{"id":272,"date":"2010-06-17T08:41:24","date_gmt":"2010-06-17T08:41:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rigf.asia\/?page_id=272"},"modified":"2024-01-25T06:49:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T06:49:59","slug":"aprigf-roundtable-june-15th-2010-session-1","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/aprigf-roundtable-june-15th-2010-session-1\/","title":{"rendered":"APrIGF Roundtable – June 15th, 2010: Session 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome Remarks and Introduction<\/span><\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: Welcome Remarks and Setting the Scene
\nAPrIGF
\n9:30-10:30, Tuesday 15 June 2010
\nHong Kong<\/p>\n

DISCLAIMER: Due to the inherent difficulties in capturing a live
\nspeaker’s words, it is possible this realtime transcript may
\ncontain errors and mistranslations. An edited version of the
\nrealtime transcript which amends the inherent errors, will
\nbe posted later. LLOYD MICHAUX and APrIGF accept no
\nliability for any event or action resulting from the
\ncontents of this transcript.<\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

>> : Welcome to Asia Pacific Governance Forum. Internet
\nGovernance Forum, IGF, is a United Nations activity
\ninitiated in 2006, as a global platform for stakeholder
\npolicy dialogue on prevailing and emerging issues on
\ninternet governance.<\/p>\n

The whole APRIGF consists of three components. The
\nyouth IGF camp on 12 to 14 June. Today and tomorrow
\nround table and the Hong Kong IGF on Thursday and
\nFriday.<\/p>\n

The APRIGF will help shape the future of the IGF.<\/p>\n

The event receive many support from many
\norganisations from different fields. Our hosting
\norganisation includes APNIC, APTLD, DotAsia
\nOrganisation, Freedom House, the Hong Kong Council of
\nSocial Service, The Hong Kong Federation of Youth
\nGroups, Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation Ltd,
\nHong Kong Representative of the Multistakeholder Advisor
\nGroup, IGF, Internet Professional Association, Internet
\nSociety Hong Kong, NetMission, the Office of the
\nHonourable Samson Tam, Legislative Councillor of
\ninformation technology functional constituency.<\/p>\n

Also, we would like to our adviser, Office of the
\nGovernment Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, to help
\nenable this event to happen.<\/p>\n

To make this event successful, we would like to
\nthank our sponsor for their kind support. Including our
\ngrand sponsors, Microsoft and APNIC. Venue sponsor,
\nCyberport, Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation
\nLtd and our community sponsors, APTLD, impact, Japan
\nRegistry Services and Singapore Internet Research
\nCentre.<\/p>\n

There are over 30 supporting organisations which
\nmake today’s event so successful together.<\/p>\n

Now, we shall proceed to the welcome remark session.
\nMay I invite Mr Jeremy Godfrey, Government Chief
\nInformation Officer, HKSAR, OGCIO, to deliver the
\nwelcome remarks to us.<\/p>\n

Applause.<\/p>\n

>> Jeremy Godfrey: Thank you very much. Good morning,
\neverybody. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
\nit’s a pleasure to welcome so many people, I think from
\n25 different economies and countries, coming to this
\nfirst Asia Pacific regional IGF.<\/p>\n

The internet, of course, as we all know, is becoming
\nmore and more important to more and more people.
\nI think we to you have almost 2 billion users of the
\ninternet in the world. With that growth in importance
\nand growth in number of users, again, a number of
\nwell-known challenges have emerged.<\/p>\n

One of those is the digital divide. In Hong Kong,
\nwe are quite fortunate. We have 81, 82 per cent
\ninternet penetration and we have an average access speed
\nof 8.5 megabits per second, so we are very fortunate.<\/p>\n

Of course, there is digital divide both between
\neconomies, so I was talking to the minister from
\nBangladesh earlier about the penetration in Bangladesh
\nand there the challenge is to go from about 50 million
\nI think up to 100 million.<\/p>\n

But even within economies, even in Hong Kong, we
\nhave a digital divide. 80 per cent is not 100 per cent,
\nso we are very focused on making sure that people from
\ngroups like the elderly, people with disabilities and
\nparticularly children from low income families,s whether
\nhave access to the internet, so that they can play
\na full role in the information society.<\/p>\n

On Sunday, we launched a portal targeted at
\nproducing content for the elderly and then later this
\nyear, we’ll be rolling out a programme to make it easier
\nfor children from low income families to get access to
\nthe internet and to get access to computer systems.<\/p>\n

In fact, even amongst our low income families, the
\npenetration rate of the internet is 87 per cent, which
\nis a tribute to the importance that parents place on the
\ninternet as an educational tool.<\/p>\n

But from a teacher’s perspective, if you have three
\nor four children in your class who don’t have access to
\nthe internet, you’re going to be less willing to use
\nthat as a teaching tool, so everybody in the class
\nsuffers, not just the three or four who don’t have
\ninternet access. That’s important for us.<\/p>\n

Another of the challenges that we all are facing is
\nhow to keep people receive on the internet. The
\ninternet can be likened to a city with greater art
\ngalleries, sports events, shops, plates to meet, but
\nalso in there are criminals and dangers lurking.<\/p>\n

In the real world, parents are able to give children
\nguidance and we grow up learning how to be safe in
\na city. The internet has grown so fast that the normal
\nsources of guidance, what we found when we did some
\nresearch is parents are not at all confident in their
\nability to guide their children about how to be safe.<\/p>\n

In fact, there is something of a digital divide
\nbetween children and parents and so another of the
\nthings we are having to do is roll out a programme to
\nhelp both parents and children understand how to be safe
\non the internet.<\/p>\n

Then the third thing we all are facing is how to get
\nthe best out of the internet, how can we share
\nknowledge. In my own field of e-government, we do quite
\na lot of talking to other governments about how they can
\ndeliver services on-line, how they can use web to engage
\nmore effectively and become closer to the people.<\/p>\n

We all face these common challenges and the IGF, as
\na multi-stakeholder group, forum, is a fantastic place
\nfor us to engage and get better at addressing those
\nchallenges.<\/p>\n

I went to the meeting in Sharm El Sheikh last year,
\nit was the first time I had been to any of these forums.<\/p>\n

I must say, the value of the multi-stakeholder forum
\nwas, for me, very great. It was an opportunity to learn
\nabout the perspectives of civil society, the
\nperspectives of people from other economics, at
\ndifferent stages of development, so I came away there
\nthat I hope a more knowledgeable person and maybe
\na slightly more open minded person about different ways
\nof approaching problems.<\/p>\n

Although the IGF is not a decision-making body, it’s
\na body where everybody comes away more capable of making
\ngood decisions in their daily lives or in the other
\nforums in which they participate.<\/p>\n

One of the things I also found quite challenging
\nabout the IGF, as a new person, is that the story of the
\ninternet or the story of the mainstreaming of the
\ninternet is now 15 or 20 years old and so there’s
\na group of people who’ve been with that story right from
\nthe beginning.<\/p>\n

When you come as a newcomer, it’s a bit like
\nattending a third year mathematics lecture without
\nhaving done the first two years and you feel there is
\na lot of catch up to do.<\/p>\n

