing actually implementing stuff that have been discussed
during the igf. that could be a good way to get them back into the whole
igf process.
and one last thing is about what i call (indiscernible) contribution to
the -- to the discussion, the convergence. we -- before, we were
speaking about the outcomes (indiscernible) igf. i think what just ended
yesterday can be seen as an outcome of the igf.
[ audio interference -- please mute ]
-- that were made to a broad multistakeholder support yesterday was a
final statement made from multistakeholder recommendations, and that's
an outcome that i think the igf has to claim more of the influence it
has even in the wsis forum.
(indiscernible) even the name wsis forum came after the igf. at the
beginning it was a long u.n.-ish (indiscernible) implementation and
follow-up that nobody would understand, and now even that you call it a
forum. i mean, that's a good outcome. so in light of that, i think we
should give more thoughts on the convergence, also the review processes.
we're all going (indiscernible) 2015 the wsis mushroomed in several
different, let's say, (indiscernible) and it's interesting to pull all
of that back and see what we can learn from each other, and i think that
the igf in this moment can teach a lot of -- of lessons learned to the
other organizations.
and last point, i was following the name meeting and i heard the
multistakeholder word coming up in several occasions. i thought that was
interesting because you would never expect that. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you so much. thank ifla stands for international
federation of library associations but i think it came across that you
speak on behalf of libraries. i think the point is also well-taken that
we have to project a little bit in view of 2015 what will happen after
that and work towards that trajectory. i think that is an important
mark. 2014 will not be the end. it will be an important meeting, but
there will be a 2015 meeting and we will think what will happen after
it. will the igf continue? and if so, it will be a decision taken by the
u.n. members. the decision will not be taken in a multistakeholder mode.
but we have to work -- if we want to, we have to work toward that decision.
european commission.
>>european commission: thank you, chair. and good morning to all. i just
wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were already made this
morning. on the outcomes of the igf, yeah, we don't have negotiated
agreement and we're not looking for them. but having no result, no
conclusions means that we're going to lose a lot of what has been
discussed.
so as the chair said, the igf hasn't been exemplary in documenting its
outcome. let's make it exemplary because then we can use what we do to
feed into the discussions of those who do take decisions.
a short point on logistics, i think -- there were a lot of comments on
logistics. and there are comments on logistics in the report by the
group on improving the igf. i think it is not just about comfort of the
participants; it has to do with issues of connectivity which means
remote participation.
it has to do with facilitating travel also for those who are on a
smaller budget to the igf. so i think it's important to take at least
some recommendations on logistics very seriously.
on the themes, again, i would like to echo the chair. i think one of the
main words is to take it forward. whatever we choose as themes, we need
to make sure there is an evolution from the previous igfs. already in
the last igf, many workshops tended to repeat themes, repeat
discussions. we need to make sure that in the final selection we have
some kind of intellectual evolution from what was discussed before. and
the fact that something has been discussed before like spam doesn't mean
we should cut it out. just one word on spam, it's not obviously a major
issue for some countries. it is definitely not a major issue for
countries of the european union. but it is very big for some developing
countries. it made its way into an international treaty. that means
there are a lot of concerns around it. let's not ignore something like
that.
one last thing, i'd like to echo brazil on the point about regional
igfs. i know we're going to discuss this later, but, indeed, it would be
great if we could have a venue at the igf where regional igfs could give
something to the general igfs and maybe discuss amongst each other.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. just a brief comment. i don't think we should
not take the logistics seriously. we know they are problems and
challenges. and i think collectively, we are taking this very seriously.
mary, next on my list, please.
>> thank you. this is mary (saying name) from ministry of affairs for
finland. i listen for the discussion here and some of the keywords that
have risen from interventions, development and human rights. human
rights as a cross-cutting issue has risen from our national
multistakeholder process and will be one of the themes of our finnish
internet forum next time.
and many have reminded us on the very interesting discussions that we
have had here in paris with enhanced cooperation and of the working
group on enhanced cooperation which will be in the middle of its
deliberations as we meet in bali.
and, therefore, i would like to make one suggestion for a theme which
would be enhancing multistakeholder cooperation for growth development
and human rights through the internet.
i think growth is also important as we meet in the times of economic
crisis. and it's also intertwined in the questions of spam and all the
challenges we have. how do we combat those for more growth also through
the internet?
so this is my suggestion. maybe we could play with words to make it more
catchy. but these are definitely the keywords that came up of this
discussion. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for this. and i point out, growth
can also be social growth. it does not necessarily need to be economic.
so this is something on the table we're considering.
do we have a remote participant? why don't we give remote participant
precedent as we always say how important it is to bring them in. luka,
please.
>> so, okay, luka (saying name), remote moderator. we have two
suggestions from remote participants. first one is a theme suggestion
from veronica cretu. and she is suggesting internet as an enabler for
social accountability and engagement for improved results. and there is
a comment from deirdre williams, and she is says there is a need for
much proved publicity and dissemination of the igf ideas to people
outside of the "igf insiders."
>>chair kummer: thank you.
next, council of europe?
>>council of europe: thank you, mr. chair. lee hibbard, council of
europe. (indiscernible) i'm the internet governance coordinator in the
council of europe. part of my job is to take stock of what goes into the
igf and what comes out of the igf and to brief my colleagues and to keep
them abreast, also member-states for that matter. and for taking stock
is quite important (audio interference). if we look at baku, for
example, i did some counting. i count the events which concern us and i
think i counted more human rights-related events in baku than ever
before which i think is quite revealing. that's the point i want to
make. it is revealing to see what is happening. why is that? why is
that? why are more people calling for more discussions on human rights?
and are they concerned that the internet is moving away from their
concerns and the internet being a people-centered environment? is it
trying to take stock of the why? are we asking that question enough? why
increasingly do they have a human rights dimension to these meetings?
are there underlying questions of traditions, values, cultures, even
national sovereignty for that matter?
that brought me to thinking about the why of the eurodig which is taking
place in lisbon on 20-21 june and the overarching theme is -- and this
is just a thought, internet for society, how to serve the public
interest?, for example. just to add to that more food for thought, what
the council of europe does and is doing for the next few years, thinking
about questions such as what is internet freedom, is it more of freedom
of information and access to information as we know it? what does it
mean to say "do no harm to the internet"? what measure should states and
factors commit to, to ensure that there is no harm? and what frameworks
of commitments and understanding do stakeholders need to commit and
engage and exchange?
and one final point goes back to the question of internet rights and
principles and the work of a compendium of rights for internet users, do
users know how to effectively exercise their human rights online? thank
you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. canada?
>> canada: thank you, mr. co-chair. there have been a number of
interesting ideas raised this morning and certainly found the discussion
very interesting. i just wanted to support the number of interventions
that have raised the importance of addressing practical issues such as
cybersecurity, spam and malware. i'm thinking in particular of the
comments from nominet but also their written submission and some of the
ideas they have formulated.
i think this is very appropriate for the igf to do. i take on board the
comment that not all igf members and not all governments in particular
put issues like spam at the top of their agenda but as our colleague
from the european commission was just pointing out, for some
governments, it is a very serious issue and has a lot of effects, even
economic effects. and i think there is vast experience in this -- in
this forum, the igf.
when we were at wcit and some of these issues were raised, a number of
us made the observation that a forum like wcit is not the right place to
be discussing them which raises the entirely legitimate question if not
a place like wcit, then where? and i think igf is an answer to that
question. thank you.
(audio buffering.)
>> suggested by nominet for a subtheme on cybersecurity and human
rights. you can't consider one without consideration of the other. i
would like to talk about a couple of things. i think the igf is
incredibly modest. a number of people today have referred to the
importance of understanding the accomplishments of the igf. and i think
there is something we need to take seriously. when you think about the
regional igfs that have sprouted up, the national igfs, the variety and
diversity of programs that are in place around the globe because of the
igf and we have no idea really what the national impact has been of the
igf because we are not doing an accounting of that impact.
so i would like to see the igf actually put in place process, maybe it
is a session, maybe it is an activity, to account for the
accomplishments of the igf and the kind of impact it has had around the
globe.
i'd also like to suggest that we really think about the term
"multistakeholder." i would like to see the igf have a session or an
opportunity for us to talk about multistakeholder best practices,
including something very practical.
how do you implement effective multistakeholder processes? and as the
igf is a flag waver for multistakeholders, it is a perfect place to hold
it.
the last thing i would like to say is in terms of outcomes or outputs, i
think that it's important that the igf look at how its outcomes or
outputs are structured. at the moment -- and coming back to this after a
couple of years being away, they are not hugely helpful. they were not
hugely valuable in terms of what can you actually do with them and now
we are not talking about recommendations or agreements or this or that.
we're just talking about outputs and making them significantly more
valuable and usable to policymakers or stakeholders or whoever when they
go back to their countries and they say: okay, we have a solution, a
proposed solution, or a variety of solutions for a particular problem. i
would like to see us getting back to a real review of best practices a
real look at how we can make what we do far more practical and usable.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: i think there is a broad sense of agreement on that,
that the outcomes can and should be better documented. the question is
basically how. and this is also not resource neutral. either you hire an
excellent consultant and there are people who can do it, or you do it
collectively, the mag works harder on that.
but, again, the mag, these are -- it is all voluntary work and it can be
hard work. but this is definitely something we have to think about. and
i still have speakers, and right at the end of the room, bill, you asked
for the floor. please, you have the floor.
>> thank you very much, mr. chair. actually quite a pleasure for me to
be here today and to see markus up there with chengetai. brings back
excellent memories.
i guess i would like to suggest a major theme for the event and
listening to everything, and that would be an engine for growth and
advancement, the internet, an engine for growth and advancement.
markus, you mentioned that growth is not only economic. it can be
societal. and i think by recognizing that, we can -- it encompasses
quite a breadth of topics that we could -- that we could include, for
example, science and technology, human rights and freedom of expression.
we could include business models, business models that have come up as a
result of the internet that may not be well-known all around the world.
access and diversity, where i would throw in things potentially like
exchange points, local content, local hosting.
and i also suggest that we need -- and i've heard calls here for this --
to have higher-level sessions. i think in my mind, that would be perhaps
a smaller number of them, especially the lengthy plenary sessions that
we've been subjected to in recent years.
practical sessions i've heard a call for, where this might be sort of
the traditional workshop, 90 minutes. and i think we could have some
very good working sessions as well where they would be during the week,
perhaps a half day of intense discussion on topics, for example, spam.
it is definitely an issue. however, there are methods to approach it, to
mitigate it. they exist. and they are evolving.
and having been at the wcit and listened to the issues that i recognize
are real, i have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that a
treaty-level instrument is going to have a practical, positive impact on
spam. the way we deal with spam and things like that is at the lowest
possible levels on the ground and taking very strong measures and
working cooperatively.
so it is good that we are talking about these things, but just writing
it in a treaty is not going to solve the problem that countries have.
talking about it in a practical working session at the igf would be
helpful.
finally, with respect to comments made by matthew shares, i would be
happy to co-submit a proposal on multistakeholder models and practices
and to run such a group at the igf. i think that's a fabulous idea
because all, too, often we hear the term bandied about but in reality
when we get into perhaps what is declared as a multistakeholder meeting,
we find out, in fact, it is something quite different.
so i think that would be a very good thing a very appropriate thing for
the igf to do. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i think it would tie up with the comments
that the igf has not been particularly good at documenting its success,
and that would be basically claiming ownership of the term
"multistakeholder" and defining it and setting a yardstick. i think that
would definitely, to me at least, make sense.
raul?
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. this week on monday
(indiscernible) say that the information society should be seen from the
perspective of human rights and i very much agree with this approach. so
i would like to show my voice to those that are proposing human rights
as one of the most prominent overarching issues, topics for igf.
and i think it shouldn't be only for this year's meeting because this is
an issue that should remain for every igf meeting for the next few years
because human rights will remain unfortunately an issue around the world
for many years.
i like very much the way the finnsh representative combined the
development and cooperation and human rights. it could be nice if we
could combine those ideas, those values in the main theme of the igf in
indonesia.
regarding other topics to be discussed, i think cybersecurity,
cybercrime are definitely important topics and i differentiate the two
topics because many times we speak about cybercrime, cybersecurity if
they are the same thing. and they are different things. both of them are
very important, but we have to deal with them in a different manner. so
i think those issues should be prioritized because those are areas in
which i think we have the challenge to demonstrate that the
multistakeholder model is able to provide some progress and some
solutions for dealing with those really big problems that we have today.
we have, of course, identified some specific points because i echo those
that have said that we have to focus in practical issues and concrete
things and not to discuss just those themes in a very general way.
so i think my last comment is regarding the outcomes. i think that we
have a broad agreement that we are ready to move one step forward and
try to produce better outcomes from igf. and as you say, mr. chair, the
challenge now is to deal with the implementation of that. but i think if
we agree this is where we have to focus how to implement that so the
works are written down.
this week we had a very good experience here at unesco as a way of
dealing with this issue probably. it could be a basis for discussion in
the mag meeting. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that, both for the substantive comments
and the procedural aspect indeed. this was also a question in our minds.
can we learn from the unesco's way of proceeding? the also more focused,
ask workshop organizers to be focused on outcomes. and security,
security has been with us right from the beginning. but maybe we also
have to rethink a little bit how to deal with it because it is also an
issue of major concern for governments. and i think as martin said, the
multistakeholder framework can -- and others, can maybe provide better
answers. but we may have to rethink on how to frame it.
anriette, you also asked for the floor.anriette, you asked for the floor.
>> going back to the multistakeholder term, well, we are talking about --
>>chair kummer: for the scribes, it is not anriette esterhuysen.
>> ana neves from portugal.
>>chair kummer: i was not speaking clearly enough. so my fault.
>> ana neves: now it is clear. good. my point is about the term
multistakeholder and multistakeholder principles because we are
discussing sometimes the more internet governance, the principles are
not so much multistakeholder principles. it was already said today here
what multistakeholder means and its importance and organization that
doesn't respect itself -- well, nowadays it has to say it is
multistakeholder.
but what is multistakeholder? what does that mean? and so my main point
is that besides the internet governance principles, we have to see and
discuss what are the principles of the multistakeholders. and i think
that when we discuss these principles of the multistakeholders, we start
to see that we have multi-governments, multi-civil societies,
multi-private sector and multi-technical communities. and it is
interesting and it is rich to now we are at the level to better
understand where we are.
and so if we understand where we are, it's better to understand why it's
so difficult then to implement any action because it is not governments
that are going to implement anything because we have multi-governments,
governments, they are all different.
besides that, i must say i like a lot the title that representative from
finland put forward for the igf to play with, with the words "enhance"
and "enhance multistakeholderism."
i think it would enrich the title to include something related to
empowerment, capacity enhancement or building. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i basically have closed the list. but in the
spirit of inclusiveness, let's also listen to remote participants. and i
think our colleague from russia whose name i can't remember also asked
for the floor. remote participant first. and there is one more. russia
also, okay.
>> thank you, markus. we have two comments from remote participants. the
first is a suggestion from the theme of the next igf from (saying name)
from the internet governance caucus. and she is suggesting economies,
communities, challenges and nations and opportunities.
and then we have a suggestion from victor from cameroon that is
suggesting to have a small guide on multistakeholder igf best practices
and he is saying that having national and regional igfs is a way to
implementing multistakeholder igf process and to share multistakeholder
ig best practices.
>>chair kummer: thank you. please recall your name. my apologies that i
can't remember it.
>> andrea (saying name). higher school of economics at the university.
first, i would like to thank the government of azerbaijan for the
successful 7th annual meeting of the igf which was very successful for
our delegation as well. and then i would like to say that i totally
agree with absolute majority of delegations which propose human rights
on the internet as one of the major topics of discussion.
one note which i could simply make on this that the human rights is a
complex issue which needs a complex approach to it. and so that's why i
agree that we need the specific combined topic which allows common
approaches for internet governance with the convergence of institutions
and convergence of approaches.
for example, we understood through the legal sociological, technological
approaches, all of these issues, i think, are important to serv
>>chair kummer: thank you. and please, can you introduce yourself?
