{"id":358,"date":"2010-06-21T03:19:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T03:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rigf.asia\/?page_id=358"},"modified":"2024-01-25T06:49:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T06:49:59","slug":"aprigf-roundtable-june-16th-2010-session-4","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/aprigf-roundtable-june-16th-2010-session-4\/","title":{"rendered":"APrIGF Roundtable \u2013 June 16th, 2010: Session 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Way Forward: The Next Model of the IGF<\/span><\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: The Way Forward: The Next Model of the IGF
\n APrIGF
\n 14:00-15:30, Wednesday 16 June 2010
\n Hong Kong<\/p>\n

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

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

>>: Welcome back. Before starting the session, our I I would like to advise you to fill in the questionnaire on the table, about your experiences in APRIGF.<\/p>\n

After filling in the questionnaire, please return it to the registration table.<\/p>\n

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

Now we proceed to the last session of the day, which is about the next model of the IGF.<\/p>\n

May I now invite Ms. Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chairman of at large advisory committee, ALAC of ICANN, to start the session for us.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. The session this afternoon has a particular aim to bring forward the
\nvarious threads of the discussion we have had as inputs so far.<\/p>\n

As we look towards shaping the next iteration of the IGF, we continues we want to challenge ourselves with and the discussion we want to have and we do want to make it a discussion with the audience, so we have a minimal amount of presentation going on, is what shape
\nshould the IGF going forward, what should its format be, its mandate and most importantly, a second part is how or should we continue collaboration in Asia.<\/p>\n

So there are two particular focuses we want to take in this afternoon’s session.<\/p>\n

Firstly, as the last session of the day and indeed the last session of the IGF round table, I need to take a moment to thank our sponsors, our most generous sponsors in grand sponsorship classification Microsoft, APNIC, the Advisory Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, the venue sponsor, Cyberport and the community sponsors APTLD, IMPACT, JPRS and Singapore Internet Research Centre.<\/p>\n

With the great thanks from us all and I won’t take the time to give them a round of applause, but if they can have an imaginary round of applause.<\/p>\n

As we look towards our two issues, we are going to start with a where we are now introduction from Markus Kummer.<\/p>\n

>>Markus Kummer: I will be short. I will not go into the details, I will more focus on the process.<\/p>\n

As I said in my introductory remarks yesterday, we had the consultation on the future of the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh.<\/p>\n

Virtually every participant had his or her own ideas on how to improve. Nobody or hardly anybody thought that the IGF as it is is perfect, many people have suggestions for improvements.<\/p>\n

Now we enter the phase, the political phase, where the governments will decide.<\/p>\n

I think the question is no longer whether it will be a “yes” or a “no” to the extension of the mandate, it’s rather a question on how the mandate should be extended.<\/p>\n

The secretary general’s report has been issued in all the languages, so we can also read it in Chinese, not only in English.<\/p>\n

It recommends an extension of the mandate for a further five years.<\/p>\n

The main question now is whether these improvements should come from the inside or from the outside.<\/p>\n

That is from the inside would be through the traditional IGF processes of open consultations, of on-line consultations, on-line input, or from the outside, whether they should be made by governments, by the General Assembly.<\/p>\n

That is an open question, whether the General Assembly will make concrete suggestions for improvement or whether it will just decide “yes” or “no”, in that case, the yes is expected.<\/p>\n

There has been meeting of the Commission for Science and Technology for Development, which is the organ in the UN body mandated with the WSIS follow up and they have adopted the resolution which is a recommendation to the economic and social council, which says the chairman of the CSTD, the commission science and technology for development, should get working group together to discuss how to improve the IGF.<\/p>\n

So this is a track that could lead to a discussion by governments from the outside.<\/p>\n

However, this has not yet been approved. In July, this will have to be discussed and then from that, it will go to the General Assembly, but this is as it is for now, I think, one of the central questions.<\/p>\n

Of course, we carry on our traditional process of stocktaking. We have already fixed a slot for stocktaking after Vilnius. There will be an open consultation on 21 November, where we will address the question, as always, what worked well, what worked less
\nwell, what should be improved.<\/p>\n

So we will carry on regardless, but there is
\na strong probability that there will be a dual track,
\nthat we will have the discussions from within and there
\nwill be discussions from the outside by governments,
\nwhich as such, is not maybe a bad thing, as it will link
\nus stronger to the world of governments. They are the
\nones who have the mandate to decide whether or not to
\ncontinue, so to link up with governments, may be an
\nadvantage for the IGF.<\/p>\n

A last word, this has been a dichotomy from the
\nstart, that in the IGF, we have a very much
\na multi-stakeholder process, but we are we have not the
\nautonomy to decide whether or not to continue. That is
\nthe remit of governments.<\/p>\n

With that, I hand back to you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much and perfectly
\ntimed.<\/p>\n

As we move the microphone and cue the presentation,
\nwe are about to have a presentation which I think is
\nbeing cut down rather brutally to about five minutes, so
\nthank you very much, Prof Peng Wah, for putting the
\nknife to your presentation.<\/p>\n

We trust you will give us the full version for the
\narchive record and now you are up.<\/p>\n

>>Ang Peng-Hwa: Time is running out and I have to catch
\na flight also, so I have to end on time.<\/p>\n

I was told that I should give some backdrop about
\nthe IGF, so I’m going to keep this very short, just I’m
\ngoing to do injustice to Markus, not quite the way
\nI think you would expect.<\/p>\n

I think the panel will be expect to question
\neverything, but when somebody asks you to question
\neverything, you don’t ask this question. Typically,
\nbecause I teach communication students and they are
\nbright sparks and you try to be the first question will
\nbe why?<\/p>\n

We are asking more about what and the what, first of
\nall, kind of a brief backdrop about the IGF, the IGF was
\nformed through the working group of governance report.
\nWolfgang and I were in a group and led by the
\nsecretariat, where Markus was the head and basically,
\nfour key points to note, because I hear some comments
\nabout the idea of how you don’t see much action and the
\nreason is that it was not intended for action. It was
\nintended to be a body where you talk, literally a talk
\nshop and low cost, lightweight and the idea was that by
\nnot having decision decisions being made, you therefore
\nwould have greater freedom to discuss and you will not
\nbe tied up in knots and stalemate.<\/p>\n

On hindsight, I think that was a good call, the idea
\nbeing that people are free to discuss.<\/p>\n

So I think this is one thing that we want to
\nquestion, this form of the IGF.<\/p>\n

I think I can sense some dissatisfaction with this.<\/p>\n

Also, the format itself, we have a 40 member
\nmulti-stakeholder advisory group. It’s a similar format
\nto the working group internet governance and what’s
\ncalled the 40 advisers.<\/p>\n

There are 40 of us there. Similar structure and you
\ncan understand why, because you see the format has
\nworked before and you don’t want to tamper with
\nsomething that works already.<\/p>\n

The 40 member advisory group, Stephen is on the
\ngroup, so we have somebody here and Peter also on the
\ngroup and others as well, Chris.<\/p>\n

So this key in terms of the advice to the IGF.<\/p>\n

In the way it is done is that issues that you see
\nare put there, seven, but roughly in that order, five,
\nsix or seven, roughly in that order and you see in that
\nmap out programme as well.<\/p>\n

The idea is these broad headings would give you
\nopportunity to discuss within that.<\/p>\n

So I mean these are key issues and then within that,
\nyou have to discuss.<\/p>\n

So for example, diversity, in this group, meeting
\ntoday, we talked about IDNS.<\/p>\n

So within the broad headings, we have room to
\ndiscuss.<\/p>\n

Again, you can question why should we have this and
\nhow should we change it if you want to change it.<\/p>\n

I’m going to make one assumption about where we want
\nto go and I mention this earlier when we began yesterday
\nand I began by saying internet governance is a global
\npublic good. Good in terms of a product, but good that
\nbenefit across countries, across the whole globe and
\nexamples being you have up there peace and security, the
\nenvironment, and cyber space.<\/p>\n

If you can have a good cyber space, good in the way
\nthat when you find grow industry and we don’t favour any
\nparticular sector or disadvantage any particular sector,
\nglobal good, we think that we will benefit humanity.<\/p>\n