One of the really valuable things about the IGF,
\nabout the regional IGFs, is the way that it enables
\npeople to catch up on the story so far and with the
\ninternet growing so fast, most of the people involved in
\nthe internet are newcomers. The veterans are quite
\na small group.<\/p>\n

One of the challenges for the veterans is how to
\ninclude the newcomers, but without having to go back to
\nthe beginning and repeat 15 years of education.<\/p>\n

I think the regional IGF plays a very good role in
\nthat. I was also particularly struck by the way in
\nwhich Egyptian growth people were involved in that forum
\nand also the effort that had been made to include people
\nwith disabilities.<\/p>\n

I think, again, something I hope we are able to
\nreplicate, that’s why we have the youth IGF, is to
\nenable that to happen.<\/p>\n

In fact, I had rather more modest ambitions for the
\nIGF, as we left last time, I said to Stephen Lau,
\nwouldn’t it be great to do a Hong Kong IGF and civil
\nsociety and youth and people with disabilities in these
\nissues and then in the lounge at Aman airport, on the
\nway back, we ran into Edmon and some other people from
\nother economies who said we should try and do this on
\na regional basis, so I said if you’re sure and so
\nI think a great tribute to both the Hong Kong organising
\ncommittee and the it would err Asia Pacific organising
\ncommittee for pulling this together in relatively short
\nperiod of time. I’m sure that this is going to be the
\nfirst of many regional IGFs that will prove very
\nproductive for the internet community and all the
\nstakeholders in the region.<\/p>\n

I wish everybody a very good stay in Hong Kong and
\na very productive conference. Thank you.<\/p>\n

I have also now falls to me the very pleasant task
\nof introducing Markus Kummer. It was Markus who started
\nme on my internet governance journey. He visited
\nHong Kong about a year ago and met me with Stephen and
\nexplained to me about the IGF. Markus had distinguished
\ncareer as a diplomat in the Swiss diplomatic service,
\nposted to a number of places around Europe and was the
\ne-envoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry. He is
\na veteran, he was part of the Swiss delegation at the
\nworld summit on the Internet Society and as joined the
\nUN in 2004 and has played a role in internet governance,
\nis now runs the secretariat for the IGF.<\/p>\n

Can I ask you to welcome Markus. Thank you.<\/p>\n

>> Markus Kummer: Thank you, Jeremy. Good morning to you
\noff. It’s great a pleasure and honour for me to be
\nhere. I’m really excited to see how this came about,
\nthis Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum.<\/p>\n

You’re in very good company with your regional
\nforum. Over the past few years, we have seen similar
\ninitiatives emerging in all parts of the world, in East
\nAfrica, West Africa, in Latin America, in the Caribbean,
\nin Europe, also many national Internet Governance Forums
\nhave emerged, USA, Russia recently, then many in Europe,
\nUnited Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and
\nthere is of course a fairly big European gathering which
\nhas taken place for the third time this year.<\/p>\n

All these initiatives, they very much came up, they
\nmushroomed in a bottom up way. They were not based on
\nany decision by the world summit on the information
\nsociety. They were local, regional, national
\ninitiatives that just came about.<\/p>\n

There was a perceived need for this kind of
\ngathering for this kind of discussion.<\/p>\n

There is, in the Tunis agenda, an acknowledgment
\nthat there is a need for coordination at all levels, at
\nthe international level, regional level and national
\nlevel.<\/p>\n

Most of the discussions, however, in the
\ninternational context is about international cooperation
\nat the global level.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, it was recognised that in order to
\nbring about policy coherence, there need to be policy
\ncoherence at all levels, the national, at the global and
\nalso at the regional level.<\/p>\n

There are two ways of bringing about policy
\ncoherence. One would be the more traditional top down
\nway of negotiating treaties and agreements to try to
\ncreate hard law, to meet all these challenges Jeremy
\njust talked about.<\/p>\n

There is another way, which is more the IGF way.
\nThat is to bring about policy coherence through
\ndiscussions, not through decision making, but sharing of
\nbest practices, sharing of experiences to learn from
\neach other.<\/p>\n

The internet, above all, as a network of network, is
\nvery much a shared environment. This methodology of
\nsharing experiences is very much appropriate, very much
\nadapted to the shared environment of the internet.<\/p>\n

The IGF was a decision by the World Summit of the
\nInformation Society, but it was very carefully crafted<\/p>\n

and heads of state, government, made sure that the IGF
\nwould have no decision-making power.<\/p>\n

However, it has the power of recognition. It can
\nrecognise issues. It can put issues on the agenda of
\ninternational cooperation.<\/p>\n

One example multilingualism and the IDN. The IGF
\ndid not take any decision in this matter. However, it
\nsignalled to those who can take decision that this is an
\nissue of concern and that many non-English speaking
\ncountries, many countries that use other scripts and the
\nas I can script, attach great importance to this issue.<\/p>\n

There is no scientific proof whether or not the IGF
\nhas influenced the introduction of the IDN. But many
\npeople feel that it has helped accelerate the process.<\/p>\n

Quite often, when trying to explain what the IGF is,
\nI’m confronted with the difficulty that it may be easier
\nto explain what it is not. It is not a new
\norganisation. It is not an organisation with
\nmembership. It’s not a tennis club where members with
\nvote whether they want to have a ladies afternoon or
\nnot. No, it is very much a platform with an open door
\npolicy where anybody can come in, anybody can come,
\nstand up and talk and can go to the microphone and talk
\nabout his or her concern.<\/p>\n

It is what I would call, it is based on a soft
\ngovernance approach that can shape public opinion and
\ndecision making.<\/p>\n

This novel character for international cooperation
\non a global level leads also to different
\ninterpretations with regard to its strengths and
\nweaknesses.<\/p>\n

Some see the lack of decision-making power as
\na weakness. They would like the IGF to go a step
\nfurther and to produce what is often called concrete
\nresults.<\/p>\n

Others, however, see this as its strength. This
\napparent weakness, they say, is precisely the strength
\nof the IGF, as the lack of decision-making power creates
\nspace for open dialogue, as nobody needs to be afraid of
\na wrong decision resulting out of any of the IGF’s
\nmeetings, so that creates a space where the dialogue can
\nmuch freer, where people express their ideas without
\nfears of wrong consequences.<\/p>\n

Let me look back briefly at the history. Jeremy
\nsaid I’m a veteran of internet governance. I suppose
\nlooking back for six years now, the internet is a young
\nmedium, but I cannot compare myself to those who were
\nthere from the beginning.<\/p>\n

Indeed, many of the issues we are dealing with seem
\nto be rather archaic to the outsider. What I think the
\nnewcomer is mainly interested in precisely these issues
\nwhich have more of a societal dimension, children, the
\nrole of young people, people with disabilities,
\nquestions of finding the right balance between the
\nsecurity of the internet and the openness of the
\ninternet.<\/p>\n

However, at the origin was very much the discussion
\nrelating to the very basic core physical infrastructure
\nof the internet.<\/p>\n

Back in 2003, WSIS recognised, first of all, the
\nimportance of the internet as a backbone of
\nglobalisation, and it put the internet on the agenda.<\/p>\n

