Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)


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

18 APRIL 2005

[morning 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: GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO GENEVA FOR WHAT I'M DESCRIBING AS OUR SPRING MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
MR. MARKUS KUMMER ARRANGED ONE MEETING IN AUTUMN, ONE IN WINTER, FEBRUARY, ONE IN SPRING, IN APRIL, AND ONE MEETING IN SUMMER, JUNE.
THE ONLY THING IS, HE FORGOT TO ORDER SPRING WEATHER IN APRIL.
THAT'S THE LITTLE PROBLEM THAT -- BUT ANYHOW, WELCOME TO GENEVA.
AND I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE HERE TO -- FOR THE NEXT STAGE OF THE WORKING GROUP.
I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST SAY A FEW WORDS ON WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORKING GROUP AND WHAT IS IT THAT WE HOPE TO GET OUT OF THIS CONSULTATION.
I WILL THEN REQUEST MR. UTSUMI TO TELL US ALSO HIS SENSE OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE AIMING AT.
LET ME JUST SAY A WORD ON WHERE WE ARE.
CLEARLY WE ARE NOW PAST THAT FIRST STAGE OF THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP WHERE WE WERE EXPLORING WHAT THE ISSUES WERE AND SO ON.
AND WE ARE AT THE POINT AT WHICH WE ARE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS, WHERE IN CERTAIN CASES WE ARE GOING BEYOND THIS TO TRY TO IDENTIFY OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING SOME OF THE WEAKNESSES WHICH ARE PERCEIVED.
WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, AND THIS IS A SET OF PAPERS WHICH WILL BE PLACED BEFORE THE GROUP WHEN IT MEETS TOMORROW AND THE DAY AFTER.
AND I THOUGHT I'D SAY A WORD ON THE STATUS AND NATURE OF THESE PAPERS.
I WOULD SAY THAT THESE ARE PAPERS WHICH ARE MORE THAN JUST PAPERS OF INDIVIDUALS.
THEY ARE PAPERS PREPARED BY GROUPS FROM THE WORKING GROUP, COLLABORATING WITH ONE ANOTHER.
I BELIEVE THE PAPERS ARE ALSO INFORMED BY THE DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE GROUP AND IN OPEN CONSULTATIONS OVER THE PREVIOUS TWO SESSIONS.
SO, IN A SENSE, THEY REFLECT, TO SOME EXTENT, NOT JUST AN INDIVIDUAL OR A PERCEPTION OR EVEN A PERCEPTION OF TWO OR THREE OR FOUR INDIVIDUALS.
I THINK THEY ARE INFORMED, TO SOME EXTENT, BY THE VIEWS WHICH HAVE COME, HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE CONSULTATIONS IN THE GROUP.
AND, OF COURSE, VERY LITTLE IN TERMS OF HOW FAR THEY WILL GO IN TERMS OF SUGGESTING SOLUTIONS.
BUT I WOULD THEREFORE STRESS THAT THESE PAPERS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST SIMPLY THE VIEWS OF SOME INDIVIDUALS.
NEVERTHELESS, THEY ARE NOT PAPERS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY IN THE GROUP ITSELF.
THE GROUP, AS A GROUP, HAS TO COMMENT ON THE ASSESSMENTS AND THE IDEAS PRESENTED IN THESE.
AND I'M SURE THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE GROUP WILL BE GREATLY ENRICHED BY WHAT THEY WILL HEAR FROM YOU TODAY HERE IN THESE OPEN CONSULTATIONS.
AND I THINK THE TIME HAS COME FOR US TO START LOOKING AT THAT NEXT STAGE, NOT JUST IN THE GROUP, BUT MORE GENERALLY IN THESE CONSULTATIONS AND IN THE INFORMAL DIALOGUE WHICH I'M SURE GOES ON AMONGST DELEGATIONS, TO LOOK AT THE NEXT STAGE OF WHAT ARE THE ISSUES WHICH ARE PRIORITY ISSUES WHICH WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, THE WEAKNESSES WHICH WE MAY HAVE IDENTIFIED, THE CHANGES THAT WE MAY REQUIRE, WITHOUT NECESSARILY COMING TO CLOSURE ON EVERYTHING.
BUT I THINK THE TIME HAS COME FOR US TO START TALKING ABOUT THIS AND NOT JUST TO LIMIT OURSELVES TO A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IS.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP IN MIND OUR GOAL, WHICH IS TO COME OUT WITH A SET OF, OF COURSE, A DEFINITION, BUT ALSO A SET OF PRIORITY ISSUES, POLICY ISSUES, PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, AS WELL AS PROPOSALS FOR ADDRESSING THESE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IN THE PREPCOM IN SEPTEMBER.
SO THIS IS WHERE WE STAND.
THIS IS WHAT I HOPE THIS SESSION OF THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS AND THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF THE GROUP WILL ACHIEVE, WHICH IS A CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING ON WHAT ARE OR HOW DO WE GO ABOUT ADDRESSING THE PRIORITY PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES WHICH OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS WE HAVE BEEN BUSY IDENTIFYING, DESCRIBING, ANALYZING.
SO THIS IS WHERE WE STAND.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONSULTATIONS AS WELL AS TO A MEETING OF THE GROUP.
A WORD QUICKLY ON OUR SUBSEQUENT STAGES.
WE WILL -- AS YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE MEETING IN JUNE FOR THE FINAL MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH WILL BE HERE IN GENEVA.
AT THAT TIME, TOO, WE WILL BEGIN WITH AN OPEN CONSULTATION.
AND THEN GO AWAY IN ALMOST A RETREAT MODE, WHERE THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ENJOY THE GENEVA SUMMER UNTIL THEY COMPLETE THEIR WORK.
SO, BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO.
BUT WE ALSO, I HOPE, LATER, AFTER WE FINALIZE THE GROUP REPORT, CAN PRESENT IT TO YOU.
AND AT THE MOMENT, WE ARE PLANNING ON ORGANIZING THIS MEETING IN THE MIDDLE OF JULY, 18TH OF JULY, IN GENEVA.
SO THAT AFTER THE REPORT IS FINALIZED, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE HERE, AND I HOPE THOSE MEMBERS WOULD WHO CAN WOULD ALSO BE HERE.
WE WILL PRESENT THE REPORT TO THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE REST OF THE PROCESS WOULD BECOME PART OF THE PREPCOM.
I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD MENTION THIS SO THAT YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FROM NOW ONWARD.
SO LET ME JUST CONCLUDE AT THIS POINT AND SORT OF LET ME ALSO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY OF PUTTING IN A PARTICULAR WORD OF THANKS TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD IN PREPARING THESE PAPERS, TO MARKUS KUMMER AND THE SECRETARIAT OF THE PROCESS, WHICH HAS ALSO HAD THIS TASK OF WEAVING ALL OF THESE COMMENTS TOGETHER.
I WAS VERY GRATEFUL TO THE MANY COUNTRIES WHO HAVE -- AND INDIVIDUALS -- WHO HAVE POSTED COMMENTS AND SENT US COMMENTS ON THESE PAPERS, WHICH ARE VERY HELPFUL, BECAUSE IT HELPS TO MAINTAIN THE SENSE OF OPENNESS THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO MAINTAIN IN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS FROM OUTSIDE, THE OBSERVERS, PARTICULARLY THE ITU, WHICH HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING VERY FULLY IN THE WORK OF THIS WORKING GROUP, AND LOOK FORWARD TO THIS CONTINUED COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION.
AND WITH THESE FEW WORDS, I WILL NOW TURN TO MR. UTSUMI AND REQUEST HIM PERHAPS TO TELL US HOW HE SEES THE WORK.
>>SECTY-GEN UTSUMI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO GENEVA.
I AM SEEING THAT YOUR WORK IS VERY MUCH PROGRESSING.
I HAVE FOUND MANY INTERESTING CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE WEB.
AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I HAD TIME AND COULD COMPILE THESE VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND PUT SOME NOTICES ON THE POWER STRUCTURE OF STAKEHOLDERS OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, I WOULD BE VERY EASILY ABLE TO WRITE A DOCTORATE THESIS, AND I WOULD GET A PH.D. FROM ANY RENOWNED UNIVERSITY.
AND THIS WORK MAY BE MORE INTERESTING THAN THE WORK OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF ITU.
YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REALLY VALUABLE ONES AND VERY DEEP IN THE CONTENT.
AND YOUR WORK, YOUR GROUP, WORKING GROUP, IS UNDER THE VERY COMPETENT CHAIRMAN, MR. NITIN DESAI.
HOWEVER, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS AS THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE SUMMIT.
YOU HAVE ONLY THREE MONTHS TO ACT, TO MAKE A REPORT.
AND THE ISSUES ARE VERY COMPLICATED AND FROM A VERY WIDE PERSPECTIVE.
IN MY OPINION, THE WORKING GROUP REALLY HAS TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS AND THE OBJECTIVES.
ACCORDING TO THE PLAN OF ACTION OF GENEVA, THE WORKING GROUP IS TO FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PREPCOM BY, FIRST, DEVELOPING A WORKING DEFINITION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE; BY IDENTIFYING THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE; AND BY DEVELOPING 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 FROM BOTH DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.
YOU HAVE VERY CLEAR THREE SPECIFIC DUTIES TO CARRY OUT.
AND THE FIRST ONE IS TO DEVELOP A WORKING DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THIS IS TO FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PREPCOM.
SO THE WORKING DEFINITION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS NOT AN ACADEMIC WORKING DEFINITION, BUT TO FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PREPCOM.
YOU MAY REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION AT THE FIRST PHASE.
MANY PEOPLE DISCUSSED INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
BUT WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND IS A DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
EVERYBODY TALKED DIFFERENT THINGS, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A COMMON DEFINITION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
A WORKING DEFINITION MEANS, IN MY OPINION, TO HAVE A COMMON DEFINITION IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE TO EACH OTHER.
AT THE FIRST PHASE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME PROTOCOL, SO WE COULDN'T COMMUNICATE TO EACH OTHER WELL BECAUSE OF LACK OF COMMON PROTOCOL.
THAT IS THE WORKING DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
IT SHOULDN'T BE AN ACADEMIC ONE, IT SHOULDN'T BE ONE THAT'S -- CAN IMPLY EVERYTHING.
IT IS A DEFINITION FOR THE DISCUSSION AT THE PREPCOM.
WITHOUT MAKING THIS DEFINITION, THE PREPCOM, THIRD PREPCOM, ONCE AGAIN HAVE THE SAME SITUATION WHERE THE COMMON PROTOCOL DOESN'T EXIST.
SO IT IS VERY URGENT THAT WE SHOULD MAKE A COMMON PROTOCOL.
THE REASON WHY I AM SO EMPHASIZING THIS PART IS THAT WITHOUT THE STANDARDIZATION IN THE FIELD OF INFORMATION TELECOMMUNICATIONS, YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE.
YOU KNOW THIS FACT.
AND I URGE YOU TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE.
I THINK THAT IDENTIFYING THE PUBLIC PROCEDURES, THE SECOND DUTY, OBLIGATION.
THESE ARE WELL-ADVANCED. 
IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS, YOU IDENTIFIED LOTS OF POLICY ISSUES.
HOWEVER, ONCE AGAIN, THESE POLICY ISSUES ARE NOT FOR THE EXPERT ENGINEERS, BUT THEY SHOULD BE FOR HEAD OF THE STATES, FOR THE HIGHEST POLITICAL LEADERS.
SO THESE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES SHOULDN'T BE TECHNICAL ONES, BUT REALLY HIGH GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
AT THE SUMMIT, POLITICAL LEADERS WILL AGREE TO AND DECIDE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THEREFORE, AGAIN, IN MY OPINION, YOU SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THE ACADEMIC CURIOSITY AND WORK ON THESE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND YOU SHOULD ACCELERATE YOUR WORK BY FOCUSING ON KEY ISSUES WHICH WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE PREPCOM III.
SO THESE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS ON YOUR WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE -- THANKS TO YOUR VERY HARD WORK, THE PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES ARE QUITE PROGRESSED, AND THIS IS THE FOURTH CORNER OF YOUR WORK, AND YOU WILL BE IN THE MOOD TO CONCLUDE THE WORK, HAVING HEARD THE CHAIRMAN'S GUIDANCE AT THE BEGINNING, I AM QUITE SURE THAT YOU WILL SUCCEED IN THIS WORK.
AND I WISH YOU A VERY SUCCESSFUL WEEK.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. UTSUMI.
I WILL NOW JUST OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.
THE -- WE HAVE A PROVISIONAL AGENDA, WHICH FIRST DEVELOPING -- GROUPING OUR OBSERVATIONS AROUND DEVELOPING A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL THE ACTORS INVOLVED IN GOVERNANCE.
LINKED TO THAT, SOMETHING WHICH WE HAVE SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME DOING OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS, LINKED TO THAT, ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS, WHICH IS MUCH MORE JUDGMENTAL.
AND THEN ARISING FROM THAT, POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSALS FOR ACTION, AS APPROPRIATE, ON THE GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET, THIS IS AN EXACT QUOTATION FROM THE OUTCOME OF THE FIRST PHASE.
AND ARISING AND THEN CONNECTED TO ALL OF THESE TOGETHER, THE WORKING DEFINITION OF INTERNET AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
WE HAVE THE DAY BEFORE US.
I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST ANY RIGID SEGMENTATION OF TIME IN TERMS OF HOW WE PROCEED.
MY REQUEST IS THAT WE HAVE OVER THE PAST TWO CONSULTATIONS FOCUSED A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION ON THE FIRST THEME OF DEVELOPING A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ARE THE EXISTING ROLES OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND GOVERNMENTS.
AND AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO FOCUS A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION NOW ON THE OTHER ASPECTS, ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY.
I THINK CERTAIN CLEAR AND FRANK COMMENTS FROM YOU ON WHAT YOU SEE AS THE PROBLEM AREAS AND THEN AS THE INADEQUACIES I THINK WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL IN DIRECTING THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP AND ALSO NARROWING ON THE ISSUES WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED IN PREPCOM, AS MR. UTSUMI WAS MENTIONING.
IF POSSIBLE, IF YOU ARE READY WITH ANY IDEAS ON HOW YOU THINK THESE WEAKNESSES COULD BE ADDRESSED, THAT WOULD ALSO BE VERY HELPFUL.
AND ON THE FINAL ISSUE OF THE WORKING DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WE DID HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ON IT LAST TIME.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MANY OF YOU WILL HAVE TALKS ON THIS WHICH I WILL BE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO.
BUT IF POSSIBLE, LET'S TRY AND FOCUS ON THE WHOLE ISSUE OF ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY AND WHAT WE DO ABOUT IT.
AND IT MAY BE FAIRLY TENTATIVE WHAT WE MAY SUGGEST AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE THE REAL TASKS ON THIS WILL COME MUCH LATER WHEN YOU HAVE -- IN THE THIRD PREPCOM.
SO WITH THESE FEW WORDS, MARKUS, IS THERE SOMETHING WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD AT THIS STAGE?
OKAY.
WE HAVE SOME FAIRLY SOPHISTICATED STUFF GOING ON HERE.
I HAVE BEEN READING IT.
IT'S PRETTY GOOD.
IT'S SORT OF GETTING TRANSCRIBED.
AND MAYBE, MARKUS, YOU'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING.
>>SECRETARY KUMMER: YES.
THIS IS REAL-TIME TRANSCRIPTION.
SO WHATEVER YOU SAY WILL BE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>SECRETARY KUMMER: AND THE BEAUTY OF IT IS, WE WILL BE ABLE TO PUT IT ON THE WEB.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT WEBCAST STRAIGHTAWAY.
BUT WE WILL PUT IT AT THE END OF THE SESSION, IT WILL BE UP ON THE WEB.
AND AT A PRACTICAL TERM, WHENEVER YOU TAKE THE FLOOR, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO OUR SCRIBES IF YOU COULD PRESENT WHO YOU ARE OR MAYBE EVEN MORE HELPFUL IF YOU PUT YOUR NAME DOWN ON A PAPER AND SECRETARIAT STAFF WILL COLLECT IT AND BRING IT TO THE SCRIBES, OR A BUSINESS CARD TO THEM SO THEY HAVE THE EXACT COORDINATES OF WHOEVER TAKES THE FLOOR.
OF COURSE, FOR COUNTRY DELEGATES, IT IS NORMALLY THE COUNTRY.
BUT IF THE NAME IS AVAILABLE, WE WILL PUT THAT ALSO ON THE WEB.
SO THAT IS AN INNOVATION.
AND NEXT TIME, WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO WEBCAST IT LIVE.
THIS IS ALL FROM AN ORGANIZATIONAL POINT OF VIEW.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
SO THERE -- IT'S ALL GETTING WRITTEN DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE.
SO THERE'S A STRONG PREMIUM ON BEING CRISP AND EFFECTIVE. AND IT'S ALL BEING RECORDED FOR POSTERITY.
