2nd CONSULTATIONS ON THE CONVENING OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM TRANSCRIPT OF THE AFTERNOON SESSION FRIDAY 19 MAY 2006 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the 2nd Consultations on the Convening of the Internet Governance Forum, in Geneva on 19 May 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. (Gavel.) >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Welcome. As I said, we will start the afternoon with a presentation about the arrangements being considered in Athens. We will then come back to our discussion, because I understand there are several people who still want to speak on this subject. So we'll come back to that. But I thought we should begin by just having a briefing from Mr. George Papadatos, who is basically bearing the burden of organization on the arrangements that are being contemplated. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you, Mr. Desai. Let me, at the outset, -- excuse me -- convey through you to the secretary general my sincere gratitude for being chosen to serve on the advisory board. It's an honor for me and for my country. And I should try my best to have the efforts of the group bear fruit towards a successful meeting in Athens. I am pleased to report that a number of delegates and members of the civil society and the private sector have approached me, and they have been asking me questions regarding the organizational arrangements, whether the site has been selected, and so forth. And I've been telling them that we are awaiting for the decisions of the board. The facilities have been selected, but there are important decisions to be made regarding -- that have a bearing on the facilities themselves. I have also mentioned that we have been in contact with you and with Mr. Kummer, and there are going to be more meetings after the meeting of the board regarding the nitty-gritty of organizational arrangements after we have the decisions of the board and working out an arrangement with the U.N. We, like you, perceive Athens as what I would call a hybrid meeting. It's not a full-fledged U.N. meeting, but also it is not a happening where the free-for-all principle applies. Now, among the individuals that have shown interest in moving the process forward is Mr. Vianna, our Brazilian colleague, who, if I remember well, during a meeting of the Group of 77, where I was invited to give a briefing, he asked that Greece presents a timetable with deadlines regarding the meeting in Athens. And I appreciated this very much, and in my presentation, such deadlines appear so that we can move the process forward. And as I have said in earlier presentations, we are already running a little bit late in terms of organizational arrangements. I will be ready now. I will have to ask one of the ladies to help out to switch into the PowerPoint presentation. (PowerPoint presentation.) >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: I don't know whether that's visible to everyone or we have probably to dim the lights a little bit so that -- there are some photos that will look much better if the lights are dimmed. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Is it possible to dim the lights? >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: While we are waiting for some technician to do that, I would also like to add that, unfortunately, due to last-minute commitments, I was expecting somebody who has surveyed the facilities and is more familiar with the site to be here. But this person could not make it. So we're going to rely on the pictures and of my knowledge of the place. Well, I will try to move on, and probably while the technician will be on his way. Well, I have pretty much finished with my introduction. The next stage will be the state of preparations, and then the next steps. There are two ministries involved, basically. It's the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It's a kind of a cooperative project. And we have the support of the Postal Service, the Greek Postal Service. And what I'm going to do, I will present the highlights of what we considered a very good conference location for the inaugural meeting. We have prebooked the facility, and here comes the deadline, is May 30th for final confirmation. Most of these facilities are booked one or two years in advance, and beyond that date, there is risk and uncertainty regarding reservations of such magnitude. And you're going to see the size of the complex and then you will know why it is important. So we -- of course, Greece is not the only country that expects the ad hoc advisory board during the first meeting to decide on the agenda, topics, working groups, and/or panels, and, in general, the structure. That has a bearing on the physical facilities. And we want to plan very carefully ahead for your convenience and for the success of the.... We have looked at a number of potential sites, and we have some rigorous technical requirements that are for a state-of-the-art type of conference. And, of course, we looked at that there should be transport links, that there are going to be nearby facilities, and proximity to desirable accommodation. And I will come back to that. The best candidate location is a complex called Astir Palace in the area of Vouliagmeni in Athens. Now, this is only 25 kilometers from the center of Athens, along a coast which has been described as the Greek Riviera. It's also 25 kilometers from the Athens International Airport. It covers 75 acres and has a unique natural environment, and offers a breathtaking view of the Saronic Coast Gulf. And here it is. Now, this is a description of the place. There are seven restaurants, seven bars, private beaches, swimming pools, VIP floors, shopping arcade, helipad, indoor/outdoor parking space and on and on helipad. So it's unfortunate we can't dim the lights, because this is -- it's a very nice location. It doesn't do justice to the blue water. [ Laughter ] >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: And I have been assured that the swimming pools will be open -- [ Laughter ] >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: -- at the end of October. Okay. Some more here. We have three business centers, high-tech audiovisual equipment, there's going to be high-speed Internet access, wireless Internet connection, live Web broadcasting capabilities, computer rental, cell phone rental, and other technological facilities. We want to make sure that we have -- well, I think that the wireless and enough electricity for your laptops and so forth are pretty much assured. Somebody mentioned about the possibility of having -- well, we can also provide the live Web broadcasting capabilities. But I don't know whether -- how interactive these are going to be. I don't know, I will mention this because it was mentioned, with regard to blogs and so forth, a discussion we had earlier. Now, the -- I was told that the largest hall can hold about 800 participants. This is a difficult question, and there's no one that can give me a precise answer as to how many of you are going to come. And, you know, that is a formidable challenge, because we -- the question is, what if you get 1200, what do you do? I mean, it is an inclusive and participatory type of event. And we have discussed this with Mr. Desai and with Mr. Kummer. And I hope, through some kind of preregistration or some other arrangement, that we'll be able to get an idea as to what the participation is going to be. Well, here are some additional information about the -- what is going to be, probably, the plenary hall. Incidentally, what I wanted to say -- well, this is what a small -- the smallest meeting room for private meetings and so forth. But up until now, we have been able to secure three additional meeting rooms. And this is -- I'm afraid of the limit in that type of facility. I don't know to what extent that will constrain the number of topics. But there is a physical limitation with regard to how many groups, panels, or what have you are going to meet. So please bear that in mind. One plenary hall and the three additional rooms. Well, all of you will be able to reach Athens, and you will have the services of a modern city, and you will be able to, of course, reach the center. You will have the area of Glyfada. It's a very upscale area that's very near the hotel, with restaurants and so forth and shopping. And there are, as it said in here, quite a few of the famous cape Sounio, which is within reach very close to that location. I did mention earlier that there are plenty of hotels outside that particular complex, within walking distance, and with plenty of transportation available. The -- from what I understand, the practice of giving special rates to the participants will be followed also there. So there are 165 rooms and bungalows, from what I understand, in that particular complex. And there are going to be special rates that will be announced in due course. So our next steps, apart from there's going to be a seven-member conference organizational committee in Greece, there's going to be a company that will undertake all the organizational arrangements, that will arrange for security, that will arrange to pick up delegates from the airport, and so forth, and things that have to be done. As I told you, by the end of May, we have to book. And there are -- once we book the facility, then we run a huge risk if it's cancelled, and financial penalties. There may be some sponsoring. Of course, there's going to be a forum logo, there's going to be a communications strategy, audiovisual equipment, transport, catering, and so forth, just to give you an idea of some of the things that lie ahead. And, of course, the success depends on the best efforts of all stakeholders. And I'm sure that the cooperative spirit must continue within the context of the advisory -- the ad hoc advisory board -- or, I'm sorry, the advisory board, period. And we believe that, correctly so, the IGF is perceived as probably the most concrete outcome of the Tunis summit, and we must prove to the world that it is an innovative, workable, and successful idea. I want to thank you for your attention, and you are all welcome in Athens. And, of course, you do know what our Web site is. If you allow me, I will show once more, now that the lights are dimmed, the -- if I can, very quickly, the view of the facility. Yeah, this is pretty much it. I don't know whether you can see it better. But thank you very much, Mr. Desai. >> >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Before we go on, I think, essentially, the parameters are there. The -- if you have questions, you may like to pose them quickly now on these organizational issues, particularly questions about accommodation or any such that you have. May I just pose a question. Will there be a centralized process for booking of hotels, et cetera? Or would people have to essentially go and do it on their own, that there would be a list available of accessible hotels, and then people would essentially have to go and find these places on their own? Will there be centralized or will it be open in that sense? Yes. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Well, what we are planning on doing is to follow the practice of what is done in some other meetings, like ICANN and so forth. We can have a number of hotels suggested that are -- that can accommodate the delegates with rates, and from there on, of course, if somebody feels that they -- they are in the Web site already, there is a process through which you can find hotels to book. If you want to commute, for example, and stay in Athens, you can do that and take a bus and come back and forth on a daily basis. But in addition to what I have said, we are planning to make more concrete announcements on the Web site regarding the accommodations soon. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I urge that people keep track. And we would also ensure that there are appropriate links on the Web site which is set up by the IGF secretariat. Adam. >>ADAM PEAKE: Hi, Adam Peake. George, one question about the three additional rooms. Do you know what size or how many people they will accommodate? 800 in the plenary room, and then any thoughts on that? >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: We are told that it's going to be between 2- and 300 in the additional rooms. Probably they can be stretched to a little more. >>ADAM PEAKE: If I may, just -- >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Yes, please. >>ADAM PEAKE: And I don't know if you know, but could you find out if the rooms themselves to be subdivided in some way, for example, the plenary room split up into half or something? Or would it be left as an 800-person hall for the whole period? >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: I can find out. As I said, unfortunately, there's been a person who has surveyed. I have been there myself, but on a different occasion. And that I can do, and I can put it up on the Web site. However, if there are indications that there are going to be more than 800 participants, then we may have to have alternate arrangements very soon. What I'm afraid is that we may go through some preregistration process and find out that the numbers have exceeded our expectation, and then it will be very difficult to accommodate over 800. But I can only go by the estimates of WGIG and of what you, Mr. Chairman, have said during your summary the last time, that you would expect around between 5- and 600 or so. So we are -- we would like to err on the side of more rather than less. But you understand the dilemma, because it is a big leap for a particular room to jump from 800 to 1200 persons. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Any -- yes, Bertrand. >> >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Yes, Bertrand de la Chapelle. George, a few quick points. The first thing is, apart from the main plenary room and the three ones, how many small rooms the size you showed or maybe a little larger could be used for birds of a feather sessions or side effects and be reserved by parallel opportunities? Second question is, is there any availability of such rooms immediately before and immediately after the forum itself, if anybody wants to organize a meeting preparatory to the formal event? And the last point on the question you raise about the number of participants, is there any interest in making an informal call for an intention to participate on the IGF Web site where people would simply indicate that they intend to go there, to have a fundamental gauge, like you could put on your Web site, a sort of meter, and everybody who intends to go there says, yes, I intend to go there, and you would have an appreciation, very rough. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Oh, thank you very much. I will -- Well, the meter is a good idea. But then you run into a problem which is called the free-rider problem. And it -- and this is very easily shown when -- or it appears when they go around and ask people whether -- would you like another bank in your area? Or another supermarket? And they say, yes, yes, of course, we would love it. And then it opens and nobody shows up, because they feel that they would like to have that option, but at least it may be a rough indication. As far as these parallel opportunities and the before and after, this was raised during the discussions. And I think it depends to what extent it is related to the forum itself. And that is something that can be taken up by the board, because it will imply, I have been asking for proposals, but I have not seen any concrete proposal yet. And I've been telling people who have approached me, "Why don't you submit something formally to the board?" I don't know what you think about it, Mr. Desai, about these parallel events. But it is a good idea to know who the organizer is, how serious this is, and what are the facilities that are needed, so that we can provide. But these are things that have to be clarified. And, of course, I will be happy to take all these requests back to Athens and investigate. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: First Bertrand, and then -- >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Sorry, just one precision on that point. I was not necessarily thinking only of formal, parallel events that would be open to everyone, but there will be a lot of groups, there might be regional governmental groups that will want to consult among themselves, civil society caucus meetings, and that sort of ad hoc meetings that will not necessarily be open but that might take place at the same time. So it's just a precaution. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Well, thank you. That, of course, I can help with. This is a big complex, and there is quite a bit of physical distance walking from one area to the other. And I'm sure -- I'm going to jot it down. And upon arrival to Athens, I'm going to check myself and see, with that in mind. However, I would like to have an indication also about parallel events or what else is -- at an early stage. >>DAVID WOOD: George, you -- we were talking earlier about using the means of the Internet to make the conference work smoothly. And our chairman mentioned that he'd been at a meeting in London where delegates were able to add contributions to a blog, and people outside were able to add their blogs. There is actually an even more powerful tool than that called a WIKI, W-I-K-I, which allows comments on a document. So, I mean, I don't know what the -- what it would be like if there were 800 comments on a document, one would have to think about that. There are tools out there that would help to make this not just a discussion about Internet, but using it. And it might be interesting just to have, if you wanted to, you know, a small group of people look at the options and see which ones might be used and who could provide the facilities for you. It's just a suggestion. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Can I suggest that perhaps -- to take up. It's a very technical -- may I just comment on one or two issues. First, I think in terms of the size of the plenary hall, the real issue is not of fine-tuning, which is that will there be 1200 people or 800 people. It's not possible necessarily to provide a plenary hall where every single participants is able to be present. That situation arises. I've organized a lot of U.N. meetings, and I can promise you that if I'd had to organize a plenary hall for 1500 people in Johannesburg, it would have to be in a stadium. We accept that there is a physical limit to how many people can be there. And, in fact, in the case of the U.N., our plenary hall, particularly, is way below the total number of people who are participating. Now, here, the real issue is, 800 is fine. If it's 1200, I don't think that poses a great problem. The real problem is if it's 5,000. Now, I don't think we are getting to that number, because, look, this room has about 100 people right now. And what we are looking at is eight times this number, roughly 200 member states, you can -- I would say that it would be possibly -- I'm counting -- even an average of two per member state, which is quite -- for a meeting like this, is quite high. It still gives you 400. Double it, allow for more. I don't think it will go much beyond a thousand or 1200. So that's the basis on which I think -- I wouldn't want to try to fine-tune this too much. As long as we are not going to get stuck with a situation where it is way below requirements. Three rooms. I think, essentially, we should focus on those three rooms as those which are available for, so to speak, quote, unquote, official functions, functions which are part of the program in terms of smaller sessions, et cetera. And it's perfectly possible to use those rooms, say, in the -- as we do all the time in the morning or in the lunch break or in the afternoon, for regional group meetings, et cetera. I don't think that is at all a major issue. When it comes to events which are outside this framework, use of the facilities within that complex would be on an as-available basis. But one thing which could be done is there are hotels around us where people will be staying. And one could certainly make an inventory of the meeting rooms which are available in the hotels around us there, which would then be available exactly like hotel rooms, where whoever is organizing -- wishes to organize something which is outside the formal program, so to speak, will basically contact the hotel, book the space, and organize it. But that's the way I think we can probably proceed at this early stage. It's very difficult to try and take on the responsibility for every event. It's not very easy to do that because you don't know. And it's better to say let's focus on this main complex for the events which are part of the official program. If there are slots available there which are usable, by all means make them available. Priority for group meetings, as always. This is a standard principle. We always give priority for group meetings. In our case, it would be not just the regional groups. It may be the NGO caucus, it may be the CCBI, it may be somebody else who wants some space for their meeting. But it would be subject to availability. And for other things, an inventory of what is available, go ahead and book it. That is the only way I think we can work this. That is my suggestion to you. I think