IGF Session ICANN Meeting San Francisco 14 March 2011 >>BILL GRAHAM: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I think we should get started now on our somewhat shortened Internet Governance Forum workshop here at ICANN 40. I think we've got a good panel for you this morning. I'd like to start by urging people near the back to move forward a bit if you're willing to do that so we can see hands go up and so on. When we get to the discussion period it would be easier. Anyway, this morning's session, I thought we would divide it into two sections. As you heard Rod Beckstrom describe in the opening session this morning, there are a couple of major things going on in the Internet governance environment right now. First is planning for the 2011 Internet Governance Forum, which we now know will be in Kenya in late September. And the second thing is the Commission on Science and Technology for Development Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, which will be trying to define some improvements to the IGF for the 2012 session and beyond. So we're fortunate to have speakers with us this morning who can provide an expert point of view on both these things. We'll start by talking about the progress on the Internet Governance Forum 2011. And we are very fortunate to have with us Chengetai Masango from the IGF secretariat, Alice Munyua, and the honorable Philip (saying name) from the host country, and Ayesha Hassan, from ICC/BASIS. And my thought was to ask Chengetai Masango to provide us with a report on the first open planning meeting for the IGF and the themes for 2011. Chengetai. >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Bill. I'll just start off by saying, as most of you know, I hope all of you know, the IGF's mandate was renewed last year in November by the United Nations General Assembly for a further five years, with the caveat that the CSTD make a working group to discuss its working methods, which we'll discuss in the second section, I suppose. This year, we had our first open consultations and MAG meeting on the 23rd and 24th of February. Usually this also coincides with a looking back on the last meeting. But since last year we had the IGF main meeting in September, we had that taking stock session last year as well. So this year was exclusively related to the 2011 meeting. As you know, Mr. Nitin Desai, the chairman of the MAG, is no longer with the IGF, and also Mr. Markus Kummer, the executive coordinator, left the end of January. And so for this meeting, we had Alice Munyua, who was the moderator of the meeting, and that UNDESA, Mr. Vincenzo Aquaro, and I was representing the secretariat. In concurrence with the IGF's bottom-up process, before the meeting, we had an open call for comments and submissions for a synthesis paper on suggestions on topics and themes for the IGF 2011. And we had this input, which we had 11 papers submitted. And during the course of the two days, we had a discussion on the themes, and after 11 possibilities, the main theme that was chosen was Internet as a catalyst for change, access, development, freedoms, and innovation. That was the overall theme for the IGF 2011. There was also -- we also decided to keep the main subthemes that we had, was emerging issues, critical Internet resources, security, openness, and privacy; access and diversity; taking stock, and the way forward. The MAG decided to keep those themes, as they were. There was also strong interest in setting the scene. And also the regional and national perspective, which were joined into one session, so that the regional and national IGFs could have input into the IGFs at the beginning. The MAG also took up suggestions made in the open consultations that the subtopics in each of the key themes be framed as questions to further strengthen the -- this will also further strengthen the discussion mode of the sessions if we have questions, and then people can discuss these questions. There was also a decision taken to further strengthen the cross- cutting theme of the development agenda and capacity-building. And the MAG recommended that a question be -- in each of the subthemes, that there should be a question on this. Additionally, it was determined that the development agenda should not be -- not only be treated as a cross-cutting theme, but also as a key theme, and that an hour and a half, that's a 90-minute session, should be held on the theme during the first day of the IGF 2011. The schedule was changed a little bit, but I do feel that there is going to be some further changes in the schedule, so I won't dwell on how we configured the schedule. There was also strong emphasis on the feeder workshops, with the main themes or the main sessions would have feeder workshops, as we had last year, but we were trying to make sure that these feeder workshops will take place before the workshops. Last year, I think we had a little bit of problems with timing. And each of the main sessions would be two hours in duration, preceded on the same day with a one- hour roundtable discussion from the feeder workshops. So one person from each of the feeder workshops would come and participate in a roundtable discussion about what was discussed in those feeder workshops and then would have the main session start. So apart from these feeder workshops, there's going to be workshops related to other themes that are of interest for the IGFs. Best practice sessions was also noted, and they said that they were important, and the traditional open forums for organizations such as ICANN can hold to discuss things that they have been doing the past year. There was also a strong commitment made to strengthen remote participation. And each of the workshops would have a remote moderator to bridge the gap between the people listening remotely and get their input put into the meeting itself. And as I said previously, the program paper and the MAG summary report is available on our Web site, on the front page. For the next steps for the preparations for the IGF, we are going to issue a call for workshops, and this will be done probably by the end of this week. So if you are interested in participating and holding a workshop in the IGF, just look out for it, either end of this week or beginning of next week. Probably beginning of next week, knowing how things work. And also, if you feel that -- if you read the program paper and you want to make inputs, we are still accepting inputs. The program paper is a rolling document. So anybody is free to just send an e-mail to igf@unog.ch if you have any inputs that you would like the secretariat and the MAG to consider for the IGF 2011 meeting. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks very much, Chengetai, that sounds like there's quite good progress being made on the planning and some interesting innovations in the format for the meeting. So I think it should be good. Thanks very much. Next, we have from the host country, Kenya, the Honorable Philip Okundi and Alice Munyua, who will talk a little bit about the status of preparation in the host city and some related events. I'll ask Philip to speak a bit first, or Alice, Alice will speak first. Please. >>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much, Bill Graham, and ICANN, for organizing this session. They're usually very important for briefing and informing people on what's going on in terms of preparation. For Kenya, to begin with, we would like to thank you all for all the support we have gotten from all the stakeholder groups in terms of just preparing for this meeting and accepting Kenya to host the meeting, and special thanks to Markus and to Nitin Desai, and to the MAG and all the other stakeholders who have supported the IGF process to date. We also wish to thank all the other -- to thank all of the other countries who have hosted past IGFs and to acknowledge the fact that ours is going to be a challenging one, taking into consideration that there are so many other processes regarding the IGF itself that are ongoing, you know, for example, the CSTD, and also, you know, the state of the IGF secretariat. So Kenya as a country is obviously called upon to do just a little bit more than what the others have been called upon to do. And we are quite grateful and happy to do it, but hope that the situation changes quickly. Having said that, after quite a number of -- you know, quite a challenge, we finally have the date fixed. The IGF is going to take place in September, 27th to 30th, in Nairobi, not at the Kenyatta International Conference Center, as the ICANN meeting, but at the U.N. headquarters, which is near a suburb. And for us, this has come a long way in terms of just hosting the IGF, because as you all know, Kenya has been very instrumental in convening national and regional IGFs at the regional level. We've convened national IGFs in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, continue to do so, which is a building block for the IGF, East African IGF, which has contributed a lot to enabling meaningful participation at the global IGF itself, but also creating a community of practice that seriously begin to look at Internet governance issues from our context and the possibilities of going beyond just talking to see whether the IGF can contribute completely. And that's the -- that's the way we are looking at this year's meeting. We are hoping to leverage and build possible -- and also enrich the 2011 IGF program through a couple of pre-related events. One of them is going to be a youth entrepreneurship and innovation forum. That's going to be looking at young people and how they use the Internet in terms of innovating, and not just the Internet using computers, but more by telephony as well. We are going to have a high-level ministerial conference to continue what we call the African dialogue on the critical role of broadband, as well as wireless devices, as key elements in providing a conduit for new dynamic socioeconomic activities for the region. We are also going to be looking at having a session, a serious session, where we have members of Parliament from the region and from Kenya participating in the process, you know, mentoring young people, engaging with industry, industry stakeholders and civil society, very important. And just creating and re-emphasizing that multistakeholder model, you know, for policy-making and engagement. In terms of logistics, -- that's just the substance, the content, and what we are looking at. And so we are going to be bringing -- we are also going to be facilitating the attendance and participation of youth from the five East African countries, you know, to be part of and -- and also we are currently encouraging our private sector and industry, civil society is quite well represented, but what is lacking is participation of industry. So trying to encourage industry to take a very active part in the IGF itself, as well as, of course, members of parliament and high-level ministers. In terms of logistics, there's -- we are going to be at a suburb called Gigiri, very near the embassies. And there are quite a number of hotels. So we don't have to be in the central business -- just in case there was a panic. I think there was an e-mail going around saying there was only one hotel. No, we have much more than one hotel. That will be taken care of quite ably, because Kenya has last year hosted a U.N. meeting, the UPU, and also hosted the ICANN meeting. I think for now, that's it but for wanting to invite everybody to Kenya to enjoy our country, and also helping us ensure that the IGF does not just come in and go back as any other conference. We want to make sure that there is a certain level of difference in terms of the impact and in terms of meaningful participation of East Africans or people from the Africa region. Thank you. >>PHILIP OKUNDI: Yeah, thank you, Mrs. Chairman. I just wanted to add a little bit to what Alice has said. First, I want to thank Mr. Markus Kummer so much, because he worked very hard to let all of us be aware of the importance of IGF. And also to get the U.N. to agree to the extension of the IGF. In Kenya, together with our colleagues in Eastern African region, we worked over a period of time trying to develop the importance of IGF, particularly to our governments and our legislative branches, whether in parliament or in the local authorities. And as such, we have fairly well developed country IGFs, regional IGFs, because when we meet at home, we meet with parliamentarians. We meet also with public decision-makers, and we discuss the idea of IGF and how to make it be a workable proposition in our governmental practice and public practice. But I think everybody knows that what has been happening of late, the influence of social media, Internet governance, it just shows that the activity of the IGF is very, very crucial to the future of this earth we are in. So I really welcome that it has been agreed that we can host this conference in Nairobi later this year in September. As a matter of fact, it is from 27th to 30th of September. And we welcome all of you, and we hope that it will be a very successful conference. I think this is the first -- going to be the first third-world conference after the extension of the IGF mandate, and we are very, very keen to see that it really succeeds. And we would be very happy if all of you do come. As far as how we take care of our visitors, I think we in Kenya are very familiar with this, and we can offer a lot of facilities. We propose, as Alice has said, to really bring in groups, groups of the school -- community school children, groups of youths, so that they really participate. This happened in Sharm El Sheikh, sometime, to a very good extent where we had groups from the UK from schools who came and participated. And that was a very, very successful event, indeed. We hope that this year we can make it a very big one. In East Africa, we have the East African community of at least five nations who have come together and soon we shall have an East African government. We also expect to have a extension of that by the joining of the Southern Sudan as a new state in the world which becomes a government. And they are going to participate with that very, very extensively. So I think we are looking towards the IGF in Kenya later this year with a lot of interest. So we wish to extend this to you. We wish that you would come and you will enjoy. But if there is anything you need us to address when we are here, we are quite happy to discuss. Thank you very much. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Alice and Philip. We are really quite honored to have the chair of the communications commission of Kenya with us. We really appreciate your taking the time to come all this way and join us here in San Francisco. Our next speaker is Ayesha Hassan from the International Chamber of Commerce/BASIS initiative. Business plays -- of course is one of the major stakeholders in the IGF and plays a prominent role both in the program and in supporting the planning and funding of the event. So Ayesha is going to talk to us about their preparations and perspectives on the development of the 2011 event. Ayesha. >>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you very much, Bill. As Bill said, I am with the International Chamber of Commerce and its BASIS initiative, Business Action to Support the Information Society. The ICC membership and BASIS membership include companies and associations from around the world and across sectors. So through BASIS, we bring in ICC member companies and associations, but also non-ICC associations and organizations, to bring in business expertise and perspective and engagement in the Internet Governance Forum and other post-World Summit on the Information Society activities. So we are very excited about the IGF in Nairobi in September, and we have been actively participating in each IGF and helping, along with the other stakeholder groups, to shape the program each year. And so I'm pleased to hear Chengetai's synopsis of where we are. The February meetings to start shaping the program I think were very effective and the informal Multistakeholder Advisory Group meeting pushed the program preparations further. And I would just note for everybody that there will be another meeting to prepare the IGF in May, and that's a good opportunity for everyone in the community to help shape the program going forward, to get involved, to help identify experts who can guide the discussions in the main sessions, and also to look at the workshops as a real opportunity to showcase the issues that your organizations may be engaged in. So we are pleased to support the overall theme for this year because it really builds on the efforts of the years before and will be a nice umbrella to allow for the many issues that are on the horizon and of importance to stakeholders this year, including the development and capacity-building cross-cutting themes. From our perspective, this has been a really important way for all stakeholders, many of whom would never all come together in any one place, to discuss policy challenges, policy opportunities and choices and exchange best practices on the range of Internet governance issues. So in that respect, the way in which this program is shaping up this year is really going to offer a dynamic opportunity. And the innovation -- Each year, the IGF has shaped things a little bit differently to add some new experimentation with formats and learn from the previous year's main session and workshops and schedules. So the roundtables this year with the feeder workshops will also be a good opportunity. And that's something to think about when people in the community will be putting in their workshop proposals. If you are a feeder workshop connected to one of the main topics, that's going to be a real opportunity for you to showcase some of the dialogue that goes on in your session. From our perspective, the real goal is for everyone who comes to the IGF to go away being more informed so that whichever stakeholder group they are from, they have an opportunity to understand the perspective of others and, in turn, take informed choices as they go out and work on the many issues that get covered at IGFs. We're also very excited about the emerging issues session this year. Each year, the IGF focuses on a set of emerging issues, and this year the focus will be on mobile Internet issues. And what are the differences between the mobile Internet governance issues and wired Internet governance issues, if there are. So please look forward to coming and sharing your expertise on that discussion because it's going to be a cutting-edge discussion, and I think will be an exciting moment. Just a little bit to close about what ICC/BASIS does and what business in general comes to do at the IGF each year. We do participate, as Bill said, in all the preparations, and that's an exciting way for us to use this process to get to know the views and perspectives of other stakeholders on these issues of importance to business. We also do some concrete things, like join with partners. Last year our partner was the government of Kenya, to put in a workshop proposal and have an open forum to showcase some of the business policy work that comes out of ICC's initiatives. This year, we're planning to do, as we do always, organize business briefings each morning which are open to anyone from business who is participating at the IGF, and that's one of the ways in which we help to build some community and links across businesses that are coming to the IGF. We'll also have a booth in the IGF village, which is another part of the IGF that is really important. It creates a place for people to network and share ideas and information. So we also are looking forward to contributing to the pre-events. The IGF itself has been a real catalyst for some very important and helpful pre-events, and this year will be no different. So with that, I would just say for those of you who would like to know more, I am here all week and I am most happy to share with you a bit more about what business is doing at the IGF this year. Thanks. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks very much, Ayesha. I appreciate that. Photograph. Those are our speakers for the first segment on IGF 2011, and I don't want to interrupt for too long, but if anyone has any burning questions they'd like to ask at this point just for clarification, please do. Otherwise, I'd prefer to keep the discussion to a period just at the end. So are there any burning questions out there? I don't see any. Okay. Thanks very much. Is there one there? One at the back there, please. I don't know how the remote mics work here. Maybe come to one at the table, possibly. >>PIERRE DANDJINOU: Thanks. I am Pierre Dandjinou from Benin. I just had one sort of question to Alice and the Kenyan team. We are happy to be in Kenya. I just want to know if there's anywhere you want to have the regional IGF happening in Africa, because I do note there is one happening in West Africa as well in June or July. How the kind of work or recommendation of those IGF can be reflected in your preparations. And also, how you are thinking of actually promoting further participation from the African community at large. And the other sort of question I have is for Ayesha, especially for the promotion of local business in Africa. One of the pieces that we are missing in the IGF forum is the participation from the business sector, especially from Africa. So how are you going to actually promote this? Maybe in conjunction with the Kenyan government. But I see some potential there. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Good questions. Thank you. Alice, would you like to respond? >>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much, yes. A very good question. We are aware that there's been quite a lot of activities in the Africa region, especially around regional IGFs. There's a West African IGF, the East African IGF and southern African IGF all before September. This year the East African IGF is going to be hosted by the Rwandan government. How they come together is a question that the MAG takes very seriously in terms of the role of regional IGFs, and how, then, those contribute concretely to the programming of the IGF. And I think it's a question we have been dealing with I think since the IGF in India. And while last year there was a session on regional IGFs and one roundtable on regional IGFs, I personally, as the convener of the East African IGF, did not feel it was enough or well integrated into the IGF process and programming itself. So I think it's a question I will throw back to the multistakeholder group to think very seriously about how that is going to be done. In terms of encouraging African participation, I think you all know Kenya has been very, very strong and active in just the area of Internet governance, having hosted an ICANN meeting, now IGF. We take it very, very seriously. And especially the multistakeholder model for ICT policy-making. And so we are going to be inviting ministers from all African countries, high-level ministerial, and youth, as many youth as possible to make it an African process. And, you know, the pre-IGFs are actually geared towards that, to begin to encourage a certain level of meaningful participation for African people in these global processes. You can tell quite clearly that we are not -- we haven't been very well represented, and the reasons are many, and not just financial. So it will be an opportunity for us to begin to discuss whether or not we'd want an Africa-wide IGF and for what. What would be the objectives? Thank you. >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would just like to add on the first day we have the Internet governance regional perspectives and setting the scene. That's where regional IGFs can come in and share what they have been doing with the IGF community. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks very much. Any other questions? Because of the lighting in here, it's kind of hard to see so do wave your hand. Here, please. >> Yes, thank you. That's a nice loud microphone. I wanted to follow up on something that Alice and Philip Okundi said about wanting to engage business and other stakeholders in the pre- events. What would you like to -- What kind of support would you like to have from the various stakeholder communities as you plan the pre- events as well as the main event? Thank you. >>ALICE MUNYUA: I think the first and most important is to encourage very active participation in terms that -- lessons learned, sharing experiences. Now speaking as a Kenyan government representative, I would really like to see quite a lot of investment, of course, and a lot of businesses setting up in Kenya. But apart from that, it's, you know, partnerships with our own local industry as well as support in terms of supporting our youth from an entrepreneurial, innovation perspective. And, you know, and also forming strong partnerships with our own local industries. Not just Kenya but the African region generally. >>PHILIP OKUNDI: Yeah, I just want to add, I think, yeah, I support -- actually support this very crucial. As you know, a lot of people in our countries, they are not able to support themselves, these meetings. They are not able to fund themselves for -- particularly civil society, youths, and some small organizations. What we would like is to have a very, very active IGF. We can precis everyone who can manage to come and listen and participate with the others, and to enjoy from the exchange of experiences and knowledge that come right across the globe that come from other people with other idea. And for this reason, we need to attract big participatory forum, and this can only be enabled by various organizations offering to give some form of assistance for people to come to take part in these meetings. This has happened before. What we want to do is to do as much as we can this year with our colleagues whom we meet here. Thank you very much. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thank you. Ayesha wanted to address Pierre Dandjinou's question briefly. Please. >>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you. We are, Pierre, reaching out through our networks, through BASIS association members like WITSA, through the local ISP association in Kenya, and trying to make sure that there will be business people participating in the East Africa IGF event. So those kind of efforts are under way. But I would also certainly welcome any ideas from people and from you about how we could do that better. I think the key for participation from business is raising awareness early so that they can plan to be there and know the benefits of being there. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks, Ayesha. Baher tells me there's a question from a remote participant. I will call this the last question on the first session, and then we'll move forward after this. Baher. >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Bill. A question from Barrack Otino from Nairobi, Kenya. The question is, since the upcoming IGF seems to encourage youth participation, are there adequate arrangements for fellowships for youth from various parts of the world to ensure that the event reflects aspirations of different regions? >>BILL GRAHAM: Alice, would you like to respond to that, please? >>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Thank you for that question. There was a question around what Kenya would expect from industry in terms of support, and I think that's one of the areas that we'd be going back to industry for support in terms of sponsorship packages for young people, both from international industry and local industry, governments and other organizations. We're also going to be seeking for participation of young people in the ministerial forum as well as youth Ambassadors for the IGF itself. So that's the kind of support we are going to be looking for. We can attest that the East African governments and private sector and civil society are quite keen to make sure that young people are able to attend the IGF, but I think what we are going to be looking for is support beyond the East African region for other African countries. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Good. Thank you very much, Ayesha. And, yeah, I forgot to mention at the beginning, this is -- this session obviously is being with Webcast, and so I would encourage remote participants to chime in. Moving to the second segment of the program today, I wanted to take advantage of the expertise on our panel to inform you about the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF. The Commission on Science and Technology for Development is the United Nations agency that received most of the responsibility for monitoring outputs from the World Summit on the Information Society, and they established this working group. Actually, there was quite a bit of excitement around that process during the last ICANN meeting in Cartagena, you may remember. Anyway, this morning we have Wolfgang Kleinwächter from Aarhus University and Oscar Robles-Garay who is CEO of NIC Mexico. Both of them are members of this working group, Wolfgang representing the civil society and Oscar the Internet technical community. And I have asked Ayesha to split her ten minutes that I had allocated to speak here also from the business perspective about that process. So first I'd like to ask Wolfgang Kleinwächter, professor, international communication policy and regulation at the University of Aarhus, to give us a bit of a summation of what's going on in the working group from the perspective of civil society, but also to reflect a bit on the evolution of the multistakeholder engagement model in the post WSIS and particularly IGF context. Wolfgang. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you, Bill. Good morning. Just a very brief background. If you remember, the 2005 summit came out with this idea to have a forum, and this was a compromise. The IGF was a compromise, because different parties could not agree on an oversight model. The only thing they could agree was to create a multistakeholder discussion platform. That's why the mandate for the IGF was limited for five years, to see whether this project, whether this compromise, could work. Not for me, but for some people, surprisingly, it worked very well. And so far, it was rather clear that there should be a continuation. However, for formal reasons, there had to be a debate about the continuation. And this debate already, you know, rein- -- reproduced this traditional conflict which overshadowed the summit in 2005 between two different camps, one camp which believes that at the end of the day, the governments have to take the lead and to decide about the future of the Internet, while the other camp believes that the multistakeholder model is the right answer, where governments are just one stakeholder among others and play a special role in the broader context. When the discussion about the continuation of the IGF started, there was an agreement we should continue, but there was no agreement how to improve the IGF. And even the debate whether the IGF should be further improved or only improved, which means the IGF is good but should be better, or the IGF is not so good and should be now improved, should be changed, became the subject of a discussion. At the end of the day, they split the issue of continuation and improvement into two packages. Continuation was decided, and improvement was then the subject of a debate to create a special working group which should define what improvement is. And here, the next wave started, because in the beginning, in a meeting early December last year, during the Cartagena meeting, the CSTD decided that only governments should have the authority to decide what improvement is. And this produced a wave of protest, and finally, in mid-December, the CSTD made another decision to enhance the group and to bring 15 nongovernmental stakeholder individuals over to this group. This is really remarkable, because, normally, the United Nations never revises a decision. And so far, it's a very interesting sign and a very good signal that the CSTD finally reacted to the bottom-up pressure from the community and included 15 individuals from the technical community, the private sector, and the civil society into this group. But the first meeting took place just three weeks ago in Montreaux in Switzerland. And in the beginning, there was a fear that the nongovernmental representatives in the group will be treated as second-class members of the group. And because it was unclear -- also in the resolution it was unclear what the special status is of these nongovernment members of the CSTD working group, which is an intergovernmental body in the United Nations. But, fortunately, this did not happen. Already the setting of the table was so that you did not see really a big difference where a governmental representative was sitting and where a nongovernmental representative was sitting. And also the discussion was rather fair. All members of the group were treated as equals. And so this paved the way for very constructive discussions. However, it was absolutely clear that this basic conflict between the two camps, the camp which is in favor of a more intergovernmental mechanism, and the other camp, which is more in favor of a more multistakeholder mechanism, is still there. And so we spent the full first day only with procedural questions, you know, how to design the report which will then go to the full meeting of the CSTD and the ECOSOC which will take place in May in Geneva. The outcome so far is that I think nobody challenged the multistakeholder model. But you have different interpretations about the multistakeholder model. There is one group which says, "Okay, we have to listen to the nongovernmental stakeholders, but the final authority, the right to have the last word, is in the hand of the governments." While the other group says, "Okay, multistakeholderism means everybody participates as equal in their respective roles, and the role of civil society, technical community, private sector, and the governments are different, they have different responsibilities, different rights, but they are treated as equals, not in a hierarchy, but in a network." More or less, the conflict here is still the old conflict from the 1990s, and Ira Magaziner this morning spoken about it, whether this will be a traditional hierarchy with the decision-maker on top of the hierarchy, or whether this will be a network where the various partners play their respective role. And this is reflected in the work of this working group. What will be the next steps? The next steps will be that the next meeting, the second meeting of the working group, takes place in ten days already, 23rd, 24th of March, or 24th, 25th of March, in Geneva, and they will answer the questions in a questionnaire. It was sent to all the members of the group, they reflected on the questionnaire. And then the secretariat of the CSTD will summarize the replies and produce a draft of the final report. And the group, then, on Thursday or Friday, the other week, you know, has then to produce the final report, which is a rather challenging task, because I'm not sure whether this will really work, because in such a short time, it's questionable whether there will be -- really reach some progressive results. In particular, if you go to the details, you know, what should be improved. Because there's a long list of things which should be improved, you know, the composition of the MAG, the financing, how the IGF should be organized, whether there should be an output or not an output, whether there should be messages or recommendations, what would be the design of it, you know, should the IGF continue to move from country to country or just have meetings always at the same place, whether it should be combined with the WSIS forum, which is organized by the ITU, this was a proposal by the Russian delegation, to merge these two processes. So there are a lot of different ideas. And it's extremely challenging. And it's very difficult to make any forecast whether this group will really be able to produce a meaningful report within the next ten days. Anyhow, you know, this report will go then to the CSTD meeting in May in Geneva, and will be, then, rubber-stamped by the ECOSOC and goes back to the general committee of the United Nations in November. So that means this will be an ongoing conflict, and it remains to be seen, you know, what will be the concrete outcome. At the end, let me just remember what was done already as a kind of preparatory work for all this by the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was established in 2004, in the World Summit on the Information Society under a rather similar constellation, that the two camps could not agree. And one of the basic things, challenges, mandates for the Working Group on Internet Governance was to define what Internet governance is, because they had different definitions of different groups what Internet governance means. And this definition is really very remarkable, and that's why I want to quote it again, because some people have it -- have already forgotten. And it's only six lines, or four lines. It's Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision- making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. And there are two elements very important in this definition. One is that the three main stakeholder groups -- governments, private sector, and civil society, and in brackets, the technical community -- are treated as equals, but in their respective roles. So this is the network philosophy which is reflected in the definition, not the hierarchy philosophy. So there is no single group which has special privileges in the final decision-making authority. And the other one is the idea of sharing, shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures. So there is no space for a second class. So that one group occupies all the decision-making capacity. The definition which was, by the way, adopted by the heads of state of 190 U.N. member states, probably the heads of state didn't understand what is the design. But they agreed that they will share decision- making capacity with other stakeholders. And I think this is really very important, and it's worth to remember. And whenever you have to defend the IGF, my recommendation is, refer to the Internet governance definition. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Wolfgang. That's interesting and thought provoking. Next, we have Oscar Robles-Garay, CEO of NIC Mexico. He is one of the five representatives of the Internet technical community on the CSTD working group. Oscar. >>OSCAR ROBLES-GARAY: Thank you, Bill. Yeah, as the group of the technical community, we have submitted our recommendations on these IGF improvements. But let me before explain a little bit about this working group. It was agreed by the ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Council, to create this working group and invite the chairman of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development to seek and compile and review recommendations for improvements on the IGF. So that is our mandate. And all this work has to be done in line with the Tunis agenda. So our recommendations should be focused on the long-term review rather than micromanaging a process. We're not to make any recommendations for specific changes in the next IGF, for example. In line with the Tunis agenda, paragraph 73B., it says that this forum, the IGF, has to be subject to periodic review. So that's what we are trying to feed back to this process, a long-term review. So what has been the recommendation of this working group? First, there's nothing that suggests us to have a common view. I mean, we are not required to have a common position. But we tried at the beginning of this effort to see if there was a common one, a common position. And it was easy, because we were following the Tunis agenda principles, the already agreed principles. So we decided to have a formal and common position among this group of five representatives. And one of those principles, already -- some of already mentioned by Wolfgang, are those like multistakeholder principles. It may be subject to interpretation, but most of us agree that it has to be a democratic, open, transparent, equal basis participation. And all of these words have a meaning for us in the last five IGF meetings. It has to be a nondecision-making forum. A nondecision-making process forum. This is -- if you read the Tunis agenda, paragraph 72, specifically, there's nothing that may suggest to you that this is going to be a decision-making forum. It contains words like "to facilitate the discussion," "to facilitate the discourse between stakeholders," to share information about all the interested people in these Internet governance issues. So that's what we are suggesting in this regard, it should remain as a discussion forum. And we think that the IGF has fulfilled its mandate, because it has helped not only to discuss, but to converge some basic principles after the creation of these forums. Other principles that we have come to agree is that it has to be nonduplicative, issues that don't fall within the scope of any existing body. So don't try to assign any other responsibility or task to this IGF other than the discussion process. And regarding the funding, the financial part of the IGF, we also are recommending to keep it multistakeholder, voluntary basis. Because it only -- it also ensures that -- not only that nobody has the power to control the finances of this working group, but also that this voluntary basis funding, it's a mechanism of feedback. Those that feel that this is a relevant forum will be happy to provide the financial support. So this mechanism of voluntary funding acts not only as a funding process, but also as a feedback mechanism. Of course, we have also come to recommend some things, several things. But rather than list them, I will mention just two, which is diversity and inclusiveness, in particular with the developing countries. We've been suggesting that developing countries' participation may be improved and should be improved through different mechanisms, like remote participation and physical presence. So Wolfgang already mentioned some of the next steps in this CSTD Working Group. And next week is the last face-to-face meeting. And then there's going to be a -- supposedly -- we are supposed to have a final report. It hasn't been agreed how this final report is going to be drafted or discussed. But in that final report, it is going to be presented to the CSTD members rather than the working group. And this -- and those members are the ones who are going to take and make the final recommendations for the IGF improvements. So that will be my presentation. Thank you, Bill. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks very much, Oscar. That's really helpful. And I understand the second contribution from the technical community is pretty much done, and it should be posted on the Internet -- Internet Society Web site I hope later today, or tomorrow at the latest, if you're interested in seeing it. >>OSCAR ROBLES-GARAY: Yep. >>BILL GRAHAM: The final speaker in this session is Ayesha Hassan, again, from ICC/BASIS, to speak about the business perspective. >>AYESHA HASSAN: Thanks again, Bill. ICC/BASIS has submitted a response to the working group's questionnaire. So if you're interested in seeing the details, that is on our Web site and is public. From a business perspective, our approach to the improvements of the IGF starts with some of the principles that Oscar also underscored, which is the multistakeholder, on-an-equal-footing nature of the IGF. These founding principles are part of -- are essential to the IGF continuing to provide the benefits that it does to all of us. So in terms of our approach when we've provided some ideas for how the IGF could continue to be improved -- because I'd like to underscore, too, that every single year, the IGF has built on its experiences. So as we go forward, it should always continue to improve. Our perspective is that any improvements need to start from that fundamental starting place of it will not undermine the multistakeholder on-an-equal-footing nature of the IGF and the opportunities that are provided. This would also link to the way the program is developed. That needs to be an inclusive process, open to all. And the IGF needs to remain open to participation of all who are interested, without any kind of constraining accreditation processes, et cetera. Another fundamental is that the IGF secretariat needs to remain independent and we believe based in Geneva, where the experience and many other organizations linked to the Internet governance landscape reside, and that this independent secretariat should be funded through a voluntary contribution mechanism that also recognizes in-kind contributions, which have also been part of how the secretariat has been able to do some of its work. We would say one of the areas of improvement that should be explored in that regard regarding funding for the secretariat is how to increase the funding to enable the secretariat to, for instance, work on the Web site to make it even better and more of an all-inclusive resource or portal for people around the world to tap into. It also -- additional funding for the secretariat would allow it to have additional staff. It has been operating on a very constrained budget and