So with that assumption, I’m going to make just
\na few recommendations.<\/p>\n

I mention this earlier, that the IGF is to meet
\nevery two years. There was some talk earlier about how
\nthe cost involved and I can completely sympathise with
\nthat, because there are costs to attends. In fact, also
\ncosts for the organiser, because the food is free. We
\ndidn’t pay to register. If you count, this is not
\ncheap. I’m organising two meetings in Singapore. There
\nare about $50 per head and kind of a low end of this
\nrange of prices you can ask for.<\/p>\n

So your food alone is costing the organisers here
\nthere’s US$50 a day, two days, US$100. It’s not
\na trivial amount, consider the number of people who turn
\nup at the IGF.<\/p>\n

The main reason not so much the cost, but the main
\nreason is that technology policy does not change so
\nfast. If you look back, you find that the policy in
\nfact should not move too fast, because you can have what
\nwe call first move disadvantage. If you move too
\nquickly, you bet on the wrong technology, you get stuck.
\nClassic case being they have to overhaul the act and
\nbasically throw it out, because they move too quickly.
\nSingapore, some of our policies were, they were set out,
\ndidn’t work out well. They were OK, but they fine and
\nthose who move later, in fact, came up better.<\/p>\n

A second one as I mentioned is that in the
\nintervening year, have a regional meeting, like what we
\nare doing now.<\/p>\n

Why the regional meetings. It’s clear that we need
\nto disseminate internet governance message better. We
\nhave people who are hearing about this for the first
\ntime and this will be the fifth IGF and the mandate of
\nthe IGF runs out this year.<\/p>\n

So it’s been some time.<\/p>\n

I think that being what we call closer physically
\nyou also cultural closer, and so there is a greater
\nscope for cooperation. Basically, you face similar
\nissues. You heard India script going left and right,
\nthink of diverse, but India is amazing place. And then
\nChina having a similar issues, some extent.<\/p>\n

So culturally, there is greater scope for
\ncooperation.<\/p>\n

This might be a controversial point. Based on again
\na paper that I’m planning to write, the dominant country
\nwould be less encompassing and therefore less interested
\nwhen you call for action.<\/p>\n

I see the USA as being less interested in IGF going
\nforward. The economy being part of it, but also the
\ndynamics of the Internet Governance Forum.<\/p>\n

I’ll sort of come back and elaborate that second
\npoint.<\/p>\n

I think the IGF should be more supportive of action.
\nIt is currently talk shop. I’m saying, I’m choosing my
\nwords carefully here, to say that it’s supportive of
\naction and not necessarily act. Pardon me if I sound
\nsort of political and like a diplomat. But the choice
\nof words is important, because I think I agree with the
\noriginal concept, that if you try to act, you are going
\nto get tied up in knots, so let’s move forward, allow us
\nto disagree, people with occasion, but also support
\naction where action can be taken.<\/p>\n

The question is if you are talking action, can
\naction be possible? Can global collective action be
\npossible? I am a bit of optimist here. I think it can
\nbe done. Of course, based on some theory, being
\nacademic, I have to have theory with me.<\/p>\n

I think that an issue that we have is that we have
\nglobal collective action. You are going to have free
\nread. People who don’t participate but enjoy the
\nbenefits of the action. That’s inevitable and you have
\nto allow for that.<\/p>\n

Just kind of some people who won’t participate, but
\nthey benefit.<\/p>\n

Then you have a question of what this is from Olson
\ntalking about the logic of global collective action,
\nwritten back in 1965. So it’s literally the last
\ncentury.<\/p>\n

He talked about ignorant patriots who think that the
\nglobal good should be in their own backyard, not let
\nout.<\/p>\n

So they think that you can control it, let’s have it
\nIp house, let’s control it.<\/p>\n

So you are going to have people kind of acting
\nagainst even this promotion of global public good.<\/p>\n

But because we have the history now of seeing
\ncollective action at work, a classic one being this use
\nof freon for air conditioning, ozone depletion and we
\nhave managed at a global level to collectively reduce
\nthat. We have not globally agreed about global warming,
\nbut on some areas, there are examples of successful
\nglobal collective action.<\/p>\n

So taking the lessons from there, I think this we
\ncan move forward and be successful with some action,
\nlimited by some possibilities.<\/p>\n

My conclusion, I view the US interests as getting
\nless encompassing and therefore, we are going to lose
\nthe dominant nation in global public provision.<\/p>\n

I have spoken to people privately and many agree,
\nactually US has been very kind. They basically let us
\nlike soccer going on right now, they let us play the
\ngame, they haven’t taken the ball back. They have let
\nus play the game.<\/p>\n

But we can lose some interest in that.<\/p>\n

Therefore, because of this loss of this dominant
\nnation, we should move more regionally.<\/p>\n

I think that despite the difficulties, even though
\nwe move, maybe because we move regionally, we are going
\nto be successful in selective global collective action.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Our next speaker, as we move down the
\ntable, is the chairman of internet corporation for
\nassigned names and numbers, Peter Dengate Thrush.<\/p>\n

>>Peter Dengate Thrush: IGF created at Tunis and when it
\nwas first created, we expected it to just be a talking
\nshop. But, in fact, it has been a surprising success.<\/p>\n

Amongst other things, it proves that the
\nmulti-stakeholder system on which ICANN itself is based,
\nreally works and in the wider extended format.<\/p>\n

Of course, it’s spawned a group of national and
\nregional equivalents and I’m delighted to be speaking at
\nthis latest one, the first IGF in Asia.<\/p>\n

You will know that I’m from New Zealand, which
\nregards itself as part of Asia. We are one of the first
\ncountries to sign a tree trade agreement with China, for
\nexample.<\/p>\n

So I’m delighted to be here and I want to thank the
\norganising committee and the sponsors.<\/p>\n

But come back to those other groups. They are all
\nmutually supportive and cross fertilising and it’s the
\nvariety of player, I think, that makes them the success
\nthey are.<\/p>\n

That plus the absence of the imperative of decision
\nmaking.<\/p>\n

One of the consequences of that is that we don’t
\nspend hours at these meetings arguing over the minute
\nwording of what evenly become meaningless, never looked
\nat resolutions.<\/p>\n

We are able to get on with the discussions.<\/p>\n

Some governments don’t like having to listen to
\nbusiness and civil society in this kind of framework.<\/p>\n

I think there are a smaller and diminishing
\nminority.<\/p>\n

The trouble is that the United Nations decides these
\nthings tends to operate by block voting, based sometimes
\non other decisions.<\/p>\n

So you do need to make your views known to
\ngovernments about how you want this to continue.<\/p>\n

I think it’s probably ironic that we’re out of the
\nroom when some of these decisions are made by
\ngovernments about a multi-stakeholder organisation.<\/p>\n

Let me come to the ICANN position. ICANN is
\na supporter. We like the IGF.<\/p>\n

We think it promotes a free and innovative internet
\nand we want it to continue as it is and not be absorbed
\ninto the United Nations or some other bureaucracy.<\/p>\n

We say that for a number of reasons.<\/p>\n

The cynics would say that the United Nations has
\nenough to deal with in delivering clean water to people
\non the planet who don’t yet have that basic necessity
\nand those cynics might think the United Nations could do
\na better job concentrating on creating world peace than
\nrunning the root service.<\/p>\n

Others worry that in the politics of the United
\nNations, where deals are done to get votes on sanctions
\nagainst warring states, for example, or deals are done
\nabout oil, that the basic stability and security of the
\ninternet would become a pawn in larger power plays at
\nthe risk to the billions of users and of course the
\nbillions of users yet to come.<\/p>\n

We do not want the security and stability of the
\ninternet placed in that kind of environment.<\/p>\n

But others like me are just simply a little bit more
\npragmatic and we observe that the roots of the internet
\nand the reasons for its global success lie in an open
\ninclusive culture, which is how it’s governance
\nstructure should be built.<\/p>\n

ICANN has been a long time supporter of the IGF.<\/p>\n

We supported it birth out of the WSIS process and we
\nsupport it by providing to sustain its programme and its
\nwork.<\/p>\n

One of the major reasons that we do that is because
\nit has a much wider mandate than ICANN has or that ICANN
\nshould have.<\/p>\n

ICANN has a very narrow technical mandate,
\ncoordinating internet resources, primarily the names and
\nnumbers that appear in our name.<\/p>\n

