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 version of the
realtime transcript which amends the inherent errors, will
be posted later. LLOYD MICHAUX and APrIGF accept no
liability for any event or action resulting from the
contents of this transcript.
________________________________________________________________________
>>: 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.
After filling in the questionnaire, please return it to the registration table.
Thank you very much.
Now we proceed to the last session of the day, which is about the next model of the IGF.
May I now invite Ms. Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chairman of at large advisory committee, ALAC of ICANN, to start the session for us.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much. The session this afternoon has a particular aim to bring forward the
various threads of the discussion we have had as inputs so far.
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
should 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.
So there are two particular focuses we want to take in this afternoon’s session.
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.
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.
As we look towards our two issues, we are going to start with a where we are now introduction from Markus Kummer.
>>Markus Kummer: I will be short. I will not go into the details, I will more focus on the process.
As I said in my introductory remarks yesterday, we had the consultation on the future of the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh.
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.
Now we enter the phase, the political phase, where the governments will decide.
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.
The secretary general’s report has been issued in all the languages, so we can also read it in Chinese, not only in English.
It recommends an extension of the mandate for a further five years.
The main question now is whether these improvements should come from the inside or from the outside.
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.
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.
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.
So this is a track that could lead to a discussion by governments from the outside.
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.
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
well, what should be improved.
So we will carry on regardless, but there is
a strong probability that there will be a dual track,
that we will have the discussions from within and there
will be discussions from the outside by governments,
which as such, is not maybe a bad thing, as it will link
us stronger to the world of governments. They are the
ones who have the mandate to decide whether or not to
continue, so to link up with governments, may be an
advantage for the IGF.
A last word, this has been a dichotomy from the
start, that in the IGF, we have a very much
a multi-stakeholder process, but we are we have not the
autonomy to decide whether or not to continue. That is
the remit of governments.
With that, I hand back to you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much and perfectly
timed.
As we move the microphone and cue the presentation,
we are about to have a presentation which I think is
being cut down rather brutally to about five minutes, so
thank you very much, Prof Peng Wah, for putting the
knife to your presentation.
We trust you will give us the full version for the
archive record and now you are up.
>>Ang Peng-Hwa: Time is running out and I have to catch
a flight also, so I have to end on time.
I was told that I should give some backdrop about
the IGF, so I’m going to keep this very short, just I’m
going to do injustice to Markus, not quite the way
I think you would expect.
I think the panel will be expect to question
everything, but when somebody asks you to question
everything, you don’t ask this question. Typically,
because I teach communication students and they are
bright sparks and you try to be the first question will
be why?
We are asking more about what and the what, first of
all, kind of a brief backdrop about the IGF, the IGF was
formed through the working group of governance report.
Wolfgang and I were in a group and led by the
secretariat, where Markus was the head and basically,
four key points to note, because I hear some comments
about the idea of how you don’t see much action and the
reason is that it was not intended for action. It was
intended to be a body where you talk, literally a talk
shop and low cost, lightweight and the idea was that by
not having decision decisions being made, you therefore
would have greater freedom to discuss and you will not
be tied up in knots and stalemate.
On hindsight, I think that was a good call, the idea
being that people are free to discuss.
So I think this is one thing that we want to
question, this form of the IGF.
I think I can sense some dissatisfaction with this.
Also, the format itself, we have a 40 member
multi-stakeholder advisory group. It’s a similar format
to the working group internet governance and what’s
called the 40 advisers.
There are 40 of us there. Similar structure and you
can understand why, because you see the format has
worked before and you don’t want to tamper with
something that works already.
The 40 member advisory group, Stephen is on the
group, so we have somebody here and Peter also on the
group and others as well, Chris.
So this key in terms of the advice to the IGF.
In the way it is done is that issues that you see
are put there, seven, but roughly in that order, five,
six or seven, roughly in that order and you see in that
map out programme as well.
The idea is these broad headings would give you
opportunity to discuss within that.
So I mean these are key issues and then within that,
you have to discuss.
So for example, diversity, in this group, meeting
today, we talked about IDNS.
So within the broad headings, we have room to
discuss.
Again, you can question why should we have this and
how should we change it if you want to change it.
I’m going to make one assumption about where we want
to go and I mention this earlier when we began yesterday
and I began by saying internet governance is a global
public good. Good in terms of a product, but good that
benefit across countries, across the whole globe and
examples being you have up there peace and security, the
environment, and cyber space.
If you can have a good cyber space, good in the way
that when you find grow industry and we don’t favour any
particular sector or disadvantage any particular sector,
global good, we think that we will benefit humanity.
So with that assumption, I’m going to make just
a few recommendations.
I mention this earlier, that the IGF is to meet
every two years. There was some talk earlier about how
the cost involved and I can completely sympathise with
that, because there are costs to attends. In fact, also
costs for the organiser, because the food is free. We
didn’t pay to register. If you count, this is not
cheap. I’m organising two meetings in Singapore. There
are about $50 per head and kind of a low end of this
range of prices you can ask for.
So your food alone is costing the organisers here
there’s US$50 a day, two days, US$100. It’s not
a trivial amount, consider the number of people who turn
up at the IGF.
The main reason not so much the cost, but the main
reason is that technology policy does not change so
fast. If you look back, you find that the policy in
fact should not move too fast, because you can have what
we call first move disadvantage. If you move too
quickly, you bet on the wrong technology, you get stuck.
Classic case being they have to overhaul the act and
basically throw it out, because they move too quickly.
