ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
LET'S BEGIN.
MY NAME IS PETER DENGATE THRUSH, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE -- OF ICANN'S INTERNET WSIS WORKSHOP ORGANIZING COMMITTEE.
AND I'VE BEEN NOMINATED BY THAT COMMITTEE, WHO ARE ALL SITTING DOWN IN THE FRONT HERE TO ACT AS THE MODERATOR OF THIS SESSION.
I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF INTERNET NEW ZEALAND'S INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE THE ASIA-PACIFIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATION, AND I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.
AND THE WORKSHOP WORKING GROUP HAS NOW ORGANIZED FOUR PREVIOUS SESSIONS.
THIS IS THE FIFTH OF OUR WORKSHOPS.
AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT, WE'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW SOME OF THE PLAYERS.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM IN A FEW MOMENTS.
LET ME INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND UP.
YOU KNOW MOST OF THEM.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM YET.
BUT THEY ARE VITTORIO BERTOLA, IZUMI AIZU, TONY HOLMES, ROSS RADER, LUCY NICHOLS, MARILYN CADE, CHRIS DISSPAIN, MYSELF, AXEL PAWLIK, AND DAVID MAHER.
SO THEY'RE THE PEOPLE TO THANK FOR PUTTING THAT YOU WILL TOGETHER, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, THE CONSTANT SUPPORT FROM THE STAFF.
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FORMAT TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONLY FOUR REASONABLY BRIEF PRESENTATIONS.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION.
PREVIOUS SESSIONS, THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HAD IS THAT COULD WE PLEASE HAVE MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS FROM YOU AND ANSWERS FROM THE PANELISTS.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE, AS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, AND -- QUITE AS MANY PREPARED STATEMENTS OR POSITION STATEMENTS.
SO PLEASE RESPOND TO THAT BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS INTENSE, EXCITING, HISTORIC PROCESS AND ASK THEM THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WONDERING ABOUT.
THE PRESENTATIONS WILL BE BRIEF.
AND SO, PLEASE, COULD THE QUESTIONS BE BRIEF.
AND I WILL TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ANSWERS ARE BRIEF.
THIS IS ICANN, SO IT'S A BOTTOM-UP, TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS.
YOU'VE GOT TO COME UP AND BRING THESE QUESTIONS FORWARD IN THIS TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
TO DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE -- THE USUAL RULES ABOUT MICROPHONES.
SO THERE WILL BE PEOPLE ROVING AROUND WITH MICROPHONES.
GET THEIR ATTENTION.
WHEN YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, JUST QUICKLY, YOUR NAME AND ANY AFFILIATION THAT YOU HAVE IF YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF.
THE SESSIONS, AS USUAL, ARE TRANSCRIBED SO THAT WE HAVE A RECORD, BUT ALSO SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE CAN PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THAT BOTTOM-UP AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S BEGIN.
GIVES ME GREAT PLEASURE TO CALL ON OUR FIRST PRESENTER, WHO'S OUR CHAIRMAN, CEO, AND PRESIDENT, PAUL TWOMEY.
WE GO TO A LOT OF TROUBLE AT ICANN TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE BOTTOM-UP.
BUT WE HAVE NO DIFFICULTY AT ALL WITH ANYTHING TOP-DOWN WHEN IT COMES TO SUPPORT.
AND WE'VE HAD LOTS OF TOP-DOWN SUPPORT FROM THE CEO.
SO I THANK YOU, PAUL.
YOUR PRESENTATION.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, PETER.
CAN I FIRST OF ALL SAY THANKS SO MUCH AGAIN TO THE ICANN WORKING GROUP ON WSIS FOR CONVENING THIS MEETING.
IT'S THE FIFTH MEETING.
AND I MIGHT JUST, I THINK, MAKE SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS BEFORE PASSING ON TO OUR SPECIAL GUESTS AND THEN, AS YOU POINT OUT QUITE RIGHTLY, FURTHERING THE DIALOGUE.
I THINK OBSERVATIONS I'D MAKE IS, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S BEEN INCREDIBLY VALUABLE TO HAVE BOTH THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMPONENTS OF ICANN HELPING PUT TOGETHER SUCH A FORUM AND HELPING HAVING CONTINUOUS DISCUSSION FORUM.
I THINK IT'S ALSO BEEN VERY GRACIOUS, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND MY SAYING SO, FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVES, PRETTY SMART, FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE WGIG, WSIS, TO ENGAGE THIS COMMUNITY IN THOSE PROCESSES, BOTH IN THESE SORTS OF MEETINGS AND I KNOW MANY OF YOU INTERACT WITH THE LEADERSHIP IN OTHER ASPECTS AS WELL, MEETINGS IN GENEVA AND ELSEWHERE.
I THINK IT'S ALLOWED A GREAT EDUCATIONAL ASPECT.
I RECALL, NITIN, YOU AND I RAN INTO EACH OTHER IN MARCH LAST YEAR IN NEW YORK, AND YOU MADE THE OBSERVATION TO ME THAT 90% OF U.N. PROCESSES IS NORMALLY ABOUT EDUCATION.
AND YOU MAY WANT TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT STATEMENT.
BUT I REMEMBER IT CLEARLY.
AND I DO THINK THERE'S BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS THAT'S TAKEN PLACE WITH THE WORKING GROUP, WITH THE PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELVES, AND WITH THIS COMMUNITY ABOUT SHARING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS PART OF THAT COMMUNICATION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING, IN THE U.N. CONTEXT, IN THE TRADITIONAL CONTEXTS OF DISCUSSION, THERE IS GOVERNMENTS, THERE IS PRIVATE SECTOR, THERE'S CIVIL SOCIETY.
THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND THE ICANN INSTITUTIONS ARE ALL OF THOSE THINGS PLUS IN ONE.
WE DON'T FIT VERY NEATLY INTO A U.N. MODEL OF THE WORLD, BECAUSE IN SOME RESPECTS -- LET ME EXAGGERATE AND SIMPLIFY AS THEY SAY AT THE ECONOMISTS, THE SUBEDITORS -- TO A DEGREE, WE ARE WHERE SOME PEOPLE IN THE U.N. WOULD LIKE TO GET TO.
THAT SOUNDS A BIT ARROGANT, BUT THERE IS -- THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION IN PARTS OF THE U.N. ABOUT WHAT'S RELEVANT.
AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SECRETARY GENERAL'S PROGRAM, I'M TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE MORE ACADEMIC STUFF.
BUT ICANN IN SOME RESPECTS IS A MODEL THAT HAS MOVED TOWARDS THAT TRYING TO INCORPORATE A WAY FOR DIFFERENT SECTORS IN DIFFERENT -- AND DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF A MULTIFACETED PROBLEM TO COME TOGETHER, TO BE HEARD, TO HAVE SOME BALANCE AND INTERACTION.
AND IN THE WAYS I USED TO THINK ABOUT IT WHEN I WAS IN GOVERNMENT, THE PEOPLE WHO CREATE THE PROBLEM SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
NOT THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY OUGHT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM TRY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
IT'S VERY INTERESTING.
SORT OF DIFFERENT DYNAMIC.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN A GOOD EDUCATIONAL PROCESS BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS.
I PARTICULARLY ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT NITIN, IN PARTICULAR, YOU HAVE DONE, AND MARKUS, AND FRANK MARSH, WHO'S IN THE ROOM FROM THE SECRETARIAT.
AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
AND I'M DOING THIS BEFORE THE RELEASE OF YOUR REPORT NEXT WEEK.
BUT I WANT TO PUT THIS ON RECORD.
WE THINK THAT'S BEEN A MARVELOUS PIECE OF EFFORT AND INITIATIVE ON YOUR PART.
MY FINAL OBSERVATION, I SUPPOSE -- AND THIS IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF THE VERY POINT I MADE TO BEGIN WITH -- ICANN IS THIS UNIQUE INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL.
IT COMES OUT OF A SET OF VALUES THAT EMERGED THROUGH THE INTERNET.
THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY WHICH ARE VERY SIMILAR: THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES, THE IETF, THE IAB HAVE SIMILAR SORT OF VALUES AND WORK IN SIMILAR SORTS OF WAYS.
BUT AN ADDITIONAL ASPECT OF ICANN IS THAT IT HAS ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED, TALKING TO EACH OTHER AND STRUCTURED IN A WAY SUCH THAT THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A CONSENSUS APPROACH FOR TAKING FORWARD, IF I CAN -- IN GOVERNMENTAL SENSES, WHAT IS TECHNICAL POLICY.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY ON IS, AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE NEXT STAGES OF WSIS AND AS WE GO TO THIS PROCESS, WGIG HAS BEEN VERY MULTISTAKEHOLDER.
THAT'S BEEN, I THINK, AN INTERESTING AND VERY -- I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT'S UNIQUE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY PART OF AN INNOVATION IN THE U.N. CONTEXT OF TRYING TO HAVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER GROUPS BEING OPENED FOR INPUT.
WE'RE NOW MOVING INTO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE GO BACK TO MORE TRADITIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATION PROCESSES, WHICH IS GOING TO REQUIRE CERTAIN CHALLENGES FOR THOSE INTERACTING WITH THEM.
AND PART OF WHAT -- PART OF THE CHALLENGE THE NEXT SIX MONTHS FOR WE AS A COMMUNITY IS WE TAKE OUR BOTTOM-UP, WE TAKE OUR MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACHES AS SORT OF TRUTH, GOOD, LIGHT AND SOMETHING WE FIGHT ABOUT ALL THE TIME.
AND THAT'S VERY APPROPRIATE.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE INTO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE WILL ALSO BE INTERACTING IN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROCESS WHICH HAS ITS EXISTING RULES, IT HAS ITS WELL-ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, IT HAS ITS WAYS FOR DOING THINGS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CLASH OF IDEAS TAKING PLACE IN A CLASH OF PROCESS AND PROCEDURES.
AND SO FOR US AS A COMMUNITY, AND I SUPPOSE CERTAINLY AS A -- PETER SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT CERTAIN EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS SAYING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT THERE, BUT IT WAS APPROPRIATELY AMBIGUOUS, I SUSPECT, CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ET CETERA, WE'RE GOING TO FIND OURSELVES IN AN INTERESTING SITUATION OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OF HAVING TO TRY TO BE AN INTERFACE BETWEEN TWO CULTURES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FINAL COMMENT AND WELCOME TO AMBASSADOR MASSOUD KHAN.
HE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PAKISTAN TO THE U.N. IN GENEVA.
AND AS I THINK JANIS KARKLINS WILL POINT OUT, THE AMBASSADOR IS PLAYING A KEY ROLE CHAIRING ONE OF THE KEY SUBCOMMITTEES.
BUT I'LL LET JANIS TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.
AMBASSADOR, WELCOME.
FINALLY, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE OF THE DIALOGUE.
AND, UNFORTUNATELY, I WILL HAVE TO LEAVE AND LOOK AFTER SOME OTHER THINGS DURING THE SESSION.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, PAUL.
IT GIVES ME PLEASURE NOW TO CALL ON NITIN DESAI, WHO'S THE SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL AND CHAIR OF THE WGIG.
NITIN, WHO IS KNOWN TO MANY OF US, HE HAS PRESENTED AT OUR WORKSHOPS BEFORE.
GRATEFUL TO HAVE HIM AGAIN.
HE HAS BEEN PERSONALLY ASKED BY KOFI ANNAN, THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, TO ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP AND IS NOW POISED AT AN HISTORIC POINT WITH THE RELEASE OF THE REPORT IMMINENT.
SO, NITIN, LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU.

>>NITIN DESAI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.
LET ME BEGIN BY THANKING THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
I HAVE THANKED THE LEADERSHIP OF ICANN, THE -- PAUL, VINT CERF, PAUL TWOMEY, THERESA SWINEHART, FOR THE STRONG SUPPORT THEY GAVE THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP.
I HAVE ALSO THANKED THE BOARD.
BUT I THINK IT'S THE BROADER, LARGER ICANN COMMUNITY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK.
I THINK THE CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAD WITH ICANN MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO THE WORK OF THE GROUP.
I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS SAID.
A LITTLE LATER, MARKUS WILL GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION ON WHAT THE REPORT -- THE REPORT IS NOT YET OUT.
BUT WE HAVE FOLLOWED A VERY OPEN PROCESS OF CONSULTATION IN PREPARING THE REPORT.
THE REASON THE REPORT IS NOT OUT IS, QUITE SIMPLY, IT IS A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL AND IT IS THE U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL WHO IS TO DECIDE WHEN IT BECOMES A PUBLIC REPORT.
OUR HOPE IS THAT IT WILL BE DONE EITHER LATER TODAY OR BY TOMORROW IN NEW YORK.
AND SO IT WILL -- SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO YOU, I HOPE, BEFORE THE -- YOUR MEETING ENDS HERE.
BUT, IN ANY CASE, IT WILL BE AVAILABLE BEFORE NEXT MONDAY.
SO MARKUS IS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE REPORT IS ALL ABOUT.
I THOUGHT I'D JUST FOCUS MORE ON THE BROADER POLITICS OF THE EXERCISE THAT WE ARE UNDERTAKING.
THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT, AS PAUL SAID, THAT IN MANY WAYS, THE CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS REALLY A NEW TYPE OF GOVERNANCE.
THE INTERNET ITSELF HAS DEVELOPED IN A MANNER VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY MANY OTHER INFRASTRUCTURES HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE WORLD.
AND IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT HAS BEEN POSED BOTH AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL AS WELL AS AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL.
IN SOME WAYS, THE WAY THE WORKING GROUP FUNCTIONED WAS A RESPONSE TO THIS CHALLENGE.
WHEN WE STARTED THAT GROUP, AND I HAD TO CHAIR THIS GROUP OF 40 PEOPLE FROM VERY DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS WITH OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES OF VIEWS, I WAS, FRANKLY, APPREHENSIVE.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WAS THIS DEMAND THAT NOT ONLY SHOULD THESE 40 PEOPLE AGREE, BUT THEY SHOULD AGREE IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW.
I ONCE DESCRIBED IT A BIT LIKE LOUIS THE XIV USED TO FUNCTION, HE EVEN USED TO BATHE IN PUBLIC.
SO EVERYTHING HAD TO BE DONE IN AN ABSOLUTELY OPEN FASHION WITH FULL CONSULTATIONS, OPEN MEETINGS, EVERYBODY HAVING ACCESS TO ALL PAPERS AND EVERYTHING.
I WAS APPREHENSIVE.
BUT IT WORKED.
IT WORKED.
AND I THINK THE REASON IT WORKED IS PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WAS OPEN.
AND I THINK THAT OPENNESS IS THE REAL MESSAGE THAT -- THE POLITICAL MESSAGE THAT I TAKE AWAY FROM THIS GROUP.
THE ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED OUT OF THIS PROCESS IS THAT IF WE WANT TO MANAGE THIS, WE MUST PRESERVE THE OPENNESS.
WE MUST PRESERVE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER CHARACTER.
WE MUST PRESERVE A NONTHREATENING SPACE FOR DIALOGUE.
THESE ARE THE THINGS WHICH I BELIEVE THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS SUCCEEDED IN DOING.
AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY I BELIEVE, IN THE END, WE HAVE COME OUT WITH THE REPORT, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT, YOU WILL BE SURPRISED THAT THE GREATER PART OF IT IS AN AGREED REPORT.
THERE'S THIS ONE AREA ON THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION, AS MARKUS WILL LATER PRESENT TO YOU, THE GROUP MEMBERS DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE VIEW AND HAVE PRESENTED FOUR OPTIONS.
BUT ON EVERYTHING ELSE, IT'S AN AGREED REPORT.
IN OTHER WORDS THING, WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS, THERE WERE SOME WHO SAW THIS AS A WORKING GROUP WHICH IS ABOUT ICANN.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE LISTING OF THE PRIORITY PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES, I SEE THAT MAYBE 70, 80% OF THAT IS NOT ICANN-RELATED AT ALL.
WHAT THE GROUP HAS DONE IS TRULY IDENTIFY ISSUES WHICH ARE OF BROAD PUBLIC CONCERN AND WHICH THEREFORE REQUIRES A FORM OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN RESOLVING THEM.
SO THAT'S THE OTHER GREAT DIFFERENCE THAT HAS COME OUT OR HAPPENED OVER THE COURSE OF THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP.
IN MANY WAYS, WHEN WE -- BY THE TIME WE ENDED THE WORKING GROUP, A CLEAR DISTINCTION WAS MADE BETWEEN WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS THE POLITICAL FUNCTION OF POLICY DIALOGUE AS PROVIDING A SPACE WHERE ALL THOSE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE DECISIONS TAKEN HAVE A SPACE WHERE THEY CAN SPEAK ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS AND PRESENT THEIR IDEAS ON RESOLVING THEM.
BUT WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A SPACE WHICH IS DECISION-MAKING.
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL THE POLICY DIALOGUE SPACE.
THE SECOND WAS THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION.
THE FUNCTION OF WHERE IS THE ULTIMATE OVERSIGHT EXERCISED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNET.
THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THE REPORT PRESENTS OPTIONS RATHER THAN ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL.
AND THE THIRD IS THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION, THE TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF THE INTERNET.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED OVER THE COURSE OF THE WORKING GROUP WAS A CLEAR RECOGNITION THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT THIRD AREA AT ALL.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE INTERNET, ITS OPERATIONAL ASPECTS, BUT THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE POLICY -- PUBLIC POLICY -- A SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC POLICY DIALOGUE, AND WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ISSUES OF OVERSIGHT AS THEY ARE EXERCISED TODAY.