But the enormous power of the internet brings with
\nit many, many more issues than are included in the ICANN
\nmandate. The IGF we think is the proper place for those
\nissues to be discussed, cyber crime, revenue fraud,
\nprotection of children on-line, green issues and there
\nwere some tremendous sessions on that at Sharm El
\nSheikh.<\/p>\n

All areas where there are major requirements for an
\nintegration, an integrated view, including the views of
\ngovernments on these public policy issues.<\/p>\n

Other topics from Sharm, just for example, global
\nstate of copyright and access to knowledge, the internet
\nand citizenship, applying agenda lens. The role of
\ninterchange exchange points in creating internet
\ncapacity on line freedom of privacy and that we have to
\nlook at, but can’t do inside ICANN where its narrow
\ntechnical function.<\/p>\n

You do not want the techies at ICANN discussing
\nissues such as the one that is go on in the IGF.<\/p>\n

Recall and professor had them up on the screen, the
\nseven different themes from Sharm, access, critical
\ninternet resources, diversity, openness, security,
\ncapacity-building and development. Not inside the ICANN
\nmandate.<\/p>\n

But we must have a forum where those issues can be
\naddressed be addressed in them and the IGF is that forum
\nand those voices must be continue to be heard.<\/p>\n

Let’s not forget also the comments made by the
\nsecretary general of the ITU at Sharm El Sheikh. Much
\nis made about the friction between the ITU and those
\nsupports a multi-stakeholder model supporters of the
\ngovernmental model which the ITU represents have on
\noccasions struggled with the challenges of
\na multi-stakeholder model. For many of us, it’s just
\nthose challenges, historic opportunity to develop a new
\ninclusive governance model that has exceeded us in
\nbuilding ICANN over 12 years and the IGF over the past
\nfive.<\/p>\n

I reached out as chair and visited Dr Tooray after
\nbecoming chair and Hamadoon responded by coming and
\nspeaking at a ICANN meeting by it was the I have GF at
\nSharm El Sheikh that he formally acknowledged the ICANN
\nrole, saying ICANN is recognised as the central
\nauthority for internet names and addresses.<\/p>\n

I IT. Is the recognised organisation for
\ncommunication infrastructure that supports the internet.
\nWe have to look at ways to eliminate frictions between
\nour different organisations and between all stakeholders
\nduring the IGF process.<\/p>\n

To me, that’s a very welcome sign of the kind of
\ncooperation that we must have and I just note that it
\nwas at an IGF that the environment was right for that
\nkind of comment to be made.<\/p>\n

One of the issues that is alleged to be a bug in the
\nICANN model is the role of governments and in
\na multi-stakeholder organisation, governments are just
\none of the participants.<\/p>\n

Discussing on an equal footing with the other
\nplayers with civil society, the technical community, the
\nCCT manager and so on.<\/p>\n

ICANN advice from governments is simply that,
\nadvice. It’s not the final word and it’s not the law.<\/p>\n

I and many others, we think this is a feature, not
\na bug.<\/p>\n

Of course we treat the add vines of governments with
\nenormous respect and there is no occasion when ICANN has
\nnot accepted the advice of the governmental advisory
\ncommittee N but governments inside ICANN are also
\nchanging. They are now taking part, much more
\naggressively and visibly in the cross community
\ndiscussions that go on at ICANN and their own meetings
\nare now almost entirely in public.<\/p>\n

So the system works, together we are much stronger
\nand we have a much greater chance of doing the right
\nthing when all are participating in the decision making.<\/p>\n

So we remain committed to supporting the IGF, we
\nwelcome the UN report and the prospect of extension. It
\nis not my place to comment on the details of how things
\nshould move forward. We thinks that for the community
\nto community and to design and improve and ICANN will
\nplay its part this those community discussions.<\/p>\n

I just want to take the opportunity perhaps to tell
\nyou about a couple of develops of ICANN.<\/p>\n

Firstly, at the smaller scale, let me tell you about
\nsome of the changes that I have made at the board level.
\nI have reorganised the board committees to focus on the
\ncrucial areas of ICANN’s mandate. So we have new
\ncommittees running on risk, public participation,
\nstructural improvements and IANA. Which means that our
\nboard now has key oversight of the a key elements of the
\nICANN mission. We have also instituted board several
\nreview. Review by the board of itself and of its chair
\nand we have published those results. We have changed
\nthe models of reporting and of course we have changed
\nour CEO.<\/p>\n

At a much more major level, I would like to mention
\nthe historic ending of the joint project agreement which
\nis a while stone in my time.<\/p>\n

It’s freed the way to allow the creation of a new
\nmodel of community review of ICANN. Assigning of the
\nafter firmation of the commitments and the work now
\nbeing done by the community based accountability and
\ntransparency review team is an enormous shift away from
\noversight by the US Government to community oversight.<\/p>\n

So I just want to let you know that ICANN is working
\nhard on its own governmentnance and it’s a journey, it’s
\nnot a destination, we can always improve.<\/p>\n

And we are committed to regular reviews to
\ntransparency and to greater accountability.<\/p>\n

We look forward to working with Markus Kummer and
\nhis team to grow and develop the IGF model to meet the
\nchallenges of the future.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Moving now to Chris Disspain, Chief
\nExecutive Officer so have.off. Administration, within
\nICANN and also member.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Thank you, Cheryl.<\/p>\n

As Markus has said and Peter also reiterated,
\ngovernments have the mandate on the continuation of the
\nIGF and the shape that it will take. If indeed it is
\ncontinued, but that doesn’t mean that we should not
\nattempt to influence the decision they make.<\/p>\n

In May, this year, the UN secretary general
\npublished a draft report on the IGF for the UN General
\nAssembly in December 2010. I have gone through that
\nreport in large amount of detail and I’m going to go
\nthrough some issues that I think arise because of it and
\nhopefully, you will be able to take some of these points
\nback and make them to your governments, because that is
\nthe way that we influence this process.<\/p>\n

There were a total of 1246 contribute contributions
\nto the review of the IGF in 2009.<\/p>\n

That was then followed, by, as I said, the UNSG
\ndraft report.<\/p>\n

That suggests recommendations for substantive
\nchanges to the IGF on the basis of stakeholder feedback.<\/p>\n

In fact, the majority, vast majority of stakeholders
\neither wanted continuation of the IGF as is or with only
\nincremental improvements, which could be achieved
\nwithout any change to the mandate, the structure or
\nfunction of the IGF.<\/p>\n

There were 74 different suggestions, some made by
\nmore than one person, for possible improvements, ranging
\nfrom don’t make it a negotiating forum to not desirable
\nto continue the IGF. But there was no consensus for
\nreform, whether minor or radical.<\/p>\n

Our analysis is that 87 per cent called for
\ncontinuation as is or with minor tweaks, which would
\nrequire no outside intervention to achieve.<\/p>\n

To quote one stakeholder, the IGF’s framework is
\nflexible enough to accomodate without the need for
\nfundamental change to the model.<\/p>\n

For example, there are five most popular ideas for
\nwhat the IGF could do better.<\/p>\n

Improve participation from developing countries.<\/p>\n

17 suggestions for that.<\/p>\n

Improve remote participation. 14 suggestions.<\/p>\n

Support local and regional IGF meetings 126
\nsuggestions.<\/p>\n

Increase the price given to development. 11
\nsuggestions.<\/p>\n

Finally, the fifth one, look at the Mag membership
\nrole and ways of working. Eight suggestions. None of
\nthese require structural changes or intervention of the
\nGeneral Assembly.<\/p>\n

On critical internet resources, according to the
\ndraft report, the most significant concerns expressed by
\nstakeholders were the IGF had not devoted sufficient
\nattention to its development remit or the specific
\nquestion of management of critical internet resources.<\/p>\n

It’s true that many wanted improvement in developing
\ncountry participation and issues, but only three
\nstakeholders actually mentioned critical internet
\nresources.<\/p>\n

The government of China called for the IGF to solve
\nthe issue of unilateral control of critical internet
\nresources, provide a space for enhanced cooperation and
\nthe development should be the first priority.<\/p>\n

