OPEN CONSULTATIONS OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE

18 APRIL 2005

[afternoon session]

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the morning session of the WGIG open Consultations held 18 April in Geneva, Switzerland. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it is 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.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: NOW THAT I HAVE GIVEN THE REGULATION 15 MINUTES TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME LATE FROM LUNCH, WE SHOULD START.
THE -- SO I THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS IN ORDER TO SET US OFF FOR OUR AFTERNOON SESSION, THAT I HOPE THE DISCUSSION CAN FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC PAPERS AND ALSO TO MEET PARTLY THE QUESTION RAISED BY ONE OF THE DELEGATES AS TO GETTING A SENSE OF SINCE THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP NOW HAVE MET TWICE, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE THIRD MEETING FROM TOMORROW, WHETHER SOME SENSE OF WHERE THE WORKING GROUP IS COMING FROM IS -- WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I THOUGHT A WAY WE COULD DO THIS IS IF I WOULD REQUEST SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN COORDINATING OR PREPARING THE PAPERS PREPARED BY THE WORKING GROUP WOULD MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION.
AND THEN WE CAN CARRY ON THE DISCUSSION FROM THAT POINT ONWARDS.
HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL FOCUS DISCUSSION ON THE SPECIFICS, AS DISTINCT FROM THE MORE GENERAL DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD.
I WAS GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE PAPER ON ONE DIMENSION WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AND WHERE THE PAPER ALSO CAME A LITTLE LATE AND WAS PUT UP ON THE NET ONLY -- IT'S NOT YET ON THE NET.
IT IS GOING TO COME ONTO THE NET TODAY.
AND THAT'S THE ONE WHICH DEALS WITH THE DEVELOPMENTAL DIMENSION.
AND THERE, I'M GOING TO OLIVIER NANA NZEPA AND KAREN BANKS, WHO HAVE WORKED TOGETHER ON THIS PAPER, WITH OTHERS, TO MAYBE JUST SAY -- GIVE A SENSE OF WHAT IS IT THAT THAT PAPER IS LEADING TOWARDS.
OLIVIER.
>>OLIVIER NANA NZEPA: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY APOLOGIZING, BECAUSE THE PAPER ON DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS WAS -- ONLY BECAME AVAILABLE ONLINE YESTERDAY.
AND THAT WAS BECAUSE A NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS HAVE SAID DEVELOPMENT-RELATED ISSUES ARE VERY COMPLEX, AND WE CAME TO APPRECIATE THAT OURSELVES IN THE WORKING GROUP, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGN AND FORMULATION OF THE PAPER ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, WHICH WAS VERY MUCH THE CASE.
SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO TO MAKE THINGS INTELLIGIBLE AND IN ORDER TO MEET THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY GOVERNMENTS AND BY VARIOUS ACTORS HERE AND ELSEWHERE WAS TO FOCUS OUR CONCERNS AROUND A NUMBER OF RECURRENT THEMATIC ISSUES.
ACCESSIBILITY, FOR INSTANCE, COST OF ACCESS, THE BANDWIDTH, BUILDING CAPACITY, AND MATTERS RELATED TO MULTICULTURALISM.
SO IT'S AROUND THIS AREA OF CONCERNS THAT WE TRIED TO BUILD THE DRAFT VERSION OF THE PAPER WHICH IS BEING PROPOSED.
TO REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE APPROACH TAKEN HERE, WHICH IS A CONSENSUS-BASED APPROACH, PARTICIPATORY APPROACH, THIS IS INTENDED, THIS PAPER IS INTENDED AS FOOD FOR THOUGHT SO THAT WE COULD ALL CONTRIBUTE OUR VISION AND EXPECTATIONS IN ORDER TO ENRICH THE DOCUMENT.
THE PAPER WAS PREPARED JOINTLY WITH KAREN.
AND IF I MAY, I'LL GIVE THE FLOOR TO KAREN AT THIS POINT TO ADD SOMEWHAT MORE SUBSTANCE TO WHAT I HAVE JUST BEEN SAYING.

>>KAREN BANKS: THANKS, OLIVIER.
IN MANY RESPECTS, I THINK WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHAT MANY WOULD CONSIDER THE SORT OF LARGELY TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURAL SORT OF ISSUES IN THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE DEBATE, WHICH IS VERY MUCH THE CORE OF THE MANDATE WE'VE BEEN GIVEN.
BUT I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER OF ISSUES, WHICH INCLUDES VERY SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE UNIVERSAL ACCESS, UNIVERSAL AND AFFORDABLE ACCESS, ACCESS TO CONTENT THAT INDIVIDUALS, COMMUNITIES, COUNTRIES, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR HUMAN, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF MECHANISMS THAT EXIST THAT ENABLE PARTICULARLY THE POOREST IN THE WORLD TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE MEANS TO COMMUNICATE, TO HAVE ACCESS TO CONTENT THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR LIVES, THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO EMPOWER THEMSELVES TO HAVE BETTER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, ABLE TO ENGAGE IN INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, ET CETERA.
AND THEN I THINK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE KIND OF ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES NEED, TO PARTICIPATE EQUALLY IN THESE INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES LIKE THE ONE WE'RE INVOLVED IN.
THEN THERE ARE CERTAINLY, I FEEL, AREAS THAT WE COULD BE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF MECHANISMS THAT EXIST THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DESCRIBE AS GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE'S ANY BINDING ASPECT TO THEM.
NONETHELESS, THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS, POLICIES, GUIDELINES, TOOL KITS, ANALYSES, TREND STATISTICS, THE SUM TOTAL OF WHICH, I THINK, IF MADE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE AND THE ACTIVITIES WERE SOMEWHAT MORE COORDINATED, COULD MAKE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO RESPONDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF THE WSIS PROCESS, I THINK, AS FAR AS MANY OF US ARE CONCERNED, WHICH IS TO BUILD A PEOPLE-CENTERED, INCLUSIVE, AND DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED INFORMATION SOCIETY.
OF COURSE, ALL THE ISSUES WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN RELATION TO THE FIRST CLUSTER ARE VERY MUCH A BIG PART OF THAT.
BUT I THINK IF WE LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY OF THIS PROCESS TO EXPLORE HOW WE CAN TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER, AND ASSUMING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO COME TO SOME COMMON UNDERSTANDING, OR AT LEAST A CLOSER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE DEAL WITH THOSE ISSUES, THAT WE THEN HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH IT AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO EXPLOIT THE FULL POTENTIAL OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSFORM THE WORLD INTO A MORE EQUAL, PEACEFUL, AND JUST PLACE.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE FOCUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER.
AND WE CERTAINLY HAD HOPED TO HAVE THOSE PAPERS READY FOR YOU, FOR YOUR COMMENT AND FEEDBACK.
AND WE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE THEM ONLINE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.
I THINK IT'S CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM THAT THERE ARE -- THERE IS MUCH WE COULD DO TO SIMPLY IMPROVE THE COORDINATION OF THESE ACTIVITIES THAT EXIST.
AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY, MANY AGENCIES INVOLVED, AND ORGANIZATIONS, AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THIS BROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENDA.
AND I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST EXCITING OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE IN THE WORKING GROUP, IS TO EXPLORE HOW WE CAN LEVERAGE THIS WORK TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGENDA.
BUT AT THIS STAGE, I WOULD JUST SORT OF BEG YOUR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY'RE A LITTLE LATE AND JUST TO KNOW THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CLUSTER VERY SERIOUSLY AND WILL HAVE THE PAPERS ONLINE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WHICH PEOPLE MAY WISH TO RAISE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE OTHER PAPERS AND QUICKLY ASK PEOPLE TO INTRODUCE THEM.
OR WOULD YOU PREFER THAT THE PAPERS I INTRODUCE AND WE HAVE A JOINT DISCUSSION?
WHAT IS -- LET ME JUST ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.
MY QUESTION IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PAPER, BUT PERHAPS YOU COULD GIVE US A BIT OF GUIDANCE ON, AT SOME POINT, ABOUT HOW YOU SEE THE CONSULTATION PROCESS, PARTICULARLY AS SOME OF THE PAPERS HAVE COME ON VERY RECENTLY, AND AT SOME POINT, COULD WE ADDRESS THAT IN MORE DETAIL?
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: LET ME AT THIS STAGE MENTION THAT I THINK THE CONSULTATION PROCESS SHOULD CONTINUE ON THESE PAPERS, BECAUSE THE -- IT'S NOT AS IF WE ARE GOING TO COME TO CLOSURE ON THESE THINGS IN THE TWO DAYS THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL BE MEETING.
THE KEY MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP IS BASICALLY JUNE, WHICH IS WHEN IT FINALIZES ITS REPORT.
SO I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT OUR CONTINUED COMMENTS ON THE PAPERS WHICH ARE BEING PLACED ON THE NET, WHICH ARE THE STARTING POINT FOR THE GROUP'S DISCUSSIONS.
I AM NOT EXPECTING THE GROUP TO COME TO CLOSURE ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES COMPLETELY IN THE TWO DAYS THAT IT HAS THIS WEEK.
SO I -- REVISIONS CONTINUE, WITH THIS AS THE BASIS.
AND IF WE DO GET REVISED, THEN THE REVISED ONES WILL BE PUT UP.
MAYBE IT'S BEST IF WE GO ON.
THE NEXT ONE WILL BE THE CLUSTER --
THE SECOND ONE, WHICH GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING IN THE MORNING, WAS THE GROUP WHICH DEALT WITH THE 1B, WHAT WE CALL GROUP 1B, WHICH IS DEALING WITH SOME OF THE CORE ISSUES WHICH WERE DISCUSSED IN THE MORNING.
AND I'M GOING TO REQUEST ALLEN MILLER --
WELL, WOLFGANG COULD PERHAPS INTRODUCE THAT.
WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER, COULD YOU.
1B.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: YEAH, YOU KNOW, I WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAPERS ON THE ROOT SERVER, THE IP ADDRESSES, AND THE DOMAIN NAMES, TOGETHER WITH MADAM HU.
WE STARTED A DISCUSSION AND TRIED TO FIND WHAT THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE EXISTING MECHANISMS ARE.
AND WE WERE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THE REAL CORE ISSUES.
AND AS YOU HAVE HEARD ALSO IN THIS MORNING'S DEBATE, THERE ARE A LOT OF RESERVATIONS AMONG MEMBER STATES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTING MECHANISMS.
WHAT WE DISCOVERED WITH REGARD TO THE ROOT ISSUE, I THINK YOU KNOW ONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS WAS -- AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE PAPER -- THAT WE SHOULD MAKE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF ZONE FILES AND THE OPERATION OF ROOT SERVERS.
THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
AND I THINK A KEY ISSUE WHICH RAISES SOME CONCERNS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ZONE FILES IS THAT THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS IN PLACE AND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED HISTORICALLY IS THAT AFTER A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS ARE INVOLVED, THERE COMES A MOMENT WHERE, YOU KNOW, ONE UNIT HAS TO MAKE A DECISION, OR LET'S SAY NOT A DECISION, AN AUTHORIZATION THAT THE ZONE FILE IS PUBLISHED FINALLY IN THE ROOT.
AND IT MEANS BOTH MODIFICATIONS, DELETIONS, AND ADDITIONS TO THE ZONE FILE.
THIS IS REGULATED IN A BILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ICANN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SO FAR.
AND I THINK WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS AS A PROBLEMATIC ISSUE.
AND WE WENT ONE STEP FURTHER, BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOKED INTO THE DETAILS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT REALLY MODIFICATIONS, DELETIONS, AND ADDITIONS OF ZONE FILES MEANS, WE HAVE DISCOVERED THAT 95% OF THESE MODIFICATIONS ARE OF A TECHNICAL NATURE.
AND THERE ARE ONLY VERY EXCEPTIONAL CASES.
AND IT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW -- THESE ARE REALLY EXCEPTIONAL CASES -- WHERE A PUBLIC-POLICY ELEMENT IS INVOLVED.
AND SO ONE OF OUR CONCLUSIONS -- AND THIS WILL LEAD ALSO TO A RECOMMENDATION -- IS TO HAVE MORE PRECISE CRITERIA ON HAND WHERE YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN MODIFICATIONS OF ZONE FILES OF A TECHNICAL NATURE AND MODIFICATION OF ZONE FILES WITH A POLITICAL NATURE.
AND IN CASE THERE IS A MODIFICATION OR A DELETION OR ADDITION OF A ZONE FILE WITH A POLITICAL NATURE, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE IN PLACE A MECHANISM WHERE YOU CAN DEAL WITH THIS VERY INDIVIDUAL SINGLE CASE, YOU KNOW, ON A PROPER BASIS.
AND IT MEANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS LAID DOWN IN THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
SO THE QUESTION IS, YOU WOULD NEED INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ONE SINGLE ISSUE.
LET ME ADD HERE ALSO ONE POINT.
BECAUSE IF IT COMES TO SOMETHING LIKE A DECISION-MAKING MECHANISM FOR THIS VERY SPECIAL ISSUE, I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO BE VERY PRECISE WITH THE MANDATE OF SUCH A DECISION-MAKING BODY.
THAT MEANS WHILE YOU WOULD HAND OVER A CERTAIN DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY TO A BODY, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU HAVE TO LIMIT THE DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY OF THIS BODY TO AVOID OR TO BLOCK ANY MISUSE OF THIS DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY BY A SPECIAL GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THIS MECHANISM.
SO THAT MEANS THAT ONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERIENCE WE COLLECTED IN DISCUSSING AND DRAFTING THE PAPER IS THAT PROBABLY WE SHOULD CHANGE A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE.
NORMALLY WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS, WE TALK ABOUT THE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET.
BUT IT'S -- IF YOU GO DEEPER INTO THE ISSUE, YOU DISCOVER IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF CONTROL; IT'S A QUESTION OF PROTECTION OF THE INTERNET, SO THAT THE INTERNET CAN FUNCTION IN A PROPER WAY.
AND SO FAR, IT WOULD BE PROBABLY HELPFUL TO TURN THIS, YOU KNOW, TERMINOLOGY FROM CONTROL TO PROTECTION.
THAT MEANS THIS BODY WOULD HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, REALLY, TO PROTECT THE INTERNET AGAINST MISUSE OR CAPTURE FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS AND TO GUARANTEE THAT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERNET, WHICH IS DEPENDENT FROM THE ZONE FILES AND THE ROOT SERVER OPERATION, CAN WORK IN A PROPER WAY.
SO THIS IS STILL WORK IN PROGRESS.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO GET ANY CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THIS SPECIAL PAPER ON THE ROOT SERVER.
AND WE HAVE STILL TIME -- WE KNOW IT'S LIMITED -- TO COME FROM THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUES TO SOME PROPOSALS FOR ACTIONS, IF NEEDED.
THANK YOU.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS AT THIS POINT?
YOU WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN THIS.
>>QIHENG HU: I THINK WOLFGANG HAS SAID MOST OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO SAY.
I WANT TO ADD THAT THE 95% OF THIS THING IS TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL, ROUTINE THINGS, WHICH THE AUTHORITIES OF THE SOVEREIGN STATES OR THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS MAY NOT NEED TO INTERFERE INTO THE THINGS, THE DETAILS.
BUT AS IT IS A RULE, I THINK, IN ALL COMMUNITIES, THE ELECTION OF THE HEAD OR THE PRESIDENT OVER ANY COMMUNITY TAKES VERY LITTLE TIME.
BUT THEN THE LEADERSHIP WILL SERVE THE COMMUNITY FOR TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, A TERM.
SO I THINK FOR THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, IT IS ALSO THE SAME THING: THE MAIN IMPORTANT THING IS THE AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZATION PROCESS.
THE AUTHORIZATION TO THE BODY WHO IS TAKING CARE ABOUT THE CORE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNET SHOULD BE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED BY A MULTILATERAL PROCESS, BY A MULTILATERAL THAT IS -- HOW TO SAY THAT? -- THE SOVEREIGN STATES, THAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE SOVEREIGN STATES TO SELECT OR TO DELEGATE THE RIGHT TO A BODY, NOT -- SAY, ICANN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO TAKE CARE ABOUT THE STRATEGIC RESOURCES OF THE INTERNET FOR THEM.
THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO ADD.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: WE NOW OPEN ON THE SPECIFIC AREA.
THOUGH THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MORNING.
BUT IF THERE ARE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU WISH TO POSE OR COMMENTS THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AT THIS POINT.
BECAUSE IN SOME WAYS, THIS IS DEALING WITH SOME OF THE CORE ISSUES THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE MORNING.
OR SHALL I MOVE ON TO THE OTHER PAPER?
OKAY.
AT THE MOMENT, PEOPLE ARE STILL RECOVERING FROM LUNCH.
LET ME MOVE ON TO THE OTHER PAPERS.
MAY I ASK ALLEN MILLER, BECAUSE THIS WAS A CLUSTER 2, ON THE KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET.
THIS IS A VERY BROAD AREA.
AND PERHAPS ALLEN COULD -- MANY DIFFERENT THINGS ARE INVOLVED IN IT.
BUT MAYBE ALLEN CAN GIVE AN OVERVIEW.
ALLEN MILLER.
>>ALLEN MILLER: WELL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I FEEL THAT I'M REALLY REPORTING ON THIS ISSUE SOMEWHAT IN DEFAULT.
THIS PAPER WAS BEGUN BY A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES, AYESHA HASSAN, AND JUAN FERNANDEZ, AND AVRI DORIA.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAPER, AYESHA WENT ON HOLIDAY AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD COORDINATE THE COMMENTS, WHICH WAS FINE.
HOWEVER, WHEN SHE RETURNED FROM HOLIDAY, I WAS STILL COORDINATING THE COMMENTS.
BUT IN ANY CASE, THE PAPER -- THE CLUSTER 2 PAPER DEALS WITH ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET.
AND THESE WERE BROKEN INTO THREE SEPARATE AREAS WHERE WE DID SUBSTANTIVE WORK, I WOULD SAY, ON ONLY TWO OF THOSE AREAS.
THE FIRST SET OF ISSUES WERE SPAM AND CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME, SECURITY OF THE INTERNET.
THE SECOND GROUP OF ISSUES WERE JURISDICTION, THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY WITH REGARD TO ISPS, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THEN THE THIRD SET OF ISSUES, FOR WHICH THERE REALLY WAS NO SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS THAT WE UNDERTOOK IN THE PAPER, WAS INITIALLY NATIONAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.
BUT I WOULD SAY THERE'S REALLY NOTHING IN THERE WITH REGARD TO THAT FOR THE MOST PART.
THIS PAPER, UNLIKE SOME OF THE OTHERS, WAS REALLY DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS.
THERE IS THE TEMPLATE THERE THAT ALL OF THE PAPERS ADDRESSED.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THESE ISSUES WERE SO DIVERSE AND REALLY, LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER PAPERS, INVOLVED SO MANY DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS AND ORGANIZATIONS, WE DEVELOPED AN ANNEX. AND, REALLY, THE ANNEX IN THIS CASE CAME FIRST.
AND IN MY VIEW, THE ANNEX IS WHERE THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THIS PAPER IS, BECAUSE IT DESCRIBES TWO DIFFERENT AREAS ON EACH OF THESE ISSUES, FIRST, THE EXISTING WORK THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE -- AND I THINK A FAIRLY COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THAT -- AND THE MECHANISMS OR ORGANIZATIONS IN WHICH FOR EACH OF THESE ISSUES THE WORK IS BEING DONE.