But it then was very much also a clash between two
\ndifferent schools of thought. On the one hand,
\na traditional inter-government all cooperation, when
\ngovernments are on top of the pyramid, as it is the case
\nin all international organisations and the others are
\nlet in almost through the back door, but they’re not
\nallowed to sit in the front row. They sit in the back
\nof the room and they can only talk when they are given
\na slot, maybe at the end of the three-hour session for
\n10 minutes or so.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, there is the new world, the world
\nof the internet, very much based on a bottom up
\ndistributed cooperation, which is adapted to the
\ninternet as a network of networks.<\/p>\n

The they did not come to a concrete conclusion
\nsaying this is right and this is wrong. However, it
\nadopted a very broad definition of internet governance.
\nThat means that internet is more than just naming and
\naddressing and it identified a broad range of public
\npolicy issues, issues the normal or the average user is
\ninterested in.<\/p>\n

Then it proposed a new space for dialogue, that is
\nthe IGF.<\/p>\n

The Tunis agenda also — and this is very
\nimportant — recognised that all stakeholders have an
\nimportant role to play.<\/p>\n

The academic and technical communities was
\nrecognised as a new stakeholder group and as I said at
\nthe introduction, it recognised the importance of
\na multi-stakeholder approach at all levels.<\/p>\n

The roles of stakeholders were also — they were at
\nthe beginning of the summit, maybe some illusions, it
\nwas hailed as a multi-stakeholder summit, that all
\nstakeholders would have exactly the same role, but the
\nsummit differentiated, it recognised that they have
\ndifferent roles. The wording says in their respective
\nroles, clearly governments remain the decision makers,
\nbut the decisions they make need to be based on a solid
\nunderstanding of issues. There is therefore a need for
\ndialogue between private sector and civil society, the
\ntechnical community and governments.<\/p>\n

The governments need to signal to those who drive
\nthe internet issues they are concerned about and the
\nother stakeholders need to advise on the feasibility and
\nconsequences of envisaged solutions.<\/p>\n

There have been a few cases in recent years, in
\nEuropean countries, where decisions were taken that have
\nbeen heavily criticised afterwards, within their
\ncountries, as being contrary to human rights obligations
\nand in all cases, without going into details, it can be
\ntraced back to the fact that the decisions were made
\nwithout broad consultations of all stakeholder groups.<\/p>\n

Back to the IGF history. The IGF has had four
\nmeetings so far, in Athens 2006, Rio 2007, Sharm El
\nSheikh 2009 and now we are preparing for September this
\nyear.<\/p>\n

The overall theme will be IGF 2010, developing the
\nfuture together. The agenda builds very much on the
\nprevious years agendas, with a new issue, internet
\ngovernance for development.<\/p>\n

Also, our traditional taking stock session will not
\nlook inwards to the functioning of the IGF, but it will
\nlook at the broad internet governance landscape and look
\nat the changes that have happened since 2006.<\/p>\n

As an emerging issue, we will deal with cloud
\ncomputing.<\/p>\n

Also, given the new importance of all these regional
\nmeetings, we give space to regional meetings. There
\nwill be an introductory session where the regional
\nmeetings can compare and look what they had in common,
\ncan look at their difference, different priorities and
\nalso we will give each regional meeting a slot where
\nthey can explain more in detail what they were all
\nabout. I hope that the Asia Pacific regional meeting
\nwill make use of both opportunities.<\/p>\n

Also, there was a strong call for a greater
\ninvolvement of youth. I assisted yesterday at a youth
\nIGF here in Hong Kong and I hope also that we can bring
\nthem together with young people from other regions.<\/p>\n

Clearly, they are the future. They are the digital
\nnatives and we have to recognise that.<\/p>\n

I’m very much a digital immigrant myself, but
\nI remember last year in Hong Kong, I think it was
\nCharles sitting in the first row made the remark that
\nthe paradox is in the real world, it’s the natives that
\nmake the laws and not the immigrants and in the digital
\nworld, it is the immigrants that make the laws and not
\nthe natives.<\/p>\n

Here we are trying to bring the two worlds together.<\/p>\n

The IGF mandate, the original mandate was for five
\nyears, subject to review. The UN secretary general was
\nrequested to hold consultations on the future. These
\nconsultations took place in Sharm El Sheikh and based on
\nthat, the secretary general made a recommendation to the
\nUN membership to extend the mandate for another five
\nyears.<\/p>\n

The decision on whether or not to extend the mandate
\nwill be taken by the General Assembly in December this
\nyear.<\/p>\n

Clearly, the consultations showed that many people
\nhave many ideas on how to improve the IGF. Everybody
\nagrees that it is not perfect.<\/p>\n

But we can safely say that there was overwhelming
\nsupport for a continuation of the IGF within existing
\nparameters, that is to have it continue as an open
\nplatform with an open door policy, where all
\nstakeholders participate on an equal footing.<\/p>\n

As I said, a final decision will be taken next year
\nand it will also be a decision on whether or not
\nmulti-stakeholder cooperation is the best approach
\ntowards internet governance.<\/p>\n

With that, I invite remarks and I look forward to
\nyour deliberation. Thank you very much.<\/p>\n

>> : Thank you, Mr Kummer. Now, may I invite Mr Hasanul
\nHaque Inu to come on to the stage. Mr Hasanul Haque Inu
\nwas born on 12 November 1946. He holds the Bachelors
\nDegree of engineering, chemical engineering.
\nParticularly, he is the president of Bangladesh group,
\nSAJASAD.<\/p>\n

He is the member of Bangladesh Parliament, Chairman
\nof Parliamentary Standing Committee of Ministry of Post
\nand Telecommunications, Bangladesh Parliament. He is
\nalso the adviser of Bangladesh Internet Governance
\nForum, BIGF.<\/p>\n

He is the member of Bangladesh and India People’s
\nMovement Forum.<\/p>\n

Mr Hasanul Haque Inu, please.<\/p>\n

>> Hasanul Haque Inu: Thank you. Good morning, everybody.<\/p>\n

Thank you for hosting this conference. I thank the
\nco-organisers also, especially DotAsia.<\/p>\n

The UNDP declared in the myth of the technology
\nrevolution, we say in short GPT.<\/p>\n

As you know in the past, the GPT was team India and
\nthen the second phase of industrial evolution GPT of
\nthat.<\/p>\n

Now ICF is the GPT of our age.<\/p>\n

This GPTs enabling technology, a tool to enable all
\nsectors. The ongoing ICT revolution combined with
\nglobalisation has provoked hopes and fears among all
\ncountries and at all levels of development.<\/p>\n

The big question: can we adapt and adjust or be left
\nout of the loop?<\/p>\n

I come from Bangladesh Bangladesh, 1971 under.
\n1971 is a remarkable year. Not only for Bangladesh,
\nbut for the world. Because in that year, Intel invented
\nmicroprocessor and placed it into the market.<\/p>\n

That started the ICT revolution. That started the
\nITH.<\/p>\n

1971 is the beginning of Bangladesh independence.<\/p>\n

Now, everybody is pondering across the world and my
\ncountry how to master ICT. How to apply ICT. Why to
\napply ITC. We are trying to find an answer. But at the
\nsame time, across the nations, in the world, we are
\ntrying to find an answer also.<\/p>\n