One person suggested that the structure of the
\ncritical resources session of the IGF should be reviewed
\nto allow for more formal dialogue and the Internet
\nSociety of China called on the IGF to concentrate on
\ncritical internet resources and set a timetable for them
\nto be urgently reviewed.<\/p>\n

Apart from those three mentions of critical internet
\nresources, there is no basis to highlight management of
\ncritical internet resources failing of the IGF.<\/p>\n

I don’t normally speak with notes.<\/p>\n

The UNSG draft report states other stakeholders have
\nproposed regularisation of the budget of the IGF within
\nthe United Nations or even transforming the IGF into
\na formal body with inter-government all machinery of the
\nUnited Nations.<\/p>\n

In fact, a total of six stakeholders proposed the
\nIGF be funded from the UN regular budget. There was
\nonly one session that the IGF be incorporated into the
\nUN machinery and that the multilateral agencies within
\nthe UN system.<\/p>\n

The draft report does not reference the suggestions
\nof the current funding arrangements, voluntary
\ndonations, securing an independent secretariat could
\ncontinue, which four people suggested, or that mentioned
\nthat six more stakeholders called for better resources
\nfor the secretariat, but did not say how, i, whether the
\nfunding would come from the UN or from other sources.<\/p>\n

In summary, the total of eight interventions called
\nfor UN funding or absorption, whereas 10 interventions
\ncalled for more funding, including by multi-stakeholders
\nand stressed the importance of maintaining an
\nindependent secretariat.<\/p>\n

On the draft report calls the advisory group a de
\nfacto bureau and that other improvements such as the
\nmembership and rules of procedure may be within the
\nauthority of the secretary general to address.<\/p>\n

It also acknowledges that some changes may be within
\nthe power of purview of the secretariat and\/or the IGF
\nparticipants themselves.<\/p>\n

Eight stakeholders commented on Mag in some way.
\nThe suggestions were mild, improve modalities of
\nworking, greater transparency more regular rotation and
\nannual reporting.<\/p>\n

Only three suggested that the IGF needed a bureau.<\/p>\n

Attendance by stakeholder group, equitable
\nparticipation and representation of stakeholders in the
\nreport, it states that the participation is broad based
\nbut somewhat uneven. In contrast, analysis shows
\na fairly widespread of participants.<\/p>\n

We have used the stakeholder Tunis agenda to include
\nthe technical and academic communities as separate from
\ncivil society.<\/p>\n

The media is also identified as a separate
\nstakeholder, highlighting its function in informed the
\nwider public. The UNSG report lumps technical academic
\nso the report doesn’t vay the rich variety of
\nstakeholders who participate including technical
\norganisations who run the internet infrastructure.<\/p>\n

It implies that civil society comprises 40 per cent
\nof attendees rather than the actual number, which is 19
\nper cent inch I hope that some of you will be able to
\ntake this information and I will be publishing this
\nreport in the next few days, away and talk to your
\ngovernments about their views on the continuation of the
\nIGF, the way that it should be continue and the manner
\nin which it should be managed.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We move now to Wolfgang Kleinwachter,
\nwho is chairman of the ICANN nominating committee and
\nprofessor of international communication policy and
\nregulation at the department for media and information
\nscience.<\/p>\n

>>Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much. As Peng-Hwa
\nhas said, I was involved in the very early days, when
\nthe idea of the internote governance forum was born and
\nby the way, it was an idea which came from the civil
\nsociety, as an alternative to establishment of an
\ninter-governmental organisation and we had two main
\nconflictss, not main conflicts, main arenas, which was
\nthe forum function and the oversight function. While
\nthey could not agree on the oversight function and
\ninterestingly, then the summit itself took the forum
\nfunction, one to one from the which kick report while
\nthey could not find one of the models as agreeable from
\nthe report with regard to the oversight function and the
\nresult of the discussion of the oversight function was
\nthen this undefined process of enhanced cooperation.<\/p>\n

It’s interesting to go back to where all this comes
\nfrom, so let’s say the most workable outcome from the
\nworld summit was indeed, let’s say, initiated by the
\ncivil society, it is an interesting part of the history.<\/p>\n

Being since the beginning of the IGF, special
\nadviser to the chair unfortunately the chair asks only
\nso I had enough time to rethink all this and to watch it
\nfrom critical point of view from a certain distance,
\nbeing in this capacity.<\/p>\n

So far, my summary from the five years is if I use
\nthe methodology of SWOT analysis, strength, weaknesses,
\nopportunities and threats. The key four elements here
\nin my eyes is the strength of the ITG is that it offers
\nindeed informal multi-stakeholder discussion space and
\nI think this is really important, which opens minds and
\nmouths. That means in people are coming together and
\nfeel the pressure that at the end of the meetings, they
\nhave to agree in form of a declaration or even are
\npunished by a declaration or recommendation, then they
\nwill not express themselves freely.<\/p>\n

But exactly this freedom of discussion has enabled
\nthe success of the IGF and has brought the die namickses
\nin the debate. I think this is really one of the
\nbiggest strengths.<\/p>\n

However, the weaknesses and this has said again and
\nagain, by many people, is that there are no measure
\nrabble outputs. Some people say, OK, you know, because
\nwe have no discussion making capacity, this is not
\na weakness, this is a strength. Anyhow, you know,
\npeople want to take something at home. Either directly
\nor they want to see something indirectly.<\/p>\n

By the way, if you give more time for reflection,
\nthen you will discover that you know some indirect
\nresults are meanwhile visible. We heard this morning in
\nthe IDN session, that probably without the IGF, ICANN
\nwould have not made such a decision at this time,
\nI would not say in early stage, because it needed 10
\nyears, but anyhow, you know, ICANN got the message from
\nthe IGF, we have to do something. So this is the
\ncommunity wants to have IDNs and so the pressure was on
\nICANN to do something otherwise they would have risk to
\nbecome criticised again and again and again in the IGF
\nprocess. So it was a good example for how the
\ninteraction works at the end, you see certain output,
\nbut it’s not measurable.<\/p>\n

The opportunity of the IGF is indeed this IGF has
\nthe I power of inspiration. It inspires people. People
\ncoming to the place, very often do not say any word
\nduring the four days, but go home, full of knowledge,
\nfull of ideas and say, OK, why we do not do this at
\nhome. I think because Markus always argues, internet
\ngovernance starts at home and I think this interaction
\nbetween local policy and the global platform, this is
\na great opportunity which was created and is created by
\nthe IGF process.<\/p>\n

We are the risk is that the baby is killed in the
\ncradle. So fortunate, the secretary report of the
\nUnited Nations, is now in favour for continuation. But
\nthere has been weeks before the publication of the
\nreport, where some groups really said, OK, we have to
\ntransform this to another inter-governmental process or
\nto have to find an alternative thing, so that means the
\nI go. If. Is not yet stable, so and there is a risk,
\nbecause it’s only five years now, the IGF, it is a mall
\nchild.<\/p>\n

Five years from now, it starts the teenage period of
\nits life, so it’s not yet adult and we should give them
\nsome time to experiment.<\/p>\n

What are my ideas for the future? In architecture,
\nyou have a slogan, you know, a forms follows functions,
\nso that means if we think about what could be the new
\nforms of the IGF, we have to specify what are the
\nfunctions of the IGF.<\/p>\n

I see for the next five years, in particular, these
\nfour functions which are on the slide, as these four
\nfunctions which are on the slides as probability a good
\nopportunity for ICANN if they can be more specific about
\nthese functions.<\/p>\n

The first function is the observatory function. The
\nIGF is a fantastic place, where all the knowledge of the
\ninternet development comes together and so insofar as
\nthe IGF could become the place where really the latest
\ninformation is exchanged and data are collected and are
\ndistributed for the public.<\/p>\n

The second function is the clearing house function.
\nBecause the main stakeholder come together or as Paul
\nWilson has said in the brochure, when he said the IGF
\ndoes not take decisions, but decision takers come to the
\nIGF and listen, so that means in the IGF itself the
\nvarious decision makers can sit together and can clear
\nwho does what, so this is your responsibility if it
\ncomes to multilingualism, it’s the responsibility of
\nUNESCO. If it comes to infrastructure development, it’s
\nthe responsibility of the ITU. If it comes domain name,
\nit’s the responsibility of ICANN. If it comes to IP
\naddresses, these are the five IRIs and the NRO. So it
\nmeans this discussion, who does what, you know, could be
\na very important part of the IGF functions in the
\nfuture, to function as something like a clearing house.<\/p>\n