AND THEN THE SECOND SECTION FOR EACH OF THESE ISSUES IN THE ANNEX IS ONE WHERE WE GOT TREMENDOUS INPUT FROM ALL OF THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS, THE CIVIL SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT, AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
AND THAT WAS CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE HANDLING.
AND I THINK AS YOU REVIEW AND LOOK AT THIS PAPER THAT THESE ARE THE AREAS -- THE ANNEX AND SPECIFICALLY THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE HANDLING -- IS WHERE A GREAT DEAL OF THE REAL MEAT OF THIS PAPER IS, BECAUSE, FRANKLY, THE TEMPLATE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONS, RELATIONS WITH THE INTERNET, EVALUATING THE VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS AGAINST THE CRITERION SET FORTH, WAS SO DIVERSE THAT IT, IN FACT, IS, I FEEL, SOMEWHAT GENERAL, WHEREAS THE REAL DISCUSSION AND SO FORTH IS INCLUDED IN THE ANNEX OF THE PAPER.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THIS IS WHAT WE CALL CLUSTER 2, WHICH IS THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET.
WHAT MR. KLEINWÄCHTER INTRODUCED WAS WHAT WE HAD PUT UNDER A PART OF ISSUE 1, WHICH IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET RESOURCES, WHICH IS SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS: THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, WHICH ARE ABOUT TELECOMMUNICATIONS, (INAUDIBLE) INTERNET TELEPHONY, ET CETERA, AND THE LOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, WHICH IS ABOUT INTERNET NAMES, DOMAIN NAMES, THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM, AND SO ON.
THIS IS WHAT WAS THE SECOND CLUSTER.
I HAD SORT OF BEGUN AND HAD THE FOURTH ONE, WHICH IS ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUE.
THAT LEAVES ONE MORE CLUSTER, WHICH IS THOSE THINGS WHICH DEAL WITH THE BROADER ISSUES AS THEY IMPINGE ON THE INTERNET, BUT WHERE THE NATURE OF THE DISCUSSION ON THOSE ISSUES, LIKE IPR, LIKE COMPETITION, ET CETERA, REALLY ALSO SPILLS OVER INTO AREAS OTHER THAN THE INTERNET IN THE SENSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE JUST AN ISOLATED DISCUSSION SIMPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNET.
THIS ONE, I'M GOING TO ASK DON MACLEAN TO INTRODUCE THIS THIRD CLUSTER.
>>DONALD MACLEAN: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
AS YOU SAY, THE THIRD CLUSTER GROUPS A LOT OF ISSUES THAT ARE INTERNET-RELATED IN PART BUT REALLY HAVE MUCH BROADER ASPECTS.
WE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO DO ASSESSMENT NOTES ON ALL OF THEM, SO WE TRIED TO FOCUS ON THREE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES, AND HAVE PAPERS ON THE ISSUE OF COMPETITION, PRIVATIZATION, LIBERALIZATION AND REGULATION AS ONE SET OF ISSUES. THE SECOND PAPER ON TRADE, TAXATION AND E-COMMERCE, AND A THIRD PAPER ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
WE FELT IN TERMS OF THE WORK OF WSIS, THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT, THESE WERE PERHAPS THE ISSUES TO HIGHLIGHT.
THESE ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT ISSUE AREAS TO DEAL WITH SUCCINCTLY. IN EACH OF THEM, THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE. THERE ARE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT DEPLOY DIFFERENT KINDS OF INSTRUMENTS, IN THE CASE OF WTO TRADE ORGANIZATION, WHAT WE CALLED TREATIES WITH TEETH, TREATIES THAT HAVE BINDING DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS AS PART OF THEM. THERE ARE OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE SOFTER THAT DON'T HAVE THAT DISPUTE RESOLUTION DIMENSION.
THERE ARE ACTIVITIES WHOSE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE IS TO SET STANDARDS, THERE ARE OTHERS WHO INVOLVE POLICY COORDINATION, OTHERS INVOLVE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, IF WE TAKE GOVERNANCE IN A VERY GENERAL SENSE.
THESE ARRANGEMENTS EXIST AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, THEY EXIST REGIONALLY. AND IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THESE INTERGOVERNMENTAL GOVERNMENT ARRANGEMENTS, IN EACH OF THESE AREAS THERE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT NONGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE. SO A LOT OF INSTITUTIONS DOING A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
I THINK THE ISSUE CLUSTER IS IMPORTANT CERTAINLY IN THE BROADER WSIS CONTEXT BECAUSE THE RESULTS OF THESE GOVERNANCE ACTIVITIES HAVE A TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OVERALL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AT A GLOBAL LEVEL, AND THEREFORE, IF THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF WSIS REALLY IS TO TRY TO LOOK AT HOW ICTS IN GENERAL, INCLUDING THE INTERNET, CAN BE HARNESSED IN SUPPORT OF THE ACHIEVEMENT OF OVERALL GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES, FOR INSTANCE AS DEFINED IN THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, OR MORE CLEARLY IN WAYS THAT THESE KINDS OF ISSUES AND THE INTERNET ASPECTS OF THEM ARE MANAGED HAVE VERY IMPORTANT LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES, HERE WE ARE TYPICALLY LOOKING AT ISSUES WHOSE IMPACTS NEED TO BE MEASURED SORT OF NOT IN ONE YEAR OR EVEN IN FIVE YEARS BUT OVER DECADES. WE'RE DEALING WITH LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK IN DRAFTING THE PAPERS THERE WAS AN EFFORT MADE TO TRY TO DO THAT TO TRY TO PITCH SOME OF THE DISCUSSION. EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS AND SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT OF ARRANGEMENTS IN TERMS OF NOT JUST HERE AND NOW THE ISSUES THAT ARE ON THE TABLE TODAY OR EVEN IN THE IMMEDIATE TERM BUT WHAT REALLY IS THE LONGER, THE 20-YEAR LOOK AHEAD, THE 50-YEAR LOOK AHEAD, WHAT CAN GOVERNANCE OF THESE ISSUES DO TO HELP HARNESS ICTS TO OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES.
AND CLEARLY IN THIS PERSPECTIVE THERE'S A VERY, VERY STRONG LINK WITH THE CLUSTER 4 ISSUES, THE ISSUE OF BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO TAKE PART EFFECTIVELY IN THE GOVERNANCE OF ISSUES LIKE E-COMMERCE, TRADE, IPR, COMPETITION AND SO FORTH.
I THINK IN PREPARING THE PAPERS, THOSE WHO HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM WILL SEE THAT IN THE FINAL SECTION WHICH SEEKS TO IDENTIFY ISSUES MOST IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT, WE'VE USED THE SAME SORT OF SET OF FOUR WITH RESPECT TO EACH ISSUE AREA. AND THE FIRST REALLY WAS CHARACTERIZED AS A NEED FOR POLICY VISION AND PERHAPS I NEED TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS MEANT BY THAT.
I THINK IN EACH OF THESE AREAS, GIVEN THE LONG-TERM NATURE OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE DEALING WITH, ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GIVES RISE TO A LOT OF THE DEBATE, IS THE ISSUE OF THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET ON IPRS, ON TRADE, ON COMPETITION, AND SO FORTH.
AND I THINK IN EACH OF THESE AREAS, THERE ARE RATHER DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE INTERNET, AND TO PERHAPS CHARACTERIZE THEM TOO SIMPLY, SOME WOULD SEE THE INTERNET SIMPLY AS SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S COME ALONG THAT CAN EASILY BE FITTED INTO OR ACCOMMODATED WITHIN EXISTING GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. OTHERS WOULD TAKE THE VIEW THAT THERE'S SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY NEW ABOUT THE INTERNET, AND IT'S TYPICALLY CHARACTERIZED IN ISSUES LIKE CYBERSPACE BREAKING DOWN BOUNDARIES BETWEEN COUNTRIES, SOMETHING ESSENTIALLY NEW ABOUT THE INTERNET THAT REQUIRES MORE THAN SIMPLE SORT OF ADDITION TO ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA OF EXISTING GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS, BUT NEW APPROACHES, NEW QUESTIONS, NEW WAYS OF DEALING WITH ISSUES.
SO THAT'S A QUESTION THAT CAN'T REALLY BE ANSWERED YES OR NO JUST LIKE THAT.
THE FEELING WAS THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT OBVIOUSLY PRESENT IN A LOT OF THE GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS WE LOOKED AT. THE CAPACITY ON A MULTISTAKEHOLDER BASIS WITHOUT COMMITMENTS TO ANYTHING SIMPLY TO ENGAGE ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN AN OPEN DIALOGUE ABOUT HOW DOES THE INTERNET IMPACT THESE AREAS, WHAT DOES IT CHANGE, WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSES. THE SORT OF THING WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
SO ONE, THERE'S A FEELING THERE'S A NEED FOR A FORUM OR FORA THAT WILL ENABLE THIS KIND OF FREE INTERCHANGE OF VIEWS TO BUILD COMMON UNDERSTANDINGS.
SECONDLY, CERTAINLY COORDINATION ISSUE, GIVEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS FROM THE GOVERNANCE SIDE, FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVED IN THE GOVERNANCE IN EACH OF THESE ISSUE AREAS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. AND THE INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT ISSUE AREAS. A CLEAR, I THINK, NEED TO LOOK AT HOW THINGS GET COORDINATED. AND THAT, IN A SENSE, IS RELATED TO THE OVERALL QUESTION OF DEVELOPING A POLICY VISION. THE ISSUE IS NOT ONLY, I THINK, SUBSTANTIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE INTERNET MEANS IN EACH OF THESE AREAS, BUT IT TOUCHES ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT IN WSIS, HOW DO YOU GET A MORE EFFECTIVE COORDINATION FOR AND ACROSS LEVELS.
THE THIRD -- A THIRD SUGGESTION THAT -- AND WE DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT HERE. A LOT OF ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVED, SOME INTERGOVERNMENTAL, SOME NONGOVERNMENTAL, BUT NONE OF THEM REALLY FULLY MEETING THE WSIS CRITERIA OF TRANSPARENCY, DEMOCRACY AND SO FORTH WITH THE FULL INVOLVEMENT.
SO CLEARLY A NEED ON AN ISSUE-BY-ISSUE BASIS, AND PROBABLY A NEED FOR PRIORITIZATION FOR SOME KIND OF GOVERNANCE INNOVATION IN DEALING WITH THE IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET, WHETHER ONE VIEWS THE INTERNET AS JUST ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT CAN BE DEALT WITH UNDER EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS OR WHETHER ONE VIEWS IT AS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES REAL GOVERNANCE INVENTION.
AND FINALLY, AS I SAID EARLIER, GENERAL POINT, THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENTAL CAPACITY BUILDING IN ALL OF THESE AREAS.
SO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS SORT OF AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S IN THE PAPERS.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: CAN I INVITE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, SUGGESTIONS?
I'M GOING TO TRY A LITTLE BIT HARDER.
LET ME THEN MOVE ON TO ONE -- WHO IS THAT? THERE'S ONE THERE.
>>: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHER'S ASSOCIATION, AN ASSOCIATION WHICH REPRESENTS THE PUBLISHER'S WORLDWIDE, ASSEMBLED INTO 78 PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION AT NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIALIZED LEVEL.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE DISCUSSIONS THROUGHOUT PHASE ONE OF WSIS AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO DO SO. IN OUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS TO THE PREVIOUS WORKING PAPER ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, WE WELCOMED THE OPEN CONSULTATION PROCESS LAUNCHED BY THE WGIG.
AGAIN, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT AND HOPE THAT OUR LATEST COMMENTS TO THE LATEST DRAFT WORKING PAPER ON IPR POSTED ON THE WGIG WEB SITE ON 8 OF APRIL WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE LATEST WORKING PAPER ON IPR PROVIDES AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND VERY MUCH REGRET ITS APPARENT ANTI-COPYRIGHT BIAS.
FURTHERMORE, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED IN THE WORKING PAPER A CLEARER AND FIRMER REFERENCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL IPR FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED AND AGREED UPON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION.
IN CONCLUSION, WE WELCOME THE WGIG OPEN CONSULTATION PROCESS AND SEE IT AS A STEP FORWARD, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE COMMENTS THAT OCCUR IN DRAFT WORKING PAPER ON IPR WILL BE REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE RIGHTS HOLDER COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
AND IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME, IN FINAL NOTES, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON A TOTAL DIFFERENT ISSUE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WHEN TACKLING INTERNET GOVERNANCE, ONE SHOULD BEAR IN MIND THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AS INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED IN ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: ILO.
>>ILO: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THREE WEEKS AGO, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE ILO THAT IS COMPOSED OF WORKERS, THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND GOVERNMENTS DISCUSSED A PAPER ON THE IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY ON LABOR MARKETS. AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LABOR MARKETS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DECENT EMPLOYMENT AND DECENT EMPLOYMENT IS THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE WAY OF REDUCING POVERTY.
SO I -- WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ATTENTION IS THAT THERE ARE INSTITUTIONS THAT TRY WITHIN THEIR OWN SCOPE AND WITH THEIR OWN TRANSPARENCY TO DEAL WITH VERY COMPLEX ISSUES, AND I WOULD AGAIN SUGGEST THAT THE COMMITTEE REMAIN ON AREAS THAT ARE A LITTLE LESS COMPLICATED, I WOULD SAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THAT CERTAINLY WE WILL TRY.
THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT OF JAPAN.
>>IZUMI AIZU: YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WHILE, YES, I WORK FOR THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE OF JAPAN, THIS IS PURELY MY PERSONAL OPINION, OBSERVATION, JUST TRIGGERED BY THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS ON THE IPR PAPER. 
FIRST, I HAVE A QUESTION. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN THE WGIG ABOUT THE OPEN AND/OR FREE SOFTWARE IN RELATION TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET? BECAUSE THERE'S NO MENTION ABOUT THEM AT ALL IN THIS PAPER, AND IS IT VERY MUCH A SORT OF DELIBERATE THING OR JUST ACCIDENTALLY SO? AND THAT'S MY QUESTION. HAVING SAID THAT, I'D LIKE TO REMIND THAT THE MUCH USE OF THE INTERNET HAS BEEN GREATLY PROMOTED BY THE VERY RAPID PROPAGATION OF OPEN AND FREE SOFTWARE ON NONPROPRIETARY, NONCOMMERCIAL SOFTWARE TOGETHER WITH THE COMMERCIAL ILLEGITIMATE SOFTWARE OR PRODUCTS AS WELL.
THE WEB IS ONE, MANY BROWSERS ARE ALSO, AND SERVER SOFTWARE UNDERNEATH, LIKE APACHE OR MAIL SERVER SOFTWARE. WITHOUT THESE, THE RAPID SORT OF DIFFUSION OF INTERNET WOULD NEVER BE POSSIBLE. AND OF COURSE ONE CAN QUESTION WHETHER THIS IS A REAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUE PER SE OR NOT BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE VERY USEFUL TO AT LEAST TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT THE FUNCTIONS OF THIS AND HOW DO WE PROCEED.
THAT'S ONE QUESTION.
AND THE USER COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OF THESE NONCOMMERCIAL SOFTWARE HELPED A GREAT DEAL, AND IT ALSO HELPED MANY PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPING PARTS OF THE WORLD TO QUICKLY BENEFIT FROM THE USE OF THE INTERNET. SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL AGAIN TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT THESE AREAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: DON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TOUCH ON THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED ABOUT OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
>>DONALD MACLEAN: YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE SPEAKER IS RIGHT THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY TREAT THAT IN THE PAPER, I THINK THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS WHICH COULD BE TAKEN TO REFER TO THE MOVEMENT. AND I THINK IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PAPERS WE DID IDENTIFY OPEN SOURCE AS AN ISSUE, BUT ACTUALLY WITHIN THE GROUP DID NOT PRODUCE A PAPER ON IT.
AND I THINK IF I MIGHT JUST SAY, I THINK IT'S A FAIR COMMENT THAT WE ALSO HAD A COMMENT, I THINK, FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, A SIMILAR COMMENT THAT IN THE COMPETITION PAPER WE DIDN'T REALLY LOOK AT THE BENEFITS THAT COMPETITION WITHIN THE INTERNET HAS BROUGHT. AND I THINK THE REASON IS SORT OF SIMPLE AND MAY BE A BIT OF TUNNEL VISION THAT IN THE GROUP WE WERE LOOKING AT THE EXISTING INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE IN PLACE, SORT OF FOCUSING ON HOW WELL THEY'RE WORKING. AND EITHER THIS GROUP OR A SUCCESSOR GROUP MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A SLIGHTLY BROADER VIEW AND TRY TO CAPTURE THE SORT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THAT FRAME OF REFERENCE.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: MR. BERTOLA.AND THEN SOUTH AFRICA.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPER BUT I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE COMMENT BY THE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHER COMMENTS BY -- WE HAD ONE COMMENT ON THE WEB SITE BY THE MOVIE INDUSTRY AND SO ON. AND I JUST WANT TO ASSURE EVERYONE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ANTI-COPYRIGHT BIAS IN WHAT THE WGIG IS DOING. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN THE WORKING GROUP IS THINKING ABOUT RESTRICTING THE COPYRIGHT OR DENYING AUTHORS THEIR RIGHTS OR SO ON. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE IN THE DIFFERENT FORUMS, DIFFERENT PLACES, COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOME PARTS OF THE EXISTING IPR SYSTEM DON'T WORK. AND IN PARTICULAR, THERE HAVE BEEN VERY VISIBLE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WIPO DENIED ACCREDITATION TO SOME NGOS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY USERS AND SO ON.
AND IN THIS LIGHT, I DON'T THINK WE COULD IN ANY CASE AVOID TO DEAL WITH THESE KIND OF COMPLAINTS AND TO ASSESS THEM AND SEE WHETHER THEY ARE JUSTIFIED OR NOT.
BUT IF YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE THE PAPER AND READ THE FINAL SESSIONS, THE LAST CHAPTER DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING GOVERNANCE MECHANISM, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY ANY OF THE POINTS WE ARE MAKING ARE ANTI-COPYRIGHT OR IN FAVOR OF FREE SOFTWARE OR PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE OR IN FAVOR OF USERS RATHER THAN THE COPYRIGHT INDUSTRY. SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE MAYBE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF FRANK DISCUSSION AMONG THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE STORY SO WE CAN GET TO SOME COMMON AND RECIPROCAL UNDERSTANDING.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: IF SOUTH AFRICA PERMITS, CAN I ASK THE LADY FROM THE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION SO WE CAN PRESERVE THE THREAD?
YES, PLEASE.
>>: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. BERTOLA FOR HIS COMMENTS WHICH, INDEED, ARE VERY USEFUL.
VERY BRIEFLY, I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF FILM PRODUCERS WHO REPRESENT FILM PRODUCERS ORGANIZATIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS AND MR. BERTOLA'S COMMENTS, WE HAVE CLOSELY FOLLOWED THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE WSIS. IN FEBRUARY WE SENT FAIRLY DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT CONCERNING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY SEEN THE LAST DRAFT, THE LATEST DRAFT THAT IS ON THE SITE AT PRESENT. AND I MUST SAY, I THINK I CAN SPEAK HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS OF VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHICH SHOULD OR HAVE ALREADY SENT IN PAPERS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, THAT THIS TEXT STILL RAISES SOME IMPORTANT DIFFICULTIES IN OUR EYES.
IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE TEXT SHOULD REPRESENT THE SITUATION AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS AND THAT IT SHOULD GIVE A CORRECT PICTURE OF THE ACTUAL SITUATION.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STRESS TWO POINTS. FIRST OF ALL, REGARDING COPYRIGHTS IN THE DRAFT, WE THINK THAT THE DEFINITION IS STILL NOT APPROPRIATE.
COPYRIGHT IS ESSENTIAL FOR CREATION AND TO ENSURE THE CREATIVITY SHOULD BECOME AN ACTIVITY WHICH PRODUCES ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL BENEFITS BOTH FOR THE CREATOR AND THE COUNTRY IN WHICH HE LIVES, AS WELL AS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL.
IN OUR VIEW, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE SECTOR WHICH IS A FRAGILE SECTOR IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
SO WE WOULD LIKE THE DRAFT TO REFLECT THIS ESSENTIAL NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
ANOTHER POINT -- THERE ARE OTHERS, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM HERE -- BUT ONE POINT, ANOTHER POINT, IS THE REFERENCES TO THE WIPO. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REFERENCES IN THE PAPER TO IT, BUT WE THINK IT'S ESSENTIAL TO STRESS THAT WIPO BENEFITS FROM THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE AND NECESSARY CAPACITY FOR PROJECTION TO BE AN ENGINE ON THIS SUBJECT, WHICH IS VERY SPECIFIC AND DIFFICULT. I WOULD ALSO STRESS THAT THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS ESSENTIAL TO PROMOTE, FIRST OF ALL, ACCESS TO CONTENT BUT ALSO THE PROTECTION OF STAKEHOLDERS, AND THAT THE DISCUSSION IN WIPO HAS BEEN ANIMATED BY A DESIRE TO ACHIEVE A BALANCE BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND USERS, A BALANCE WHICH I THINK IS ESSENTIAL FOR ANY PROPER COPYRIGHT REGIME.
SO THOSE ARE TWO POINTS WHICH I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO STRESS.
JUST ONE MORE THING. I ALSO THINK IT'S VERY SURPRISING TO SEE NO REFERENCE TO THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEM OF PIRACY, WHICH ENDANGERS THE CONTENT SECTOR. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY ATTEMPTS TO ANALYZE THIS IN THE PAPERS, AND WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE THAT AS WELL.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND, OF COURSE, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU MAY WANT OR TO PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT YOU MAY NEED.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU. I HAVE SOUTH AFRICA, AUSTRALIA, AND KAREN BANKS.
>>SOUTH AFRICA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRPERSON.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PRESENTERS. I'VE JUST GOT TWO QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEIR VIEWS ON.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS IN JUST DIFFERENT FORAS IN TERMS OF THE CENTRALIZED ARCHITECTURE OF THE DNA, AND I WOULD LIKE TO POSE A QUESTION TO THEM BECAUSE SOME OF THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADVANCED IS THAT WHILST THE FACT THAT THE CENTRALIZED NATURE OF THE DNA WENT WELL IN THE PAST, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO ACTUALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF APPROACH, BECAUSE THE FACT THAT THE ARCHITECTURE HASN'T BEEN CHANGED FOR 20 YEARS HASN'T BEEN ONLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S WORKING SO EXCELLENTLY, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEED, THEN, TO HAVE IT CENTRALIZED.
AND PART OF THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY GO THROUGH A KIND OF GSM KIND OF STYLE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THAT, A SORT OF GSM STYLE, A WAY OF INCORPORATING THE NAME SERVER SYSTEM.
THE OTHER QUESTION RELATES TO THE ASCII; THAT IS, THE IDN STANDARDS. AGAIN, HERE, THERE HAVE BEEN -- THERE HAS BEEN A KIND OF ARGUMENT SAYING THAT THE IETF IDN STANDARDS OF CONVERTING ASCII TO NAMES INTO ASCII2 PRESENTS MORE PROBLEMS THAN SOLUTIONS AND PROBABLY COUNTRIES AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL SHOULD LOOK AT THE KIND OF SOLUTIONS WHICH ADDRESS EITHER CULTURAL OR COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE TASK FORCE'S VIEW ON THIS ISSUE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: AUSTRALIA.
>>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE PAPERS THAT ARE BEFORE US.
I THINK MY GOVERNMENT IS CERTAINLY TAKING THE PAPERS QUITE SERIOUSLY AND IS DEVELOPING QUITE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THEM WHICH I THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE APPROPRIATELY SHARED DIRECTLY THAN IN A FORUM LIKE THIS.
I THINK ONE OF THE UNDERLYING REACTIONS, INITIAL REACTIONS WE HAVE, OF COURSE, IS FOR MANY OF THE PAPERS WE'RE SEEING, THEY'RE, OF COURSE, WORKS IN PROGRESS THEMSELVES AND SOME OF THE AREAS OR THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE REALLY GO TO WE'D LIKE TO SEE MORE ANALYSIS OR DEPTH ON THE CLAIMS HERE THAT ARE IN THE PAPERS.
AT THE MOMENT WE HAVE SORT OF PAPERS WITH VARYING DEGREES OF ANALYSIS OR CONCLUSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS IN THEM WHICH WE FEEL, ON SOME OCCASIONS, NEED SOME FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF SETTING OUT THE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM AND WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN.
THIS LEADS TO A SECOND QUESTION, I SUPPOSE, WHICH I'D LIKE TO RAISE, WHICH IS I HAVE A SENSE IN WHICH PARTICULARLY THE PAPERS AS WE MOVE AWAY FROM THE MOST CONTENTIOUS AND CENTRAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE, THAT'S WHERE WE FIND THE PAPERS ARE STRUGGLING MORE AND MORE TO DEVELOP A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS.
AND THIS MIGHT GIVE RISE TO AN ISSUE OF PRIORITY FOR THE WORKING GROUP, I THINK, IN TERMS OF WHERE SHOULD THE GROUP BE FOCUSING ITS EFFORTS. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AROUND THAT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CLUSTER 4 ISSUES -- SORRY, THE CLUSTER 3 ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT EARLIER ARE ONES WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY QUITE HEAVILY ELABORATED REGIMES INTERNATIONALLY, INCLUDING TREATY FRAMEWORKS AND OTHER THINGS. AND IT COULD BE AN AREA WHERE YOU GET RATHER BOGGED DOWN AS A GROUP IN TRYING TO COME UP WITH CONCLUSIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CLUSTER 2 ISSUES WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, I THINK AT LEAST ONES IN THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S POINT OF VIEW ARE RIPE FOR FURTHER WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE AREAS WHERE THERE ISN'T THE SAME DEGREE OF ELABORATION OF A REGIME, THERE ARE UNCERTAINTIES AND A LACK OF CLARITY IN CERTAIN AREAS.
SO I SUPPOSE I WOULD JUST REITERATE AUSTRALIA'S VIEW THAT THIS IS ONE AREA, IN OUR VIEW, WHERE SOME USEFUL PROGRESS COULD BE MADE, AND I'D BE INTERESTED IN THE WORKING GROUP'S VIEW OR OTHERWISE ON HOW THE GROUP MIGHT BALANCE THOSE PRIORITIES BETWEEN PERHAPS CLUSTER 2 AND CLUSTER 3.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: KAREN.
>>KAREN BANKS: THANKS, MR. CHAIR.
JUST TO RESPOND TO IZUMI FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE OF JAPAN WHO SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT A PAPER ON FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE PAPERS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER. IT SHOULD BE ONLINE THIS WEEK SOMETIME.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: OKAY. I THINK CLEARLY ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT PAPERS THAT WE'VE HAD TO HANDLE HAS BEEN ON IPR ISSUES. AND YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST DIFFICULT. IT ALWAYS IS, IN ALMOST EVERY INTERNATIONAL GATHERING. BUT WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS. I THINK ONE OF THE JUDGMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE IS HOW FAR DO WE GO IN EACH OF THESE AREAS. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO.
WE HAVEN'T REALLY TAKEN UP MUCH -- SAID MUCH ON THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUE.
YOU WANT TO COMMENT?
ON THE DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUE, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF WE SHOULD SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE CAPACITY-BUILDING SIDE. AND JOVAN, WOULD YOU -- (INAUDIBLE) HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MORE INVOLVED IN CAPACITY BUILDING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IN ORDER TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION FORWARD, MAYBE, JOVAN, DO YOU WANT TO SAY A LITTLE WORD? INCLUDING WHAT IS THE LARGER WORK THAT HE IS DOING.
>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL START --
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL START WITH ONE DIGRESSION AND SHARE THE QUESTION BY MANY PARTICIPANTS ABOUT THIS UNIQUE TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY MARKUS, AND MAYBE TO JOIN PAYMENT THAT THE NEXT VERSION WE HAVE SOME SORT OF GRAMMAR CHECKER FOR US NONNATIVE SPEAKERS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY USEFUL, AND ALTHOUGH I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH VIDEO BROADCASTING AND VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, I FIND THIS TYPE OF TRANSCRIBING EVEN MORE USEFUL AND ANOTHER WAY HOW THE TEXT IS STRIKING BACK, LIKE SMS MESSAGES AND OTHER THINGS, AND TRYING TO BE STUBBORN EVEN IN THIS INTERNET AND ICT ERA.
WITH REGARD TO CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM, WE DISTRIBUTED A LEAFLET EXPLAINING THE WHOLE PROGRAM AND INITIATIVE AND I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE THE MAIN POINTS.
AFTER THE FEBRUARY MEETING, IN DISCUSSION WITH MARKUS, WE THOUGHT OF CHOOSING THE WALK-THE-TALK APPROACH, AND DEVELOPING SOMETHING WHICH WILL BE IMMEDIATE, CONCRETE IMPACT OR SIDE EFFECT OF THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP IN THE FIELD OF CAPACITY BUILDING.
WE PACKAGED IN THE RECORD PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS THE WHOLE PROGRAM, ANNOUNCED ON THE NET, AND WE GOT CLOSE TO 200 REGISTRATIONS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. WE HAD VERY HARD TASK TO SELECT 48 PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE CURRENTLY PARTICIPATING IN THE CAPACITY-BUILDING PROGRAM, CONDUCTED COMPLETELY ONLINE.
IT HAS TWO COMPONENTS. ONE COMPONENT IS THE COURSE ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, DEVELOPED AROUND OUR FAMOUS BUILDING AND FIVE BASKETS, THEREFORE THEY ARE ATTENDING THE COURSE. AND THE SECOND COMPONENT IS A RESEARCH ACTIVITY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENT HERE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WGIG TO PAY ATTENTION ABOUT THIS INITIATIVE. STUDENTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE CHOSEN VARIOUS TOPICS RELATED TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IN-DEPTH RESEARCH. 
ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH BERTRAND MENTIONED THIS MORNING WAS THE PROTECTION OF THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST.
WE HAVE A VERY SOLID GROUP WHICH IS TRYING TO ANALYZE THE CONCEPT OF THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, GLOBAL PUBLIC GOOD, GLOBAL PUBLIC BAD, AND OTHER PUBLIC ASPECTS OF THE INTERNET.
THERE ARE TOPICS ON THE COUNTRY'S POSITION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, DIGITAL DIVIDE, DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS.
AND YOU CAN FIND AN ABBREVIATED LIST IN THIS LEAFLET.
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANTS -- AND WE'LL HAVE SIX MOST SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANTS COMING TO GENEVA AND JOINING FOR THE INTERNSHIP FOR ONE-MONTH INTERNSHIP AND ONE-WEEK INTERNSHIP, THE SECRETARIAT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND WE HAVE VERY ELABORATE SCHEME HOW TO CHOOSE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANTS FOR THE COURSE.
WE'RE ALSO PLEASED TO INDICATE BESIDE THE SECRETARIAT AND THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP AND WIPO, WHICH HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING, WE GOT SUPPORT FROM THE SWISS AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION, RIPE NETWORK COORDINATION CENTER IS ALSO HELPING US, AND WE GOT SUPPORT FROM ICANN, WHICH IS GOING TO PROVIDE A FEW FELLOWSHIPS FOR THE ICANN MEETINGS, THAT FOR SOME OF THE STUDENTS, PARTICIPANTS IN THE COURSE WILL JOIN ONE OF THE ICANN -- FORTHCOMING ICANN MEETINGS.
AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE OF THE PARTICIPATION IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM -- 19 REPRESENTATIVES FROM AFRICA, 16 FROM ASIA-PACIFIC, 7 FROM LATIN AMERICA, AND SIX FROM COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION, THE BULK IN EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA.
THERE ARE FOUR REPRESENTATIVES OF IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, BASICALLY, PERSONS WORKING WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, SEVEN FROM BUSINESS SECTOR, 14 FROM GOVERNMENTS, AND 23 FROM CIVIL SOCIETY, INCLUDING NGOS, ACADEMIA, MEDIA, AND OTHER NON-STATE ACTORS.
THE DEBATE ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE COURSE IS VERY LIVELY.
THE STATISTIC IS THAT DURING THE LAST MONTH, WE HAD CLOSE TO 600 INPUTS, COMMENTS IN OUR HYPERTEXT ANNOTATION SYSTEM, WHERE PEOPLE ARE COMMENTING ON TEXT BY MAKING ANNOTATION.
A REVISED LOGIC FROM THE FAMOUS WIKI.
WE ARE NOT AMENDING THE BASIC TEXT, WE ARE ADDING THE LAYERS ON THE TEXT. 
AND THEY MADE CLOSE TO 600 COMMENTS ON THE VARIOUS PAPERS, BRINGING UP SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED TODAY AND PROVIDING IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE, PROVIDING COMPARATIVE REGIONALISM.
THEREFORE, WE HAVE INPUTS FROM PARTICIPANTS FROM ASIA-PACIFIC SHARED WITH AFRICAN REGION, WITH CARIBBEAN, LATIN AMERICAN, THEREFORE TRYING TO SEE WHAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED FROM OTHER REGIONS.
AND THEY ARE A GRADUALLY DEVELOPING COMMUNITY. 
AND IT COULD BE SOME SORT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND EXPANDING COMMUNITY WHICH COULD STRENGTHEN DISCUSSION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
BASED ON THE SUCCESS BEYOND OUR INITIAL EXPECTATIONS, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING QUITE A FEW COURSES, BUT THIS ONE HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL, WE DECIDED TO START A PHASE TWO, WHICH THERE -- THERE IS A MISTAKE HERE ON THE LEAFLET -- STARTING SEPTEMBER AND WILL LAST UNTIL NOVEMBER, WITH THE BEST PARTICIPANTS JOINING THE -- PARTICIPATING AT THE SUMMIT IN TUNIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE ALL OF YOU IN A PERSONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTING THIS INITIATIVE.
IT IS EXTREMELY LOW-COST INITIATIVE AND BENEFICIAL.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT A FEW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP WERE VERY HELPFUL IN PROVIDING INPUTS, ALEJANDRO HAS BEEN SPENDING, I'M SURE, SOME OF THE -- HIS FREE TIME IN PROVIDING IN-DEPTH INPUTS ABOUT SOME ISSUES, BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURSE IS ORGANIZED THAT IF LECTURERS CANNOT PROVIDE THE ANSWER, WE HAVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH EXPERTS, SOME OF THEM A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP, INCLUDING KAREN, WOLFGANG, ALEJANDRO, REPRESENTATIVES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE COMMENTING ON THOSE ISSUES AND PROVIDING, IF IT IS POSSIBLE, SOME SORT OF ULTIMATE EXPERT ANSWER ON THE ISSUES.
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO JOIN THIS INITIATIVE AS A SUPERVISOR OF RESEARCH PROJECT, AS A MEMBER OF ADVISORY GROUP, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
AND I'M SURE YOU WILL FIND IT BENEFICIAL.
THERE IS A DEFINITELY MUTUAL BENEFIT IN THIS WAY.
THE LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST THING, I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE ARE A FEW PARTICIPANTS FOR OUR COURSE ORGANIZED WITH UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA, DIPLOMATS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
THEY'RE SITTING IN THE LAST ROW HERE IN THE ROOM.
THEY ARE ALSO PARTICIPANTS IN THE -- ONE OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAPACITY-BUILDING PROGRAMS.
THERE ARE TEN OF THEM FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
WELL, I THINK I TACKLED MORE OR LESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT ISSUES.
BUT FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS OR TO APPROACH ME LATER ON WITH MORE DETAILS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THIS IS, OF COURSE, AN INNOVATION PARTICULARLY ORIENTED AT THE PRESUMING AND THE WSIS PROCESS.
BUT WE HOPE IT WILL BECOME A LONG-LASTING ONE.
ONE OR TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
AND I WANT TO RESPOND PARTICULARLY FROM SOUTH AFRICA FIRST ON THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, WHETHER THE CENTRALIZED ARCHITECTURE IS ESSENTIAL OR WHETHER SOMETHING DIFFERENT CAN BE THOUGHT OF AT THE PRESENT STAGE.
AND I WONDERED WHETHER -- ALEJANDRO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PERHAPS COMMENT ON THAT?
AND THERE WAS A SECOND QUESTION, WHICH WAS A LITTLE TOO TECHNICAL FOR ME, BUT MAYBE -- ON THE ASCII CODE, WHAT MAY BE ELEMENTARY.
YOU MAY WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: IS THERE -- OKAY.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, MR. SECRETARY, TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOUTH AFRICA AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN THIS.
THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY EXTREMELY DECENTRALIZED.
THERE IS, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF ITS DECENTRALIZED BUT ALSO HIERARCHICAL NATURE, THE NEED FOR IT TO BE CENTRALIZED AT ONE SINGLE POINT.
ALL THE HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM -- I'M SORRY NOT TO HAVE A FIGURE TO BE ABLE TO PROJECT RIGHT AWAY. BUT THE HIERARCHICAL NATURE, THIS IS A TREE, AN INVERTED TREE STRUCTURE -- REQUIRES THAT AT SOME POINT THE VERY BASIC STARTING POINT OF THIS, THERE BE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT INFORMATION.
AND THE NEED FOR THIS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT INFORMATION IS IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR AN ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN RESOLUTION, OR AS POSSIBLE, ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN RESOLUTION OF NAMES.
RESOLUTION OF NAMES, OF COURSE, MEANS THAT MAKING A DOMAIN NAME POINT TO A SINGLE RESOURCE.
THE SYSTEM IS VERY DECENTRALIZED AND IT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN SOME DETAIL HOW VERY LITTLE TIME ONE HAS TO ACTUALLY CONSULT THE CENTRALIZED PART OF IT, THAT VERY FEW QUERIES ACTUALLY GO TO THE ROOT ZONE FILES.
95% OF THEM COME FROM MISCONFIGURED SOFTWARE OR NETWORKS OR FROM TYPING MISTAKES OF USERS WHICH SEEM TO ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THEREFORE GO ALL THE WAY TO THE ROOT.
THERE HAVE BEEN PROPOSALS FOR MANY YEARS, AND ACTUALLY EVEN SOME TECHNICAL EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN RUNNING AND ARE RUNNING IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS ALTERNATE ROOTS.