AND MARKUS WILL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS WHICH HAVE OUT THERE IN THE REPORT.
LET ME JUST CONCLUDE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A BROADER PERSPECTIVE ON WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT YOU, AS AN INTERNET COMMUNITY, MUST IN SOME SENSE ASK YOURSELF WHAT IS IT THAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING IN TERMS OF INTERNET MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE PAST.
WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE TREMENDOUS ROLE THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED BY THE INTERNET PIONEERS, THE ROLE THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS WONDERFUL MEDIUM.
I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON IS WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE LIKE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING OURSELVES IS, WHAT IS IT THAT I NEED WHICH WILL BE HELPFUL FIVE YEARS FROM NOW?
THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION.
BECAUSE, FRANKLY, WE DON'T KNOW.
IF WE HAD SET UP THIS WORKING GROUP IN THE YEAR 2000, MAYBE A LITTLE EARLIER, IN THE MIDST OF THE DOT COM BOOM, YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COME OUT WITH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF ANSWERS.
SO ONE LESSON I'VE CERTAINLY GOTTEN OUT OF THIS IS, BE FLEXIBLE.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE HANDLING FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, SO, FOR GOSH SAKE, BE FLEXIBLE.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD URGE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS: THAT THE NATURE OF THIS THING -- OF THIS MEDIUM HAS CHANGED.
YOU HAVE A BILLION INTERNET USERS OUT THERE.
IT IS AN INCREASINGLY CENTRAL PART OF BUSINESS, OF MEDIA, OF GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
AND, THEREFORE, THERE'S INCREASING CONCERN ABOUT ITS STABILITY, ABOUT ITS SECURITY, ABOUT ITS SAFETY, ABOUT ITS RELIABILITY.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS INCREASING MORE AND MORE.
REMEMBER ALSO THAT THE GREATER PART OF THE GROWTH OF THE INTERNET, LOOKING AHEAD, NOW, IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, IN COUNTRIES WHERE ENGLISH IS NOT THE FIRST LANGUAGE, OR EVEN THE SECOND LANGUAGE.
AND I THINK ALL OF THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND.
AND, IN A SENSE, YOU NEED A SPACE WHERE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT -- AND I DO NOT THINK THE INTERNET COMMUNITY CAN BE CONVENIENTLY GROUPED UNDER "PRIVATE SECTOR" OR "NGOS," OR "ACADEMIA."
IT'S A MIXTURE OF ALL OF THESE THINGS, THAT THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, THE COMMERCIAL INTERESTS OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THE PEOPLE WHOSE PRIMARY CONCERNS ARE THOSE OF THE USERS, PEOPLE WHOSE CONCERNS ARE ABOUT ISSUES LIKE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE MAJOR USERS OF THIS, NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER'S CONCERNS MUCH BETTER AND MUCH MORE FULLY.
AND THAT, I THINK, IS THE POLITICAL CHALLENGE THAT THE INTERNET FACES TODAY.
YOU ARE ON THE CUSP.
THE NATURE OF THIS THING IS CHANGING VERY RAPIDLY.
AND I THINK THE CHALLENGE FOR YOU, AS THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THIS MEDIUM AND WHO ARE TODAY SO INVOLVED IN ENSURING THAT IT IS RUN WELL, IS TO SEE HOW ARE YOU GOING TO COPE WITH THESE CHANGES WHICH ARE CLEARLY UNDERWAY, AND YET PRESERVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WHICH IMPRISONS US IN SOMETHING WHICH PROVES TO BE IRRELEVANT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
THESE ARE SOME OF MY BROADER POLITICAL REFLECTIONS.
AND I LOOK FORWARD AS WE SUGGESTED TO AN INTERACTION WITH YOU, BECAUSE WE ARE AT THE VERY EARLY STAGE, AND I HOPE AMBASSADOR KARKLINS WILL TELL US A LITTLE BIT HOW WE TAKE THE STORY ON FROM THIS POINT TO THE POINT AFTER HIS DECISIONS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE TUNIS SUMMIT IN NOVEMBER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: NITIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
AS WE'VE BEEN COVERING, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP REPORT, PRODUCED BY THE WGIG.
AND WE'RE GOING TO COME, WITH MARKUS KUMMER, WHEN HE FOLLOWS THE AMBASSADOR, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REPORT.
BUT WHAT WE NOW PRESENT IS AMBASSADOR KARKLINS, WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE PREP-COM AT THE WSIS.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW TO THIS REPORT IS THAT IT GOES BACK INTO THE USUAL PROCESSES OF THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, AND AMBASSADOR JANIS KARKLINS HAS THE AWESOME JOB OF MANAGING ALL OF THAT PREP-COM PROCESS, INCLUDING THE ABSORPTION BACK INTO IT OF THE WGIG REPORT.
SO, AMBASSADOR, WELCOME.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING HOW THIS PART OF THE PROCESS IS GOING TO UNFOLD.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: GOOD MORNING. YOU PROBABLY NOTICE THAT NITIN WAS SMILING AT THE END OF HIS PRESENTATION, AND I KNOW WHY HE WAS SMILING, BECAUSE HE TOLD ME ONCE, BECAUSE HE KNOWS TO WHOM TO PASS THE BUCKET.
AND SO THAT'S THE PREPCOM.
I WILL, AS PETER SAID, I WILL TRY TO CONCENTRATE MORE ON PROCEDURAL ASPECTS BECAUSE THAT -- I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT WOULD BE MY DUTY TO GO INTO SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THAT IS UP TO MEMBER STATES AND OBSERVERS TO ENGAGE IN NEGOTIATION -- DISCUSSION NEGOTIATION PROCESS.
BUT FROM A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW, THE REPORT OF WGIG WILL BE FORMALLY LAUNCHED NEXT MONDAY, ON JULY 18TH, IN GENEVA IN PALAIS DES NATIONS ON THE GROUNDS OF UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION IN EUROPE IN PUBLIC SESSION, AND AFTER THAT THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL CEASE TO EXIST BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCOMPLISHED ITS FUNCTION.
THE SECOND PREPCOM TOOK A DECISION THAT AFTER THE FORMAL PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT, WHICH WILL FOLLOW BY EXCHANGE, PRELIMINARY EXCHANGE, OF VIEWS IN THAT PUBLIC SESSION I REFERRED TO, THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS UNTIL AUGUST 15TH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE REPORT. AND THESE WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE PUBLISHED ON WSIS WEB SITE. AND AFTER THAT, IT WILL BE COMPILED IN A DOCUMENT WHICH, TOGETHER WITH THE WGIG REPORT AND THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT, WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THIRD PREPCOM AS A PREPCOM DOCUMENT.
AND FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON FINANCIAL MECHANISMS, THE REPORT WILL SERVE AS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT OF REFERENCE DURING INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS, WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE IN GENEVA IN THIRD PREPCOM FROM SEPTEMBER 19TH TO SEPTEMBER 30.
SECOND PREPCOM ALSO DECIDED THAT NO OTHER FORMAL INTERSESSIONAL ACTIVITIES WOULD TAKE PLACE, BUT THAT DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ON ALL LEVELS, ON BILATERAL LEVEL, ON MULTILATERAL LEVEL, ON THE ISSUES RELATED TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND THE JULY 18TH EVENT ALSO SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A PART OF THIS INFORMAL CONSULTATION PROCESS WHICH THEN WILL LEAD US TO THE THIRD PREPCOM.
THIRD PREPCOM, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, IT IS -- THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL NOT BE THE ONLY ISSUE WE WILL ADDRESS DURING THIRD PREPCOM. IT WILL BE ONE OF FOUR ISSUES. ANOTHER THREE, I WILL JUST LIST THEM. THEY WILL BE THE POLITICAL CHAPEAU ISSUES RELATED TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FLOW, GOOD GOVERNANCE ISSUES, AND AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF INFORMATION SOCIETY ON A NON-POLICY LEVEL.
SO THESE WOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN WE WILL NEGOTIATE POLITICAL CHAPEAU.
THEN ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF GENEVA PLAN OF ACTION AND FOLLOW-UP TO WSIS PROCESS AFTER TUNIS SUMMIT WILL BE ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE TO DISCUSS TO ENSURE WE WOULD CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ALL AGREEMENTS WE TOOK IN GENEVA AND WILL TAKE IN TUNIS WOULD NOT REMAIN ONLY ON PAPER BUT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN LIFE AND WOULD BENEFIT ALL PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.
AND THE THIRD ISSUE IS A COUPLE OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS RELATED TO FINANCIAL MECHANISMS BECAUSE WE WERE VERY LUCKY AND WE FOUND THE AGREEMENT ON OUTSTANDING POLITICAL ISSUE ON DIGITAL SOLIDARITY FUND DURING SECOND PREPCOM, AND THIS ISSUE IS NOW OFF THE TABLE.
THE DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS IN THIRD PREPCOM ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL TAKE PLACE IN SUBCOMMITTEE. AND THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL BE ADDRESSING EXCLUSIVELY INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES AND WILL BE CHAIRED BY A PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF PAKISTAN TO U.N. AND GENEVA, AMBASSADOR MASSOUD KHAN WHO IS HERE IN THE ROOM WITH US AND CERTAINLY WILL BE VERY WILLING TO CAPTURE THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE MEETING AND THE SENTIMENTS OF ICANN COMMUNITY ON ISSUES WE WILL BE DISCUSSING.
USUALLY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC UNLESS SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDES OTHERWISE. IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE CASE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS WOULD BE CLOSED. SO THEREFORE, ALL STAKEHOLDERS ACCREDITED TO THE PROCESS WILL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW DISCUSSIONS OF -- OF -- IN SUBCOMMITTEE AS WELL AS WILL BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE AND TO MAKE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN IN A PROPORTION WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ALREADY THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. IT IS TO SAY EVERY DAY, 45 MINUTES IN TOTAL WILL BE DEVOTED TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS FOR -- TO LISTEN THEIR VIEWS AND ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES, ALL STAKEHOLDERS WILL BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS EVERY SECOND DAY DURING 45 MINUTES.
AND I THINK THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NATURE OF WSIS WITH PARTICIPATION OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, CIVIL SOCIETY, PRIVATE SECTOR AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE VOICE OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ARE KNOWN AND THEIR PRESENCE IS VISIBLE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE TO USE THAT OPPORTUNITY WHICH EXISTS AND NOT TO MISS IT AND TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN OUR WORK.
WHERE I FIND THE MOST DIFFICULT CHALLENGE FOR THE PROCESS, IT IS TO FIND THE ANSWER TO A DYNAMIC EQUATION.
I SEE INTERNET AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM WHICH NEEDS DYNAMIC GOVERNANCE AND WHICH NEED TO RESPOND IN DYNAMIC WAY TO ALL CHANGES.
AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A STATIC AGREEMENT AMONG 191 GOVERNMENTS. AND IT IS EVEN MORE CHALLENGING TO FIND DYNAMIC, DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS. SO, THEREFORE, FOR ME, THAT IS THE MOST CHALLENGING TASK. AND WHAT IS EXPECTED OUTCOME? IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY. I WOULD NOT EVEN TRY TO PREJUDGE. BUT I WOULD WISH TO EXPRESS MY HOPE THAT DECISION THAT WILL BE MADE IN TUNIS WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR INTERNET AS A SYSTEM AND FOR EACH INTERNET USER ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
AND THAT THE TUNIS SUMMIT WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF A JOURNEY OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED, AND THAT WILL BE AN EQUAL JOURNEY, NOT HIERARCHIC JOURNEY, WHICH CERTAINLY WILL LEAD MAYBE TO A NEW TYPE OF INTERACTION BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS GLOBALIZED WORLD.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AMBASSADOR. IT'S EXCELLENT TO UNDERSTAND HOW SOME OF THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO WORK.
IT'S NOW LIKE INTRODUCING AN OLD FRIEND TO YOU, MARKUS KUMMER. MARKUS HAS BEEN COMING TO THE LAST FOUR -- THREE? FOUR -- FOUR OF OUR MEETINGS, ALWAYS KEEPING US UP-TO-DATE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT WORKING GROUP.
SO MARKUS, I THINK WITHOUT MUCH FURTHER ADO, YOU DON'T NEED FURTHER INTRODUCTION, PLEASE TELL US THE LITTLE BIT THAT YOU CAN BEFORE THE REPORT IS LEAST RELEASED ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE IN IT.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: THANK YOU.
CAN I ASK FOR SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SET UP MY PRESENTATION?
AND LET ME ALSO, AT THE OUTSET, ECHO OUR CHAIRMAN, NITIN DESAI, AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ICANN BOARD, THE ICANN MANAGEMENT FOR THE EXCELLENT COOPERATION WE ENJOYED, THE MORAL SUPPORT BUT ALSO THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT ICANN GAVE TO OUR SECRETARIAT WHICH WAS FINANCED THROUGH EXTRA BUDGETARY RESOURCES. SO ALL FINANCIAL SUPPORT WAS, OF COURSE, ESSENTIAL FOR OUR WORK. AND I THINK IT WAS ALSO POLITICALLY VERY IMPORTANT TO SHOW THAT OUR PROJECT WAS NOT ONLY SUPPORTED BY GOVERNMENTS BUT ALSO BY THE COMMUNITY.
WE ALSO RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM THE NRO THAT WAS PRESENT HERE AND THE SWISS CCTLD SWITCH. AND I THINK THAT PUT US, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, ON A BROAD BASIS.
IT WAS, I THINK, WITH SLIGHT APPREHENSION I ADDRESSED THIS GATHERING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN KUALA LUMPUR A YEAR AGO, BUT I MUST SAY, I THINK WE FOUND AN EXCELLENT DIALOGUE. AND IN THE END, I WOULD SAY IT WAS A VERY FRUITFUL EXPERIENCE.
THE PROCESS -- LET ME START WITH COMING BACK TO THE PROCESS.
THIS WAS AS IMPORTANT, I WOULD SAY, AS THE SUBSTANCE. IT WAS THE MAJOR ISSUE IN THE WSIS NEGOTIATIONS, AND WE CONCEIVED IT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING TO BE IN LINE WITH THE WSIS NEGOTIATED LANGUAGE. WSIS WANTED THE PROCESS TO BE OPEN AND INCLUSIVE, AND TO HAVE THE FULL AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS. AND I THINK WE MANAGED TO DEVELOP A PROCESS THAT ALLOWED ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS TO PARTICIPATE ON AN EQUAL FOOTING IN OUR OPEN CONSULTATIONS.
WGIG, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, RECOGNIZED ONE CROSS-CUTTING PRIORITY; THAT IS, DEVELOPMENT. WE CLEARLY PUT OUR DISCUSSION IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL DIMENSION, AND THIS DIMENSION HAD TWO ASPECTS. ON ONE HAND, WE LOOKED AT THE NECESSITY TO ENSURE THE EFFECTIVE AND MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE NECESSITY TO BUILD CAPACITY TO ADDRESS INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
NOW, LET ME COME TO THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT. HOPEFULLY THE REPORT WILL BE ON OUR WEB SITE AVAILABLE TOMORROW AND ON THE WSIS WEB SITE, AND YOU WILL SEE THERE WILL BE NO MAJOR SURPRISES. AS THE PROCESS WAS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT THROUGHOUT, YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THE REPORT REFLECTS THE DISCUSSIONS.
THE CONTENT WAS DEVELOPED IN THIS OPEN PROCESS, AND ALREADY NOW, MUCH OF WHAT WILL BE IN THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE. WE HAD SENT OUT A QUESTIONNAIRE IN EARLY MAY. WE HAD POSTED A SUMMARY OF ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FROM WITHIN THE GROUP. WE ALSO HAVE MADE AVAILABLE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS, THANKS TO OUR SKILLFUL SCRIBES WHO ALSO IN THE LATER PHASE ASSISTED US IN OUR WORK, AND WE ALSO POSTED COMMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS BY OUR STAKEHOLDERS.

THE REPORT, LET ME START BY SETTING THE SCENE AND BY SHOWING SOME QUOTES.
AS NITIN ALREADY SAID, THE REPORT CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT INTERNET GOVERNANCE GOES WELL BEYOND NAMES AND ADDRESSES; THAT IT INCLUDES OTHER ISSUES. HERE IT'S MENTIONED SECURITY AND STABILITY, DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS, AND ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE. AND THE REPORT ALSO CLEARLY REAFFIRMS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH, THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS.

LET ME COME TO THE MORE BORING PART; THAT IS THE TABLE OF CONTENT OF THE REPORT.
IT BASICALLY HAS A VERY -- FOLLOWS VERY TIGHTLY THE MANDATE GIVEN BY THE SUMMIT THAT IT HAS A WORKING DEFINITION, IT HAS NONE THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. IT LOOKS AT THE ROLES OF THE DIFFERENT ACTORS, AND THEN THE LAST CHAPTER IS PROPOSALS FOR ACTION. AND THESE PROPOSALS ARE DIVIDED INTO TWO CATEGORIES. ON THE ONE HAND, RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBSTANTIVE RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO INTERNET-RELEVANT ISSUES.
LET ME GO IN SOME MORE DETAIL INTO THE VARIOUS PARTS. THE INTRODUCTION OBVIOUSLY SAYS WHERE WE COME FROM, BUT I WOULD THINK ALSO IMPORTANTLY RECOGNIZES SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS.