The third thing is the laboratory function. Because
\nthis is new territory. We do not really know how
\nmulti-stakeholderism, woulds in programme its, so we
\nneed time and space for experiment.<\/p>\n

The IGF is a space for experiments, so we started
\nwith the experiment of the dynamic coalition after the
\nfirst IGF, then we learn something, that just to have
\na coalition of people who have a certain interest to
\nwork together, it’s not enough, so the IGF dynamic
\ncoalitions are not as stable as we hope that they could
\nbe.<\/p>\n

So it was an experiment, but normally experiments
\nhave a chance, either they succeed or they fail, but you
\ncan learn from your failure and insofar as to create
\na space where you can experiment new ways of policy
\ndevelopment, by not avoiding the risk that it files,
\nI think this could be innovative power to the IGF
\nprocess.<\/p>\n

The last function I see for the future is the
\nwatchdog function. That means here are critical people
\nare coming together and can ask nasty questions. They
\ncan ask governments about their national policies, that
\nI can ask corporations about their business practices.
\nThey can ask the ITU, once they exclude civil society,
\nthey can ask ICANN why they do not speed up processes
\nwith the new. The new gTLD process, so that means this
\nis a place where you can really raise all these issues,
\nso that the IGF, as such, plays the role of a watchdog
\nand I think this is also probably an interesting future
\nfunction.<\/p>\n

Finally, let me make a number of concrete proposals
\nfor the next coming years.<\/p>\n

The question with the output. Theoretically, the
\nIGF could take recommendations, but we know
\nrecommendations have a legal meaning in the UN context.
\nWe have to look at to start negotiations about the
\nlanguage. But we should not be afraid, at the end of
\nthe day, to formulate something and so in some regional
\nand national IGFs, we have started to send out messages,
\nshort message, so that after a workshop, the always
\na lot of members say, OK, what I take away from this
\nworkshop. One or two short sentences. This is what
\nI call could be one of the outcomes and IGF SMS, we
\ncould number it so that at the end of the ITF, you could
\nhave 100 or 1200 short messages which are generated by
\nthe conveners of the workmanships.<\/p>\n

The second proposal is for the composition of the
\nmulti-stakeholder advisory group, why not populate this
\nby nomination committee, because we have a lot of
\nmistrust, because the participation in the
\nmulti-stakeholder advisory group is a little bit not so
\ntransparent and I propose to have a non-comm and
\nfinally, because we have not enough knowledge, how
\nmultistakeholderism works, normally if you have no
\nknowledge, then you create the commission, I think why
\nnot to have a commission to study the role of
\nmulti-stakeholder dialogue policy development, we had
\nthe United Nations commission in the early 2001 or 2002
\nchaired by the former Brazilian president, where they
\nstudied the role of NGOs in the United Nations, but
\nI think the time is ripe that we probably have
\na high-level commission which looks into the details,
\nwhat multi-stakeholderism really means, what it is the
\npotential and I think such a commission could probably
\nproduce some more ideas, we have still too little
\nknowledge about multi-stakeholderism.<\/p>\n

Sorry for taking two minutes more than expected.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I do appreciate your effort.<\/p>\n

We are now going to go to Stephen Lau. Just to let
\nnow what’s going to happen, Stephen is going to talk in
\nhis role as presenter on the panel, we are going to go
\nto the other end of the table for a couple more moneys
\nfrom Markus, then I would like to open the floor for
\nyour interactions. If you can start thinking about your
\ninterventions and interactions and start raising your
\nhands and gesticulating. It would be a smart time to do
\nthat now.<\/p>\n

>>Stephen Lau: I would not repeat nor echo what was said so
\nfar. Those really very good recommendations for further
\nconsideration. I just want to make two technical
\nobservations and one strategic one.<\/p>\n

The first technical one is that in the last few
\nyears, the topics like we have in this conversation, is
\naccess and diversity and we have private sir and
\nopenness, emerging issues, but there’s one topic that
\nhas immersed and is now being very seriously taken by
\nthe Mag, in terms of the future, particularly next IGF,
\nis the topic is sustainable development. Overarching
\none, sustainable development.<\/p>\n

We are not so sure its scope, is going to be so
\nhuge, but for me, one thing that definitely should be
\nincluded is the environmental and climate change issues
\nand its impact, therefore, on internet or internet on
\nenvironments.<\/p>\n

The second technical observation I have is that as
\nwas said, so many expert, people, multi-stakeholders
\ncome to IGF. They pack a lot of knowledge, they come
\nwith experiences of what they call best practices, good
\ncase studies, right across the various themes we have.<\/p>\n

We do compile, first of all, on the entire script,
\nlike the scribe is actually on the website, and also
\nbeing published in a booklet.<\/p>\n

But I’m not sure whether in fact we do enough
\nknowledge management the data mine this stuff.<\/p>\n

If we do actually look at this way. If the Mag,
\nbesides just with the main objective of formulating the
\ntheme and programme for forthcoming IGFs, as its primary
\nfunction, I have suggested and I hope it will become
\nsome of them, let’s say you have some groups, you know,
\ncategorised by the subjects or the themes that, or the
\nsubthemes in our sessions, then these experts would
\nactually data mine the entire script of IGF and then
\npresent to the community the best practices and the best
\ncase studies and actual echo and reflect this point
\nabout recommendations for global collaboration.<\/p>\n

Maybe there is some brilliant UNs in there we can
\nrecommend to the following IGF for consideration.<\/p>\n

My last final point is on the strategic focus.
\nI need to tell you a very short story about this. Two
\nor three years ago, when I first was privileged to join
\nthe Mag, and it was halfway through planning the next
\nIGF, it has a theme, we already by then has just over
\na billion users in internet. The theme for that year
\nwas reaching for the next billion, which I thought was
\nwonderful. Apt, appropriate, whatever. We went to the
\nIGF forum within the first half hour, I won’t use the
\nword we were shot down, but there was a really pertinent
\nand brilliant intervention. He said, you know, the next
\nbillion following the first billion will take care of
\nthemselves, with the increasing influence of the world
\non the general basis, business initiatives, new models,
\nthe next billion will come very quickly and it came.<\/p>\n

We are now 1.8.<\/p>\n

He said what you should be concerned with is the
\nlast billion. Not the first. Not the second. It’s the
\nlast billion.<\/p>\n

The underprivileged, the disadvantaged, the poor.<\/p>\n

So therefore, my view is that the strategic focus
\nfor the next IGF, giving everything being equal, but
\nnothing is ever being equal, I would say focus at least
\nbias, would be how how do we reach the last billion.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Markus Kummer: We agree that I would end with a practical
\nsuggestion, but allow me to make three comments,
\nstarting with what Stephen suggested on the best
\npractices.<\/p>\n

We have actually started work on that, but it’s our
\nambition to have something publication out for Vilnius
\nor have it on the website that we have a data bank for
\nbest practices which would be a dynamic database and
\nthen everybody could then input. This is indeed what we
\nthink is in many ways, it was also suggestion in Sharm
\nEl Sheikh, but it had been our ambition to do so, but
\nlack of funds had not allowed us to get started, so
\nhopefully it will be out later.<\/p>\n

Correction to my friend Peng Wah about the meals at
\nthe IGF. We use standard UN procedure and we do not ask
\nthe host country to provide meals. We were lucky in
\nIndia that we had generous host who did so. But I don’t
\nwant to — in case there is a potential host here,
\nI don’t want to frighten them. This is not an
\nobligation. In Vilnius, for instance, there will be
\nfood available, food courts, which will be affordable,
\nbut it will be too much of a burden to ask the host
\ncountry to do so.<\/p>\n