THESE LEAD TO POSSIBLE CONFLICTS, BECAUSE DIFFERENT NAMES COULD BE GIVEN IN -- THE SAME NAME COULD BE GIVEN IN DIFFERENT ROOTS AND POINT TO DIFFERENT RESOURCES.
AND THIS, IN THE END, CAN BECOME EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC.
THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID THIS KIND OF PROBLEM IS TO COORDINATE AMONG THESE ROOTS SO THIS WOULD EVENTUALLY CREATE ONE MORE LAYER OF COORDINATION, WHICH AT THIS POINT DOES NOT HAVE ANY OF THE FORMAL SYSTEMS OF INPUT AND COORDINATION, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT INPUT, WHICH AT PRESENT WE HAVE IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
SO THIS IS BASICALLY UP TO NOW A TECHNICAL MANDATE OF COORDINATION THAT IS NEEDED.
AND IT HAPPENS IN MANY OTHER NUMBERING OR FUNDAMENTAL TECHNICAL PLAN SYSTEMS.
THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME ENGINEERING WOULD BE DONE AND -- I MEAN, ONE COULD IMAGINE THAT PEOPLE COULD GO THE WAY OF ALTERNATE ROOTS AND THIS DIFFERENT TYPE OF COORDINATION.
BUT CHANGING THE SYSTEM ALSO DOESN'T MEAN ONLY CHANGING THE ROOT ZONE, CHANGING A SMALL NUMBER OF SERVERS, BUT IT MEANS ACTUALLY CHANGING THE SOFTWARE AND THE OPERATION OF PROBABLY MOST COMPUTERS THAT ARE -- THAT ARE USING THE DNS AS IT IS, NOT ONLY THE SERVERS.
AND EVEN IF ONE WANTED TO CHANGE THE DOMAIN NAME SERVERS, ONE WOULD BE SPEAKING OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS, OF MACHINES RIGHT NOW.
TO THE SECOND POINT, WHICH IS THE USE OF ASCII OR INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE AND ONE IN WHICH THE WORK OF THE GROUP IS IN PROGRESS.
I WILL TRY TO MAKE MY COMMENTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF THE WORK OF THE GROUP, BEING VERY LOYAL TO THE GROUP.
ORIGINALLY, THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WAS MADE WITH COMPUTERS THAT WERE OF VERY LITTLE POWER AND WERE OPERATING ONLY ON THE ASCII OR THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE WAS AN EIGHT-BYTE -- EIGHT-BIT INSTEAD OF SEVEN-BIT WORD, WHICH WAS CALLED (INAUDIBLE), OR AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT.
THESE COMPUTERS USED ASCII THEN.
THIS IS A SEVEN-BIT THING -- FOR IDENTIFYING EVERYTHING, FOR EVERYTHING THAT WAS WRITTEN. AND THAT INCLUDED THE DOMAIN NAMES.
THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM HAS GROWN USING THE ASCII CHARACTER SET.
THERE IS A PROPOSAL, AND IT'S ALREADY OPERATIONAL AND BEING STANDARDIZED IN MANY SENSES, FOR GOING BEYOND THIS ASCII SET, WHICH ONLY ALLOWS TO USE THE LATIN CHARACTER SET.
IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT OTHER ALPHABETS OR SCRIPTS, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY LANGUAGES, BUT IT'S WAYS OF REPRESENTING THE LETTERS OF THE LANGUAGES THAT THESE SCRIPTS THAT CAN BE REPRESENTED.
THERE IS ONE STANDARD WHICH IS HELD WORLDWIDE FOR REPRESENTING THE SCRIPTS, WHICH IS CALLED THE UNICODE SET OF STANDARDS.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CHARACTER SETS OR SCRIPTS OR ALPHABETS REPRESENTED THROUGH UNICODE.
AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF STANDARDS, ONE OF THEM WHICH HAS BEEN GLOBALLY ACCEPTED FOR CONVERTING UNICODE TO AN ASCII REPRESENTATION THAT IS ESSENTIALLY FREE OF CONFUSION, ESSENTIALLY FREE OF AMBIGUITIES IN THE RESOLUTION OF NAMES. 
IT HAS BEEN USED ALREADY FOR ESTABLISHING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES OR IDNS IN THE CHINESE, JAPANESE, AND KOREAN AREA, WHAT IS CALLED THE CJK AREA OF EFFORT.
THERE ARE SOME EXPERIMENTS THAT -- THERE ARE ACTUALLY SOME SYSTEMS RUNNING IN GERMAN, THE CCTLD OF GERMANY, .DE, IS RUNNING ALREADY SOME OF THIS.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AMBIGUITIES. 
EVEN IN THE CJK CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE SEVERAL ALPHABETS, THERE ARE SEVERAL SCRIPTS FOR REPRESENTING THESE LANGUAGES.
THERE IS A LARGE DEGREE OF COMMONALITY AMONG KOREAN, JAPANESE, AND CHINESE.
AND THERE ARE ALSO SOME SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES IN SEPARATING WORDS THAT LOOK THE SAME, OR CHARACTER STRINGS THAT LOOK THE SAME AND HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
SO THERE'S A COORDINATION ALSO BETWEEN THE COUNTRY AND CCTLD MANAGERS TO IDENTIFY THE LANGUAGE AND THE TABLES THAT HAVE TO BE USED IN THIS CASE.
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY -- THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS ATTRACTED A LOT OF EFFORT BECAUSE OF ITS COMPLEXITY.
IT HAS TO CONTINUE, AS IT'S DONE.
THERE'S NOTHING FIXED FOREVER IN THE IDN OR NX EXCEPT THE TECHNICAL STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN FORCING TO HOLD FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW.
BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES OF POLICY THAT HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED IN COUNTRY.
MANY OF THESE ARE NOT POSSIBLY DEVELOPED GLOBALLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU TAKE A WELL-KNOWN NAME THAT IS ALREADY REGISTERED IN A COUNTRY UNDER CCTLD, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH ASCII CHARACTERS, THERE ARE POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE MORE OF A NATIONAL NATURE THAN OF AN INTERNATIONAL NATURE. 
IF YOU NOW WANT TO REGISTER THAT SAME NAME WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, CHINESE CHARACTERS, ONE WOULD THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, OF A WELL-KNOWN BRAND NAME LIKE COCA-COLA, WHICH IS REGISTERED IN ONE OF THE CJK COUNTRIES, AND -- WITH ASCII CHARACTERS. AND NOW IT'S GOING TO BE REGISTERED WITH CHINESE OR JAPANESE OR KOREAN CHARACTERS. AND THIS WILL RAISE A NUMBER OF ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT STRICTLY TECHNICAL, WHICH ARE MORE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS NATURE, AND WHICH HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO EACH COUNTRY.
ANOTHER DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON IS THAT MOST OF THE IDN EFFORT HAS BEEN ORIENTED TO A WEB KIND OF MENTALITY.
PEOPLE THINK OF USING IT IN URLS OR URIS, WHICH ARE THE IDENTIFIERS OF WEB PAGES.
AND THE COMPLEXITIES OF INCLUDING THESE IDNS IN E-MAIL ADDRESSES, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE ONLY BEGUN TO BE ADDRESSED.
THERE ARE A FEW MAKERS OF BROWSERS AND SEVERAL HUNDRED MAKERS OF E-MAIL CLIENTS IN THE WORLD THAT HAVE TO ADAPT THEIR TECHNOLOGY TO THESE ISSUES.
ONE OF THE MAJOR MAKERS -- PERHAPS -- THE MAKER OF THE MOST-USED BROWSER DOES NOT SUPPORT IDNS, FOR EXAMPLE, AT PRESENT.
THIS IS EVOLVING.
BUT AT THE PRESENT, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
AND THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH ARE BEING WORKED WITH AND WHICH I THINK I WOULD INVITE -- I MEAN, EVERYBODY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS.
IT'S NOT LEFT FOR THE ABSTRACT OR THE ARCANE SECRET WIZARDS DOING THIS, AS WITCHES.
THIS IS SOMETHING PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK ON.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU SEE A URL INCLUDED IN THE TEXT ON A WEB PAGE WHICH IS IN INTERNATIONALIZED CHARACTERS, COPY AND PASTE THAT PAGE INTO AN E-MAIL OR INTO A TEXT?
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES THAT THE PUNYCODE, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS CALLED HERE, OR THE UNICODE -- THE ASCII REPRESENTATION OF UNICODE, WILL STILL READ LIKE JAPANESE CHARACTERS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR MAY BE AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE STRING.
PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON THESE THINGS AND HAVE TO CONTINUE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT -- AS A CLOSURE, THIS IS AN OPEN AREA.
THIS IS NOT ANY MORE, LET'S SAY, RESTRICTED TO THE ICANN KIND OF EFFORT, BUT IT HAS TO TRICKLE DOWN, OR UP, TO THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY DOING THIS.
I WOULD MENTION ONE CLOSING POINT.
A VERY STICKY LANGUAGE OR ALPHABET WHICH IS BEING WORKED UPON FOR THE IDNS IS THE ARABIC ALPHABET.
THE ARABIC ALPHABET IS USED FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF MANY LANGUAGES BESIDES ARABIC ITSELF, BESIDES ARABIC ITSELF.
SOME OF THEM ARE STRICTLY UNDER ONE COUNTRY OR VERY FEW COUNTRIES.
IT IS NOT COMPLETELY, CONSISTENTLY USED.
IT HAS A NOT SMALL PROBLEM WITH THINGS THAT ARE USED AS DOTS IN THE USUAL CALLIGRAPHIC AND CANNOT BE USED AS DOTS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BREAK INTERPRETATION OF DOMAIN NAMES.
AND THERE ARE SOME VERY ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENTS IN ARAB-SPEAKING COUNTRIES WHICH I THINK ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS THAT NEED TO BE MADE, WHICH IS ESTABLISHING EXPERIMENTAL TEST BEDS AND PROVING THESE THINGS IN ACTUAL PRACTICE.
THIS IS THE KIND OF TROUBLE WE HAVE.
AND, TO CLOSE, THERE HAVE BEEN NO SECURITY PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED WITH IDNS LIKE WHAT IS CALLED HOMOGRAPHIC ATTACKS, WHICH MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THEY COULD MAKE SOMETHING APPEAR, LIKE COCA-COLA, BUT USING THE C'S AND THE A'S FROM ALPHABETS THAT ARE NOT LATIN BUT LOOK THE SAME AS LATIN AND USE THEM FOR ALL KINDS OF MISLEADING THINGS LIKE PHISHING, WITH PH, PHISHING SCAMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THIS HAS BEEN TRULY DEMONSTRATED AND ACTUALLY SCARED A FEW OF THE BROWSER MAKERS AWAY FROM SUPPORTING IDNS FOR A PERIOD.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE KEPT UP ON VERY CLOSELY.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
MR. IZUMI, PERHAPS THIS IS A GOOD POINT FOR TO YOU COME IN.
BECAUSE HAD YOU SOME QUESTIONS ON A RELATED AREA.
>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
ACTUALLY, THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT.
I WAS A BIT PUZZLED BY -- AFTER HEARING MR. WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER'S INTERVENTION OR PRESENTATION ABOUT ROOT SERVER.
I WAS EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM THE DOMAIN NAME AND IP ADDRESS PAPERS, WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN THE CASE.
AND IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO JUST PRESENT SOME COMMENTS FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE OF JAPAN FOR ALL THESE THREE PAPERS.
MAY I?
THANK YOU.
IGTF IS A JOINT GROUP BY THE JAPANESE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND INTERNET INDUSTRY TO HELP ACHIEVE SAFE AND TRUSTED GLOBAL FRAMEWORK OF INTERNET AND PRIVATE SECTOR OF THE INTERNET.
SO WE'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE FIRST OF ALL THE WGIG MEMBERS FOR YOUR DEDICATED WORK TO PRODUCE VERY CONCISE, WELL-BALANCED DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO FIND OUR MUTUAL SOLUTIONS AND CONSENSUS.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE PAPERS ON THE ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT GOVERNANCE PRACTICES, IN PARTICULAR, THOSE IN THE CLUSTER 1B ON LOGICAL RESOURCE OF THE INTERNET, WHICH WE CONSIDER VERY WELL-BALANCED AND OBJECTIVELY WRITTEN.
BUT WE'D LIKE TO STATE, HOWEVER, THAT THE TIME ALLOCATED FOR US TO PREPARE OUR COMMENT IS FAR LESS THAN WE CAN REASONABLY AFFORD.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WGIG MEMBERS DEVOTED A LOT OF TIME WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD, SACRIFICING YOUR DAY-TO-DAY WORKS.
BUT IN ORDER TO REACH A GLOBAL CONSENSUS, ESPECIALLY FROM MULTILINGUAL ACTORS LIKE US, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST TO HAVE, SAY, MINIMUM OF THREE TO FOUR WEEKS FROM THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE PAPERS TILL THE COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES.
SO TODAY, WE HAVE PICKED UP THIS ONLY THREE PAPERS OF OUR HIGHEST INTEREST, NAMELY, THE IP ADDRESS, DOMAIN NAME, AND THE ROOT SERVERS.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE LITTLE INTEREST ON OTHER AREAS.
WE WILL DO SO, PERHAPS, IN THE FUTURE, NEAR FUTURE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO SUPPORT THE OVERALL DIRECTION, WHICH INCLUDES REASONABLE REASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL TRAILS AND CURRENT FRAMEWORK, GOOD RECOGNITION OF PROPER FUNCTIONING OF TODAY'S INTERNET RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, AND CONSTRUCTIVE THINKING TO IMPROVE AREAS WHERE CONSENSUS EXISTS.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC POINTS WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU.
IT IS LARGELY PREPARED BY THE TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL COMMUNITY OF THE INTERNET LOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURES, THAT IS, DOMAIN NAMES AND IP ADDRESSES.
SO THAT THE POINTS WE RAISE HERE MAY SOUND A LITTLE BIT TOO TECHNICAL OR DETAILED.
BUT WE BELIEVE THAT MAKING CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT REALLY CONSTITUTES PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AND WHAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS TECHNICAL MATTERS WILL BENEFIT THE WHOLE DEBATE WE ARE TASKED.
SO WE WILL JUST READ ONLY THE HIGHLIGHTS, BECAUSE THE DETAILS ARE ALREADY ON THE WEB.
FIRST, ON THE IP NUMBERS PAPER, IN THE SECTION 7, THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT, THE PAPER DISCUSSES ABOUT THE FULL USE OF THE IPV4 SPACE.
WE'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE FACT THAT THE RIRS HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN ACTION TO RECLAIM UNUSED HISTORICAL ADDRESS SPACES TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE PAPER.
IN THE SAME SECTION, THE PAPER DISCUSSES ABOUT THE SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION OF THE IP ADDRESSES, ADDRESSING AND THE NUMBERING SYSTEM TO IPV6.
WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE CERTAINLY NEED A DISCUSSION ON TRANSITION FROM IPV4 TO IPV6.
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT THINK IT IS A DIRECT SUBJECT OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE HERE.
ON PAGE 3, THE PAPER STATES "ONLY SUPPLIERS OF ADDRESSES CAN BE MEMBERS, AND ONLY MEMBERS CAN INFLUENCE THE POLICIES OF THE RIRS."
WE BELIEVE THE FACT IS THAT THE OPEN POLICY FORUM HOSTED BY RIRS ARE ALL OPEN TO ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR IP ADDRESS MANAGEMENT.
SO WE SUPPORT THE COMMENT MADE BY THE NRO.
ON PAGE 4, THE PAPER SAYS, "IF WRITTEN POLICY IS DEVELOPED BY RIRS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE LOCAL (INAUDIBLE)" AS IF IT'S NOT THERE, APNIC, FOR EXAMPLE, IS MAKING TRANSLATION OF MAJOR DOCUMENTS ALREADY INTO SEVEN LANGUAGES, THAT IS, CHINESE, EMBOSSED, TRADITIONAL, AND SIMPLIFIED, ON (INAUDIBLE) INDONESIA, JAPANESE, KOREAN, THAI, AND VIETNAMESE.
OKAY, LACNIC ALSO PROVIDES THEIR SERVICES IN ENGLISH, SPANISH, AND PORTUGUESE.
SO THESE EFFORTS ARE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN.
ON THE DOMAIN NAMES, OVERALL, AGAIN, WE THINK IT IS VERY WELL-WRITTEN WITH SUFFICIENT BALANCE.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS.
ON THE PAGE 5, ON THE SECTION 5.1, THE PAPER STATES, "THERE ARE NO LEGALLY BINDING INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DELEGATION AND REDELEGATION OF THE CCTLDS," AS IF IT'S THE PROBLEM.
BUT THE USE OF DELEGATION, REDELEGATION IS ESSENTIALLY A NATIONAL MATTER, AND THEREFORE, WE THINK, LEGALLY BINDING INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PAPER SAYS THIS INCLUDES ALSO THE MISSING LEGAL BASIS FOR THE SO-CALLED IANA SERVICE.
BUT WE THINK IT DOES NOT SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
ON THE PAGE 8, THE FULL -- THE FIRST BULLET SAYS, "THREE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO BE CONSIDERED."
BUT WE SHOULD DEAL THE SERVICE-PROVIDING SIDE AND USER SIDE AS SEPARATE STAKEHOLDERS, CLEARLY, WHEN MAKING SUCH ANALYSIS.
FINALLY, ON THE ROOT SERVER PAPER, WE AGAIN COMMEND SUCH AN EXCELLENT, WELL-WRITTEN WORK DONE BY THE WORKING GROUP.
THE OVERALL ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PAPER IS RATHER HIGH, ESPECIALLY THE SECTION 7, THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT.
IT IS VERY WELL-BALANCED AND SATISFACTORY.
IN THE FOLLOWING, WE WILL COMMENT ON SOME DETAILS.
IN SECTION 6, THE COORDINATION, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OR ANALYSIS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF COORDINATION IS DESIRABLE OR NEEDED.
IT IS JUST ABRUPTLY WRITTEN.
WE THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND ANY MEANING IN POINTING OUT MERELY THE ABSENCE OF COORDINATION WITHOUT SUCH EXPLANATION OR ANALYSIS.
ABOUT THE IDN, IN SECTION 5.3, THERE IS NO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY IN INTRODUCING IDN TLDS NOW.
IT IS MERELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER.
IN THIS REGARD, WE THINK THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REWRITTEN AS THE FOLLOWING, AND FOR THE INTERESTS OF TIME, I WILL SKIP AND PLEASE REFER TO OUR PAPER.
AND THEN IN SECTION 4, CONCERNING THE 13 ROOT SERVER LIMITATION, IT SAYS, NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO REMOVE THIS LIMITATION.
BUT AS FAR AS WE USE ANY (INAUDIBLE) TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S NO REAL NEED TO MAKE EFFORT FOR REMOVING THIS LIMITATION, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE.
AND SO WE THINK THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE DELETED.
IN SECTION 4B, WE BELIEVE THAT OPERATORS OF ROOT SERVERS SHOULD NOT BE AND ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE POLICY-MAKING AND DATA MODIFICATION IN ORDER TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
WE HOPE THIS POINT WILL BE CLEARLY STATED IN THIS PARAGRAPH.
AND WE SEE A CONFUSION BETWEEN ZONE FILES OF THE TLDS AND ENTRIES IN THE ROOT ZONE FILE CORRESPONDING TO TLDS IN SEVERAL PLACES.
AGAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WILL NOT EXPLAIN THE DETAILS.
BUT PLEASE REFER TO THE PAPER WE SUBMITTED.
AND AS FOR THE PAPER ON THE MULTILINGUALIZATION OF THE INTERNET, WELL, I'D LIKE TO ADD JUST ONE.
INTRODUCING IDNS, AS WE SAID, A TLD IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BE PURSUED AND SOLVED, WE AGREE.
WE THINK THERE'S CONSIDERABLE COOPERATION ALREADY.
BUT IT SHOULD BE MADE MORE AMONG ICANN, IETF REGISTRIES, AND APPLICATION VENDORS.
WE ALSO THINK THAT COOPERATION AT THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENTS MAY (INAUDIBLE) THE DEFINITIONS OF IDNS THAT CORRESPOND TO THE CROSS-BORDER LANGUAGE THAT IS USED BY MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY'S BORDERS.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT EFFORT.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
THOSE WERE DETAILED AND HELPFUL COMMENTS. AND I'M SURE WHEN WE CONSIDER THIS OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS, WE WILL LOOK AT THESE COMMENTS WITH GREAT CARE.
YES, MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.
LIKE OTHERS, I AGAIN WANT TO COMMEND THE WORKING GROUP ON THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK AND HOW FAR THEY REALLY HAVE DEVELOPED THE ISSUES.
I'LL MAKE JUST TWO SHORT COMMENTS ON TWO PAPERS AND THEN WE'LL PROVIDE SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS.
ON THE PAPER ON THE ROOT ZONE FILE AND ROOT SERVER MANAGEMENT, I ONLY WISH TO CALL TO THE WORKING GROUP'S ATTENTION AND TO THE ROOM'S ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE IN OUR DESCRIPTION SO FAR NOT COVERED THE ROLE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS SUCH AS THE ISPS AND OTHER COMPANIES WHO DO THE ROUTING OF TRAFFIC.
AND WE DON'T ACTUALLY DESCRIBE THAT ROOT SERVERS DO NOT ROUTE TRAFFIC.
AND I THINK THAT IS A DISTINCTION THAT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE ROLE THAT IS PLAYED TODAY BY THE HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, OF ISPS AND COMPANIES LARGE AND SMALL WHO DOWNLOAD THE ZONE FILE AND ROUTE THE TRAFFIC THEMSELVES, THUS LIGHTENING THE LOAD ON THE ROOT SERVERS, AND IN SOME CASES, ACTUALLY PROVIDING EXTENSIVE REDUNDANCY THAT IS PERHAPS NOT VISIBLE TO US BY JUST READING THE PAPER.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IS AN AREA THAT BE EXPLORED BY ADDING A PARAGRAPH.
ON THE PAPER ON DOMAIN NAMES MANAGEMENT -- AND, AGAIN, I MAY HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS -- BUT I JUST WISH TO NOTE THAT THERE IS AN OMISSION IN THE GENERIC NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT DESCRIBED THE IMPORTANT ADVISORY ROLE OF THE ALAC, THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NOR THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE APPOINTED TO THAT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE SMALL FACTUAL ADDITIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE.
BUT THEY DO ACTUALLY EXTEND THE PARTICIPATION MORE BROADLY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE POLICY-MAKING IN THE GNSO.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: YOUR FIRST POINT THAT YOU MADE WAS IMPLICIT ALSO IN WHAT ALEJANDRO WAS SAYING, THAT EVERYTHING DOESN'T GO TO THE ROOT SERVER.
A LOT OF THINGS GET RESOLVED IN A DECENTRALIZED FASHION.
BUT HE DID STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF A SYSTEM MAINTAINING THE UNIQUENESS OF THE ADDRESS.
ALEJANDRO, YOU WANTED TO COMMENT, YES.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: WHAT THIS VERY VALUABLE DISTINCTION THAT MARILYN ADDS TO WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THAT THIS IS -- WHEN WE MENTION TRAFFIC TO THE ROOT SERVERS, WE MEAN QUERIES FOR NAMES IN ORDER TO RESOLVE -- TO KNOW WHAT NUMBER THE TRAFFIC WHICH IS SENT BY THE COMPUTER, LET'S SAY THE E-MAIL OR THE WEB PAGES, ACTUALLY GO TO.
THERE'S TWO LAYERS HERE, THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL LAYER IN THIS SENSE, IT'S ACTUALLY HIGHER UP IN THE STACK, IS IDENTIFYING WHICH TWO POINTS ARE THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF A COMMUNICATION.
AND THAT'S THE TASK OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, SENDING TRAFFIC, SENDING E-MAILS, OR THE WEB CAST THAT IS BEING SENT OUT RIGHT NOW, WHICH HAS A HUGE BIT RATE, THESE DON'T TOUCH THE ROOT SERVERS OR THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AT ALL.
ONCE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED, YOU HAVE LOOKED UP THE DIRECTORY AND THEN KNOW WHICH TWO POINTS TO CONNECT.
HOWEVER, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A QUICK ANALOGY WITH THE TELEPHONY SYSTEM.
THE IP ADDRESSES ARE NOT LIKE THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS, AS IT WOULD SEEM HERE.
WHAT IS MORE THE ANALOG OF THE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS THE DOMAIN NAME.
THE IP ADDRESSES ARE MORE LIKE THE ROUTING NUMBERS THAT HAPPEN INTERNALLY IN THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, IN THE SWITCHING AND THE DBX OR IN THE TELEPHONE CENTRALS.
SO ONE SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS IN THIS ANALOGY AND GO TO TELEPHONY ANALOGIES.
NOT THAT THERE ARE NOT VALUABLE TELEPHONY ANALOGIES.
BUT THIS ONE MUST BE HANDLED WITH SPECIAL CARE.
SO ONE SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS IN THIS ANALOGY AND GO TO TELEPHONY ANALOGIES. NOT THAT THEY ARE NOT VALUABLE TELEPHONY ANALOGIES, BUT THIS ONE MUST BE HANDLED WITH SPECIAL CARE.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: ITU. ITU.
>>ITU: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING BUT SINCE ALEJANDRO WAS LOOKING AT ME, I'D LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT BECAUSE THERE IS SOME SENSE OF CONFUSION. NO ANALOGY IS PERFECT AND THERE IS PROFOUND CONFUSION BETWEEN THESE TWO, BUT ONE COULD SAY THAT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS LIKE A DOMAIN NAME EXACTLY AS ALEJANDRO SAID, AND THE IP ADDRESS IS RATHER LIKE LESS WELL-KNOWN CONSTRUCTS CALLED THE SIGNALING AREA NETWORK CODE FOR FIXED NETWORKS OR THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SUBSCRIBER NUMBER FOR THE GSM TELEPHONY. AND THEN THE ANALOGY FOR THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WOULD BE, IN FACT, TO THE SS7 SIGNALING SYSTEM.
BUT ACTUALLY, TO ONLY PART OF SS7 BECAUSE SS7 HAS CONSIDERABLY MORE FUNCTIONS THAN THE DNS. THAT ALL GETS RATHER TECHNICAL AND PERHAPS WE CAN EXPLORE IT MORE WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC SESSION.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: KAREN, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT? YOUR FLAG IS UP, OR WAS IT FROM BEFORE? OKAY.
I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY REACHING THE LIMITS OF WHAT WE CAN DO UP TO THIS -- YES, I HAVE SYRIA AND THEN RAUL ECHEBERRIA.
>>SYRIA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, AS OUR COLLEAGUE FROM JAPAN SAID, WE NEED AT LEAST SEVEN WEEKS, OR SEVERAL WEEKS, TO BE ABLE TO FORMULATE OUR COMMENTS IN A PRECISE MANNER.
IF SOMEONE AS COMPETENT AS THE DELEGATE FROM JAPAN NEEDS SEVERAL WEEKS TO COMMENT ON ALL THESE DOCUMENTS, WHAT CAN WE SAY AS REGARDS TO THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHO MIGHT BE OVERWHELMED BY ALL OF THIS USEFUL INFORMATION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WILL CERTAINLY READ ALL THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU OUR -- ALL OUR COMMENTS NOW. WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB ALL THIS INFORMATION. BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ARRIVE AT DETAILED COMMENTS WITHIN THE TIME GIVEN US.
WE THOUGHT THAT UNTIL APRIL 14TH -- OR, RATHER, APRIL 15TH WAS THE -- WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE DEADLINE TO MAKE COMMENTS, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THIS PROCESS REQUIRES A LOT OF CONSULTATION AND MEETINGS WITH EXPERTS. SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GIVE YOU OUR COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO STUDY THESE DOCUMENTS AND WE'LL GIVE YOU OUR COMMENTS EVEN AFTER THE DEADLINE SO THAT THESE COMMENTS CAN BE PUT ON THE WORKING GROUP'S WEB SITE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I WANTED TO CLARIFY, JUST BEFORE YOU CAME I HAD JUST MENTIONED THAT PLEASE DO CONTINUE BECAUSE IN MANY WAYS, THESE PAPERS WILL REMAIN RELEVANT RIGHT UP UNTIL JUNE, THE LAST MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP.
SO THE -- IT'S NOT AS IF COMMENTS ARE CLOSED. YOU CAN CONTINUE PUTTING UP THE COMMENTS.
RAUL. RAUL ECHEBERRIA FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP, I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BY VARIOUS PEOPLE CONCERNING THE LACK OF TIME TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENTS.
I THINK THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE FORM OR THE GROUP'S CAPACITY FOR WORK BUT, RATHER, THE LIMITS IMPOSED ON AVAILABLE TIME FOR THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE IN SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS THAT WE'VE HAD TO DO ALL THIS WORK, IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GO THROUGH THE IDENTIFICATION OF TOPICS AND DESCRIPTION OF ASPECTS, THE MOST PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF THE WHOLE SET OF POINTS. AND IN ADDITION, TO IDENTIFY WHICH AREAS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED WHILE MOVING TOWARDS THE ELABORATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
FRANKLY, I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO THESE COMMENTS AND I AGREE WITH WHAT WAS SAID. BUT I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD HAVE CONSULTATIONS OF SEVEN WEEKS, AS WAS INDICATED, IF THIS IS LESS THAN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN WORKING GROUP MEETINGS.
I THINK WE HAVE TO MANAGE THE TIME GIVEN TO THE WORKING GROUP, AND I THINK THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE VERY USEFUL FOR GOVERNMENTS IN THE SECOND PHASE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE DOCUMENT ON ADMINISTRATION OF ADDRESSES, BY MISTAKE THERE WAS A DOCUMENT WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET FOR SOME TIME. IN THAT DOCUMENT, THERE WAS A PARAGRAPH CONCERNING THE PROCESS OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THIS WAS A MISTAKE.
SUBSEQUENTLY, WE REPLACED THE INCORRECT PART WITH THE CORRECT PART. AND, IN FACT, AS REGARDS ADMINISTRATION OF IP ADDRESSES, I THINK THAT THE WORKING GROUP'S IDEA WAS THAT WE SHOULD REFER TO THE AREA, AND THIS MISTAKEN PARAGRAPH WAS DELETED FROM THE DOCUMENT WHICH ULTIMATELY WAS COMPLETED ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: THANK YOU, JUST A LAST OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT.
IN TERMS OF METHODOLOGY, I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTION THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS PRODUCED IS THE ATTEMPT AT CLUSTERING ISSUES. I THINK IT HAS CLARIFIED THE GENERAL LANDSCAPE FOR A LOT OF ACTORS, AND I WANTED TO RAISE THREE QUICK QUESTIONS.
ONE, IS THERE ANY METHODOLOGY THAT YOU'RE ENVISAGING IN FUTURE WORK THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE AFTER THE WORK OF THE WGIG AND THE SUMMIT TO IMPROVE THIS CLUSTERING OR TO MAKE THIS CLUSTERING EVOLVE IN CASE NEW ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SO FAR SHOULD BE INTEGRATED?
CLUSTERING IS A VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR, AND THE WAY YOU HAVE CLUSTERED THE DIFFERENT ISSUES, THE METHODOLOGY FOR IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT TO KEEP IN MIND FOR THE FUTURE INSTITUTIONS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE.
THE SECOND THING, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, READING THE DIFFERENT PAPERS, THE BALANCE OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF ACTORS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE DIFFERENT CLUSTERS. SOME REQUIRE MORE GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION, SOME REQUIRE LESS.
THIS PROBABLY LEADS TO A STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST A SINGLE INSTITUTION HANDLING ALL THE DIFFERENT ISSUES IN THE FUTURE, UNLESS A SINGLE INSTITUTIONS CAN HAVE DIFFERENT MODES OF FUNCTIONING, WHICH IS ALSO RELATED TO THE COMMENT YOU WERE MAKING BEFORE.
BUT THE CLUSTERING CLEARLY LEADS IN THE DIRECTION OF HAVING DIFFERENT TYPES OF FORMATS, POTENTIALLY, TO HANDLE THE DIFFERENT KIND OF ISSUES.
AND THE LAST ELEMENT IS ABOUT WHAT IS THE DESTINY OF THIS CLUSTERING IN THE VIEW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP. AND IT'S NOT A REQUEST FOR AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT TO HELP THE DISCUSSION MOVING FORWARD, WHAT IS THE DESTINY OF THIS CLUSTERING IN TERMS OF STRUCTURING THE FUTURE ARCHITECTURAL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE? MEANING, COULD YOU ENVISAGE THAT THIS CLUSTERING IS MORE OR LESS THE BASIS FOR THE CREATION OF DIFFERENT MECHANISMS THAT WOULD ADDRESS EACH OF THE DIFFERENT CLUSTERS AND THE COORDINATION OF THEM BEING DONE BY AN INTEROPERATION MECHANISM BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CLUSTERS.
TO BE MORE PRECISE, THE DIFFERENT CLUSTERS THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED COULD LEAD TO THE CREATION OF ISSUE-BASED NETWORKS AFTER THE SUMMIT THAT WOULD GATHER THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT ADDRESS A GIVEN CLUSTER. AND EACH CLUSTER OF ISSUES AND GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS COULD HAVE DIFFERENT RULES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT THEY ARE HANDLING.
WOULD THIS GROUP IN FIVE CLUSTER, IS IT, IN THE VIEW OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP, A BASIS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THE FUTURE?
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: MAYBE I SHOULD REPLY AND BE HELPFUL TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE IT CUTS ACROSS ALL THE DIFFERENT -- I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO DISCUSS WHAT THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WOULD -- THE OPTIONS, REALLY, WHICH COULD COME OUT OF THE GROUP'S DISCUSSIONS.
PLEASE REMEMBER, THE GROUP'S MANDATE IS TO GET THE DEFINITIONS RIGHT, GET THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES RIGHT, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHERE RELEVANT, ON THESE ISSUES TO REAL TASKS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE ON THE PREPCOM PROCESS ITSELF.
AS FOR LOOKING BEYOND, I DON'T NORMALLY SPECULATE ON WHAT THE NATURE OF MY NEXT WORK WILL BE, BUT IT'S CLEARLY TIED IN WITH THAT PART, TO SOME EXTENT. AND I WOULD -- I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO ENTER INTO THAT SPECULATION AT THE PRESENT STAGE.
BUT CERTAINLY, ONE OF THE MESSAGES THAT COMES ACROSS FROM THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT ONE OF THE CORE TASKS BEFORE THE GROUP IS TO ADDRESS THE WHOLE ISSUE OF HOW DO GOVERNMENTS ENGAGE IN AREAS WHERE THEY FEEL THAT IT IS -- THAT THESE ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY WHICH REQUIRE THAT ENGAGEMENT, NOT SIMPLY FROM THE OUTSIDE BUT IN A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE AND CREATIVE -- MUCH MORE DIRECT FASHION.
THERE'S ONE CLEAR MESSAGE THAT COMES ACROSS WHICH WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS IN THE GROUP. BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE. I HAVE MR. WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER, AND I HAVE SYRIA.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I'M SURE ALL MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WILL SHARE THE IDEA THAT THERE IS -- THERE WILL BE INTERNET GOVERNANCE DISCUSSIONS AFTER THE GROUP HAS PREPARED THE FINAL REPORT, AND I THINK THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS, AND I EXPECT THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS WILL BE FULL OF DISCUSSIONS AROUND INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
BUT LET ME MAKE ONE COMMENT TO WHAT BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE HAS SAID JUST NOW WHEN HE CONCLUDED FROM THE CLUSTERING OF THE ISSUE THAT THERE WILL BE AT THE END OF THE DAY NO SINGLE ORGANIZATION DEALING WITH ALL THE ISSUES, BUT A VERY DIVERSIFIED SYSTEM OF DIFFERENT MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUAL ISSUES. AND I THINK I CAN ONLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA WHEN HE SAID THAT EACH OF THE ISSUE COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT SIGN THAT MEANS IN SOME CASES IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A GOVERNMENTAL-DRIVEN MECHANISM AND IN OTHER CASES IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A MORE OR LESS PRIVATE SECTOR LEADERSHIP MECHANISM. AND AS YOU HAVE PUT IT IN YOUR EARLIER REMARKS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE -- YOU MAY HAVE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FUNCTIONING, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE FUNCTIONING ISN'T IMPORTANT, AND YOU SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE MECHANISM ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS SO YOU PROVIDE THE FRAMEWORK, THAT THE PROBLEMS INSIDE THE FRAMEWORK CAN BE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY TO THE BENEFIT OF THE USERS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. WE HAVE TO CREATE A FRAMEWORK WHICH AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT ALLOWS THE MILLIONS AND SOON TO BE BILLIONS INTERNET USERS TO MAKE USE OF THIS FANTASTIC DEVICE WHICH HAS GIVEN US NEW OPPORTUNITIES.
BUT WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL MECHANISM FOR EACH OF THE ISSUES, I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, TO A CERTAIN POINT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE WHICH HAS THE OVERVIEW OF ALL THESE ISSUES. I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I HAVE IN MIND AND THE CONCLUSION FROM THE WORK I HAVE DONE SO FAR IN THIS GROUP IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IS, YOU KNOW, THAT PROBABLY YOU SEE A MECHANISM THAT IF IT COMES TO A DECISION-MAKING MECHANISM, YOU HAVE TO LIMIT THE MANDATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO THAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A VERY CONCRETE AND SMALL AREA FOR DECISION-MAKING.
BUT IF IT COMES TO, LET'S SAY, BROADER ISSUES, THEN YOU HAVE NO NEED FOR A DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BROAD BODY WITHOUT ANY DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY WHICH HAS AN OVERVIEW. AND I COULD IMAGINE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A BROAD MULTISTAKEHOLDER BODY, I PERSONALLY CALL IT THE UNITED NATIONS INTERNET GOVERNANCE COMMUNICATION GROUP, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE OVERVIEW ABOUT ALL THE 50-PLUS ISSUES, PLUS, YOU KNOW, WHICH WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE ON BOARD NEW ISSUES WHICH ARE COMING UP IN THE YEARS AHEAD. WE SAW ALREADY FROM THE NSF REPORT THAT THE QUESTION OF NAVIGATION WILL BE ONE OF THE NEXT BIG ISSUES AND THERE WILL BE VOICE OVER INTERNET AND OTHER ISSUES WILL COME UP IN THE FUTURE. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A BODY IN PLACE WHICH IS TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES, TO LOOK INTO THIS, AND THEN TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE THE PLACE FOR THE DECISION-MAKING IS FOR THIS SPECIAL ISSUE.