THE STABLE AND SECURE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERNET WAS ONE OF THE WSIS PRINCIPLES THAT WAS IN MANY WAYS A GUIDING LIGHT TO OUR WORK. WHATEVER THE REPORT WOULD COME UP WITH SHOULD NOT ENDANGER THE STABLE AND SECURE FUNCTIONING. IT SHOULD ON THE OPPOSITE, RATHER, ENHANCE THIS. AND WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE OPEN AND DECENTRALIZED NATURE OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND THE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO THE WAY THE MANAGEMENT OF NAMES AND NUMBERS IS BEING DONE.

WE AT OUR LAST SESSION, WE AGREED ON A WORKING DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE. YOU SEE IT HERE UP ON THE SCREEN, AND I WILL NOT READ IT OUT AGAIN. I THINK THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT IT IS NOT JUST NAMES AND ADDRESSES. AND THE SECOND FACT -- OR THE SECOND FACTOR THAT IT RETAINS IS THAT IT IS NOT JUST GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES. IT MEANS MORE THAN GOVERNMENTS, AND IT INCLUDES AND INVOLVES ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
WHEN COMING TO OUR SECOND TASK, IDENTIFYING PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WE TOOK A VERY BROAD APPROACH AND DID NOT EXCLUDE ANY POTENTIALLY RELEVANT THE ISSUE.
WE GROUPED THESE ISSUES INTO FOUR KEY PUBLIC POLICY AREAS. THE FIRST ONE RELATED TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE INTERNET, THE SECOND ONE RELATED TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET, THE THIRD ONE TO BROADER ISSUES WHICH ARE DEALT WITH BY EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS IPR, BY WIPO OR TRADE BY WTO, AND THE FOURTH CLUSTER OF ISSUES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS.
AND IN THE REPORT, WE FINALLY AT OUR LAST SESSION, IDENTIFIED ISSUES THAT WE REGARDED AS HIGH PRIORITY, AND THE REPORT BRINGS US THESE ISSUES LISTED ON THIS SLIDE TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WSIS.
AND AGAIN T SHOWS THEY COVER EACH OF THE FIRST, THE SECOND, AND THE FOURTH CLUSTER. WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD CLUSTER, THAT IS THE ISSUES DEALT WITH BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. WE RECOGNIZED THAT THEY ARE IMPORTANT. IPR IS IMPORTANT, TRADE IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE FOR THE WSIS TO DEAL TOO MUCH IN DEPTH WITH THESE ISSUES.
AGAIN, YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE LAST OF THESE ISSUES NOTED RELATES TO OUR DEVELOPMENTAL PRIORITIES TO CAPACITY BUILDING AND TO THE MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
MULTILINGUALISM, WHICH IS ALSO LISTED HERE, CLEARLY IN THE MEANING -- IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP, WAS SEEN AS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
THE NEXT CHAPTER, WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ON THE DIFFERENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS. WE DID, I WOULD SAY, HAD A VERY OPEN CONCLUSION ON THAT. HEAR THE QUOTE SAYS THAT EACH GROUP WILL HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS, ROLES, AND PARTICIPATION, WHICH IN SOME CASES WILL OVERLAP.
THIS WAS NOTED IN THE CHAPTER DEALING WITH THE DEFINITION, AND IT VERY MUCH SUMS UP OUR FINDINGS WITH REGARDS TO THE DIFFERENT ROLES OF STAKEHOLDERS.
WE CAME TO REALIZE YOU CANNOT MECHANICALLY GIVE EACH STAKEHOLDER THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY IN EACH ACTIVITY. THESE RESPONSIBILITIES VARY ACCORDING TO FUNCTION AND ACCORDING TO FORA.
WE ALSO -- AND I THINK HERE I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO PAUL TWOMEY'S REMARKS AT THE BEGINNING -- RECOGNIZED THAT WITH THE INTERNET, THESE NEAT CATEGORIZATION OF THREE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS -- GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SOCIETY, AND PRIVATE SECTOR -- ARE MORE DIFFICULT. WITHOUT TRYING TO CREATE NEW STAKEHOLDER GROUPS IN THE WSIS CONTEXT, WE NEVERTHELESS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A PARTICULAR ROLE FOR THE TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES, AND OUR REPORT TAKES NOTE AND EMPHASIZES THIS ROLE -- THIS ROLE.
WITH REGARD TO THE ROLE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND FORA, THE REPORT NOTES THAT THERE IS SCOPE TO IMPROVE COORDINATION BETWEEN IGOS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS.
LET ME NOW COME TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PART WITH REGARD TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS.
THE GROUP AGREED TO PROPOSE TO CREATE SPACE FOR DIALOGUE AMONG ALL STAKEHOLDERS TO ADDRESS INTERNET-RELATED ISSUES. VERY MUCH IN THE SENSE THAT AMBASSADOR KARKLINS JUST MENTIONED, THIS WAS SEEN AS A DYNAMIC, EVOLVING FORUM THAT COULD ADDRESS ALL THE EMERGING ISSUES, AND AGAIN, IN LINE WITH OUR DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES, IN LINE WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES WE IDENTIFIED, WE DID NOT RESTRICT TO ANY PARTICULAR GROUP OF ISSUES, AND WE THOUGHT THAT ANY ISSUE SHOULD BE -- SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN SUCH A FORUM IF ANY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS MAKES AN ACCORDING PROPOSAL.
AND ALSO, OF COURSE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A VACUUM SOMETIMES; THAT THERE'S NO INSTITUTION THAT ADDRESSES ONE ISSUE. ALL ARE CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY MORE THAN ONE INSTITUTION.
BUT AGAIN, WE SAW THIS VERY MUCH FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE AS WE RECOGNIZE THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL FORUM THAT EXISTS WHERE THESE ISSUES COULD BE ADDRESSED. AND EXISTING FORA INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT OPEN TO THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL STAKEHOLDER IN AN OPEN FORMAT WHERE THEY CAN PARTICIPATE ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.
WITH REGARDS TO OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS, THE GROUP DID, AS OUR CHAIRMAN ALREADY POINTED OUT, NOT AGREE ON ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL. THE GROUP DID AGREE THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE A FURTHER INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THESE OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS AND THEY SHOULD BE IN LINE WITH WHAT WAS ALREADY AGREED ON IN GENEVA IN 2003; NAMELY, THEY SHOULD BE MULTILATERAL, DEMOCRATIC, AND TRANSPARENT.
THE GROUP AGREED THAT ANY GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN DAY-TO-DAY FUNCTIONS, AND IT PUT FORWARD FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR OVERSIGHT ARRANGEMENTS. AND THESE OPTIONS HAVE VARYING DEGREES OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT RANGING FROM WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS STATUS QUO PLUS -- THAT IS, LEAVE EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AS THEY ARE, BUT TRY TO IMPROVE WHENEVER POSSIBLE, RECOGNIZING THAT EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS MAY NOT BE PERFECT. TO GO FROM A SECOND PROPOSAL, AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE PROPOSAL, THE OPTIONS AS THEY ARE LISTED, ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN A LOGICAL ORDER BUT THAT WAS THE WAY THE GROUP AGREED THEM. BUT HERE I TRIED TO PRESENT THEM IN AN ORDER RANGING FROM LIMITED CHANGE TO LITTLE BIT MORE CHANGE TO MORE RADICAL CHANGE. AND THE MORE -- AFTER NOT MUCH CHANGE, THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO HAVE INTERNATIONALIZED BUT MORE LIMITED OVERSIGHT.
AND THERE ARE TWO PROPOSALS THAT CLEARLY WOULD LEAD TO STRENGTHENED GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT WITH SOME KIND OF COMMITTEES IN A U.N. FRAMEWORK.
BUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS ALSO TOUCH ON INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION, AND THE GROUP IDENTIFIED THE NEED TO IMPROVE COORDINATION BETWEEN EXISTING INSTITUTIONS AT ALL LEVELS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS ITU, WIPO, UNESCO ON THE ONE HAND, AND WHAT I WOULD CALL INTERNET INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS ICANN, ISOC, IETF, W3C, NROS, RIRS OR CENTR ON THE OTHER HAND.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE WORKING GROUP ALSO TOUCHED ON THE NEED TO IMPROVE COORDINATION AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, AND IT HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL POLICIES AND COORDINATION AMONGST ALL STAKEHOLDERS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. THERE IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CCTLDS AND GOVERNMENTS. THERE IS THE NEED ALSO FOR GOVERNMENTS TO DISCUSS HOW TO SHAPE INTERNET-FRIENDLY POLICIES. AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT POSSIBLE MODELS FOR NATIONAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS. INTERNET STEERING COMMITTEES ARE MENTIONED AS A POSSIBLE MODEL TO FOLLOW. AND I THINK OUR BRAZILIAN FRIENDS ARE QUITE KEEN TO PRESENT THE WAY THEY ORGANIZE THIS IN BRAZIL AND WE WILL HAVE A WORKSHOP IN GENEVA ON TUESDAY DEVOTED TO NATIONAL POLICIES.
THE LAST CHAPTER, THE REPORT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIORITY ISSUES, WHERE THE WORKING GROUP FEELS THAT FURTHER WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE. SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ADDRESSED TO VARIOUS MECHANISMS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE REPORT.
SOME OF THESE ISSUES COULD BE TAKEN UP BY THE FORUM THE REPORT PROPOSES. AND SOME OF THEM ARE NOT ATTRIBUTED TO ANY SPECIFIC INSTITUTION.
AND THE LIST HERE IS A COMPLETE LIST OF THESE ISSUES. AND YOU WILL SEE, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE RELATED TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THE ROOT ZONE FILES CAME UP HIGH IN THE PRIORITY LIST OF THE WORKING GROUP. IP ADDRESSING AND INTERCONNECTION COST. BUT THEN ALSO, THE INTERNET STABILITY, SECURITY, AND CYBERCRIME, SPAM, AS ISSUES RELATED TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET. AND ALSO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AS AN IMPORTANT VALUE TO DEFEND IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND ALSO RELATED TO THE USE, DATA PROTECTION, PRIVACY RIGHTS, CONSUMER RIGHTS, AND MULTILINGUALISM, AND AS WELL, AGAIN, THE OVERARCHING PRIORITY OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO PRODUCED A BACKGROUND REPORT WHICH IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE, BUT WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT THE CONSENSUS FROM WITHIN THE GROUP. THIS IS TO BE SEEN AS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE REPORT, AND IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME STATUS.
HOWEVER, IT PICKS UP THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD THROUGHOUT THE WSIS PROCESS, AND WE TOOK ON BOARD AS MUCH AS WE COULD THE COMMENTS MADE BY STAKEHOLDERS, SO WE HOPE THAT THIS BACKGROUND REPORT, WHILE NOT NECESSARILY A REPORT TO BE READ BY DECISION-MAKERS, BUT IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO DELEGATES WHO CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION WHEN THEY WILL EMBARK ON THE NEGOTIATIONS.
LET ME BRIEFLY SPECULATE ON THE WAY FORWARD, MAYBE, AND HOPEFULLY THE WGIG REPORT WILL FACILITATE THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE PREPCOM/WSIS CONTEXT. AND MAYBE THE REPORT CAN PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR A CONTINUED STRUCTURED MULTISTAKEHOLDER DEBATE ON INTERNET-RELATED PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.
AND AS THE REPORT HAS HIGHLIGHTED SOME PRIORITY ISSUES, MAYBE THE REPORT CAN ALSO SET THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE DEBATE.
AS AMBASSADOR KARKLINS POINTED OUT, WE HAVE COME TO THE END OF OUR WORK. THE WORKING GROUP, IT'S OPEN TO DEBATE WHETHER IT HAS ALREADY CEASED TO BE EXIST WHEN SUBMITTING A REPORT TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. IT DEFINITELY WILL HAVE ITS LAST HOORAY ON MONDAY WHEN WE LAUNCH THE REPORT.
AND ALLOW ME, LOOKING BACK, TO TAKE SOME STOCK OF OUR WORK.
FIRST, AND FOREMOST, I THINK WE CAN SAY WE HAVE DELIVERED, WE HAVE FULFILLED OUR MANDATE.
WE HAVE PRODUCED A REPORT.
BUT ON TOP OF THAT, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE WGIG SUCCEEDED IN CREATING A SPACE FOR AN ISSUE-ORIENTED POLICY DIALOGUE ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, AND IT SUCCEEDED IN CREATING A CLIMATE OF TRUST AMONG ALL PARTIES CONCERNED. AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, I THINK IT CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP.
WE WILL ALSO ADDRESS THIS WHEN WE PRESENT THE REPORT, AND THE WGIG MEMBERS ARE PRESENT ON THIS PANEL, I THINK, ARE ALSO KEEN TO RELATE ON THIS EXPERIENCE, THAT I THINK FROM WITHIN THE GROUP, WE DEFINITELY SAW IT AS A VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE, BUT MY IMPRESSION WAS ALSO TO SEE HOW THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS PUT INTO THE PROCESS THAT WE CAN FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW VERY PLEASED WITH THE PROCESS.
AND TO LOOK BACK, I CAME INTO THIS DEBATE, I DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE INTERNET EXCEPT THAT I KNEW HOW TO SEND AN E-MAIL, WHEN I WAS THROWN INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS AT THE END OF WSIS I.
AND I CAN SAFELY SAY THAT THE DEBATE HAS MADE A VERY POSITIVE EVOLUTION.
BACK THEN, IN 2003, IT WAS A DEBATE BLACK AND WHITE.
THINGS WERE EITHER GOOD OR WERE EVIL.
AND PEOPLE DIDN'T TALK WITH EACH OTHER; THEY SHOUTED AT EACH OTHER.
AND I FIND NOW WE HAVE MOVED TO A DEBATE, WE DON'T AGREE ON EVERYTHING, AND MAYBE THE DEBATE IS MORE NUANCED.
SO I WOULD SAY WE MOVED FROM BLACK AND WHITE TO DIFFERENT SHADES OF GRAY.
AND I HOPE THAT WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING IN THE WIDER AUDIENCE INTERESTED IN THESE ISSUES, AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES.
AND WITH THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MARKUS.
THAT'S THE END OF THE FORMAL PRESENTATIONS.
AND WE'RE NOW ABOUT TO CHANGE THE FOCUS ON TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE -- ASK THE QUESTIONS.
BEFORE I DO OPEN THE FLOOR TO QUESTIONS AND PERHAPS EXPLAIN A LITTLE HOW WE MIGHT DO THAT, I DO NEED TO INTRODUCE SOME VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN TODAY'S PROCESS.
ON THE STAGE ALONG WITH THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED ARE SOME MEMBERS OF THE ICANN FAMILY WHO HAVE BEEN SERVING ON THE WORKING GROUP.
AND THEY ARE ALEJANDRO PISANTY, VITTORIO BERTOLA, WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER, KAREN BANKS, AVRI DORIA, RAUL ECHEBERRIA -- SORRY, CHARLES SHA'BAN, RAUL ECHEBERRIA, AND CARLOS AFONSO.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE VOLUNTEERED AND PUT IN A LOT OF WORK IN THIS EFFORT.
AND WE ALL THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE PUT IN.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE -- I'M SURE YOU ARE PLEASED TO KNOW, AND THEY ARE AS WELL.
THEY HAVE THE PREPARED PRESENTATIONS AND THEY ARE AVAILABLE.
WE EXPECT THEM TO BE ANSWERING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTING TO THEM.
OKAY.
WELL, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS?
WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO HAVE AN OPEN SLATHER OF QUESTIONS TAKING THE REPORT APART FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER.
I THOUGHT WHAT WE MIGHT DO IS STRUCTURE IT A LITTLE BIT.
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE THEMES, ROUGHLY MAPPING, WE HOPE, MARKUS, THE WAY YOU'VE EXPRESSED THEM IN THE REPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE, USE, THE BROADER ISSUES, DEVELOPMENTAL, MULTILINGUALISM, ET CETERA.
WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH JUST A VERY FEW MOMENTS ON THE DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE ITSELF.
WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY HAD TO DO WAS SAY, WELL, WHAT IS INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
JUST A FEW MINUTES ON THAT.
AND THEN MOVING INTO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT OVERSIGHT OF THE INTERNET, OVERSIGHT, PERHAPS, OF ICANN, AND THE FORMATION OF A DISCUSSION FORUM FOR THIS TO TAKE PLACE, CHANGES TO THE EXISTING FORUMS, AND THE WHOLE PRINCIPLE THAT IN THAT, THERE WILL BE THIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER.
SO THAT'S OUR SECOND THEME.
AND I IMAGINE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND QUITE A LOT OF TIME ON THAT.
THE THIRD ONE, SOMETHING THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO ICANN, AND I THINK TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, IS THE WHOLE STABILITY AND SECURE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERNET.
SO THAT'S -- THAT WILL BE THEME THREE, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SECURITY AND STABILITY ISSUES.
FOURTH, WE WILL HAVE SOME TIME ON CAPACITY-BUILDING, SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN STRESSED BY MOST OF THE SPEAKERS THIS MORNING SO FAR, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THERE BE OUTREACH AND THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS CAN TAKE PART.
AND THEN FINISHING UP WITH A FEW MINUTES ON MULTILINGUALISM.
SO THAT'S THE THEMES.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST A BIT ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, THEN SOME OF THESE MODELS FOR CHANGE, SOMETHING ON SECURITY AND STABILITY, CAPACITY-BUILDING, AND MULTILINGUALISM.
SO, PLEASE, COULD YOU KEEP YOUR QUESTIONS TO WITHIN THOSE THEMES.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION THAT YOU'RE BURNING TO ASK BUT IT RELATES TO SOMETHING WE'RE NOT ALL TALKING ABOUT, HOLD ON.