SO MAY I NOW OPEN THE FLOOR AND INVITE SOME -- YES, SYRIA.
>> SYRIA: GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN.
TELL ME, PLEASE, IS ARABIC AVAILABLE?
IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO SPEAK ARABIC.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN WE ATTENDED THE LAST MEETING, WE ASKED FOR A PROGRAM ON PRIORITIES THAT WE SHOULD APPROACH, AND I THINK WE SPOKE A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE AT THAT STAGE, NAMELY, A DEFINITION OF THE INTERNET.
AND WE SPOKE OF A PRACTICAL DEFINITION, A PRAGMATIC ONE.
WE ALL AGREED ON THIS CONCEPT.
WHEN YOU PROPOSED YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE SECOND PREPCOM, IN THE FIRST ISSUE OF YOUR REPORT, THE FIRST ITEM OF YOUR REPORT CONNECTED WITH THE WORKING GROUP, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH WAS A DEFINITION.
WE WERE VERY PLEASED TO SEE THAT, BECAUSE AT THE TIME, WE THOUGHT THE FOCUS WAS GOING TO BE ON DEFINITIONS ENTIRELY.
AND AS MR. UTSUMI HAS JUST SAID, WE NEEDED THIS COMMON PROTOCOL BASED ON A DEFINITION IN ORDER TO MAKE PROGRESS STAGE BY STAGE SUBSEQUENTLY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, WHEN I TOOK THE DOCUMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE DOCUMENT PREPARED ON 5 APRIL, WE WERE NOT ABLE AT THE TIME TO ANALYZE IN FULL THIS DOCUMENT AND DRAW UP APPROPRIATE OBSERVATIONS, BECAUSE WE ONLY HAD TEN DAYS TO DO THAT IN.
AND AS A DEVELOPING COUNTRY, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO STUDY DOCUMENTS IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO SEND YOU AN URGENT LETTER ON THE 5TH OF APRIL, WHICH WAS SENT TO MR. KUMMER, THE AMBASSADOR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE EMPHASIZE THAT THIS MEETING MUST FOCUS ON THE PRAGMATIC, PRACTICAL DEFINITION, BECAUSE THAT WILL CONSTITUTE FOR US A CORNERSTONE, WHICH WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO REACT FAVORABLY TO THE REQUEST AND THE NEEDS OF THE SUMMIT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAYING THAT THIS PRAGMATIC DEFINITION WILL CONSTITUTE THE LAST ITEM ON WHICH WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS.
YOU HAVE SPOKEN OF A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT BEFORE THAT.
BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WOULD LIKE FIRST OF ALL TO FOCUS ALL OF OUR EFFORTS ON THE DEFINITION AS A FIRST THING.
AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT AUSTRALIA IN THE FIRST INSTANCE RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE DEFINITION.
AUSTRALIA SPOKE OF A RATHER DIFFICULT ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH IN A VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL WAY WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DEFINITION, BUT WHEN SYRIA REQUESTS A REFERENCE TO WHAT WAS REFERRED TO BEFORE, SINCE LAST FEBRUARY, WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR A CLEAR DEFINITION REGARDING THE INTERNET WHICH WOULD BE PROPOSED TO THE ITU.
THE ITU IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFRONTING THIS ISSUE, ACCORDING TO THE RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS.
AND THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THE POLICIES UNDERTAKEN BY GOVERNMENTS ALSO.
HOWEVER, WE WERE VERY HAPPY TO LEARN THAT YOUR WORKING GROUP WAS GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THIS RATHER DIFFICULT TASK.
A LARGE NUMBER OF EXPERTS, WE LEARNED, WERE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS, EXPERTS FROM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF A DEFINITION.
AND SO THE GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA HAS REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT BE PUT INTO TWO PARTS. FIRSTLY, FROM THE TECHNOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW AND THE TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW, WHAT IS THE INTERNET?
WE KNOW THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT APPEARS IN THE ITU CONSTITUTION, AND IN THE RESOLUTION 1012. WE'RE SPEAKING OF THE BROADCASTING OF ELECTRONIC LETTERS, DESIGNS, GRAPHICS, ACCORDING TO A TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL. AND ALL OF THIS WAS APPROVED IN 1965. AT THE TIME THE INTERNET DIDN'T EVEN EXIST.
SUBSEQUENTLY, WE SPOKE OF INTELLIGENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS THROUGH OUTER SPACE. AND THE INTERNET IS SEPARATE FROM THIS, BUT BASED UPON IT.
THIS IS SOMETHING IN WHICH THE ITU COULD PROVIDE A TECHNICAL DEFINITION AND IN THE WORKING GROUP WE COULD, THEREFORE, CONFRONT OTHER ISSUES. BUT IF WE FOLLOW THIS ROUTE, WE'RE AFRAID THAT WE MIGHT OBTAIN A RESULT THAT'S NOT SATISFACTORY.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE URGE YOU TO REORGANIZE MATTERS IN ORDER TO FOCUS THE DEBATE ON A CONCEPT OR TWO CONCEPTS IF IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE EXPERTS TO OBTAIN A SINGLE DEFINITION. WE COULD THEN PRODUCE ONE OR TWO DEFINITIONS, AND THE SUMMIT WOULD DECIDE.
IT COULD BE DIFFICULT, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO PRODUCE A CONSENSUAL DEFINITION. BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TAKEN THE FLOOR FOR SO LONG. I WISH TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY IN ORDER THAT THE -- BECAUSE THE ITU SECRETARIAT NEEDS TO FOCUS ON THIS.
FOR 14 MONTHS WE HAVE BEEN DRAWING ATTENTION TO THIS, AND TO DATE, THERE IS STILL NO DOCUMENTS THAT ALLOWS US TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS.
BECAUSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT REMAIN ENTIRELY INACTIVE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE RESULTS WILL BE. AND OUR GOVERNMENT IS ASKING US TO ATTACK THIS ON SEVERAL FRONTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE RESULT THAT WE NEED.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: LUXEMBOURG.
>>LUXEMBOURG: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENCY ON THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.
THE E.U. WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE WGIG FOR ITS ONGOING WORK ON KEY ISSUES RELATED TO THE STABLE AND SECURE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERNET.
AMONG THESE, THE QUESTION OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET'S CORE RESOURCES; NAMELY THE DOMAIN NAMES SYSTEMS, IP ADDRESSES, AND THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM, APPEARS AS ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN THIS DEBATE.
THE E.U. BELIEVES THAT A NEW COOPERATION IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO CONFER THE WSIS PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF ALL ACTORS WITHIN INTERNET GOVERNANCE. INCLUDING GOVERNANCE, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, CIVIL SOCIETY, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
WE THINK THAT THE EXISTING INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS SHOULD BE FOUNDED ON A MORE SOLID, DEMOCRATIC, TRANSPARENT, AND MULTILATERAL BASIS, WITH A STRONGER EMPHASIS ON THE PUBLIC POLICY INTERESTS OF ALL GOVERNMENTS.
THIS NEW MODEL SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES.
IT SHOULD NOT REPLACE EXISTING MECHANISM OR INSTITUTIONS, BUT SHOULD BUILD ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURES OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WITH A SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN ALL THE ACTORS IN THIS PROCESS. GOVERNMENTS, AND, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF
NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES. SECOND THE NEW PUBLIC/PRIVATE COOPERATION MODEL, SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUSTAINABLE STABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS OF THE INTERNET BY ADDRESSING APPROPRIATELY PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO KEY ELEMENTS OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THE E.U. BELIEVES THAT GOVERNMENTS DO HAVE A SPECIFIC MISSION AND RESPONSIBILITY VIS-A-VIS THEIR CITIZENS AND THEIR ROLE WITHIN THIS NEW CORPORATION MODEL SHOULD BE MAINLY FOCUSED ON ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUDING ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS.
FURTHERMORE, THE E.U. STRONGLY REAFFIRMS ITS ATTACHMENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERNET INCLUDING INTEROPERABILITY, OPENNESS AND THE END-TO-END PRINCIPLE.
WE THEREFORE SUPPORT THE WGIG IN ITS PAPER ON THE ROOT ZONE FILE AND THE ROOT ZONE MANAGEMENT WHEN IT STATES PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO CONSIDER IN GENERAL THE EXISTING SYSTEM HAS FUNCTIONED PROPERLY FROM THE TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES AND THAT ADJUSTMENTS WERE NEEDED FIRST FOR TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL REASONS HAVE TO BE MADE IN A PROPER AND ADEQUATE WAY RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONING, STABILITY, SECURITY AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET. END OF QUOTE.
THIS IS WHY WE ENCOURAGE THE WGIG TO PRESENT BALANCED OPTIONS FOR A TRUE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET'S CORE RESOURCES IN ITS FINAL REPORT.
WHILE THIS STATEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION, THE E.U. REITERATES THE IMPORTANCE IT ATTACHES TO THE STABILITY, DEPENDABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS OF THE INTERNET, INCLUDING SPAM AND NETWORK SECURITY.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: JAPAN.
>>JAPAN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME FIRST THANK MR. DESAI, MR. KUMMER, AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE WGIG FOR THEIR EXCELLENT WORK.
INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS IMPORTANT TO THE GROWTH AND FUTURE POTENTIAL OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, AND, INDEED, THE SUCCESS OF THE WSIS PROCESS ITSELF.
IN THE UPCOMING DISCUSSIONS, AS A PRELUDE TO THE JULY MEETING, THE WGIG IS MANDATED TO PREPARE A FINAL REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WSIS DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND PLAN OF ACTION.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE POTENTIAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISM TO BE PROPOSED BY WGIG EMBODIES WSIS PRINCIPLES SUCH AS MULTILATERALISM, TRANSPARENCY AND DEMOCRATIC BARRIERS AND FURTHER INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT, THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME FOR THE WSIS DISCUSSIONS DEPENDS ON WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND WHAT IS PRACTICAL.
THE PROPOSALS ARE EXPECTED TO INCLUDE RESPONSIVE AND EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS FOR ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DUE CONSIDERATIONS GIVEN TO THE LOGICAL TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE WGIG WILL PROVIDE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISM TO MAKE PROPOSAL CONSIDERING PRAGMATIC NATIONAL.
IN THIS SENSE, THROUGH AN OPTION APPROACH IS EXPECTED IN AREA WHERE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF VIEWS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE WSIS PROCESS, NOT TO LIMIT IT.
FINALLY, JAPAN WISHES EVERY SUCCESS TO THE WGIG IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL REPORT.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: APPARENTLY THE WORKING GROUP IS SO CONVINCING NOBODY HAS ANY REPORTS TO MAKE. SAUDI ARABIA.
>>SAUDI ARABIA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRSTLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR THE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS IT HAS MADE TO MAKE PROGRESS AND TO THANK MR. MARKUS KUMMER AND THE SECRETARIAT FOR THIS VERY EFFECTIVE WORK.
WE ALSO THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR TAKING ACCOUNT OF ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE IT.
WE HOPE THAT THIS METHOD OF WORK CAN CONTINUE UNTIL WE PRODUCE A FINAL REPORT.
WE KNOW THAT THE INTERNET IS A SENSITIVE SUBJECT WHICH REQUIRES A GOOD DEAL OF DISCUSSION AS IT DID DURING THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SUMMIT.
WE ARE ALSO AWARE THAT ANY CONSENSUS ON A LARGE NUMBER OF ISSUES CONNECTED WITH THE INTERNET IS -- INVOLVED RATHER DELICATE, DIFFICULT SUBJECTS, AND WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, PARTICULARLY AS REGARDS THE INTERNET -- WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE INTERNET SITE. HOWEVER, WE DO NEED TO REACH CONSENSUS, ALTHOUGH CERTAIN DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ARE ENTIRELY NORMAL.
THIS SHOULD NOT DESTABILIZE THE GROUP OR LEAD TO UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, DESPITE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE TEAM AND THE GROUP IN RECENT PHASES WE KNOW THAT THE UPCOMING PHASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. AND SO WE HOPE THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL FOCUS ITS EFFORTS ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES, INCLUDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE RATHER THAN SUPERFLUOUS DETAILS WHICH COULD BE OF LITTLE HELP IN THIS PHASE.
I HOPE THAT THE SOLUTIONS AND THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS PROPOSED WILL HELP US TO FIND INSPIRATION ON THE BASIS OF THE PROJECT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES AND WE ARE HOPEFUL REGARDING AN ADEQUATE SOLUTION. IN ORDER THAT GOVERNANCE MAY BECOME BILATERAL RATHER THAN MONOLITHIC, I HOPE THAT THIS TASK WILL BE TAKEN UP BY AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION RATHER THAN A PRIVATE COMPANY. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HOPE THAT GOVERNMENTS WILL PLAY AN APPROPRIATE ROLE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING POLICIES RELATED TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE. AND WE ALSO HOPE THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WILL BE ABLE TO PLAY AN APPROPRIATE ROLE IN TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC MATTERS.
WE COULD ALSO USE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS TO COORDINATE THE RELEVANT TASKS. IN THIS WAY, THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING WILL BREAK DOWN ALL BARRIERS HINDERING OUR PROGRESS IN ORDER THAT ALL MAY BENEFIT FROM THE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET.
IN PARTICULAR, I HAVE IN MIND THE CITIZENS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. WE NEED TO FIND SOLUTIONS BASED ON LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY SO THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CAN TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE RELEVANT DECISIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: INDIA.
>>INDIA: CAN WE HAVE THE MIKE HERE, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, ONCE AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO ALL DELEGATIONS; IN PARTICULAR, THOSE WHERE WE -- THERE ARE NO GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES ON THE WORKING GROUP, TO SHARE ITS VIEWS REGARDING THE VARIOUS PAPERS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE WEB SITE.
WE'VE READ THESE PAPERS WITH GREAT INTEREST, AND WE FIND THAT THESE PAPERS ARE BROADLY IN TWO GROUPS. ONE CONCERNS THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF ALL ACTORS INVOLVED IN GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS, AND THE SECOND ON THE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS.
AT THE TIME OF THE PLENARY MEETING ON 24 OF FEBRUARY TO DISCUSS THE PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WE MADE OUR POSITION VERY CLEAR.
WE HAD ALSO MENTIONED THE BROAD PRINCIPLES IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE SOME OF THESE.
FIRST, PRESERVING OPERATIONAL STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
SECOND, AN INCLUSIVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ACCESS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE REGIME.
THIRD, THE PROMOTION OF WELL-INFORMED DECISIONS BASED ON EXPERT TECHNICAL ADVICE, MAINTAINING TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY AND INTEROPERABILITY IN THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE, AND A DECENTRALIZED POLICY-MAKING STRUCTURE, RECOGNIZING THAT THE GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, AND AT THE SAME TIME INVOLVING THE PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVELY.
FOURTH, INTRODUCING AND FOSTERING COMPETITION TO ENSURE THE BEST DEAL FOR THE CONSUMER IN THE MARKET.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AT THE PLENARY MEETING WE HAD TAKEN GREAT PAINS TO SUBMIT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST AN APPROACH TO THE CONTOURS OF A DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
WE FIND THAT THESE CONTOURS SEEM TO BE EMBODIED IN A VERY GENERAL FORM, AND THAT, TOO, ONLY IN A NONPAPER TERMED CRITERIA FOR TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY WITH REGARDS TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE. WE DO NOT WISH TO DWELL ON THE SUBJECT FURTHER EXCEPT TO POINT OUT THAT A DEFINITIONAL ANCHOR WOULD GREATLY ASSIST IN IMPARTING CLARITY TO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS.
WE HAVE GIVEN OUR VIEWS IN DETAIL IN SOME OF THE MATTERS REGARDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE IN OUR COMMENTS TO THE TWO GENERAL PAPERS.
WE REITERATE THE NEED TO EVOLVE AN OVERARCHING MECHANISM WHICH WILL AT ONCE BE INCLUSIVE, TRANSPARENT, DEMOCRATIC AND ACCOUNTABLE. SUCH A MECHANISM WILL NEED TO BE MULTISTAKEHOLDER, MULTILATERAL, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL IN ITS CHARACTER AND WORKING. SUCH A MECHANISM ALONE CAN IMPART INTERNET THE CREDIBILITY OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS' CONCERNS.
WHILE OUR DETAILED COMMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTED, WE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THEM WHICH ESPECIALLY CONCERN US.
FIRST, THE INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE. IT IS A REFLECTION OF DIVERSITY OF THE CULTURES THAT CONSTITUTE THE INTERNET FAMILY. WE FEEL THAT WGIG PAPERS HAVE NOT MADE ADEQUATE REFERENCE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF MULTILINGUALISM ON THE INTERNET.
WE ARE FULLY CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT INTRODUCTION OF LOCAL LANGUAGES WILL BE A REGIONAL AND A LOCAL EFFORT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN COMMON CENTRAL ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT A GLOBAL LEVEL IN ORDER TO FACILITATE SPEEDY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDN REGIME.