it's very important that we give them some sense. Does anybody feel that we really ought to be looking at numbers much beyond what I am mentioning? Does anybody feel that -- anybody have a sense that it's likely to be much more than that? I would be a little surprised if it's going to be much more than that judging by our experience from the open consultations and so on. Okay. Any further questions? Yes, did you have a question on this issue, organization? Yes, first there and then here. Yes. >>PETER HELLMONDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just want to make it brief and dispense with the niceties, although I am thankful to be the advisory group. I think you have made a fairly good estimate of the numbers that we are to expect. I recall that we have had within the framework of the U.N. ICT task force in March 2004, if I recall correctly, we had an Internet Governance Forum in New York to which roughly 300 people came. While the U.N. ICT task force was a relatively much more exclusive club and news of it came out by word of mouth and there was not much press coverage, it would very much depend I would say on the amount of press coverage that the IGF give will get, how many people will be alerted to the event taking place. But if we triple, basically, the number of people that have participated in New York, that was 300, so we arrive at 900, we very much are in your ballpark figure. And even if you quadruple it, we reach 1200, so I guess we are on the safe side. So I think, however, one of the things I would like to ask George would be, if there's a chance for an open space, an open plaza. I think in Greek it's placa, if I recall correctly, for some kind of an exhibition space, because one of the things we were thinking of is perhaps to allow the different organizations and agencies who are active in Internet Governance, that they have a little booth to display what they are doing and to have some information material out there and allow for informal meetings during the breaks, and networking. And that way a sort of plaza would perhaps be a very useful venue for that. And I would like to know, George, if there is, in your recollection from visiting the area, such a possibility. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: George. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Well, thank you. If you don't mind, let me correct you. Your Greek, first of all. It's platia, the equivalent of plaza. But "placa," you are confusing it with one of the most fun sections of Athens. [ Laughter ] >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: By no means a Freudian slip. But anyhow, from what I remember, yes, there are, I am going to check on that and definitely let you know through the Web site. Regarding to the possibility of a very large number, we have also examined that possibility. There are quite a few facilities left from the Olympic games that can hold a lot of people. And they are very pleasant. On the other hand, they are not very conducive for the type of work we are going to do. You can put people in a very nice stadium. We have the TAE KWON do and so forth. And this is why we have come up with the idea of having a complex in a very nice location for being outside of Athens for security reasons, also. It's more manageable as well. And I want to thank everyone for their comments. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Actually, you have one more. The last one. >>ROBERT GUERRA: Again, this is Robert Guerra. I just have a couple of questions. In sharing some of the proceedings right now with some of the colleagues in the developing south, a couple of questions have come from my colleagues. They are most related to a logistical matter. Whether you want to answer them now or get an answer shortly, would be most appreciated. There are three main questions. One of them, hearing about the great facilities, the hotel and the pools, the question of financing of participation of civil society to actually work and participate in an active way as has been asked, as to how that will be arranged. The question of travel logistics and visas, how that will be accommodated is very important. And also for those in non-English speaking countries, the issue of translation interpreting at the proceedings but also the break-out rooms, if possible, would be appreciated. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: George, would you like to take that maybe in the reverse order. The translation, the visa, and the travel logistics, and then the bigger issue of participation. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Well, on the interpretation, this is, as I mentioned earlier, there are quite a few organizational details that have to be discussed with the Secretariat of the IGF, and to see what falls in the purview of the U.N. and what are the responsibilities of the host country. But we are prepared -- I think that the -- you have to take interpretation in six official languages for granted. Now, as far as -- I don't think that there are going to be simultaneous meetings but that also has to be investigated as to how many teams of interpreters there are going to be. The travel and visa arrangements, this is something we are definitely going to look at. It is on our schedule and it will be done through the ministry of foreign affairs. As far as the financing of the participation of civil society, I don't know whether this question was addressed to me or in general or -- but please, if you have something to say, Mr. Desai. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: No, this discussion also came up in the morning. And there are a large number of organizations here which are possibly in a position to assist in getting developing country participants to this meeting. And I would certainly request that we -- I will certainly see what special effort we can make, because this is an issue. Because to have a meeting like this and not have some provision for developing country -- assisting developing country participation I think would be very difficult. This is one of the issues that we will have to address. But I would, even here, urge the NGO groups which do have some resources, business groups which have some resources, and governments which are in a position to assist to really address this issue. I don't think we will do that through the Secretariat. I don't think it's feasible for a Secretariat to make decisions that we will give money to "X" and not to "Y." It should be done through organizations of civil society itself through organization of business itself. I don't think it can be done through the Secretariat. Because we have never done it in the past, by and large we don't do this, and I don't think it would be good to do that because it will lead to all manner of difficulties. But it's an issue. I would accept that we have to address it and try and do something about it within the time available. Any further questions? Thank you, George. And I'm glad that things are moving. And I hope that by Tuesday, we can give you enough to be able to close the deal with the astir palace on 30th of May. And we look for forward to spending autumn in Greece. Thank you. Okay. Let's revert back to our discussion, and maybe we can have some light now. I gather there are some people who still wish to contribute to the discussions. Maybe people have given some further thought to issues over lunch. Yes, Wolfgang. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. I am a professor from the University of Aarhus and I speak here on behalf of the civil society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus is pleased with the progress which has been reached so far. We are in particular pleased that the majority of interventions this morning, see the forthcoming Internet Governance Forum in November 2006 in essence not only as a single event but as part of a process. As you remember, the Tunis summit has decided that the IGF should continue at least until 2010. As you have said this morning, Mr. Chairman, the whole IGF process is an experiment. We are entering new territory. This is a chance to invent something which is really new and can produce extra innovative value. The first forum is indeed of special importance because the way the first forum is organized will determine to a high degree how we process from essence to real into the forthcoming forums until 2010. As I said already, the Internet Governance Caucus sees the IGF as a process. We have the annual forums are highlights, but a lot of work has to be done also between the forums. With regard to the first forum in November 2006, we would support what the Brazilian delegation has said. Said between plenaries at the first and last day of the Athens forum, there should be two days reserved for parallel workshops, four, six or eight. In our understanding, the plenaries should take into consideration not only special subjects but also the horizontal and cross-cutting issues, like, first, development; two, human rights, and here in particular, privacy and free speech; and three, good governance. With regard to the workshops, we would like to see inter alia the following aspects included. If the IGF discusses cyber security, it has to include privacy issues. These two issues, security and privacy, cannot be separated. Access and development are of crucial importance, but this includes, next to infrastructure and interconnection costs, all the human capacity building, training, and education. Third, we would see a need to continue the discussion on public policy issues with regard to the management of critical Internet resources and issues related to enhanced cooperation. Fourth, we believe that the WSIS principles, like transparency, openness, and multistakeholderism have not only be fully respected in all proceedings of the IGF but should be further developed by introducing new work methods and innovative practices as it has been indicated already by you, Mr. Chairman, in your morning intervention. And fifth, we want to see also some outcomes. The IGF has, as we know, no decision-making capacity, but it should be more than a talking shop. If good ideas and strong arguments are produced during the forum and will find its way into recommendations, relevant bodies will take this into consideration when they make decisions. And through the process stimulated by the IGF, will have a concrete and pratical effect. Furthermore, the detailed preparation of the IGF itself is of crucial importance. The IGF advisory group will have on Monday and Tuesday two days to discuss it. The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the advisory group should consider methods like open call for papers or building expert he groups to prepare in details be, individual plenaries and workshops. Good preparation will decide to a high degree whether the Athens meeting will become a success or an outstanding success. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me inform you also about an initiative a large number of members of the international research and academic community has undertaken in the last month. There is a project now under discussion to form a global Internet Governance academic network. The acronym would be GIGANET, to bring researchers from all over the world together into a process of enhanced communication. So far, more than 40 academic institutions from all over the world are included in this initiative. The GIGANET could become a partner of the IGF. We had some preparatory meetings in the last month in different places like Malta, Wellington, Singapore, and Washington. They organized yesterday another small meeting here in the Geneva Institute for Higher International Studies. The next preparatory meeting will take place within a forthcoming academic symposium under the umbrella of ICA and IMCR in Germany in June, and this meeting will discuss inter alia the design and outline of such a GIGANET. And there is also a plan that the network will plan an academic symposium on the eve of the forum Sunday, October 29th, 2006, in essence. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. I have India, and then Council of Europe. >>INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Markus Kummer, for organizing this open, informal discussion on the first IGF. Mr. Chairman, India [inaudible] the development and orientation of the IGF and takes this opportunity to reiterate some of the priority issues such as development of infrastructure, the legal and regulatory issues covering universal access, and multilingualization of the Internet to foster diversity. Mr. Chairman, all development issues are interlinked to capacity building, therefore, the IGF must also be a platform to foster capacity building. Can we think of keeping this institutional platform within the site of our mandate? That, as my worthy predecessor speaker, when you said that it will ensure outcomes, this will be a way to attract the universities and our Indian institutions to be present in Athens. Judging from the way Greece has been making preparations, I thought that this would be an opportunity to also offer for the 2008 Internet Governance Forum India's position so we can start preparing for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Are you proposing to host the 2008? >>INDIA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. [ Applause ] >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Good. Good. It helps to keep the balance: Asia, developing country, et cetera. Can I now ask the Council of Europe. >>COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Thank you, chairman, Mr. Kummer. It's a pleasure to see you all again, and it remains an honor for the Council of Europe to be a part of the IGF process. The Council of Europe reiterates its commitment to the WSIS principles and offers its support and expertise to the IGF. As you know, the Council of Europe has made a written submission on the public policy issues for the IGF which underline the embedded and cross-cutting nature of certain specific human rights and fundamental freedoms in addressing many of the short listed IGF themes so far put forward. For example, when we are talking about capacity building, we are particularly referring inter alia to the right of access to information, the right to education, and to the importance of diversity on the Internet. As was mentioned in the synthesis of discussions in the first meeting of the IGF consultation in February. When we refer to the challenges to the Internet, in particular those which challenge the security and stability of the Internet, we are often referring to the right to privacy and data protection, as Mr. Kleinwaechter has just mentioned. When we are talking about the positive use of the Internet, in particular the creation of information and content, we are talking about the right of freedom of expression and information. Mr. Chairman, if the IGF is to focus on the ordinary Internet user and an Internet for all, as you say, as part of the evolution and expansion of the Internet, as referred to by a colleague from the United States, then there is a need to focus on the trust of Internet users by addressing the right to privacy and data protection, and by focusing on the creation of content and communication by Internet users, by examining the right of freedom of expression and information. Mr. Chairman, if the objective of the IGF is the people, Internet users, then meaningful discussion requires regular reflection, perhaps best in a transversal manner on their key rights and freedoms as an embedded and cross-cutting element in the IGF. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Let me just mention the list that I have. I have Mr. Francis Muguet from ENSTA. I have a nameplate there which I can't read at this distance behind Argentina. I think there's a gentleman coming in. Then I have David Olive of Fujitsu. Then I have Heather Shaw, and Daftardar speaking for Saudi Arabia? I do not know. Saudi Arabia. Can I turn now to Francis Muguet. >>FRANCIS MUGUET: Yes, thank you, chair. So for the IGF, we will recommend that in the first phase there will be mapping of the governance issue and also of the relevant governance bodies. It is important to have both. Second, it will be interesting to map and to identify the emerging issues, because considering emerging issues, the IGF may make a recommendation. Concerning what could be identified as current issues, we suggest that the IGF, with inspiration from the best practice of existing Internet Governances, to use the format of request for comments as a way to formalize and gather in in fact the different advice upon different issues. Thank you for your attention. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. David Olive. >>DAVID OLIVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Olive. I represent Fujitsu and I would like to make a statement on behalf of the Global Information Infrastructure Commission, GIIC, of which we are a member. On this very point, the GIIC has been active in the WSIS process since the beginning, and has worked closely and actively with the other business representatives of the ICC and CCBI in this process and we look forward to continuing that process here for the Internet Governance Forum. We would just like to stress two points. One, we have to remember that the purpose of the Internet Governance Forum was to advance the Internet accessible capabilities to those parts of the world that are ill served or underserved for the wonders of the Internet and its applications. I would suggest that the forum is going to be responsive to the need to do this. We have to work in a very disciplined way on the matters of Internet Governance that closely work with those that need to have the access to communication conduits, network connecting information appliances and of course the Internet. If we maintain this focus in a disciplined way we can cover the topics that are needed, and also serve those who need the ICTs for economic and social development. And finally, some of us have asked the question about how to prepare for this IGF meeting in Athens, and many of the groups here hold various conferences, meetings, and we use these meetings to attract and make aware the work of the Internet Governance Forum, and could be an effective way for preparation for the Athens meeting. I know the GIIC, ICC and others have these meetings periodically and we would be happy to work with other groups to sponsor joint meetings in preparation for the Athens meeting in October as a way to attract speakers, prepare the agendas when they are announced, and also to encourage others to attend and participate in person or through other means as we were discussing earlier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: And I will now turn to Saudi Arabia and then the flag there which I can't read behind Argentina. >>ABDULLAH DAFTARDAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first thank you very much for -- and Mr. Kummer for all the efforts you put in the preparation for such an important event; namely, the IGF. I have three points to make. As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, and as it is recognized in the Tunis agenda that the IGF is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue. With this understanding, the forum will generate recommendations to issues related to Internet Governance. And as you indicated, these recommendations will be taken forward and followed up by specialized entities or interest groups. Public policy Internet Governance related issues need to be handled by the enhanced cooperation process to be started by the U.N. secretary-general as stated in the Tunis Agenda and as indicated by the distinguished delegate from Brazil. It is very important that the enhanced cooperation will proceed as a parallel process in the IGF preparation. The second point is with regards to the coming -- to coming with concrete proposals out of the IGF, it would be practically not possible to both discuss topics and come to reasonable conclusions in the same meeting. We therefore recommend that the topics be put forward for discussion prior to the meeting itself, and a mechanism be established to allow initial discussions to prepare for the meeting. The results of these discussions should be published electronically for everybody's preparation. The IGF meeting will be used to present the various views, further discussions and conclusions on these issues. Topics put forward need to be classified in related areas, as suggested by the Russian delegations. The third point is while the topics that have been mentioned as candidate topics for discussions in the first IGF meeting are important, such as multilingualism, security issues and so on, we believe that the issue of Internet resource management, especially the critical Internet resources, should be one of the main issues to be discussed in the first IGF meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Honduras. >>HONDURAS: Thank you very much, chair. I would like to voice an idea, since this is the right time, I think, to do so. I remember when we were previously negotiating in Geneva and in Tunis, the official documents, that one of the things we always noticed, and especially the G77 always tried to emphasize, was that this was a process of orientation for developing countries. And we would still like to state that this process must keep that orientation. Now, in that perspective, we also talked about the fact that this process should be one which is inclusive and participatory in nature. Basically, this is something that has been discussed here and must be borne in mind in this kind of forum. Concerning the theme here, let me remind you that in previous months the Greek delegation exchanged opinions with the heads of G77 in different meetings, and at that time, in order to have this orientation for development and the participatory elements here emphasized, they agreed to set up the appropriate machinery. At that time, the Greek delegation talked about looking at innovative financial mechanisms that would provide an opportunity for participation of experts from developing countries, especially those that have been following this process from the outset here in Geneva. This was one of the issues that we emphasized should be reflected in the documents. That is, that this process be seen as an inclusive one, open to all. Now, I don't know if I heard incorrectly, but up to now, we haven't heard talk of any new financial mechanism here. This is something that was mentioned but hasn't been concretely discussed, and I think it's high time to do so. Because if we want this process in IGF to be successful, we need the participation of all. So let me make a direct question to the Greek delegation on this aspect of things, because at one time, they did mention this, but we haven't heard talk of this innovative financial mechanism since then. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Would you like to respond? >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you, Mr. President. It is, indeed, when I spoke to the Group of 77, the issue of the support of developing countries has been brought up. And I did say -- and, of course, it has come up in the discussions. And it was mentioned even today in the intervention of the representative of the Group of 77. And I think that it's an issue that all of us should give -- and when I say "all," I mean all stakeholders -- serious consideration, including the Advisory Board meeting Monday and Tuesday. And, of course, I have also conveyed that message to my own group, that this is one important issue that is related to the success of the inaugural meeting in Athens. And I hope it will be taken up. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I think certainly we will have to address this. And I would say that this will -- should be one of the criteria for measuring the success of this meeting, is the extent of participation from developing countries. And that we should consciously keep that as part of our planning exercise. How much we can do in the time space available is something I cannot promise. But I would say this has to be a criteria for the success of the meeting. I have several speakers still. I have some -- the usual traditional mixing. Let me say we've Dr. Jeremy Beale of CBI, Heather Shaw, and then Austria and Brazil. Dr. Jeremy Beale of CBI. >>JEREMY BEALE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent a group of users that hasn't been talked about much so far. I'm from the confederation of British industry and largely represent business users of the Internet. The -- that community, my job is to work with them to identify the way they can change their business processes with their supply chain partners, their employees, and their customers online. We identify best practice and how they can work in new ways to achieve their goals as businesses. They can certainly contribute to the developmental agenda and capacity-building, as I'm sure the government of India can testify, because many of our members have already offshored processes to countries such as India and others. They would probably also be interested in most of the subjects that have been suggested for discussion -- information, security, spam -- because those are issues of concern to them. However, I do think that if they would participate or were going to participate in the Athens meeting -- and I'm not sure that yourself and Mr. Kummer have that kind of a participant in mind -- but if they were, I think there would be a number of things that would need to be done. One is about the agenda. One is that it would need to be about issues that make a difference rather than general, abstract issues. They would need to be practical things. It would need to be focused. And it would need to be timely in order for them to prepare properly their participation. And as a result, I think it's very important that we move to some decision-making mode about how the Athens meeting is going to be organized, about the specific focus of discussion. Because so far, I do not feel we have got any nearer to that goal. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. So the next was Heather Shaw, Austria, Brazil, Chile, and Egypt. >>HEATHER SHAW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kummer. CCBI appreciates your emphasis, Mr. Chairman, that the current efforts are to prepare the first IGF event and that this is indeed a special experiment. Giffin that emphasize, we need to bear in mind that people need to come away from the IGF event in Athens with a productive experience, to feel that they have learned and gained in several ways. This is best achieved by remaining focused. We believe setting a vision for the development orientation of the IGF and promoting an Internet for all is important. This can be done -- be achieved, for instance, have an inaugural session following the opening with leading visionaries that can inspire and set the tone for the IGF event. We should be working to ensure that more stakeholders around the world will be prepared to discuss issues in the future at the IGF and in existing organizations. We do not want to be misunderstood. The learning, capacity-building, and information exchange is for all stakeholders. It is important to respond to the needs of stakeholders from developing countries, but it should be clear that business of all sizes, including entrepreneurs and small startups from developing countries, also need to build capacities, and all the other stakeholders around the world as well. It should be a clear objective to build a common understanding not only about Internet governance issues as we described earlier today, but also to understand what are the needs, what is available, what is going on with regards to outreach and capacity-building, best practices, what works, what does not, et cetera. We think ideas to make the IGF event more accessible for participants that are not in Athens should be explored. For example, it may be possible to explore audio casting, transcripts or other methods. Business believes that a report on all discussions of the IGF should capture the ranges of ideas, perspectives, and experiences expressed. Widely published and available substantive reports of the proceedings were further the IGF goal of information-sharing, including to those stakeholders that may not be physically present at the IGF and could be food for thought for organizations considering future work programs or agendas. To further elaborate on the format that business feels would provide the most constructive discussions on ICT skills, training, and education, we believe that the informational panels described in my earlier intervention could also highlight best practices and real-life examples of challenges addressed. This would give all stakeholders a common understanding of what is being addressed by whom and how they can be actively involved and would set the base for any future IGF events to perhaps drill down into particular issues. Such an inaugural event would promote a common understanding of all of the Internet governance processes, build capacity of all stakeholders from around the world to meaningly participate in Internet governance issues at the national, regional, and international levels. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to inform everyone that the ICC has updated its matrix of organizations addressing issues related to the Internet. The updated matrix is available on line at the IGF and ICC Web sites and copies are available at the back of the room today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: So I have Austria, Brazil, Chile, and Egypt. Austria. >>AUSTRIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several participants made reference to the so-called process towards enhanced cooperation during our debate. The E.U. attaches great importance towards enhanced cooperation. We have recently written a letter to you, Mr. Chairman, on this issue, inviting you to explain how you intend to start the process. Let me recall, and this has been stated by several participants, that the IGF is one track of implementation of the Tunis Agenda, whereas the process towards enhanced cooperation constitutes another track, and should thus be treated separately. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Maybe I could respond to that after -- to the end. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I can give you time to think about the answer to the E.U. [ Laughter ] >>BRAZIL: Let me just add another point on the E.U. matter. No, let me ask my point, then. The -- I think I was contacted informally during lunchtime by a few delegates, and maybe I was misunderstood in my intervention. When Brazil made an intervention this morning about the enhanced cooperation, our idea is very similar to the one the E.U. just introduced. We think that we have two tracks, and that they are separate. And one is going on right now. The second one we are waiting for the secretary general for the United Nations to give the start. What we said also is that we think that -- we think this forum, Internet Governance Forum, we shall also discuss governance, because the forum is supposed to be multistakeholder. And then we need the inputs from the private sector and academia on governance. That does not mean that we are mixing things. They are separate, and I would like to clarify at this point. On a second matter, I would like to refer to two interventions just to keep our interactive debate. The first one, the one on behave of the civil society made by Mr. Kleinwaechter -- I never know how to pronounce exactly your name. Yes, Kleinwachter. Yes. I would like to support on behalf of the Brazilian delegation each and every word said by the representative of the civil society. That is exactly what we think about and we would like to support wholeheartedly this intervention. On the second point, on Honduras, the intervention from Honduras is very similar to what the Latin American group thinks. And maybe -- I'm going to give an idea, because if it works, we can use also in Brazil and now in India as we are going from her to New Delhi. We could