YOU WILL GET A CHANCE.
NEXT, CAN YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION BRIEFLY, PLEASE.
THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR -- NOT A PLACE FOR GRAND-STANDING.
WE DON'T WANT YOU TO STAND UP, PLEASE, AND EXPLAIN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERNET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END JUST SO THAT YOU CAN GET YOUR QUESTION.
AND PANELISTS AND ANYBODY ELSE ANSWERING THE QUESTION, CAN YOU REMEMBER TO KEEP YOUR ANSWER BRIEF.
IF WE CAN, LET'S GET TO THE NUB OF THESE ISSUES STRAIGHTAWAY.
MY OWN ROLE IN THIS IN MY DAY JOB, I AM ACTUALLY A BARRISTER, WHAT AMERICANS CALL A TRIAL LAWYER, SO I AM QUITE DISCUSS TOM TO CROSS-EXAMINING PEOPLE TO TEST PEOPLE'S COMMITMENT TO THEIR STATEMENTS.
BUT TODAY, I THINK -- I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT, AND I'M GOING TO BE FUNCTIONING MUCH MORE IN THE ROLE OF JUDGE, NOT SO MUCH OF JUDGE OF JUDGING THE ACCURACY, BUT JUDGE OF THE TIME CLOCK.
MY MOST IMPORTANT ROLE, I THINK, IS GOING TO BE TO KEEP TO YOU THE QUESTIONS AND TO KEEP TO TIME.
WE DO HAVE A FINAL TIME FOR CLOSING THIS.
WE HAVE TO FINISH AT 11:00, BECAUSE OUR DESCRIBES NEED TO HAVE A BREAK BEFORE THEY GO ON WITH ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING.
SO, LET'S START.
DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
PERHAPS ALEJANDRO OR SOMEONE ON THE PANEL, CAN YOU JUST TAKE US THROUGH ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT AROSE IN FORMING THAT DEFINITION THAT MARKUS PUT UP, THE DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
ALEJANDRO.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: IT'S MUCH BETTER FOR WOLFGANG TO START THIS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WOLFGANG.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: OKAY.
YOU KNOW, I THINK TO MAKE THE LONG STORY SHORT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD PAGES OF PROPOSALS FOR A DEFINITION, AND WE CAME OUT, YOU KNOW, WITH TWO MAIN THINGS.
NUMBER ONE IS, INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS MORE THAN GOVERNMENT.
AND THE SECOND POINT WAS, INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS MORE THAN THE ICANN ISSUES.
AND I THINK THIS IS RATHER CLEAR.
AND THIS HAS HELPED US TO GO BEYOND THE BLACK AND WHITE SCHEME WHICH WAS MENTIONED BY MARKUS.
SO IT'S MUCH BROADER.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S MUCH SIMPLER, BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE PLAYERS AND YOU HAVE MORE LAYERS, NOT ONLY THE BASIC LAYER.
THAT'S IT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU ANTICIPATE THERE BEING ANY CONTROVERSY OR DISPUTE OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT, REALLY, HAVING DONE AND GOT IT DOWN ON PAPER, WE CAN ALL MOVE PAST QUITE QUICKLY?
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: PETER, OUR TASK WAS TO HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION.
SO AS AN ACADEMIC, I KNOW YOU CAN SPEND, YOU KNOW, THREE ACADEMIC LIVES BY FINDING A FINAL DEFINITION ON A CERTAIN ISSUE.
SO IT ACTUALLY WAS NOT AN ACADEMIC CIRCLE.
AND SO FAR I AS AN ACADEMIC AM VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THIS VERY CLEAR, SHORT, AND SIMPLE WORKING DEFINITION WHICH HELPS TO MOVE FORWARD AND NOT TO SPEND MORE TIME ABOUT SENSELESS THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONS.
I SAY THIS AS A MAN WHO WORKS MAINLY WITH THEORIES.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WELL, IF YOU ARE HAPPY, I THINK ALL THE REST OF US PROBABLY CAN BE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR OR ANYWHERE ABOUT THE DEFINITION ITSELF?
PREFERABLE NOT FROM A LAWYER ABOUT SUCH THINGS.
YES, MILTON.
NOT A LAWYER, MILTON, ARE YOU?
>>MILTON MUELLER: THANK YOU.
(INAUDIBLE).
>> CLOSER.
>>MILTON MUELLER: DO I HAVE TO BE LIKE MADONNA HERE?
HOW'S THIS?
DOES THIS WORK?
OKAY.
OBVIOUSLY, WOLFGANG, THE DEFINITION IS BASED ON REGIME THEORY.
SO WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY AVOID THEORY.
WE MAY HAVE AVOIDED SENSELESS THEORIES.
I AM PARTICULARLY -- I PARTICULARLY WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE STATEMENT WITHIN THERE ABOUT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
THIS IS NOT IN YOUR CATEGORIES, SO I HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT HERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEFINITION.
YOU TALK ABOUT THE COMING TO AGREEMENT ON THESE PRINCIPLES, NORMS, RULES, DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE REPORT AND THE WSIS DISCUSSION IS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO PUBLIC POLICY.
PRIVATE SECTOR/CIVIL SOCIETY SHOULD DO SOME OTHER STUFF.
CAN YOU TELL US HOW MUCH THIS WAS DISCUSSED, AND IN PARTICULAR, WHEN IT COMES TO THESE OVERSIGHT ISSUES REGARDING THINGS LIKE ICANN IN WHICH TECHNICAL ISSUES ARE VERY CLOSELY RELATED TO PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.
SO WHEN YOU SAY WE WANT GOVERNMENTS DOING THE PUBLIC POLICY AND ICANN DOING THE TECHNICAL COORDINATION, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
AND IF YOU WANT TO USE A CONCRETE EXAMPLE, WE COULD TAKE A PARTICULAR --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MILTON, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
BUT YOU'VE ACTUALLY BREACHED THE ONLY TWO RULES THAT I SET DOWN FOR THIS.
YOU ARE NOT ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT INTERNET GOVERNANCE DEFINITION AND YOU ARE GOING ON A BIT LONG.
CAN YOU -- CAN YOU BRING YOUR QUESTION BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND YOU CAN YOU KEEP IT MUCH BRIEFER, AND CAN THE REST OF YOU DO THE SAME.
>>MILTON MUELLER: YOU INTERRUPTED ME IN MY LAST SENTENCE, SO YOU JUST EXTENDED THE TIME ABOUT TWICE AS MUCH AS IT WAS GOING TO BE.
MY STATEMENT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU WOULD -- THE DEFINITION WOULD APPLY TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE IS THE TRIPLE X THING, WHICH WE SEE AS ICANN ACTING IN ITS ROLE AS COORDINATOR OF DNS, AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS HAVE SAID "THIS IS A POLICY DECISION THAT WE SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN."
HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WELL, WOLFGANG, YOU STARTED THIS.
CAN YOU CARRY ON?
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: YEAH.
NUMBER ONE, I SEE THE REPORT AS THE START OF A BEGINNING.
WE MOVE FROM AN UNSTRUCTURED DIALOGUE TO A STRUCTURED DIALOGUE.
SO YOU SHOULD NOT SEE -- RECEIVE THE REPORT AS THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM, BUT IT'S A SPRINGBOARD FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF DISCUSSION, A MORE INFORMED DISCUSSION.
AND INSOFAR THE REPORT HAS SOME OPEN AREAS, AND ONE OPEN AREA IS THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INTERACTION AMONG THE STAKEHOLDERS.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE DESCRIBED THE ROLE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.
BUT WE HAVE NOT YET CLEARED, YOU KNOW, HOW THE INTERACTION IN VERY CONCRETE AREAS SHOULD FUNCTION.
SO THIS HAS TO BE FIRST (INAUDIBLE) THE START OF THE DISCUSSION AND HAS TO BE FIRST ELABORATED.
AND I THINK ICANN IS A GOOD EXPERIENCE, IT'S A LEARNING EXPERIENCE, AND WITH ISSUES LIKE DOT TRIPLE X, I THINK NOW THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO WORK TOGETHER, THOUGH THERE ARE DIFFERENT ASPECTS BY DIFFERENT GROUPS RAISED.
AND IF THE ARGUMENT IS ON THE PUBLIC POLICY SIDE OR ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE AND WE REALIZE THAT THESE TWO THINGS HAVE TO COME TOGETHER, WE HAVE TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES HOW TO INTERACT.
AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT ALL NITIN DESAI SAID, THE MAIN CONCLUSION IS A NEW LEVEL OF INTERACTION AMONG THE STAKEHOLDERS.
THIS IS WHAT WGIG HAS DEMONSTRATED.
AND BASED ON MUTUAL RESPECT FOR THE DIFFERENT CAPACITIES DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS HAVE.
AND MARKUS WAS VERY CLEAR IN SAYING, YOU KNOW, THAT EACH STAKEHOLDER HAS A DIFFERENT CAPACITY, A DIFFERENT ROLE TO PLAY, AND WHAT WE HAVE TO FIND OUT IN THE FUTURE IS HOW TO OPTIMIZE THE INTERACTION BASED ON TRUST AND MUTUAL RESPECT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY.
THANKS FOR THAT.
JUST A HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENT.
WOULD THE MICROPHONE -- WITH THE MICROPHONE TROUBLE, PLEASE, YOU'LL HAVE TO COME HERE TO THE FRONT.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMEMBER TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
>>BRET FAUSETT: BRET FAUSETT.
I WANTED TO SAY THAT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS WATCHED THE WGIG AND WSIS PROCESS WITH A FAIR DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM, I WAS VERY GRATIFIED TO HEAR THE DESCRIPTION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE AS SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BROADER THAN THE RESOURCES THAT ARE BEFORE ICANN, THAT ICANN IS A VERY SMALL PIECE OF THAT.
AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT DEFINITION.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD ALSO BUILD INTO THAT -- INTO THE CONCEPT OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE THAT THE RESOURCES THAT ARE UNDER ICANN'S CONTROL SHOULDN'T BE USED AS LEVERAGE TO DO GOVERNANCE IN A COMPLETELY UNRELATED SECTION OF THE DEFINITION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, BRET.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ON THE DEFINITION, TO PICK UP SOMETHING THAT NITIN DESAI SAID, AND THAT'S REALLY THE START OF OUR SECOND THEME ABOUT THE MODELS FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
NITIN, YOU TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE FIRST IMPORTANT ISSUES WAS A SPACE, A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO COME WITH ALL THE INTEREST GROUPS TO TAKE PART IN THE PROCESS.
AND THAT'S SORT OF MATERIALIZED, I THINK, IN OUR JARGON THESE DAYS AS THE FORUM THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
I WONDER IF, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT THE FORUM, PERHAPS NOT SO MUCH THE NEED FOR IT, BUT ANY IDEAS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT HOW IT MIGHT LOOK OR FUNCTION.
AND THEN THROW THAT WHOLE TOPIC OPEN TO THE FLOOR.
>>NITIN DESAI: JUST TO ADD, I THINK, ESSENTIALLY, FORUMS LIKE THIS WORK IF YOU GO INTO THEM WITH A TOWNHALL CONCEPT.
A TOWNHALL CONCEPT IS, ANYBODY WHO HAS AN INTEREST OR A POINT OF VIEW HAS A RIGHT TO BE THERE AND SPEAK UP AND BE HEARD.
BUT IT'S NOT A DECISION-MAKING FORUM.
A TOWNHALL MEETING IS NOT A DECISION-MAKING FORUM.
AND THAT IS THE UNDERLYING CONCEPT BEHIND A SPACE WHICH IS NONTHREATENING BUT WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY WHO HAS A POINT OF VIEW TO EXPRESS.
AND THAT, I THINK, IS THE POINT I WOULD STRESS, IS WHAT WE NEED IN THE INTERNET BUSINESS.
BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE NOT HERE IN YOUR ICANN MEETINGS OR IN OTHER MEETINGS OF THE IETF OR ELSEWHERE WHO FEEL THAT THEY HAVE A POINT OF VIEW WHICH NEEDS TO BE EXPRESSED.
IT HAS -- THERE'S NOTHING WHICH YOU DO THAT STOPS THEM.
IT'S SIMPLY THAT THEY'RE NOT PART OF YOUR COMMUNITY, BUT OF A DIFFERENT COMMUNITY, MAYBE IT'S A GOVERNMENTAL COMMUNITY, MAYBE IT'S A COMMUNITY OF MEDIA PEOPLE, MAYBE IT'S A COMMUNITY OF -- STUCK IN A RATHER REMOTE AREA.
THAT'S, ESSENTIALLY, THE FUNCTION OF A FORUM.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I SUPPOSE THAT LEADS TO THE OBVIOUS QUESTION, THEN, HOW DOES IT WORK?
IF IT'S NOT A DECISION-MAKING BODY, IS IT JUST A PLACE THAT YOU PROVIDE IN A CYNICAL KIND OF A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND LET OFF STEAM?
OR IF YOU INTEND IT TO BE CREATIVE AND TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE AND TO BE ACTUALLY USED, HOW DO YOU SEE THE RESULT OF THE -- OF THAT PUBLIC DISCUSSION ACTUALLY COMING INTO SOME KIND OF FORMAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS?
>>NITIN DESAI: IT WOULD WORK THE WAY I SAID TOWNHALLS WORK, IS THAT EVERYBODY TAKES AWAY FROM THAT A SET OF IDEAS OR PROPOSALS WHICH THEY TAKE TO THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT'S FORUMS.
LET'S REMEMBER THAT WHAT WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT AHEAD IS NOT JUST THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERNET RESOURCES.
MAYBE IT'S THINGS GOVERNMENTS WILL NEED TO DO, MAYBE IT'S THINGS THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL NEED TO DO, MAYBE IT'S THINGS THAT UNIVERSITIES WILL NEED TO DO.
AND I HOPE ALL OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE TAKE AWAY FROM THERE THINGS WHICH THEY NEED TO THEN PURSUE IN THEIR OWN BODY.
IT WILL NOT WORK UNLESS PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO CONNECT WITH OTHERS.
IF PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO COME THERE AND GRANDSTAND, IT'LL BE A WASTE OF TIME.
BUT MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE PAST YEAR HAS BEEN THAT THIS PROCESS, AN OPEN PROCESS OF DIALOGUE, IS CONSTRUCTIVE, IS HELPFUL, DOES CHANGE PEOPLE'S MIND, AND DOES LEAD TO CHANGE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS.
I'M GOING TO KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS MYSELF UNLESS PEOPLE FROM THE FLOOR COME FORWARD.
I SEE VINT.
THANK YOU, VINT.
>>VINT CERF: VINT CERF.
LET'S SEE.
I AM TRYING TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF WHAT PETER HAS SAID, TO BE BRIEF.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE INTERNET AS THIS INCREDIBLY COMPLEX THING THAT HAS SOFTWARE, MANY LAYERS OF PROTOCOLS, AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF NETWORKS TOUCHING THINGS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
THERE ARE BOUND TO BE ISSUES THAT COME UP THAT ARE OF LOCAL CONCERN, THAT ARE OF NATIONAL CONCERN, AND THAT ARE OF GLOBAL CONCERN, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE SHOULD ASSUME THERE WILL BE MANY FORA IN WHICH INTERNET MATTERS WILL BE DISCUSSED AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE FORA BECAUSE THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED WILL VARY GEOGRAPHICALLY AND THEY WILL VARY IN TERMS OF SUBSTANCE.
THE KIND OF FORUM THAT I THINK YOU'RE DESCRIBING MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL IF THERE ARE GLOBAL CONCERNS THAT REQUIRE GLOBAL COORDINATION, AND THEY MIGHT ALSO BE OF VALUE, AS YOU DESCRIBE, TO HIGHLIGHT PROBLEMS THAT THE OTHER FORA NEED TO DEAL WITH.
DO I HAVE A REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING?
>>NITIN DESAI: ENTIRELY.
I WOULD SAY IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE INTENTION OF ANYBODY IN THE GROUP TO SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD SOMEHOW TAKE OVER ALL OF THE DIALOGUE FUNCTIONS.
BUT THERE IS A HOLE AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL RIGHT NOW.
WE DO NOT HAVE A SPACE.
THE VERY FACT THAT WE HAD TO INVENT THE WSIS PROCESS AND THE WGIG PROCESS IS AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS A HOLE WHICH NEEDS TO BE PLUGGED.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SORRY.
VITTORIO, PLEASE.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: I THINK THERE'S AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID FOR THE DISCUSSION TO BE TRUTHFUL.
WELL, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE WGIG IS PRESENTING SOME SORT OF PRINCIPLES, BUT MUCH OF THE CONTENT IN THESE AND IN OTHER PROPOSALS STILL NEED TO BE PUT IN, TOO.
SO I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF CREATIVE WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE ALSO BY THIS COMMUNITY IN PUTTING SOME CONTENT INTO THE WGIG PROPOSALS.
AND FOR -- WITH REGARD TO THE FORUM, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE MANY POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THE WGIG REPORT.
AND MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT, WELL, I TENDED TO SEE THIS STUFF A LITTLE LIKE A SORT OF POLICY EQUIVALENT TO THE IETF, SO SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE THAT HAVE A SHARED INTEREST IN COMING UP TO COMMON PROPOSALS ON A GIVEN POLICY ISSUE COULD MEET AND WORK IT OUT.
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT WORK BY AUTHORITY.
AND THIS IS WRITTEN VERY CLEARLY IN THE WGIG REPORT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN GIVE ORDERS TO ANYONE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN HAVE A ROLE IF IT CAN GAIN THE AUTHORITATIVENESS.