THERE IS A NEED FOR BRINGING IN GLOBALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES EMANATING FROM A RULE-OUT OF MULTILINGUAL DOMINANCE.
THE ISSUE OF ADMINISTRATION OF IP ADDRESSES ALSO NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. IT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY RELEVANT WHEN INTERNET MIGRATES FROM THE CURRENT IPV4 TO IPV6 PROTOCOLS. THE ISSUES OF ALLOCATION OF IPV6 ADDRESSES NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND THE FRAMEWORK PUT IN PLACE EXPEDITIOUSLY.
RELATED ISSUES -- A RELATED ISSUE IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES. IT IS FELT THAT THE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES SHOULD BE RESOLVED AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL, WHICH HAS INTERGOVERNMENTAL STATUS.
THIS MAY NEED TO BE DONE IN THE SHORT TERM AS WELL AS ON A LONG-TERM BASIS.
ANOTHER ISSUE OF GREAT PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IS THAT OF INTERNET USER CHARGES AND THE PEERING CHARGES. TODAY'S REGIME IS UNJUSTLY LOADED IN FAVOR OF OWNERS OF INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH. THIS NEEDS TO BE MADE MORE EQUITABLE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HEARD WITH GREAT INTEREST THE INTERVENTION OF LUXEMBOURG SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE E.U., AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE MANY FEATURES OF THAT STATEMENT THAT WE GREATLY APPRECIATE. OVERALL, WE THINK THAT FOR THE INTERNET TO HAVE A TRULY LEGITIMATE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, IT MUST INVOLVE ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING, AND IN PARTICULAR, GOVERNMENTS. SO WE MUST BEAR THIS IN MIND WHEN THE WORKING GROUP CONTINUES WITH ITS VERY IMPORTANT TASK.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE VERY CAREFUL AND DETAILED COMMENTS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY ON THE WEB, AND I WOULD INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT THE COMMENTS ON THE PAPERS WHICH HAVE COME FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES AND SEVERAL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ALSO.
MAY I SUGGEST, INVITE YOU TO COMMENT, ONE PHRASE -- OR THE ISSUE OF THE DEFINITION HAS COME UP. OF COURSE, YES, IT IS TRUE, BUT AS YOU KNOW, I DID PRESENT SOME DEFINITION WHEN THE REPORT I MADE TO THE PREPCOM LAST TIME.
IT IS NOT JUST SOMETHING FROM THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT IS SOMETHING WHICH AROSE FROM THE CONSULTATIONS AS WELL AS THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE WORKING GROUP. BUT YOU CANNOT SIGN OFF ON THE DEFINITION COMPLETELY TILL THE FINAL REPORT.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS SOMETHING WHICH YOU -- WHICH MR. UTSUMI CORRECTLY POINTED OUT. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR AN ACADEMIC DEFINITION. WE ARE LOOKING FOR A DEFINITION WHICH WILL BE RELEVANT FOR THE PUBLIC-POLICY PURPOSES, AS HE STATED. AND IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT THE TWO THINGS ALWAYS PROCEED IN PARALLEL. AND WE DID PRESENT AN EARLY VERSION, AND I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING AROUND WHICH DISCUSSIONS WILL GET ORGANIZED.
AND CERTAINLY, WHEN IT COMES TO OUR FINAL REPORT, WHICH WILL BE WITH YOU HOPEFULLY IN JUNE, WHICH IS ABOUT THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE PREPCOM, THIS WOULD BE THE STARTING POINT FROM WHICH OTHER THINGS WILL DERIVE.
BUT IN TERMS OF A WORK PROCESS, IT'S SORT OF MOVING IN PARALLEL.
BUT THERE'S ONE PHRASE WHICH I'VE HEARD HERE TODAY, AND I WAS JUST GOING TO INVITE PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON IT. AND THE PHRASE I'VE HEARD IS INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CORE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNET.
THIS WAS THE PHRASE THAT I HEARD. AND I WAS JUST WONDERING WHETHER OTHERS HAVE SOME REFLECTIONS, SOME COMMENTS ON THIS PHRASE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ON MY SPEAKER'S LIST.
ARE THERE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS? THIS IS, I THINK, EXACTLY THE PHRASE USED BY THE E.U. AND I WAS JUST WONDERING WHETHER THERE ARE OTHERS WHO WISH TO SAY A FEW WORDS ON HOW THEY SEE THIS AND UNDERSTAND THIS.
AND YOU ALSO STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF A MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO GOVERNANCE, TWO THINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MENTION. THE QUESTION OF MULTILINGUALISM HAS COME UP, RAISED THIS ISSUE AND IT HAS BEEN STRESSED. THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE DISCUSSIONS AS PRIORITY ISSUES AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF PEOPLE WISHED TO COMMENT ON HOW THEY SEE IT, THEIR REFLECTIONS.
WHY IS EVERYBODY SO SILENT? WE ARE -- I WOULD INVITE MAYBE SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP IN CASE THEY WISH TO COMMENT. BECAUSE I THINK IN SOME WAYS THESE THINGS ARE RAISING SOME OF THE CORE ISSUES WHICH THE WORKING GROUP HAS -- SYRIA.
>>SYRIA: THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON. CHAIRPERSON, IF THIS SUBJECT WERE NOT GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE SUMMIT, THE WORLD INFORMATION SUMMIT, AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO ASK OURSELVES WHETHER WE SHOULD INTERNATIONALIZE MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET. WELL, THE ANSWER IS YES. IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE SUMMIT, IT WAS DEALT WITH AT A NUMBER OF LEVELS, INCLUDING THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
SO IT'S A BIT ODD TO ASK THE QUESTION HERE AND NOW. THERE'S NO DOUBT AS TO THE ANSWER, CHAIRPERSON. AND I FULLY SUPPORT WHAT THE DELEGATE OF SAUDI ARABIA SAID. I ENDORSE, ALSO, THE STATEMENT MADE BY INDIA. WHY REPEAT OURSELVES?
WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS, AND AS I SAID EARLIER, PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN MADE. THERE WILL SOON BE A MEETING TO DEAL WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE INTERNET AND A PROPOSAL WILL BE PUT FORWARD.
UNFORTUNATELY, NO PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD HERE; OTHERWISE, WE WOULD HAVE COMMENTED ON SUCH A PROPOSAL.
IN ALL EVENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON, FOR HAVING STRESSED THE NEED TO COME UP WITH A PRACTICAL WORKING DEFINITION OF THE INTERNET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THE SYRIAN-ARAB REPUBLIC WOULD HAVE A PROPOSAL HAD THERE BEEN A DRAFT TEXT. AT ANY EVENT, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE INTERNET IS A NATURAL PROCESS. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE INTERNET BEING MERELY AN AMERICAN BODY SUBJECT TO ANOTHER AMERICAN BODY, WHICH I WON'T MENTION. WE ALREADY SAID THIS AT THE SUMMIT. SO THE SITUATION IS CLEAR, AND OUR POSITION IS CLEAR. AND WE DON'T NEED TO REPEAT OURSELVES HERE.
THE INTERNET TODAY IS GOVERNED BY AMERICAN LAW AND MANAGED BY AN AMERICAN BUSINESS. IT'S NO SECRET. WE ALL KNOW IT, AND WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT.
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS REFER TO PUBLIC POLICY AND YOU CANNOT DEVELOP OR COORDINATE PUBLIC POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE INTERNET OTHER THAN THROUGH AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION WHICH CAN GUARANTEE TO ALL THEIR RIGHTS. OTHERWISE, WE HAVE TO FIND SOME OTHER EQUITABLE BODY WHO WILL DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: YES, AUSTRALIA.
>>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN THE INTEREST OF HAVING A CONTINUED DEBATE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REACT TO YOUR REQUEST ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION.
I SUPPOSE MY IMMEDIATE REACTION IS IT DOESN'T ADD A GREAT DEAL TO THE DEBATE AS A TERM USED ON ITS OWN.
INDEED, IT, LIKE SO MANY OTHER DEBATES WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, IT COULD BE DEFINED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
IF INTERNATIONALIZATION MEANS REDUCING THE INTERNET TO A GOVERNANCE PROCESS BETWEEN NATIONS ALONE, THEN WE'VE LOST ONE OF THE VERY THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING SO ACTIVELY ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME; THAT IS, THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH INVOLVING ALL ACTORS. IF INTERNATIONALIZATION IS BEING USED MORE LOOSELY IN THE SENSE OF MOVING TO THE GLOBAL LEVEL, ALTHOUGH I WOULD PERSONALLY SUGGEST THAT WE DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONALIZED MODEL, I THINK IT MEANS SOMETHING ELSE AGAIN. SO TO SOME EXTENT WE'RE EXCHANGING TERMS AT THE MOMENT. WE AREN'T REALLY GETTING DOWN TO CONCRETE PROPOSALS AND YOU COULD REALLY ONLY ASSESS INTERNATIONALIZATION WHEN YOU HAVE CONCRETE PROPOSALS.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I HAVE SOUTH AFRICA.
>>SOUTH AFRICA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRPERSON, FOR GIVING US THE FLOOR. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR ITS WORK. LATER ON, WE WILL BE SUBMITTING A WRITTEN SUBMISSION. BUT WHAT I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE WAS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND PAPERS.
WE'VE NOTED THAT IN THE LAST PAPERS PRODUCED BY THE WORKING GROUP, THERE DOES SEEM TO BE AN INDICATION OF SOME SORT OF PROGRESS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THERE IS NO COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS WHEN IT COMES TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE. AND ALSO, THERE IS A FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THERE'S LACK OF AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES TRANSPARENCY AND INCLUSIVE PARTICIPATION.
WE ARE HIGHLIGHTING THIS BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THAT SENSE DURING THE FIRST PART OF THE PAPERS PRODUCED BY THE WORKING GROUP.
RATHER, A SORT OF DEFENSIVE KIND OF POSITION WHICH SAYS THERE IS THIS UNDERSTANDING AND EVERYONE MUST GO ALONG WITH THAT PARTICULAR UNDERSTANDING.
AND WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE THAT AT LEAST IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A SORT OF APPLICATION OF MINDS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A LOT OF COUNTRIES FEEL THAT WE ARE NOT MOVING IN THE SAME WAY.
WE DO NOTE THAT ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, THAT IS, ISSUES OF LEGITIMACY, HAVEN'T BEEN MENTIONED AT ALL.
AND I THINK THESE ARE STILL KEY ISSUES.
AND PROBABLY A WAY FORWARD FOR THIS GROUP WOULD BE TO TRY AND THRASH OUT SO AS TO COME TO SOME KIND OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR UNDERSTANDING OR EVEN COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT INTENDS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AND I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY WAY ONE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A SORT OF FINALIZED KIND OF REPORT BY ADDRESSING AND TRYING TO SAY EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE, WE WILL BE EQUALLY UNHAPPY, BUT TRYING TO ADDRESS BOTH SIDES.
IN MOVING FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THE GROUP HAS NOT DELVED DEEPLY INTO SOME OF THE CRITICAL AREAS RELATED TO DNS AND ROOT ZONE FILE.
CONTRARY TO SOME OF THE VIEWS, CHAIRPERSON, I FEEL THAT THESE ARE BEING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE RELEVANT FORUM, THESE ISSUES REALLY NEED TO BE INTERROGATED, BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY VERY STRATEGY POLITICALLY AND SECURITY-WISE.
SO I THINK THAT AS COUNTRIES WERE DEVELOPING, IF YOU ARE TO SAY THAT WE ARE, INDEED, INVOLVED IN A SORT OF INCLUSIVE MANNER, WE NEED TO HAVE THIS ADDRESSED.
WE NEED TO SAY IN TERMS OF THE ALLOCATION OF THE ROOT ZONE FILES, WE NEED TO ACTUALLY START DISCUSSING THOSE CRITICAL ISSUES.
AGAIN, I THINK THE PREVIOUS COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED THE ISSUE OF THE IPV6 MIGRATION, THE FACT THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, AND PRETTY SOON, SINCE ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT ARE VERY IMMEDIATE.
WE NOTED AGAIN THAT IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, NOT A LOT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, OR WHEN IT HAS BEEN, IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN ENTIRELY IN THE DIRECTION THAT WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WOULD GO.
FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU LOOK AT ISSUES OF ACCESS PROTECTION, WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THESE ATTACH ON SOVEREIGNTY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF COUNTRIES.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE CRITICAL, BECAUSE THEY RAISE QUITE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. 
AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE DIVERGENT VIEWS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, THE WORKING GROUP NEEDS TO ACTUALLY GO DEEPER INTO THEM.
AGAIN, OTHER ISSUES WERE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DISCUSSED ISSUES OF E-COMMERCE.
BUT THEN WHEN WE DISCUSS THESE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HANG ON THE PERIPHERY.
WE DON'T GO INTO THE CRITICAL ASPECTS: SECURITY, PROTECTION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS, YOU KNOW, ISSUES OF THE COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THESE THINGS.
I THINK THOSE, AGAIN, NEED TO BE INTERROGATED.
AND I THINK SYRIA HAS COVERED QUITE A LOT IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION THAT WE NEED TO SEE, WHICH IS THE MAIN ASPECT.
AND WE DO AGREE WITH THEM ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
I THINK I WILL STOP THERE FOR NOW.
THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE AND THEN ALLEN MILLER.
>> BERTRAND DE LE CHAPELLE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
BERTRAND DE LE CHAPELLE FROM WSIS ONLINE, BUT ON A PERSONAL BASIS HERE.
OKAY.
IN ORDER -- JUST A FEW VERY BRIEF COMMENTS.
ON THE THEMES OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIFFERENT ACTORS, THERE IS ONE THING THAT EMERGES CLEARLY HERE. AND THAT COULD BE A WORD THAT WE REGULARLY USE, IS THAT IT IS BASICALLY A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.
IF WE START THE WHOLE APPROACH BY CONSIDERING THAT ALL THE DIFFERENT ACTORS HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT THIS IS THE BASIS OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT, AND THEIR SHARED CONTRIBUTION OR CAPACITY TO CONTRIBUTE, IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT CLEARLY COMES OUT OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THIS GROUP.
THE SECOND POINT IS BUILDING ON THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS POSTED ON THE SITE.
ON EACH ISSUE, THERE ARE A CERTAIN NUMBER OR SEVERAL ENTITIES THAT ARE DEALING WITH EACH GIVEN ISSUE.
AND THIS IS A VERY GOOD CLARIFYING ROLE BY THE WGIG TO HAVE DETAILED SO EXTENSIVELY HOW MANY ENTITIES ARE INVOLVED FOR EACH ISSUE.
IN THE SAME WAY AS THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES DEALING WITH THE GIVEN ISSUE HAVE ALSO A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO DISTRIBUTE AMONG THEMSELVES THE DIFFERENT TASKS TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS THAT THEY HAVE SET FOR THE STABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET.
THE THIRD THING THAT I WANT TO RAISE IS THAT THERE IS AN EMERGING DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY IN SOME PAPERS, INCLUDING IN AN EXTERNAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT, ON THE NOTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT ENTITIES FOR A GIVEN TASK.
IN AS MUCH AS COMPETITION IS HEALTHY, IT IS ALSO USEFUL THAT THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT DEAL WITH THE SAME ISSUE, IT CAN BE DOMAIN NAME ATTRIBUTIONS, BUT IT CAN BE BROADER POLITICAL ISSUES, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT BEYOND THE COMPETITION WHERE ONE ENTITY WANTS TO OUTSMART OR GO FASTER OR QUICKER THAN ANOTHER ONE, THERE IS A CLOSE COORDINATION AMONG THOSE ENTITIES.
AND COORDINATION IS A COLLECTIVE TASK.
THERE IS NO FIELD WHERE COORDINATION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO ONLY ONE SINGLE ENTITY.
IN MOST CASES, ON AN ISSUE-BY-ISSUE BASIS, COORDINATION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AMONG THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT DEAL WITH A GIVEN ISSUE.
SO IT'S A COOPERATIVE MODEL THAT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED.
AND THE NOTION OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD PROBABLY GUIDE MOST OF THE DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES THAT ARE THERE.
IT'S JUST A BRIEF PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: ALLEN.
>>ALLEN MILLER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU DID INDICATE THAT YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN COMMENTS FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
SO I WILL AVAIL MYSELF OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.
AND, IN ACTUALITY, THIS IS REALLY A QUESTION TO A NUMBER OF THE SPEAKERS.
I HAVE HEARD A NUMBER OF THE SPEAKERS INDICATE A SET OF PRINCIPLES THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A GOVERNANCE MECHANISM THAT WAS MULTISTAKEHOLDER AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL.
IN MY MIND, THOSE TWO TERMS ARE IN FACT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, BECAUSE IF A GOVERNANCE MECHANISM IS MULTISTAKEHOLDER, OUR DEFINITION OF THAT IS THAT IT CONTAINS REPRESENTATIVES ON EQUAL FOOTING FROM CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND GOVERNMENTS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL GOVERNING MECHANISM IS ONE OF GOVERNMENTS ONLY.