Who will guard the guardians?<\/p>\n

From democracy, we have not yet found full solution.<\/p>\n

But apart from this question, the world is, again,
\ndiscussing and trying to find an answer, how to build
\na sustainable economy?<\/p>\n

The market economy recently has shown certain
\nproblems and cracks.<\/p>\n

The market economy roaring in the highway of
\ndevelopment has found that they don’t have shock
\nabsorbers.<\/p>\n

That is a difficult situation we are facing.<\/p>\n

How to switch over from the paradigm of state
\nsecurity to comprehensive security.<\/p>\n

We have not yet found an answer.<\/p>\n

This is 2010. Bangladesh is part of south Asia.<\/p>\n

Bangladesh is caught between the twin forces of
\nglobalisation and regionalism.<\/p>\n

Politicians in our part of the world, in the last 50
\nand 60 years, tried to strengthen the state security and
\nin that, they tried to.<\/p>\n

We could not ensure our state security, but the
\nwhole south Asia landed on three dangerous bombs, the
\natomic bomb, poverty bomb and communal bomb and this
\ntwin dragon is poverty and terrorism in our part.<\/p>\n

Meantime, the developed world moved forward on the
\nwings of ICT. Bangladesh and south Asia and also many
\ncountries of the world are limping behind, stuck up in
\nthe cobweb of bureaucratism, militarism, poverty, low
\nliteracy rate.<\/p>\n

You have heard of probably the great philosopher of
\nChina, he said, in a well governed nation, porth is
\nashamed of. This a badly governed country, wealth is
\nashamed of.<\/p>\n

Remembering his words, the challenge of the
\nmillennium and for Bangladesh also to find a successful
\nsolution to poverty eradication, to link a developing
\nnation like Bangladesh to the world highway of
\ndevelopment, the great boxer Mohammed Ali once said wars
\nare fought against nations to change maps. Wars are
\nfought against poverty to map changes.<\/p>\n

Bangladesh decided to map changes with ITC.
\nBangladesh decided to take up the challenge under the
\nbold leadership of the President-elect who declared to
\ndigitise Bangladesh by 2021, the year Bangladesh will be
\n50 years old, to build a digital Bangladesh.<\/p>\n

The question surrounding digital Bangladesh’s real
\nand often politically sensitive, should the government
\nimplement a midday meal programme to attract students or
\npay for a computer in a school which will cost at least
\nUS$25? Which can feed 15 students for one year?<\/p>\n

Should the government build a new bridge or
\ncomputerise the Roads and Highways Department? When
\nresources are similarly limited, these are valid and
\ndifficult questions, but these should be answered in the
\ncontext of rapidly changing world and so sometimes needs
\nto make very hard choices.<\/p>\n

The slogan of digital Bangladesh created difference.
\nIT now linked to development process.<\/p>\n

Added a new dimension. This is the beginning of
\na new economic paradigm. While IT is the driving force
\nand also a tool to enable all these sectors of economy.<\/p>\n

Rather, than treating ITC as an isolated sector of
\nits own, I adapting to the new. It’s a process of
\ncreative destruction.<\/p>\n

Budget tall Bangladesh 150 million people of our
\ncountry from inactivity and digitised now to digitised
\nBangladesh.<\/p>\n

In spite of the big mountains of obstacles, like
\nbackward education system, very old colonial
\nbureaucratic administrative system, shortage of power
\nand unfriendly regime for ITC development, I come with
\ngood news, that BD has already applying ICT, in all the
\nsectors and BD, Bangladesh, has started to work on-line
\nlegs.<\/p>\n

Education, e-governance, e-agriculture, e-health,
\ne-commerce, e-industry, software and hardware industry,
\ne-law regime, e-communication infrastructure with
\n150 million people.<\/p>\n

Bangladesh intelligence city is 38 per cent.
\n55 million people are using mobile phones or land
\nphones.<\/p>\n

The internet users is almost 5 million. It’s only
\ntwo years development.<\/p>\n

The population below 30 years is 60 per cent of the
\ncountry.<\/p>\n

GDP per capita is only $643. But in spite of all
\nthese problems, Bangladesh has embarked on the programme
\nof setting up village communication networks.
\nCommunication information centres.<\/p>\n

We are giving a lady with a mobile who is roaming
\nacross the village, house to house, door to link,
\nlinking mobile help lines, so that we are introducing no
\nexclusion policy.<\/p>\n

We are introducing, we have already introduced
\nmobile banking. Now the only unbanked 14 per cent
\npeople in our country, but now, from any part of the
\ncountry through a mobile, we can send through an SMS in
\nminutes, to the remotest corner of a village, you can
\nsend money to your poor mother or wife.<\/p>\n

We have already the mobile broadband network is
\nfunctioning. By 2014, our 18,500 secondary schools will
\nhave a computer lab and a digital education system.<\/p>\n

We have 18,000 community help clinics which are
\nreactivated and that will be computerised within four
\nyears time.<\/p>\n

These are few efforts we are taking to digital
\nBangladesh. Not as important to develop and design
\nappropriate content and services. Here comes the use of
\nmother tongue language, the bangla language.<\/p>\n

For that on 21 February 2010, the programme of our
\ncountry formally submitted our application to the ICANN
\nto include Bangla in the top level domain, ccTLD.<\/p>\n

Digital technology clears the glasshouse, when new
\nmoral issues have cropped up.<\/p>\n

Also, the delicate problem of protecting the
\nsecrecy, privacy of individuals and nation states have
\nor raised. The problem of ensuring the reliability of
\nthe technology and thus arose the need to define the
\nresponsibility of hardware manufacturers and software
\ndesigners and the right of end users.<\/p>\n

We know that our email at least crosses through 18
\ngates to reach the destination.<\/p>\n

We know the internet governance and management is
\nnot yet at the hands of a neutral body.<\/p>\n

We also know that by 2012, we need to switch over
\nfrom IPV4 to IPV6.<\/p>\n

So we need to build a capacity technically in order
\nto protect and facilitate the digitisation process. For
\nthat we need to cooperate globally and regionally.<\/p>\n

Apart from these issues, the problem of mobilising
\nis always a big question to be answered by all.<\/p>\n

ICT is innovation driven economy, innovation based
\ndevelopment, in fostering high rate of innovation.<\/p>\n

For that, every nation needs to specify how the
\ngovernment will play its role. Many important issues
\nare not yet answered and resolved.<\/p>\n

What we are doing, what we are dreaming of, all
\ndepends on the internet and its management.<\/p>\n

So the management and governance of the internet is
\nvery important for a developing nation and the poor
\npeople of the world.<\/p>\n

So it is required, we think that the IGF forum be
\nexpended for another five years until 2015. The
\ninternet governance mechanism to finance the developing
\neconomy to be done, at the end, let me tell you the
\nvision of digital Bangladesh offers exciting new
\nopportunities.<\/p>\n

I invite all to join in the journey that we have
\nembarked upon, which offers a successful solution to
\npoverty eradication, the challenge of the millennium,.<\/p>\n

The key policy approach in our country, we have
\ntaken to place people before profit, to put people
\nbefore power, to place people and put before politics,
\nprofit and power and put ICT as an enabling tool.<\/p>\n