done such a great job. But in the future, a way to improve the secretariat's ability to do its functions would be to increase the funding and in-kind resources. In addition, we've tried to consider what areas would help to be responsive to some of the ideas raised in the community about ways to enhance the IGF. And when you look at the incredible chairman's summary and materials that come out of every IGF and the workshop reports, we would suggest that there be consideration of how best to package that information. How do you make that information more accessible, more interesting for both people who have participated as well as for people who may not be able to participate in person and want to have something that they can rely on to fully capture some of the incredible range of best practices and information that flows at the IGF. We also think that last year, there was a pioneering effort by the secretariat to capture many of the best practice forum reports and information that had been generated there, and that, too, is a nascent effort. And it should be built upon. That would be a very helpful way to respond to many of the calls for concrete information that people can actually take home and use to inform their policy choices and users' choices. So we've also outlined an emphasis on remote participation. This is something that has been building over the years. The hubs last year were really helpful in bringing in people from around the world not only to the main sessions, but to the remote -- I mean, to the workshops as well. And we thought that was a great innovation. So in terms of improving that and creating a responsive opportunity to making the IGF even more inclusive and accessible, we would really suggest that some attention be paid to how we can improve remote participation opportunities for governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders around the world. And lastly, I would just focus on some of the topics. I mean, we've been talking about the importance of development issues. And we would suggest that the working group think about some specific ways in which the development agenda issues can be improved in the IGFs in the future. So with that, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Great. Thank you, Ayesha. And thank you to all the speakers in this panel. We're right up against the lunch break, so I don't want to run too far into that with questions and comments. But, anyways, we've got time for a couple. Baher, I think you have a question from a remote participants. Please. >> Yeah. Thank you, Bill. Another question by Barack Otino (phonetic) from Kenya. And it's directed to Wolfgang. The question reads: Considering that we have the summer school on Internet governance in Germany and Mexico, can we have something similar in Africa? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: It's a good idea, because, you know, reaching out and to train more people in Internet governance is a great idea and need. And I would encourage you to do it to develop like regional IGFs and local IGFs, also regional summer schools and local summer schools. So the big issue, from my five years of experience with summer schools is, it's dependent from your good friends who help to build this. That means you need some sponsors. And probably would be a good idea to approach the -- some bodies, including intergovernmental bodies, which provide developmental aid, and to transfer some of the money which is used for other projects to the field of education and training. And the summer school of Internet governance would be a good investment into the future. So I encourage to move forward, but it needs well-drafted and has to be stable before you start. Otherwise, you risk failure. I would say we are on the right road but still in the light rain. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks, Wolfgang. I see another question here. And please identify yourself when you speak. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you. My name is Olga Cavalli. I am a MAG member and also responsible for the South School of Internet Governance in Latin America. Just a comment -- an answer about the question a minute ago. We are happy to help with ideas and sharing experience in doing this. It's a big task. It's a lot of work. Wolfgang knows very well. He laughs, and I laugh, too. And Mia, (saying names) and Sandra are able to share experience. It's a lot of work, but it's worth the experience and the outcomes. Many new blood has been brought to the IGF and to ICANN meetings after the people participating in these schools. So I think -- I'm available for helping, if needed. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Any other questions in the audience? Here, please. And then over here. >> My name is Mouhamet (saying name) from Yemen. I'm attending ICANN by the fellowship program. Actually, I'd like to know, when some government support IGF and sometime host IGF meeting, but when it comes to the reality and we have some crisis in the country, they start stopping the Internet services for the local community and the Internet Society without taking care of the Internet users' rights. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: I'm going to take the two remaining questions I've got and then ask for comments on all three, I think. Someone over here, please. >>ANDREW MACK: My name is Andrew Mack. And this is a question, I think, for Alice mostly, and for the Kenyan delegation. And that is that we've talked a lot about youth, and we've talked a lot about the private sector. And what I'm wondering is, especially in places like Kenya, what you find is a lot of young entrepreneurs who are very active in this space. And so what I'm wondering is, what -- are there some specific ways that we can target that group? Because oftentimes they require a little bit less support to get there, and at the same time, they're a very dynamic force in the buildout of work on the Web. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Good. Thank you. And the final question from Alvaro over here, please. >>ALVARO GALVANI: Thank you. Alvaro Galvani, Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brazil. I have a question at the end, but just a previous very brief comment. First of all, I was glad to take part in the -- in both meetings, the preparatory meeting for the IGF in Nairobi, and also the working group of the CSTD. Just to make a comment regarding the working group of CSTD, although we had tried to improve the experience that we had in WGIG that was mentioned by Wolfgang before, in a sense, that this working group should be convened in a more open and transparent manner, respecting the diversity of ideas, respecting an equal participation of developing and developed countries, we found that we still didn't reach the good point. We still had a majority participation of people from developed countries. We still had a majority participation of the same ideas. We did not have the -- a comprehensive diversity of ideas. So I think this is important to mention that we are still in an ongoing process. Secondly, I would like to agree with many points made by Wolfgang, but disagree with one of them. That is that the -- the environment of the meeting of the working group was still a conflict between governments and other stakeholders. It was not my perception. It was not the perception of a few others, colleagues. I believe we managed to have clear that there are many, many governments that were present there that are really supporting the multistakeholder environment and engaged in developing it. Just a few examples. We