SO IF IT CAN BE CREDIBLE BECAUSE IT PROPOSALS INTELLIGENT THINGS.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE CORE OF ALL OF THE INTERNET POLICY-MAKING IN THE END.
SO YOU CANNOT IMPOSE ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE GROUP PROPOSALS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, VITTORIO.
DAVID.
>>DAVID FARES: THANK YOU, DAVID FARES.
A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, ACTUALLY.
ASSUMING THAT THE ISSUES THAT THE FORUM WOULD ADDRESS ARE GLOBAL, HOW WOULD THE FORUM INTERACT WITH EXISTING EXPERT BODIES THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN WORK ON THE LIST OF ISSUES THAT MARKUS PRESENTED THAT SHOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: HOW DO WE COORDINATE?
DOES ANYBODY -- NITIN OR PANELISTS?
>>NITIN DESAI: I WAS WONDERING, PERHAPS -- LET ME SAY THAT WE HAVE NOT WORKED OUT THE MECHANICS OF THIS FORUM.
AND -- BUT IN MANY WAYS, WHAT THE -- THE LAST THING VITTORIO SAID IS A GOOD INDICATION, THAT A FORUM LIKE THIS WORKS IF IT COMES OUT WITH SENSIBLE, CREDIBLE THINGS WHICH PEOPLE FIND CONVINCING, WHICH CUT ACROSS NORMAL MANDATES OF DIFFERENT GROUPS, DIFFERENT SECTORS AND SO ON.
THIS MEANS THAT IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AN ISSUE, THEN I WOULD SURELY HOPE THAT THE FORUM WILL TAKE THAT -- WILL INVITE THEM, WILL INVOLVE THEM AND WILL ENGAGE WITH THEM.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID NOT REALLY WORK OUT IS HOW EXACTLY WOULD THE FORUM BE CONSTITUTED?
IT'S EASY TO SAY "MULTISTAKEHOLDER."
BUT HOW DO THE STAKEHOLDERS GET SELECTED?
WHO COMES THERE?
WHAT'S THE PROCESS?
IS IT AN INSTITUTION-LIKE PROCESS?
IS IT INDIVIDUALS?
NONE OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN FLESHED OUT OR SPELLED OUT.
AND I WOULD, THEREFORE, TREAT THE FORUM IDEA AS SIMPLY A BEGINNING, WHICH WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO TALK ABOUT AND DISCUSS TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE MOST CONSTRUCTIVE.
ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THERE WILL SURELY BE THIS, THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO REPEAT WORK WHICH HAS BEEN DONE SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT SEE HOW BEST WE CAN ENGAGE WITH EVERYBODY.
AND I THINK THE LAST REMARK OF VITTORIO'S A PROBABLY THE WAY TO MOVE AHEAD.
BE CREATIVE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M GOING TO -- I'M SORRY ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT'S PROBABLY FAIRLY CLOSE TO WHAT'S JUST BEEN SAID.
AND AS EVERYONE KNOWS, I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE ISSUES WITH GREAT INTEREST AND PARTICIPATING IN THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS YOU'VE PROVIDED.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU NOW, AS MEMBERS OF THE WGIG, ARE REALLY NOW CHAMPIONS OF THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT.
BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE YET THAT THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH EXPLORATION OF HOW SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL WORK.
AND SO I'M SOMEWHAT COMFORTED TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT MORE THOUGHT IS NEEDED ABOUT THE FORUM.
LET ME TELL YOU WHY I'M SO CONCERNED.
BECAUSE ICANN IS A NEW FORUM.
ICANN IS IN NEED OF CONTINUED BUILDING, ENHANCING, MORE PARTICIPATION, ET CETERA.
I HOPE THAT WE DON'T FIND THAT THE THRILL OF NEW FORUMS, WITHOUT THE BURDENS OF ACTUALLY OPERATION, DRAW AWAY THE ATTENTION AND THE INVESTMENT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO BUILD THE EXISTING FORUMS SO THAT THEY CAN REALLY DO THEIR JOBS EFFECTIVELY AND ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
SO I'M GOING TO STAY TUNED AND SEE HOW THE FURTHER THOUGHT ABOUT THE FORUMS WORK OUT.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, DESIREE.
>>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: AS SOMEONE WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN WSIS II AND THE WGIG OPEN DAY'S FORUMS, I APPRECIATE THAT IT WAS INTERESTING TO MEET THE VERY VARIED COMMUNITY AND HEAR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF WHAT THE GROUP SHOULD BE DOING.
I'D LIKE TO ASK A CONCRETE QUESTION, TO WHICH EXTENT DO YOU THINK THE REPORT WILL HELP THE ICT CAPACITY-BUILDING IN LESS-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES?
AND HAVE YOU ACTUALLY COME UP WITH ANY CONCRETE PROPOSALS HOW WOULD THE GROUP OR THE FUTURE FORUM ADDRESS IN MORE CONCRETE TERMS SOME PROBLEMS SUCH AS REDUCTION OF SPAM, EDUCATION OF GOVERNMENTS, WHETHER THERE WILL BE SPECIAL -- WILL THERE BE SPECIAL WORKING GROUPS ORGANIZED TO WORK ON THESE ISSUES?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: KAREN, SOMEBODY THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP WITH THAT?
ARE YOU WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE?
PLEASE.
>>KAREN BANKS: WELL, MAYBE THIS IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY WE NEED TO ALL WORK TOGETHER TO FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT ARE AFFECTING EVERYONE, AND PARTICULARLY PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
CAPACITY-BUILDING, IT'S NOT AS IF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS.
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY INITIATIVES THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THE NEED TO INCREASE DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN ARRANGEMENTS, GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS, IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, GOING BACK MANY YEARS.
AND I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO A POINT NOW WHERE THERE IS A -- I THINK THERE'S THE WILL.
THERE'S AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THERE'S A HUGE PROBLEM.
THERE'S AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE -- I THINK ONE OF THE SORT OF TOP FIVE ISSUES THAT LED TO THE -- WELL, THE WSIS PROCESS AS A START, AND THE WGIG PROCESS SPECIFICALLY.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO MOBILIZE, WE NEED TO MOBILIZE EXISTING EXPERTISE, RESOURCES, EXPERIENCE.
WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT LOOKING AT STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
AND I THINK I WOULD REALLY BE INTERESTED TO TALK VERY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOW WE CAN, BUILDING ON MARILYN'S COMMENT, LOOK AT THE INITIATIVES THAT ARE GOING ON ALREADY IN ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS ICANN.
FOR EXAMPLE, JUST LOOKING AT THE MEETING YESTERDAY, THERE ARE DEFINITELY CAPACITY-BUILDING NEEDS THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF IDNS, TLD PROCESSES, RUNNING REGISTRARS, REGISTRIES, ISPS.
THERE'S DNS STUFF.
THERE'S SO MANY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT I COULD SEE ICANN RESPONDING TO.
AND I THINK THAT WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INITIATIVES LIKE INITIATIVES THAT WORK MORE BROADLY IN ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN A SPACE, IN A GLOBAL SPACE, THAT'S COORDINATED, WHERE WE SHARE INFORMATION, WHERE WE SHARE EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES COULD BE VERY USEFUL.
SO I THINK IT'S MORE A QUESTION OF MOBILIZING, COORDINATING, AND MAKING THE MOST OF WHAT EXISTS, AND, I THINK, LEVERAGING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO RESPOND TO THIS NEED.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: KAREN, CAN I JUST ASK A SORT OF SLIGHTLY PARAPHRASED VERSION OF THE QUESTION, WHICH IS -- BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FORUM AT THE MOMENT.
AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS A VERY GOOD ONE ABOUT CAPACITY-BUILDING IN GENERAL.
HOW DO YOU SEE THE FORUM PARTICULARLY ASSISTING THIS CAPACITY-BUILDING EXERCISE?
>>KAREN BANKS: WELL, I THINK THE FORUM COULD OBVIOUSLY BE USEFUL IN IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC, CONCRETE NEEDS IN RELATION TO THE ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT TO THE FORUM.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY SPAM, SPAM'S A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE, I THINK, OF A HOLE IN THE GLOBAL KIND OF SPACE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC-POLICY DISCUSSION.
AND IT COULD BE A SPACE WHERE ALL THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND SAY, "THIS IS WHAT'S NEEDED AND THERE'S THIS ASPECT WHICH HAS TO DO WITH CAPACITY-BUILDING IN RELATION PARTICULARLY TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND THESE ARE THE INSTITUTIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE BEST PLACED TO DO THAT AT THESE VARIOUS LEVELS IN THESE VARIOUS WAYS."
I THINK THAT COULD BE A VERY PRACTICAL THING IT COULD DO.
AND THEN APPLY THAT TO ALL ISSUES.
>>NITIN DESAI: THE FACT IS, TODAY, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE GETTING ADVICE ON HOW TO MANAGE INTERNET AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
THE ONLY POINT IS, THEY'RE GETTING IT FROM A DOZEN DIFFERENT PLACES.
AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONSISTENT THE ADVICE THAT THEY'RE GETTING FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
IN ONE CASE, YOU GET IT FROM THE WORLD BANK.
IN ANOTHER CASE, YOU GET IT FROM MAYBE A TELECOM MAJOR WHO'S JUST COMING INTO YOUR COUNTRY.
A THIRD CASE, IT MAY BE FROM A CELL PHONE.
FOURTH CASE, IT MAY BE A GROUP OF ACADEMICS WHO ADVISE YOU.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE FORUM COMES IN.
BECAUSE IT HELPS TO IDENTIFY GAPS AND GET SOME SENSE THAT, LOOK, LET'S TRY AND MANDATE SO -- LET'S SUGGEST THAT SO-AND-SO TAKE A LEAD IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, LET US SAY IN TERMS OF DNS MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND SO ON.
SO THAT'S THE ROLE OF THE FORUM, NOT TO ACTUALLY SPEND THE MONEY.
OTHER PEOPLE WILL DO IT, OTHER PEOPLE WILL DO THE PROGRAM.
BUT TO ENSURE THERE'S THIS DEGREE OF COHERENCE AND COORDINATION IN WHAT GETS DONE.
BUT IT'S BEING DONE, AND IT'S VERY CONFUSING AT THE OTHER END, LET ME ASSURE YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY, MOUHAMET, JUST HOLD A MINUTE, BECAUSE I HAVE A RUSH OF SPEAKERS FROM THE PANEL.
ALEJANDRO, CARLOS, AND RAUL.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: PETER, A COMMENT TO THIS, QUICK COMMENT, AND A COUPLE OF PREVIOUSLY APPEARING ISSUES.
WE -- MANY OF US IN THE GROUP AND MANY OF US IN THIS ROOM HAVE FOUND THAT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
CAPACITY-BUILDING IS NOT ONLY THE ABILITY TO BUILD NETWORKS, BUT ALSO TO BUILD GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS IN-COUNTRY, FOR EXAMPLE, ACCESS TO THE DECISION-MAKING AND METHODS OF DECISION-MAKING AND OPEN AND TRANSPARENT OR PLURAL PARTICIPATION METHODS IS IMPORTANT.
AND ONE SIGNIFICANT POINT IN THE DISCUSSION IN WSIS THAT WENT INTO WGIG IS THE PERCEPTION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN ICANN. AND WE HAVE AT LEAST SOME OF US, AND SOME OF US ARE HERE ON THIS TABLE, HAVE DEFENDED REPEATEDLY THE VIEW THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, A VERY INTENSE DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN ICANN, AND IN MANY WAYS IT IS FASTER AND MORE INTENSE THAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRADITIONAL FORUMS BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN COME UP, PARTICIPATE ONLINE, GET THEIR CAPACITY BUILDING ONLINE. THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS OF TRADITIONAL REPRESENTATION. AND THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A WAY OF LEAPFROGGING. AND ONE WAY IN WHICH THE FORUM FUNCTIONS, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS REALLY THE BOTTOM LINE OF AGREEMENT IN THE WGIG IS ABOUT THE FORUM FUNCTION, NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING FOR THE FORUM, JUST THE FORUM FUNCTION I REPEAT, CERTAINLY CAN PROVIDE THE PLACE OR A NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE INFORMATION CAN BE EXCHANGED AN!
D GLEANED AND SO FORTH.
ONE MORE POINT ABOUT THE -- GOING BACK TO THE COORDINATION, WHETHER IT'S ONE FORUM OR MANY, AND THE MENTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE ALREADY OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.
THE ICANN EXPERIENCE, AS WELL AS, FOR EXAMPLE, PREVIOUSLY THE IETF, THE RIR AND SO FORTH EXPERIENCES ARE NOT ONLY TO BRING TOGETHER EVERY CONCEIVABLE STAKEHOLDER TO THE TABLE FOR A CONVERSATION BUT ACTUALLY MAKING THINGS TO WORK REQUIRES STRUCTURE, DECISION-MAKING, WEIGHTED VOTING, ALL THESE MANY INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.
AND ONE THING THAT WE -- I'M VERY CONCERNED EVEN TO HAVE SEEN THIS AGAIN IN MARKUS'S SLIDE, IS THE REFERENCE TO ALL THIS SETUP AS THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENT, AS THE STATUS QUO.
WHAT WE ARE DOING IN ICANN, WHAT ISOC, AND THE IETF, THE RIRS, THE CCTLD MANAGERS AND SO FORTH HAVE BEEN DOING IS INNOVATION. THE STATUS QUO IS WHAT WE ARE BEATING. THE STATUS QUO IS WHAT WE ARE BREAKING THROUGH. THE STATUS QUO PROBABLY IS WHAT IS TRYING TO HOLD US BACK.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
NEXT I HAVE CARLOS.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: JUST A MATTER OF REMINDING OURSELVES THAT ACTUALLY THE WC'S IN GENEVA PROPOSED TWO WORKING GROUPS, NOT ONE. AND BESIDES THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WHOSE FINAL REPORT IS BEING DELIVERED NOW, THERE WAS A TASK FORCE ON FINANCIAL MECHANISMS WHICH DELIVERED A REPORT IN JANUARY 2005 AND HAS A VERY IMPORTANT RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION OF CAPACITY BUILDING AND SO ON.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE BOTH -- THE CONCLUSIONS OF BOTH REPORTS AND THE CORRESPONDING PROCESSES TO DISCUSS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF ICTS AND THE WCS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: POINT WELL TAKEN, ALEJANDRO. I WILL CHANGE MY SLIDE.
BUT TO COME BACK TO OUR FORUM, THE STARTING POINT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS VERY MUCH THE FACT THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES QUITE OFTEN FEEL LEFT OUT, AND DEVELOPED COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES SAID YES, BUT WE DISCUSSED ALL THIS. AND MANY OF THESE ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED, YES, BUT THEY ARE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE OECD, AND THE OECD IS NOT THE UNIVERSAL ORGANIZATION.
AND THE OECD MODEL WAS ALSO VERY MUCH THE MODEL WE LOOKED AT; THAT IS, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT NEGOTIATING TREATIES BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GETTING TOGETHER, EXCHANGING INFORMATION, LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES, AND HAVE A PEER REVIEW, MAYBE OF PRACTICES. AND THIS SHOULD ALSO BE SEEN IN LINE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNTRIES TO LOOK AT NATIONAL POLICIES.
SO THE FORUM WOULD NOT JUST LOOK AT INTERNATIONAL ISSUES BUT THEY COULD ALSO LOOK AT NATIONAL ISSUES ON HOW BEST TO SHAPE YOUR NATIONAL POLICIES. PEOPLE COULD GO HOME AND THEN HAVE A CERTAIN SENSE OF DIRECTION IN WHICH WAY TO GO.
NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, IT'S OBVIOUS WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CREATE A GLOBAL OECD FOR INTERNET ISSUES. THE OECD IS NOT A LIGHT STRUCTURE. IT HAS A VERY HEAVY, VERY SUBSTANTIAL SECRETARIAT. AND HERE WE WERE TALKING WITHIN THE GROUP, TALK AT THE MOST OF THE SECRETARIAT OF TWO, THREE PEOPLE, A VERY LIGHT STRUCTURE, AND WE ALSO CLEARLY SAID THE FORUM SHOULD NOT DUPLICATE WORK DONE ELSEWHERE AND IT SHOULD BUILD ON EXISTING WORK.
AND ONE, ANOTHER SUGGESTION WAS TO CREATE COOPERATION WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. THIS WOULD, ON THE ONE HAND, BE THE INPUT, THE SUBSTANTIVE INPUT WOULD COME FROM ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND WE COULD USE THIS FOR CREATING PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS IN THE NORTH WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. AND THIS COULD BE A VERY CONCRETE WAY TOWARDS CAPACITY BUILDING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
BUT THE SHEER EXISTENCE OF THE FORUM WHERE DELEGATES WOULD COME AND PARTICIPATE, LEARN FROM EACH OTHER, WE WOULD THINK WOULD ALSO BE A CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS CAPACITY BUILDING.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, MARKUS.
MOUHAMET.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANKS VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING IT'S A LITTLE BIT AMAZING TO DISCUSS A REPORT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED YET, SO I THINK THAT MAYBE THE ICANN MEETING COMES TOO EARLY OR JUST HOPES TO FINISH THE ICANN MEETING IN ORDER TO ISSUE THE PAPER REPORT.
BUT I HAVE JUST TWO QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS ABOUT SOME CAPACITY-BUILDING ISSUE.