>> thank you very much, chair. my name is michael (saying name) name.
i'm also from the (saying name).
i would like, first of all, to say that it's a pleasure for me being
here, and on behalf of (saying name), i would like to focus on business
aspects.
it was already raised by -- by the ui, i think, that today
(indiscernible) the service sector has become the biggest and fast
growing business sector in the world, which also (indiscernible) quality
of life of people all around the world, and our economy is
service-oriented, and actually we have internet which makes businesses
going globally, right?
and which makes services being global.
that's why we also propose (indiscernible) contribution on
service-oriented approach based on (indiscernible) of services and
(indiscernible) of things because when we are talking about
service-oriented approach of the global economy and global services
change relationships between the people and companies. with the use of
internet, and when we're talking about internet governance, we should
also consider that it influences business which is based on the internet.
that's why there are several possible subtopics, probably, about new
business models of the internet, new models of the internet,
possibilities for personalization of services including people with
disabilities, and also security issues.
so among such important topics like human rights, the internet,
technological issues, i think probably it is necessary also to include
business issues when we're talking about internet governance. thank you
very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i see there are more flags coming up. i
wanted to close this, but can we really close the list now?
i see (indiscernible) and is that you, patrik? okay. (indiscernible) and
then patrik.
>> thank you, chair. i would like to offer a suggestion of theme with a
view of trying to -- to covering the different subissues we've discussed
this morning, which could be cooperation for growth, development, and
human rights, best practices for sustainable knowledge societies. thank
you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you. patrick?
>> thank you. good morning, my name is patrick ryan. i'm with google.
and although the topics and themes of the igf are extremely important,
my intervention now is focused on the funding of the igf. it's a topic
that's rarely, if ever, addressed at the open consultations and i
realize we're talking about other things, but i hope you'll permit me to
make my intervention now, so that we can talk about this maybe a little
bit over lunch and at break.
let's face it, money is really hard to talk about, and so it's
completely avoided in many cases, or taboo.
it's crucial, if not existential topic here, and so i want to be sure to
bring it up. and to put some light on it today.
the igf operates on a shoestring budget. it's astonishing the amount of
work that chengetai accomplishes, with part-time colleagues and several
volunteers.
in order to do it to do many of the things that the participants want,
such as increasing outreach and collaboration with the developing world,
providing a revamped web site, tracking information and reporting on
successes, the igf needs our financial support.
the funding for the igf is itself a multistakeholder endeavor.
contributions are voluntary, and they come from member states, the
private sector, and civil society.
although we don't yet have an overall view of the total budgetary needs
for the igf, our colleagues at un did he say a and at the igf
secretariat on are working on that and have promised to share that
information with us very shortly. this willer very important as we set
fundraising activities for 2013. last year the igf raised almost
$900,000 from a total of 15 contributors. about nine contributors are
from the private sector and ngos, and six are from governmental entities.
in this regard, i want to call out special recognition for the
government of finland, which has contributed nearly 25% of the annual
budget on its own.
just a few more numbers.
in a typical year, the igf is attended by around 2,000 people from more
than 130 countries. most all of the governments around the world praise
the value of the igf. we talk about it in other context at itu as the
alternative, but with only six governments contributing to the igf,
there is lots of opportunity.
there is no reason why half of the countries of the 130 countries that
attend it, shouldn't contribute in some way. those numbers don't need to
be high on an individual basis, but some contribution is important.
i realize that government budgets are tight, but i respectfully call on
governments to find a way to contribute to this effort. there's no
reason why we shouldn't be able to turn the number of government
contributions from nine to 90 this year.
similarly, the private sector needs to step up.
businesses like google believe in the values of the igf, but our
business models also depend on the success of the internet. it can
sometimes be a challenge to have private sector contributions from any
single company or any single government to be too large because of the
perceptions that can flow from that. we don't want the igf to be
perceived to have been bought by any single company or government.
at the same time, the number of private sector contributors should
greatly increase, and i see no reason why the overall number of private
sector contributors should not nine from nine to 90 as well. ladies and
gentlemen, if we can accomplish this simple fundraising task, the
opportunities for the igf will be far greater than we are now. as we
enter the eighth year, it's time to put our money where our mouth is, to
walk the talk, and to show that we support the multistakeholder
environment and that we mean it.
i want to draw your attention to the funding tab on the igf web site,
which thanks to chengetai and the work of undesa provides a lot more
information on how to fund. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you, patrick. while this was completely off topic,
i think it was nevertheless very helpful.
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: this is also, i think, a lot of the
recommendations of the working group on igf improvements are extremely
helpful, but -- and not always resource-neutral. yes, of course it would
be nice to do this and to do that, but the secretariat, which is
comprised by one single person, there are limits to what this guy can
do, and this is something we need to bear in mind.
so i would also suggest when approaching the report that we make maybe
proposals that are resource-neutral but there are others that need more
resources, that we make the distinction and look at those that can be
implemented without additional resources as a kind of low-hanging fruit.
i mean, they -- "okay, that can be done," but some others cannot be done
unless we have more resources. but resources can also be given through
in-kind contributions. there may also be volunteers that come up to take
on the task.
there is another call for the floor. nurani, yes.
>> knew, mr. chairman. my name is in your rami. i work for net noticed.
internet infrastructure organization in sweden.
it's great to be here today and it's great to see you up there again,
markus, and i think there have been some very good discussions today.
i'm going to -- i'm going to keep it very brief, since i know that we
are -- we want to move forward.
i think there have been a few very good ideas being tossed around today,
and i think i'd like to associate myself with the speaker previously,
who pointed out that it's important that the internet -- that the igf
continues to evolve, and i think we need to show that in the program and
we need to show that through the main themes that we have.
the themes might just seem like a banner or a tag line, but it really
sets the agenda for the whole igf, so we shouldn't underestimate the --
the importance of that.
by showing also that the igf continues to evolve, i think we show that
by taking on new themes, that maybe the igf wasn't mature enough for
before, so i think a few people have mentioned the human rights aspects
and i think the internet is an enabler for human rights. it's a very
important and current topic that i think the igf should pick up on.
i also really like (saying name) thoughts from the finnish delegation
about playing with the words of "enhanced" and "enhanced
multistakeholderism."
i think that's something that would be good to pick up on.
and then just a final comment, not necessarily on the main themes, but i
was listening in to the -- the workshop yesterday on enhanced
cooperation, and the point there was made about how the igf is very
inclusive and -- but -- but we also need to be aware of the different
stakeholder groups that have different ways of interacting with the igf.
so if we want it to be more inclusive, we need to take that into
consideration, so for example, by -- by -- if we want more participation
from certain governments, we might need to do more to reach out to them.
we might need to -- to do -- to specifically invite them and even to
organize pre-events, for example, at the igf that motivates them to come
and participate. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you.
and really last speaker on this segment, qazi al-shatti, p please.
>>qusai al-shatti: thank you, mr. chair, and welcome to the internet
governance hall again.
first of all, i would like to (indiscernible) azerbaijan agreement for
their hospitality in organizing this event, igf meeting, and
(indiscernible) their beautiful country of azerbaijan, so i would like
to thank them for that.
i would like to echo the comments that the igf needs to evolve and the
evolvement of the igf should be a revising the topics and the themes
that -- to be discussed.
i would like -- we'd like to have more focus on having a more open,
inclusive internet, which we feel that it is still a current and
important issue, as well as promoting a multistakeholder model for
internet governance on what -- at global and regional levels. thank you,
mr. chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. okay. now looking at the timetable,
i realize that we're well behind what chengetai has proposed. he said he
should move on, i think, some time ago, but i think it was a very good
discussion and we touched on many not just aspects of the main themes,
but the -- also touched on organizational aspects and on how to improve
on the functioning.
so basically the next half hour, we can start discussions on the
organizational aspects and on the main sessions.
i think we have already touched on that, and i think the strong notion
here in the room is is that the igf is evolving, so maybe also that you
need to revisit a little bit the concept of the main sessions.
there are certain parameters that are given. the three-hour main session
is given -- is dictated by the contracts with the interpreters. that
doesn't mean that we cannot break it into segments but we cannot have,
for instance, two 2 hour sessions because that's not how the
interpreters work. they work in 3-hour segments.
so that we have to accept.
but i think there was a strong notion in the written contributions that
three hours is too long to have one subject, one panel; that at least we
should think in breaking it up in two. and also, i think what i heard
from the discussions, that maybe we need new subject matters, like
(indiscernible) written contribution maybe more focused sessions.
we discussed that years ago, but i think in the end the mag was always
moved back into the comfort zone of having the same titles. they have
evolved slightly. you know, what we had first was security but -- we
dealt with security and openness separately so that moved into security,
openness and privacy, so there was an evolution, but my feeling was at
least the past two sessions -- past two igf meetings were more the
opportunity to walk around, that the energy was much more in the
workshops than in the main sessions.
some contributions said we should not have workshops in parallel with
the main sessions, which is, i think, almost impossible to organize
unless we want to have workshops very early or very late or during the
lunch break, but we earlier said there should not be sessions during the
lunch break either because participants wanted the lunch breaks to
connect and to socialize, and that -- i think that's also an important
aspect.
so what do we do with the main sessions? can we agree on --
and a lot of ideas came up during the very first discussion. we could do
this -- have this, have that. also, the format is not cast in stone or
cast in iron, but what is -- we have to make use of interpreters in the
main room, because we said we want to provide at least one track which
is in all u.n. languages, but that can be also something else.
it has been mentioned maybe some more hands-on technical sessions
explaining on how to deal with spam. that was repeated by various
speakers, could be one of the options.
there was also the talk about having a discussion on multistakeholder
principles, as multistakeholder cooperation is so central to the igf,
why not keeping that center stage.
young people and the igf or some proposed kids -- internet for kids or
internet and kids, that has been something that has been on the agenda,
has been mentioned many a times, that we should do more or we should
give center stage to young people. and last year i was in a workshop
with some of -- kids, i think high school age, 16, 17, from the u.k.,
who were absolutely remarkable and, you know, we can also think about
giving them center stage.
i was pleased to see that we have a very young participant in the back
of the room. i think estimated age, less than two, or what --
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: so that's good to know there is --
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: -- young people also present here in the planning phase.
maybe we should listen --
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: yes. and i'm sure there's --
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: and i'm sure he or she knows how to use an
ipad and find their favorite videos.
so the floor is open. what are the -- martin, yes, please.
>>nominet: thank you, chair. martin boyle from nominet.
for a long time, i've found it very difficult to identify what i expect
to get out of the main and plenary sessions, and there have been various
attempts at various stages to use the main sessions to give feedback
from workshops, but, for example, last year i went to the security,
openness, privacy open session, and the feedback from the workshops was
very much a bolt-on right at the end -- right at the end of the session.
and i think that might be that we end up losing an opportunity because
when people do workshops, they go into their little silo in a small room
and by the time they've produced the report, well, that particular
internet governance forum has been and gone.
so i wondered whether there was perhaps some way of reserving the
plenary sessions towards the end of the meeting, on the last couple of
days of the meeting, against the particular themes and using that to get
feedback from all the relevant workshops, so that there is some central
point of documenting and understanding what were the key issues that
came up, and then that, of course, leaves you with the first two days
worth of plenary sessions where i think it would be very useful to bring
younger people center stage, to use some of the more general discussions
which we want to try and get wider orientation for, perhaps on enhanced
cooperation, perhaps on human rights implications of certain things,
but, you know, that would be my suggestion that we try to make sure that
the plenaries are well integrated into the work, and that there is a
reason for people to turn up to those particular plenary sessions. thank
you, chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you, and on that note, there was also a strong
sense that we need to work on integrating bringing in the national
regional igfs' initiatives. i think that is also something we can work
on. we had some more -- we have some interregional roundtables but they
were not given center stage, and i think this is also something worth
considering.
chris disspain?
>>chris disspain: thank you, mr. chair.
just a couple of things. first of all, i agree with what you've just
said and what martin's just said about the main sessions.
my observations are, having been involved in these from the very
beginning, are that the current way we do them is probably reaching the
end of its life cycle. the concept of an hour and a half or three hours
on a particular topic, you know, using the same headings we've used
since the beginning and trying to find subjects underneath is -- isn't
proving very effective, i don't think, for the main sessions, were
particularly we will attended in baku, and in fact, i think we had this
conversation last year when we said the main sessions weren't
particularly we will attended wherever we were the year before.
and i wonder whether the -- the feedback that we tend to get on the main
sessions tends to come from the panelists who are there who -- who come
back and say "yes, that all seemed to go very well" and that may well be
so for them but i -- there's a lack of convincing feedback from the
audience members who attend these main sessions as to their -- as to
their worth, whereas there is a significant, in my view, amount of
feedback on workshops that indicates that they have worth.
so i'm very keen to hear what everyone else has to say about the main
sessions so that we can move them on in a way that is helpful to the
greater picture of the i went, and i certainly think tying them to
regional and national igfs and the workshop reports is -- is something
worth considering, and not being -- also not being fixed, in that we
have to have x number of them.
we have to have some, but we may not have to have as many as we
currently do. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. car on lena is next, and we have many
speakers. yes, carolina. yes.
>> thank you. (saying name) lactld. i completely agree with the proposal
much rethinking the igf's main sessions, whether we should have six as
we had before, whether we should maintain the same topics for them, the
subthemes reflected in the -- in the (indiscernible) programs, are then
not taken up by the audience or the questions or the panelists are
talking about something and then there are questions coming from the
floor divorced from the presentations. maybe some further documentation
about what has been the evolution of that main session in the past seven
igfs for the newcomers and participants attending main sessions would be
a possible solution, but in all, i agree with martin boyle's suggestions
and chris disspain's comments that we really need to rethink whether we
need six, when and where should we put them, and the extension of these
main sessions as well, as part of the whole igf program. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. i have lots and lots of speakers.
next was bertrand. then i have united states, olga, anriette, wendy,
valid a, bill smith, china, and let's see how many we can take before
lunch. and icc/basis, council of europe.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle, internet
jurisdiction project.
each year we have a session called "emerging issues." the concept of
this session has evolved. it was initially intended to be a sort of
takeup of issues that had emerged during the igf. it rapidly evolved
into trying to make a specific focus on emerging trends and some of
those sessions were pretty good, actually. i remember one in vilnius in
particular on cloud computing that was quite illustrative.
however, i wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use such a session --
maybe shorter or longer, like one hour and a half instead three -- to
deal with what has happened since the previous igf, like emerging issues
in terms of what are the trends in governance issues. we deal in the
internet and jurisdiction project with challenges related to
jurisdiction and the impact on the cross-border internet, and we see
trends involving and there are issues on security and others that would
be documented, which is a way to bring the participants up to speed on a
certain number ofsome developments much.
the second thing is, sessions of three hours are clearly too long, and i
would like to encourage, as i proposed earlier, to have threads, and to
make sessions instead of putting the main sessions at the end, as was
proposed, which is not possible given the time with three hours, having
different threads -- maybe two, three, or four -- where initial sessions
at the beginning of the week would launch the thread, the workshops
dealing with that thread would be dealing with the different facets of
the issue during the week, and then at the end of the -- of the week,
having one, two, or three wrap-up sessions of one hour and a half to
sort of launch the issue, broaden it, re-narrow it, so that the work is
done in the course of the -- of the week.
>>chair kummer: thank you. united states.
>>united states: thank you, chair. liesyl prawns from the u.s.
i completely agree with the notion that, as other people have said, of
rethinking how to deal with the main sessions and utilize the plenary
nature of them, as well as the integration of things that happen at the
igf, but -- and maybe this is stating the obvious, based on what other
comments that have been made, but i do think that one thing that was not
helpful in the main sessions was report-outs from the workshops in a way
that kind of hampered the conversation.
and i can say that as one who did a report-out once, so i -- i realized
there's some value for getting on the record from the workshops in a way
in the main session, but unfortunately i think the reports and the way
that they've been done just hampered the discussion and the dynamism
that we really want to get, so i'm all for rethinking how to do that.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i notice an emerging consensus that we are
ready to rethink, which is, i think, a very positive move.
olga is next.