IT CAN THEN BE DELEGATED TO AN ALREADY EXISTED DECISION-MAKING BODY OR IT CAN BE THE CASE THAT THERE IS THE NEED TO HAVE A NEW DECISION-MAKING BODY.
AND INSOFAR TO THINK NOT ONLY HOW WE CAN CREATE DECISION-MAKING MECHANISMS FOR THE DIFFERENT ISSUES. WE SHOULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, LOOK INTO THE MORE BROADER SENSE AND TO LOOK WHETHER WE SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO RECOMMEND TO HAVE SUCH AN APPROACH, A GROUP WHICH WOULD INCLUDE STAKEHOLDERS FROM ALL CORNERS, THAT MEANS GOVERNMENTS, CIVIL SOCIETY AND PRIVATE SECTOR, AND THIS GROUP COULD GET THE MANDATE TO WRITE AN ANNUAL WORLD INTERNET REPORT SO THAT IN THIS REPORT WE HAVE LIKE AN ANNUAL INVENTORY OF ISSUES WHICH ARE IMPORTANT, AND THEN THE CONCERNED PARTIES COULD BE AWARE, OKAY, IT'S LIKE THE HUMAN RIGHTS ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH GOES OUT ON SOME PROBLEMATIC AREAS AND RINGS THE ALARM BELL THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE BUT THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DECISION-MAKING POWER. AND I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT DELEGATE DECISION-MAKING POWER TO THE WRONG PARTIES.
AND SO FAR, I WOULD RECOMMEND A CLEAR SEPARATION. IF IT COMES TO DECISION-MAKING POWERS. A VERY SMALL, CLEAR, DEFINED MANDATE WHERE THE DECISION-MAKING POWER IS VERY LIMITED. BUT IF IT COMES TO A BROADER DISCUSSION, THEN TO HAVE IT AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE AND TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY. THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: SYRIA AND THEN AFTER THAT, FATIMATA SEYE SYLLA, CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVE FROM SENEGAL.
>>SYRIA:MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO HEAR THE LAST TWO INTERVENTIONS. I WONDER WHERE WE ARE GOING.
WE HAVE A CLEAR MANDATE. YOU HAVE BEEN MANDATED WITH A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TASKS BY THE SUMMIT AND YOU HAVE FOUR MAIN TASKS, FOUR CLEARLY SPECIFIED TASKS.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN SERIOUSLY STARTED DEFINING INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND WE'RE ALREADY GOING INTO WHAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE SET UP. I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY OUT OF LINE.
I'M VERY SURPRISED TO SEE THIS, ALTHOUGH A LOT OF ORGANIZATIONS ARE WORKING IN THE FIELD THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS. ITU SHOULD REPORT ON THE ANNUAL REPORTS BEING PREPARED SINCE MANY YEARS NOW.
THESE ISSUES ON NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY ITU FOR MANY YEARS. THINGS SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR.
THIS MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU RAISED A QUESTION ASKING WHETHER WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO TAKE CHARGE OF ALL THESE THINGS OR SHOULD WE TRY TO IMPROVE THE PRESENT SITUATION.
WHAT I HAD UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT THERE WERE EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES, AND NOW WE HEAR SOME SPEAKERS SAYING, ON THE BASIS OF THE CLUSTERS THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED, TO CREATE FOR EACH CLUSTER SOME SORT OF MECHANISM.
SO IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM TODAY WITH ICANN, TOMORROW WE'LL HAVE TEN ICANNS. IS THAT A REASONABLE SOLUTION?
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: A GROUP HAS BEEN SET UP. THE GROUP IS HAVING A DISCUSSION AND A CONSULTATION IN WHICH IDEAS WILL FLOAT. AND IF THERE ARE MEMBER STATES THAT KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE, THEN FINE, THEY WILL IGNORE THE RESULTS OF THE WORKING GROUP. BUT THE WORKING GROUP HAS TO BE FREE TO DISCUSS, AS ITS MANDATE, THE REPORT WILL FULFILL ITS MANDATE, BUT IT WILL DISCUSS OPTIONS, ALTERNATIVES AND IT'S UP TO THE MEMBER STATES IN THEIR WISDOM TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
FATIMATA SEYE SYLLA, CIVIL SOCIETY, AND THEN I HAVE THERESA SWINEHART FROM ICANN, THEN SOMEBODY FROM ISOC, AND THEN ALEJANDRO PISANTY, AND THEN SWITZERLAND.
SO NEXT IS FATIMATA SEYE SYLLA FROM CIVIL SOCIETY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SENEGAL.
>>FATIMATA SEYE SYLLA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE FOR THE WORK THEY'VE BEEN DOING DESPITE THE SHORT TIME ALLOTTED TO THEM, FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE OF INTERNET, WHICH IS INCLUSIVE, DRAWING ON ALL SECTORS OF THE POPULATION AS THE DOCUMENT SAYS.
I COMMEND, THEREFORE, THE EFFORTS AND THE PRACTICAL STEPS BEING TAKEN, THANKS TO THE STRENGTHENING OF -- OR CAPACITY BUILDING OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
WITHOUT THAT BASIS, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE AN EFFECTIVE PART IN THE WHOLE QUESTION OF INTERNET GOOD GOVERNANCE.
WE'VE HEARD TALK OF TRAINING WHICH IS UNDERWAY, AND AMONG THE 200 CANDIDATES, 48 HAVE BEEN SELECTED.
I WONDER WHETHER THERE WAS ANY POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION DISPLAYED TOWARDS WOMEN. HOW MANY WOMEN, IN FACT, WERE THERE AMONG THE 48 APPOINTED? BECAUSE WE SHOULD NOTE HERE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN IN BODIES SUCH AS THIS, OR INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS THIS. AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, IF WE HAVE TO ADVISE VARIOUS ACTORS GOVERNMENTS AND OTHERS THERE ALSO HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN, AND THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY STRENGTHENING THEIR CAPACITY. THEY'RE STILL A MINORITY AT THE TECHNICAL LEVEL IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND PARTICULARLY THIS IS THE CASE IN AFRICA.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO RESPOND TO THAT. JOVAN KURBALIJA WHO IS THE PERSON WHO HANDLES THIS HAS JUST STEPPED OUT. WHEN HE COMES BACK I'LL TRY TO GET A RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO HOW MANY WOMEN ARE THERE IN THE 48. BUT LET HIM COME BACK. WE'LL ASK HIM.
ICANN. THERESA SWINEHART FROM ICANN.
>>THERESA SWINEHART: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE FLOOR AT THIS MEETING.
JUST A FEW OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PAPERS AND THEN I THOUGHT I'D GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE ON SOME RECENT ACTIVITIES OF ICANN. FIRST OF ALL, WE WELCOME VERY MUCH THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP AND THE ENORMOUS UNDERTAKING THAT IT HAS RIGHT NOW IN THE VERY BROAD SCOPE OF ISSUES IS BEING ADDRESSED.
WE CERTAINLY WELCOME THE PAPERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT RELATES TO AREAS OF ICANN'S RESPONSIBILITIES AND FIRMLY BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF A SUCCESSFUL MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL AND ARE REVIEWING THE PAPERS IN THAT CONTEXT. 
WE FIND THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS PUT FORWARD IN PARTICULAR ON THE PAPER ON DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT ARE ACTUALLY VERY CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE ORGANIZATION'S CURRENT EVOLUTION AND SOME OF THAT THINKING CAN BE FOUND IN ICANN'S STRATEGIC PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES SOME COMMUNITY INPUT, AND IN OUR WORK TOWARDS THE COMPLETION OF THE MOU WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE LATEST REPORT ON THE COMPLETION OF THAT PROGRESS CAN BE FOUND ON ICANN'S WEB SITE.
I THOUGHT I'D PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE ON OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS THE 22ND MEETING WHICH WE HAD IN ARGENTINA. IT WAS CONCLUDED ABOUT A WEEK AGO AND SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS HERE WERE ACTUALLY THERE.
AND HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT INCLUDED WORKSHOPS AND DISCUSSIONS ON A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS, INCLUDING DNS SECURITY, DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING. WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON WSIS. WHOIS POLICY AND VERY MANY DISCUSSIONS ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AND THE COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT, INCLUDING PARTICIPATION FROM A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
THE CCNSO MET AND HAD ATTENDANCE BY NUMEROUS CCTLD MANAGERS. IT WAS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE THE TWO DIRECTORS FROM THE CCTLD COMMUNITY WERE SEATED ONTO THE ICANN BOARD, SO THAT WAS QUITE EXCITING. IT WAS ALSO THE FIRST MEETING WHICH HAD THE PHYSICAL PARTICIPATION OF THE ITU LIAISON TO THE ICANN BOARD WHO IS ON ROTATION THROUGH THE TECHNICAL LIAISON GROUP.
I THINK, THOUGH, THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE MEETING FOR MANY OF US WHO HAVE SEEN THE PROGRESS WAS THE FORMAL RECOGNITION OF AFRINIC, WHICH IS THE FIFTH REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY AND THE ONE WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IP ADDRESS ALLOCATIONS FOR AFRICAN REGION. AND THIS COMPLETED THE WORK OF MANY IN THE AFRICAN REGION, MANY RIRS AND RESPECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING FRANCOPHONIE.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO INVIOLATE YOU ALL TO ATTEND THE NEXT ICANN MEETING WHICH IS IN LUXEMBOURG IN JULY AND HOPE THIS UPDATE IS USEFUL TO THE DISCUSSIONS.
MIRJAM KUHNE FROM ISOC, THE INTERNET SOCIETY.
>>MIRJAM KUHNE: I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOME THINGS STATED EARLIER TODAY AS WELL AS SOME OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE CLUSTER PAPERS, REFERENCING CHAIRMAN DESAI'S COMMENTS PARTICULARLY WHEN HE SAID CLEARLY THERE ARE AREAS WHERE GOVERNMENTS ARE EXPECTING TO BE INVOLVED AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY WOULD LIKE TO ECHO THIS AS AN ISOC AND THE INTERNET COMMUNITY HAS BEEN CALLING FOR GREATER PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENTS IN AREAS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE USERS OF THE INTERNET SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE WSIS PROCESS.
WE ARE CONCERNED, THOUGH, THAT MANY OF WGIG'S PREMISES SEEM TO START WITH AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE INTERNET NEEDS HIERARCHICAL TOP-DOWN GOVERNANCE MODEL IMPLYING ONE ORGANIZATION AND THEREBY IGNORING THE DECENTRALIZED STRUCTURE ON WHICH THE INTERNET WAS SO SUCCESSFULLY BUILT. NOT ONLY DOES THIS GOVERNANCE HIERARCHY MODEL AS IT WAS CALLED IN SOME OF THE PAPERS PREVENT AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERNET'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT AND FORCING KEY ORGANIZATIONS TO BE CLASSED IN PRESCRIBED CATEGORIES THAT DO NOT FIT WITH THE REALITY OF THEIR ACTIONS OR THEIR ROLE IN DEVELOPING AND SUPPORTING THE INTERNET, BUT IT ALSO WILL VERY LIKELY LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS THAT WILL HARM THE INTERNET'S DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH.
THE INTERNET SOCIETY BELIEVES THAT THE BEST WAY TO SUPPORT THE WSIS PLAN OF ACTION AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE INTERNET IS TO BUILD ON THOSE ASPECTS THAT HAVE WORKED WELL; NAMELY, THE LONG ESTABLISHED OPEN, DISTRIBUTED, AND CONSENSUS-BASED PROCESSES AND MANY REGIONAL FORUMS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE.
DECISION-MAKING ABOUT ISSUES SUCH AS THE IP ADDRESS ALLOCATION POLICY HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE HAND OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO BE AS CLOSE TO THOSE WHO REQUIRE AND USE THE RESOURCES AS POSSIBLE.
IT IS THIS PARTICIPATIVE MODEL CLOSE TO THE USERS THAT LED TO THE PHENOMENAL GROWTH OF THE INTERNET.
THE PROCESSES ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY. FOR EXAMPLE, IN RESPONSE TO MOVES BY THE AFRICAN INTERNET COMMUNITY, THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES NOW HAVE THEIR OWN REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY, AFRINIC, AS THERESA HAS JUST POINTED OUT, THAT HELPS COORDINATE USERS' NEEDS AND IP POLICY IN THAT REGION. AND LATIN AMERICA HAS THE SAME STORY TO TELL.
SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH THESE RIRS CAME FROM THE GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY AND PRIMARILY -- PRIMARILY AND ALSO FROM THE OTHER RIRS.
DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING THE INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE ARE JUST TWO ASPECTS OF WHAT HAS COME TO BE REFERRED TO AS INTERNET GOVERNANCE. WGIG HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHERS AND HAS RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT INTERNET GOVERNANCE ENCOMPASSES A MUCH WIDER RANGE OF TOPICS THAN IP ADDRESS AND DOMAIN NAME ADMINISTRATION. HOWEVER, MUCH OF WGIG'S FOCUS HAS BEEN ON INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE, THEREBY MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THE INTERNET DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE LESS DEVELOPED, AND THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM IMPROVED LIGHTWEIGHT MECHANISMS, FACILITATING AN EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN POLICYMAKERS AND THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. EXAMPLES HERE ARE ISSUES CONCERNING INAPPROPRIATE USAGE OF THE INTERNET, CYBERCRIME AND SPAM BEING JUST TWO EXAMPLES. MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY ON TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS TO THESE ISSUES AND MANY LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ALREADY EXIST FOR HANDLING SUCH CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS FRAUD. THE CHALLENGE TODAY IS TO BRING LAWMAKERS AND POLICYMAKERS TOGETHER WITH THE INTERNET COMMUNITY TO DISCUSS THE MOST APPROPRIATE MECHANISMS TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET.
MANY PLAYERS HAVE A ROLE AND THIS CLEARLY INCLUDES GOVERNMENTS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. WGIG HAD A CLEAR MANDATE TO NOT ONLY DEVELOP A WORKING OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, BUT ALSO TO DEVELOP A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENTS, EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER FORUMS AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY ENCOMPASSING BOTH DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. UNFORTUNATELY, AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS BEEN SPENT FOCUSING ON REVIEWING CURRENT STRUCTURES, THOSE THAT BROUGHT US THE INTERNET AND ITS RAPID, STABLE GROWTH, RATHER THAN LOOKING FORWARD TO THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF EXTENDED COOPERATION WITH AND BASED ON THE PROVEN SUCCESS OF EXISTING MODELS AND STRUCTURES.
FINALLY, WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED BY A NUMBER OF EVIDENT MISUNDERSTANDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNET'S DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER TODAY.
WE WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE NOW AS THEY HAVE -- WE WON'T ADDRESS THOSE NOW AS THEY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ADDRESSED IN PAST CONTRIBUTIONS.
A FULLER CONTRIBUTION BY THE INTERNET SOCIETY IS AVAILABLE IN THE BACK ON THE TABLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
I HAVE ALEJANDRO PISANTY, SWITZERLAND, AND DON MACLEAN.
AND THEN LYNDALL.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AS THIS SESSION, AS YOU HAVE ANNOUNCED, COMES TO A CLOSE, IT SEEMS TO HAVE SPARKED A NUMBER OF INTERVENTIONS.
NOTHING WAKES UP PEOPLE MORE THAN SAYING THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO LEAVE.
AND THERE CERTAINLY ARE SOME POINTS WHICH IS VERY VALUABLE TO BRING UP.
ALSO, I THINK THAT WOLFGANG'S PERSONAL EXPOSITION OF HIS VIEWS AS ARE BEING CONTRIBUTED TO THE WORKING GROUP HAS SPARKED SOME LIVELY DISCUSSION AND WILL SURELY, TOO, INCITE THE GROUP.
THE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS WHICH I WOULD SEE SEEPING FROM THE DISCUSSION FROM THIS SESSION, AND ALSO FROM THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WHICH MAY BE WORTH COMMENTING, AGAIN, TRYING TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN NOT PREEMPTING THE RESULTS OF THE GROUP OR EVEN THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE MADE THAT ARE MORE CONTROVERSIAL.
ONE OF THEM REFERS TO THE DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY OF THE INTERNET.
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIA HAS IN THE MORNING POINTED VERY CLEARLY TO THE NEED TO JUSTIFY A FEW ASPECTS HERE AND HAS, IN MY VIEW, VERY CORRECTLY MENTIONED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY, AND IN PARTICULAR, OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY WHICH HAS NOT REQUIRED RADICALLY NEW REGIMES.
HOWEVER, MANY OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE PAST CENTURY AND A HALF HAVE NOT ONLY GIVEN RISE TO REGIMES, BUT ACTUALLY TO ORGANIZATIONS, LIKE THE ITU, WHICH HAS, IN TURN, GONE OVER A COUPLE OF INTERNAL REFORMS, SOME OF THEM OF A MASSIVE QUALITY, AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED BY WILLIAM DRAKE, AMONG OTHERS.
THE INTERNET POSES A QUITE DIFFERENT CHALLENGE IN THAT IT DOES NOT -- IT CANNOT BE REDUCED TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
THE INTERNET IS NOT POINT-TO-POINT.
IT'S NOT BROADCAST.
IT THEREFORE MOVES IN A REGIME THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TWO PREVIOUS ONES.
IT HAS THE PECULIARITY THAT ITS MOST INTERESTING ASPECTS HAPPEN ONCE YOU HAVE A TELECOMMUNICATIONS PART ESTABLISHED, SO IT ALSO BECOMES VERY MUCH A MEDIUM WHERE THE DISCUSSIONS ARE CENTERED MORE ABOUT CONTENT, MORE ABOUT THE CREATION OF CONTENT AND ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CREATIVITY IN THIS CONTENT.
THAT'S ONE LARGE SET OF ISSUES WHERE IT BECOMES MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN CAN BE REDUCED TO A TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASPECT.
IT ALSO HAS -- CREATES PECULIAR CHALLENGES IN EACH OF THE FIELDS IT TOUCHES.
LET'S SAY ONE I'M VERY WARY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT EVEN MENTIONING IT, WHICH IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, OR EVEN THE MOST BASIC COORDINATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, BECAUSE IT DOES HAPPEN IN A NOVEL WAY IN THAT IT TRANSECTS, IT CROSSES NATIONAL BORDERS, IT CROSSES THE REGIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS WHERE WE KNOW OF THE RULE OF LAW, AND YET THE INTERNET IS NOT FREE OF THE RULE OF LAW.
IT IS NOT A LAWLESS TERRITORY.
AND I WOULD SAY WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING WRONG THAT EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP BELIEVES IN THE RULE OF LAW, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN -- DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT BELIEVING THAT THE INTERNET IS A SPACE FOR CREATIVITY AND A CREATOR OF SPACES FOR FREEDOM IMPLIES NECESSARILY THAT IT IS A PLACE FREE OF THE LAW.
THAT IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT POINT WHICH WILL TRANQUILIZE AND FOCUS THE DISCUSSIONS BY GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES.