did -- we listened to some contributions like a few developing countries or developing countries feel so far that IGF is a closed club. We should try to create an environment that can allow developing countries to participate in the process of arranging and preparing IGF. And also, for example, the question of funding. Usually people say -- people create some -- people say that sometimes the question of funding jeopardizes IGF, the IGF should be funded only by U.N. or not. I think the main question is not this one. I strongly support that every interested people should contribute to IGF. But I believe that the multistakeholder environment showed the sides together how to spend this money. This is the -- that's the key question. So we have institutional advances to be done during IGF, inside IGF. And that's what this working group in CSTD is seeking to produce, to collect responses, to collect and compile responses in order to make IGF more closer to its mandate, who is in Tunis agenda, as said by the previous speakers. Finally, I have a question regarding this idea of multistakeholder environment. I'd like to ask Wolfgang if he believes that the multistakeholder environment could be built without a strong multilateralism process to support it. Because multistakeholder, I believe governments are part of it. And within the competence of governments, there should be an equal footing for the governments in this competence that does not jeopardize the competence of other participants. So my question is if multistakeholder and multilateralism should coexist or not. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks, Alvaro. I think you're asking for a Ph.D. thesis here instead of a quick answer. We are short of time, so I'll just say there are three questions on the floor, one about the apparent incompatibility of some governments supporting IGF and yet governments using -- restricting access to the Internet for political reasons. A question to the Kenyan hosts about ideas for involving youth in IGF. And then, finally, comments on the role of governments in the multistakeholder process and the compatibility with the intergovernmental processes, multilateral processes. So I'll start down, I guess, Wolfgang, you were most recently referred to. And then I'll give everyone an opportunity to comment. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you for the question. And as Bill has said, this is really a very big question. And I think we have no disagreement, because when I said there are the two camps, that does not mean that the governments are against the nongovernmental stakeholders. Because a lot of governments have realized that multistakeholderism is a good idea. And I was even surprised to hear from the representative of the government of Iran that they admired the contribution from nongovernmental stakeholders to the process. So this is a big step forward if I compare this with the position of this country five or seven years ago. So we have to realize this. However, there are still different interpretations what does it mean in practice. And your last question refers directly to the point. And, you know, my answer to this is -- or I feel inspired in my answer by what Kofi Annan said in the first meeting on the Working Group on Internet Governance meanwhile seven years ago when he said the Internet architecture is such a new innovation, it needs governance, but why then the governance should not be also innovative and not go back to traditional mechanisms. We live in the 21st century, not anymore in the 20th century. That means we have to innovate to create something which then reflects the needs of the people, because also governments have to serve the people. And we have to find a way. And this is not yet written down on paper. So we have to do it, to develop it by just experiments. And the IGF is a very great experiment which has moved us forward in the last five years to a new territory. But this is still an unknown, not really discovered territory. Your very concrete question is -- was, you know, what is the multilateral treaty system, you know, within this environment. And my answer is, certainly, we have to continue with treaties and international law and intergovernmental arrangements. But these intergovernmental relationships have to be embedded in the multistakeholder environment. The procedures for this embeddedment still have to be defined. But I do not say we do not need rules or governmental activities or involvement. I'm in favor, and we are doing this work in the Council of Europe Working Group on Cross-Border Internet, that governments should, among themselves, agree on certain principles and commitments and regulate among themselves what they have to do. But this is not on top of a hierarchy. This is embedded in a multistakeholder environment, that they are part of a network. So I think it's more or less a double strategy. It's not multistakeholderism against multilateralism, though, it's multilateralism embedded in multistakeholderism. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thank you, Wolfgang. I think the seminar can continue out in the hall. Oscar, did you want to comment on any of these? Chengetai? No. Ayesha. >>AYESHA HASSAN: I would just say that I think it's been a really useful opportunity for all stakeholders, governments and business, the technical community, and civil society, over the past years to understand how the opportunities at the IGF give us all a chance to interact, and just that governments have a very important role, but each of the other stakeholders groups do as well. And that's part of the relationship-building and understanding that's gone on over the past years. And I think that keeping the multistakeholder on an equal footing principle intact is critical to allow that kind of network and understanding and relationships to continue to be built. Thanks. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks, Ayesha. And now, Philip or Alice, did you want to have any closing words, particularly on youth involvement, if you -- >>PHILIP OKUNDI: Yeah. Thanks a lot. Mr. Chairman, the question about youth involvement, all along, we ourself in Kenya, we have been targeting the youth. And the youth are very, very enthusiastic in joining these exercises, activities on the Internet, social media. And it is also true that it doesn't cost so much to bring the youth along to participate with us. So, really, they release enormous energy while they find this acceptance to participate them together with us. So that's what we're trying to do, bring the whole region, including inside our own country. So, really, in support in this way, you'll find that there's an overwhelming willingness, an ease by which it can be done, that's really what I can say. I think it's basically a general comment. But the youth has enormous energy to participate. And I think we should encourage that to happen. Thank you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Philip. And on behalf of the Internet Society, I can say we'll be running our IGF ambassadors program again this year to bring young people in to participate. So we'll do our part to support this drive. I think it's really interesting. I'll just -- I'd just like to draw this to a close by thanking, in particular, Baher Esmat, from ICANN for his enthusiasm in organizing this event; to ICANN for accommodating the change of schedule to avoid the GAC-board interactions on Thursday when we were originally scheduled. Thanks very much to the scribes, to all our panelists, and to you in the audience for taking part. Thank you, all. [ Applause ]