As in Bangladesh, as Thomas Jefferson said, when
\npeople fear the government, it is tyranny. When
\ngovernment fears the people, it is liberty.<\/p>\n

In Bangladesh, we have an atmosphere of liberty now.<\/p>\n

The elected government, so your next destination is
\nBangladesh, where you can invest relax in the scenic
\ntourism spots, bask in the warm tropical sun in the
\nlargest and longest beach of the a world.<\/p>\n

I invite you all to cooperate regionally and
\nglobally.<\/p>\n

Thank you very much.<\/p>\n

>> : Thank you, Mr Hasanul Haque Inu.<\/p>\n

The following three speakers are from the main
\ninternet organisations in Asia which is APNIC, APTLD and
\nDotAsia Organisation.<\/p>\n

First, may I invite Mr Paul Wilson, Director General
\nAsia Pacific Network Information Centre, APNIC, to come
\non stage and deliver a speech for us.<\/p>\n

Mr Wilson, please.<\/p>\n

>> Paul Wilson: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here to
\nwelcome you all to this meeting. It’s great to see so
\nmany faces here in the room. It’s great to see so many
\nnames here behind me. I would like to say thanks very
\nmuch to everyone who’s been involved with sponsoring and
\norganising the event, particularly to DotAsia and the
\nDotAsia staff and the other volunteers on the committees
\nwho have made this event as good as it looks like it’s
\ngoing to be.<\/p>\n

I had the privilege also to write a few words at the
\nopening of the brochure that you have in front of you,
\nbut I would like to go on to say a few more words about
\nthe area that I’m involved with, that my organisation,
\nAPNIC is involved with, which is the area of IP address
\nmanagement.<\/p>\n

We are a sponsor of this event, but we are also not
\nat all disinterested in the outcomes of this event or of
\nthe internet governance discussions that are under way.<\/p>\n

Because our primary area of activity, which is the
\nmanagement of IP addresses, in the Asia Pacific region,
\nin the case of APNIC, is a topic for discussion in the
\ninternet governance sphere and it is of great relevance
\nto the internet, to the growth and the stability of the
\ninternet that we all use.<\/p>\n

In case you don’t know us I’ll say a few words about
\nthe system that we at APNIC operate within.<\/p>\n

It’s the system of regional internet registries.
\nIt’s been operating for around about 15 years, which is
\nin fact about the entire life of the mainstreaming of
\nthe internet, as Markus mentioned earlier.<\/p>\n

We were established or the system was established to
\naddress certain problems of address distribution or
\nrouteing that were happening back in the early 1990s.<\/p>\n

The system achieved that. It provided that
\nsolution.<\/p>\n

It then went on to support the internet through
\na period of 15 years of sustained growth and success
\nthat was never anticipated in those early days.<\/p>\n

The regional internet registries, the RIRs of which
\nAPNIC is one, have been described as a model of internet
\ngovernance in action.<\/p>\n

The system does embody and has embodied many of the
\naims and the ideals which emerged from the WGIG and the
\nWSIS processes, for instance, the policy development
\nsystem under which IP address policies are formed, these
\nare multi-stakeholder processes by nature. They admit
\nanyone with an interest in IP addresses to discuss and
\ncontribute, but also to actually vote and to make, to
\nhelp to make decisions on these critical internet policy
\nmatters.<\/p>\n

That’s not to say that this system is perfect or
\nrepresents any form of perfection. Quite the contrary.<\/p>\n

The policy development system that we have for IP
\naddress management is ongoing and it allows a continuous
\nreevaluation of the current status of IP address
\nmanagement, of best practices, of new technologies as
\nthey develop.<\/p>\n

Even that policy development process itself is
\nsubject to the policy development process, so that it
\ncan be changed via the process to admit whole new ideas
\nor new methods for development of IP address management
\npolicies.<\/p>\n

Even the outcomes of this meeting, as far as they
\npertain to IP addressing, could come back into the Asia
\nPacific regional address policy process and have
\na concrete impact on that process.<\/p>\n

It’s for that reason I’m really pleased to be here
\nwith an opportunity to support this event towards some
\nreally meaningful discussions on internet governance in
\nall of its aspects.<\/p>\n

I do want to mention, though, about APNIC, that we
\nhave very strong interests outside of this literal task
\nof IP address allocation and management. We strongly
\nsupport training and education in internet operational
\nmatters for many years, including effects like the
\nanticipate cot annual conference, the very regular
\ntraining and information events which we participate in.<\/p>\n

We have participated very actively also in the
\ninternet governance discussions which started with WSIS
\nin 2003. We supported the UNDP ORDIG, Open Regional
\nDialogue on internet governance regional dialogue which
\nwere some here were involved in in 2005 and that
\nprovided a very interesting snapshot back then or what
\nwere the priorities for internet governance in the Asia
\nPacific region.<\/p>\n

These days, along with others in the internet
\ntechnical community, we participate almost continuously
\nin consultations with governments, through direct
\nmeetings with governments and also in all sorts of
\nevents, PITA meetings, the Pacific Telecommunications
\nAssociation, the Pacific — the secretariat of the
\nPacific Community, ASEAN, ITU and of course ICANN
\nmeetings.<\/p>\n

These are continuous processes of consultation which
\nare happening not only within regional internet
\nregistries, but across the entire internet community and
\nthey’re a really good example of what was called
\nenhanced cooperation after the Tunis.<\/p>\n

The discussions that we have are wide ranging about
\ninternet matters, but these days these one topic that
\nwe’re focusing on and being asked about a lot which is
\nIPV6 and the challenge we faced to achieve a successful
\ndeployment of V6 in the next two years and a smooth
\ntransition to follow that.<\/p>\n

Just a few words on IPV6.<\/p>\n

It does have its own IP address base. So the
\nchallenge of IPV6 might appear to be an addressing
\nissue, but it’s actually not.<\/p>\n

Today’s V6 address management policies are well
\nformed, they’re stable and they’re resulting in rapid
\nallocation of addresses throughout the world, to the
\nextent that we have well over 500 times as many
\naddresses allocated in the IPV6 network these days as in
\nthe entire IPV4 internet.<\/p>\n

The trouble is that allocating addresses doesn’t
\nmake the internet and there’s a lot of work to be done
\nby ISPs, by equipment and software vendors and others to
\nensure that IPV6 deployment actually does happen
\nsmoothly over the next two years.<\/p>\n

Let’s be clear. No one can creditably claim that
\nany challenge in IPV6 address management could have any
\nimpact at all on the deployment of IPV6 today, except
\npossibly a negative impact.<\/p>\n

For those who are interested in this topic, my
\nmessage to you is to put your efforts now into
\ndeployment of IPV6, into the real challenge that we have
\nin the next 18 months to two years, to actually get IPV6
\noperationally deployed and working. The address
\nmanagement system and for that matter, APNIC will
\nsupport you in absolutely.<\/p>\n

It will be open to all ideas for change and
\nevolution in future years, but let’s get IPV6 happening
\nfirst.<\/p>\n

There will be a bit more on the topic tomorrow in
\nthe critical internet resources session, which is
\nhappening in the morning.<\/p>\n