THIS IS NOT TRYING TO CUT SOMEONE WHICH IS ESCAPING THE LAW, BUT IT'S TRYING TO FIND OUT A WAY TO COORDINATE THE RULE OF LAW, WHICH IS OF A MORE TERRITORIAL NATURE, OR WHICH, WHEN IT CROSSES TERRITORIAL BORDERS USUALLY GOES THROUGH INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, TO LEVELS WHERE THE PARTICIPATION OF MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS IS REQUIRED.
THE PARTICIPATION OF MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS, IN TURN, HAS, FOR THE CASE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, A FEW CHALLENGES WHICH HAVE PROBABLY NOT BEEN ENOUGH DESCRIBED IN THIS DISCUSSION AND WHICH I WILL ASSUME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MENTIONING HERE.
BUT I SEE THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THIS IN QUITE SOME DETAIL.
IT IS ONE THING, FOR EXAMPLE, TO HAVE THE WGIG, WHICH IS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GROUPING.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE OF DIFFERENT ORIGINS AND FUNCTIONS IN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, PEOPLE IN -- WHO ARE APPOINTED AS GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES OR BECAUSE OF THEIR -- BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO A SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT, INSTANCES IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, PEOPLE WHO ARE APPOINTED AS EXPERTS, KNOWN AS SUCH FROM THEIR WORK AS CONSULTANTS OR FOR THEIR WORK IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, AND SO FORTH, AND PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY OPERATE THINGS.
IT IS BROUGHT TOGETHER TO BRING FORWARD A SET OF IDEAS AND ANALYSIS.
IT IS QUITE DIFFERENT TO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SET OF MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS THAT COME TOGETHER IN THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION, WHICH HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD TODAY PARTICULARLY AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS ALSO THE ILO, WHERE MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER.
THE WAY MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE TO COME TOGETHER IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS -- I WON'T EVEN MENTION ORGANIZATIONS, BECAUSE I FEAR, AS SOMEONE ELSE ALSO ELOQUENTLY EXPRESSED, WE ARE NOT PUSHING THE ENORMOUS NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS, THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
BUT WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO COME TOGETHER TO SET UP RULES THAT ACTUALLY OPERATE THINGS OR DETERMINE HOW THINGS OPERATE, BRINGING IN MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS REQUIRES MORE THAN SETTING UP A NICE ROUND TABLE WITH ONE SEAT FOR EVERY KIND OF STAKEHOLDER.
IT ACTUALLY REQUIRES A STRUCTURE, IT REQUIRES AN ORGANIZATION, IT REQUIRES MAYBE SOME SEGMENTATION AND SOME LAYERING OF THESE STAKEHOLDERS.
ONE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD "STAKEHOLDER" IN ENGLISH.
IT MEANS SOMEONE WHO HAS SOMETHING AT STAKE, SOMEONE WHO HAS SOMETHING AT RISK, LIKE HIS BUSINESS, HIS LIVELIHOOD, HIS FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SOMETHING AT STAKE, SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE LOST IF THINGS GO WRONG.
AND, THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT ONLY BRING THEM TOGETHER TO SPEAK IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS; YOU HAVE TO BRING THEM TOGETHER TO, IN SOME CASES, MAKE SOME DECISIONS OR MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WILL IN TURN BE ENACTED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS AND ENACT THEM, LIKE GOVERNMENTS.
AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE TASK WE FACE IS TO ACTUALLY EMBODY THIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH IN THINGS THAT ARE WORKABLE AND PRACTICAL. AND CALLS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TODAY FROM A COUPLE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES ALSO APPEALING FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO ACTUALLY MEASURE THE ORGANIZATIONS OR THE MECHANISMS THAT EXIST TODAY AND THOSE THAT WE PROPOSE WE CREATE OR MODIFY HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VIABILITY AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ACTUALLY PRODUCING RESULTS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO -- AGAIN, I AM NOT SPEAKING IN THE NAME OF THE GROUP, BECAUSE I AM NOT AUTHORIZED TO AND WOULD UNLOYALLY PREEMPT THE RESULTS OF DISCUSSIONS. 
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT A QUICK CENSUS OF THE GROUP WOULD SHOW THAT DOING SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY WORK IS ONE OF THE PREEMINENT CRITERIA THAT MOST OF THIS GROUP -- GROUP'S MEMBERS SHARE.
AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY USEFUL IN THE COMING ROUNDS OF COMMENTS TO ALSO KNOW ABOUT THE WORKABILITY OF THINGS.
THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED VERY EARLY THIS MORNING BY ALLEN MILLER WENT VERY MUCH IN THAT SENSE, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, WHICH IS, WHAT DO YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND WHERE DOES THE WORKING GROUP HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
AND, FINALLY, I THINK THAT THE APPEALS THAT WE HAVE HEARD TODAY ABOUT GOING BEYOND CLUSTER 1 AND DOING SOME DETAILED WORK OF THE SAME QUALITY OR EVEN BETTER QUALITY ARE WELL-TAKEN BY MOST MEMBERS OF THE GROUP.
MANY OF US THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY IF WE CANNOT GO BEYOND CLUSTER ONE AND MAKE SOME REASONABLE WORKABLE PROPOSALS OR EXPLAIN WHY GLOBAL GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS CANNOT ACTUALLY BE CREATED IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY IN THE REASONABLY SHORT TERM FOR SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
NEXT IS SWITZERLAND.
>>SWITZERLAND: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE ARE SEEING A VERY INTERESTING DEBATE HERE, PARTICULARLY THE WHOLE PROCESS FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND THE WAYS THAT IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE MADE TO IT.
AT THIS STAGE, I THINK WE CAN GIVE THOUGHT TO THREE MUTUALLY COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DECISION-MAKING.
SECONDLY, THE QUESTION OF COORDINATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES THAT CAN BE TAKEN AND THE VARIOUS ACTORS.
AND, THIRDLY, WE HAVE A MORE GENERAL QUESTION OF DISCUSSIONS ON THE FORUM.
AND I THINK THAT THREE ASPECTS, DECISION-MAKING, COORDINATION, AND DISCUSSION, NEED TO BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED IN THE WHOLE PROCESS, EACH HAVING SOMEBODY ANSWERABLE FOR THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT IS TO BE EXPECTED FROM THESE VARIOUS APPROACHES.
WE CAN TAKE THESE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK WE HAVE TODAY, AT THE NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL LEVELS, OR WE CAN USE NEW MODELS OR FRESH BODIES.
SWITZERLAND, FOR ITS PART, AS YOU KNOW, HAS ALWAYS PREFERRED TO REFER TO WHAT ALREADY EXISTS WHENEVER THIS IS POSSIBLE.
IT SEEMS TO US THAT IT IS QUITE HARD ENOUGH ALREADY TO REACH AGREEMENT.
AND IF WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING, WE KNOW HOW HARD IT CAN BE TO ESTABLISH AGREEMENTS AND TREATIES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THOSE ARE TO BE BINDING.
SO IN THIS CONTEXT, WE'RE DEALING WITH A MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
AND THIS MEANS THAT IT'S NOT JUST GOVERNMENTS WHICH WILL BE INVOLVED, BUT THE WHOLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WILL BE INVOLVED, TOO.
IF WE WISH THE CURRENT APPROACH TO THESE VARIOUS TOPICS -- AND THERE ARE SO MANY -- WE'VE HEARD THAT THE INTERNET IS NOT JUST TELECOMMUNICATIONS, THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS, TOO.
AND PEOPLE HAVE REFERRED TO THE QUESTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EARLIER.
SO DEPENDING UPON THE THEME, THE APPROACH BY THE MULTISTAKEHOLDERS WILL VARY.
AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDERS MAY VARY, TOO. 
WE KNOW, AS HAS BEEN SAID BY GOVERNMENTS, THAT WHEN WE HAVE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, GOVERNMENTS PREFER TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER PERHAPS MORE TECHNICAL MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN THEIR SPHERE OF EXPERTISE.
AND WE WILL BE WORKING, I THINK, IN LINE WITH THE APPROACH, WHICH WILL DRAW IN THE VARIOUS PARTICIPANTS OR STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE APPROACH -- THE THREE-PRONG APPROACH I REFERRED TO EARLIER NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED.
SINCE I'VE GOT THE FLOOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MORE, AS IT WERE, TRIVIAL COMMENT, REMINDING YOU AND ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES HERE OF THE RECEPTION ARRANGED BY THE SWISS DELEGATION AT 6:00 P.M. AND I AM REMINDING YOU NOW BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU PREFER TO CARRY ON WORKING FOR SOME TIME BEFORE WE BREAK FOR THE FESTIVITIES.
THANK YOU.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I'M SURE WE WILL BREAK IN TIME FOR THE SWISS RECEPTION.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: AND THEN DON MACLEAN, FOLLOWED BY LYNDALL SHOPE-MAFOLE.
AND THEN THERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU OF HOW MANY OF THE 48 ARE WOMEN.
>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: THIS IS THE REASON WHY I ESCAPED.
>>DONALD MACLEAN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AFTER THE MENTION OF THE RECEPTION, IT MAY NOT BE A VERY GOOD TIME TO INTRODUCE A NEW STRAIN OF THOUGHT.
BUT I'LL TRY NEVERTHELESS.
THIS REALLY GOES BACK TO THE POINT BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE MADE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF COORDINATION.
I THINK -- AND, AGAIN, THESE ARE PERSONAL REFLECTIONS -- BUT I THINK IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WGIG IS WORKING, THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, AND WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY.
I THINK THERE'S A GENERAL VIEW THAT PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE NOTION OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY THAT IN AN INFORMATION SOCIETY OR A KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY, THE INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN AREAS THAT WERE FORMERLY RATHER DISTINCT IS INCREASING, THAT BOUNDARIES REALLY ARE BEGINNING TO BLUR, FOR INSTANCE, BETWEEN EDUCATION AND WORK, OR BETWEEN CULTURE AND ECONOMY, THE CULTURAL INDUSTRIES ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, STRONG CULTURE, SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THE HUMAN EXPRESSION TO ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE, BUT AS A FOUNDATION OF ECONOMIC PROGRESS. 
EDUCATION IS ESSENTIAL TO GOOD JOBS.
THE NATURE OF WORK CHANGES BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OFFERED BY INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY.
AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO A SENSE THAT THE INTERNET AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT IT SORT OF CONNECTS OFFERS NEW POSSIBILITIES FOR MAKING HORIZONTAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AREAS OF LIFE THAT WERE FORMERLY SOMEWHAT COMPARTMENTALIZED.
THERE'S AN EXPRESSION IN ENGLISH OF THINGS BEING IN SILOS.
THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IS ONE THING, LABOR POLICIES IS ANOTHER, ECONOMY IS ONE THING, CULTURAL POLICY IS ANOTHER.
AND I THINK CERTAINLY IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD, ANYWAY, THE SENSES THAT THOSE BARRIERS REALLY ARE -- HAVE TO BE BROKEN DOWN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN ORDER TO FULLY DEVELOP A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY AND MOVE TO A FULL INFORMATION SOCIETY.
BUT THAT BEING SAID, I THINK IT'S ALSO A FAIRLY WIDE EXPERIENCE THAT THERE ARE STILL INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL RIGIDITIES IN GOVERNMENTS AND OPERATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT AREAS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND DIFFERENT AREAS OF LIFE, AND THAT IT'S RATHER DIFFICULT TO BREAK THEM DOWN.
SO I THINK THE ISSUE THAT BERTRAND RAISED IS NOT A TRIVIAL ONE.
HOW, IN FACT, DOES ONE GET BETTER COORDINATION, IF ONE IS GOING TO RELY ON EXISTING GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS, BUT IF IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, AS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, THERE ARE INCREASING INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN THE RESULTS PRODUCED BY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS.
HOW DO YOU GET THEM WORKING TOGETHER MORE EFFECTIVELY?
AND THE KIND OF SORT OF MULTICROSS-ORGANIZATIONAL, MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE PROCESSES THAT MANY PEOPLE LOOK TO TO HELP ADVANCE THIS ARE ENABLED BY THE INTERNET, AND FULL ADVANTAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN OF THAT.
BUT I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT PART TO THIS AS WELL.
AND IT'S TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
AND THE REFLECTION IS TRIGGERED BY SOMETHING YOU SAID THIS MORNING.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WANT TO SEE RESULTS ON THE GROUND.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WSIS IS ALL ABOUT.
IT'S ABOUT DEVELOPMENT, IT'S ABOUT ACHIEVING RESULTS EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
AND YOU MADE A COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IN MANY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, IT IS THE NEED TO DELIVER PUBLIC SERVICES THAT IS, IN FACT, DRIVING THE INTERNET AT THIS POINT, MORE, SAY, THAN THE NEED TO DEVELOP ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
THAT PUT ME IN MIND OF A PROBLEM WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IN MY COUNTRY.
I'M FROM CANADA, AND WE HAVE A PROGRAM TO TRY TO EXTEND BROADBAND ACCESS, HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE, INTO THE REMOTE AND RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY THAT ARE BEYOND THE REACH OF THE MARKET, BUT WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT IT IS COMMERCIALLY DRIVEN.
WELL, WHAT WE'VE FOUND IS THAT THE BEST WAY TO BUILD A BUSINESS CASE FOR EXTENDING BROADBAND IS THROUGH THE GUARANTEED STREAM OF REVENUE THAT COMES FROM THE DELIVERY OF HIGH-BANDWIDTH PUBLIC SERVICES, PARTICULARLY HEALTH, EDUCATION ALSO.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT REVENUE STREAM, IF YOU CAN MARRY THAT WITH LOCAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, LOCAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, YOU CAN PUT TOGETHER -- YOU CAN ALMOST CALL IT, LIKE, A NETWORK OF NETWORKS WITHIN A COMMUNITY THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED BY TRADITIONAL APPROACHES.
AND THE THOUGHT IS -- I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WOULD FACTOR IT INTO OUR WORK, BUT I THINK IT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FROM THE CLUSTER 4 PERSPECTIVE, FROM THE DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO -- NOT SIMPLY TO COORDINATE INSTITUTIONS AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL, BUT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN GOVERNING THEIR OWN AFFAIRS, BECAUSE AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, REALLY, THIS IS ALWAYS INTERMIXED, ISN'T IT?
THE BUSINESS ASPECTS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS, CULTURAL SERVICES.
HOW CAN WE HELP DEVELOP THE CAPACITY TO PUT IT TOGETHER DOWN ON THE GROUND WHERE THE RESULTS ARE FINALLY GOING TO BE DELIVERED?
IT'S SORT OF LOOKING AT THE PROBLEM THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
IT DOESN'T EASILY LEND ITSELF TO THE KINDS OF PRESCRIPTIONS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, GIVEN WHAT WSIS IS ALL ABOUT AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FEED INTO, HOW DO WE -- HOW DO WE HELP POINT THE PROCESS TOWARDS THAT KIND OF CONCRETE ACHIEVEMENT?
IT'S THE ISSUE OF THE GLOBAL AND THE LOCAL, I GUESS, WHICH IS ALWAYS SAID TO CHARACTERIZE THE WORLD THAT THE INTERNET IS HELPING TO ENABLE.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: LYNDA.
>>LYNDALL SHOPE-MAFOLE: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I'M GLAD I COME AFTER MR. MACLEAN, BECAUSE I THINK MY INTERVENTION IS SOMEWHAT RELATED TO THAT.
CHAIR, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE MADE COMMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DISCUSSION, AT LEAST TODAY, AND PARTICULARLY THIS MORNING, HAS CONCENTRATED ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE WORK OF THIS GROUP, AND THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNET, IN FACT, THERE ARE MANY, MANY AREAS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.
AND THERE WAS AN EXPRESSION, I THINK, OF SOME KIND OF DISAPPOINTMENT THAT WE PERHAPS DIDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON THE OTHER AREAS THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE LIKED.
I THINK THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT.
AND THE REASON IS THAT I BELIEVE -- THE MAIN REASON THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE DECISION OR THE RESOLUTION WITH THE ITU (INAUDIBLE) CONFERENCE IN MINNEAPOLIS TO HAVE THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENTS, PARTICULARLY, DID NOT HAVE SPACE, OR SHOULD I SAY PARTICULARLY DEVELOPING GOVERNMENTS, DID NOT HAVE, FURTHER, ANY INSTITUTIONS WHERE TO DISCUSS A LOT OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ICT SECTOR, PARTICULARLY THE INTERNET.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS PERSPECTIVE.
AND THAT THE DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE HAD, OR THE AREAS THAT WERE FOUND TOO CHALLENGING TO AGREE ON DURING THE WSIS HAD TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE, THE ABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL INPUT INTO A DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA OF ICTS THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON ALL OF US BUT WHERE WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE A LIMITED CAPABILITY TO INPUT.
I THINK IT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY STATED THAT THE INTERNET IS DIFFERENT FROM TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND SO ON.
I THINK THAT IS TRUE.
BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THERE HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOUNDED LIKE THE INTERNET, AND THAT GLOBAL STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADJUST.
THE ITU WASN'T ALWAYS THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION; IT WAS TELEGRAPHY.
SO THE POINT I'M MAKING IS THAT THE REASON, ACTUALLY, WHY THERE IS THIS CHALLENGE IS NOT BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS DIFFERENT FROM TELECOMMUNICATIONS; IT IS BECAUSE THE ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PART OF THE TECHNOLOGIES DOES NOT GIVE US -- DOES NOT GIVE US THE SPACE WHERE TO DISCUSS AND MAKE AN INPUT MEANINGFULLY.
ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS, I THINK -- AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT WE HAVE STRUCTURES -- I THINK THAT WE HAVE CHALLENGES PRECISELY BECAUSE THE STRUCTURES ARE NOT COPING.
IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES, MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE ITU, WHICH I THINK I KNOW FAIRLY WELL, IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO LIVE UP TO THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE ICT COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE WITH RESPECT TO ITS REFORM, WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES THAT IT DEALS WITH, WITH RESPECT TO THE SPEED WITH WHICH IT TAKES DECISION, ET CETERA.
AND I THINK IT IS AN ISSUE THAT THE ITU IS STILL TRYING TO ADDRESS AND WILL BE FORCED TO ADDRESS.
AND THE OTHER STRUCTURES HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS OTHER ELEMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SO ON.
SO EVEN IF -- AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT EXISTING STRUCTURES, BUT EVEN IF WE WERE, I DON'T THINK EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE PERFECT.
FAR FROM THAT.
I THINK WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE STRUCTURES, WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY STRUCTURES OR WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC STRUCTURES, ALL OF THEM WOULD NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST TO LIVE UP TO THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE TIME.
I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTFULLY SAID, WELL, WHY ARE WE CONCENTRATING SO MUCH ON THE STRUCTURES?
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE.
IN THE FIRST MEETING OF THE GROUP, I INDICATED THAT, YOU KNOW, LEGITIMACY OF THINGS IS IMPORTANT.
AND PERHAPS FOR PURPOSES OF AN EXAMPLE, I WOULD SAY THAT IN SOUTH AFRICA, WE HAD STRUCTURES BEFORE OUR DEMOCRACY, WE HAD STRUCTURES THAT BUILT ROADS, THAT BUILT SCHOOLS, THAT, YOU KNOW -- WE HAD A CONSTITUTION, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
BUT IT WAS NOT LEGITIMATE.
AND I THINK THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING NOW.
AND I JUST WANTED, CHAIR, TO SAY THAT.