SO THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD POSE TO THOSE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE IS, IS IN FACT, IN THEIR VIEW, A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE MECHANISM ACCEPTABLE?
OR IS THE ONLY THING THAT THERE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT IS AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL GOVERNANCE MECHANISM?
THANK YOU.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THAT'S A PRECISE QUESTION.
I AM GOING TO TURN -- YOU RAISED THIS ISSUE TO COMMENT ON THIS.
BUT I DO HAVE THE U.S. BEFORE THAT.
THE UNITED STATES.
YES.
SYRIA.
UNITED STATES AND SYRIA.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MY DELEGATION WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE FOR ALL THEIR HARD AND CONTINUING WORK.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ANSWER -- OR REPLY TO SOME EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION OF AMERICAN DOMINANCE IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
I WOULD JUST SAY TO EVERYONE THAT THIS MAY BE THE SITUATION NOW BECAUSE IT'S THE WAY THE INTERNET DEVELOPED IN THE PAST.
AND IT IS A MATTER OF HISTORY RATHER THAN DUE TO ANY KIND OF CONSPIRACY.
AND I WOULD ALSO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE, TO DISCUSS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO NO CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE DRAWN AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THANK YOU.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: SYRIA, THEN INDIA.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT AND RESPOND TO ALLEN MILLER?
>>SYRIA: THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON.
THE QUESTION PUT BY THE EXPERT IS, INDEED, A VERY RELEVANT ONE.
YOU CALLED HIM ALLEN.
I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, ANYWAY.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: ALLEN MILLER.
>>SYRIA: CHAIRPERSON, WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT WILL BE SOLELY INTERGOVERNMENTAL. AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE ITU. AND WE KNOW THAT IN THE ITU, AS FAR AS STANDARDIZATION IS CONCERNED, THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS ALSO INVOLVED, AS DO INTERNATIONAL OPERATORS.
THE DIRECTOR OF STANDARDIZATION IS PRESENT HERE TODAY.
SO THESE OTHER PARTIES TAKE PART IN DECISION-MAKING.
THERE ARE 13 COMMITTEES REVIEWING MATTERS OF STANDARDIZATION.
AND 12 OF THEM ARE CHAIRED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND ONLY ONE BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL SECTOR.
SO WE'RE DRAWING ON THEIR EXPERIENCE.
AND THERE'S NOTHING NEW ABOUT HAVING THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR INVOLVED.
WE RESPECT THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
IT PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE ITU.
WE'VE NOT ASKED FOR AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
WE REFERRED TO PAST EXPERIENCE.
WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THE ITU.
THE ITU IS OPEN TO ALL PARTICIPANTS.
AND THE SAME SHOULD BE THE CASE OF WHATEVER ORGANIZATION WE ENTRUST WITH THE COORDINATION OF THESE ISSUES.
IT HAS TO BE OPEN TO ALL, ON CONDITION THAT DECISIONS ARE TAKEN FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
THE ISSUE OF THE INTERNET AND PUBLIC POLICY CAN ONLY BE DECIDED ONCE YOU HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF GOVERNMENTS.
CHAIRPERSON, WE HAVE NO FIXED VIEWS.
WE HAVE NO PREDEFINED POSITION.
WE DO HAVE A POSITION IN THE ITU, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL HAVE A LOOK AT IT.
SO I WOULD ASK THE SECRETARY GENERAL AND OTHER MEMBERS OF ITU PRESENT HERE TO PROVIDE US WITH SOME ESSENTIAL INFORMATION, SUCH AS WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE ITU.
I WOULD ASK THEM TO TELL YOU SINCE WHEN HAS THE ITU BEEN COOPERATING WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH IT.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: INDIA.
>>INDIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND I WOULD THANK MR. MILLER FOR BEING SO DIRECT IN HIS QUERY.
IT IS OFTENTIMES USEFUL TO BE DIRECT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE OR THE WORKING GROUP IS ENTERING THE LAST LAP OF ITS LONG RACE TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO THE HEADS OF STATE WHEN THEY MEET IN TUNISIA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE INTERNET HAS EXPANDED VERY CONSIDERABLY BEYOND ITS INITIAL BOUNDARIES.
IT IS NOW VIRTUALLY A MICROCOSM OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD IN TERMS OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT IT ENCOMPASSES, AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT JUST AS GOVERNMENTS HAVE A VERY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY ROLE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD, THAT GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ALSO HAVE A VERY LEGITIMATE ROLE IN THE -- ON CERTAIN CRUCIAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE INTERNET.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD APPOINT OR THE GOVERNMENTS COLLECTIVELY, ACTING THROUGH AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, SAY, SHOULD DECIDE ON EVERY MINOR LITTLE DETAIL.
THAT IS NOT HOW THE PHYSICAL WORLD OPERATES, AND THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS HOW THE VIRTUAL WORLD OF THE INTERNET SHOULD OPERATE.
BASICALLY, THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS, WHAT IS GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY?
AND THE ANSWER IS USUALLY QUITE SIMPLE.
GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS ALONE CAN CLAIM TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC. 
ESPECIALLY IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES, WHERE A PUBLIC CONCERN IS INVOLVED, THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEGITIMATELY CLAIM TO ACT AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC.
SO WHILE WE SEE THE GOVERNANCE, THE LARGER GOVERNANCE, AS ONE THAT INVOLVES A WHOLE SET OF ACTORS, ALL OF WHOM HAVE A REAL LEGITIMATE STAKE IN THE INTERNET, THERE WOULD BE ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED COLLECTIVELY BY GOVERNMENTS.
AT THIS POINT OF TIME, THOSE ISSUES ARE DECIDED ESSENTIALLY BY ONE GOVERNMENT.
AND WHILE WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS SO, GIVEN THE GENESIS OF THE INTERNET, IN THE LONG TERM, IT IS CLEARLY NOT DESIRABLE THAT THAT SHOULD REMAIN SO.
NOT EVERY ISSUE REACHES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TODAY.
SIMILARLY, NOT EVERY ISSUE SHOULD REACH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM WHEN THAT IS SET UP IN THE FUTURE.
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE ONE THAT ACCOMMODATES THE VARIOUS VIEWS, VARIOUS POSITIONS, ESPECIALLY WHERE A GREAT DEAL OF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IS REQUIRED.
WE ALREADY HAVE THAT IN ITU.
WE HAVE IT IN OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES AS WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ILO HAS A LONG-ESTABLISHED TRIPARTITE MECHANISM FOR THESE THREE GROUPS OF STAKEHOLDERS.
SO IT SHOULD NOT -- YET IT REMAINS AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
SO WHEN WE SPEAK OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT EXCLUDING THE ROLE FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THAT ORGANIZATION WHERE, CLEARLY, DECISIONS HAVE TO BE TAKEN WHICH TOUCH ON THE LIVES, THE FUNCTIONING, THE ROLES OF PEOPLE IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES. 
IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY, WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS THAT THOSE DECISIONS THAT REACH THAT LEVEL OF NEEDING GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT GO TO JUST ONE GOVERNMENT. AND THAT CANNOT BE A LONG-TERM ARRANGEMENT.
CERTAINLY THE QUESTION -- THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES THAT COME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNET, JUST AS THEY COME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD.
BUT WE WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS MANY OF THESE.
PERHAPS MANY OF THESE WOULD BE ADDRESSED SATISFACTORILY AT THE LEVEL OF EXPERTS.
BUT THEY WOULD BE DECISIONS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN EVENTUALLY BY GOVERNMENTS. AND GOVERNMENTS ALONE CAN TAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, NOW REGARDING THE DNS SYSTEM, ROOT SERVERS, ET CETERA, WHERE THE FINAL SAY IS THAT OF A SINGLE GOVERNMENT.
NOW, THAT'S CLEARLY NOT A HAPPY STATE OF AFFAIRS.
AND WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THAT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE I HAVE THE FLOOR, MAY I SAY THAT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH A VERY USEFUL DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, AND THAT ADDRESSES A LOT OF THE DNS-RELATED ISSUES.
AND WE SEE THAT THERE ARE REFERENCES IN THAT TO U.S. GOVERNMENT ATTITUDES.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE QUESTION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS TO BE ADDRESSED SATISFACTORILY, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CLEARLY SIGN ON TO THAT PROCESS.
BUT WE ARE AT THIS POINT OF TIME EMBARKED IN THAT PROCESS OF TRYING TO BROADEN THE GOVERNMENTAL ROLE WHICH CURRENTLY IS EXERCISED BY ONLY ONE GOVERNMENT.
WE HOPE THAT THIS IS NOT THAT ONE PARAGRAPH -- AND I READ ONE PARAGRAPH FROM SECTION 5.6 OF THAT REPORT WHICH SAYS, "FROM WHAT IS KNOWN OF CURRENT U.S. GOVERNMENT ATTITUDES BOTH IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES, TRANSFER OF DNS STEWARDSHIP TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION IS NOT LIKELY TO BE SUPPORTED NOW OR IN THE NEAR FUTURE, ALTHOUGH SUCH ATTITUDES CAN CHANGE."
WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE LAST PART OF THIS PARAGRAPH, SO THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHANGE IS NOT ALTOGETHER RULED OUT.
AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE WSIS.
THAT IS WHY WE THINK THAT AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS, THERE SHOULD BE A REASONABLE, A CREDIBLE MULTILATERAL APPROACH WHICH ADDRESSES THE CORE ISSUES OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
I HAVE NOW GOT A MEMBER OF OUR WORKING GROUP, LYNDALL SHOPE-MAFOLE, FOLLOWED BY CHINA.
AND THEN MR. ABDULLAH AL-DARRAB.
>> LYNDALL SHOPE-MAFOLE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU INVITED US TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION.
AND I THINK SINCE THEN THERE'S ALSO BEEN A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED BY MR. MILLER, WHICH I ALSO NOTED WHEN THE INPUT WAS MADE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT AS WELL.
I THINK, AS OTHERS HAVE STATED, THE INPUT BY THE E.U. IS INTERESTING.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE PAPER ITSELF DOES SAY THAT THE INPUT IS LIMITED TO INTERNATIONALIZATION.
OBVIOUSLY, THE ISSUE IS MUCH, MUCH BROADER THAN INTERNATIONALIZATION.
IN FACT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARGUE THAT THE MECHANISM THAT EXISTS TODAY IS INTERNATIONALIZED.
SO I THINK THAT THE OTHER ASPECTS WOULD NEED TO BE ADDED TO THAT INTERNATIONALIZATION ASPECT.
NOW, ON THE QUESTION OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL, I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTS WERE MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM SYRIA.
AND I THINK INDIA MADE SOME COMMENTS AS WELL.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE A FAIRLY COMPLEX ISSUE BEFORE US WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN A PROCESS OF HOPEFULLY A PAGE REFORM OF THE U.N. SYSTEM, AS A WHOLE, INCLUDING ITS AGENCIES.
WE HAVE PARTICIPATED IN SEVERAL REFORM PROCESSES WITHIN THE ITU.
AND I THINK THIS ISSUE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FAIRLY AT LENGTH, PERHAPS NOT FULLY SATISFACTORILY.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ADVANCES IN THAT REGARD.
NOW, LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF MAYBE I CAN CALL IT EQUAL PARTICIPATION BY THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IS THE QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY WHICH WAS RAISED BY SOUTH AFRICA.
AND THE QUESTION THAT IS BEFORE US IS ACTUALLY, HOW DO YOU MAKE THE MECHANISM, WHATEVER IT IS, FULLY ACCOUNTABLE WHEN IT IS MULTISTAKEHOLDER?
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE ROLES OR THE MANDATES OR THE POWERS OR THE LEGITIMACY OF THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IS NOT THE SAME.
ON THE ONE HAND, YOU HAVE GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE ELECTED THAT HAVE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN THEIR COUNTRIES.
YOU HAVE THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT COULD BE OWNED BY ONE PERSON OR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT IS ACCOUNTABLE TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS.
AND YOU HAVE CIVIL SOCIETY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO CIVIL SOCIETY IS.
IT DEPENDS ON WHICH PART OF CIVIL SOCIETY.
BUT THERE ARE SOME STAKEHOLDER ACCOUNTABILITIES THERE.
SO I THINK THAT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NATURE OF WHATEVER MECHANISM WE WOULD HAVE WOULD NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, OF COURSE, THIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER ELEMENT.
BUT I THINK THAT FOR IT TO BE LEGITIMATE, IT HAS TO BE ROOTED IN SOME INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM.
AND THIS IS WHY IN THE INPUT WITHIN THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, WHEN MAKING THE INPUT ON BEHALF OF SOUTH AFRICA, WE HAD SAID THAT THE ONLY INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM OR LEGITIMATE MECHANISM THAT WE KNOW THAT REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD IS THE U.N. SYSTEM.
NOW, I SAID THAT WE WERE IN THE -- PERHAPS IT'S EXCITING, BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF THE REFORM OF THE U.N. SYSTEM.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS MECHANISM WOULD HAVE TO BE ROOTED WITHIN THE U.N. SYSTEM IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
IT WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE NORMAL U.N. INTERGOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.
I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I CAN CALL IT EQUAL.
I'M NOT SURE THAT "EQUAL" IS THE RIGHT WORDING FOR THE REASONS THAT I EXPLAINED EARLIER ON.
BUT I THINK THAT IF WE THINK OUT OF THE BOX, AS THE SAYING GOES, IT IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE THAT IS ACTUALLY MULTISTAKEHOLDER, WITHIN WHICH, THEN, THE DIFFERENT ROLES WOULD BE AGREED TO, AND WHICH WOULD -- WHOSE DECISION-MAKING MECHANISM WOULD TAKE -- WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF EACH OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT PARTICIPATES IN THAT MECHANISM.
BUT ALSO WHICH WOULD NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY, THAT THIS IS A SECTOR THAT MOVES QUICKLY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO I THOUGHT THE CHAIR COULD JUST SHARE THOSE FEW NOTES.
THANKS.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
CHINA.
>>CHINA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WGIG DISCUSSED BROADLY AND ACCEPTS THE CURRENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES IN THE LAST STAGE, WHICH BEARS GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IN THAT THE SITUATION AND DEFECTS IN THE CURRENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS CLARIFIED.
HEREBY, CHINA APPRECIATES THE HARD WORK OF THIS WORKING GROUP.
FROM THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT REPORT, WE CAN SEE INTERNET IS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS OPERATION, BUT SHOWS OBVIOUS DEFECTS IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THAT THE POSITION AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED EVEN IN THE DANGER OF BEING MARGINALIZED, RATHER THAN BEING STRENGTHENED. THIS, HOWEVER, GOES AGAINST THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERNET, NAMELY, OPENNESS, FAIRNESS, AND DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM.
CHINA BELIEVES THE CURRENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE SITUATION IS DOMINATED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND A SINGLE COUNTRY.
THIS IS UNJUST AND HARMFUL TO THE LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNET.
WE BELIEVE THAT INTERNET PUBLIC POLICY MAKING SHALL AND SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE AUTHORITATIVE AND LEGAL ENTITIES UNDER THE U.N. FRAMEWORK.
TO THIS END, MULTILATERAL, DEMOCRATIC, AND TRANSPARENT POLICY MAKING AND COORDINATION MECHANISM WILL BE VERY ESSENTIAL.
INTERNET RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF INTERNET PUBLIC POLICIES.
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POLICIES SHOULD BE CONDUCIVE NOT ONLY TO THE SECURITY AND STABLE FUNCTIONING AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNET, AND SAFEGUARDING SOVEREIGNTY AND PUBLIC INTERESTS, BUT ALSO CONDUCIVE TO BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND CREATING FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR GOVERNMENTS TO MORE EFFECTIVELY CRACK DOWN UPON CYBERCRIMES AND DEVELOP A SECURE AND TRUSTWORTHY INTERNET.
TO THIS END, CHINA PROPOSES AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION UNDER THE U.N. FRAMEWORK SHOULD BE ENTRUSTED TO MAKE INTERNET RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND AUTHORIZE CONCRETE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION TO VARIOUS OPERATION BODIES.
MEANWHILE, CHINA ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC-POLICY ASPECTS AS EXAMPLES.
THE CURRENT IP ADDRESS ALLOCATION MECHANISM SHOULD BE IMPROVED, ESPECIALLY TO RESERVE PLENTY OF CONSECUTIVE IP ADDRESS BLOCKS FOR THOSE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHOSE INTERNET STARTS LATE.
BESIDES, DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT MODEL SHOULD ALSO BE REFORMED TO REVERSE THE INCLINATION TOWARDS THE INTERESTS OF PRIVATE SECTOR, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE ADDITION OF NEW GTLD.
THE DISTRIBUTING CONFIGURATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GLOBAL DOMAIN NAME ROOT SERVERS SHOULD BE IMPROVED AS WELL.