I'M JUST STARTING BY EXPLAINING THAT IN AFRICA, FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE SEEN THAT THE -- WHAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO BUILD A TECHNICAL COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH NONSTRUCT ORGANIZATIONS SOMETIMES, AND STRUCT ORGANIZATIONS.
I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. WHAT AFNOG, THAT IS THE AFRICAN NETWORK OPERATOR GROUP, HAVE DONE IN TERMS OF TRAINING PEOPLE TO GET SKILLS TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE NETWORKS DURING THE FIVE LAST YEARS, WE CAN SEE VERY FEW STRUCT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE A LOT IN THAT FIELD.
WHAT AFRINIC IS DOING, LASTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, GIVING THE ISP'S, THE TELCO AND THE INTERNET USERS TO BE ABLE TO GET A BETTER KNOWLEDGE AND TO HAVE GOOD SKILLS TO MANAGE ALL THESE THINGS, I MEAN, HAVE NOT BEEN DONE THROUGH EXISTING ORGANIZATION FOR MORE THAN 20 OR LET'S SAY 30 YEARS.
WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THE ADVOCACY AND AWARENESS FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. I MEAN, PEOPLE HAVE DONE A LOT ON FIELD, TRUE, NONSTRUCTURED ORGANIZATIONS, AND MY QUESTION IS THE WAY WE STRUCTURED THE DISCUSSION, ARE WE CONSCIOUS THAT WE NEED TO OPEN UP FOR THIS AREA TO BE ABLE TO GET INPUT INTO THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING A LOT ON FIELD. SO THIS IS THE FIRST CONCERN.
THE SECOND CONCERN IS ABOUT THE FUNDING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC WORKING GROUP ABOUT THE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY. I MEAN AS A GLOBAL. BUT THE QUESTION IS IF YOU HAVE AN ACTION PLAN WITHOUT ANYTHING THAT HELP, FOR EXAMPLE, TO IMPLEMENT IT, DID YOU DISCUSS ABOUT THE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE AS A SPECIFIC ISSUE?
I'M ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARTICIPATORY PROCESS FOR AFRICAN COUNTRIES AND LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, THE ISSUE OF GETTING EVEN THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS FORA IS AN ISSUE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STRUCTURE TO HAVE A BETTER INVOLVEMENT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR IT?
SO IF THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT THINKING -- IF YOU HAVE A NEW WAY OF OPENING UP FOR SOME AREA THAT ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE, DO YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT FUNDING MECHANISM HAVE TO BE PUT IN PLACE IN ORDER TO ALLOW YOU TO DO YOUR JOB? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT WAS TOUGH FOR THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE EVEN TO GATHER AND TO COLLECT THE FIRST INITIAL FUND THEY HAVE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE GROUP WORK. SO THAT'S THE TWO MINUTES I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THE SECOND QUESTION SEEMED TO ME TO DEAL LARGELY WITH IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT AT THIS STAGE. I DON'T THINK THE REPORT ITSELF DEALS MUCH WITH IMPLEMENTATION, AS YOU SAY, UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE A QUICK ANSWER, PERHAPS, FROM ALEJANDRO. THANKS.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: IT WILL BE NO SURPRISE THAT THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS, MOUHAMET, ABOUT THE FUNDING FOR THE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN THESE THINGS WAS NOT WIDELY DISCUSSED, WAS NOT WIDELY AGREED; I MEAN, IT WAS NOT ENTERED INTO DETAIL. BUT WHAT YOU WILL NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR ALL ORGANIZATIONS TO ENHANCE THE PARTICIPATION FROM PEOPLE AND PLACES AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN THEIR OWN CAPACITY BUILDING.
THERE AGAIN, WE HAVE SOME VERY GOOD EXAMPLES IN ICANN ESPECIALLY IN PAST YEARS AND WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK AGAIN FOR EVEN FUNDING FROM SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS AND TO SUPPORT OUTREACH AND CAPACITY BUILDING FROM EACH ORGANIZATION TO ITS MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU. IZUMI.
>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MY NAME IS IZUMI AIZU, AND I AM A MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRYING TO INCREASE THE PARTICIPATION TO THE ICANN PROCESS FROM ALL CORNERS OF THE WORLD FROM THE USERS. AND IT'S A BIG CHALLENGE. AND I AM ALSO A MEMBER OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE OF JAPAN. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE QUESTION OF HOW TO FILL THE GAP OF DESIGN OR IDEALS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OR REALITY.
SO FIRST TASK PERHAPS FOR YOU IS TO TRY TO CREATE SORT OF GOOD IDEALS ABOUT THE FUNCTIONS AND ROLES OF THE FORUM AND TO GET SOME CONSENSUS. IF THE WSIS PROCESS WILL ACHIEVE THE CONSENSUS, THEN YOU HAVE A TASK TO IMPLEMENT; AM I RIGHT?
BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED SORT OF THE FEASIBILITY IN ALL OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THIS FORUM? BECAUSE THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT WE DESIGNED THE AT-LARGE PROCESS WITH THE REGIONAL BODY AND FULL PARTICIPATION FROM THE USERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AFTER THREE YEARS WE ARE STILL STRUGGLING TO FILL THE GAP BETWEEN THE THEORY AND THE PRACTICE.
SO THAT, AS A BACKGROUND. HOW DO YOU REALLY ADDRESS THESE SORT OF MECHANISMS, FEASIBILITY AREAS, OR IS IT NOT THE PURVIEW OF THE WORKING GROUP AT ALL OR HAVE YOU DISCUSSED AT LEAST SOME ASPECTS OF THIS SO THAT YOU CONCLUDE THAT STILL HAVING ONE NEW FORUM IS A VERY GOOD IDEA?
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE A COMMENT, THAT'S AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE. AMBASSADOR KARKLINS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE WSIS AND THE PREPCOM IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH OR IS IT SOMETHING THE WGIG SHOULD HAVE DEALT WITH?
>>JANIS KARKLINS: I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I SEE THAT THE FORUM COULD BE A MECHANISM HOW TO ENGAGE IN THE DIALOGUE ON EQUAL FOOTING, HOW TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE ON EQUAL FOOTING OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE-RELATED ISSUES.
AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS TO FIND THE FORMULA WHERE ALL POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS OF THE FORUM WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE DETAILS AND MODALITIES OF THE WORK AND PARTICIPATION. AND THIS WILL BE VERY, MAYBE, THE MOST DIFFICULT TASK OF THE THIRD PREPCOM TO TRY TO, FIRST OF ALL, TO DEVELOP THE SET OF PRINCIPLES OF THE FORUM, AND THEN TO AGREE ON THEM. AND TO FIND THE FORMULA WHICH WOULD COMFORT THOSE WHO WANTS TO SEE AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION GOVERNING INTERNET FROM ONE SIDE, AND THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUMS.
THIS WILL BE VERY CHALLENGING. BUT CERTAINLY, FORUM IDEA WILL LIVE ONLY IF EVERYBODY WILL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE MODALITIES OF THE WORK, AND THAT WILL BE VERY, VERY CHALLENGING TASK.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'D LIKE TO JUST MOVE ON NOW TO THE NEXT TOPIC WHICH IS THE MODELS, THE FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES OF GOVERNANCE MODELS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR SUGGESTED. AND I WONDER WHETHER SOMEBODY WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO GIVE US AN OUTLINE OF SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE THERE.
MR. DESAI.
>>NITIN DESAI: I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE, AS A GROUP, DID NOT SEE OURSELVES AS A NEGOTIATING GROUP. WE DID NOT SEE THAT OUR JOB IS TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE A COMPROMISE OR ANY SUCH THING BETWEEN THE 40 MEMBERS.
THAT WAS NOT OUR PURPOSE.
THAT'S THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENTS AND AMBASSADOR KARKLINS. AND IT'S FOR THAT REASON THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY EVEN TRY VERY HARD, IF YOU LIKE, TO TRY TO GET A COMMON GROUND. WE SAID YES, WE ARE A GROUP OF EXPERTS. IF WE HAVE DIFFERENCES, LET'S TRY TO PRESENT THOSE DIFFERENCES IN AS CLEAR A MANNER AS POSSIBLE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT. IT RANGES FROM AN OPTION WHICH ESSENTIALLY RELIES ON WHAT IS THE MECHANISM AS IT EVOLVES, AS IT CONTINUES TO EVOLVE NOW, AS ALEJANDRO IS EXPLAINING, AND SEVERAL OTHERS WHICH VARY LITTLE IN THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE'S SOME TYPE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROCESS TO EXERCISE THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION.
MY ONLY POINT I WOULD STRESS IS, ALMOST THE ENTIRE FOCUS THERE WAS ON THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION, NOT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL PARTS OF THE INTERNET.
I THINK ONE COMMON FEATURE TO EVERYTHING IS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS EXPECTED TO GET RUN, IT GETS RUN NOW, AND THE WAY IT WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE IN THE FUTURE.
THE FOCUS IS LARGELY ON THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO PRESENT EACH OF THE OPTIONS IN GREAT DETAIL, BUT IF YOU WISH, THEN OUR PEOPLE HERE COULD DO THAT. NOT ALL OF THEM. AT LEAST TWO OF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT HERE TO PRESENT THEM. NO, THREE OF THEM.
SO I'M JUST LOOKING DOWN.
SO I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EASY TO PRESENT ALL OF THE OPTIONS FULLY IN THIS PLACE. I JUST ALLOW YOU TO READ THE REPORT WHEN IT COMES OUT BY TOMORROW OR THE DAY AFTER AND MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGMENTS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MARILYN -- DO WE HAVE ON THE PANEL, DO WE HAVE ANY (INAUDIBLE) FOR A PARTICULAR MODEL? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAVE PROPONENTS OF THEM. AVRI.
>>AVRI DORIA: ACTUALLY, TO CALL ME A PARTISAN IS PROBABLY AN UNDERSTATEMENT.
ONE OF THE MODELS AND ONE OF THE ISSUES I WANTED TO BRING UP IS IN TERMS OF THE FOUR MODELS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OVERSIGHT AND YET IN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT OVERSIGHT, ONE OF THE POINTS WAS WHY OVERSIGHT? AND INDEED, ONE OF THE MODELS THAT IS -- HAS BEEN, I THINK, MISNOMERED, THE STATUS QUO PLUS, SAYS THERE IS NO NEED FOR OVERSIGHT. THAT BASICALLY AS AN ORGANIZATION MATURES, AS ICANN GETS TO ITS MATURITY POINT, AND BECOMES A SELF-REGULATING AGENCY, THEN THE OVERSIGHT IS REALLY AN INTERNAL FUNCTION, IT IS A SELF-REGULATING FUNCTION.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS ONLY ONE OF THE MODELS, AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE AGREED TO BY EVERYONE. BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THAT IN THE CONTINUUM OF OVERSIGHT MODELS, ONE OF THEM DOES START WITH A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THERE IS NO NEED FOR OVERSIGHT.
AND THAT CERTAINLY ISN'T STATUS QUO BECAUSE STATUS QUO HAS OVERSIGHT.
SO....
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:THANKS FOR THAT. IS THERE A PARTISAN FROM A DIFFERENT CAUSE?
WOLFGANG.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I ONLY WANT TO ADD A COMMENT. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE ESTABLISHED LANGUAGE WE HAVE, LIKE OVERSIGHT OR CONTROL, IS MISLEADING TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. AND WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AND ALL THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE LANGUAGE. WE SHOULD MOVE FROM AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO CONTROL BUT A LOT HAS TO BE PROTECTED. THE CORE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNET ARE LIKE OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. IT'S NOT OWNED BY ANYBODY, BUT EVERYBODY NEEDS IT.
AND INSOFAR, YOU KNOW, THIS NEEDS A DIFFERENT APPROACH, AND WE SHOULD GO FAR BEYOND THIS LANGUAGE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT OVERSIGHT AND CONTROL.
IF YOU TALK ABOUT CONTROL, THEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT POWER, AND IF YOU SPEAK ABOUT POWER, YOU SPEAK ABOUT POWER STRUGGLE AND POWER SHIFT.
AND SO THIS IS A COMMON RESOURCE WHICH OWNS TO EVERYBODY, AND WE HAVE TO DEVELOP A CONCEPT HOW WE SHARE THESE RESOURCES IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY WHICH MEANS THE CONCEPT OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH LEADS IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO A NEW CONCEPT OF SHARED SOVEREIGNTY. AND I THINK THIS IS REALLY A BIG CHALLENGE BECAUSE THIS GOES BEYOND THE
JOS KOGINS [SPELLING?] PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED IN THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS. THERE IS NOT YET ANY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CONCEPT OF SHARED SOVEREIGNTY COULD BE, BUT I THINK THE WGIG HAS OPENED THE DOOR FOR SUCH A DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHY I SEE THIS AS A SPRINGBOARD INTO THE FUTURE AND THE NEW TERRITORY OF THE 21ST CENTURY. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK THE PAPERS TALK, AND MARKUS AND NITIN TALKED ABOUT THE ROLES OF THOSE THREE PARTIES, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, CIVIL SOCIETY, AND GOVERNMENTS.
WOLFGANG, IT SEEMS TO ME JUST FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SAID THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE THE GREATEST DIFFICULTY IN MAKING THE JUMP TO THIS NEW PARADIGM MIGHT BE THE GOVERNMENTS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY SENSE OF RESISTANCE FROM GOVERNMENTS TO MOVING TO A SUPER-SOVEREIGN OR CROSS -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ADJECTIVES ARE, BUT TO THIS NEW PLACE YOU SEE US MOVING TO?
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: THERE'S NO SECRET THAT THERE ARE NOT ONLY DIFFERENCES AMONG GOVERNMENTS, BUT ALSO DIFFERENCES AMONG STAKEHOLDERS, WITHIN STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE HAVE TO GO FURTHER AND TO DEVELOP MECHANISMS HOW TO WORK TOGETHER. THERE ARE RAINBOW COALITIONS IN THIS FIELD. SOMETIMES SOME GOVERNMENTS WITH SOME PRIVATE SECTOR MEMBERS AND SOME CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS CREATE ONE PART OF THE RAINBOW COALITION AND THERE ARE OTHER RAINBOW COALITIONS. BUT THE GOOD THING IS EVERYBODY AGREES WE HAVE TO HAVE A STABLE AND SECURE INTERNET, AND THIS INTERNET HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. NOT TO INTRODUCE BLOCKAGES WHICH WILL STOP THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET. BECAUSE WE ENTER NEW AREA AND WE HAVE TO DISCOVER A LOT.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LITTLE PROVOCATIVE, SO LET ME SAY THAT IS BOTH INTENTIONAL BUT ALSO NECESSARY, I THINK. SO WHAT I HEAR IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER THE WORD HISTORIC MIGHT ALSO BE USED. I MIGHT ALSO THINK OF IT AS DRAMATIC. I MIGHT ALSO THINK OF IT AS SCARY, SHIFT TO WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE SAYING CHANGE TO A MORE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT OF THE INTERNET. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF GOVERNANCE GOING ON ALREADY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, ET CETERA. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE U.N. TREATY NEGOTIATIONS. I AM FAMILIAR THAT, IN FACT, IT ISN'T REALLY MULTISTAKEHOLDER. I AM REALLY PLEASED TO HAVE AN OBSERVER STATUS AT THE MEETINGS THAT ARE GOING ON NOW, BUT LET'S BE REAL. IT'S OBSERVER STATUS. SO HOW DOES THIS NEW -- THESE THREE MODELS OR -- BECAUSE MAYBE I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE STATUS QUO ON STEROIDS APPROACH, HOW DO THESE THREE MODELS SAFEGUARD REAL EQUAL PARTICIPATION IN ENSURING THE OUTCOME? BECAUSE I'M NOT COMFORTABLE!
IF IT'S NOT EQUAL PARTICIPATION. OBSERVER STATUS IS NOT EQUAL PARTICIPATION.
>>NITIN DESAI: INCIDENTALLY, I WOULD REPEAT THE POINT WHICH ALEJANDRO AND AVRI MADE. I THINK IT'S MISLEADING TO THINK OF THAT MODEL AS BEING STATUS. I THINK THAT MODEL SAYS, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, CATEGORICALLY NO OVERSIGHT. AM I RIGHT, AVRI?
>>AVRI DORIA: CLEAR QUITE DEFINITELY, THE FIRST BULLET IS THERE IS NO NEED FOR OVERSIGHT FUNCTION.
>>NITIN DESAI: STRICTLY SPEAKING, IN MY VIEW, NONE OF THE FOUR MODELS PROPOSED ARE STATUS QUO MODELS. NONE OF THEM. ONE OF THEM SAYS YOU DON'T NEED OVERSIGHT. THE OTHERS SAY YOU DO, AND THIS IS HOW IT HAS TO BE EXERCISED.
BUT PLUS REMEMBER THAT IN ALL CASES THE OVERSIGHT THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS OVERSIGHT THAT TODAY IS NOT EXERCISED ON A MULTISTAKEHOLDER BASIS.
THAT OVERSIGHT IS NOT EXERCISED ON A MULTISTAKEHOLDER BASIS TODAY, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT OVERSIGHT IS EXERCISED BY ONE GOVERNMENT, AND ESSENTIALLY THE FOCUS THERE WAS ON HOW DOES THAT OVERSIGHT FUNCTION GET EXERCISED, AND ONE GROUP FELT NO NEED FOR ANY OVERSIGHT AND THE OTHER GROUP FELT WE NEED DIFFERENT MECHANISMS.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION. I THOUGHT THAT THE MODELS WERE ABOUT AN APPROACH TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE WHICH I HEARD WAS A BROAD DEFINITION. AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT HAS OVERSIGHT OF ALL -- OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
>>NITIN DESAI: THE MODELS ARE ONLY PART OF WHAT THE REPORT IS ABOUT. THE REPORT -- THIS IS NOT THE ONLY THING THE REPORT SAYS ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT.