Last comment about the frequency.<\/p>\n

I heard that from others, to have a two year
\nfrequency for the bi-annual meeting, my concern is that
\nwe might lose momentum. I would agree with Wolfgang’s
\ndescription of the IGF as still being very fragile and
\nin its infancy and in order to grow, my feeling is that
\nwe need the annual meeting, at least at this stage,
\nmaybe later on, once it is more matured, grown up, able
\nto walk on its own a bit better, that this could work
\nout. Definitely, there is a recognised need for
\nimproved interaction between the global meeting and the
\nregional and national meetings. We will provide an
\nopportunity and now I come to my practical suggestions,
\nwe will provide a platform, an introductory session for
\nthe regional meetings and I hope we will have
\na representative of the Asian Pacific meeting at the
\npanel, but we will also provide slots for each regional
\nmeeting, so you will have a room where you can present
\nin a two hour session, one hour session, whatever you
\nwant, I think more than two hours will be too long, but
\nit can go more in detail of your findings, of your
\npriorities, and we would also encourage a round table of
\nall the regional meetings together where they can
\nexchange information, can share best practices, can look
\nat what they have in common, where their differences
\nare.<\/p>\n

I don’t think we want the regional meetings to be
\nsort of UN type prep comes, just to prepare for the
\nglobal meetings.<\/p>\n

I think there is value in each of the regional
\nmeetings, looking at their own priorities and priorities
\nare different from region to region. So that is a valid
\nfeature of each regional meeting.<\/p>\n

But it would be good if they exchange notes and
\nI think we will have to move a little bit towards
\na common checklist of what is required to qualify as
\na national or regenerally IGF meeting.<\/p>\n

For now, all we said was you got to have
\na multi-stakeholder approach.<\/p>\n

I think all regional meetings adhered to that
\napproach, as this one did.<\/p>\n

My last eminently practical suggestion is to
\nencourage you to set up a remote hub in Hong Kong, but
\nalso in other cities of the region, we have started that
\nin Hyderabad and that has proved extremely helpful, to
\nstimulate remote participation.<\/p>\n

The idea is that you would sit together in a room
\nlike this, where you follow remote what’s happening in
\nthe proceedings of the Vilnius meeting and then you have
\nprivileged access for interaction with the meeting in
\nVilnius. We have improved software to do this.<\/p>\n

We will start training for those who are announce
\nthemselves. The deadline has already elapsed, but
\nplease tell us whoever, whether you want to, and
\nespecially here in Hong Kong, I thought the young people
\nare very active, that would be very good to have them as
\na driving force.<\/p>\n

But as I said, also if other cities of the region,
\nit would be good to have interaction with remote hubs.<\/p>\n

It has been proved, it’s like watching football, you
\nget more excited if you do it in company than if you
\njust sit behind the computer in your office or in your
\nhome.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ladies and gentlemen, we all have<\/p>\n

have time after the floor is open to have final words,
\nproviding the floor isn’t open for too extensive
\na period.<\/p>\n

>>Parminder Jeet Singh: Thank you, Cheryl. Peter said that
\nICANN has a narrow technical function and he identified
\na set of issues which are larger internet governance
\nissues which you said are probably the right kind of
\nthings which IGF should discuss and I would agree.
\nLet’s say that ICANN discusses its own issues quite
\neffectively and it decides on it and we can put that
\nissue aside.<\/p>\n

But if those are the set of issues to be discussed
\nat IGF, the issue remains where would the policy
\nregarding those issues be made, if IGF, as mostly agree
\nis not a policy making body. It’s not enough to discuss
\nissues. It’s also necessary to make global policy on
\nthose issues. Is it possible to talk about a policy
\ndialogue forum without its connections to a policy
\nmaking body.<\/p>\n

A lot of outputs which are spoken of is about going
\nhome and internet starts at home, but we all know that
\ninternet is essentially global in some very, very strong
\nways and they are strong global issues which can only be
\nsorted globally. We have national governments and local
\ngolfs, but there are issues which are national and
\ntherefore they go to the national government. In that
\nsense, they are global issues.<\/p>\n

Where do those global issues get formed and whether
\nIGF can be spoken of without the corresponding body
\nwhich takes those decisions and Wolfgang said that the
\nWGIG was able to agree to the forum, but let the other
\narea about policy making kind of left it awake and has
\ncooperation kind of a process. So how do you make the
\nconnections.<\/p>\n

Another thing about Chris’ analysis of the secretary
\ngeneral report, which I could partly agree with. But if
\nwe are to say that most participants said that there
\nshould be a renewal without any change in the mandate,
\nwhich does include at least three parts of its seven or
\neight line mandate, is about recommendations, giving
\nadvice and third connecting to policy making bodies,
\nwhich is a job which was not very effectively done in
\nthe first five years, is evolutionary process, but that
\nisn’t a pat of the mandate, if the mandate is not
\nchanged, that remains in the mandate and that’s
\nsomething which also connects to my first question.<\/p>\n

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

>>Peter Dengate Thrush: Thank you for that. Let me answer
\non two parts. The first is as long as I don’t come to
\nICANN to make the policies, one part of my mandate will
\nbe met. One of our jobs is to make sure that there is
\na place.<\/p>\n

More constructively, where should that go. There is
\ntwo solutions to that. One of the them is that most
\npronounce amendments around with existing bodies. So
\nI think the first exercise is to analyse is there an
\nexisting body that can deal with an issue. I mentioned
\nchild protection on-line. There are lots of
\norganisations that are focusing on dealing with that, so
\nthe exercise or take revenue fraud, there is large
\ninter-governmental organisations working on revenue
\nfraud. So the exercise should be to drive that policy
\ndiscussion from the IGF to the existing institutions
\nthat are dealing with those things.<\/p>\n

What is probably happening is those institutions
\naren’t as well coordinated on those issues and so the
\nIGF could drive for that.<\/p>\n

In some very string cases, if there were to be in
\nfact a totally new issue, with no existing international
\nbody, then conceivably, the IGF should be the seed
\nground from which a multi-stakeholder multinational body
\ncame into being just like ICANN came into being to deal
\nwith its narrow technical mandate, I can foresee and
\nwould hope that a new body would be formed to deal with
\nit. My suspicion is that there will be a body somewhere
\nthat can be used for most of those things.<\/p>\n

>>Izumi Aizu: My question is the need for more outreach and
\ndo you agree or not that in Asian Pacific, we started in
\nlate 1990s when we were at the IFWP process, we tried to
\ninvolve the governments. At that time, many of the
\ntechnical community, let’s say, are afraid of inviting
\nthe government officials into this internet policy
\nareas, that there could be ignorant or they may exercise
\nexcessive control.<\/p>\n

On the contrary, I think the outcome from ICANN to
\nIGF is having government people sitting together with us
\nis much more beneficial than leaving them outside.<\/p>\n

But as you see, we don’t seek that many government
\npeople here, yet, from our own region, if on the panel
\nor elsewhere. I try to bring in my government people
\nfrom Tokyo government and they said, well, we don’t see
\nmuch need, just send one person locally stationed here.<\/p>\n

So I think there is huge need for outreach to
\ninvolve more government people, especially any are the.
\nI’m not sure if you agree or not.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: I’m not sure that I do. I think
\ncertainly from the multi-stakeholder advisory group,
\nthere is significant government involvement in that and
\nit would be fair to say that a lot of that involvement
\nis quite enthusiastic, in the sense that they essential
\nturn up and they certainly speak.<\/p>\n

But also, I think in respect to the actual, the
\nannual IGF, there is significant representation from
\ngovernments at that particular, at the yearly event.<\/p>\n

It’s harder in the regional ones, because they are
\nsort of newer and they are just finding their feet. But
\nI think, I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t outreach more
\nto governments, of course we should.<\/p>\n

But I think there is significant progress has been
\nmade.<\/p>\n

>>Dr Chaudhry: Thank you, ma’am. I propose that the IGF
\nshould be more stronger and independent and for that,
\nyou need to involve more Parliamentarians from Asian
\nPacific region, so that they can also influence their
\nown individual government as well as the government can
\nthen influence the event, to go ahead, at least to
\nanother five years need to be IGF to be go on, so that
\nbenefit then can be, we can get the benefit of what we
\nwill expect from.<\/p>\n

So more Parliamentarian be invited to involve in the
\ndiscourse and dialogue. Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Dr Chaudhry are you, thank you. I don’t
\nknow if you’re aware, but there are a number of untries
\nhave sent delegations of parliamenttarians as opposed to
\npublic servants or civil servants.<\/p>\n

When which talk about government, what we often find
\nourselves dealing with as non government people is the
\ncivil service or the public service rather than the
\nactual people who are elected into parliament.<\/p>\n