>>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. and welcome back, markus. it's so nice
to have you here again as our chair.
some comments about main sessions.
there may be value in three-hour sessions if we can go deeper into the
discussion.
one hour and a half sometimes is too few to go into deeper dialogue. i
think we should revisit -- revise the main themes. we should focus on
things that have happened from the past year, the past igf, into the new
one, as bertrand said, so we have to rethink the themes. and i also
agree -- and i have said this many times -- this reporting from the
workshops doesn't work at all. i mean, i think it's -- it doesn't show
the content of the workshops and it's not helpful for the main session.
i wanted to say something more but i cannot find my note.
so i'll stop for the moment. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you. a brief comment, if you will allow.
i'm not sure -- i think the three-hour session is -- taxes the attention
span of the same speakers, and i think also if you're on a panel for
three hours, it's also for the panelists it can be actually quite
tedious. but you can -- to pick up on your idea, you could also have two
panels dealing with similar aspects or slightly different aspects of an
overarching theme. unesco did that in some of the workshops, okay, the
next panel comes in. there is in one workshop, i think, of 90 minutes
they had three sets of panelists, which may be a little bit too much
but, you know, you can also play with that, with the format.
>>olga cavalli: chair, if you allow me one more comment that i was
forgetting.
i think in sharm el sheikh, we tried a different model of a main
session. it was very much interactive, and i think that was nice.
very few -- few panelists and very few speeches, short speeches and a
lot of intersection with -- with the public, with the people there.
that were -- once they were -- i don't know why we came back again to
the model of the panel, but that's something that i would like to
remember from what we did before. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you, but let's just pick up on what chris disspain
said, that the current model, i think outlived its usefulness or "sell
by" date, however you worded it but i think it was also a little bit my
impression we've done it and it's more of the same thing. it's not that
they're necessarily bad, but they -- to begin with, people with, people
were all excited, it was new, but it sort of sank into routine and there
was more of the same thing, and if you can make it more interactive or
better, but a lot of energy was spent on the selection of panelists and
making sure there's balance there, and then adding one more to be sure
and that sort of led to a ritual that i think really has outlasted, i
think, its usefulness.
but anriette.
>>anriette esterhuysen: thank you, markus. i i don't support what chris
disspain has said and other speakers and comments from the u.s. as well.
i think using the main session as a way of synthesizing outcomes much
workshops as a work, i think it has outlived its value. i think what
chris said, we don't have to have multiple main sessions. i do think
that maybe one or two with good speakers can be interesting, and i want
to really thank patrick ryan for his comments earlier because i think
resources are extremely important and i think one area where we see this
is in the lack of funding available to invite new, interesting, relevant
speakers to the igf. and i think maybe one or two main sessions with
good speakers would be very valuable.
just to share an experience from baku, some -- apc as well as some other
governments and organizations involved in the igf organized a round
table in baku. we organized a human rights roundtable and its goal was
for workshops that had dealt with human rights to come together and
share the outcomes of their workshops. due to time constraints, we
weren't able to -- or scheduling clashes -- to have all the
rights-related workshops. we had probably at least seven.
and it worked extremely well. and we gave the workshops time to present
their input. we were able to discuss where there were overlaps and where
there were gaps. so as a mechanism for achieving what we have been
unable to achieve is zibet sizing workshops, i can really propose and
recommend that format of the roundtable -- of the magic roundtable.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this picks up up on also what martin
suggested more or less, yes, to have the workshops coming together and
having an interactive discussion, not just reading records. i think we
agree on that.
wendy?
>>wendy seltzer: thank you very much, chair, and to our hosts. i want to
echo what was heard. and i think we should -- about rethinking our
working mode because i think what we are revealing trying to do is to
engineer serendipity. we are trying to figure out how to help people to
meet the people they need to meet to learn the things they need to learn
and we may not know what those are coming in.
and so i would suggest fewer sessions that get a larger audience
together in the same place that gives participants a shared base of
knowledge a shared meeting point where they can find that perhaps that
technical issue they didn't think was really interesting is critical to
their work six months down the road and now they know whom to contact
because they've seen interesting panelists. or equally important, they
have seen interesting fellow participants in the audience. we say that a
lot of what we do is bring together audience members and everyone is a
participant. i think that getting the participants into the same room
more frequently rather than spread out among 10 or 11 different rooms
could help that.
i also often find that the most important part of a conference is its
hallway track, the unscheduled moments, the breaks and the moments of
mingling. it is important to have the key sessions to get the right
people to come, and it is equally important to leave them time to
discuss what they've learned afterwards in unstructured modes.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i like organizing serendipity. that sounds good.
[ laughter ]
i think there was agreement a long time ago that the mingling factor was
important, and we should not fill every available slot with meetings.
and so the -- i think to have a two-hour free slot or lunchtime slot for
people to be able to interact, i think that's considered key.
but then how many sessions, less sessions -- let me basically come to
the discussion of workshops. i still have quite a number of speakers.
china. (indiscernible), are you speaking?
>> china: thank you, chair. (saying name). this is the first name for
our intervention, our first experience. our condolence to mrs. chin. it
is very sad news for us. she had put a lot of energy and efforts to the
other meetings and also made great contributions for the igf process.
and i think we should welcome you, mr. markus, to come back to the igf
meeting as a the interim chairman. under your leadership, we have a very
efficient and effective discussion.
for the main session, the workshop, i agree with you that it is very
good to rethink the main session and the workshop. under the current
mechanism, i think the big issue or the big problem that the workshop
and the main session, there is no direct connection between them because
in this current arrangement, the main session is held in parallel with
the plenary. and, first off, the workshop has no time or has no
opportunity to report back to the plenary sessions and the plenary don't
even have enough time to digest the outcomes from the workshop. so it is
my suggestion that we should -- maybe we can give more time for the
discussion of the workshop.
so my suggestion that because we have two preparatory process -- time,
one -- the first preparatory in february and the second in may, but
traditionally, we use this preparatory process to just identify the main
themes of the meeting.
i think maybe we could use just one preparatory meeting to identify the
main sessions because it is not very difficult. i think the
(indiscernible) of this change is that after this meeting, the
under-secretary-general of the u.n. will publish the (indiscernible) of
the meeting, and it will need more time for the organizer of the
workshop to prepare for their workshops. and with the second preparatory
meeting, i think we can live for the workshop to organize the events. we
can leave all the time and all the venues for the workshop organizers to
have very fruitful discussions during the second preparatory process.
and after the second preparatory meeting, they still have two months'
time and they can prepare the written reports to the plenary meeting.
and during the plenary meeting, maybe the plenary meeting can choose the
workshop organizers as the panelists and have ample time and also the
participants can have more time to read and digest or read their reports
from the workshop. and i think, you know, it's very important for the
participants to know what is happening or what is the outcomes or what
is the discussions from the workshops. actually, they are not -- the
traditional way of publishing the six main themes and the participants,
you need to note what will be discussed during the annual meeting. so we
give more time, more opportunity, more chance for the workshop to have a
fruitful discussion and give more opportunity for them to present the
outcomes to the planning meetings. and i think this would be more
beneficial for the efficiency of the annual meetings.
and i think for the overall themes and the meetings, i think the host
country of indonesia has made a very good proposal on the basis of
indonesia's proposal, we can in tomorrow's mag meeting determine the
overall themes in this meeting.
and the six main themes, i think, in practice saying the past meetings,
we have followed the six main themes. these six main themes is the
pillar of the igf.
we can remain to use it also as this year's main themes. it will give
more ample time, more fruitful discussion for the workshop to discuss at
the preparatory meetings.
and i think with this kind of arrangement, adjustment when you give more
involvement of the multistakeholders. so previous -- because also --
(audio dropped out) -- but we should give more time, more chance for the
multistakeholders to discuss, to reflect their views. so i think we can
make this igf meeting more fruitful with more outcomes. thank you, mr.
chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. before breaking for lunch, there
are still many, many speakers who put up their flag, but they can speak
after lunch. i would like to give the floor to a remote participant. i
think it is mag member paul wilson.
>> yes, we have paul wilson who is trying to participate remotely.
>> paul wilson: good morning. can you hear me? good morning. can you
hear me? hello. i am trying to speak. hello?
>>chair kummer: paul. we have some audio. we cannot hear you, but we can
read you. just carry on.
>>paul wilson: i can see and hear you very well. okay. now i can see
myself on the transcript so i guess i can be heard.
>>chair kummer: now we can hear you.
>>paul wilson: okay. thank you very much. and hello to everyone. my name
is paul wilson. i'm a member of the mag.
(audio interference).
i'm really story not to be in paris but i had a clash here with meetings
in singapore. very happy to have joined the unesco meetings yesterday
(audio interference). very happy as well. so thanks to the u.n. staff
for making it possible. congratulations, to you, too, markus, on your
appointment. it is great news.
i have been hearing some of the first session of the consultation about
main themes and i have heard some but not all of the suggestions. it
seemed there are a lot of good ideas. i may not have heard them all but
some of them at least seem to be linked to the wsis+10 meetings which is
great. we heard from bertrand about the importance of
multistakeholderism principles and about enhanced cooperation.
there have been a few other good -- a few good proposals that seem to be
getting a little complicated.
and i wanted to suggest considering something short and simple which is
actually linked to the wsis+10 discussions as well in a pretty obvious
way. and that would be to consider an encompassing main theme for the
igf as simply this one: internet cooperation. i think now really is the
time to talk about cooperation. i think internet cooperation is what
we're all doing as a term which, i think, invokes internet governance
but with the concept of cooperation obviously there as well.
and i think the timing for that -- for adopting internet cooperation as
a theme mighting quite good in terms of leading up to the wsis+10. if
that's not something that flies in the case of this meeting, then i
would like to suggest that -- or i would plan to maybe develop that idea
in a workshop proposal and i might come back to it next year if it seems
to be a possibility then.
that's all i will say at the moment. i realize you are about to go for a
break. it is dinner time for me, too. i will try to rejoin after that in
a couple of of hours' time. thanks again for the opportunity.
>>chair kummer: thank you, paul. and, indeed, i would suggest we break.
i will quickly read out who i have on my speakers list, and if i miss
out on something please shout. council of europe, unesco, european
commission, icc/basis, (indiscernible), bill drake, paul rendek and
(saying name) and matthew shears. adam? mexico, is it?
hang on. we can always add. that is just basically reading out those
that had up their hands.
>> (speaker off microphone).
>>chair kummer: okay, okay. may i also suggest if you have it up, keep
it up. if it is like that, that means you are -- i have read out paul.
yes. andrea. okay. we have a rich program waiting for us this afternoon.
enjoy your lunch. we resume at 2:30 in this room, again, 11 and not 2.
thank you very much.
(lunch break.)
>>chengetai masango: ladies and gentlemen, we will have an informal
meeting of the regional and national igfs in this room now. so if you
want to stay for the meeting, please stay. if you are not, could you
please exit the room. thank you..
%%%jen{^
(lunch break).
-------------- next part --------------
. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
igf open consultations. 
28 february 2013. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start in just a few minutes. there's a bit of confusion concerning room numbers. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com*** 
>>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. we're about to start. can we please sit dow 
ladies and gentlemen, can we sit down, please? 
order. i'm going to start calling out names. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: patrik? 
ladies and gentlemen, can we start the meeting? we are a bit late as it is.can we please be seated? need a gavel. 
welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the open consultations. 
thank you very much. before we open -- before we start the meeting, i would just like to remind you that we do have transcription and remote participation, so when you make an intervention, can you please make sure that your microphone is on and you say your name and the organization which you represent slowly and then you can go into your intervention. 
so before we start, i would like to hand over the floor to mr. slav on check on, from undesa who would like to say a few words. 
>> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honoring madam chair (saying name) director of department of government and social affairs with desa with your meaningful tribute. the kind generosity of good friends like you has been a great help to all of us during this very difficult time. 
our desa family, and i would like myself to offer our most sincere thanks for the messages and letters that you sent in the memory of madam chen. 
thank you very much for your loving support and i would like to ask you a minute of silence in her memory. 
[ moment of silence ] >> okay. let me continue. as you know, the internet governance forum is a multistakeholder forum for policy dialogue related to the internet governance issue, and it welcomes governments, international organizations, business representatives, the technical community, civil society organizations, and individuals to participate in this event. 
on behalf of the under-secretary-general of the united nations, mr. wu, please allow me to start by welcoming you to all to the 2013 cycle of the open consultations and the mag meetings on the internet governance, and also thank you, unesco, for hosting this event. 
two thousand- -- as desa is committed to improving the core ideas of the igf and its open, inclusive, and multistakeholder platform. 
2012 igf team in baku was determined by magazine as (indiscernible) and social development. it's truly reflected the increased role of the internet in the evolution of the various development components through the world. 
the capacity development opportunities the igf provides are truly remarkable. let me take this time to thank the mag and mag members, which provide extensive leadership and the guidance to past and future forums. 
i would like to thank also our general (indiscernible) community, those contributions to the igf trust fund have enabled us to engage in capacity-building program such as the igf fellowship program. 
the funds also provide support for 11 mag members from developing countries who are attending this event as well. 
i invite everyone present here, either in person or remotely, to actively take part in the -- all discussions regarding the themes and substantive structure of the 2013 igf that is going to be supported and hosted by the government of government of indonesia. it's all of us to contribute to the sustainable development of the world we are living in. let us also use this opportunity to discuss opportunities in implementation of the action plan of the. 
>>wsis: , wsis, and in the consultative process of the post 2015 development framework. thank you very much. okay. and now i would like to give the floor to the honorary chair of the mag meeting, the representative of the government of indonesia. 