IN ADDITION, CAPACITY BUILDING OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SHOULD ALSO BE STRENGTHENED TO BRIDGE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE TO PROMOTE THE ADOPTION OF MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE MULTI- -- SHOULD HAVE MULTIPLE PARTICIPATION. IT SHOULD -- THE GOVERNMENTS OF SOVEREIGN STATES REPRESENTING COMMON INTERESTS OF STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING PRIVATE SECTOR, CIVIL SOCIETY AND MASS INTERNET USERS SHOULD PLAY A LEADING ROLE IN GLOBAL INTERNET POLICY-MAKING, WHILE PRIVATE SECTOR, CIVIL SOCIETY AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY AN ACTIVE AND PROMOTING ROLE IN THIS PROCESS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE POLICY-MAKING SHOULD NOT SURPASS INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, AS POINTED OUT IN ARTICLE 49 OF THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. THE POLICY AUTHORITY FOR INTERNET-RELATED PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IS THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF STATES. THEY HAVE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERNET-RELATED PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.
ON THE ONE HAND, CHINA OPPOSES THE VIEWPOINT THAT A SINGLE-PARTY STAKEHOLDER DOMINATES INTERNET GOVERNANCE WHILE EXCLUDING OTHERS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, CHINA ALSO OPPOSES THE VIEWPOINT THAT THE ROLES OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD NOT BE DIFFERENTIATED, BUT MIXED TOGETHER.
THE SO-CALLED TRILATERALISM HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE REPORT, SINCE IT DEVIATES THE PRINCIPLE FROM ARTICLE 49, MIXING THE ROLES OF ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, DENYING THE DUE RESPONSIBILITY AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET POLICY-MAKING.
ALSO, TRILATERALISM IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY BETWEEN THE DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IS DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT LEVELS WHICH MAY AGGRAVATE THE IMBALANCE AND DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND BROADEN THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.
INTERNET, AS AN IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, SHOULD BRING BENEFITS TO ALL.
WE HOPE THAT THIS WORKING GROUP WILL PUT FORWARD PRACTICAL ACTION PROPOSALS ON REFORMING THE CURRENT INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISM ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT WORK, SO AS TO ENHANCE THE PRESENCE, POSITION AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, ESPECIALLY THE U.N, IN GLOBAL INTERNET POLICY-MAKING, ATTRACT ATTENTION TO THE INTERESTS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND LDCS AND FOSTER THE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY AND PROSPERITY OF THE INTERNET.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: WE'LL HAVE ABDULLAH AL-DARRAB, A MEMBER OF OUR WORKING GROUP.
>>ABDULLAH AL-DARRAB: THANK, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL BE BRIEF. BUT AS YOU ASK THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP TO TAKE PART, THEN I WILL DO SO.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE QUESTION RAISED BY MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, MR. ALLEN MILLER. HE HAD A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION AND GENERALLY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ONLY COME FROM SPECIALIZED EXPERTS.
HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING OR THAT THINGS ARE TOTALLY UNCLEAR. I THINK HE SIMPLY WANTED TO GET OUR OPINIONS. AND WHAT I WANTED TO SAY AS A RESPONSE IS THAT THE ACTION OF THE WORKING GROUP, AS YOU MENTIONED, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT WERE ACCEPTED IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND IN THE WORK PLAN.
SO IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, THERE WAS MENTION OF A SPECIFIC ROLE FOR GOVERNMENTS OR INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHINA MENTIONED THE PART ON THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS FROM THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. THAT DECLARATION AND THE WORK PLAN MENTIONED THE ROLES OF OTHER PARTIES, AND THE WORKING GROUP MUST TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION TO REACH A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO ALL. THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO SAY, AND I THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: IRAN.
>>IRAN: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. MAY I AT THE OUTSET JUST EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR THE GREAT JOB THAT DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE HAS DONE, AND ALSO THANK THE SECRETARIAT FOR THE EXCELLENT JOB THEY HAVE DONE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, FORTUNATELY, THE DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES FROM INDIA, CHINA AND SAUDI ARABIA MADE THE JOB A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR ME, SO I'LL TRY TO GO IN A SKETCHY WAY AND SHORT WAY, JUST TO SAY WHAT I THINK OF THE VERY RECENT QUESTIONS JUST RAISED.
AS REGARDS WITH THE CONCEPTS OF MULTILATERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEMOCRATIC, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT AS MY COLLEAGUES JUST MENTIONED, THE CATEGORIZATION OF FUNCTIONS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY HEADS OF STATES. AND WHEN THEY USED THESE WORDS, THEY REALLY MEANT IT, AND THEY REALLY DIDN'T ASK US TO GO AFTER THEY USED THE WORDS AND TO TRY TO REINTERPRET THE WORDS.
WE ARE NOT HERE REALLY FOR CREATING A NEW CULTURE OF WORDS. THEY ARE INTERNATIONALLY AGREED, AND THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD AS THEY HAVE BEEN USED IN THE U.N. MAJOR CONFERENCES.
THEY ARE A VERY -- I MEAN, WORDS THAT ARE, LET'S SAY, PREVAILING IN THE U.N. MAJOR CONFERENCES, AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS SUCH A GREAT LEEWAY FOR US TO GO THROUGH THESE CONCEPTS AND TO TRY TO REINTERPRET THEM STRUCTURALLY. MAYBE THEN WE WILL COME UP WITH A KIND OF CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION.
WHAT WE NEED HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE SAME, LET'S SAY, IMPRESSION THAT THESE WORDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN GIVING IN INTERNATIONAL FORA AND DOCUMENTS.
SO WHAT IS THE REAL NEED AS FAR AS MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET IS CONCERNED IS, AS FAR AS MY DELEGATION IS CONCERNED, IS TO GO THROUGH THAT PARAGRAPH 49 AS WAS MENTIONED BY COLLEAGUE FROM CHINA, AND I THINK A VERY CLEAR CATEGORIZATION HAS BEEN DONE.
AND MAYBE WE HAVE TO BE VERY MUCH MORE CONCENTRATED ON THE VARIED, I THINK, ACCURATE QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR STATEMENT AND TO GO AND TALK WITH REGARD TO THE ADEQUACY OF THESE MECHANISMS. MAYBE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS VERY CRITICAL QUESTION AND TO SEE HOW WE FEEL WITH REGARD TO THAT -- TO THE QUESTION OF ADEQUACY.
AND AS FAR AS MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM E.U. MENTIONED, NOT EXACTLY, I'M JUST BORROWING HIS WORDS, BUT A PORTION OF HER WORDS THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD UPON EXISTING MECHANISMS. WE ARE NOT REALLY HERE TO CREATE A NEW PHENOMENON.
SO MY HUMBLE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE QUESTION OF ADEQUACY AS YOU MENTIONED, AND NOT TO TRY TO USE A LOT OF TIME ON THE WORDING THAT HEADS OF STATE HAVE ALREADY USED, AND THEY MEANT WHAT THEY SAID WHEN THEY USED IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU, I NOW HAVE HEATHER SHAW FROM THE U.S. COUNCIL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS.
>>HEATHER SHAW: (INAUDIBLE) -- 
>>: MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>>HEATHER SHAW: -- CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. IN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY'S CONSULTATION IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE APPROACH TAKEN BY THE WORKING GROUP TO SEPARATE THE MANY ISSUES RELEVANT TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND TO CLUSTERS.
MANY OF THE INTERVENTIONS MADE THIS MORNING ARE FOCUSING ON ONE PARTICULAR CLUSTER. WE MUST GIVE RECOGNITION TO THE FULL RANGE OF ISSUES AND THE MANY ENTITIES AND MECHANISMS ASSESSES BY THE WORKING GROUP IN THE CURRENT SET OF PAPERS.
WE MUST ALSO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT NEEDS AND ABILITIES OF EACH OF THESE MECHANISMS TO REFLECT THE GENEVA CRITERIA FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU I HAVE BILL DRAKE, A MEMBER OF OUR WORKING GROUP.
>>WILLIAM DRAKE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WAS INTRIGUED BY THE COMMENTS BY THE DELEGATE FROM CHINA WHO POINTED OUT, I THINK QUITE ACCURATELY, THAT THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE GLOBAL NORTH AND THE GLOBAL SOUTH, AND THAT THIS CAN BE PROBLEMATIC.
I CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE THAT THERE IS A NEED TO REALLY ENGAGE IN CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH IN THESE SECTORS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A MUCH MORE BALANCED AND INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A HIGH PRIORITY IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THE REALITY, OF COURSE, IS THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY HAVE BEEN VERY CENTRALLY INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET, IN THE USE OF THE INTERNET, AND IN THE ELABORATION OF ITS VARIOUS APPLICATIONS IN DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SOCIETY. AND THEREFORE, ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE CENTRALLY INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF DECISION-MAKING ABOUT ITS FUTURE CONFIGURATION WHILE RECOGNIZING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENTS FOR PUBLIC POLICY.
SO MY QUESTION, THEN, IS, AS WE THINK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE BY SEVERAL DELEGATES TODAY THAT ONE COULD ENVISION AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION WHICH, NEVERTHELESS, HAS A TRIPARTITE DIMENSION SUCH AS THE ILO.
I WONDER IF WE CAN HEAR FROM THOSE DELEGATES HOW THAT ARRANGEMENT WOULD PROMOTE THE CAPACITY OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH TO ENGAGE EFFECTIVELY IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE DECISION-MAKING RELATIVE TO ANOTHER POSSIBLE CONFIGURATION IN WHICH IT IS NOT GROUNDED IN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FRAMEWORK, PER SE, BUT, RATHER, A TRULY TRIPARTITE AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER MECHANISM.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THESE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONFIGURATIONS HAVE DIFFERENT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES THAT MERIT COMPARATIVE EVALUATION, AND THEIR ABILITY TO PROMOTE THE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY-BUILDING IN THESE AREAS FOR THE GLOBAL SOUTH IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MAIN CRITERIA ONE WOULD WANT TO THINK ABOUT IN MAKING SUCH AN ASSESSMENT.
SO I'D BE VERY CURIOUS TO HEAR ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT POINT.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: LET ME TRY AND BRING -- SINCE I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE -- I DO, I DO. NORWAY.
>>NORWAY: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AS OTHER SPEAKERS, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTRODUCTION THIS MORNING, AND ALSO THE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS MADE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL UTSUMI.
NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO APPRECIATE THE STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION. AS THE E.U, NORWAY BELIEVES THAT INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET'S CORE RESOURCES IS, INDEED, ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES OF THIS DEBATE.
NORWAY HAS STATED BEFORE THAT THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE A SPECIAL ROLE TO PLAY IN FINDING SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE. IN PARTICULAR, IN RELATIONS TO ACCOUNTABILITY, SECURITY, AND STABILITY.
AND AS THE E.U. MENTIONED, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS A NEED FOR NEW MULTILATERAL SOLUTIONS FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
NORWAY'S POSITION, AND THIS WE HAVE REPEATED BEFORE, IS THAT THE U.N. HAS A PARTICULAR ROLE TO PLAY IN THIS REGARD.
WE WOULD, THEREFORE, LOOK FORWARD TO THE WGIG'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REGARD.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: LET ME TRY AND FRAME SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID.
WE ARE GETTING A BIT INTO IT.
FIRST IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION WHICH HAS ARISEN PROVOKED BY MR. ALLEN MILLER'S QUESTION ON WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW A DISTINCTION HERE, WHICH IS IMPLICIT IN WHAT MANY PEOPLE WERE SAYING, BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF A MECHANISM AND HOW THE MECHANISM FUNCTIONS.
IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO HAVE A MECHANISM'S CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS BE INTERGOVERNMENTAL, BUT THE MECHANISM ITSELF INCLUDING OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AS FULL PARTICIPANTS.
THE EXAMPLE WAS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF THE ITU WHERE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODY HAS STANDARDIZED ISSUES WHERE 12 COMMITTEES ARE, IN FACT, CHAIRED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. IT COULD EQUALLY WELL BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. WE HAVE A SITUATION, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A PRIVATE SECTOR MECHANISM WHICH HAS THE ENGAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENTS. AN EXAMPLE THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN ICANN.
SO THERE ARE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE WAY A MECHANISM IS CONSTITUTED AND HOW IT FUNCTIONS.
THE SECOND THING I GET, LISTENING TO EVERYBODY, IS WE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF EVERY SINGLE DECISION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS IT THAT WE FEEL ARE THINGS WHICH ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY WHICH REQUIRE GOVERNMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION AND, THEREFORE, GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL.
AND WHAT ARE THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT OF THAT CHARACTER, WHICH DO NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT. AND THEREFORE, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF LOOKING FOR A SINGLE MINORITY COUNCIL BUT FOR LOOKING FOR A STRUCTURE, WHICH -- A ROLE.
A THIRD POINT WHICH CAME UP A LITTLE LATE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IS WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT A MECHANISM WHICH IS FAIR AND JUST ACROSS ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, WE WILL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CAPACITY OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO PARTICIPATE AS GOVERNMENTS IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ORGANIZED THAN THE CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FORM AS BUSINESS ENTITIES OR AS CIVIL SOCIETY.
THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS A FIXED THING, THIS MATTER WHICH CAN BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF A BROADER PROCESS OF CAPACITY BUILDING, BUT IT'S A POINT WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED WHICH I'M TRYING TO SUMMARIZE.
I THINK ALL OF THESE ARE PRETTY VALUABLE MATTERS WHICH ALLOW US TO EXPLORE AND PROBE THIS FURTHER.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO STRESS THAT I THINK EVERYBODY HERE RECOGNIZES THE CRUCIAL ROLE WHICH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS PLAYED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET, AND RIGHT FROM THE OLD DARPANET STAGE, AND THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF HAS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN LOOKING AT HOW THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE CAN BE IMPROVED.
THERE HAVE BEEN STATEMENTS TO THAT EFFECT AND THE PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCESS IS ITSELF A TESTAMENT TO THEIR INTEREST IN LOOKING AT WHAT COULD BE DONE.
AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE WHAT ALMOST EVERYBODY HAS SORT OF TAKEN AS IMPLICIT IS THAT EVERYBODY IS ESSENTIALLY INTERESTED IN THE POTENTIAL OF THE INTERNET, IN THE CAPACITY OF THE INTERNET TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIALLY ENHANCED SERVICES FOR PEOPLE, IN THE OPENNESS OF THE INTERNET SYSTEM. AND THERE ARE, OF COURSE, OTHER ISSUES WHICH ARE RAISED ABOUT STABILITY, ABOUT SECURITY, ABOUT SAFETY, AS IMPORTANT CRITERIA ALSO.
BUT THESE WERE THINGS WHICH WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO ADDRESS IN ANY MECHANISM THAT WE MAY -- OR OPTION THAT IS WE MAY, AS A WORKING GROUP, COME UP WITH.
THIS IS MY SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE SORT OF GETTING TO IN OUR DISCUSSION.
IT ISN'T CLOSURE. IT ISN'T AS IF IT ENDS UP WITH A FIXED SET OF IDEAS. BUT IT'S A USEFUL FORWARD STEP FROM A RELATIVELY DIAGNOSTIC ATTITUDE THAT WE HAD IN THE FIRST TWO SESSIONS. WE NOW HAVE TO GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF SAYING WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THIS. AND I HOPE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ARE GETTING SOMETHING OUT OF THE THIS. WE STILL HAVE TO DISCUSS THIS OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS.
I HAVE A LADY THERE FROM ONE OF THE EARLY ARCHITECTS INVOLVED IN THE INTERNET. 
MAY I -- MARILYN CADE FROM ITT AND THEN, LATER, SYRIA.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SPOKEN, LIKE OTHERS I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP AND THE CHAIRMAN, MR. KUMMER, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SECRETARIAT, FOR THE HARD WORK AND THE LEADERSHIP THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED.
IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WE ARE, IN FACT, TALKING TODAY ABOUT A DIFFERENT STAGE THAN WE WERE AT THE LAST WGIG MEETING THAT I CAME TO, AND I BOTH APPRECIATE THAT AND ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THE PAPERS.
AS A BUSINESS PERSON, I BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT IT REMAINS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US, AND I NOTE YOUR COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS THAT WE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE. AND THAT IS TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT MORE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, AND THAT INTERNET GOVERNANCE DOES NOT OVERTAKE, ALSO, THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THE INTERNET IS AVAILABLE BY BECOMING SO MUCH A POLITICAL DISCUSSION AND NOT ALSO A PRAGMATIC AND PRACTICAL DISCUSSION.