EVEN, AS WELL, TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNET COMMUNITY -- AND I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, SOME KIND OF COMMUNITY.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COMPLEXION OF THAT COMMUNITY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
WHEN WE SAY THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AND HOW REPRESENTATIVE IS THIS INTERNET COMMUNITY?
NOW, I'M NOT ATTACKING THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, BUT I AM SAYING THAT THE IMPERFECTIONS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THROUGH THIS PROCESS -- AND THIS IS WHY THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS AMOUNT OF TIME, PERHAPS, PARTICULARLY BY GOVERNMENTS AND BY MANY PEOPLE COMING FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
SO WITH THOSE WORDS, CHAIR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO APPRECIATE THE INPUTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED, PARTICULARLY FROM THE PEOPLE -- FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE GROUP, AND TO SAY THAT I AM SURE THEY WILL ENRICH OUR DISCUSSIONS.
BUT TO SAY THAT, REALLY, THE FOCUS AND THE MAIN REASON FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS GROUP AND FOR ASKING THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE U.N. TO ESTABLISH THIS GROUP IS BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS NOT TECHNICAL.
I THINK THE ISSUE IS POLITICAL.
I THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
JOVAN.
YOU'VE GOT AN EASY QUESTION.
>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: EASY FIRST.
THEN I CAN ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE NETWORK.
NOW, FEMALE/MALE RATIO IN THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAPACITY-BUILDING PROJECT IS 18 LADIES AND THE REST MALE.
THEREFORE ONE-THIRD OF THE GROUP IS FEMALE.
AND WE DID PROGRESSIVE DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE WE HAD 50 APPLICANTS, AND WE CHOSE -- OUT OF THE 50 APPLICANTS, WE CHOSE 18 LADIES, WHO ARE VERY CAPABLE, AND THEIR IMPACT IS MUCH, MUCH MORE STRONG THAN THE IMPACT OF THE BIGGER -- THE OTHER PART OF THE GROUP.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: I HOPE I'LL HAVE FEMALE VOTES IN THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: MY FAMILY CONSISTS OF THREE MEN AND ONE WOMAN.
AND THE ONE WOMAN HAS GREATER WEIGHT.
>>JOVAN KURBALIJA: I HAVE THE OPPOSITE SITUATION IN MY FAMILY.
ANOTHER POINT WHICH I WANTED TO MAKE IS RELATED -- ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT THERE IS A SCARCITY OF THE TIME AND ATTENTION, WAS RELATED TO THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION INITIATED BY WOLFGANG, THEN ALEJANDRO AND BERTRAND, AND THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTS.
AND ONE OF THE FASCINATING THINGS IS THAT INTERNET IS, PAR EXCELLENCE, A DIGITAL ISSUE. 
EVERYTHING IS DIGITAL.
EVERYTHING IS TRANSFERRED INTO DIGITAL.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSION, TO DECISION-MAKING, IT IS AN EXTREMELY ANALOG PHENOMENON, WITH MANY GRADES, SHADES, DIFFERENT OPINIONS. 
AND THE CLASSICAL APPROACH OR GOOD, NOT BAD, US AND THEM, USUALLY CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE FIELD OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND I THINK THAT PART OF THE MESSAGE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, KOFI ANNAN, WAS THAT WE HAVE TO BE INNOVATIVE IN DEVELOPING AN INTERNET GOVERNANCE REGIME, PROBABLY IN DEVELOPING THIS ANALOG APPROACH.
I WILL JUST MENTION ONE INTERESTING POINT THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR -- NO, IN 2003 IN THE PREPARATION FOR THE GENEVA SUMMIT.
THERE WAS THE PREPCOM MEETING IN GENEVA, AND THERE WAS QUITE BIG ENTHUSIASM IN CIVIL SOCIETY, COUNTRY DELEGATES WERE INVOLVED.
AND AT THAT TIME, ECONOMIES PUBLISHED SURVEY OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY GOVERNANCE.
ON THE 30 PAGES -- EXACTLY THE TIME OF THE PREPCOM. 
WHEN I SAW THE TITLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS COORDINATED WITH THE PREPCOM.
ON THE 30 PAGES, THEY DIDN'T MENTION WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY IN ONE LINE.
WHAT IS MY POINT?
THE KEY APPROACH OF THE WGIG AND WSIS IS TO BE INCLUSIVE.
WE HAVE TO BRING AS MANY COMMUNITIES AS IT IS POSSIBLE INTO THE PROCESS.
AROUND THE TABLE, WE DO NOT HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
THOSE INSTITUTIONS ARE THE KEY VEHICLE OF THE CURRENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE REGIME.
THEY APPLY RULES.
THEY ARE BASICALLY A GATEKEEPER.
THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT LAW.
AND THIS IS A COMMUNITY WHICH IS COMPLETELY ABSENT NOT ONLY FROM THE WGIG, BUT ALSO FROM DISCUSSION IN THIS OPEN FORUM.
BUT THE KEY IS TO DEVELOP SUCH APPROACH WHICH WILL BE INCLUSIVE.
THE LAST POINT IS THAT THE DECLARATION, THE WSIS DECLARATION, PROVIDES US WITH THE UNIQUE POLICY-BUILDING MECHANISM WHICH IS A SYMMETRIC GOVERNANCE. IN THE ARTICLE 49, THERE ARE CLEAR INDICATIONS WHAT EACH STAKEHOLDER COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS.
POLICY AUTHORITY FOR INTERNET-RELATED ISSUE IS IN THE HANDS OF SOVEREIGN STATES. THEN WE HAVE PRIVATE SECTOR, CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.
I THINK IN THE VIEW THAT THAT ANALOG APPROACH OR DIGITAL ISSUES, WE SHOULD REALLY THINK OF A SYMMETRIC GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE THAT SHOULD ADDRESS THE PARTICULAR RELEVANCE PARTICULAR INTEREST AND IN THE WAY, OVERCOME THE QUESTIONS LIKE LEGITIMACY, ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY, BY FOCUSING ON ISSUES.
IT COULD ALSO HELP BUILDING COALITIONS AROUND ISSUES AND TRYING TO AVOID THE TRADITIONAL COALITIONS ON TRADITIONAL DIVIDES AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES. THEREBY DIVERSIFY THE AGENDA AND MAKE IT MORE SYMMETRIC, THE MORE LIKELY WE'LL HAVE SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE AND AGREED TEXT AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES FROM THE HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS, INCLUDING THE WTO, WHEN THE LINKAGE BARGAINING WORKED VERY WELL, AND I THINK SOME OF THOSE LESSONS COULD BE LEARNED IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
ALONG THESE LINES, DIPLO DID A SIMULATION EXERCISE WITH OUR STUDENTS ON THE SCENARIO BUILDING AND WE ASKED THEM TO CREATE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THAT FRAMEWORK FOLLOWED TWO EXAMPLES. ONE IS OTHER DIMENSION, ILO, OR THREE TRIPARTITE STRUCTURE, AND ANOTHER INTERESTING EXAMPLE WAS INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, IMF, OF THE WEIGHTED VOTES AND DIFFERENT VOTING POWER OF THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS.
THEREFORE, THERE ARE VARIOUS SCHEMES AND POSSIBILITIES THAT COULD BE COMBINED IN ORDER TO REFLECT WHAT IS IN THE ARTICLE 49 OF THE DECLARATION, DIFFERENT ROLES THAT EACH STAKEHOLDER SHOULD PLAY IN THIS PROCESS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: PIERRE OUEDRAOGO FROM FRANCOPHONIE, ORGANIZATION FRANCOPHONIE.
>>PIERRE OUEDRAOGO: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. PIERRE OUEDRAOGO. I REPRESENT THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF FRANCOPHONIE. 53 MEMBER COUNTRIES AND TEN OBSERVERS.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE FLOOR HEAR TO COMMEND THE WORKING GROUP FOR ALL THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE. A YEAR AGO, WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO REACH THIS LEVEL AND WE ARE PARTICULARLY SATISFIED BECAUSE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN HERE, I THINK, CONCUR WITH WHAT THE MINISTERS OF FRANCOPHONIE CALLED AT RABAT IN SEPTEMBER 2003, THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD SUMMIT, THAT IS. WE CALLED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL, DEMOCRATIC INTERNET, A MULTILATERAL AND TRANSPARENT INTERNET WHICH WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NEEDS OF ALL LINGUISTIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY. WITH REGARD TO LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE PARTICIPANTS TO COME TO THE UNESCO CONFERENCE, THE UNESCO THEMATIC CONFERENCE ON THE WORLD SUMMIT, WHICH WILL BE ORGANIZE ADD BAMACO ON 6 AND 7 MAY 2005 ON THE TOPIC OF MULTILINGUALISM FOR DIVERSITY, FOR CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL IN CYBERSPACE.
FOR UNESCO, THE POINT IS TO RESPOND TO THE POINT OF THE ACTION PLAN OF PARAGRAPH 23, CHAPTER 8 OF THE ACTION PLAN ADOPTED IN DECEMBER 2003 HERE IN GENEVA.
AND FRANCOPHONIE, OF COURSE, IS A PARTNER OF UNESCO IN THAT CONFERENCE.
THE QUESTION OF MULTILINGUALISM IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US, FOR FRANCOPHONIE, AND WE SUPPORT THIS AND WE COMMEND THE VARIOUS DELEGATIONS WHO HAVE SPOKEN TO CONCUR WITH US.
IN CONCLUSION, I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT AT THE REGIONAL AFRICAN CONFERENCE HELD IN ACCRA IN FEBRUARY, THERE WAS ONE QUESTION WHICH WAS RAISED WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNTRIES OF AFRICA, BUT I THINK FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IN GENERAL. WE ALSO THINK THAT THIS POINT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE WORKING GROUP, AND THAT IS THE QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION WHERE COUNTRIES OF THE SOUTH FEEL THEY ARE FINANCING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE COMPENSATION. IT'S THE SOUTHERN COUNTRIES WHICH PAY MORE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE NARROWEST BANDS. AND THIS QUESTION WAS DISCUSSED IN A VERY LIVELY MANNER, AND ALL THE AFRICANS HERE AND WHO WERE AT BAMACO -- OR, RATHER, AT ACCRA CAN TESTIFY TO THAT.
IN ANY CASE, WE HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE THE GOOD WORK AND WE HOPE THAT WE WILL ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS TO ESTABLISH INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET FOR ALL.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU. I THINK WE'VE COME TO THE END OF THE DAY'S DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR CARRYING ON THE DISCUSSION UNTIL 6:00. WHEN WE STARTED IN THE MORNING, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL GOING TO BE OVER BY 11:00. SORT OF A SLOW TEMPO OF THE DISCUSSIONS, ALL THE LITTLE (INAUDIBLE). IT BUILT UP, IT CARRIED ON, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF PRODDING BUT IT DID HELP, AND I THINK WE'VE HAD A FAIRLY -- WE HAD A VERY USEFUL DAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THAT I WOULD REALLY EMPHASIZE THAT THE GROUP HAS NOT COME TO ANY FIXED CONCLUSIONS.
IT IS OPEN IN ITS DISCUSSIONS. IT HAS OBVIOUSLY MADE PROGRESS, AS PEOPLE HAVE MET, TALKED TO ONE ANOTHER, COLLABORATED WITH ONE ANOTHER, IN PREPARING THESE PAPERS, IN PREPARING THESE ASSESSMENTS. THERE'S BOUND TO BE SOME CRYSTALLIZATION OF VIEWS WHICH TAKES PLACE. BUT IT IS TRULY A VERY VERY OPEN GROUP.
I ALSO WANT TO STRESS HOW WELL THE GROUP AS A GROUP HAS FUNCTIONED, WITH GENUINE CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF; THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING AT THIS ISSUE FROM MANY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, MANY DIFFERENT AREAS, MANY DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE WORLD WITH MANY DIFFERENT SETS OF CONCERNS ARE TALKING WITH ONE ANOTHER RATHER THAN AT ONE ANOTHER.
AND THAT, I THINK, HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE AND USEFUL PARTS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT HOPEFULLY WHEN WE PRODUCE A FINAL REPORT IN JUNE, IT WILL BE A REPORT WHICH WILL FULFILL THE MANDATE THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN, AS HAS BEEN LISTED. THERE IS AN OPEN-ENDED PART OF OUR MANDATE TOWARDS THE END WHICH TALKS OF MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AS APPROPRIATE OR AS POSSIBLE.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN REALLY WORK AT IT AND COME AND PROVIDE THE PREPCOM WITH A SOLID BASIS FOR ITS OWN WORK IN SEPTEMBER.
THE VALUE OF THIS WORKING GROUP'S WORK IS I THINK WE CAN PERHAPS TREAT IT AS A PRODUCT WHICH IS BROADLY ACCEPTABLE TO PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD, PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES, DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITIES AND SO ON. AND LET ME JUST MENTION IN THE CONTEXT OF STAKEHOLDERS. THERE'S A REFERENCE HERE, SOMEBODY SAID THE ABSENCE OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE IN OUR GROUP. UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS NOT HERE, BUT A PERSON FROM INDIA ACTUALLY HEADS THE LARGEST INTERNET PROVIDER IN INDIA, BUT HE IS AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER. HE HAS BEEN SENDING SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THERE IS ONE IN OUR GROUP. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, WE HAVE PERHAPS NOT HAD AS MUCH OF THEIR VOICE IN OUR DELIBERATIONS AS WE SHOULD HAVE HAD BECAUSE FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO ARE THE CONSUMERS OF THE INTERNET, THEY ARE THE PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT. WE HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE INSTITUTIONS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. OUR CONTACT IS WITH THE ISP. AND IT'S THROUGH THE ISP THAT WE WORK.
AND SO PERHAPS WE MAY HAVE TO CONSIDER HOW TO REFLECT THAT VOICE BETTER.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REGISTRIES WHO ARE HERE DO HAVE A VERY DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE ISPS, BECAUSE THEIR PRIMARY CLIENTS ARE THE ISPS.
SO IN SOME SENSES, THEY ARE ABLE TO REFLECT MANY OF THE CONCERNS OF THE ISPS IN OUR DELIBERATIONS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE ISPS ARE.
BUT GENERALLY I WOULD SAY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TREAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS WORKING GROUP AS SOMETHING WHICH IS BROADLY ACCEPTABLE ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF STAKEHOLDERS, REGIONS, INTERESTS, CONCERNS. AND SO ON.
WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE MEMBER STATES, THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS, OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE WSIS PROCESS SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP WITH AN OPEN MIND.
IF YOU KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS, THEN YOU DON'T NEED THIS GROUP. IF YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS FINE, YOU DON'T NEED THIS GROUP. IF YOU THINK YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD BE DONE BY WHOM, YOU DON'T NEED THIS GROUP.
THIS GROUP IS NEEDED ONLY IF THERE IS A SENSE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM IN FINDING COMMON GROUND AMONGST ALL OF THE COUNTRIES AND STAKEHOLDERS ON THESE ISSUES. THEN I BELIEVE WHAT WE PRODUCE IN JUNE WILL BE OF VALUE.
SO I URGE, LOOK AT IT WITH AN OPEN MIND, AND DON'T NECESSARILY LOOK FOR IT IN TERMS OF AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE PARTICULAR POSITIONS THAT A PARTICULAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP MAY HAVE AT PRESENT.
BECAUSE ONE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO SEE WHETHER WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND. AND I BELIEVE WE CAN, THE WAY THE GROUP HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING SO FAR.
I THINK THE MESSAGES WHICH COME ACROSS FROM THIS DISCUSSION ARE VERY VALUABLE, VERY USEFUL.
I HOPE THAT THE MEMBER STATES HAVE HAD A SENSE OF THE -- AND THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A SENSE OF THE TYPE OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION WHICH IS TAKING PLACE IN THE WORKING GROUP.
I HOPE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ALSO HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT THE PREOCCUPATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES ARE, BECAUSE THAT IS -- IT'S IMPORTANT. AFTER ALL, WE ARE NOT JUST PRODUCING A REPORT IN THE ABSTRACT. WE ARE PRODUCING A REPORT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. AND I THINK THIS CONSULTATION HAS HELPED TO CONVEY SOME SENSE TO THE WORKING GROUP THAT THIS IS WHAT THE PRIMARY CONCERNS ARE, AND SO WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS IN OUR WORK.
I'M FAIRLY HOPEFUL AND CONFIDENT THAT IN THE GROUP WE CAN COME UP WITH A USEFUL REPORT BY JUNE. AND I'M INCREASINGLY HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN, IN THE PREPCOM ALSO, COME UP WITH A USEFUL PRODUCT FOR THE TUNIS SUMMIT. AS SOMEBODY SAID, IT'S NOT AS IF EITHER IN JUNE OR IN SEPTEMBER OR IN NOVEMBER WE ARE GOING TO SAY THE FINAL WORD ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL PERHAPS CONTINUE ON THE TABLE.
MAYBE ONE VISION WE CAN PUT FORWARD FOR OURSELVES IS LET'S AT LEAST DO THE WORK IN SUCH A MANNER THAT AT LEAST FOR SOME TIME TO COME, YET ANOTHER WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL NOT BE SET UP. THIS IS THE MODEST OBJECTIVE THAT WE CAN PUT FOR OURSELVES, SAYING THAT LET'S AT LEAST TRY TO GET ENOUGH OF AN AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THAT FOR SOME TIME TO COME, AT LEAST, THERE'S NOT YET ANOTHER WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE TO BE SET UP. BUT THAT'S MAYBE TOO MODEST AN OBJECTIVE. MAYBE WE CAN AIM AT A SLIGHTLY HIGHER OBJECTIVE THAN THAT.
SO WITH THESE FEW WORDS I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN THESE OPEN CONSULTATIONS. I CAN SEE THAT OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS, WHICH IS A PRETTY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THE WORKING GROUP HAS A VERY INTENSIVE AGENDA AHEAD OF IT, APART FROM THE MATERIAL THEY PRODUCED, ALSO WHAT HAS COME OUT OF THESE CONSULTATIONS. AND AS I REPEAT MYSELF, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE COMMENTING ON THE PAPERS WHICH HAVE BEEN PUT UP ON THE WEB.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TIME, BUT IT IS -- GIVEN THE SHORT TIME BETWEEN MEETINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE LOTS OF SPACE FOR THIS.
SO PLEASE CONTINUE PROVIDING THE COMMENTS. PLEASE CONTINUE INTERACTING WITH THE WORKING GROUP IN EVERY OTHER WAY THAT YOU CAN. PLEASE DO PARTICIPATE IN THE VERY LARGE NUMBER OF EVENTS WHICH ARE NOW SCHEDULED FOR TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS WSIS AS WELL AS OF THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP INCLUDING THE REGIONAL MEETINGS WHICH ARE SCHEDULED. I WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN SOME OF THEM, MR. KUMMER WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN SOME OF THEM, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP WILL ALSO BE PARTICIPATING IN THEM SO IT'S NOT AS IF THIS IS THE ONLY CONTEXT IN WHICH WE CAN CONSULT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER REGIONAL AND OTHER MEETINGS WHERE I WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN TWO OF THESE BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE.
SO I HOPE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR MANY OF YOU TO ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT PROCESS.
SO WITH THESE FEW WORDS, I WANT TO THANK YOU. AND WE ARE JUST IN TIME FOR A NICE GLASS OF SWISS WINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(CONCLUDED.)