One of the great things about the IGF in the past
\nhas been that a number of countries have parliamentary
\ndelegations and certainly it’s been a very interesting
\nto be able to talk to them in their role as an elected
\nrepresentative, rather than talking to government
\nofficials who have a slightly different role and
\nsometimes a slightly different view.<\/p>\n

But I think it’s absolutely right that the more
\nParliamentarians we can get involved, the better.<\/p>\n

>>: I’m Farance from Indonesian ISP Association.<\/p>\n

I have been discuss with several friends and several
\nbodies in Indonesia about the IGF yesterday and I just
\nwant to express our interest to host the next regional
\nIGF meeting in Indonesia, if it’s possible, and we are
\nvery serious to discuss more further about hosting this
\nevent. Maybe in 2012. Because next year, we will make
\nour national IGF also.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you and I’ll pass that straight
\nback to Stephen.<\/p>\n

>>Stephen Lau: I think this is really a very happy with it,
\nbut this proposal from Indonesia as well as the fact
\nthat as I mentioned right at the beginning, we took up
\nthe challenge because right place at the right time,
\na catalyst and really would like to see it, you know, in
\nother such regional round table is held in different
\nparts of Asia and Asian Pacific.<\/p>\n

First of all, as far as Hong Kong is concerned,
\nevery economy I think should have their local IGF
\nactivity.<\/p>\n

How you shape, what shape or form, but as far as
\nHong Kong is concerned, we intend to run like tomorrow,
\nthe two day conference as an annual event, educational,
\nawareness and then moving more into the depth of
\nsubjects and all that.<\/p>\n

As far as a regional IGF is concerned, I personally
\nam very happy, a country economy in this case Indonesia,
\nsay that they would like to do it.<\/p>\n

If I go ahead and said go ahead, first of all,
\nI don’t think I have that mandate to say please go
\nahead, because I’m being very frank, because this time
\nit was kind of experiment and prototype. However, I do
\nwelcome this. But how do we actually follow through
\nwith this this.<\/p>\n

Let me make some personal suggestions.<\/p>\n

Currently, there is a regional representative
\nsitting on the OC of this round table.<\/p>\n

So that’s a ready reservoir of people who have
\nexpressed and have done a lot of work in making this
\nhappen.<\/p>\n

Secondly, in any endeavour, if you put — we are
\ntalking about multi-stakeholders in Asian Pacific.
\nI think it goes into the thousands, even organisation
\nwise.<\/p>\n

So we have to a certain extent, kept the
\norganisation small enough to be able to operate. But we
\nalso have a second list of stakeholders who were being
\nor have been kept informed and to seek their input where
\nrelevant.<\/p>\n

So therefore, without saying “yes” or “no”, but let
\nme give you my two pennies worth of how Indonesia would
\nproceed.<\/p>\n

Firstly, I would say Indonesia, once again, thank
\nyou for the offer. Please include this current OC
\nmembers involved, because they have demonstrated that we
\nhave made something work, firstly.<\/p>\n

Secondly, please expand and mobilise more
\nstakeholders, because it’s a large area. I know that
\nthere are other economies, large and small, who would
\nlike to participate. If you wish to participate, please
\nthrough the OC or the current OC and your other network,
\npropagate the message, get the involvement, either on
\nthe OC basis, as well as on the communication list.<\/p>\n

There is a certain expectation, as was mentioned
\nalready, to run this sort of thing, it requires costs.<\/p>\n

It requires sponsorship.<\/p>\n

There is a certain expectation because we are used
\nto IGF, the global government, 1500, 2,000 people,
\neverything is complementary, lovely logistics, WiFi
\neverywhere and function rooms and this is kind of a mini
\none, but we try to model and get this kind of expected,
\nbecause people come a long way and so therefore, there
\nare certain expectation of that kind of facilities they
\nwould enjoy.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, is that just like IGF, and similar to here,
\nis that there are sometimes representatives who require
\nsubsidy in terms of being able to attend such kind of
\nconferences, they are appropriate and we welcome them to
\ncome, so there must also be some subsidy to allow such
\nwhen we talk about multi-stakeholder representation.<\/p>\n

So this would be my two pennies worth of providing
\nbased on our experience, to talk about.<\/p>\n

I cannot say please go ahead, but I think it’s every
\neconomy’s right or every nation’s right, if they believe
\nI have the facilities, I have the willpower, I have the
\norganisational capabilities, I have the logistic, I have
\nthe venues and facility, please, go ahead. We are all
\nwelcome. They are all welcome. We should all welcome
\nsuch proposals.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We tasked ourselves with asking two
\nparticularly broad questions, one was what the way
\nforward was for IGF and also what that was the last
\nquestion from the floor and what the way forward might
\nbe for regional cooperation. I think we have had very
\npositive explorations. That was the last question.
\nI don’t normally change my mind and it’s not going to
\nstart now.<\/p>\n

We do have a way forward on both counts, but I would
\nlike to come back to Peng Wah, because I did promise him
\nthe microphone again and then come back down just for
\nany closing comments from the rest of our speakers.
\nEnding with Stephen if you could put on your hat as the
\nchairman after we go down the table, as the chairman of
\nthe organising committee, to wind us up for the day.<\/p>\n

>>Ang Peng-Hwa: At great risk of being associated with food
\nall the time, I have to confess I have not paid much for
\nfood at IGFs, so maybe it’s just me or something, but
\nI have been very worried about the cost of food, because
\nI know it’s quite intimidating, so I am glad as Markus
\nhas said, that it’s not, it’s just that I guess being
\nAsians, India, I guess Hong Kong and Egypt, you are more
\nhospitable. Which reinforcing the point that it’s
\na cultural difference, even how we run a meeting, and
\nI have to the effect, not so much about food, but for
\nexample in Asia we are not so used to coming up to the
\nmic and speaking and I am looking for Edmon who he is
\nsitting modestly blind the scenes.<\/p>\n

I think in Europe and maybe in America, I expect
\nAmerica more so, guy is upfront, you know, showing he’s
\nthe boss, but it seems that in Asia, we are a little
\nmore mod itself, so there is some cultural differences
\nand so the question is how do we fit. In I guess the
\nregional meetings become more important in that light.<\/p>\n

I would say that the costs can be kept low, then it
\nis something to be considered and maybe for our meeting
\nof this size, I think if I’m not wrong, the one in Egypt
\nwas 3,000 people, 1800 people, so US$50 per day, it’s
\na lot.<\/p>\n

So if we can keep that down, that will be helpful
\nfor future organisers.<\/p>\n

>>Wolfgang Kleinwachter: When the WSIS process started in
\nthe year 2001, the terminology multi-stakeholder was
\nunknown. I check the report from the United Nations
\ngeneral secretary now about Internet Governance Forum.
\nIt has 11 pages and the terminology stakeholder or
\nmulti-stakeholder or civil society private sector and
\ngovernments appears 57 times.<\/p>\n

More or less, the use of the terminology indicates
\nthat something has changed in the last 10 years and this
\nis a good signal.<\/p>\n

I will recount how often the stakeholder technology
\nis used in the report in 015, but let’s wait and see.<\/p>\n

>>Stephen Lau: Before I close this conference, just one
\nmore point to my Indonesian colleague with his kind
\noffer. We would like to talk to you in the sense of
\ngiving you more background and also maybe some food for
\nthought in relating to the this particular regional
\nconference round table, with respect to your desire to
\nrun the next one.<\/p>\n

Let’s have a chat afterwards.<\/p>\n

With that, first of all, I really like to, this
\nround table, I think a good really your appreciation
\nmust be extended to Edmon and Prof Ang for coordinating
\nthis particular meeting.<\/p>\n

I think they have done a brilliant job, with their
\nnetwork and obviously, we should reach out for more and
\nI think Indonesia and other regional forums would
\ndefinitely do so as well.<\/p>\n

It’s late.<\/p>\n

I really the success and respect for the forum that
\nwe have held today is not for me to say. It’s really
\nrespect is bestowed on if you feel that we have done
\na good job, then we thank you.<\/p>\n

The essence of such a forum actually once again,
\nreinforces the spirit and the mandate and the essence of
\nIGF and it was mentioned right throughout in the various
\nsessions that we have, it’s just three particular one.<\/p>\n