With that, I would like to say thanks again and
\nI hope you have a very productive few days here in
\nHong Kong.<\/p>\n

Thanks.<\/p>\n

>> : Thank you, Mr Wilson.<\/p>\n

I now invite Mr Zhang Jian, General Manager, Asia
\nPacific Top Level Domain Association, APTLD, to come on
\nstage to deliver the welcome remarks, Ms Zhang, please.<\/p>\n

>> Zhang Jian: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.<\/p>\n

First, I would like to say, I’m quite honoured to be
\nhere today, since I was invited to give this opening
\nremark, although I prefer the other invitation to movie
\npremier much better.<\/p>\n

Secondly, actually, to be honest, I’m quite
\nsurprised, there are so many people sitting in this
\nmeeting room today after last night movie premiere and
\nthe World Cup soccer games.<\/p>\n

While the rest of the world is crazy about the World
\nCup, we are getting here to discuss internet governance
\nissues, but we’re still going to have some fun here.<\/p>\n

Just like president Zuma said in the opening of the
\nWorld Cup, everyone’s time has come.<\/p>\n

I would like to test that a little bit and say in
\nour internet world, actually, it’s already the time for
\nAP Pacific region.<\/p>\n

The reason I’m saying that is because our Asian
\nPacific region is a region with the most on-line
\npopulation.<\/p>\n

Also, it’s still growing fastest among the regions
\nin the world.<\/p>\n

We are the region that has the biggest demand on
\ninternet resource.<\/p>\n

We are the region with the most cultural diversified
\nregion, actually, with so many Asian languages, nations,
\nwith all kinds of regimes and after all, we have more
\nthan half of the world population.<\/p>\n

So that makes our region’s internet development have
\nits own character and its own needs, actually.<\/p>\n

The internet has become the communication and the
\ninformation backbone of the globe.<\/p>\n

More than half of the population in the world is
\nusing the internet nowadays.<\/p>\n

The internet continues transforming our lives and so
\nit behoves us all to take an interest in how it is run
\nand managed.<\/p>\n

That is very much the spirit of IGF.<\/p>\n

There has been four global IGFs and some IGFs
\nestablished on a regional basis or a national basis.<\/p>\n

But until today, no regional IGF in Asian Pacific
\nhas been held. So we appreciate very much our local
\nhost on giving us this opportunity to get together to
\ndiscuss the issues we have concerns on the internet.<\/p>\n

This forum brings together all major stakeholders,
\ngovernments, the private sector, civil society and the
\nacademic and technical communities to debate on an equal
\nfooting about internet governance and related public
\npolicy issues, exchange information and share good
\npractices.<\/p>\n

It has been only several months since we started
\nhaving this idea of running AP regional IGF after last
\nIGF in Egypt.<\/p>\n

The Hong Kong internet community has put in
\ntremendous effort to make this happen.<\/p>\n

On a personal note, I love to have this held in this
\nbeautiful city and in this gorgeous called Cyberport,
\nalthough I got lost in this building this morning.<\/p>\n

Thank you, Mr Stephen Lau, the chairman of
\norganising committee. Thanks for the support from
\nHong Kong Government, especially Mr Jeremy Godfrey.<\/p>\n

Thanks for all the co-organisers, especially DotAsia
\nand supporting organisations.<\/p>\n

I wouldn’t list all the names here.<\/p>\n

APTLD, Asian Pacific top level domain organisation,
\nis organisation for ccTLD for top level domain
\nregistries in Asian Pacific region. APTLD works as
\na forum of information exchange on technology and
\noperational issues of domain name registries in Asian
\nPacific region.<\/p>\n

Also, as an interface to other international
\ninternet coordinating bodies, APTLD fosters and elevates
\nparticipation of AP ccTLDs in those global forums,
\nspecial acts in the best interest of our APTLD members.<\/p>\n

In global internet policy making process, APTLD has
\nbeen one of the important drivers of initiatives like
\ninternational ccTLD. That’s also called IDN ccTLD.<\/p>\n

That means, you know, soon err you are going to —
\nsoon you are going to be able to put in using all kinds
\nof language, like Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, on the
\naddress place in the internet.<\/p>\n

We are going to have a session to discuss it in this
\nmeeting later on.<\/p>\n

That’s a successful example of collaboration among
\nlocal communities.<\/p>\n

We also consolidated effort on internet security and
\nthe representative voice of AP region on internet and
\ndomain policy — domain name policy around the globe.<\/p>\n

We participated in other regional forums, like AP*,
\nApricot, APNIC and also we support model of the regional
\nRIs.<\/p>\n

We are very happy to join in such forum, like AP *
\nregional IGF to discuss the topic on internet and share
\nideas with others in the region.<\/p>\n

More than half of the ccTLDs in AP region are
\nmembers now.<\/p>\n

Also, we are open to not only ccTLD managers, also
\nwe are open to anybody whose domain industry related.<\/p>\n

So I would like to invite you to join the APTLD as
\nmembers.<\/p>\n

I believe there is a brochure about us in your
\nregistration bag, so if you need more information,
\nplease come to me.<\/p>\n

At last, I wish we all have a fruitful and
\nsuccessful meeting.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>> : Thank you, Ms. Zhang.<\/p>\n

May I now invite Mr Edmon Chung, Chief Executive
\nOfficer of DotAsia Organisation, to come on stage and
\ndeliver the welcome remarks for us. Mr Chung, please.<\/p>\n

>> Edmon Chung: First of all, welcome, everyone, to
\nHong Kong. As also part of the local host, really hope
\nyou have a good time here in Hong Kong in the next few
\ndays and hopefully we’ll have a fruitful discussion in
\nthis forum.<\/p>\n

DotAsia ourselves, we are very excited and very
\nprivileged, we feel, to be part of the internet
\ngovernance discussion. I think we are a relatively
\nyoung organisation. We have been fully operational,
\nrunning the DotAsia registry only since 2008. However,
\nthe idea started way back in 2000.<\/p>\n

So we understand that a grass roots and
\nmulti-stakeholder process takes a long time. It took us
\neight years to get to operation and it takes us a few
\nmore years, it will take us a few more years, to grow
\nup.<\/p>\n

But through this period, we hope to — we have
\nlearned the importance of multi-stakeholder approach,
\nthe importance of collaboration.<\/p>\n

Starting from just a few country code top level
\ndomains that come together to form DotAsia, we now
\nalready have 27 members going on to 28 and hopefully if
\nBangladesh.bd would join us and .my will join us, we
\nwill break 30 this year.<\/p>\n

So I think the approach from DotAsia has always been
\nto try to contribute to collaboration and coordination
\naround the Asian Pacific region.<\/p>\n

This brings me to — I think Markus mentioned as
\nwell, last couple of days we had a youth IGF camp which
\nwas held in a very remote area in Hong Kong. We are
\nreally happy to have Wolfgang act as our headmaster for
\nthe day yesterday.<\/p>\n

What I wanted to talk about was that I was really
\nexcited to see the young students that we have recruited
\ninto the camp really take on the concept of
\nmulti-stakeholder approach.<\/p>\n