>>indonesia: thank you. excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. 
my name is (saying name) from indonesia. first of all, i would like to express a most welcome to all of you in paris for participating in this first internet governance forum open consultations and mag meeting, the preparation process of the eighth igf meeting 2013. as mentioned before, it's planned to be held in bali, indonesia this year. 
also on behalf of the entire community, i would like to express our gratitude to the success of the republic of azerbaijan for hosting the seventh igf meeting in 2012 last year. 
let me also take this opportunity to thank the united nations department of economic and social affairs, and igf secretariat (indiscernible) of this igf open consultation and mag meeting. 
it is, of course, a great honor for me to chair this meeting, together with the interim chair, mr. markus kummer. 
ladies and gentlemen, we have made some progress on promoting the development agenda in igf but we think more has to be done in order to make the internet play a very important role in promoting the human, economic, and social development as a (indiscernible) and safe global cyberspace. therefore, given the fact that the internet is developing so fast -- most of the time faster than the development of the legal aspects and the community readiness -- then we need to act fast as well, to set up new strategies to ensure the positive development of cyberspace at a national, regional, and international level. 
the agenda of this meeting today is very important. it has to be our priority to shape a fair agenda for the next igf that will be attractive to all stakeholders and continue to ensure that the igf meeting is productive and meaningful by addressing the key challenges that face all interested stakeholders into this world. 
the expected outcome of all our effort should lead to a more productive internet world and at the same time minimizing all negative impacts. 
excellencies, distinguished delegation, ladies and gentlemen, both the positive and negative of the internet have been discussed on many occasions, including the last three days of our wsis meeting. 
last december, during the world conference of international communication, wcit of itu in dubai (indiscernible) can be seen, of course, in the (indiscernible) itu. even the itu itself even set up a global security agenda, as well as promoting children protection globally. 
as we are discussing today, many aspects of the internet during wsis, our colleagues in u.n. meeting in vienna, this is their (indiscernible) meeting, also discussing the way to protect the people, the it system. basically all (indiscernible) including international cooperation for cyberlegislation and so on. 
many aspects of the internet will also be discussed in many other meetings. in the next meeting in april, also the cross-border data privacy will be also one of the main (indiscernible) group of apick in indonesia. at the end of this year, wto will also discuss e-commerce aspects of the internet and there are still many other discussions in many other meetings. regarding the internet development. compleansdz, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, realizing that there are so many aspects in the internet, some of them are even (indiscernible) as well as very sensitive, i believe the next igf meeting, where hopefully all of these aspects will be discussed comprehensively. it is very important to the meeting that we can set up the agenda in shaping the global internet in the near future. 
for further discussion of the agenda, as well as the detailed program of the next igf, i hereby hand the discussion process to the interim chairman, mr. kummer. thank you very much. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you, mr. chairman. it is a great honor for me come co-chair this meeting with direct general (saying name), and i think this comes at an important juncture. as you rightly pointed out, we have seen at the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai that there were a number of concerns voiced by developing countries and the igf could indeed be a forum to address these concerns. 
the secretariat has prepared an agenda for this meeting, and i would like to recall the agenda and the purpose, desired main occupants. 
first and foremost, i think we are called upon to discuss what could be the theme for the meeting, and in the discussions leading up to this meeting there were two different approaches. either we decide on the theme now or we wait a little bit and we do it in a more (indiscernible) fashion after workshop proposals have emerged so we can what is actually of interest to the community. 
so this is a decision we have to take how do we want to proceed with identifying the theme for the next igf meeting. 
also, the selection of workshops is an issue that always comes up again, and the secretariat has said it would be nice to have clear and easily understood workshop selection criteria. 
also, in the contributions, there are a lot of talks about the number of main sessions, how long they should be, and what format they should take, and then the overall number of workshops, again, their duration, and connection to the themes and connection to the main sessions. 
we have had contributions, they're all posted on the web site, and the secretariat has prepared this paper and i will ask chengetai to sum up the contributions we have received. 
please, chengetai. 
>>chengetai masango: thank you very much, markus. i'll just give a brief summary of the paper. as we go along during the day, i will give a more detailed summary according to the topics that are going to be discussed so that we don't discuss everything now. 
[ audio interference, please mute ] 
>>chengetai masango: the secretariat called for contributions taking stock of the baku meeting and also looking forward to the 2013 igf meeting. 
we received a total of 15 written contributions and also we received some suggestions on the igf web site discussion board on the main themes and subthemes for igf 2013. 
all of these inputs can be found in their entirety on the igf web site. some contributions focus on evaluating the baku meeting while others cons state trade on their recommendation for the 2013 meeting. 
many expressed gratitude for the government of azerbaijan for the successful hosting of the seventh igf meeting. the seventh igf meeting was praised for continuing thigf's tradition of successfully bringing together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities interested in internet governance and providing a truly unique opportunity to have an open discussion on a wide range of issues. 
contributions stress the need for improvement in 2013 in the following areas: main sessions. participants should increase, are focus should be narrowed and panelists should be diversified. these are just the general comments. 
workshops. the amount of workshops should be reconsidered. workshop selection should be made more stringent, and workshop outcomes should be improved. 
for the other sessions, the other sessions should receive increased attention and emphasis. 
for participation, they need to improve participation from developing countries, women, youth, et cetera. 
requirements. this requires an increase in outreach and participant funding options. 
capacity-building activities during the igf meetings should be increased. 
and social media use should be increased. 
for local issues such as -- there were comments on the local issues such as internet connectivity, venue location, the layout, food and drink, and also coffee. it was stressed that it's important and should be made available. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: we have taken all of that into consideration planning the 2013 meeting. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: as i said, these are just the -- a short briefing and i'll discuss in more finer detail the requirements under the specific headers that markus will... 
>>chair kummer: okay. thank you, chengetai, for this. 
now, a question. 
how do we proceed? i wonder whether there are any sort of more general statements or do we dive right into the substance? in the past, there were quite a few more general statements so i would leave that opportunity open. 
at the outset, i would suggest not diving too much into the logistics. the logistics is very much something between the u.n. and the host country. the u.n. has very clear criteria, but the u.n. cannot impose the way how to do it to a host country as long as it is within reason. 
we have taken note of some of the comments. clearly, i think there's a strong preference to have the venue of the meeting not too far away, but the u.n. cannot impose that to a host country because many, many u.n. conferences are held in that fashion, and that's -- as long as it is up to u.n. standards, that has to be accepted. 
the same thing, internet, yes, we do understand it is important, but it is not easy, and big organizations like the igf, icann, have also found it not always that easy, but what they now usually do is they hire a specialized company -- this is not resource-neutral. this costs quite a lot of money. the secretariat can rely on advice from highly qualified engineers who have gained experience in advising host countries. you know, patrik faltstrom, many of you know him, he has a lot of experience in doing that, but things can happen. it's not -- cannot -- you can never guarantee that it works perfectly, but we are fully aware that this is an important issue. 
and, and, and, and i think the u.n. always asks the organizer to make sure that there's quick and cheap food available, including coffee, but again, it is the host country that has to organize this. free food is not a criteria. it's not required for the host country. nobody will ask you to provide free food. but sometimes host countries are generous and do provide it. 
so to cut a long story short, i would suggest not diving into these logistics issues. we have taken note of your preferences and i'm sure the host country has also listened. 
indonesia has a long experience in organizing international meetings, and i'm sure we're in safe hands. 
so who would like to take the floor? yes, parminder. 
>>kanwaljeet singh: i'm parminder from a ngo ig for change and i thought i would take this -- which i wanted to make -- actually ask a question on. 
i would like to know what is the status of the report of the working group on improvements to the igf, because this report was presented quite a long time back and has now been confirmed by the u.n. general assembly and in my understanding, the chief actor or at least one of the chief actors to implement it is the mag, and whether there is a program to do that, whether there is a timetable or whether the consultation is going to be involved about how to go ahead about it. so i just wanted clarifications on that. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank 
>>chair kummer: thank you. the united nations general assembly has taken note of the report and now collectively we are supposed to take that into account when planning the next meeting and it is also on the agenda. chengetai, would you like to comment? 
>>chengetai masango: yes. it has been approved the working group report is part of the input from this meeting. if you check on the web site, it is there. and it has been integrated into our agenda and it is taken the point given there as if there were general inputs from people coming in. so we are paying particular attention to the working group report. 
>>chair kummer: did you want to continue, parminder. i see the united states of america has asked for the floor. 
>>united states of america: thank you very much. good morning. the united states would like to reiterate its full support for the internet governance forum and we believe the igf is the epitome of the process is that have make it an economic engine. i don't need to tell it to this audience. i felt it necessary. it provides the premiere opportunity for governments in to be civil society technical community to address internet issues in a broad, creative and collaborative manner. u.s. would also like to congratulate azerbaijan, the igf secretariat, the multistakeholder advisory group and the stakeholder participants for a successful igf in 2012 that continue to build the impressive record for discussion and dialogue in the information society. we thank you indonesia for taking on that important task and hosting all the stakeholders in bali later this year. 
our observation is that the discussion matures each year and the dialogue deepens, taking advantage of the opportunity of the annual igf as well as the national and regional igf for the discussion to be candid and timely. 
we also note with appreciation that contributions of governments, industry, technical communities, civil society, alike to the cstd working group woks to the igf. we support effort while preserving a multistakeholder model format on which it depends and the absence of negotiated outputs. we want to highlight the recommendses that can be implemented in the lead-up up to bali including improving the visibility of the igf and all stakeholder groups and around the globe. strengthening the secretariat, including its funding, acknowledging the contributions of the host countries for their effort in the significant undertaking it is to host the igf as well as the stakeholders for their active participation and input and improving the participation in the igf and its preparatory process especially from developing countries. 
with everybody, we look forward to discussing themes and subthemes that will make for a dynamic and thought provoking forum in 2013. cross-cutting issues are inevitable and we encourage the accommodation of those cross-cutting issues and questions and workshops. 
in her o with the unesco and the plus 10 meeting, the secretariat of state noticed wsis is a social issue, a human rights issue and, quote, it is an economic issue as an open, reliable and trusted internet sparks greater le rye built and greater efforts in innovation. 
so in that vein and for your consideration, we suggest addressing science and technology for development, s and t for d, if you will, and its contribution for economic growth perhaps as a cross-cutting or subtheme but we look forward to the discussion today and ongoing preparation for igf bali. 
just on a personal note, of course, it is wonderful to be here again and to be here as a government representative this time. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. brazil. 
>>brazil: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to take this opportunity as well to organize this meeting, for convening this meeting. i think it is very important to start good preparation for the bali meeting. i would like to reaffirm brazil's full support for the work of igf. we think igf can present a unique contribution to this process. we are engaged in the review of the wsis implementation. we think in that regard we have highlighted in reaction to a question that was put forward before, that in bali, we are already looking at implementing the recommendation that contain the working group on (indiscernible) report. we think it is very important that we start implementing at a very early stage and very glad to see the invitation is to take place in bali. 
we concur with science and technology development should be one of 15, so we would be very glad to look into and give more emphasis to this theme in the igf work. and last, but not least, again i'll like to just in this forum to inform delegates that brazil has put forward its ability to host in 2015. we are, of course, waiting for a final decision on this matter, but this is something that we would be very glad if we could again host the meeting in this very important year in which it would be a wrapup of the second phase of igf. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for your intervention. we look forward speaking for all participants to coming back to brazil in 2015. icc/basis, you asked for the floor? no? 
okay. are there no more general statements? then we can dive straight into the agenda and basically issue number 1 on the agenda, the secretariat has published to discuss the main themes and subthemes of the igf 2013. science and technology for development has been mentioned as maybe a cross-cutting theme and that has the merit of linking the igf actually closer to the cstd. 
but before -- we have also in the synthesis paper various themes have been listed that have been proposed. but i think there is a binary decision we have to take before we go into the substance. do we want to take a decision now or do we want to take it in light of the workshop proposals when we see in may what are the themes that are proposed from the community in a bottom-up fashion? there is a merit to both approaches. if we decide on a theme now, it would guide people who are thinking of proposing a workshop, going in one direction. if we wait, then we would, i think, act in a true democratic, bottom-up fashion and we would then decide on the theme in may in the light of all the workshop proposals. 
comments on which approach to choose? yes, martin? 
>> nominet: martin boyle from nominet. i, like you, have got very little preference between whether we set a theme now or whether we do it in the light of proposals. but i still think it would be particularly helpful to those who are developing proposals to have an idea of the direction travel of what it is seen as being at least general themes in which we could or should be developing. 
and, in particular, for me one of the things that has come out from in particular the wcit discussions before christmas is that we should be trying to put a bit more of a practical spin, a practical outcome, a practical thinking, conclusions that come out that can then contribute to help people make the decisions that they will then subsequently make. 
so if we choose later, i would still like to get down on to the record that we should be trying to get some practical support and activity and help for people who have to then make decisions. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
icc/basis, ayesha hassan. 
>>icc-basis: thank you, ayesha hassan for icc/basis. i think it would be helpful for us to collect the ideas at this consultation and see what kinds of subthemes and main themes people are focused on for this year. 
i share nominet's input regarding a focus on practical outputs or take aways, et cetera. i think if we can collect some ideas here today, we may be in a position to shape an overarching theme which in some ways would be able to promote the igf in bali earlier given in past years the host country has benefited from having an overarching theme to start promotional materials on the web site, et cetera. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and listening to both of you, i think -- oh, yes, norbert. 
>> civil society internet caucus: (saying name) talking about whether we should fix the theme now or later, this is not a question that we have had a chance to ponder really. one thing i would note though, there is a great value in having integrity in the sense of the theme that is obviously anounsed actually fitting what is going on at the igf meeting. i would -- trying to be not too politically incorrect -- still say that internet governance for sustainable development in the various aspects that were mentioned at the last igf theme is a wonderful theme. but what was actually accomplished at the igf did not actually match that wonderful theme. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. annriety. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: i was one of those who proposed the idea of developing the main theme afterwards. there are definitely different ways of doing it. possibly this year it is too late. but the reason why that occurred to me as a more appropriate way of doing it was because we spent approximately 1 1/2 days at last year's mag meeting arguing about what the main theme should be because the issue becomes very split have politicized. so, in fact, what the mag then does is to spend time on trying to achieve consensus on what the main theme should be rather than really trying to understand and absorb and process what the igf community expresses as its priority. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. lee, please? 
>>council of europe: lee (saying name). just one pragmatic idea about taking stock really. there is a lot of things that are being discussed now. i used the example of, for example, two weeks ago in vienna there was a meeting on internet 2013 on issues. there was a lot of events throughout the year which have a foreign policy dimension to them. the european dialogue has already started its planning process. we already have a draft outlined to be discussed so i think it is very important that we try to take stock of what's already been discussed. i would really appreciate some information collected together about what national igfs are thinking about if they had meetings and these sorts of things. 
>>chair kummer: izumi and then marilyn. 
>> izumi: a member of (saying name) and civil society. i would like to integrate the main theme in a substantial manner. however, given the time this year, it is slightly earlier than last year's one, we may need to conclude early. so what i would like to see is some kind of discussion today not spending too much time and taking some kind of temperature or the preferences of the defined stakeholders and maybe we try to come up online to narrow down to choose from, say, some of the major candidates kind of themes. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. marilyn. 
>>marilyn cade: thank you, my name is marilyn cade. i would like to support some of the comments i'm hearing about the importance of sort of generally taking stock of the options and the -- maybe the driving concepts that are coming out. i serve as the chief catalyst for the igf usa and certainly one of the things that has always been very helpful to us as an initiative has been being able to feed into and benefit from the igf. it would be extremely helpful, i think, to the national and regional igfs to have a general understanding of the direction of the theme and subthemes will go in. 
of course, they reflect both national and regional perspectives and won't be completely dedicated to that. but i think it helps us to support the bottom-up input process as well. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i'm tempted to say the other way around would equally helpful, that those are here that organize national and regional meetings, what are issues of concerns to them. 
but i think listening to the various statements, it doesn't seem to be an either/or question. it is rather a hybrid that seems to be an emerging consensus, that we don't need to agree right now on what is the main theme but that we listen a bit and see which direction it could take and then we finalize that at the next meeting. 
raul, please? 
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. in latin america, we usually organize regional preparatory igf meetings at the end of august or more or less sometime in then. usually with meetings here in the room, there are a lot of of people involved in the organization of those meetings. 
but i think that's -- organizing the meetings in that part of the year, it is good for the regional purposes, but it is not enough good in order to influence the agenda and the main topics of the local igf. probably we could encourage the people who organize these kind of meetings around the world to do that early in the year in order to produce recommendations that could be taken in consideration by the mag and the organizers and probably at the time of the may meeting every year. that's an idea that came to my mind now. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that suggestion. i think that's also in line what others have said, that we maybe ought to revisit the whole planning process maybe to make it more organic. 
adam, yes, please. 
>> adam peake, glocom. i was wondering if we could hear the proposal that is have been coming in from the different stakeholders that have been staying on this issue. and then perhaps just take it to the mag tomorrow where they might give a very brief bit of thought to this responding to those proposals as they have been submitted and put it in the program paper as a general outline of what this is generally suggested and take it for a comment to come back in may and then the program paper would give some general direction to people and we wouldn't have to worry about wordsmithing which is annreitte's concern which is a hybrid approach listening to what people have said in consultation and then asking for more thought later. 
>>chair kummer: yes, i will ask chengetai to read out the proposals that have been made. i mean, what i heard today is also to have a more hands-on practical approach that was, i think, martin and aayesha. and i myself was struck that spam became an enormous issue and in the igf context, we dealt with spam back in athens in 2006 and it fell off the table. obviously people that were in athens were not the people in dubai. and we may revisit an issue like spam which may not be the top concern of people assembled here in this room, that we have to take into account that there are people out there who consider this a major issue. 
chengetai, please read out the proposals we received. 