I FOUND MYSELF INTRIGUED BY THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE I SPOKE BY MANY FROM THE GOVERNMENTS, AND I ALSO NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF, AT THIS STAGE, OUR HONESTLY AND FACTUALLY CONSIDERING THE ADEQUACY OF THE PRESENT MECHANISMS THAT TODAY ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING INVOLVED IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THE WORKING GROUP HAVE IDENTIFIED MANY OF THOSE ENTITIES, BUT I THINK, IN FACT, THAT THERE ARE EVEN MORE WHO PERHAPS HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET. THE ADEQUACY OF EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES IN FULLY MEETING THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY, BROAD PARTICIPATION IN THE OTHER PRINCIPLES THAT WE ALL BELIEVE IN OF COURSE IS NOT UP TO WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE, AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE. THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM, THIS IS A REALITY, BECAUSE OUR CHALLENGES ARE GREATER TODAY THAN THEY WERE WHEN THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WERE CREATED.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING -- AND I URGE THE WORKING GROUP TO LOOK AT EACH OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT IS TODAY INVOLVED IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE OR SEEKS TO TAKE A LARGER ROLE, AND TO LOOK AT HOW THEY NEED TO CHANGE, TO BROADEN PARTICIPATION, TO IMPROVE THEIR TRANSPARENCY.
IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE WILL, I THINK, ADVANCE THE WORK AND PERFORMANCE OF EACH OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. NOT NECESSARILY CREATING NEW ORGANIZATIONS, BUT IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THOSE WHO ARE EXISTENCE TODAY.

>>CHAIRMAN DESAI:SYRIA.
>>SYRIA: THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON.
YOU HAVE PROVIDED A GOOD SUMMARY. YOU RAISED THE IMPORTANT QUESTION, DO WE NEED A NEW ORGANIZATION, AND YOU GAVE EXAMPLES LIKE THE ITU. AND YOUR INDIAN COLLEAGUE REFERRED TO THE ILO.
SO EITHER WE COULD RESORT TO THOSE TWO ORGANIZATIONS, EITHER, OR ELSE WE COULD RESORT TO THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS MORE AN ADVISORY GROUP.
NOW, MY EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME, CHAIRPERSON, TO CONSIDER THE U.S. AS A SOURCE OF I UNDERSTAND OPERATION. AS WE ALL KNOW, THE INTERNET WAS SET UP BY THE U.S. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE.
PEOPLE CLAIM TODAY THAT IT WAS THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BUT I'D LIKE TO CORRECT THAT MISAPPREHENSION. IT WAS THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE IN THE U.S.
SUBSEQUENTLY, CERN TOOK AN INTEREST IN THE ORGANIZATION. CERN STRADDLES THE BORDER BETWEEN FRANCE AND SWITZERLAND, SO WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO THE U.S. FOR DEALING WITH ANY INTERNET POLLUTION -- SPAM, IN OTHER WORDS -- WHICH IS A SCOURGE THAT JEOPARDIZES BOTH THE DEVELOPING AND THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND LEADS TO ENORMOUS FINANCIAL LOSSES AND TO LOSS OF WORK HOURS. BUT AS I SAY, THE U.S. IS CERTAINLY A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.
SO THEY REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UK AND AUSTRALIA IN ORDER TO COMBAT THAT SCOURGE. AND WE KNOW THAT THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT HAS DRAWN UP AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH KOREA ALSO IN ORDER TO COMBAT THAT SCOURGE.
SO WHY SUCH AGREEMENTS, IF CURRENT ORGANIZATION IS EFFECTIVE AND ENABLES SOLUTIONS TO BE FOUND TO THAT SCOURGE?
BUT LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THAT SCOURGE CAN BECOME A DISASTER IF MATTERS ARE NOT DEALT WITH EARLY ENOUGH. 85 PERCENT OF E-MAILS I RECEIVE ARE VIRUS INFECTED.
SO I THINK THAT THAT IS A SITUATION THAT WE MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF.
SO IS THERE A THIRD MODEL THAT WE COULD PROPOSE?
AS I SAID, CHAIRPERSON, WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS WHICH ENABLE UNIVERSAL EASY ACCESS TO INTERNET AT LOW PRICES. THAT IS THE WAY THAT WE CAN MEET PRESENT REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE, BECAUSE WE MUSTN'T FORGET THAT WE NEED TO USE NATIONAL LANGUAGES AND NOT JUST ONE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRPERSON.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: DONALD MACLEAN.
>>DONALD MACLEAN: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW THE EXAMPLES OF ALLEN MILLER AND BILL DRAKE AND PERHAPS TRY TO ASK A QUESTION OR TWO TO THE AUDIENCE TO HELP US -- THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEED TO DEVELOP A WORKING DEFINITION.
MR. UTSUMI HAS REMINDED US OF THE IMPORTANCE.
AND WE HAVE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.
AND I THINK AS YOU YOURSELF SAID, THE APPROACH WE'VE TAKEN HAS BEEN TO EVOLVE THE DEFINITION IN PARALLEL WITH OUR IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES.
AND I THINK YOU CAN SAY THAT WE'VE SORT OF -- WE'RE IMPLICITLY WORKING OUR WAY TOWARDS A RATHER BROAD DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE THAT INCLUDES MORE THAN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CORE RESOURCES.
AND, IN FACT, WE'VE NOW, I GUESS, CLUSTERED THE ISSUES INTO FIVE CATEGORIES, IF YOU TAKE CATEGORY 1A AND 1B AND IDENTIFIED A VERY WIDE RANGE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL, NONGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISMS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE AND ATTEMPTED TO ASSESS THEIR ADEQUACY.
SO I THINK WE ARE WORKING OUR WAY TOWARDS A BROAD DEFINITION OF THE SCOPE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND THE SORTS OF MECHANISMS THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY.
YET IT'S BEEN VERY STRIKING THAT IN THE REACTION TO OUR PAPERS AND IN ALMOST ALL OF THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING, PEOPLE ARE CONCENTRATING REALLY ON ONLY ONE SET OF ISSUES, THOSE RELATED TO THE -- WHAT IS IN OUR SORT OF TAXONOMY, CLUSTER 1B, THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNET, AND THAT THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS ARE REALLY VERY, VERY FOCUSED ON THE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE IN PLACE IN THAT AREA, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE LIKEWISE FOCUSED ON THAT AREA.
SO THE TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE, REALLY, FOR THE AUDIENCE ARE, ONE, IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF THE DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, IS IT ACTUALLY USEFUL FOR US, FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW, TO TRY TO WORK TOWARDS A BROAD DEFINITION OF THE KIND THAT'S IMPLICIT IN THE NOTION OF THE FOUR OR FIVE CLUSTERS THAT RANGES ALL THE WAY FROM UNDERLYING INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH LOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, THROUGH ISSUES LIKE SPAM THAT ARE CLEARLY INTERNET-RELATED, TO BROADER ISSUES LIKE E-COMMERCE THAT HAVE AN INTERNET ASPECT, BUT ARE DEVELOPMENTAL.
THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ANSWERS, IS IT ACTUALLY USEFUL IN HELPING THE WSIS PROCESS TO TAKE THAT BROAD VIEW, OR WOULD PEOPLE REALLY FIND IT MORE USEFUL TO REALLY CONCENTRATE ON A MUCH NARROWER SEGMENT.
SECONDLY, IF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS THAT PEOPLE DO SEE VALUE IN TAKING A BROAD APPROACH, THEN IN TERMS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNANCE OPTIONS, ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DO THOSE WHO SEE THE NEED FOR AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM INVOLVING OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THINK THAT ONE SET OF ARRANGEMENTS AND ONE ORGANIZATION COULD APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD TO SORT OF EVERY ISSUE FROM 1A THROUGH TO 4 IN OUR TAXONOMY?
OR DO THEY SEE THE NEED FOR DIFFERENTIATED MECHANISMS IN EACH OF THE AREAS?
IN OTHER WORDS, SHOULD WE BE WORKING OUR WAY TOWARDS POSSIBLY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS -- GOVERNANCE OPTIONS IN THE AREA OF SPAM AND CYBER SECURITY, IN THE AREA OF E-COMMERCE, IPRS, AND SO FORTH, THAN WE WOULD LOOK AT IN THE AREA OF THE LOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE INTERNET?
OR DO THEY SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF A SINGLE GLOBAL ANSWER, ONE SORT OF ARRANGEMENT, ONE ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD COVER EVERYTHING THAT THE INTERNET TOUCHES?
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: INDIA.
>>INDIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
CHAIR, THE LAST SPEAKER THREW UP SOME VERY USEFUL POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
(INAUDIBLE) THE AUDIENCE OF WHICH WE ARE A PART, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE PRESENT AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL.
IT IS USEFUL, CERTAINLY, AT ONE LEVEL TO HAVE AS COMPREHENSIVE A LISTING OF ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE INTERNET AS YOU HAVE IN THAT LISTING, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT SEVERAL OF THOSE ISSUES MIGHT BE BETTER ADDRESSED BY A DIFFERENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODY OR MIGHT ACTUALLY, FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, BE BETTER ADDRESSED BY A PRIVATE SECTOR GROUP.
NONETHELESS, IT'S USEFUL TO HAVE THAT COMPREHENSIVE LISTING.
AND IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES IN THAT CONTEXT.
HOWEVER, WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THE INTERNET WHICH ARE IN NEED OF CONSIDERATION AT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL LEVEL WHICH HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT CONSIDERATION. AND THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE, SPAM AND NETWORK SECURITY, WHERE GOVERNMENTS WILL NATURALLY HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN COOPERATING BECAUSE THEY COOPERATE AS MORE OR LESS EQUAL PARTNERS, THEY HAVE AN EQUAL STAKE IN IT.
THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, ARISES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ISSUES, LIKE CORE RESOURCES, THE ULTIMATE DECISION ABOUT WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE ALL GOVERNMENTS CAN AT LEAST THEORETICALLY HAVE AN EQUAL SAY.
AND THAT IS THE POINT WHICH WE HAVE TO CONSTANTLY BEAR IN MIND, BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS AT THE ROOT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS WGIG, THAT SOVEREIGN NATIONS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN THE GOVERNANCE OF A GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE WHICH HAS CLEARLY A BEARING ON SOCIETIES EVERYWHERE.
SO JUST AS IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT EVERY ISSUE IN THAT LIST COMES UP DAILY BEFORE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR ONE OF ITS AGENCIES, IT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE THAT ALL THOSE ISSUES WILL COME UP BEFORE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODY.
MOST OF THEM WE EXPECT TO BE RESOLVED BY TECHNICALLY PROFICIENT, QUALIFIED GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO WILL, IN THAT RARE OCCASION WHEN THEY FIND THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT, MOVE IT UP TO THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENTS TO DECIDE THE RESOLUTION OF A PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT BE ESSENTIALLY TECHNICAL BUT WHERE THERE MAY NOT BE AGREEMENT AT THE TECHNICAL LEVEL.
SO IT IS INCORRECT TO IMPLY THAT GOVERNMENTS WOULD BE TAKING DECISIONS ON MOST OF THESE ISSUES.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN THE ITU, I UNDERSTAND, ON A HOST OF TECHNICAL AREAS WHERE THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE FROM A WIDE GROUP OF PEOPLE, OF STAKEHOLDERS, AS THEY ARE CALLED.
AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD NOT FEAR THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS AT THE MULTILATERAL LEVEL IN THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING IT ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS; THEY WOULD BE ADDRESSING IT EXCEPTIONALLY, ONLY IF THE ISSUE FAILS TO BE RESOLVED AT THE TECHNICAL LEVEL, WHICH, AGAIN, WOULD FUNCTION WITHIN THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK, PERHAPS, OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE ILO.
THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE ITU.
I HAD MADE THE REFERENCE TO THE ILO ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SHOULD -- SHOULD -- THERE BE A FEELING THAT YOU NEEDED AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM WHICH WAS REALLY QUITE DIFFERENT, THAN YOU HAVE THE ILO PRECEDENT TO FALL BACK ON, WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ILO MECHANISM.
WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE UNWISE TO CONSIDER A NEW SYSTEM.
WE DO NOT THINK THAT YOU SHOULD SET UP -- WE SHOULD CONSIDER SETTING UP A NEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM.
WE THINK THE ITU, WITH ITS EXISTING MECHANISMS WHICH INVOLVE THE PRIVATE SECTOR, SHOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THAT -- THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
THERE HAVE BEEN REFERENCES TO THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ICANN'S GAC.
IT'S UNCLEAR TO US WHY THAT ROLE IS SEEN TO BE AS ADEQUATE AS FAR AS GOVERNMENTS ARE CONCERNED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A QUASI AUTONOMOUS NGO, ICANN.
BUT THAT, IN A SORT OF MIRROR IMAGE OF THAT, AS IT WERE, WHERE YOU HAVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAVING A ROLE, ALBEIT AN ADVISORY ONE, MUCH AS THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE AN ADVISORY ROLE IN ICANN, WHY THAT WOULD SOMEHOW NOT BE -- NOT BE SATISFACTORY, WHY ONE IS OKAY WHILE THE OTHER IS NOT.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP REFERRED TO THE PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AND WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE VIEWS OF THE MEMBER STATES MIGHT BE ON THIS.
AND I THINK THE SUGGESTION OR THE IMPRESSION CREATED WAS THAT SOMEHOW THE INTERNET WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE OTHER MEDIA THAT HAVE EMERGED OVER MILLENNIA, OR AT LEAST A FEW HUNDRED YEARS.
I THINK SOCIETY HAS CONTINUOUSLY THROWN UP AREAS OF ACTIVITY WHICH HAVE EMERGED IN THEIR OWN PECULIAR WAYS, BUT WHERE GOVERNMENTS RARELY PLAYED A MAJOR PART IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES.
THOUGH IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNET, THE GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PLAYED A CRUCIAL PART.
ACADEMIA PLAYED A CRUCIAL PART.
IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES CAME -- BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR BEGAN TO PLAY A CRUCIAL PART IN THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET.
THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING UNIQUELY DIFFERENT ABOUT THE INTERNET WHICH SORT OF SETS IT APART FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF SOCIETY WHEN DEALING WITH OTHER ISSUES.
ONE CAN THINK OF ANY NUMBER OF SUCH ISSUES.
I'M SURE THE STOCK MARKETS WOULD LOVE TO BE LEFT ENTIRELY TO THEMSELVES WITHOUT ANY SORT OF GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.
THEY COULD HAVE ARGUED THAT WE CAN HANDLE ISSUES WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
BUT WE KNOW OTHERWISE.
THERE ARE MANY -- THERE'S THE PUBLIC WHOSE INTEREST HAS TO BE PROTECTED.
AND THE GOVERNMENT ALONE CAN SPEAK ON -- IN THE NAME OF THE PUBLIC.
AND THAT IS WHY IN ALL COUNTRIES YOU HAVE GOVERNMENTS WHICH HAVE LEGISLATION TO GOVERN STOCK MARKETS, EVEN THOUGH STOCK MARKETS MIGHT HAVE THEIR OWN WAYS OF WORKING, THEIR OWN BYLAWS, ET CETERA.
BUT AT THE TOP, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT MECHANISM IN CASE THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
HOPEFULLY, THAT IS NOT OFTEN REQUIRED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY FUNCTIONING OF STOCK MARKETS.
BUT IT IS THERE; IT'S REASSURING TO KNOW THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM WHICH WILL NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS THIS VERY LARGE THIRD GROUP OF PEOPLE, THE PUBLIC, WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ALSO CRUCIALLY INVOLVED IN THE WAY STOCK MARKETS WORK.
SIMILARLY, THERE IS -- IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNET, HOWEVER, THERE IS AN ADDED DIMENSION.
MOST STOCK MARKETS, AT LEAST IN AN EARLIER ERA, PERHAPS, DID NOT NEED TO WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF IT.
THINGS HAVE, OF COURSE, CHANGED.
BUT THE INTERNET QUINTESSENTIALLY IS GLOBAL.
AND, THEREFORE, WHENEVER YOU TALK OF GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET, WHICH SORT OF TRACKS THE NATIONAL GOVERNANCE THAT YOU HAVE IN THE STOCK MARKET, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GLOBAL MECHANISM, AN INTERNATIONAL MECHANISM, ONE WHERE GOVERNMENTS OF ALL COUNTRIES THAT HAVE A STAKE IN THE INTERNET MUST BE INVOLVED.
SO IN SHORT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING UNIQUELY DIFFERENT ABOUT THE INTERNET THAT DICTATES A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OVERSIGHT MECHANISM AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL COMPARED TO VARIOUS OTHER FIELDS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY, AND THEREFORE IT IS SOMEHOW NOT A SATISFACTORY ARGUMENT TO MAKE THAT "LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE, THAT IT CAN BE MANAGED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR ACTING WITH A SORT OF LOOSE SUPERVISION OF ONE COUNTRY AND THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD, THE GOVERNMENTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES NEED NOT BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE FINAL GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET."
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
I HAVE ILO AND THEN AUSTRALIA.
>> ILO: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I WONDER IF, TO FACILITATE THE ROLE -- THE ROLE OF THE WORKING PARTY, IT MIGHT NOT BE ADVISABLE TO SEPARATE OR DEAL EXCLUSIVELY WITH ISSUES CONCERNING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE INTERNET RATHER THAN DEALING WITH TRADE AND E-COMMERCE.