What I mean by that, the format of which, which was
\nactually dreamt up by my NetMission ambassadors, was
\nthat there were 60 of them, they were separated into six
\ndifferent stakeholder groups. Some of them role playing
\nas governments, some of them role playing as businesses,
\nsome of them role playing as NGOs and some of these role
\nplaying as themselves.<\/p>\n

The discussions exceeded my expectations very much
\nand it really sort of exemplified the multi-stakeholder
\napproach.<\/p>\n

That brought me to think that hopefully, in the real
\nIGF forum type of setting, we can have a very open
\ndialogue, understanding other people’s perspectives,
\nbecause remember that the students themselves didn’t
\nreally know what the governments would have thought.<\/p>\n

But over the three days camp, they had to research
\nwhat governments positions were, what businesses
\npositions usually were and engage in a open
\nmulti-stakeholder dialogue.<\/p>\n

So I hope that this is — it made me very hopeful in
\nbringing that spirit into future discussions in this
\ntype of forum.<\/p>\n

With that, actually, I want to, as I have the Mike
\nher, I wanted to take this opportunity to also thank all
\nthe volunteers and people who made this possible.<\/p>\n

Because it really took us a lot of time.<\/p>\n

Also, especially those who made the youth camp
\nsuccessful. That has been completed with great success.<\/p>\n

A round of applause to the NetMission ambassadors.<\/p>\n

With that, I have the honour to invite Mr Stephen
\nLau, the chair from the local host organising committee,
\nto say a few words for us. Stephen is also Hong Kong’s
\nrepresentative to the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory
\ngroup.<\/p>\n

>> Stephen Lau: Thank you, Edmon. Good morning, ladies and
\ngentlemen.<\/p>\n

I always love to be the last speaker in a series of
\nspeakers in the same session, which means that whatever
\nneeded to be said, has been said.<\/p>\n

All I need is to make a few remarks in echoing the
\nsentiments and remarks made.<\/p>\n

However, first of all, on behalf of Hong Kong
\norganising committee, I wish to thank all the
\nstakeholders, all volunteers, all the supporting and
\nsponsoring organisation in making this event as it is
\nand I believe it will be a success and I’m sure it will
\nbe a success.<\/p>\n

I just want to, particularly make a couple of
\nsupplementary observations, particularly to Jeremy
\nGodfrey’s speech earlier on.<\/p>\n

I think we all recognise that in the current IGF
\nactivities, Asian Pacific has not had a kind of meeting
\nor IGF-like meetings in Asian Pacific, as distinct from
\nthe other regions.<\/p>\n

In recognising that, I think any Asian Pacific
\neconomy could have taken up this challenge.<\/p>\n

Hong Kong, I think, we took up this challenge, it’s
\nmore a matter of at the right place, at the right time.<\/p>\n

I think it’s sparked off by Jeremy’s representing
\nthe government in terms of having the will and the drive
\nto take up this challenge and coupled with stakeholders
\nin Hong Kong who have come together, assembled, to
\norganise these events, as well as the willingness of
\nsponsors who recognise the importance of IGF and thereby
\nprovided us with the necessary materials and resources
\nto be able to host this forum.<\/p>\n

In taking up this challenge, I must say that the org
\nthising committee, the people in Hong Kong, I don’t
\nthink we never had a kind of presumptious kind of pride
\nin taking up this challenge or I use the word arrogance.<\/p>\n

We don’t have any of this.<\/p>\n

In fact, we look at this as a kind of a humble
\nagent, a humble catalyst to spark off some IGF
\nactivities in Asia.<\/p>\n

But we do take pride in a couple of observations.<\/p>\n

One is, we take pride in the Hong Kong Government,
\nin realising the multi-stakeholder composition of IGF
\nevents and not saying this is not an official government
\nevent, but providing all the necessary support and the
\ntangible and intangible and it’s a group of stakeholders
\norganisations in Hong Kong who take up this challenge
\nand do the organisation.<\/p>\n

We also take pride in the speedy response across the
\nAsian Pacific region, in terms of the stockholders. If
\nyou look at the distinguished audience here today, it
\ncovers right across the Asian Pacific, in terms of the
\nentire spectrum, may it be civil organisation, community
\norganisation, government, academics, private sector, and
\nwe do take pride in that.<\/p>\n

But let’s not be complacent, because Asian Pacific,
\nas we all recognise, is the largest region in the world
\nwith over half of its population, a multitude of
\ncountries, a multitude of economies, with diversities in
\ncustom, in cultures, languages, and in all aspects of
\nthe requirements as far as internet governance issues
\nare concerned.<\/p>\n

So we are should not be complacent.<\/p>\n

This is the catalyst. This is the spark, fuelled by
\nyour representation, hopefully would innight the wave of
\nsustainable interest, meaningful participation in hoping
\nthat this kind of forum, this kind of meetings will be
\nsustained in Asian Pacific.<\/p>\n

I look forward to, in the last session, when we talk
\nabout the way forward in this round table, not just to
\ndiscuss the future mandate and looking at the future of
\nIGF, but looking at the future of IGF activities in
\nAsia, in Asian Pacific, on a sustainable platform, upon
\nwhich we can all take pride and perceive to be the
\nrepresentative platform for all IGF activities to be
\nconducted in the future and.<\/p>\n

With that, thank you for coming and we look forward
\nto the next four days of meaningful, sustainable and
\ninteresting discussions.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>> : Thank you, Mr Lau.<\/p>\n

Now, may I invite Prof Ang, from Singapore Internet
\nResearch Centre, Nanyang Technological University,
\nSingapore. He is also the APRIGF regional organising
\ncommittee, to come on stage and deliver the
\nintroduction.<\/p>\n

Prof Ang has been very supportive for the APRIGF.<\/p>\n

He was instrumentally initiating and put all components
\ntogether in order to make this event successful. His
\nintroduction will definitely paint the backdrop for our
\ntwo day round table discussion.<\/p>\n

Prof Ang, please.<\/p>\n

>> Prof Ang Peng Hwa: I know we have tea break coming up
\nprofessor told me once that should not try to hold back
\nyour students from their lunch or tea breaks, so I will
\ntry not to do that.<\/p>\n

I have a brief introduction, but it is very brief.
\nSome background, first of all, at Sharm El Sheikh, I was
\nvery surprised to learn that for Asian Pacific, we don’t
\nhave a meeting that will give formal input to the IGF
\nprocess, so that’s when I said who do I speak to?
\nI spoke to various people and they all — of course,
\nPaul Wilson and they all pointed me to Edmon. So
\nI emailed it mon and it mon doesn’t reply.<\/p>\n

I search for him and then I discover that he’s like
\nthis guy, this author that I know, he wrote a letter to
\nhis friends, to his fans, when they had questions and
\nthen a few years ago, he wrote an email to his fan and
\nhis fan scolded him. Why did you use email? Why didn’t
\nyou use IM?<\/p>\n

Edmon is in the IM group. He’s really I think more
\nin the email group and he’s IM group. So I have to IM
\nhim or skype him. Final lewe connected and you can see
\nall these names here, a big credit to Stephen and Jeremy
\nand to Edmon.<\/p>\n

I also must mention that looking for a lady with
\nantennas, whose name is Bianca. I think she’s an an
\nandroid.<\/p>\n