>>chengetai masango: thank you, markus. 
proposals for the main themes received were internet governance for openness, sharing and improving the lives of all humanity. human rights and the implications for internet governance. public interest principles for the internet. shaping global principles for the internet. new service oriented approach in the world based on the internet of services and internet of things. the most popular proposals for possible subthemes included issues pertaining to human rights and principles, human rights, enhanced cooperation and internet for kids. the report of the working group on improvements to the igf recommended that a set of quality questions should guide the discussions and debates in the main sessions and throughout the annual igf meetings with a goal to then report the outcomes of such debates by stating clearly the convergent and divergent views and opinions on the guiding questions. 
some contributors gave suggestions on possible policy questions that could be considered. how to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of the global internet and what should be the mechanisms and executions involved in this process? 
what kind of general internet principles or principles for internet governance can frame relatively coordinated and harmonious policy responses to key global internet-related issues that impact global public interest. 
how to maintain the principles referring to -- referred to by some as net neutrality, that the price which an isp charges their customer for exchanging data packets via the internet shall not depend on the content of the data packets nor shall it depend on the party with whom the packets are exchanged. how shall (indiscernible) architectural principles for best service for all global traffic in the internet be preserved? that's the end of the principles. 
and then all proposals on main themes and subthemes are listed in the synthesis paper, so are the proposals for the main themes or subthemes -- oh, sorry. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. some of it went already into the main session. i think right now we are still at the higher level of main themes. what i heard this morning i think in both the interventions of brazil and the u.s. were science and technology also for development which i think is interesting in that it so far links the igf maybe closer to the work of the commission of science and technology for development and the economic growth, the internet as an engine for growth and innovation. this is also something that was mentioned. i think i sense there is a general agreement that it makes much sense to listen a bit which direction we could go without taking a final decision so that we have a sense of direction. 
indonesia, please. 
>>indonesia: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm (saying name) from indonesia on behalf of indonesia delegation. it is also a multistakeholder advisory group member and civil society. we proposed some keywords that may be could -- would be formulated in igf main theme such as development, internet (indiscernible), multistakeholder, cyber society and (indiscernible) cyberspace. we are also offering some of the main themes (indiscernible) that will be used in the next igf as follows: internet governance multistakeholders, two words, information society through participation. the reason behind this, the multistakeholder participation is the process of internet governance requires a brief of the review of the concept of governance itself. governance can be understood as the formation and operation of the joint rule of the game which define the actors and their responsibilities in the collaboration to work toward common goals and in resolving any disputes that arise. 
government arrangements are open, translated into a partnership between (indiscernible) and (indiscernible) actors. 
secondly is internet governance is the (indiscernible) of the development goals. this issue of the mpg is to be the benchmark of all the countries involved in the internet governance forum. this issue is particularly (indiscernible) because in the near future, there will be an evaluation to see the achievement of (indiscernible) throughout the world. 
and the third theme is internet governance to achieve sustainable development through people participation. 
and the last -- the fourth theme is internet governance for sustainable development through (indiscernible) and secure cyberspace. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: yes, please. 
>> my name is mary anne frank lynn. i'm speaking on me boo half of the principle price coalition. while we talk about substantive themes, i would like to read a brief -- an abbreviated version of the statement we sent in because we believe strongly that this next igf needs to be talking about substantive outcomes. so if i may turn to my screen for a minute. 
we think this would be a very worthwhile approach to be focusing on what needs to be done rather than on who will do it and which -- so that gets us out of constant discussions over a day a half as anretta pointed out. we think it would be worthwhile on developing principles on internet governance as touchstones. thee are general terms we are proposing that can guide global internet governance to help take away required public interest policies and other activities in this area. 
it will give us important leaves on what kind of constitutional framework best suit a global agreement on internet governance and we think -- and we hear, and we can see quite visibly this is the hot topic coming up to wsis in 2015. 
we also note in our statement that in vilnius 2010 this was made clear by the chair's report. we also noted in the statement that (indiscernible) has been leading the way with truly multistakeholder process by which principles can be moved forward into legal terms. and it is time for the igf to have the courage of its conviction and have a theme that can include principles as a touchstone that can allow also subthemes for people to explore these particular priorities and interests. 
so in that sense, i would just finish now to say that we propose as i have just said the overall theme of bali, the internet principles, possible overall themes being put forward public principles or shaping global principles for the internet because we know that titles are important. we would like to make that very clear now. principles for the internet. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. you rightly pointed out there is a tradition in the igf to have this discussion. we have that in vilnius, also last year in baku, taking stock had a strong segment on principles. 
i see apc and norbert again, apc, please. 
>> apc: good morning, my name is (saying name) from apc. we just wanted to make a few contributions for this topic. a general point on the igf improvements, apc propose that is an implementation form is formed to promote the recommendations of the cstd working group on igf improvements. such a group can be made up a combination of mag members and volunteers from the igf community. an ideal number would be around 10 people. 
we suggest there is flexibility in terms of main session themes. some of the traditional themes are necessary such as emerging issues and taking stock. but other themes can change from year-to-year based on priorities that the igf addresses. in in slight, we propose that the igf in 2013 focuses on the following theme. we leave it to the mag to decide whether this should be dealt through main themes or roundtables but we do believe it would be useful to use the entire last day of the igf as synthesizing the discussion that took place at workshops. the following themes for the igf 2013 or topics, enhanced cooperation, support input from ball. the igf can complement the efforts of the cstd working group on enhanced cooperation. 
number two, human rights. the apc proposes that human rights become one of the main themes for the igf. this seems to be a natural step forward considering the prominence of human rights at the igf, s 
>> it will facilitate a substantive continuation of the debate, particularly around diverse ways in which the technical and policy decisions surrounding internet governance contend with human rights. the mag and workshop organizers should include new human rights issues areas, such as anonymity and less talked about (indiscernible) lgbt rights. approaching issues such as network neutrality, affordable access (indiscernible) and also part of the -- thirdly, internet governance principles. apc supports a decision put forward by the internet rights and principles coalition that the igf should provide a space for establishing whether there is consensus on what principles should underpin public interest internet policy and policymaking processes. 
many institutions are framing their principles, such as the council of europe and the oecd. at national level governments are establishing principles that can be used to frame national policymaking. 
with the naming of these principles are how they will be applied and how they relate to existing global agreements and standards is still not clear. we, therefore, support the proposal that igf 2013 addresses these topics in more depth than previous igfs have done and what public (indiscernible) principles for the internet or shaping global principles for internet governance be considered as main themes. 
fourth, how to deal with spam animal wear. 
there's an area where capacity-building, and policy issues can be dealt with. 
and finally, to outcome or to not. 
[ laughter ] 
apc believes it is a discussion that should be put to bed. when mag members debate whether the igf should produce outcomes or not, it is doing just that. outcomes are emerging in multiple ways, in the form of follow-up events, better understanding of stakeholder groups' concerns, informal negotiations of (indiscernible) and upcoming policy processes, brainstorm solutions for difficult policy problems, suggestions for research and capacity-building programs, statements from presents and so o. 
these are negotiated agreements but they might eventually lead to such agreements. the more interesting question is how these outcomes should be captured and communicated. 
this is a task the mag must take seriously. 
these are not negotiated agreements but they might very well inform such agreements in the future. 
thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. what is the order? i think norbert is next and then we have martin from nominet, india, and brazil. 
okay. quite a number of speakers. norbert, please. 
>> thank you. again, norbert (saying name) for the civil society internet governance caucus, the intervention from the internet rights and principles coalition resonates very strongly with what we have in mind, as we have put forward not only a general theme as it was read, human rights and the implications for internet governance which we suggested at the main theme, but we also suggest some subthemes, which are: effective participation of all stakeholders in internet governance and internet rights and principles and internet for kids, which we suggest as overall subthemes. 
and i would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the igf, especially in recent years of emphasizing human rights and it would be very valuable to take that forward in an even more outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented and moving it from the talking about it to actually getting it done stage, and i would very much appreciate if the program for the igf specifically encourages this kind of practical side to it to move the igf from being very much a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical policy impact. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. before continuing the discussion, we were told by the interpreters to speak a little bit slower. especially when reading something. and also, after speaking, not to forget to turn the microphone off. 
now we have already moved in many ways forward from the subthemes into how to do it, but this is all relevant to the discussion. we have still quite a number of speakers. 
i think martin is next, then india, brazil, icc/basis, bertrand, andrea. okay. martin? 
>>martin boyle: thank you, chair, and we've heard a lot of issues being raised around the table, and i must admit i agree with the relevance and the importance of an awful lot of the subjects that have been raised. 
i thought it might be useful to -- as somebody suggested that we should take input from national and regional igfs to say something about some very preliminary thinking that we've done in the u.k. about -- about issues, and one of the things that interested me about that exercise was that we came up with quite a lot of consensus on just a few topics. 
the topics included cybersecurity, but very firmly put in the framework of human rights, and this came up in a lot of our discussions that human rights not being seen stand-alone, bolt-on, extra, or sitting in its own little group talking about human rights issues but to try and bring the understanding of human rights, of privacy, of freedom of expression into discussions on other topics, and doing that on cybersecurity was a very, very big and important area for doing this. 
and of course cybersecurity is a massively large subject. 
we also identified doing -- trying to do some convergence, trying to understand better the principles in which we work, was again seen as something that was worth doing, but again, i think that this is seen very much as providing a base, a starting point, for further deliberations on other issues, to give ourselves a better understanding of where we're going, and certainly if we look at practical outcomes, practical thinking, helping people make decisions, then starting off with principles is a very important thing to do. 
and then of course we had youth engagement and things like identity management and building trust. 
so i've run through those last ones very quickly. i'm sure they'll come up again in more detail. 
but where that then led me for thinking about where we should go as the -- an overarching theme, and i think somebody -- and i forget now who -- suggested that the overarching theme could well be the internet as an engine for growth, for me that seemed to be encapsulating an awful lot of discussion that we had had in the u.k. as being -- well, you know, that's where we would like to get to so long as we understand these other issues, these other themes that feed into doing that. 
i liked the idea that the u.s. came up with for science and technology for development as a subtheme -- sorry, as the main theme, but i don't see that as being out of step with the internet as an engine for growth, and, so in fact, i wonder whether we could go for something like the internet as an engine for growth, and then a second line of science and technology for development, and whether that gives us a good framework in which to to build in a lot of the rather more detailed work that contributes to achieving that. thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
india? (saying name), please. 
>>india: thank you, chair. this is (saying name) from the government of india. 
first of all, having taken the microphone, i just would like to extend our thanks and -- to the government of azerbaijan for hosting the seventh igf, and to congratulate the government of indonesia for being our next host. 
i would like to just touch upon a small point, and that is, i would like to express support for the idea from the government of the u.s. and brazil for science and technology for development, and then to slightly suggest a little change to say "science and technology in internet," to make it a little more focused, because that may help many people to join in. 
secondly, the idea to bring in science and technology as the cross--cutting, overarching theme maybe a little early, and my minister has proposed a theme in the igf baku. there he has mentioned the theme of transforming the internet to econet, and i would like to repropose the same for consideration for this next igf. 
and then in the end, to suggest whether the two issues which are very important to india, too. the issue of science and technology in the internet, the issue of internet principles, and the issue of enhanced cooperation, whether they could be considered as main themes for the eighth igf. 
thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. b brazil?brazil. 
[ audio interference, please mute ] 
>>brazil: thank you very much, mr. chairman. regarding the themes that are being suggested, brazil certainly agrees that the issue of international internet governance principles would be an interesting discussion to take place in the igf, as it has been one of the themes of the workshops that we have here in this -- in the meeting that ended yesterday and we think there is a great road that is open for the discussion of this issue and the igf is certainly a place where it could be discussed. 
we concur with the suggestion from our colleague from india, but i understand that her suggestion does not delete the word (indiscernible). 
[ audio interference, please mute ] >>brazil: (indiscernible) is a very important (indiscernible) for the debate that we want to -- to have.
there's another point that i would like to raise, not exactly a theme, but i concur with the colleagues that spoke before me on the -- on the value that the -- the discussions that we are having here today and tomorrow on defining the issues and the themes for the global igf, the value that these decisions will have for the national processes. the national igfs and the local -- the regional igfs that could benefit from this sort of (indiscernible) of issues that would be also a guide for the organization of these national and regional igfs as deemed appropriate. 
but we would like to raise the opposite point. i mean, i think the -- it would benefit if we also took a look and thought on spaces in the global igf where the regional and the maybe national igf, as considered appropriate, could sort of have a venue where to -- to -- to summarize and also to offer their perspectives that the process that they had regionally and nationally to the global igf. 
i think it's the case of many countries, and it certainly is the case in brazil, that we would like to have all the processes in a more organic manner. i mean, the national igfs, the regional igfs, and the global igfs, and then if we had this two-way approach, i mean, the local and regional benefitting from the things that are decided here, and on the other hand, having a space in the global igf to express their views and their conclusions and so on. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this is also an agenda item on how to create these better linkages for -- i mean, we have already touched on elements of overall organization, outcome, and so these are important elements but we definitely will revisit them, and i suggest maybe closing the list of speakers on the main theme issue. i still have a fairly long list on that, so -- but i mean, the mag can also revisit that, but i think there is an agreement that we don't need to decide on this now, and there are some strong statements coming out, principles i hear that -- by many speakers. also the economic aspect, science and technology for development, that don't necessarily make up -- it's not the overall theme, but they are here and i think they will guide the direction. 
human rights has also been mentioned, so -- and cybersecurity has been mentioned, and there is an overall, i think, also general thrust that we should think a little bit more about having hands-on sessions that provide practical guidance. spam animal wear, for instance, was mentioned as best practices, and also document outcome, but this will take us further in the discussion and i would now go back to my list of speakers. 
>> thank you. 
>>chair kummer: (indiscernible) andrea from (indiscernible) u.s., mary, finland, council of europe. is there anybody else who would desperately like to add something? yes, i can see canada and with that, can we close the list on -- u.s. yes, yes, sorry, i have you down. i did not read you out. 
[ laughter ] >>chair kummer: and yes, paypal, bill smith, okay. and -- yes. mathieu shares, yeah. okay. 
all right. 
icc/basis. 
>>icc/basis: thank you very much. we support the prior comments about perhaps framing the main theme in terms of the internet for development and growth, and we feel like this can be used as an umbrella-type concept to wrap in a lot of the discussion this morning. 
we really feel like the -- the igf has a unique ability to talk about the internet as a fundamental catalyst and engine for transforming economies and for transforming societies, and that can be a nice linkage of all the different things that we've heard today. 
one point that we wanted to emphasize is, sometimes the igf is always looking around the corner at the next issue, but we think it's extremely important when we look around at the broader landscape that the igf tackle the fundamental issues of investment, infrastructure, deployment, the practical issues of how countries and how societies are going to deploy the internet and get access to the internet in the first place. 
secondly, to take on some of the issues around security and the practical issues of operating the internet and making it safe and secure. and third, dealing with the transform able impact as others have mentioned that the (indiscernible) science and technology can make on society. we think that can be wrapped into both economic growth, responsible social development, as well as the human rights issues that we heard today. 
the internet has a transformational effect on all fronts, and what we are urging is that there be a balanced approach to this igf that really incorporates the unique breadth that the igf has to offer in assessing a global view on both these fundamental aspects of deploying the internet, as well as dealing with the practical concerns with operating it, and then finally the -- the important social impacts that the internet has on society. 
and we look around at the landscape and think that the igf has to both assert its own space and -- and not let other organizations or processes fill that space, but it also has to look around and figure out how can we, as others have said, provide valuable inputs into others, and the unesco meeting this week was a great example of how there can be a great interrelationship between the igfs and other organizations. 
so i think the positive thinking we've heard this morning on all of these things can be very helpful in thinking about the main themes as we do our work this week. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. robert guerra, please. 