INDEED, I NOTE IN ONE OF YOUR REPORTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CODES OF CONDUCT OF FAIR TRADE, AND THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF E-COMMERCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
THESE ARE EXTREMELY COMPLEX ISSUES THAT HAVE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF DEBATE.
AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ONE INSTITUTION OR ONE SET OF INSTITUTIONS CAN HANDLE THIS ROLE.
THEREFORE, I WOULD SUGGEST A RATHER MORE RESTRAINED VIEW OF THE ROLE OF GOVERNANCE.
SECONDLY, SIR, IT MIGHT BE WORTH YOUR WHILE EXPLORING MAKING VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OPERATIONAL FROM THE DECISION-MAKING OR POLICY-MAKING ROLES WHEN YOU'RE THINKING OF INSTITUTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
AUSTRALIA.
>>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO MR. MACLEAN'S VERY USEFUL QUESTION, I THINK, IN REGARDS TO OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST IN THIS PROCESS.
I KNOW AUSTRALIA -- IN AUSTRALIA, WE DO HAVE A SENSE THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BECOME VERY CONCERNED WITH ONLY REALLY ONE PARTICULAR CORNER OF WHAT WE MIGHT CALL PART OF THE GLOBAL PICTURE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND WE DO THINK IT WOULD BE A LOST OPPORTUNITY IF THE WORKING GROUP DIDN'T LOOK AT LEAST AT SOME OF THOSE PRESSING CONCERNS WE HAVE.
SYRIA HAS REMINDED US NICELY THAT SPAM IS STILL OUT THERE, AND A VERY PRESSING ISSUE, AS ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES TO DO WITH CONSUMER PROTECTION AND CYBERSECURITY.
I THINK THE NATURAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MR. MACLEAN PUT ABOUT GOVERNANCE PROCESSES IS THAT THESE PROCESSES SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO MEET THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE ARE PRESENTED WITH, THEY SHOULD BE MATCHED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EXISTING PROCESSES, WITH SOME ADAPTATION TO OVERCOME ANY LIMITATIONS IN THOSE PROCESSES.
I THINK THAT ALSO POINTS IN A DIRECTION FOR THE GROUP, WHICH IS, IS TO LOOK AT PRODUCING SOME MORE PRACTICAL, I SUPPOSE, OR IMMEDIATE GAINS FOR THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF TACKLING SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND NOT JUST TO REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE CENTRAL ISSUE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE TODAY OF CORE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THE INTERNET SOCIETY OF CHINA.
>> ISC: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. CHAIRMAN FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I'M FROM INTERNET SOCIETY OF CHINA, AND MY NAME IS LI HSAO.
IN CHINA, WE HAVE ANTISPAM WORK IN CHINA.
CHINA HAS 100 MILLION NETIZENS, AND 90% OF THEM USING THE INTERNET WITH THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SENDING AND RECEIVING E-MAIL TO OTHERS, BUT MORE THAN 60% ARE SPAMS, WHICH SERIOUSLY AFFECTS THE NORMAL INTERNET SERVICES.
AT THE SAME TIME, GLOBAL SPAMMERS COUNTERFEIT CHINESE E-MAIL ADDRESSES OR USE CHINESE MAIL SERVERS TO TRANSFER THEIR JUNK MAILS TO THE WORLD.
SO A LOT OF CHINESE IP ADDRESSES RECEIVE COMPLAINTS OR HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SPAM RESOURCES.
BLACK LIST FILTERING IS THE INTERNATIONAL POPULAR METHOD TO DEAL WITH SPAM, BUT THE WHOLE IP ADDRESS BLOCK MIGHT BE PUT IN THE BLACK LIST IF A SPAMMER IS DETECTED.
THIS IS UNFAIR TO CHINA BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL REASONS.
AND FOR IP ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT, IT IS KNOWN THAT CHINA HAS A SMALL VOLUME OF IP ADDRESS RESOURCES.
MOST NORMAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES WILL BE AFFECTED IF THE WHOLE IP ADDRESS BLOCK IS UNDER SBL.
ALTHOUGH MANY USERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPAM, AND FOR CHINESE MAIL SERVICE MANAGERS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTACT WITH HUNDREDS OF ANTISPAM ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT UNIFORM STANDARDS AND AUTHENTIFICATION RULES.
AS NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS, THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE COMPLAINTS OF CHINESE IPS/ESP CANNOT BE SOLVED, WHICH IS A BROAD, HUGE LOSS TO CHINESE CITIZENS AND ISPS.
SO CHINESE ISP/ESPS HAVE TO BOTH IMPROVE THEIR SERVER MANAGEMENT SERVICE AND LEARN DIFFERENT RULES BY DIFFERENT ANTISPAM ORGANIZATIONS.
AND OUR SOCIETY HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME TO HELP THEM DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM.
CHINESE INTERNET INDUSTRY MAINLY DEALS WITH SPAM BY SELF-DISCIPLINE.
IN RECENT YEARS, ISC AND THE CHINESE ISP/ESP HAVE MADE GREAT EFFORTS ON COUNTERING SPAM SUCCESSFULLY, ESTABLISHING AN ANTISPAM COORDINATION TEAM OF ISPS THAT FORMULATED STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC E-MAIL SERVICE, BUILT UP ANTISPAM MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY STEP BY STEP IN PRACTICE AND PUBLISHED A BLACK LIST OF IP ADDRESSES SENDING SPAM.
AND SINCE THE SECOND HALF OF 1994, THE SPAM PERCENTAGE IN CHINA SHOWED A TREND OF DECREASES, FROM 66.7 TO 61%.
TECHNOLOGY, SELF-DISCIPLINE, AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF ANTISPAM, AND WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION, LEGISLATION, AND POLICY SUPPORT, WE CANNOT SOLVE SPAM PROBLEMS COMPLETELY.
WE CAN'T USE ONLY THE PRACTICE OF SELF-DISCIPLINE.
LEGISLATION, MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ARE ALL IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH THIS. 
ESPECIALLY SOUND LAW IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PUNISH SPAMMERS.
AS A PRINCIPAL PART OF LEGISLATION AND POLICY-MAKING, GOVERNMENT MUST PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ANTISPAM FIELD.
WE HOPE EACH GOVERNMENT CAN PAY ATTENTION TO DEAL WITH SPAM AND TO TRY TO MAKE LAW IN THE PUBLIC POLICY ACTIVELY, SET UP GOVERNMENT COORDINATION MECHANISMS, AND TO DRIVE FORWARD INTERNATIONAL ANTISPAM MECHANISM AND TO PROTECT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS THAT USE INTERNET AND ENTERPRISES IN EACH COUNTRY.
AND E-MAIL IS THE MOST POPULAR SERVICE WHICH CAN SHOW THE INTERNET'S CHARACTERISTICS. 
WE HOPE SOME ENLIGHTENMENT AND HELP COULD BE MADE TO SET UP AN INTERNET GOVERNING MECHANISM, AND THE CHINESE SOCIETY OF INTERNET IS WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU. 
I HAVE SOUTH AFRICA.
>>SOUTH AFRICA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WILL BE VERY BRIEF BECAUSE I THINK THE COLLEAGUE FROM INDIA HAS COVERED MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE POSED.
BUT WHAT I WANTED TO REALLY UNDERSCORE WAS THE FACT THAT, YES, AS THE QUESTION EMANATED FROM THE MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE, WE DO BELIEVE THE LIST IS USEFUL.
AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE ONE OF THE MANDATES OF THE WORKING GROUP WAS TO IDENTIFY PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WHICH MAY SEEM QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT, IN ESSENCE, IT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE AT THE CORE OF THE DISAGREEMENT, IF YOU LIKE.
BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN A SET OF ITEMS WHICH YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU COME FROM, WHETHER YOU ARE A PLAYER IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR OR YOU ARE A PLAYER IN GOVERNMENT, YOU WOULD -- ONE WOULD CONSIDER AS TECHNICAL ASPECTS OR ONE WOULD SAY THESE HAVE A SORT OF PUBLIC-POLICY KIND OF ELEMENT.
AND I THINK THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS.
THE TASK FORCE NEEDS TO ACTUALLY GO INTO THOSE ISSUES WHERE THERE IS SUCH A CONFLICT AND START NOW A PROCESS OF TRYING TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, THAT IS, IF I, FROM A GOVERNMENT POINT OF VIEW, FEEL THAT A CERTAIN ISSUE SUCH AS SPAM OR DNS, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, IS A PUBLIC POLICY POINT OF -- SORT OF ISSUE, WHERE DO I COME FROM WITH THAT?
AND YOU, AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHERE DO YOU COME FROM WITH THAT?
I THINK IF WE DON'T START ACTUALLY GOING INTO THOSE ASPECTS, WE WON'T REALLY MOVE IN A SORT OF POSITIVE WAY.
BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE DELEGATE FROM INDIA SAID THERE ARE AREAS WHERE GOVERNMENT SAYS, "THIS IS MY AREA OF COMPETENCE."
BUT THEN AS A PRIVATE SECTOR, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT I CAN DEAL WITH.
SO AS NOT TO REALLY REPEAT MYSELF, I THINK IF I CAN MAKE THAT PARTICULAR POINT, I THINK THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: THANK YOU.
SYRIA.
>>SYRIA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I ASKED FOR THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION ASKED BY MY FRIEND DON MACLEAN.
MR. MACLEAN ASKED THIS QUESTION, WHEN HE KNOWS AS WELL AS I DO WHAT THE REPLY IS.
HE ASKED WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES IN THE SAME BODY OR WHETHER EACH OF THESE SUBJECTS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY SEPARATE BODIES.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE INDIAN DELEGATE STATED THAT WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW ORGANIZATION.
MOST OF THE ISSUES WE'RE DEALING WITH FALL UNDER TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
AND MOST OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED FOR YEARS WITHIN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR, PARTICULARLY MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE INTERNET, TARIFFS FOR THE INTERNET, AND SO FORTH.
THE QUESTION OF TARIFFS IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED IN THE ITU AND HAS NEVER CAUSED ANY DIFFICULTY.
IF THE CURRENT SITUATION HAD BEEN ACCEPTABLE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED TO SET UP THIS WORKING GROUP AND THE SUMMIT WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED FOR OPINIONS AND PROPOSALS.
UNESCO EXISTS.
IF WE FELT THAT THERE WAS A CULTURAL ISSUE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY UNESCO.
AND IF IT WAS A QUESTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO WIPO.
BUT AFTER ANALYSIS, WE COULD HAVE FOUND SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD HAVE LOOKED FOR A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM WITHOUT ANY NEED TO SET UP A NEW ORGANIZATION.
HERE WE'RE SAYING THAT THE STANDARDIZATION SECTOR IS DEALING WITH ALL ISSUES, OR, RATHER, ALL TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECTION OF INTERNET USERS, ENSURING AUTHENTICATION, SECURITY.
THE WORLD IS MOVING FORWARD, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S NOT REMAINING IN ONE PLACE.
AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SET UP A SINGLE BODY TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS.
WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE STATE OF THE MARKET AND THE CURRENT SITUATION.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INTERNET AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR?
THE INTERNET WAS SET UP BY A GOVERNMENT, AND THEN THERE WAS PARTICIPATION BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
NOW, THE INTERNET IS MANAGED AND THERE'S RESPONSIBILITY BY SEVERAL PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS.
AND NOBODY'S COMPLAINED ABOUT THE ITU'S PARTICIPATION SO FAR.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE CURRENTLY EXISTING ORGANIZATION THAT IS BEST PLACED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.
AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I HAVE BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, FOLLOWED BY A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE ON A PERSONAL BASIS AGAIN.
AND YOU WILL FORGIVE ME FOR TAKING THE FLOOR A SECOND TIME.
I WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT FOLLOWING THE INTERVENTION BY LYNDALL SHOPE-MAFOLE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGITIMACY, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGITIMATE REQUIREMENTS.
OUR DIFFERENT PROCESSES ARE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE TYPES OF DELIVERABLES THAT ARE UNDER DISCUSSION. 
IF IT IS ABOUT SIMPLE COORDINATION OR CONSULTATION MECHANISMS LIKE THE ONE WE ARE IN AT THE MOMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGITIMACY ONLY DEPENDS ON THE CAPACITY TO CONTRIBUTE AND WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE CONSTRUCTIVE.
IF GROUPS ARE ELABORATING VOLUNTARY CODES OF CONDUCT, THE ACCOUNTABILITY IS ONLY FROM THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT PARTICIPATE AND WILL ADOPT THE REGIME TO THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES.
IN THE THIRD CASE WHERE STANDARDS ARE APPLIED OF LARGELY TECHNICAL VALUE, MOSTLY TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, THE ACCOUNTABILITY EXTENDS TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.
AND THE FOURTH LAYER, WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH, WHICH IS THE CASE WHERE A GENERAL REGULATION OR A REGIME WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE, AS THE DELEGATE OF INDIA RIGHTLY FORMULATED, A BEARING ON ALL CITIZENS AND ON ALL OF THE WORLD, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET.
THEN THE QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGITIMACY BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
AND, OF COURSE, IN EACH OF THE DIFFERENT CASES, GOVERNMENTS ARE AN ABSOLUTE LEGITIMATE ROLE AS PARTICIPANTS IN ANY CONSULTATION BECAUSE OF THEIR CAPACITY TO CONTRIBUTE.
BUT I WOULD RAISE A SECOND POINT THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED SO FAR, WHICH IS INTRODUCING THE NOTION OF GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE INTERNET IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED TODAY AS A GLOBAL FACILITY.
AND IT HAS BEEN STATED DURING THE GENEVA SUMMIT AS SUCH.
ITS DEVELOPMENT AND ITS PROPER FUNCTIONING IS IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST.
IT SHOULD ALSO BE MANAGED TO SERVE THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN DECISIONS REGARDING ISSUES THAT HAVE A BEARING ON ALL CITIZENS.
GOVERNMENTS ARE THEREFORE AMONG THE NATURAL STAKEHOLDERS THAT BEAR THE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING THE INTERNET IN THE BEST GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST.
STILL, IF NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DEFINING THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST, NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT PARTICULARLY, IN THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, ACCOUNTABLE TO CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THIS IS THE CORE OF THE DEBATE GOING ON NOW IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT ON SECURITY AND THREATS.
AND THIS QUESTION OF THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE RESPECT, THE NECESSARY RESPECT OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE PURSUIT OF A GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN TERMS OF SECURITY IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE THAT IS FAR FROM BEING SOLVED AND WILL OCCUPY MOST OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.
FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE CASES, VERY NATURALLY, WHERE THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST OF SOME COUNTRIES MIGHT BE AT ODDS. AND IN SUCH CASES, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE THE PREEMINENCE TO THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTERESTS VERSUS THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, BECAUSE IT IS ACCOUNTABLE TO ITS OWN CITIZENS.
AS A CONSEQUENCE, THIS RAISES A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION, BECAUSE FOR THAT REASON GOVERNMENTS ALONE, EVEN IF THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER AND EVEN IF THEY WERE ALL PERFECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR OWN CITIZENS, CANNOT PROBABLY SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH OR DETERMINE WHAT THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST IS WITHOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. AND THIS IS WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING IT HERE. IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, THERE PROBABLY WOULD BE NO REASON FOR SUCH A GROUP AND THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE.
AND SO THE GOVERNMENTS ARE CLEARLY ESSENTIAL ACTORS AND CONTRIBUTORS IN THE DEFINITION OF A GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, BUT PROBABLY NOT ABLE TO DEFINE THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST ALONE WHEN IT IS AT ODDS WITH THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH CAN HAPPEN.
WHICH LEADS TO THE LAST BRIEF OR POINT.
IT COMES FROM THIS REMARK THAT AN ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NATIONAL GOVERNANCE, ONE THAT IS DEFINITELY UPON THEM, IS TO HANDLE THE CASES WHERE THERE'S A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THEIR OBJECTIVE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND A POTENTIAL GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS DETERMINED BY LARGER CONSULTATIONS.
AND IN THE ADOPTION PHASE OF ANY REGIME THAT HAS BEEN ELABORATED OR DISCUSSED WITHIN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORMAT, THE QUESTION IS IF THE REGIME THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED IS LIKELY TO REQUEST A MOVE BY A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR TO IMPOSE A CONSTRAINT ON THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, THEN NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS ARE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ACTORS TO ACCEPT TO MAKE THIS MOVE IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST EVEN IF IT IS AGAINST THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST.
THIS IS WHERE THEIR PROBABLY ULTIMATE AND MOST ESSENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND COMPETENCE LIES.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN THIS FRAMEWORK, UNDER THE NOTION OF GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AMONG ALL STAKEHOLDERS, THERE'S A CLEAR DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN THE THREE STAGES OF AGENDA SETTING, REGIME DRAFTING, AND ADOPTION, THAT WOULD GO ALONG THE LINES OF OUR CHAIRMAN MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WAY THE SYSTEMS WORK AND THE FRAMEWORK IN WHICH THEY ARE USED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: PEIMAN.