Because I emailed her at 2 am and she replies and at
\n6 am, there’s another email, so I think she’s not real.
\nYou don’t have somebody called Bianca?<\/p>\n

But a big thanks to her and other volunteers as
\nwell.<\/p>\n

Now briefly about what we are trying to do in terms
\nof setting the scene.<\/p>\n

Edmon has been very generous I he did a lot of the
\nwork, you could do it, but he’s been very generous. We
\nare a friendly group and I hope we have it that way.<\/p>\n

I know you guys will know that the IGF, because of
\nthe political nature, can be rather contentious, but
\nI have been very glad working with Edmon, it has been
\na very fun venture. Thanks to you.<\/p>\n

I enjoy my time.<\/p>\n

Why are we meeting?<\/p>\n

We are in Hong Kong and the food is very important.
\nI’m from Singapore, so food is very important. You got
\nto have the right things together.<\/p>\n

It should be meeting friends and then food in that
\norder.<\/p>\n

We are meeting and the question of course is should
\nthe IGF meet or not?<\/p>\n

I think you would have seen this survey on the IGF
\nhome page, the site. You can see that according to
\nthis, about 90 per cent say yes, with some conditions.
\nA few say, very few say no. So I think I know you can
\nquibble with the research, only about a hundred people
\nresponded, but in terms of the numbers themselves, the
\npercentage-wise, you can see it is overwhelmingly for
\nmeeting.<\/p>\n

The question is what do you meet for?<\/p>\n

I have outlined some issues that we should think
\nabout over the next few days, mandate would be one of
\nthem. What should the IGF be talking about? What
\nproblems you aim to solve? What should the format be
\nlike? Is the current format as you know it suitable,
\ngood? Can we improve on it or should we? What about
\nthe structure? What about the focus? Currently we have
\nfive topic areas. One of them under discussion already,
\ndevelopment, our colleague from Bangladesh has talked
\nabout how important that is.<\/p>\n

But that has been severely downplayed and I think
\nthat has been mentioned in the most recent consultation
\nas well.<\/p>\n

Given that what we should do with ICT4D some of the
\nissues that may have been solved to some extent or some
\nmay have been heightened. I think cyber security is
\na big issue that seems to have come up above late.
\nPeople have been put on cyber security, so maybe it’s an
\narea that we should be talking about more, as opposed
\nto, for example, openness. Openness, freedom of
\nexpression, but openness and cyber security, they do
\nclash. How do we recognise that? What should we do.<\/p>\n

The next move, for the IGF, I think we should look
\nat what it has accomplished. I mean, Mr Lau has
\nmentioned that accomplished some things. What should we
\nbe looking at?<\/p>\n

Markus has mentioned something that’s accomplished.
\nMaybe it’s not immediate obvious to us, but maybe it is
\nto you in your particular area, that IGF has contributed
\nin some way. We have talked about, Markus talked about
\nIDNS and we have here really the father of I DNS Tan Tin
\nWee kind.<\/p>\n

Those who are new in this area, he was the one, an
\nearly pioneer and his question was if the internet were
\nin they’re language, would you have been able to access
\nit? He was an early pioneer.<\/p>\n

Given that, what should the mandate be? Who<\/p>\n

problems should be solved? I mentioned that.<\/p>\n

Then looking now at the details, how often should
\nthe IGF meet? My own sense is I thought it was
\na radical idea, but I goer a lot of people have thought
\nabout it. IGF doesn’t need to meet every year. In the
\nintervening year, we have our regional meeting, a place
\nwhere there is good food, like Hong Kong.<\/p>\n

Advisers, how should members be selected? It is
\nwritten down, looking a bit more specifically at the
\nIGF.<\/p>\n

My own sense, I’m developing a paper about this.<\/p>\n

I think that the IGF is a global good. I think it’s
\na global good, in the sense that it contributes to
\nsomething that it’s not easily available if you were to
\ndo it yourself.<\/p>\n

Global good and I put goods, because it’s adjective
\ngood and goods meaning it is a product.<\/p>\n

I think that it is a global good was it’s got
\nbenefits that are available to everybody.<\/p>\n

So we talked about examples would be like peace and
\nsecurity. That’s a global good. Multilateral trade
\nregime, protection of the environment and then cyber
\nspace.<\/p>\n

I think that what we are looking at is not just
\na meeting about how we can regulate the internet.<\/p>\n

I think if you’re looking at that, that’s very narrow.
\nBut we are looking at how we can improve this thing
\ncalled cyber space, the internet as it works, so that we
\ngrow it, we benefit from it, we have our colleagues in
\nBangladesh benefiting from it. Its development, its
\neducation, its health, how can they do it so that we
\nhave maximum benefit across the globe.<\/p>\n

For global good, we have a major challenge. The
\nmajor challenge being that the demand is high. I mean,
\nwe all want peace and security. We all want a better
\ntrade regime.<\/p>\n

We want a better environment for ourselves and for
\nour generations to come.<\/p>\n

We want a better cyber space.<\/p>\n

But supply is limited.<\/p>\n

The supply is limited, because it is difficult to
\nget it together. It’s not always easy to get your
\nbetter environment, less pollution, better health across
\nthe globe, a better cyber space. Not so easy. The
\nsupply is limited.<\/p>\n

I feel what we are doing here is contributed to this
\nglobal public good.<\/p>\n

It is not necessarily for our own benefit, but the
\npublic benefit.<\/p>\n

On that somewhat sobering note, that’s why we are
\nmeeting and I hope that we keep that in mind, that we
\nare trying to develop something that is of benefit for
\nAsian Pacific, but also beyond Asian Pacific.<\/p>\n

So food, friends, for public global good.<\/p>\n

Have a good time here.<\/p>\n

>> : Thank you, Prof Ang.<\/p>\n

As we are running a little bit late, our programme
\nwill go on now.<\/p>\n

Coffee and tea will be served on the left-hand side
\noutside. You may talk your drinks outside now or
\nbetween the sessions.<\/p>\n

Coffee break will last for about half an hour.<\/p>\n

Now we need a few minutes to set up, so we shall
\ncontinue after the set up.<\/p>\n

Besides, in today’s events, open WiFi is available
\nto all of you.<\/p>\n

Electronic sockets are on the floor, so you can use
\nit.<\/p>\n

Tonight a round table dinner will be served at
\nCyberport here.<\/p>\n

Participants must get a ticket to enter. If you do
\nnot have one, please go to the registration desk to ask
\nfor one.<\/p>\n

Seats are limited and tickets are given out on first
\ncome, first serve basis.<\/p>\n

Besides, each registered participant will have
\na T-shirt free of charge. Please collect it from the
\ncounter near the registration table.<\/p>\n

Now please wait a moment and wait until the next
\nsession begins.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Welcome Remarks and Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: Welcome Remarks and Setting the Scene APrIGF 9:30-10:30, Tuesday 15 June 2010 Hong Kong DISCLAIMER: Due to the inherent difficulties in capturing a live speaker’s words, it is possible this realtime transcript may contain errors and mistranslations. An edited version of the realtime transcript which amends the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “APrIGF Roundtable – June 15th, 2010: Session 1”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-272","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/272\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":549,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/272\/revisions\/549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}