>>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab at the university of toronto. 
chair, thank you for giving me a few minutes. 
i'd like to just comment on some earlier points that you made. first of all, in regards to the igf being mentioned in other spaces such as the wcit, i think if there are other spaces where the igf has been mentioned as a space that key issues can be discussed, it would be interesting to make a list of those issues to make sure that everyone is aware of them, and so they can be on the agenda possibly to be discussed. 
i think in regards to whether setting the overall theme now or in may, i think as we're going forward now, identifying possible themes and then having a call i think would be good, but i think identifying some issues and getting feedback on that, i think, could be useful. 
i'd also like to echo something that hasn't been mentioned by some of the other commentators, and that is the -- the delegation from indonesia did make comments and they're the host country and the country from the region, and they have done a consultation and put forward ideas from consultation of different stakeholders, so i think we should give those considerable thought. 
and from the perspective of the citizen lab, i think the idea of science and technology for development is definitely one that we would support. and it might be worthwhile also to talk about cybernorms and the right approach to some of the issues as well. 
thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. bertrand de la chapelle. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle from the internet and jurisdiction project. 
i've listened carefully to the different comments today. 
i would like to suggest that we take a moving picture, rather than just a still picture. 
the igf is now entering its -- approaching its eighth annual meeting, and if i look at how things have evolved in the discussion, the igf has produced a remarkable outcome that was very visible during this week here. i.e., progress on sensitive topics. 
if i look at how the issue of enhanced cooperation and principles were discussed six years ago, it's very simple. six or seven years ago, it was not even possible to put them on the agenda. 
yesterday and the day before yesterday, there were two workshops on principles and two workshops on enhanced cooperation. both of them have, in my view -- and i hope it's shared by other participants -- displayed a remarkable move forward in terms of the desire of the stakeholders to work together on those issues and to address those issues. 
i think, therefore, we should recognize, irrespective of the other discussion on main sessions, workshops, and so on, that there are two key threads that have emerged as an outcome of the discussions in the -- in the igf, and that those two threads are, at the higher level, the issue of principles -- and they are very strong messages both in nairobi and in baku, and i happened to have had the privilege of being either moderator or a panelist on both taking stock and way-forward sessions in nairobi and in baku, and the message already at that time was very strong towards this notion of a compendium and so on. 
so principles and how to deal with the proliferation -- positive proliferation -- of principles is one track. 
the other one being the evolution towards understanding enhanced cooperation or enhanced cooperations as a desire to identify concrete issues and make the different actors collaborate together to solve them. 
it is, therefore, an interesting second track. 
operationally, i would suggest to use those two tracks to encourage the articulation with different workshops that are necessarily going to be proposed, and to have something that makes an introductory session at the beginning of the week, and have a closing session at the end of the week for each of those two tracks, so that the discussion can evolve during the week instead of having the usual problem that we encounter in terms of articulation between workshops and main sessions. 
so for instance, without getting into too much detail, the goal would be to have at the beginning of the week two maybe 1 1/2-hour sessions on each of those two threads and to allow people to organize their workshops during the week to feed into those two threads, so that at the end of the week, we can come back to two other sessions and see how progress has been made. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and if you allow me to pick up on what you of said on the impact and outcome of the igf, i fully agree with you, the igf has not been very good at documenting the outcome and the impact. particularly (indiscernible) impact. and i would add the use of the term "multistakeholder." 
there's no organization that respects itself that does not use the term "multistakeholder." that was clearly, i think, a notion that was pioneered by the igf. 
next speaker, united states of america. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. i just wanted to make a point of clarification in the discussion of the main theme. 
first of all, i'm glad if the notion of cs -- s&t for d is resonating with folks. i'm glad for that. 
but i had put it forward as a cross-cutting theme or a subtheme, and in recognition that really the main theme needs to be as overarching -- more overarching, as possible, and possibly -- and so i just want to make that clarification and take that sort of maybe off the table for a main theme, but to incorporate it as people like. 
and with regard to a main theme, i think overarching is very key and not weighting one element of the discussion necessarily over others in the discussion of main themes. something that can encompass all the ideas that people have been putting forward. 
thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. point well taken, but it is on the table as a direction to go, but i also agree. i think when we formulate the main theme, it should be a little bit snappier. science and technology for development sounds very u.n.-ish. 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: but we need to have a theme that sounds attractive, i think, also to people who maybe don't normally go to u.n. meetings. 
i think economic growth sounds maybe more attractive to policymakers, but it may be a little bit one-sided as it is not as overarching as the full societal and transformational -- i think jeff mentioned; i like that word -- -- the transformational impact of the internet. i'm not sure whether that's snappy enough, but i think we also have to think a little bit on how to attract people who might not necessarily have been to an igf before. 
andrea, speaking (indiscernible) correct? 
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chair, and first, let me say it's really nice to congratulate you for your appointment. it's really nice to see you there. actually, it makes me feel younger to see you back there. 
[ laughter ] >> i think when i was -- back four years ago, it's a familiar feeling and so i must give you (speaking in a non-english language.). to the point of the main theme and then to add a few points after. 
as a main theme from (indiscernible), we propose to evolve the main themes that have been suggested so far, particularly in the (indiscernible) diversity are proposing to have a main theme focusing on public access. we have seen that. it has been coming through different sessions and workshops in the past igfs. 
and we think it deserves its own space. it's important how you access the internet. it's important that the world has public access to internet (indiscernible) can lead to that, and (indiscernible), of course, is willing to work more into that's correct and there is also a dynamic coalition on public access, so that's one of our points we want to make for this mag. 
just a few things briefly is regional events. we're really pleased to see that regional issues are mushrooming across countries and regions, and we are -- as (indiscernible), we are libraries from 160 countries. we actually are doing a great work involving them into participating in the regional event nah (indiscernible) to figure out where niece events are happening. i know it is not always so easy. and ways to involve local stakeholders into that. 
we are happy to give our support into that, to tackle into the (indiscernible) library's network. 
on the dynamic coalitions, as part of the dynamic coalition won access and dynamic coalition (indiscernible) outcomes of the igf, i think there should be also thinking on how to make them more active and how to reword them. probably the wording is a function of the how to make them more active. 
one idea could be to get them on the mag and if they are active enough, we are proposing actually implementing stuff that have been discussed during the igf. that could be a good way to get them back into the whole igf process. 
and one last thing is about what i call (indiscernible) contribution to the -- to the discussion, the convergence. we -- before, we were speaking about the outcomes (indiscernible) igf. i think what just ended yesterday can be seen as an outcome of the igf. 
[ audio interference -- please mute ] 
-- that were made to a broad multistakeholder support yesterday was a final statement made from multistakeholder recommendations, and that's an outcome that i think the igf has to claim more of the influence it has even in the wsis forum. 
(indiscernible) even the name wsis forum came after the igf. at the beginning it was a long u.n.-ish (indiscernible) implementation and follow-up that nobody would understand, and now even that you call it a forum. i mean, that's a good outcome. so in light of that, i think we should give more thoughts on the convergence, also the review processes. we're all going (indiscernible) 2015 the wsis mushroomed in several different, let's say, (indiscernible) and it's interesting to pull all of that back and see what we can learn from each other, and i think that the igf in this moment can teach a lot of -- of lessons learned to the other organizations. 
and last point, i was following the name meeting and i heard the multistakeholder word coming up in several occasions. i thought that was interesting because you would never expect that. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you so much. thank ifla stands for international federation of library associations but i think it came across that you speak on behalf of libraries. i think the point is also well-taken that we have to project a little bit in view of 2015 what will happen after that and work towards that trajectory. i think that is an important mark. 2014 will not be the end. it will be an important meeting, but there will be a 2015 meeting and we will think what will happen after it. will the igf continue? and if so, it will be a decision taken by the u.n. members. the decision will not be taken in a multistakeholder mode. 
but we have to work -- if we want to, we have to work toward that decision. 
european commission. 
>>european commission: thank you, chair. and good morning to all. i just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were already made this morning. on the outcomes of the igf, yeah, we don't have negotiated agreement and we're not looking for them. but having no result, no conclusions means that we're going to lose a lot of what has been discussed. 
so as the chair said, the igf hasn't been exemplary in documenting its outcome. let's make it exemplary because then we can use what we do to feed into the discussions of those who do take decisions. 
a short point on logistics, i think -- there were a lot of comments on logistics. and there are comments on logistics in the report by the group on improving the igf. i think it is not just about comfort of the participants; it has to do with issues of connectivity which means remote participation. 
it has to do with facilitating travel also for those who are on a smaller budget to the igf. so i think it's important to take at least some recommendations on logistics very seriously. 
on the themes, again, i would like to echo the chair. i think one of the main words is to take it forward. whatever we choose as themes, we need to make sure there is an evolution from the previous igfs. already in the last igf, many workshops tended to repeat themes, repeat discussions. we need to make sure that in the final selection we have some kind of intellectual evolution from what was discussed before. and the fact that something has been discussed before like spam doesn't mean we should cut it out. just one word on spam, it's not obviously a major issue for some countries. it is definitely not a major issue for countries of the european union. but it is very big for some developing countries. it made its way into an international treaty. that means there are a lot of concerns around it. let's not ignore something like that. 
one last thing, i'd like to echo brazil on the point about regional igfs. i know we're going to discuss this later, but, indeed, it would be great if we could have a venue at the igf where regional igfs could give something to the general igfs and maybe discuss amongst each other. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. just a brief comment. i don't think we should not take the logistics seriously. we know they are problems and challenges. and i think collectively, we are taking this very seriously. 
mary, next on my list, please. 
>> thank you. this is mary (saying name) from ministry of affairs for finland. i listen for the discussion here and some of the keywords that have risen from interventions, development and human rights. human rights as a cross-cutting issue has risen from our national multistakeholder process and will be one of the themes of our finnish internet forum next time. 
and many have reminded us on the very interesting discussions that we have had here in paris with enhanced cooperation and of the working group on enhanced cooperation which will be in the middle of its deliberations as we meet in bali. 
and, therefore, i would like to make one suggestion for a theme which would be enhancing multistakeholder cooperation for growth development and human rights through the internet. 
i think growth is also important as we meet in the times of economic crisis. and it's also intertwined in the questions of spam and all the challenges we have. how do we combat those for more growth also through the internet? 
so this is my suggestion. maybe we could play with words to make it more catchy. but these are definitely the keywords that came up of this discussion. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for this. and i point out, growth can also be social growth. it does not necessarily need to be economic. so this is something on the table we're considering. 
do we have a remote participant? why don't we give remote participant precedent as we always say how important it is to bring them in. luka, please. 
>> so, okay, luka (saying name), remote moderator. we have two suggestions from remote participants. first one is a theme suggestion from veronica cretu. and she is suggesting internet as an enabler for social accountability and engagement for improved results. and there is a comment from deirdre williams, and she is says there is a need for much proved publicity and dissemination of the igf ideas to people outside of the "igf insiders." 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
next, council of europe? 
>>council of europe: thank you, mr. chair. lee hibbard, council of europe. (indiscernible) i'm the internet governance coordinator in the council of europe. part of my job is to take stock of what goes into the igf and what comes out of the igf and to brief my colleagues and to keep them abreast, also member-states for that matter. and for taking stock is quite important (audio interference). if we look at baku, for example, i did some counting. i count the events which concern us and i think i counted more human rights-related events in baku than ever before which i think is quite revealing. that's the point i want to make. it is revealing to see what is happening. why is that? why is that? why are more people calling for more discussions on human rights? and are they concerned that the internet is moving away from their concerns and the internet being a people-centered environment? is it trying to take stock of the why? are we asking that question enough? why increasingly do they have a human rights dimension to these meetings? are there underlying questions of traditions, values, cultures, even national sovereignty for that matter? 
that brought me to thinking about the why of the eurodig which is taking place in lisbon on 20-21 june and the overarching theme is -- and this is just a thought, internet for society, how to serve the public interest?, for example. just to add to that more food for thought, what the council of europe does and is doing for the next few years, thinking about questions such as what is internet freedom, is it more of freedom of information and access to information as we know it? what does it mean to say "do no harm to the internet"? what measure should states and factors commit to, to ensure that there is no harm? and what frameworks of commitments and understanding do stakeholders need to commit and engage and exchange? 
and one final point goes back to the question of internet rights and principles and the work of a compendium of rights for internet users, do users know how to effectively exercise their human rights online? thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. canada? 
>> canada: thank you, mr. co-chair. there have been a number of interesting ideas raised this morning and certainly found the discussion very interesting. i just wanted to support the number of interventions that have raised the importance of addressing practical issues such as cybersecurity, spam and malware. i'm thinking in particular of the comments from nominet but also their written submission and some of the ideas they have formulated. 
i think this is very appropriate for the igf to do. i take on board the comment that not all igf members and not all governments in particular put issues like spam at the top of their agenda but as our colleague from the european commission was just pointing out, for some governments, it is a very serious issue and has a lot of effects, even economic effects. and i think there is vast experience in this -- in this forum, the igf. 
when we were at wcit and some of these issues were raised, a number of us made the observation that a forum like wcit is not the right place to be discussing them which raises the entirely legitimate question if not a place like wcit, then where? and i think igf is an answer to that question. thank you. 
(audio buffering.) 
>> suggested by nominet for a subtheme on cybersecurity and human rights. you can't consider one without consideration of the other. i would like to talk about a couple of things. i think the igf is incredibly modest. a number of people today have referred to the importance of understanding the accomplishments of the igf. and i think there is something we need to take seriously. when you think about the regional igfs that have sprouted up, the national igfs, the variety and diversity of programs that are in place around the globe because of the igf and we have no idea really what the national impact has been of the igf because we are not doing an accounting of that impact. 
so i would like to see the igf actually put in place process, maybe it is a session, maybe it is an activity, to account for the accomplishments of the igf and the kind of impact it has had around the globe. 
i'd also like to suggest that we really think about the term "multistakeholder." i would like to see the igf have a session or an opportunity for us to talk about multistakeholder best practices, including something very practical. 
how do you implement effective multistakeholder processes? and as the igf is a flag waver for multistakeholders, it is a perfect place to hold it. 
the last thing i would like to say is in terms of outcomes or outputs, i think that it's important that the igf look at how its outcomes or outputs are structured. at the moment -- and coming back to this after a couple of years being away, they are not hugely helpful. they were not hugely valuable in terms of what can you actually do with them and now we are not talking about recommendations or agreements or this or that. we're just talking about outputs and making them significantly more valuable and usable to policymakers or stakeholders or whoever when they go back to their countries and they say: okay, we have a solution, a proposed solution, or a variety of solutions for a particular problem. i would like to see us getting back to a real review of best practices a real look at how we can make what we do far more practical and usable. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: i think there is a broad sense of agreement on that, that the outcomes can and should be better documented. the question is basically how. and this is also not resource neutral. either you hire an excellent consultant and there are people who can do it, or you do it collectively, the mag works harder on that. 
but, again, the mag, these are -- it is all voluntary work and it can be hard work. but this is definitely something we have to think about. and i still have speakers, and right at the end of the room, bill, you asked for the floor. please, you have the floor. 