>>PEIMAN SEADAT: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS SCREEN MAKES ME VERY NERVOUS BECAUSE IT REGISTERS, SOMEHOW, MY POOR ENGLISH. I'M NOT SURE.
IF YOU ALLOW ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE POINT RAISED BY LYNDALL BEFORE AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AGAINST THE CRITERIA OF LEGITIMACY.
AND I CONCUR WITH HER CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF IF ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF LEGITIMACY. AND IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THAT QUESTION, TO MY MIND, THERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. AND THAT EXAMPLE IS THE FATE OF THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY IN DIFFERENT U.N. DOCUMENTS.
IT IS NOT A POINT OF CRITICISM. IT IS -- I THINK WE'VE ALREADY EMBARKED UPON A SORT OF INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION HERE, SO IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CRITICISM, BUT IT'S GOOD TO SEE AND TO EXAMINE THE FATE OF THAT CONCEPT.
AS FAR AS I RECALL, AND YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'VE BEEN WITH THE U.N. SYSTEM FOR SO MANY YEARS, AND YOU KNOW THAT GOVERNMENTS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL SETTINGS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND TO ESTABLISH THIS TERM IN THE U.N. DOCUMENTS. SOMETIMES IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT AND SOMETIMES IT'S BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TOTALLY.
AND MYSELF, I HAVE ONE EXPERIENCE, AND THAT IS THE WSIS EARLY DRAFTS OF THE FIRST PHASE. AND I WAS THERE, WE WERE TRYING TO INCORPORATE THIS CONCEPT IN THE DOCUMENT, AND WE COULDN'T.
SO BY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST STRENGTHEN THE QUESTION THAT LYNDALL POSED EARLIER THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF THE LEVEL OF LEGITIMACY AMONG DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS. YES, A GOVERNMENT CANNOT REPRESENT AND CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THE INTERESTS OR VIEWS OF CITIZENS OF OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, BUT THE SAME QUESTION APPLIES TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY. SO IT'S A SHARED QUESTION LIKE THE CONCEPT OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.
AND LET ME ADD THAT I WOULD LIKE, AGAIN, TO POSE A QUESTION MYSELF. IF A PRIVATE SECTOR ENTITY IN CHARGE OF GOVERNING OR MANAGING OR ADMINISTRATING THE CORE RESOURCES OF INTERNET, BEING ESTABLISHED IN THE JURISDICTION OF A SINGLE GOVERNMENT OR COUNTRY, BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITIES OF FOLLOWING THE POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THAT SINGLE GOVERNMENT OR COUNTRY, DECIDES ONE DAY TO CLOSE AND TO BLOCK SUCH RESOURCES TO A PART OF THE WORLD, THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
I MEAN, HOW WE CAN TAKE THAT PRIVATE SECTOR OR THAT ENTITY ACCOUNTABLE?
AND BY THAT, I WOULD LIKE ALSO TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL OF LYNDALL IN PROPOSING THAT A U.N. FRAMEWORK, THAT TO ME PROVIDES A SORT OF GLOBAL JURISDICTION, IS THE RIGHT FORUM TO TAKE CARE OF THAT DEFICIENCY. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN THAT ENTITY FOLLOWS A CERTAIN JURISDICTION, AND THAT POSES A PROBLEM.
OR AT LEAST WE NEED TO HAVE OBJECTIVE GUARANTEES THAT AN ENTITY IS ACCOUNTABLE ENOUGH TO ASSURE US THAT THE RESOURCES ARE DISTRIBUTED EQUITABLY AMONG ALL SEGMENTS, BEING CIVIL SOCIETY, PRIVATE SECTORS OR GOVERNMENTS OR CITIZENS.
SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION, AND I JUST WANT TO REFER TO THE FATE OF ONE CONCEPT, WHICH STILL IS NOT A MATURE CONCEPT IN THE U.N. DOCUMENTS, AND THAT IS THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING IT INTO A MATURE STAGE BECAUSE OF THE IMPEDIMENTS AND RESISTANCE OR WHAT YOU WILL CALL IT, WE FACED BEFORE.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: INDIA.
>>INDIA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THIS IS MERELY TO MAKE A SUGGESTION ABOUT HEARING VIEWS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL TO HEAR PEIMAN EXPRESS HIS OWN THINKING ON THE SUBJECT. AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE OF THESE OPEN SESSIONS IS FOR THE EXPERTS TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENTS, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE USEFUL FOR US TO HAVE A SENSE OF THE THINKING OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE, OF COURSE, THAT AT THE END OF IT, THE PRODUCT THAT WOULD EMERGE WOULD HAVE TO BALANCE THESE VARIOUS VIEWPOINTS. BUT IT STILL IS USEFUL, AND WOULD BE USEFUL FOR US, SINCE WE WOULD NOT BE GETTING TOO MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE IN THIS PROCESS.
WE HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE THE REPORT IS FINALIZED AND THREE MONTHS AFTER THAT BEFORE THE NEXT PREPCOM.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO CONSIDER AT LEAST PART OF THE AFTERNOON SESSION TO BE DEVOTED TO THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS SHARING WITH US THEIR THINKING ON SEVERAL ISSUES, BUT AS THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN THE MAJOR CONCERN DOES TEND TO FOCUS ON ONE PART OF THIS LARGE LIST OF ISSUES. SO IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR US TO KNOW THE THINKING OF THE MEMBERS ON THESE QUESTIONS, EVEN WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE EVENTUAL REPORT THAT THE GROUP WOULD PUT TOGETHER WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE BALANCE OF THESE VIEWS AND NOT THESE INDIVIDUAL VIEWS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN DESAI: I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY COMING TOWARDS THE CLOSE OF THE MORNING. AND I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP SPEAK. WE ARE A PRETTY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS ONE THING AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING. THE PAPERS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU NOW ARE NOT SIMPLY VIEWS OF INDIVIDUALS. THEY DO, TO SOME EXTENT, REFLECT A PROCESS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE GROUP, AND MORE THAN THAT, THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE GONE ON WITHIN THE GROUP IN OPEN CONSULTATIONS. THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN, SAY, JUST A PAPER OF VIEWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. THEY DO REPRESENT -- I WOULDN'T SAY AN AGREEMENT OF THE GROUP OR ANY SUCH THING, BUT CERTAINLY MORE THAN SIMPLY THE IDEAS OF ONE INDIVIDUAL OR TWO INDIVIDUALS.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA IF MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WOULD SPEAK UP.
LET ME STRESS THIS, THAT I THINK WE STILL SHOULD BE AT THE STAGE AT WHICH WE UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR RATHER THAN COME UP WITH IMMEDIATE ANSWERS. I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE TODAY IS TO SAY THIS IS THE ANSWER. IF THIS IS THE CASE, WE DON'T EVEN NEED A JUNE MEETING. WE CAN SIGN OFF ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
YOU WOULD SAY THAT BASICALLY WE SHOULD FOCUS OUR ATTENTION, CLEARLY THERE IS AN AREA WHERE THE GOVERNMENTS EXPECT TO BE INVOLVED IN DECISION-MAKING. THERE ARE AREAS WHERE GOVERNMENTS EXPECT TO BE INVOLVED NOT NECESSARILY IN DECISION-MAKING DETAILS, BUT IN TERMS OF SOME OVERSIGHT WHICH GIVES THEM THE ASSURANCE THAT WHOEVER OR WHEREVER THE DECISION IS BEING TAKEN IS BEING TAKEN WITH A GLOBAL INTEREST IN MIND AND THERE ARE AREAS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED TO BE OF A TECHNICAL NATURE WHICH CAN BE LEFT TO SPECIFIC PROCESSES.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT THERE ARE EXISTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AS WELL AS EXISTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE MANAGING THE INTERNET NOW, AND ONE OF THE THINGS, CHALLENGES, IS TO SEE HOW -- WHAT WILL BE DONE, WHERE, WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, AND HOW WILL THAT GET ORCHESTRATED.
THE THIRD THING THAT HAS COME ACROSS IN THESE DISCUSSIONS IS THAT I THINK THERE IS A GENERAL RECOGNITION THAT WHEN PEOPLE SAY GOVERNMENTS MUST BE INVOLVED, NOBODY HAS ARGUED IT IS GOVERNMENTS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYBODY ELSE. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS ACCEPTED THAT IT IS -- THAT WE'RE TALKING IN TERMS OF A MULTISTAKEHOLDER DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM. AND I THINK, REALLY, THE CHALLENGE IS TO SEE HOW ONE CAN CONSTRUCT SOMETHING WHICH RECOGNIZES WHAT EXISTS NOW, HOW IT HAS EVOLVED, WHICH RECOGNIZES THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE DOING SIMILAR WORK IN OTHER AREAS, AND WHOSE CAPACITIES COULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE, WHICH DOES NOT CREATE NEW INSTITUTIONS, NEW MECHANISMS, NEW LEVELS OF DECISION-MAKING, BUT STILL SORT OF REASSURES GOVERNMENTS THAT THEIR CORE INTERESTS ARE BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN SOME FORM.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO RECOGNIZE HERE SOMETHING WHICH WAS MENTIONED, THE FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNET, WE ARE LOOKING AT A CASE WHICH IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE OTHER CASES THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. MOST OF THE TIME WHEN WE TALK OF INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT, WE REALLY ARE TALKING ABOUT COORDINATING NATIONAL MANAGEMENT. MOST OF THE TIME WHAT WE ARE TALKING OF IS THAT IT'S GOVERNMENTS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHO REALLY DO THE LEGISLATION AND THE MANAGEMENT, EVEN OF TELECOM. TELECOM REGULATION IS BASICALLY A NATIONAL ACTIVITY. AND WHAT WE DO AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL IS COORDINATING WHAT GOVERNMENTS ARE GOING TO DO AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
MOST OF THE TIME, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
AND CERTAINLY IN OTHER AREAS IT IS EVEN MORE SO THAT WHAT WE ARE REALLY FOCUSING ON AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL IS COORDINATING WHAT GOVERNMENTS ARE GOING TO DO.
IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNET, YOU ALMOST HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THE NATIONAL REGULATION WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING INTERNATIONAL. SPAM IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. PEOPLE HAVE RAISED IT, AS YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU LIKE IN TERMS OF NATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF SPAM, BUT IT WILL NOT WORK UNLESS THERE IS SOME TYPE OF GLOBAL FRAMEWORK OR MECHANISM. THAT IS THE REASON WHY THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE INTERNET, THE AUTOMATICITY OF CONNECTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD WHICH IS THERE, IMPLICIT AND INHERENT IN THE NATURE OF THE INTERNET, DOES POSE CERTAIN TYPES OF ISSUES.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO RECOGNIZE HOW IT HAS EVOLVED, THE ROLE THAT ACADEMIA HAS PLAYED, THE ROLE THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS PLAYED. IT CANNOT BE IGNORED. THERE ARE AREAS TODAY THAT DO LEAVE REGULATION -- TAKE ACCOUNTING CODES. ALMOST ALL WORK ON ACCOUNTING CODES TODAY IS STILL BEING DONE ESSENTIALLY IN PRIVATE SECTOR MODE. IT DOES POSE A PROBLEM FOR SOME COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY A FEW COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO INTERACT IN THIS MECHANISM AS EFFECTIVELY. I MENTION IT, WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT I AM AWARE OF THE ACCOUNTING CODE SIDE THAT THERE IS A FEELING THAT THE SMALLER COUNTRIES, THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CAN'T ALWAYS PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ACCOUNTING BODIES AND ACCOUNTANCY MANAGEMENT BODIES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHICH ARE WELL ENDOWED, AS WELL RESOURCED TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH GLOBAL PROCESSES. BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT IS A PRIVATE-SECTOR BASED ACTIVITY. AND FRANKLY THAT'S ONE WHERE THIS WILL HAPPEN AND IN THE END IT WILL GET TRANSLATED INTO NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. BUT THE GLOBAL PROCESS IS VERY PRIVATE SECTOR ORIENTED. SO THERE ARE INTERESTING EXAMPLES WHICH EXIST EVERYWHERE, BUT I SENSE THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER. THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS OF MANAGING THIS. IN NO CASE ARE WE THINKING OF SOMETHING MONOLITHIC. IN NO CASE ARE WE THINKING IN TERMS OF TRYING TO DISRUPT WHAT ALREADY EXISTS. WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING WHICH RECOGNIZES THE CONCERNS THAT GOVERNMENTS HAVE.
ONE FINAL REFLECTION HERE, WHICH I WOULD REALLY ADDRESS MORE TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY THAN TO GOVERNMENTS.
HISTORICALLY, THE NET HAS DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF ITS USE IN ACADEMIA; LATER, ITS USE IN BUSINESS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IN MANY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THE CUTTING EDGE OF THE INTERNET IS PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATIONS, THE USE OF THE INTERNET FOR THE PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATIONS, WHICH ARE NOW A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE USE OF THE NET IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THERE IS SOME CONCERN ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENTS ABOUT ISSUES, ABOUT MANAGING THE CORE RESOURCES, ABOUT ITS STABILITY, SECURITY, SAFETY, ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN MANAGING THIS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW VERY DEPENDENT ON THAT PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY AND THAT RESOURCE.
THE SECOND POINT I WOULD MAKE TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY IS THAT HISTORICALLY, THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY MINDFUL OF THE INTERESTS AND CONCERNS OF WHAT IS CALLED THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, TRADITIONALLY, PROCEDURES, ET CETERA, WHICH HAVE BEEN VERY MINDFUL OF THE CONCERNS OF WHAT IS CALLED THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY OF NETIZENS, THE PEOPLE WHO USE THE INTERNET. 
BUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND CITIZENS AS A WHOLE IS BECOMING LESS AND LESS. IT IS INCREASINGLY THE CASE THAT LARGE PARTS OF THE POPULATION ARE, IN FACT, NETIZENS SO THE DISTINCTION THAT, IN FACT, THIS IS THE INTEREST OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, WHEREAS, THIS IS THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS ARTICULATED BY GOVERNMENTS IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE TENUOUS BECAUSE THE TWO SETS ARE OVERLAPPING SO MUCH NOW.
YOU'RE NOT TALKING IN TERMS OF A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, A MINORITY OF PEOPLE IN A COUNTRY USING THE NET. YOU'RE TALKING IN TERMS OF EVERYBODY USING THE NET IN MANY COUNTRIES OR LARGE PORTIONS OF PEOPLE USING THE NET, 100 MILLION PEOPLE NOW ARE ON THE INTERNET IN CHINA. THAT'S NOT A SMALL NUMBER.
SO THE PROCEDURE FOR CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH THE INTEREST, THE VIEWS, AND THE OPINIONS OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND THE PROCEDURES FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST AS ARTICULATED BY GOVERNMENTS CANNOT BE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, INCREASINGLY. AND THEREFORE, I THINK THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS THAT I WOULD URGE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY TO KEEP IN MIND.
SO I THINK WE ARE MOVING SOMEWHERE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EASY TO FIND ANSWERS EITHER IN THE WORKING GROUP OR SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE PREPCOM, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE BASES FOR THIS.
MY SUGGESTION TODAY IN THE AFTERNOON IS THIS. I THINK WE HAVE, TO SOME EXTENT, HAD A GENERAL DISCUSSION. TO SOME EXTENT WE FOCUSED VERY STRONGLY ON WHAT WE, IN OUR GROUPING, WE CALL CLUSTER -- WELL, ACTUALLY CLUSTER 1B HAS BEEN MOST OF THE DISCUSSION. MAY I SUGGEST THAT IN THE AFTERNOON WE DO TWO THINGS. ONE, AS SUGGESTED BY INDIA, MAYBE THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP MAY WISH TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES. 
TWO, WE DO A MORE DETAILED SET OF COMMENTS, IF PEOPLE HAVE DETAILED COMMENTS, ON THE INDIVIDUAL PAPERS. AND THERE'S ALREADY PRESENTED MORE DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PAPERS, IN WRITING AS WELL AS ORALLY, BUT THERE WILL BE OTHERS WHO WILL MAKE MORE DETAILED COMMENTS. 
SO INSTEAD OF GOING OVER THE SAME GROUND, LET'S TRY TO DO THESE TWO THINGS. SOME REFLECTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP ON THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE RAISED WHICH I HAVE TRIED TO SUMMARIZE AND DIRECT, IF YOU LIKE, AND SECOND, MORE DETAILED COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE MAY HAVE ON THE SPECIFIC PAPERS WHICH ARE THERE.
SO IF THAT'S FINE, THEN WE MEET AT 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON, SAME ROOM.
SEE YOU IN THE AFTERNOON.
(CONCLUSION OF MORNING SESSION.)