THIS PARTICULAR -- THESE PARTICULAR MODELS ARE DEALING WITH ONE SET OF ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. IT IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN LISTED THERE AS A PROBLEM.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS REPORT, IT HAS MANY PROPOSALS, INCLUDING A FORUM PROPOSAL, INCLUDING THIS, INCLUDING WHAT IT SAYS ON INTERNET USE AREAS AND SO ON.
THIS IS JUST ONE PART OF IT.
SO IT WILL BE MISLEADING TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT THE REPORT IS PROPOSING AS FAR AS INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS CONCERNED.
BUT THE FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THIS WAS IN TERMS OF THIS. I HAVE NO PARTICULAR -- PARTICULAR VIEWS ON THE FOUR MODELS. I WAS A MARRIAGE BROKER. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, ALL FOUR BRIDES ARE EQUALLY BEAUTIFUL, BUT IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO IS PREFERRED.
BUT THE -- THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>NITIN DESAI: BUT THE -- SO LET ME JUST STRESS THIS, THAT THIS IS THE SENSE IN WHICH I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO SEE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE GROUP, AND THEY ALL FOUR OF THEM DO INVOLVE CHANGE IN PRESENT ARRANGEMENTS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ALEX, QUICK ON CONTRIBUTION BECAUSE WE HAVE A LINE BUILDING UP.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: OVERSIGHT WAS SO ILL-DEFINED IN VERY MUCH OF OUR DISCUSSIONS -- SORRY. OVERSIGHT WAS SO ILL-DEFINED DURING MUCH OF THE DISCUSSIONS, THAT WE HAVE A GREAT PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING FOR EACH STAKEHOLDER WHAT THEY MEANT BY OVERSIGHT. THERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC OVERSIGHT OVER ONE OF THE ROOT SERVER RELATED FUNCTIONS, ROOT ZONE FILE RELATED FUNCTIONS EXERTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WHICH THE GROUP GENERALLY AGREES SHOULD NOT BE UNILATERAL AND THERE SHOULD BE A GRADUAL, CAREFUL EVOLUTION TO WHATEVER ELSE TAKES ITS PLACE. BUT WE FELT FROM MANY GOVERNMENTS, AND AS YOU HINTED, PETER, THERE WAS A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE WITH GOVERNMENTS, FROM A NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES THERE WAS A CLEAR SENTIMENT THAT THE OVERSIGHT MEANT BY SOME OF THEM WAS MEANT BY THE WHOLE OF THE INTERNET OR THE WHOLE OF THE OPERATIONS AND THERE IS DEFINITELY A SENSE THAT THIS CANNOT WORK. THIS HAS TO BE MADE MORE SPECIFIC AND MADE ISSUE AREA SPECIFIC, ORGANIZATION SPECIFIC.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MILTON.
>>MILTON MUELLER: I'D LIKE TO DRILL DOWN ON THIS QUESTION OF TREATIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS. I THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO THE REPORT AND TO THE FUTURE.
AS YOU KNOW, I'M ASSOCIATED WITH A GROUP THAT'S BEEN PROPOSING THE IDEA OF A FRAMEWORK CONVENTION AS THE WAY FORWARD, AND I THINK THAT THAT IDEA HAS NOT GOTTEN VERY MUCH TRACTION, PROBABLY NOT, CERTAINLY, IN THE REPORT, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF THE TIME AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE -- THE BINDING IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A CONVENTION.
NOW, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE NON-STATUS QUO OR THE NON -- THE MODELS THAT HAVE OVERSIGHT, NONE OF THEM ARE BASED ON ANY NEGOTIATION OF PRINCIPLES OR NORMS. THEY'RE JUST CREATING A NEW ORGANIZATION.
THIS, TO ME, IS VERY SCARY.
ULTIMATELY, IF YOU BELIEVE -- THIS IS MY QUESTION, IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT BEING NECESSARY AND, INDEED, WE DO HAVE SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT NOW IN THE ICANN ARENA, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S NECESSARY, ISN'T IT INEVITABLE THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT OF SOME KIND, AND ISN'T IT BETTER FOR THAT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO BE BASED ON PRINCIPLES WHICH COULD, INDEED, LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND ESTABLISH SOME OF THESE MULTISTAKEHOLDER PRINCIPLES THAT WE WANT, WOULDN'T THAT BE BETTER THAN THE STATUS QUO?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ALEX, MICROPHONE.
IS THERE A RESPONSE TO THAT? I DO AGREE, WE DO NEED TO PICK UP THIS ISSUE OF TREATIES, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS SO FAR.
DOES SOMEBODY FROM THE WORKING GROUP WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE FOCUS ON TREATIES?
>>NITIN DESAI: WELL, I CAN SIMPLY SAY THIS, THAT THIS -- WE HAD PROBABLY A VERY LIGHT DISCUSSION ON THIS. I DON'T THINK WE EVER GOT INTO THIS ISSUE VERY DEEPLY. AND I CAN'T SAY THAT WE EXPLORED IT ABSOLUTELY FULLY.
BUT I THINK WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THE REPORT OF THE GROUP IS SOME STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES. SOME STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD UNDERLIE INTERNET MANAGEMENT.
I HOPE THAT THAT ARTICULATION OF PRINCIPLES DOES PROVIDE INTO SOME EXTENT THE TYPE OF BASIS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR FOR WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENTS WILL DECIDE.
BUT A LOT WILL DEPEND ON THE FORM ON WHICH THIS GETS DISCUSSED AND DECIDED IN THE WSIS PROCESS, BECAUSE EVEN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOFT LAW AND TREATIES IS A VERY TENUOUS ONE. QUITE FRANKLY, A LOT DEPENDS REALLY ON THE GOODWILL WITH WHICH GOVERNMENTS ENTER THEIR COMMITMENTS, WHETHER IT IS UNDER SOFT RAW LAW, WHETHER IT IS UNDER TREATIES.
QUITE FRANKLY, A LOT DEPENDS, REALLY, ON THE GOODWILL WITH WHICH GOVERNMENTS ENTER THEIR COMMITMENTS, WHETHER IT IS UNDER SOFT LAW, WHETHER IT IS UNDER TREATIES.
AND, QUITE FRANKLY, WE ARE AT A VERY EARLY STAGE HERE.
AND I AM NOT SURE THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WILL PLAY OUT IN THE PREP-COM.
BUT I WONDER WHETHER, JANIS, YOU HAD A THOUGHT ON HOW THIS WOULD PLAY OUT, PRINCIPLES VERSUS INSTITUTIONS.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: I THINK THIS DEBATE DEMONSTRATES ONE, IN MY VIEW, DANGER WE MAY FACE IN PREP-COM.
IT IS TO SAY THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF DEBATE WOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY ON INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO AVOID, BECAUSE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT IS ONLY ONE OF ISSUES WE SHOULD ADDRESS DURING PREPCOM III, AND WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME.
WE HAVE, IN TOTAL, SUBCOMMITTEE WILL DISPOSE ABOUT 30 WORKING HOURS TO DISCUSS, DRAFT, NEGOTIATE, AND MAKE A DEAL.
SO AS YOU UNDERSTAND, THAT IS ALMOST MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
SO, THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AS A PART OF A BROADER DISCUSSION, NOT SLIP INTO THAT ASPECT ONLY, BECAUSE WE SAW HERE, WE KNOW HOW WE HAD DISCUSSION IN THE LAST ROUND OF OPEN CONSULTATIONS WE HAD IN JUNE.
AND THAT, AGAIN, UNDERLINES THE NEED FOR CONTINUATION OF THE DIALOGUE AND THE FORUM WITH THE DEFINED MODALITIES WHICH EVERYBODY WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WOULD BE THE PLACE TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOGUE.
AND WE NEED THAT PLATFORM OF DIALOGUE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE NEED AND TO RESPOND ON DYNAMIC CHANGE OF INTERNET ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
JUST A TIME CHECK BEFORE, DAVID -- WE'VE GOT ABOUT 20 MINUTES LEFT.
THE LAST FIVE MINUTES ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF SUMMING UP.
SO WE'RE GOING TO COME TO AN END SHORTLY ON THIS TOPIC.
SO IF YOU COULD START TO THINK ABOUT CAPACITY-BUILDING, MULTILINGUALISM, MULTISTAKEHOLDERS.
>>DAVID FARES: THANK YOU, DAVID FARES.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A PRACTICAL QUESTION THAT APPLIES NOT JUST TO THE MECHANISM, BUT ALSO TO THE FORUM DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION.
THAT IS HAS THERE BEEN CONSIDERATION AS IT RELATES TO THE FUNDING OF THESE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS.
AS WE KNOW, THE FIRST PHASE OF PREPCOM -- OF WSIS WAS VERY EXPENSIVE, IN THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
SO I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT PRACTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED.
THANK YOU.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: AS WE HEARD FROM PREVIOUS ANSWERS, WGIG DID NOT GO INTO DETAILS OR MODALITIES OF WORK PROPOSED FORUM.
WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT AND WE SHOULD BE VERY CREATIVE, BECAUSE UNDERLYING IDEA IN THE U.N. IS NOT TO CREATE ANYTHING WHICH WOULD REQUEST ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
SO THAT WILL BE VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND THE FORMULA HOW THE FORUM COULD BE FUNDED.
AND I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU, DAVID, AND WITH ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD WISH TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE POTENTIAL MODALITIES OF THE WORK OF THE FORUM.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ALEX.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: MORE DETAILED INFORMATION FROM THE PROCESS -- MORE DETAILED INFORMATION FROM THE PROCESS AND DISCUSSIONS THAN WHAT IS IN THE REPORT IS THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS ON THE POSSIBLE FUNDING OF THE FOUR MODELS.
THE CONSENSUS -- QUICK EXPLANATION.
THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP IS THAT THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT MODELS.
AND, ESSENTIALLY, THESE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT MINORITIES REPORTS BY GROUPS WHICH BELIEVE IN THEM.
AND THE CONSENSUS IS THAT THE OTHER GUYS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND THAT'S THE CONSENSUS, THE OTHER GUYS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
THE FUNDING WAS CONSIDERED.
THE MECHANISMS THAT REQUIRE GREAT STRUCTURE AND INTENT TO EXERT GREAT OVERSIGHT OVER SOMEONE ELSE WERE CONSIDERED AS IMPOSSIBLE TO FUND.
WHEREAS, AT LEAST IN THE VIEW OF SOME OF US, AND I WOULD SAY MAYBE THE EIGHT OF US UP HERE, IS THAT IN THE HISTORY OF INTERNET INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE TO COME TOGETHER TO CREATE AN ARRANGEMENT TO FIND A WAY TO FUND IT IF IT PROVIDES VALUE.
IF THE FORUM OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE VALUE, IT WILL NOT BE FUNDED.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY.
GEOFF.
>>GEOFFREY HOUSTON: GEOFF HOUSTON.
IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, ANY EFFECTIVE AND HEALTHY PUBLIC INSTITUTION INVARIABLY HAS TO REFLECT THE DESIRES, AIMS, AND CONCERNS OF A BROAD RANGE OF CONSTITUENCIES.
IT APPEARS THAT ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF YOUR WORK IS THE OBSERVATION THAT SUCH INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT A FEATURE OF THE INTERNET ENVIRONMENT AND THEY TEND TO BE MORE NARROW IN FOCUS.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THE MODELS THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING ACCURATELY INSTILL A BROADER ENVIRONMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND CHANGE THAT WE CAN TAKE SUCH EFFECTIVE SECTOR-BASED INSTITUTIONS AND CREATE FROM THAT HEALTHY INSTITUTIONS THAT ACTUALLY DO ENCOMPASS THE BROAD DIVERSITY WE SEE IN THIS MASSIVE GLOBAL INDUSTRY?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: RAUL?
ALEX?
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
I THINK THAT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE WGIG REPORT ITSELF IS THE WSIS PRINCIPLES, IN WHICH WE ARE WORKING BASED ON THAT HYPOTHESIS OF OUR WORK.
I THINK THAT MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT OUTCOME OF THIS PROCESS IS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A NEW MODEL OF GOVERNANCE HAS TO BE APPLIED IN EVERY ORGANIZATION.
FIRSTLY, INVOLVED WITHIN INTERNET MATTERS, BUT I THINK THAT IT GOES BEYOND THE INTERNET AND INFORMATION SOCIETY ISSUES, AS WE ARE TALKING MAYBE ABOUT NEW GOVERNANCE WAYS FOR THE FUTURE IN DIFFERENT ISSUES, LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OR HUMAN RIGHTS OR WHATEVER.
BUT THEN IF WE TRIED TO ENCOURAGE ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN INTERNET MATTERS TO APPLY THE WSIS PRINCIPLES, THEN SAY WE WILL GET, SURELY, VERY IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT IN THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES IN INTERNET ISSUES.
SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS, EVERYONE.
THIS IS MY FIRST POINT.
MY SECOND POINT IS THAT THE FORUM ITSELF WILL HELP VERY MUCH TO IMPROVE THE COORDINATION AMONG ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS, AND IT WILL BE THE SECOND POINT THAT WE CONTRIBUTE, TO HAVE MAYBE MORE SECTOR-BASED ORGANIZATIONS, BUT WORKING IN A COMMON, UNDERSTANDABLE ENVIRONMENT.
AND I THINK THAT THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
VERY GOOD POINT, GEOFF.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AVRI, DO YOU WANT TO ADD A SMALL ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>>AVRI DORIA: ACTUALLY, THANK YOU.
IT WAS THE LAST POINT THAT RAUL JUST MADE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID NOT COME OUT ABOUT THE FORUM WHEN WE WERE TALKING IT EARLIER AND WHERE ONE OF THE MODELS EXTENDS IT IS THAT THE FORUM IS MEANT TO BRING TOGETHER THESE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS AND BOTH GET THEM TO WORK TOGETHER, GET THEM TO SHARE, SO BUILD THAT LARGER SCOPE, AND ALSO -- AND THIS IS A POINT THAT WAS ASKED EARLIER -- WHEN NECESSARY, BASICALLY INITIATE OTHER SMALLER JOINT GROUPS TO ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING DONE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY.
I'D JUST LIKE TO CHANGE -- COME TO IZUMI IN A MINUTE.
CHANGE GEARS SLIGHTLY, JUST WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION, IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE NOW LOOKING BACK, WHAT PRIMARILY ABOUT THE STATUS QUO, INCLUDING THE WAY, AS I AGREE WITH ALEX, THE STATUS QUO IS INNOVATING AND DEVELOPING ITSELF, WHAT, PRIMARILY, WAS WRONG, AND IN ANSWERING THAT, COULD YOU INCLUDE SOME CONCEPT, SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN ITS PRESENT ROLE OF EITHER (INAUDIBLE).
>>NITIN DESAI: WHY DID WE -- WE ARE BASICALLY ASKING WHY DID WE EVER SET UP THIS WORKING GROUP, IS THE QUESTION YOU ARE REALLY ASKING.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WHAT WAS PRIMARY -- WHAT WAS THE PRIME REQUIREMENT.
AND INCLUDE IN THAT ANY DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN OVERSIGHT.
>>NITIN DESAI: I WILL ATTEMPT AN ANSWER.
I THINK PART OF THE REASON IS THAT THE DISCUSSION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE SURFACED RATHER LATE IN THE GENEVA PHASE OF THE SUMMIT.
AND WHEN THIS -- IT CAME UP IN GENEVA, QUITE FRANKLY, PEOPLE WERE NOT PREPARED.
PEOPLE WERE NOT READY FOR REALLY DISCUSSING THIS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION.
AND SO PART OF THE REASON THE GROUP WAS SET UP WAS, FRANKLY, AN EDUCATION PROCESS.
LET'S CLARIFY ISSUE.
THEREFORE THE FOCUS ON DEFINITION.
THEREFORE THE FOCUS ON IDENTIFYING PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES.
REMEMBER, WE WERE ASKED TO IDENTIFY PROPOSALS ONLY AS NECESSARY.
OUR REAL JOB WAS TO CLEAR THE UNDERGROWTH OF CONFUSION SO THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENTS START TALKING ABOUT IT, THERE IS GREATER CLARITY ON WHAT IS IT.
THAT WAS ONE.
TWO, THERE WERE CERTAIN CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARTICULAR ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO ONE AREA OF INTERNET MANAGEMENT, AND THAT WAS ARTICULATED.
THAT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN.
THIRD CONCERN, I THINK THERE WAS CONCERN AMONGST DEVELOPING COUNTRIES THAT THEY WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ENGAGED AND INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, NOT FOR ANY VERY PRECISE REASON, BECAUSE -- BUT THE FACT IS THAT THEY DO NOT SEEM THAT ENGAGED.
I KNOW THAT YOUR PLACE IN ICANN MEETINGS THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
BUT I WOULD LOVE TO FIND OUT, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE FROM INDIA AND CHINA?
PRESENT IN THIS ROOM.
AND LOOK AT THE NUMBERS WHO TODAY ARE INTERNET USERS IN THESE COUNTRIES.
SO THERE WAS THIS SENSE OF DISCONNECT.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE INSTITUTIONS.
IT WAS NOT THAT THE INSTITUTIONS SAID WE WON'T HAVE YOU.
IT SIMPLY HADN'T WORKED.
IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
SO THESE WERE SOME OF THE REASONS WHICH UNDERLIE THIS.