think about that the Greek government could set up a trust fund, you open a bank account, and then we receive donations from various entities. With these donations, and you have the list of participants asking to be there, there could be a committee deciding which one will get the committee, the ticket, the per diem to go there. If it works, we can transfer trust fund to Brazil for one year and then transfer it to India the next year. And then we keep -- we have a sort of fund, trust fund, to receive donations. And then we can help developing countries to do that. I can say that from Brazil, we are not going to ask money from this trust fund. Our government is going to pay the tickets and per diem for a representative of the government, and we have our own trust fund to pay for civil society in Brazil. Private sector, they have enough money; they don't need this kind of support. [ Laughter ] >>BRAZIL: Yes, we have small businesses, but they work together. I think, just to conclude, when I say our vision about capacity-building, we see capacity-building in a broad sense. And then we include in capacity-building the capacity to people to go to the place, to go and to participate. And maybe if the private sector, the CCBI is very eager to help us in capacity-building, they can begin contributing to this trust fund and help to pay tickets and per diem for representatives of the civil society and academia to go to Athens, and then next year to Brazil, and 2008, to new DELHI. I thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Egypt and Australia. Chile. Yes. >>CHILE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After listening to all of the suggestions and contributions of this open consultation, I would like to suggest you take into consideration the final report of the Internet governance working group, which has been working on this issue for a long time. The paragraph 13 of this final report has already established four key policy areas, areas that cover, I would say, all the current suggestions. And these areas are, in brief, first, issues relating to (inaudible) and the management of particular Internet resources. Second, issues relating to the use of the Internet -- I'm sorry, issues relating to the Internet property rights, also issues relating to the use of the Internet, spam, network security, and cybercrime. Finally, also issues relating to the development aspect of Internet, in this case, capacity-building specifically. Each of these areas are explained in the following paragraph of this report. So having these four areas in mind, it's possible to build the main structure of the forum, having in mind, then, two or more plenary sessions and four working groups corresponding to each of these four key public policy areas. In our opinion, the incorporation of working groups on the forum would allow a deeper discussion, and therefore better results. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Egypt. Right there in the back. >>EGYPT: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and do commend you very much for the very democratic way you have conducted this consultation, and the previous ones as well, and do express our appreciation for your leadership. I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Markus Kummer, who has been extremely accessible. He is an embodiment of ICTs. We reach him by E-mails, telephone, and any other means of communication. He has been very accessible to us in Gavin. We fully endorse and support the G77, there's no need to repeat the questions and issues raised there for the sake of time. But we would like on record to say that we are fully in conformity with what was raised. And let me just try to add a few points, if I may, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot of discussion about the development agenda of the IGF and where to look for it. And we feel that we must not or we need not actually exhaust our mind too much in that regard, because the Tunis Agenda to which and over which we all agreed has quite a few of the answers. And, obviously, paragraph 65 stands well clear in that regard. And in that particular issue, I'd like to highlight that paragraph 65, which my delegation was honored to have participated in its drafting, particularly in the last amendment that was introduced, it has two elements to it. First, the maximization of the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance. That is one issue. The second issue, and the second element, is that those decisions, regardless of the maximization or not of the participation of developing countries, must reflect the interests of developing countries. And we think that these are two pillars of paragraph 65 that need to be well thought of and operationalized. And in fact in that particular regard, we do look forward to hearing from the stakeholders who are the people that are more or less in the field or in the cyberspace who know the issues better. And we would like to hear from them about how to operationalize those two elements. But there are also other paragraphs in the Tunis Agenda that explicitly refer to development. And that's why there is no need to go further. There is actually well structured full of information that we can immediately rely on. Regardless of the -- or other than the issues that one could call pure developmental, I think it has been expressed by the 77 in the earlier consultations that any issue we tackle must be tackled from a development angle and development perspective. Even if we decide to choose on the side, for example, an issue that does not belong to the core development agenda, if one could use such a term, any other issue must be looked upon from a development angle and a development perspective. Some of our discussion today has also addressed the issue of structure, mechanisms, schedules, and agendas, and so on and so forth. And it seems that when we approach this issue, we almost look at it as if the structure is a neutral -- is a neutral dimension or a neutral aspect. It is not necessarily so. For example, if we choose to have parallel working groups in the IGF meeting itself in Athens, that, superficially, looks to be a neutral decision, a neutral criteria. It's just an architecture, a structure. Whereas in reality, it means that it immediately favors those delegations that have the capacity and the capability to have more than one representative, and therefore to participate in more than one meeting at the same time. Now, I'm putting this as a challenge, I'm not putting it as an implicitly or intrinsically negative point, but any structure we adopt we must take into consideration that some delegations and some countries never going to be able to be there with the level of participation and the number of participants that would allow it to contribute at least equally to all mechanisms. And hence we really need to avoid parallelism, if there's such a term, we need to avoid overcrowded agenda as much as possible in order to allow developing countries to participate meaningfully. The question here is meaningfully. Related to that, the issue of translation. Today we're talking in English, Spanish, and French. And I know that Mr. Kummer referred to in the morning that it was not possible to extend to the other three official languages of the U.N. But I hope it is by no means considered as a precedent. Our understanding in a totally, I think, clear manner was that many -- and you referred to that, Mr. Chairman, in the last consultations, that many of the positive U.N. practices are going to be transported into the U.N. Internet Governance Forum for it to be -- to be building on successful experiences. And there is no doubt that multilingualism and particular the use of translation, simultaneous, and translation of documents, because most of this transcript is published in English, and I haven't seen, at least the last consultations, retranslated into the other five languages. So we would like to stress very much on this particular aspect. Another issue that it seems that many have spoken about is the issue of participation of stakeholders from developing countries. And you have mentioned yourself, Mr. Chairman, just a little while ago, that this would be one of the criteria of success of Athens meeting beyond and before. And we had, I believe, referred to that in the last consultations that we are very happy to see this very select group of experts from civil society, from private sector, and from governments, obviously. But we see that it needs -- the outreach needs to be reinforced much more than is actually the case in order to be people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, and hence meetings of the IGF. We don't see that that has happened from February. I believe we met last time in May. I know it's a challenging question. But since it has not happened from February to May, it may make us even more forthcoming in asking for a clear plan, a clear plan, you know, a well-structured and clearly identified plan about how are we going to go from Athens backward into today and how are we going to ensure that in that particular period, we're going to be able to mobilize genuine development to stakeholders from developing countries. And the point my colleague from Honduras has put forward to the table could be one of those mechanisms but not necessarily the only option. What could facilitate the highlighting of the development aspect is basically to outreach to some of the organizations almost next door. For example, the UNCTAD, THE U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, publishes a yearly report called "The Information Economy" from a development perspective. I don't know whether the UNCTAD secretariat is present with us over here, but there is no doubt that without even the need to outreach far across the seas to get stakeholders that are from a development perspective, we can easily outreach at least across the hall and do that. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know I went a little bit late, in many of the processes, U.N. or not, the secretariat offers intellectual leadership on many of the issues as well, and not only administrative support. And I am sure that the secretariat of the U.N. IGF has the intellectual capacity to lead us in many of these aspects and to translate many of the rich ideas that have been expressed in such consultations into working documents that we can look at, contribute to, and, hopefully, adopt at some point of time. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I would like to stress to Egypt, the IGF is not a U.N. meeting. But it will have some -- as Mr. Papadatos clarified, they will provide six languages, the six U.N. languages, in Athens. So that will be there. But I think the important thing to recognize is, this has to be a cooperative effort. Even the working group on Internet governance was a very cooperative effort. It was not a secretariat-driven effort. It was something where everybody participated, joined in the actual process of preparing the material and the documentation. And that is the spirit which has -- because we do not have a huge secretariat. We do not have the resources for a huge secretariat. This is not a budgeted activity of the U.N. Whatever we get from the U.N., we are getting, so to speak, by -- you know, on an as-available basis, if it is available. There is no budget for this in the U.N. And the whole thing is being financed through a trust fund, small trust fund, which basically just about takes care of basic expenses. So I would urge you to remember that we are not discussing another U.N. meeting where we can talk of a budget, we can talk of U.N. rules of procedure, et cetera. We have to find ways. So if you have ideas on how we can mobilize money for developing country participation, I'm sure the Advisory Group would be very happy to -- not only happy, would welcome that aspect. But I think it's important that when people make suggestions, they also give an indication of how we can build a system which is cooperative in getting these things. Because this is not something which has been given any sort of budget in the U.N. system. And it is not a U.N. meeting in that sense. So one of the things we will have to discuss is, how do we use -- in a sense, we are being given these facilities because they're available. And otherwise, we would be thrown out, because they will give priority to a U.N. meeting and ask us to leave if we -- and that's why we have to always slot everything in in terms of this availability type of aspect. Now, I would urge all delegates to keep this in mind. Would you like to come back? Yes, please. >>EGYPT: Mr. Chairman, I just meant to clarify what I said. When I mentioned the U.N. IGF, it's basically because the letterhead that Mr. Kummer corresponds to us says United Nations, and down there IGF. I do not mean it's a U.N. meeting. I was simply being accurate to quote the letterhead that we do receive from the secretariat. I thank you, chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Australia and Switzerland. >>AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Australia welcomes this opportunity to discuss issues relating to the preparation of the first IGF meeting. In Australia's view, it is important to ensure that IGF discussions maintain a focus and aim to produce realistic and substantive outputs that are of practical benefit. Given this priority, Australia suggests that the IGF target discussions by focusing on key issues or particular themes at each meeting, with discussions being centered around subsets of that main theme. For example, this could include consideration of the causes and nature of the main theme, possible implications and consideration of appropriate responses. The benefits of considering themes individually will not only enable a targeted approach; it will also minimize scope for duplication and help facilitate coordination with other parallel processes so that outcomes are able to feed into and build upon each other. Regarding the selection of themes, Australia proposes that issues relating to the use and misuse of the Internet, such as spam, be given a priority due to their significant financial and consumer implications, and the corresponding benefits to be derived from tackling these issues. Regarding the structure or format of the IGF, it is suggested that the process facilitate expert views and perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders. These presentations could then form the basis of subsequent interactive discussions, structured and led by facilitators as required. Provision could also be made to stakeholders to run parallel events on or off theme if they wish. Whilst capacity-building should be an inherent part of the IGF, consideration could also be given to additional specialized capacity-building workshops in addition to the theme being discussed. A short closing session to draw together, confirm, and finalize the key conclusions of the IGF for the purposes of reporting would be appropriate. And where discussions lead to any consensus viewpoints, these, too, could be included in the record of proceedings for reference, dissemination, and appropriate action as required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Switzerland. And then after that, I have Mr. Papadatos. And is there anybody else? No. Switzerland. >>SWITZERLAND: Thank you very much. I did not take the floor this morning because our position has basically not changed since the last meeting and even since Tunis. But I'm starting to learn that sometimes it's useful to repeat even something that you've said before. So I just would like to recall that Switzerland attaches great importance to the process of the IGF and to the process with regard to the so-called enhanced cooperation. In order to have a result as concrete and attractive as possible of the first IGF meeting, we would, like many delegations, prefer issues like security, spam, multilingualism, and other developmental issues, with the hope of an attractive outcome, to be discussed at the first IGF meeting. And for the moment, we would rather follow these two processes, the IGF and the enhanced cooperation, separately. But, of course, the process of enhanced cooperation, which at Tunis it was decided that such a process should be started in the first quarter of 2006, is also a very important one. And we are very eager to hear about the results of the informal consultations that you are conducting in order to start this process. Thank you. >>CHAIRMAN DESAI: Perhaps this is the point -- Sorry. Mr. Papadatos. Then I will come. >>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very brief. I would like to respond to a proposal, a serious proposal, made by the representative of Brazil regarding the setting up of a trust fund. I think that the proposal is serious enough to merit consideration by the Advisory Board and also to be put into writing so that there will be appropriate responses. It's not entirely up to us. I think we would need a decision of the Advisory Board to -- so that we can present it to -- well, the modalities are not very clear, how it's set up. It requires administration, and so forth. But that's why I think that I would like to find out what the board thinks about it and to be discussed. Thank you. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Certainly. Are there any -- yes? Bertrand De La Chapelle. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a contribution based on the fact that all actors, more or less, seem to agree on the fact that the IGF itself is a process. And I would like to come to the point that you were mentioning earlier in terms of what is on the table when the meeting starts. We have discussed mostly what can take place during the meeting, and I would maybe make a (inaudible) to what Wolfgang Kleinwaechter was saying earlier, as well as John Mathiason. We have three phases. There is will be kind of input will be made into the IGF meeting in Athens. What can be done between now and Athens. What happens in Athens in terms of workshop and discussions. And what kind of outcome afterwards. In terms of input, there probably is an interest, as soon as the advisory group agrees on a limited number of subthemes, can be three to five probably, that a call for contribution is made in order to help prepare on each of the themes a sort of input -- neutral input document that summarizes a few points like what are, in the view of the different stakeholders, the various dimensions of the given issue, including the sub-elements that can be related to it. Who are the actors from each category who participate in those questions and already have ongoing discussions. And probably an assessment of what kind of questions could be discussed during the meeting itself. This would allow people who are not familiar with a given issue to get a quick update on this, and maybe have a lot of references to background documents if they need so. One of the fears in terms of capacity building is for who actors not familiar with some issue to be deluged with a lot of very interesting contributions but that are very long to read. The item is to provide a substantive secretarial function that can be distributed, as John Mathiason and the IG project suggested, so that a few basic papers could help people get faster into the subject so no time is wasted at the beginning in lengthy presentations. Now, during the IGF itself, discussions shouldn't probably get too much into the detail of the substance of the issue, given the limited time. One of the main question of the IGF is how it will help organize the work afterwards on the given set of issues. In this respect, there are differing possibilities. The outcome can be that simply the actors who already are working separately on this just meet again on their own basis. Or it can be that a special working group is formed on a given issue. Or it can be that the discussion over drafting of a recommendation is being prepared. On each of the four themes the outcomes might be different, and in that respect, the discussion at the IGF should probably more focus on how to move forward in terms of process than on dealing with the nitty-gritty details of each substantive issue which could last for a long time. And the last point is, as a consequence, according to the mandates of the IGF itself, which is paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, the IGF has several roles depending on the different issues. It can make recommendations for emerging issues. It can facilitate dialogue with different actors. And the consequence is that the outcome of the IGF in Athens will probably be different on the four main themes that might emerge, or three to five main themes that might emerge. So preparation with summary documents, discussion on how to move forward rather than on substance, and possibly a process to move forward afterwards. Thank you very much. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Maybe -- I think we probably -- yes, did you want to comment? >>FRANCIS MUGUET: Yes, I would like to add some comments after the eloquent speech by Egypt and also the remark of Bertrand De La Chapelle. I think that there should be at least two groups, one related to emerging issue, because there is possibility to make recommendation, and one related to current issue where I propose to make RFCs. One more thing I would like to add, we have recommendation on our own Web site called 3W3.org, and we welcome the fact that the W3C is involved in the advisory group. And we will be glad if the free software community will be facilitated better within the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you very much. >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you. Okay. Let me just respond to a question which is not related to IGF but which has been raised by two or three delegations, and that is the second process, which is the process on enhanced cooperation. If you go back to both the Tunis outcome as well as the general assembly resolution, there is a substantial difference between the language of dealing with IGF and the language on enhanced cooperation. In the case of IGF, it's very clear it's a decision that there should be a meeting, that the secretary-general should call a meeting, and the idea really then was to work out how and to what the meeting -- which is what we have been doing. In some ways, when you talk about enhanced cooperation, you are a stage further behind. It is a very general statement asking the secretary-general to launch a process on enhanced cooperation. And in some sense, you could say that to some extent he has launched a process by, at the end of March, by asking to you start talking to people. The point is that there is, at the moment, substantial difference in what people understand by the word "process" there. What I propose to do and what I am doing now is to meet as many people as I can in order to canvass their views on what they see, what is the meaning they attach to this work process which is there. Second, since what we are talking about in that case is really the decision-making part on the management of the Internet, what are the priorities? Because there are many different parts where decisions are taken on the management of Internet resources. What would be the -- what are the priorities in terms of areas where they feel something has to be addressed. Now, rather than guessing these myself, what I'm proposing, and what I am doing, is using my time here to meet with as many people as I can, canvassing their views, finding out what their views are. And I just want to make an open offer to everybody here, you please do feel free to send these views to me, either through my e-mail, which is very easy, Desai@un.org, but as a measure of abundant precaution, please mark it also to Markus Kummer, so that there is one place where everything does come together. Second, I am available for meeting one on one with people. I am already arranging some meetings, this Wednesday, on 24th in Geneva, and again on the 8th and 9th of June in Geneva. In between, I will be going to New York and I will be consulting on this also. So this is the process that is underway on this particular issue now. And I would again make this -- repeat this, that I'm available and I'll be more than happy to start meeting -- to meet people. And I have already arranged certain meetings on my own, talking to individuals. But at this stage I'm simply meeting. And you can always send me stuff through the e-mail. After that, we'll see whether we can find some common ground in this in terms of process or priorities. And that is essentially the track that we are pursuing. But it is something where you have not actually specified what you want the secretary-general to do other than launch a process, without specifying what that process is. And part of the challenge, therefore, is to see what is possible. And I propose -- I am be, as some of you already know, I have already arranged meetings, which I will be talking to you and I will be talking to more people. And I hope that by the middle of June, I will have had a fairly wide range of consultations. So then let's see if some sort of light shines at the end of a tunnel. Somebody did say if there's a light shining at the end of the tunnel, there may be a train coming the other way [ Laughter ] >> CHAIRMAN DESAI: So on that happy note, maybe we can leave that thought. But on the issue that we are discussing here, the IGF, I think this has been a valuable discussion. I hope that the members -- unfortunately, all the members of the advisory group are not here, so I do count on those of you who are here to help me, in a sense, in trying to summarize this discussion when we meet on Monday. But it seems to me that there are some things which are clearly very broadly accepted, which is the importance of recognizing the developmental orientation of our discussions there as something which must underlie all of the discussions. I think there have been many concerns expressed about participation of developing countries. This is something that I hope will be addressed. There is a sense here that we have to have something which combines plenary discussions with more sort of -- discussions in smaller groups at the working group level. We will have to keep in mind the question raised by Egypt that if we have parallel sessions, we must keep in mind the capacity of some delegations to participate will be constrained. And that what we will have to recognize, that in a multistakeholder format, in a forum, in a sense, the different sessions to some extent also serve different purposes, and in a four-day meeting, how do we accommodate all of these concerns. But it's a point we will have to bear in mind in the advisory group. I think the most important challenge for the advisory group is to, on the basis of the many suggestions which have come here, to really specify an agenda, and if you like, a structured work program for the meeting in Athens itself. I'm not going to try and give my ideas on this now. This should really come later when the working group discusses this. But I think several suggestions have been made as to how it could be done. The Secretariat has been keeping notes of these discussions, and I hope we can get something out of this. There's a great deal of discussion on the preparations for this meeting. I would say that there was a suggestion from Saudi Arabia that in some ways the preparation for the meeting should take place before the meeting, and one way to do this is once the advisory group has come to a conclusion on the structure of the meeting, the agenda, the themes, et cetera, this should be put up very quickly. And I would certainly turn to the Secretariat to see whether they can organize an online process for people to be able to contribute. I would certainly take up very much the points which Bertrand De La Chapelle made which is we don't really want to inundate people with unbelievable mountains of material. And our aim should be to work toward something like an issues paper for discussion. I would say that we would, in a multistakeholder forum, be a little open and see it not just be one paper for discussion. Because you will not necessarily have a single view on a particular subject. And I think it would be unfair in a multistakeholder forum, or for that fact even amongst countries that you will not be able to say this is the view. So I would say we have to keep a degree of flexibility. In terms of -- I hope the advisory group will address the question, even if we consider some sort of template for the contributions, so that when you get it from different sources, you know what -- where the difference is. One of the possible templates is the one which was used when we were preparing for the working group with those headings on the Internet public policy issues. But that's the not the only one. And I would leave it to the advisory group to have a look at a possible template. I think these are things which we have to do relatively quickly and fast. One of the things that I hope the working group will discuss is, is this going to be a meeting which will essentially consist of delegates making speeches? Will there be panels? Will there be invited speakers on particular themes? How would that work? And I think the other point here is to see how the groups themselves start organizing their sort of constituencies, if you like. Because that may be another valuable exercise in Athens itself, if it helps to bring different actors from different parts of the world together in networks and so on. Anyhow, these are some of the reflections which strike me. I'm happy that we have in a sense, now, hopefully the third meeting also scheduled, and we are preserving the geographical balance. That is now Asia and a developing country. I look forward to an offer in due course from Africa and east Europe so that our first five meetings will cover the five regions of the U.N. I think some of the ideas about trust funds or specific ideas which I will put up I'm subsuming under the broader head of what do we do in order to maximize the possibility of developing country participation. But these are concrete things we have to work at. This is what I sense got from this discussion. I found this a very constructive and helpful discussion, but I do believe the advisory group has its work cut out. It has to work pretty intensively because by the end of Tuesday, we must have an agenda ready, a set of themes ready, a clear idea of structure so that people know how to prepare and plan for this meeting, as also a process for how people can contribute to what will be placed before the meeting, keeping in mind always the sense of openness that we have to preserve in terms of input. There are other issues which I could perhaps deal with. The need to look at this meeting not just in innovative terms, not just in terms of the meeting itself, but innovation also in terms of how you bring the outside in. We have done a lot the with the fact that much of this material is on the Web with the Web casting but I think we can do even more. And I'm fairly confident that we have the capacity despite the short time to be able to have an IGF which would definitely be an innovation in the way in which a U.N.-sponsored meeting is run, and also the way a multistakeholder process can be done. I really see this as an important experiment in the way -- in how to make an international system function better, and I therefore look forward to a high degree of cooperation from all of you. So thank you very much, and you can now go and enjoy the wonderful weather of Geneva on Saturday and Sunday. And I will see some of you on Monday. But I do repeat, I am very keen on meeting and talking to people about the second issue of enhanced cooperation, and please do get in touch, either with Mr. Kummer or with me. And this Wednesday or 8th or 9th of June, I have my time available. I have a room here in the Palais, and I would be happy to meet, particularly since this focus is very much on -- I think I particularly request delegations, government delegations, to indicate when they could meet. Thank you very much. Adjourned. (Gavel.)