>> thank you very much, mr. chair. actually quite a pleasure for me to be here today and to see markus up there with chengetai. brings back excellent memories. 
i guess i would like to suggest a major theme for the event and listening to everything, and that would be an engine for growth and advancement, the internet, an engine for growth and advancement. 
markus, you mentioned that growth is not only economic. it can be societal. and i think by recognizing that, we can -- it encompasses quite a breadth of topics that we could -- that we could include, for example, science and technology, human rights and freedom of expression. we could include business models, business models that have come up as a result of the internet that may not be well-known all around the world. access and diversity, where i would throw in things potentially like exchange points, local content, local hosting. 
and i also suggest that we need -- and i've heard calls here for this -- to have higher-level sessions. i think in my mind, that would be perhaps a smaller number of them, especially the lengthy plenary sessions that we've been subjected to in recent years. 
practical sessions i've heard a call for, where this might be sort of the traditional workshop, 90 minutes. and i think we could have some very good working sessions as well where they would be during the week, perhaps a half day of intense discussion on topics, for example, spam. it is definitely an issue. however, there are methods to approach it, to mitigate it. they exist. and they are evolving. 
and having been at the wcit and listened to the issues that i recognize are real, i have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that a treaty-level instrument is going to have a practical, positive impact on spam. the way we deal with spam and things like that is at the lowest possible levels on the ground and taking very strong measures and working cooperatively. 
so it is good that we are talking about these things, but just writing it in a treaty is not going to solve the problem that countries have. talking about it in a practical working session at the igf would be helpful. 
finally, with respect to comments made by matthew shares, i would be happy to co-submit a proposal on multistakeholder models and practices and to run such a group at the igf. i think that's a fabulous idea because all, too, often we hear the term bandied about but in reality when we get into perhaps what is declared as a multistakeholder meeting, we find out, in fact, it is something quite different. 
so i think that would be a very good thing a very appropriate thing for the igf to do. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i think it would tie up with the comments that the igf has not been particularly good at documenting its success, and that would be basically claiming ownership of the term "multistakeholder" and defining it and setting a yardstick. i think that would definitely, to me at least, make sense. 
raul? 
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. this week on monday (indiscernible) say that the information society should be seen from the perspective of human rights and i very much agree with this approach. so i would like to show my voice to those that are proposing human rights as one of the most prominent overarching issues, topics for igf. 
and i think it shouldn't be only for this year's meeting because this is an issue that should remain for every igf meeting for the next few years because human rights will remain unfortunately an issue around the world for many years. 
i like very much the way the finnsh representative combined the development and cooperation and human rights. it could be nice if we could combine those ideas, those values in the main theme of the igf in indonesia. 
regarding other topics to be discussed, i think cybersecurity, cybercrime are definitely important topics and i differentiate the two topics because many times we speak about cybercrime, cybersecurity if they are the same thing. and they are different things. both of them are very important, but we have to deal with them in a different manner. so i think those issues should be prioritized because those are areas in which i think we have the challenge to demonstrate that the multistakeholder model is able to provide some progress and some solutions for dealing with those really big problems that we have today. 
we have, of course, identified some specific points because i echo those that have said that we have to focus in practical issues and concrete things and not to discuss just those themes in a very general way. 
so i think my last comment is regarding the outcomes. i think that we have a broad agreement that we are ready to move one step forward and try to produce better outcomes from igf. and as you say, mr. chair, the challenge now is to deal with the implementation of that. but i think if we agree this is where we have to focus how to implement that so the works are written down. 
this week we had a very good experience here at unesco as a way of dealing with this issue probably. it could be a basis for discussion in the mag meeting. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that, both for the substantive comments and the procedural aspect indeed. this was also a question in our minds. can we learn from the unesco's way of proceeding? the also more focused, ask workshop organizers to be focused on outcomes. and security, security has been with us right from the beginning. but maybe we also have to rethink a little bit how to deal with it because it is also an issue of major concern for governments. and i think as martin said, the multistakeholder framework can -- and others, can maybe provide better answers. but we may have to rethink on how to frame it. 
anriette, you also asked for the floor.anriette, you asked for the floor. 
>> going back to the multistakeholder term, well, we are talking about -- 
>>chair kummer: for the scribes, it is not anriette esterhuysen. 
>> ana neves from portugal. 
>>chair kummer: i was not speaking clearly enough. so my fault. 
>> ana neves: now it is clear. good. my point is about the term multistakeholder and multistakeholder principles because we are discussing sometimes the more internet governance, the principles are not so much multistakeholder principles. it was already said today here what multistakeholder means and its importance and organization that doesn't respect itself -- well, nowadays it has to say it is multistakeholder. 
but what is multistakeholder? what does that mean? and so my main point is that besides the internet governance principles, we have to see and discuss what are the principles of the multistakeholders. and i think that when we discuss these principles of the multistakeholders, we start to see that we have multi-governments, multi-civil societies, multi-private sector and multi-technical communities. and it is interesting and it is rich to now we are at the level to better understand where we are. 
and so if we understand where we are, it's better to understand why it's so difficult then to implement any action because it is not governments that are going to implement anything because we have multi-governments, governments, they are all different. 
besides that, i must say i like a lot the title that representative from finland put forward for the igf to play with, with the words "enhance" and "enhance multistakeholderism." 
i think it would enrich the title to include something related to empowerment, capacity enhancement or building. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i basically have closed the list. but in the spirit of inclusiveness, let's also listen to remote participants. and i think our colleague from russia whose name i can't remember also asked for the floor. remote participant first. and there is one more. russia also, okay. 
>> thank you, markus. we have two comments from remote participants. the first is a suggestion from the theme of the next igf from (saying name) from the internet governance caucus. and she is suggesting economies, communities, challenges and nations and opportunities. 
and then we have a suggestion from victor from cameroon that is suggesting to have a small guide on multistakeholder igf best practices and he is saying that having national and regional igfs is a way to implementing multistakeholder igf process and to share multistakeholder ig best practices. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. please recall your name. my apologies that i can't remember it. 
>> andrea (saying name). higher school of economics at the university. first, i would like to thank the government of azerbaijan for the successful 7th annual meeting of the igf which was very successful for our delegation as well. and then i would like to say that i totally agree with absolute majority of delegations which propose human rights on the internet as one of the major topics of discussion. 
one note which i could simply make on this that the human rights is a complex issue which needs a complex approach to it. and so that's why i agree that we need the specific combined topic which allows common approaches for internet governance with the convergence of institutions and convergence of approaches. 
for example, we understood through the legal sociological, technological approaches, all of these issues, i think, are important to serv 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and please, can you introduce yourself? 
>> thank you very much, chair. my name is michael (saying name) name. i'm also from the (saying name). 
i would like, first of all, to say that it's a pleasure for me being here, and on behalf of (saying name), i would like to focus on business aspects. 
it was already raised by -- by the ui, i think, that today (indiscernible) the service sector has become the biggest and fast growing business sector in the world, which also (indiscernible) quality of life of people all around the world, and our economy is service-oriented, and actually we have internet which makes businesses going globally, right? 
and which makes services being global. 
that's why we also propose (indiscernible) contribution on service-oriented approach based on (indiscernible) of services and (indiscernible) of things because when we are talking about service-oriented approach of the global economy and global services change relationships between the people and companies. with the use of internet, and when we're talking about internet governance, we should also consider that it influences business which is based on the internet. 
that's why there are several possible subtopics, probably, about new business models of the internet, new models of the internet, possibilities for personalization of services including people with disabilities, and also security issues. 
so among such important topics like human rights, the internet, technological issues, i think probably it is necessary also to include business issues when we're talking about internet governance. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i see there are more flags coming up. i wanted to close this, but can we really close the list now? 
i see (indiscernible) and is that you, patrik? okay. (indiscernible) and then patrik. 
>> thank you, chair. i would like to offer a suggestion of theme with a view of trying to -- to covering the different subissues we've discussed this morning, which could be cooperation for growth, development, and human rights, best practices for sustainable knowledge societies. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. patrick? 
>> thank you. good morning, my name is patrick ryan. i'm with google. and although the topics and themes of the igf are extremely important, my intervention now is focused on the funding of the igf. it's a topic that's rarely, if ever, addressed at the open consultations and i realize we're talking about other things, but i hope you'll permit me to make my intervention now, so that we can talk about this maybe a little bit over lunch and at break. 
let's face it, money is really hard to talk about, and so it's completely avoided in many cases, or taboo. 
it's crucial, if not existential topic here, and so i want to be sure to bring it up. and to put some light on it today. 
the igf operates on a shoestring budget. it's astonishing the amount of work that chengetai accomplishes, with part-time colleagues and several volunteers. 
in order to do it to do many of the things that the participants want, such as increasing outreach and collaboration with the developing world, providing a revamped web site, tracking information and reporting on successes, the igf needs our financial support. 
the funding for the igf is itself a multistakeholder endeavor. contributions are voluntary, and they come from member states, the private sector, and civil society. 
although we don't yet have an overall view of the total budgetary needs for the igf, our colleagues at un did he say a and at the igf secretariat on are working on that and have promised to share that information with us very shortly. this willer very important as we set fundraising activities for 2013. last year the igf raised almost $900,000 from a total of 15 contributors. about nine contributors are from the private sector and ngos, and six are from governmental entities. 
in this regard, i want to call out special recognition for the government of finland, which has contributed nearly 25% of the annual budget on its own. 
just a few more numbers. 
in a typical year, the igf is attended by around 2,000 people from more than 130 countries. most all of the governments around the world praise the value of the igf. we talk about it in other context at itu as the alternative, but with only six governments contributing to the igf, there is lots of opportunity. 
there is no reason why half of the countries of the 130 countries that attend it, shouldn't contribute in some way. those numbers don't need to be high on an individual basis, but some contribution is important. 
i realize that government budgets are tight, but i respectfully call on governments to find a way to contribute to this effort. there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to turn the number of government contributions from nine to 90 this year. 
similarly, the private sector needs to step up. 
businesses like google believe in the values of the igf, but our business models also depend on the success of the internet. it can sometimes be a challenge to have private sector contributions from any single company or any single government to be too large because of the perceptions that can flow from that. we don't want the igf to be perceived to have been bought by any single company or government. 
at the same time, the number of private sector contributors should greatly increase, and i see no reason why the overall number of private sector contributors should not nine from nine to 90 as well. ladies and gentlemen, if we can accomplish this simple fundraising task, the opportunities for the igf will be far greater than we are now. as we enter the eighth year, it's time to put our money where our mouth is, to walk the talk, and to show that we support the multistakeholder environment and that we mean it. 
i want to draw your attention to the funding tab on the igf web site, which thanks to chengetai and the work of undesa provides a lot more information on how to fund. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, patrick. while this was completely off topic, i think it was nevertheless very helpful. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: this is also, i think, a lot of the recommendations of the working group on igf improvements are extremely helpful, but -- and not always resource-neutral. yes, of course it would be nice to do this and to do that, but the secretariat, which is comprised by one single person, there are limits to what this guy can do, and this is something we need to bear in mind. 
so i would also suggest when approaching the report that we make maybe proposals that are resource-neutral but there are others that need more resources, that we make the distinction and look at those that can be implemented without additional resources as a kind of low-hanging fruit. 
i mean, they -- "okay, that can be done," but some others cannot be done unless we have more resources. but resources can also be given through in-kind contributions. there may also be volunteers that come up to take on the task. 
there is another call for the floor. nurani, yes. 
>> knew, mr. chairman. my name is in your rami. i work for net noticed. internet infrastructure organization in sweden. 
it's great to be here today and it's great to see you up there again, markus, and i think there have been some very good discussions today. 
i'm going to -- i'm going to keep it very brief, since i know that we are -- we want to move forward. 
i think there have been a few very good ideas being tossed around today, and i think i'd like to associate myself with the speaker previously, who pointed out that it's important that the internet -- that the igf continues to evolve, and i think we need to show that in the program and we need to show that through the main themes that we have. 
the themes might just seem like a banner or a tag line, but it really sets the agenda for the whole igf, so we shouldn't underestimate the -- the importance of that. 
by showing also that the igf continues to evolve, i think we show that by taking on new themes, that maybe the igf wasn't mature enough for before, so i think a few people have mentioned the human rights aspects and i think the internet is an enabler for human rights. it's a very important and current topic that i think the igf should pick up on. 
i also really like (saying name) thoughts from the finnish delegation about playing with the words of "enhanced" and "enhanced multistakeholderism." 
i think that's something that would be good to pick up on. 
and then just a final comment, not necessarily on the main themes, but i was listening in to the -- the workshop yesterday on enhanced cooperation, and the point there was made about how the igf is very inclusive and -- but -- but we also need to be aware of the different stakeholder groups that have different ways of interacting with the igf. 
so if we want it to be more inclusive, we need to take that into consideration, so for example, by -- by -- if we want more participation from certain governments, we might need to do more to reach out to them. we might need to -- to do -- to specifically invite them and even to organize pre-events, for example, at the igf that motivates them to come and participate. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
and really last speaker on this segment, qazi al-shatti, p please. 
>>qusai al-shatti: thank you, mr. chair, and welcome to the internet governance hall again. 
first of all, i would like to (indiscernible) azerbaijan agreement for their hospitality in organizing this event, igf meeting, and (indiscernible) their beautiful country of azerbaijan, so i would like to thank them for that. 
i would like to echo the comments that the igf needs to evolve and the evolvement of the igf should be a revising the topics and the themes that -- to be discussed. 
i would like -- we'd like to have more focus on having a more open, inclusive internet, which we feel that it is still a current and important issue, as well as promoting a multistakeholder model for internet governance on what -- at global and regional levels. thank you, mr. chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. okay. now looking at the timetable, i realize that we're well behind what chengetai has proposed. he said he should move on, i think, some time ago, but i think it was a very good discussion and we touched on many not just aspects of the main themes, but the -- also touched on organizational aspects and on how to improve on the functioning. 
so basically the next half hour, we can start discussions on the organizational aspects and on the main sessions. 
i think we have already touched on that, and i think the strong notion here in the room is is that the igf is evolving, so maybe also that you need to revisit a little bit the concept of the main sessions. 
there are certain parameters that are given. the three-hour main session is given -- is dictated by the contracts with the interpreters. that doesn't mean that we cannot break it into segments but we cannot have, for instance, two 2 hour sessions because that's not how the interpreters work. they work in 3-hour segments. 
so that we have to accept. 
but i think there was a strong notion in the written contributions that three hours is too long to have one subject, one panel; that at least we should think in breaking it up in two. and also, i think what i heard from the discussions, that maybe we need new subject matters, like (indiscernible) written contribution maybe more focused sessions. 
we discussed that years ago, but i think in the end the mag was always moved back into the comfort zone of having the same titles. they have evolved slightly. you know, what we had first was security but -- we dealt with security and openness separately so that moved into security, openness and privacy, so there was an evolution, but my feeling was at least the past two sessions -- past two igf meetings were more the opportunity to walk around, that the energy was much more in the workshops than in the main sessions. 
some contributions said we should not have workshops in parallel with the main sessions, which is, i think, almost impossible to organize unless we want to have workshops very early or very late or during the lunch break, but we earlier said there should not be sessions during the lunch break either because participants wanted the lunch breaks to connect and to socialize, and that -- i think that's also an important aspect. 
so what do we do with the main sessions? can we agree on -- 
and a lot of ideas came up during the very first discussion. we could do this -- have this, have that. also, the format is not cast in stone or cast in iron, but what is -- we have to make use of interpreters in the main room, because we said we want to provide at least one track which is in all u.n. languages, but that can be also something else. 
it has been mentioned maybe some more hands-on technical sessions explaining on how to deal with spam. that was repeated by various speakers, could be one of the options. 
there was also the talk about having a discussion on multistakeholder principles, as multistakeholder cooperation is so central to the igf, why not keeping that center stage. 
young people and the igf or some proposed kids -- internet for kids or internet and kids, that has been something that has been on the agenda, has been mentioned many a times, that we should do more or we should give center stage to young people. and last year i was in a workshop with some of -- kids, i think high school age, 16, 17, from the u.k., who were absolutely remarkable and, you know, we can also think about giving them center stage. 
i was pleased to see that we have a very young participant in the back of the room. i think estimated age, less than two, or what -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: so that's good to know there is -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: -- young people also present here in the planning phase. maybe we should listen -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: yes. and i'm sure there's -- 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: and i'm sure he or she knows how to use an ipad and find their favorite videos. 
so the floor is open. what are the -- martin, yes, please. 