AND I THINK AS WE WENT DOWN THE LINE, THE ISSUE OF COORDINATION, WHICH OUTREACH ALSO CAME UP, HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO WORK AROUND COMMON ISSUES.
AND ALSO, AS WE DISCUSSED IT, WE FOUND THAT, REALLY, THE MANAGEMENT OF CORE RESOURCES IS REALLY JUST A SMALL PART OF THE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE, THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES ARE OTHER ISSUES, SECURITY, SPAM, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN ORDER TO GET PUBLIC POLICY TO REACT -- DO THINGS MORE FAVORABLY.
AND, FINALLY, PEOPLE THINK THAT ALL OF THIS PRESSURE HAS COME ONLY FROM GOVERNMENTS, THAT IT IS GOVERNMENTS WHO THINK THAT CHANGE IS NECESSARY.
BUT THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN FROM NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES WHO HAVE ALSO FELT THE NEED FOR A SPACE FOR INFLUENCING WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO AND DO NOT -- EVERYBODY HAS TENDED TO FOCUS HERE ON HOW DO WE GIVE GOVERNMENTS GREATER VOICE.
I WOULD URGE YOU ALSO TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE AS A WAY OF THE COMMUNITY GETTING GREATER VOICE AND INFLUENCING WHAT GOVERNMENTS ARE GOING TO DO, WHICH WOULD IMPINGE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNET.
THIS IS MY ASSESSMENT OF WHERE WE CAME FROM.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN -- MAYBE WE CAN GET DOWN TO WHERE DO YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO GET TO AFTER THIS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IZUMI.
>>IZUMI AIZU: I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE FUNCTION OF ONE GOVERNMENT.
DO WGIG MEMBERS THINK THAT THE REPORT AND ITS POSSIBLE OUTCOMES AND RICH ENOUGH, POWERFUL ENOUGH TO PERSUADE ONE GOVERNMENT WHICH INDICATED, QUITE SIMPLY, WHICH THEY WILL MAINTAIN THE OVERSIGHT?
I HOPE YOU FEEL SO.
BUT COULD YOU PRESENT HOW YOU CAN REALLY, IN A RATIONAL MANNER, PERSUADE THEM?
I FEEL LIKE WE -- THERE WAS SOME BIG ELEPHANT HERE.
YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE ELEPHANT.
WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THE ELEPHANT.
BUT IS THIS ELEPHANT POWERFUL ENOUGH TO PERSUADE TO CHANGE?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WOLFGANG, THE TOUR, ALEX, RAUL, IN THAT -- WOLFGANG.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: YEAH, I THINK THERE WAS A CONSENSUS IN THE GROUP THAT THIS SYSTEM OF -- THAT ONLY ONE GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZES CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AUTHORITATIVE ROOT ZONE FILE SHOULD BE FURTHER DEVELOPED.
AND THERE WERE A LOT OF CITIZENS, OR LET'S SAY NETIZENS FROM THE UNITED STATES IN THE GROUP, BUT NOT AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
BUT IT MEANS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT APPROACHES, THE GOVERNMENTAL APPROACH, AND THEN THE APPROACH FROM SOME NONGOVERNMENTAL GROUPS.
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO IS, I THINK I'M VERY HAPPY THAT THE NTIA PUBLISHED THIS STATEMENT WITH THE FOUR POINTS, BECAUSE THIS WAS A MISSING VOICE IN THE GROUP.
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE GROUP.
THE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS WERE A MEMBER OF THE GROUP, AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS WERE REPRESENTED IN THE GROUP, BUT NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
AND SO FAR IT'S NOW GOOD TO HAVE THIS STATEMENT HERE.
AND I SEE IT AS THE START FOR A FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR THE NEXT ROUND.
NOW WE HAVE A CLEAR POSITION.
AND I HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS SAID IN THE FOUR POINTS BY MR. GALLAGHER, THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND TO FIND A WAY ELSEWHERE IN THE FUTURE, NOT GOING BACKWARDS TO THE 20TH CENTURY, BUT MOVING FORWARDS TO THE 21ST CENTURY, AND THIS GIVES US A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES.
BUT THE BASIC THING IS, AND HERE I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THE POSITION OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET IS THE STARTING POINT, AND NOBODY WANTS TO UNDERMINE THIS.
BUT SOMETHING SHOULD BE CHANGED, STATUS QUO PLUS AND ALL THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE.
I WOULD DESCRIBE ALSO THIS FORUM AS A MECHANISM OF MECHANISMS, OR THAT MEANS THE DECISION-MAKING POWER IS ON THE EDGES, AND IN THE CENTER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME ROOT SERVER MECHANISMS WHICH ANSWERED THE QUERIES WHICH ARE COMING, YOU KNOW, FROM THE EDGES.
SO FAR, THE QUESTION IS NOT A QUESTION OF A NEW INSTITUTION.
IT'S A MECHANISM WHICH ENABLES, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION-MAKING BODIES WHICH ARE ON THE EDGES TO DO THEIR WORK BETTER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ALEX AND THEN RAUL.
SORRY.
ALEX AND THEN VITTORIO.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I THINK WOLFGANG HAS THIS RIGHT.
THE REPORT HAS A POTENTIAL, NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT IN THE FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS, TO ESTABLISH A FRAMEWORK AND SAY WHERE THE GROUNDSWELL COMES REQUESTING A CHANGE, A GRADUAL, ORDERLY CHANGE IN THIS TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT.
BUT THERE'S, INDEED, A NEED FOR CHANGE.
AND JUST TO COMPLEMENT GEOFF HOUSTON'S QUESTION, MAYBE TO PUT IT MORE STARKLY, DURING THE DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT WE CALL THE STATUS QUO, NEED RADICAL REFORM IN SOME CASES IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE MUCH BROADER STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND EVEN WORDS LIKE "ITU REFORM" WERE EXPRESSED DURING THE DISCUSSIONS AND CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED DUE TO CHATHAM HOUSE RULES.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VITTORIO.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, SOME PERSONAL COMMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT REALLY MEANS THAT OR IT'S JUST A WAY TO START A NEGOTIATION FOR THE COMING MONTHS.
SO STILL THE INTERPRETATION IS NOT CLEAR TO ME.
AT THE SAME TIME, WELL, I WAS A BIT DISAPPOINTED, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS REALLY THE ONLY STAKEHOLDER THAT WAS MISSING FROM INSIDE THIS PROCESS.
AND WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN THE DIALOGUE.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO REALIZE THAT IT DOESN'T OWN THE INTERNET.
I MEAN, THE INTERNET IS NOW REALLY A GLOBAL RESOURCE THAT IS USED BY EVERYONE.
AND, ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S OWNED BY ALL OF US, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.
AND SO I AM CONCERNED, BECAUSE I REALLY SEE THE RISK THAT IF YOU CANNOT FIND A DEAL BETWEEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, THE DNS WILL BREAK.
AND I SEE A CONCRETE RISK OF HAVING MULTIPLE ROOT SERVER SYSTEMS.
SO I THINK THIS IS AN EXTREME DANGER THAT WE HAVE TO WORK TO AVOID.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND RAUL.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: FIRST POINT, I THINK THAT THE ROLE OF THE WGIG IS NOT PERSUADE ANYBODY.
THE SECOND ONE, I AGREE WITH, OR I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS EXACTLY WHAT VITTORIO THINKS, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS DOING IS JUST THE SAME THAT OTHER GOVERNMENTS DID BEFORE.
IT'S MAKING STRONG STATEMENTS BEFORE THE STARTING OF NEGOTIATIONS.
AND SO I CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS ENOUGH TO PREDICT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
THE LAST POINT IS IN THE SAME (INAUDIBLE) AS ALEJANDRO'S COMMENT.
I THINK IT IS AS A COMMUNITY, NOT AS WGIG MEMBERS, BUT AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, WE HAVE TO PERSUADE MANY PEOPLE, MANY ORGANIZATIONS, AND MANY GOVERNMENTS, NOT ONLY TO CHANGE THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, BUT ALSO, AND MORE IMPORTANT, MAYBE, IS TO CHANGE THE WAY IN WHICH MANY ORGANIZATIONS WORK TODAY.
WE CANNOT FOCUS ONLY IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ROLE TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WE HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT.
SO I'M GOING TO GIVE -- I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ENOUGH ON THAT, WITH ALL RESPECT.
CAN WE HAVE A VERY BRIEF QUESTION, GEORGE.
WE'VE GOT TWO MINUTES LEFT.
>>GEORGE SADOWSKY: THIS IS ON CAPACITY-BUILDING, YOUR FOURTH SUBJECT OF FIVE.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE PANEL FOR SOME CLARIFICATION ON A SUBJECT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT.
AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE BETWEEN DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL GOVERNANCE ISSUES AND INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
LET ME PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH TO REACT TO THAT.
IF YOU THINK OF THIS AS A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS AND YOU'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AS THE MAJOR FOCUS OF WSIS, WHICH I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS ENTER INTO YOUR THINKING, THEN BOTTOM-UP STARTS WITH THE USER.
AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS ARE QUITE EXPLICIT ABOUT THE KINDS OF THINGS USERS MIGHT -- THAT PEOPLE IN INFORMATION SOCIETY MIGHT LIKE, SUCH AS FULL STOMACHS, HEALTHY BODIES, A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INCOME.
NOW, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THE POLICIES ARE THAT WOULD CHANGE THE USERS' ABILITY TO BE EMPOWERED BY ICTS, I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, ARE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, AND WITH POSSIBLY SOME INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THEM, WHICH IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
AND, YET, IN THE REPORT -- AND I MUST ADMIT TO BEING VERY QUEAZY ABOUT SAYING THIS, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ THE REPORT.
I SHARE MOUHAMET'S UNEASE ABOUT THIS.
SO I'M REACTING IN PART TO THE STREAM OF BACKGROUND NOISE THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
WHAT I SEE IS A LOT OF DELIBERATION ABOUT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS AND VERY LITTLE ABOUT NATIONAL POLICIES, EXCEPT, OH, THEY'RE IMPORTANT, OF COURSE.
WE GIVE THEM -- WE GIVE THEM THEIR DUE.
BUT WHAT I HAVEN'T SEEN IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION DRILLING DOWN INTO THOSE SUBJECTS WHICH ARE OF PRIME IMPORTANCE FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AM I READING THE REPORT WRONG?
HOW DOES THE PANEL SEE THE BALANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO SUBJECTS?
>>NITIN DESAI: I WOULD URGE YOU TO WAIT UNTIL THE REPORT COMES OUT.
THE REPORT DOES DEAL WITH NATIONAL ISSUES.
AND AS MARKUS JUST POINTED OUT, WHEN WE PRESENT THE REPORT ON 18TH JULY, THE VERY NEXT DAY, ON 19 JULY, OUR FOCUS -- WE HAVE THIS WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL MANAGEMENT WHERE WE ARE BASICALLY GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR GOVERNANCE OF THESE ISSUES, WHERE MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ASSURE YOU THAT IT IS SOMETHING WHICH IS ADDRESSED IN THE REPORT, AND IT IS SOMETHING WHICH IS BEING ACTUALLY PURSUED IN THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE REPORT.
BUT THE WORKING GROUP HAD TO WORK TO THE MANDATE THAT WAS SET FOR IT.
AND THAT MANDATE WAS VERY MUCH IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GLOBAL ARRANGEMENTS.
AND THAT'S, NATURALLY, WHAT WE HAD TO FOCUS ON.
BUT IT IS THERE IN THE REPORT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OH, VINT, JUST IN TIME.
ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
>>VINT CERF: IT'S VINT CERF AGAIN.
PETER, IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME THAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT OFFICIALLY ON THE REPORT AS SOON AS IT COMES OUT IN JULY, MONDAY.
AND IF YOU HAVE SOLUTIONS TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
SOLUTIONS WOULD BE NICE.
NO, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME.
I JUST NOW NEED TO CLOSE THIS DOWN.
AND I WILL CLOSE, OF COURSE, BY THANKING EVERYBODY.
BUT IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE TO JUST AT LEAST LIST SOME OF THE WAYS THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED.
THE FIRST POINT IS PROBABLY TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AS THE INTERNET ITSELF EVOLVES.
WE'RE DEALING WITH ONE OF THE FASTEST-CHANGING MOST DYNAMIC INVENTIONS WE HAVE EVER HAD WITH ENORMOUS IMPACT.
WE CAN ACCEPT THAT NOTHING WE DO NOW IS GOING TO BE THE END POINT, BUT IT MAY BE A STARTING POINT.
ANOTHER THING TO SAY IS THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, A FORMAL BOTTOMS-UP PROCESS STATEMENT THAT'S BEEN PRODUCED BY ICANN AND THERE ARE COPIES OF THAT STATEMENT ABOUT.
THAT WAS MY REACTION, I THINK, TO THE SUGGESTION THAT WE MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING FROM LOUIS XIV IN BATHING IN PUBLIC.
THEN I THOUGHT, PERHAPS, TOO, THAT MIGHT BE TOO MUCH BOTTOMS-UP.
BUT THE NEXT ISSUE, REALLY, WAS THE FORUM.
THERE SEEMS TO BE AN IDEA THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ONE COORDINATING PLACE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE OTHER FORA THAT OCCUR, THAT A COORDINATING FORUM MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
BUT WE HEARD A WORD OF WARNING.
WE DON'T WANT THAT TO DRAG ASSETS AND RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE EXISTING FORUMS.
MY PERSONAL CONCERN ABOUT THAT FORUM IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE NO POWER.
AND MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT PEOPLE TEND TO GRAVITATE AWAY FROM [SIC] PLACES WHERE WHAT THEY SAY MAKES AN ACTUAL DIFFERENCE.
WE MOVED ON, THEN, TO THE FOUR MODELS OF OVERSIGHT, INCLUDING THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, WHY HAVE OVERSIGHT AT ALL.
DO WE HAVE ANY?
ANOTHER HINT OF A DEBATE THAT WE REALLY MUST HAVE NOT SPEAKING JUST AS A LAWYER, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WE DO AT PRESENT AND WHAT KIND OF TREATIES WE MIGHT HAVE TO SET UP TO INSTITUTIONALIZE SOME OF THIS.
JUST IN ANSWER TO MOUHAMET, THERE'S NO DIFFICULTY AT ALL IN DISCUSSING A REPORT THAT'S GOING TO COME OUT TOMORROW, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY TOMORROW IN NEW ZEALAND.
SO PUT YOURSELF FORWARD.
WE SHOULD HAVE STARTED, I SUPPOSE, BY NOTING THAT WE GOT INTO THIS BY BEING TAKEN BY SURPRISE AT THE WSIS THAT THIS WAS SUCH AN ISSUE OF SUCH MAGNITUDE.
AND HOW, FROM THAT, THE CONCERNS THAT OTHERS HAD AT THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
NOT CLEAR YET WHETHER THOSE CONCERNS ARE GOING TO BE AMELIORATED BY WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, AND WE NEED TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.
PROBABLY THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL THEME THAT KEEPS COMING THROUGH FROM ALL THE PARTICIPANTS IS THE GENUINE AND NECESSARY URGE TO HAVE MORE VOICES AT THE TABLE.
NITIN MADE IT CLEAR IT'S NOT JUST TO HAVE MORE GOVERNMENT VOICES AT THE TABLE.
CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT THE VOICES OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS DEBATE AROUND THE TABLE.
AND THE FINAL REMINDER THAT MUCH OF THIS IS UNDERPINNED BY OBSERVANCE AND TRYING TO ADHERE TO THE MILLENNIAL GOALS AND FOCUS ON USERS.
AND USERS OBVIOUSLY LIVE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND IT'S THEIR NATIONAL NEEDS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE NEED TO COMMENT ANY FURTHER ABOUT THE FOUR BEAUTIFUL BRIDES.
THERE'S A SAYING WHERE I COME FROM THAT POLYGAMY IS HAVING ONE WIFE TOO MANY, BUT FOR MANY PEOPLE, MONOGAMY IS HAVING EXACTLY THE SAME.
SO BRIDES CAN BE DIFFICULT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN.
OBVIOUSLY, IT WON'T BE A CLEAR CHOICE OF ONE OVER THE OTHER, BUT A COMPROMISE IN THE WSIS PROCESS.
WELL, THAT'S A QUICK TOUR OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE COVERED.
WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE SPENT MORE TIME ON CAPACITY-BUILDING.
WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON MULTILINGUALISM, BUT AS VINT REMINDS US, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMENT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
LET ME WISH ALL OF YOU WHO ARE GOING ON WITH THIS PROCESS THE VERY BEST OF LUCK, PARTICULARLY AMBASSADOR KARKLINS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO OBSERVE WHAT GOES ON.
WE DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE END OF THE ICANN WSIS WORKING GROUP WORKSHOP TASK FORCE OR WHATEVER WE'RE CALLED.
BUT WE THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR ITS WORK.
CAN I NOW FORMALLY THANK PAUL TWOMEY, NITIN DESAI, JANIS KARKLINS, AND MARKUS KUMMER FOR THEIR PRESENTATIONS.
AND WILL YOU JOIN WITH ME IN THANKING THEM FOR THE TIME THEY HAVE PUT INTO ATTENDING TODAY.

(APPLAUSE.) THANK YOU, AGAIN, TO ALL THE WORKING GROUP PANELISTS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EXCITING, PROBABLY DRAINING, EXPERIENCE FOR YOU ALL.
AND THANK YOU AS YOU GO, TO YOU, FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY.
THANKS VERY MUCH.