It’s first of all, definitely involvement of
\nmulti-stakeholders to advance our mutual interest.
\nFirst of all, their participation, it goes beyond
\nparticipation, engagement.<\/p>\n

Secondly, is that and we should meet and we have met
\non the parody on equity basis.<\/p>\n

That means that all views are respected, all views
\nare appreciated and through such exchanges, we
\nunderstand more if there are different points of view,
\nat least we have more understanding and hopefully, that
\nwe can come to some mutual agreement or understanding.<\/p>\n

My final, apart from thanking everybody coming, our
\nvolunteers, our logistical support, I think it’s the
\nfirst time in Hong Kong we have such a kind of
\ntechnology support. I think this is the second time in
\nHong Kong we have done scribe and DotAsia.<\/p>\n

And I just also want to say that tomorrow is our
\nlocal conference in Hong Kong. It is for education and
\nawareness kind of programme IGF, focusing on two
\nsegments of the society, which are NGOs, as well as our
\nyouth, because I think the business side, the government
\nside, they do understand the IGF kind of issue.<\/p>\n

So if you are still in town, you are welcome to come
\nand attend and also to contribute and to our comment.
\nInch thank you once again.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: While we are thanking people, I think
\nit’s important that I take this moment as we close off
\nand wish even safe travels, to thank the panel for this
\nafternoon’s session, so if you could all join with me in
\nthe normal way, thank you very much. Is it the will of
\nthe meeting that we take an additional question or two
\nfrom the floor? I don’t change my mind often in the
\nsession as timing, but I’m happy, if you’re all happy,
\nhave the panel stay if you may that they do that.<\/p>\n

Thank you. We need a microphone.<\/p>\n

>>: Thank you very much everyone for allowing me to raise
\none last question. I’m Miwa from Freedom House. I’m in
\ncharge of Asia programme. I just like to before we
\nclose off just throw some ideas to all here, in the way
\nfor us to be thinking the way forward for IGF.<\/p>\n

I think that I have observed that this is,
\nI understand this is round table discussion, but I’m not
\nsure if it worked really that way. The round table
\ndiscussion, when we have spent quite most amount of time
\nfor the speakers to speak and we have all these folks
\nwho spend their time and money to come here, so I just
\nwant to throw that idea out there.<\/p>\n

Also, Asia is the largest region in the world, Asian
\nPacific and this is, I think, the first time we are
\nhaving this regional IGF. Now, it’s great that we have
\nsome friends from Indonesia calling for the national IGF
\nand so on.<\/p>\n

But when we talk about the civil society
\nparticipation, and when we talk about the reflection of
\nthe voices from different parts of the society,
\nincluding the poor, when we talk about issue of digital
\ndivide and so on, I would like us to think about the way
\nthis IGF has been reached to Asia, you know, from the
\nglobal to other regional meeting and then finally to
\nAsia and then now we are talking about back to the
\nnational level.<\/p>\n

So how is this bottom up process is going to be
\nconsidered by the IGF and the mandate that’s given by
\nthe UN secretary general.<\/p>\n

I’m also for the participation and the question
\nraised by Mr Izumi Aizu here, not only we would like to
\nsee more the government representatives, but also we
\nwould like to see more from the society, but not only
\njust the participation meaning physical existence here,
\nbut also the open dialogue taking place between
\ndifferent stakeholders.<\/p>\n

Not that civil society has to always having to chase
\nto be in IGF, or chase to be talking to the government
\nrepresentatives or chase to be talking to the UN
\nrepresentatives, I hope that then IRGF or IGF for Asian
\nPacific people will be more often a place for real
\ndialogue. Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Earlier on there was another
\nquestion. Is that still in the room?<\/p>\n

No one else with another question or comment. If
\nnot, very briefly. While the microphone goes over to
\nthe last speaker, I would like to remind each and every
\none of you that we all have the opportunity to give our
\nparticular feedback, we like to hear many voices from
\nwhatever sector of the multi-stakeholder model we are
\nworking in please fill out your feedback forms, the
\nemail address is on the web side and you should be able
\nto contact the organising committee from a regional, an
\nAsian Pacific regional IGF planning and future planning
\npoint of view and I’m sure the same facilities are open
\nat normal IGF.<\/p>\n

>>Oliver Robillo: I’m Oliver Robillo know again from the
\nPhilippines. We are also planning to hold a national
\nIGF in the Philippines in 2011, should the mandate of
\nIGF be continued by the UN for another five years.<\/p>\n

We do support our brothers in Indonesia, if you plan
\nto hold a regional IGF in Indonesia, then we will
\nsupport you.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We are starting a bidding war for
\nassistant from the various national IGFs.<\/p>\n

>>: I have one recommendation, basically. Before
\norganising second RIGF, we need organise two regional
\nIGF, one is Southeast Asia, another one is for south
\nAsia. Then we would like to submit two recommendations,
\nto regional IGF. That would be very nice, we think.
\nBefore that, of course we would like to organise
\nBangladesh internet government forum. Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Stephen Lau: Can I just make a comment. First of all,
\nonce again, my personal view, because I cannot speak on
\nbehalf of IGF, UN and all that. First of all, local and
\nregional conferences on IG itself, internet governance
\nissue, are definitely most welcome.<\/p>\n

There’s nothing to stop Asian Pacific being such
\na wide region to have more than one regional event in
\nthe region.<\/p>\n

Having said that and also definitely national one.<\/p>\n

Having said that, maybe I put you on the spot,
\nMarkus, but maybe you might like to say a few words as
\nregards mushrooming events, local and regional or
\nsubregional. What would be your views be on? Just say
\na few words.<\/p>\n

>>Markus Kummer: By all means, yes, I couldn’t agree more
\nwith what you said. We don’t have a copyright on IGF.
\nAlthough I had suggested that we get together and
\ndiscuss a little bit and maybe find a commonalities,
\ncommon procedures, the only conditions so far has been
\nthe main commonality is the multi-stakeholder approach,
\nas long as that is respected, then I think you’re
\nentitled to call yourself local, national, regional IGF.<\/p>\n

For Asia, certainly it will make sense to have
\na subregional IGF, as the region is so huge.<\/p>\n

To the question whether or not to hold a national
\nIGF, to make it dependant on the extension of the
\nmandate, I would say don’t wait for that. There’s value
\nin having a meeting irrespective of whether there is
\nglobal IGF.<\/p>\n

That was my main lesson learned from the East Africa
\nIGF, the participants said that was a good meeting, we
\nare going to hold this kind of meeting every year,
\nirrespective of the global IGF. If the global IGF
\ncontinues, then we keep interacting, we keep getting
\ninspired by having exchanges with others. If not, then
\nwe stick to this region and continue.<\/p>\n

That would be my main message also to you. Go
\nforward this kind of meeting without waiting for any
\ndecision by the General Assembly.<\/p>\n

>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Edmon, I think it is absolutely
\nfitting that you have the final word. It’s all up to
\nyou.<\/p>\n

>>Edmon Chung: Thank you. Just very quickly. As
\nI mentioned in my opening remarks, DotAsia is very happy
\nto support any regional efforts in internet governance
\nthis between of forum or round table, this kind of
\nthing. So please get in touch. I’m sure you’ll find me
\nquite easily on line and I’m really excited that at the
\nend of this forum, that a few other — I can see a few
\nother initiatives that will be coming. So I think we
\ncontributed to something and I also want to thank all
\nthe thanks that have been given to me.<\/p>\n

Thank you. Language hang thank you. We’ll see you
\nin a similar situation in the very near future.<\/p>\n

>>: By the end of the conference, I would like to thank our
\nkind sponsor again including our grand sponsor,
\nMicrosoft and APNIC. Venue sponser Cyberport, Hong Kong
\nRegistration Corporation Ltd. Our community sponsor,
\nAPTLD, IMPACT, Japan Registry Services and Singapore
\nInternet Research Centre.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Way Forward: The Next Model of the IGF ________________________________________________________________________ REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: The Way Forward: The Next Model of the IGF APrIGF 14:00-15:30, Wednesday 16 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 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “APrIGF Roundtable \u2013 June 16th, 2010: Session 4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-358","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/358","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=358"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/358\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":556,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/358\/revisions\/556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}