>>nominet: thank you, chair. martin boyle from nominet. 
for a long time, i've found it very difficult to identify what i expect to get out of the main and plenary sessions, and there have been various attempts at various stages to use the main sessions to give feedback from workshops, but, for example, last year i went to the security, openness, privacy open session, and the feedback from the workshops was very much a bolt-on right at the end -- right at the end of the session. and i think that might be that we end up losing an opportunity because when people do workshops, they go into their little silo in a small room and by the time they've produced the report, well, that particular internet governance forum has been and gone. 
so i wondered whether there was perhaps some way of reserving the plenary sessions towards the end of the meeting, on the last couple of days of the meeting, against the particular themes and using that to get feedback from all the relevant workshops, so that there is some central point of documenting and understanding what were the key issues that came up, and then that, of course, leaves you with the first two days worth of plenary sessions where i think it would be very useful to bring younger people center stage, to use some of the more general discussions which we want to try and get wider orientation for, perhaps on enhanced cooperation, perhaps on human rights implications of certain things, but, you know, that would be my suggestion that we try to make sure that the plenaries are well integrated into the work, and that there is a reason for people to turn up to those particular plenary sessions. thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, and on that note, there was also a strong sense that we need to work on integrating bringing in the national regional igfs' initiatives. i think that is also something we can work on. we had some more -- we have some interregional roundtables but they were not given center stage, and i think this is also something worth considering. 
chris disspain? 
>>chris disspain: thank you, mr. chair. 
just a couple of things. first of all, i agree with what you've just said and what martin's just said about the main sessions. 
my observations are, having been involved in these from the very beginning, are that the current way we do them is probably reaching the end of its life cycle. the concept of an hour and a half or three hours on a particular topic, you know, using the same headings we've used since the beginning and trying to find subjects underneath is -- isn't proving very effective, i don't think, for the main sessions, were particularly we will attended in baku, and in fact, i think we had this conversation last year when we said the main sessions weren't particularly we will attended wherever we were the year before. 
and i wonder whether the -- the feedback that we tend to get on the main sessions tends to come from the panelists who are there who -- who come back and say "yes, that all seemed to go very well" and that may well be so for them but i -- there's a lack of convincing feedback from the audience members who attend these main sessions as to their -- as to their worth, whereas there is a significant, in my view, amount of feedback on workshops that indicates that they have worth. 
so i'm very keen to hear what everyone else has to say about the main sessions so that we can move them on in a way that is helpful to the greater picture of the i went, and i certainly think tying them to regional and national igfs and the workshop reports is -- is something worth considering, and not being -- also not being fixed, in that we have to have x number of them. 
we have to have some, but we may not have to have as many as we currently do. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. car on lena is next, and we have many speakers. yes, carolina. yes. 
>> thank you. (saying name) lactld. i completely agree with the proposal much rethinking the igf's main sessions, whether we should have six as we had before, whether we should maintain the same topics for them, the subthemes reflected in the -- in the (indiscernible) programs, are then not taken up by the audience or the questions or the panelists are talking about something and then there are questions coming from the floor divorced from the presentations. maybe some further documentation about what has been the evolution of that main session in the past seven igfs for the newcomers and participants attending main sessions would be a possible solution, but in all, i agree with martin boyle's suggestions and chris disspain's comments that we really need to rethink whether we need six, when and where should we put them, and the extension of these main sessions as well, as part of the whole igf program. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. i have lots and lots of speakers. 
next was bertrand. then i have united states, olga, anriette, wendy, valid a, bill smith, china, and let's see how many we can take before lunch. and icc/basis, council of europe. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle, internet jurisdiction project. 
each year we have a session called "emerging issues." the concept of this session has evolved. it was initially intended to be a sort of takeup of issues that had emerged during the igf. it rapidly evolved into trying to make a specific focus on emerging trends and some of those sessions were pretty good, actually. i remember one in vilnius in particular on cloud computing that was quite illustrative. 
however, i wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use such a session -- maybe shorter or longer, like one hour and a half instead three -- to deal with what has happened since the previous igf, like emerging issues in terms of what are the trends in governance issues. we deal in the internet and jurisdiction project with challenges related to jurisdiction and the impact on the cross-border internet, and we see trends involving and there are issues on security and others that would be documented, which is a way to bring the participants up to speed on a certain number ofsome developments much. 
the second thing is, sessions of three hours are clearly too long, and i would like to encourage, as i proposed earlier, to have threads, and to make sessions instead of putting the main sessions at the end, as was proposed, which is not possible given the time with three hours, having different threads -- maybe two, three, or four -- where initial sessions at the beginning of the week would launch the thread, the workshops dealing with that thread would be dealing with the different facets of the issue during the week, and then at the end of the -- of the week, having one, two, or three wrap-up sessions of one hour and a half to sort of launch the issue, broaden it, re-narrow it, so that the work is done in the course of the -- of the week. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. united states. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. liesyl prawns from the u.s. 
i completely agree with the notion that, as other people have said, of rethinking how to deal with the main sessions and utilize the plenary nature of them, as well as the integration of things that happen at the igf, but -- and maybe this is stating the obvious, based on what other comments that have been made, but i do think that one thing that was not helpful in the main sessions was report-outs from the workshops in a way that kind of hampered the conversation. 
and i can say that as one who did a report-out once, so i -- i realized there's some value for getting on the record from the workshops in a way in the main session, but unfortunately i think the reports and the way that they've been done just hampered the discussion and the dynamism that we really want to get, so i'm all for rethinking how to do that. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i notice an emerging consensus that we are ready to rethink, which is, i think, a very positive move. 
olga is next. 
>>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. and welcome back, markus. it's so nice to have you here again as our chair. 
some comments about main sessions. 
there may be value in three-hour sessions if we can go deeper into the discussion. 
one hour and a half sometimes is too few to go into deeper dialogue. i think we should revisit -- revise the main themes. we should focus on things that have happened from the past year, the past igf, into the new one, as bertrand said, so we have to rethink the themes. and i also agree -- and i have said this many times -- this reporting from the workshops doesn't work at all. i mean, i think it's -- it doesn't show the content of the workshops and it's not helpful for the main session. 
i wanted to say something more but i cannot find my note. 
so i'll stop for the moment. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. a brief comment, if you will allow. 
i'm not sure -- i think the three-hour session is -- taxes the attention span of the same speakers, and i think also if you're on a panel for three hours, it's also for the panelists it can be actually quite tedious. but you can -- to pick up on your idea, you could also have two panels dealing with similar aspects or slightly different aspects of an overarching theme. unesco did that in some of the workshops, okay, the next panel comes in. there is in one workshop, i think, of 90 minutes they had three sets of panelists, which may be a little bit too much but, you know, you can also play with that, with the format. 
>>olga cavalli: chair, if you allow me one more comment that i was forgetting. 
i think in sharm el sheikh, we tried a different model of a main session. it was very much interactive, and i think that was nice. 
very few -- few panelists and very few speeches, short speeches and a lot of intersection with -- with the public, with the people there. 
that were -- once they were -- i don't know why we came back again to the model of the panel, but that's something that i would like to remember from what we did before. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, but let's just pick up on what chris disspain said, that the current model, i think outlived its usefulness or "sell by" date, however you worded it but i think it was also a little bit my impression we've done it and it's more of the same thing. it's not that they're necessarily bad, but they -- to begin with, people with, people were all excited, it was new, but it sort of sank into routine and there was more of the same thing, and if you can make it more interactive or better, but a lot of energy was spent on the selection of panelists and making sure there's balance there, and then adding one more to be sure and that sort of led to a ritual that i think really has outlasted, i think, its usefulness. 
but anriette. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: thank you, markus. i i don't support what chris disspain has said and other speakers and comments from the u.s. as well. i think using the main session as a way of synthesizing outcomes much workshops as a work, i think it has outlived its value. i think what chris said, we don't have to have multiple main sessions. i do think that maybe one or two with good speakers can be interesting, and i want to really thank patrick ryan for his comments earlier because i think resources are extremely important and i think one area where we see this is in the lack of funding available to invite new, interesting, relevant speakers to the igf. and i think maybe one or two main sessions with good speakers would be very valuable. 
just to share an experience from baku, some -- apc as well as some other governments and organizations involved in the igf organized a round table in baku. we organized a human rights roundtable and its goal was for workshops that had dealt with human rights to come together and share the outcomes of their workshops. due to time constraints, we weren't able to -- or scheduling clashes -- to have all the rights-related workshops. we had probably at least seven. 
and it worked extremely well. and we gave the workshops time to present their input. we were able to discuss where there were overlaps and where there were gaps. so as a mechanism for achieving what we have been unable to achieve is zibet sizing workshops, i can really propose and recommend that format of the roundtable -- of the magic roundtable. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this picks up up on also what martin suggested more or less, yes, to have the workshops coming together and having an interactive discussion, not just reading records. i think we agree on that. 
wendy? 
>>wendy seltzer: thank you very much, chair, and to our hosts. i want to echo what was heard. and i think we should -- about rethinking our working mode because i think what we are revealing trying to do is to engineer serendipity. we are trying to figure out how to help people to meet the people they need to meet to learn the things they need to learn and we may not know what those are coming in. 
and so i would suggest fewer sessions that get a larger audience together in the same place that gives participants a shared base of knowledge a shared meeting point where they can find that perhaps that technical issue they didn't think was really interesting is critical to their work six months down the road and now they know whom to contact because they've seen interesting panelists. or equally important, they have seen interesting fellow participants in the audience. we say that a lot of what we do is bring together audience members and everyone is a participant. i think that getting the participants into the same room more frequently rather than spread out among 10 or 11 different rooms could help that. 
i also often find that the most important part of a conference is its hallway track, the unscheduled moments, the breaks and the moments of mingling. it is important to have the key sessions to get the right people to come, and it is equally important to leave them time to discuss what they've learned afterwards in unstructured modes. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i like organizing serendipity. that sounds good. 
[ laughter ] 
i think there was agreement a long time ago that the mingling factor was important, and we should not fill every available slot with meetings. and so the -- i think to have a two-hour free slot or lunchtime slot for people to be able to interact, i think that's considered key. 
but then how many sessions, less sessions -- let me basically come to the discussion of workshops. i still have quite a number of speakers. china. (indiscernible), are you speaking? 
>> china: thank you, chair. (saying name). this is the first name for our intervention, our first experience. our condolence to mrs. chin. it is very sad news for us. she had put a lot of energy and efforts to the other meetings and also made great contributions for the igf process. 
and i think we should welcome you, mr. markus, to come back to the igf meeting as a the interim chairman. under your leadership, we have a very efficient and effective discussion. 
for the main session, the workshop, i agree with you that it is very good to rethink the main session and the workshop. under the current mechanism, i think the big issue or the big problem that the workshop and the main session, there is no direct connection between them because in this current arrangement, the main session is held in parallel with the plenary. and, first off, the workshop has no time or has no opportunity to report back to the plenary sessions and the plenary don't even have enough time to digest the outcomes from the workshop. so it is my suggestion that we should -- maybe we can give more time for the discussion of the workshop. 
so my suggestion that because we have two preparatory process -- time, one -- the first preparatory in february and the second in may, but traditionally, we use this preparatory process to just identify the main themes of the meeting. 
i think maybe we could use just one preparatory meeting to identify the main sessions because it is not very difficult. i think the (indiscernible) of this change is that after this meeting, the under-secretary-general of the u.n. will publish the (indiscernible) of the meeting, and it will need more time for the organizer of the workshop to prepare for their workshops. and with the second preparatory meeting, i think we can live for the workshop to organize the events. we can leave all the time and all the venues for the workshop organizers to have very fruitful discussions during the second preparatory process. 
and after the second preparatory meeting, they still have two months' time and they can prepare the written reports to the plenary meeting. and during the plenary meeting, maybe the plenary meeting can choose the workshop organizers as the panelists and have ample time and also the participants can have more time to read and digest or read their reports from the workshop. and i think, you know, it's very important for the participants to know what is happening or what is the outcomes or what is the discussions from the workshops. actually, they are not -- the traditional way of publishing the six main themes and the participants, you need to note what will be discussed during the annual meeting. so we give more time, more opportunity, more chance for the workshop to have a fruitful discussion and give more opportunity for them to present the outcomes to the planning meetings. and i think this would be more beneficial for the efficiency of the annual meetings. 
and i think for the overall themes and the meetings, i think the host country of indonesia has made a very good proposal on the basis of indonesia's proposal, we can in tomorrow's mag meeting determine the overall themes in this meeting. 
and the six main themes, i think, in practice saying the past meetings, we have followed the six main themes. these six main themes is the pillar of the igf. 
we can remain to use it also as this year's main themes. it will give more ample time, more fruitful discussion for the workshop to discuss at the preparatory meetings. 
and i think with this kind of arrangement, adjustment when you give more involvement of the multistakeholders. so previous -- because also -- (audio dropped out) -- but we should give more time, more chance for the multistakeholders to discuss, to reflect their views. so i think we can make this igf meeting more fruitful with more outcomes. thank you, mr. chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. before breaking for lunch, there are still many, many speakers who put up their flag, but they can speak after lunch. i would like to give the floor to a remote participant. i think it is mag member paul wilson. 
>> yes, we have paul wilson who is trying to participate remotely. 
>> paul wilson: good morning. can you hear me? good morning. can you hear me? hello. i am trying to speak. hello? 
>>chair kummer: paul. we have some audio. we cannot hear you, but we can read you. just carry on. 
>>paul wilson: i can see and hear you very well. okay. now i can see myself on the transcript so i guess i can be heard. 
>>chair kummer: now we can hear you. 
>>paul wilson: okay. thank you very much. and hello to everyone. my name is paul wilson. i'm a member of the mag. 
(audio interference). 
i'm really story not to be in paris but i had a clash here with meetings in singapore. very happy to have joined the unesco meetings yesterday (audio interference). very happy as well. so thanks to the u.n. staff for making it possible. congratulations, to you, too, markus, on your appointment. it is great news. 
i have been hearing some of the first session of the consultation about main themes and i have heard some but not all of the suggestions. it seemed there are a lot of good ideas. i may not have heard them all but some of them at least seem to be linked to the wsis+10 meetings which is great. we heard from bertrand about the importance of multistakeholderism principles and about enhanced cooperation. 
there have been a few other good -- a few good proposals that seem to be getting a little complicated. 
and i wanted to suggest considering something short and simple which is actually linked to the wsis+10 discussions as well in a pretty obvious way. and that would be to consider an encompassing main theme for the igf as simply this one: internet cooperation. i think now really is the time to talk about cooperation. i think internet cooperation is what we're all doing as a term which, i think, invokes internet governance but with the concept of cooperation obviously there as well. 
and i think the timing for that -- for adopting internet cooperation as a theme mighting quite good in terms of leading up to the wsis+10. if that's not something that flies in the case of this meeting, then i would like to suggest that -- or i would plan to maybe develop that idea in a workshop proposal and i might come back to it next year if it seems to be a possibility then. 
that's all i will say at the moment. i realize you are about to go for a break. it is dinner time for me, too. i will try to rejoin after that in a couple of of hours' time. thanks again for the opportunity. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, paul. and, indeed, i would suggest we break. i will quickly read out who i have on my speakers list, and if i miss out on something please shout. council of europe, unesco, european commission, icc/basis, (indiscernible), bill drake, paul rendek and (saying name) and matthew shears. adam? mexico, is it? 
hang on. we can always add. that is just basically reading out those that had up their hands. 
>> (speaker off microphone). 
>>chair kummer: okay, okay. may i also suggest if you have it up, keep it up. if it is like that, that means you are -- i have read out paul. yes. andrea. okay. we have a rich program waiting for us this afternoon. enjoy your lunch. we resume at 2:30 in this room, again, 11 and not 2. thank you very much. 
(lunch break.) 
>>chengetai masango: ladies and gentlemen, we will have an informal meeting of the regional and national igfs in this room now. so if you want to stay for the meeting, please stay. if you are not, could you please exit the room. thank you.. 
%%%jen{^ 
(lunch break). 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/deac0dca/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t