Singapore, some of our policies were, they were set out,
didn’t work out well. They were OK, but they fine and
those who move later, in fact, came up better.
A second one as I mentioned is that in the
intervening year, have a regional meeting, like what we
are doing now.
Why the regional meetings. It’s clear that we need
to disseminate internet governance message better. We
have people who are hearing about this for the first
time and this will be the fifth IGF and the mandate of
the IGF runs out this year.
So it’s been some time.
I think that being what we call closer physically
you also cultural closer, and so there is a greater
scope for cooperation. Basically, you face similar
issues. You heard India script going left and right,
think of diverse, but India is amazing place. And then
China having a similar issues, some extent.
So culturally, there is greater scope for
cooperation.
This might be a controversial point. Based on again
a paper that I’m planning to write, the dominant country
would be less encompassing and therefore less interested
when you call for action.
I see the USA as being less interested in IGF going
forward. The economy being part of it, but also the
dynamics of the Internet Governance Forum.
I’ll sort of come back and elaborate that second
point.
I think the IGF should be more supportive of action.
It is currently talk shop. I’m saying, I’m choosing my
words carefully here, to say that it’s supportive of
action and not necessarily act. Pardon me if I sound
sort of political and like a diplomat. But the choice
of words is important, because I think I agree with the
original concept, that if you try to act, you are going
to get tied up in knots, so let’s move forward, allow us
to disagree, people with occasion, but also support
action where action can be taken.
The question is if you are talking action, can
action be possible? Can global collective action be
possible? I am a bit of optimist here. I think it can
be done. Of course, based on some theory, being
academic, I have to have theory with me.
I think that an issue that we have is that we have
global collective action. You are going to have free
read. People who don’t participate but enjoy the
benefits of the action. That’s inevitable and you have
to allow for that.
Just kind of some people who won’t participate, but
they benefit.
Then you have a question of what this is from Olson
talking about the logic of global collective action,
written back in 1965. So it’s literally the last
century.
He talked about ignorant patriots who think that the
global good should be in their own backyard, not let
out.
So they think that you can control it, let’s have it
Ip house, let’s control it.
So you are going to have people kind of acting
against even this promotion of global public good.
But because we have the history now of seeing
collective action at work, a classic one being this use
of freon for air conditioning, ozone depletion and we
have managed at a global level to collectively reduce
that. We have not globally agreed about global warming,
but on some areas, there are examples of successful
global collective action.
So taking the lessons from there, I think this we
can move forward and be successful with some action,
limited by some possibilities.
My conclusion, I view the US interests as getting
less encompassing and therefore, we are going to lose
the dominant nation in global public provision.
I have spoken to people privately and many agree,
actually US has been very kind. They basically let us
like soccer going on right now, they let us play the
game, they haven’t taken the ball back. They have let
us play the game.
But we can lose some interest in that.
Therefore, because of this loss of this dominant
nation, we should move more regionally.
I think that despite the difficulties, even though
we move, maybe because we move regionally, we are going
to be successful in selective global collective action.
Thank you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Our next speaker, as we move down the
table, is the chairman of internet corporation for
assigned names and numbers, Peter Dengate Thrush.
>>Peter Dengate Thrush: IGF created at Tunis and when it
was first created, we expected it to just be a talking
shop. But, in fact, it has been a surprising success.
Amongst other things, it proves that the
multi-stakeholder system on which ICANN itself is based,
really works and in the wider extended format.
Of course, it’s spawned a group of national and
regional equivalents and I’m delighted to be speaking at
this latest one, the first IGF in Asia.
You will know that I’m from New Zealand, which
regards itself as part of Asia. We are one of the first
countries to sign a tree trade agreement with China, for
example.
So I’m delighted to be here and I want to thank the
organising committee and the sponsors.
But come back to those other groups. They are all
mutually supportive and cross fertilising and it’s the
variety of player, I think, that makes them the success
they are.
That plus the absence of the imperative of decision
making.
One of the consequences of that is that we don’t
spend hours at these meetings arguing over the minute
wording of what evenly become meaningless, never looked
at resolutions.
We are able to get on with the discussions.
Some governments don’t like having to listen to
business and civil society in this kind of framework.
I think there are a smaller and diminishing
minority.
The trouble is that the United Nations decides these
things tends to operate by block voting, based sometimes
on other decisions.
So you do need to make your views known to
governments about how you want this to continue.
I think it’s probably ironic that we’re out of the
room when some of these decisions are made by
governments about a multi-stakeholder organisation.
Let me come to the ICANN position. ICANN is
a supporter. We like the IGF.
We think it promotes a free and innovative internet
and we want it to continue as it is and not be absorbed
into the United Nations or some other bureaucracy.
We say that for a number of reasons.
The cynics would say that the United Nations has
enough to deal with in delivering clean water to people
on the planet who don’t yet have that basic necessity
and those cynics might think the United Nations could do
a better job concentrating on creating world peace than
running the root service.
Others worry that in the politics of the United
Nations, where deals are done to get votes on sanctions
against warring states, for example, or deals are done
about oil, that the basic stability and security of the
internet would become a pawn in larger power plays at
the risk to the billions of users and of course the
billions of users yet to come.
We do not want the security and stability of the
internet placed in that kind of environment.
But others like me are just simply a little bit more
pragmatic and we observe that the roots of the internet
and the reasons for its global success lie in an open
inclusive culture, which is how it’s governance
structure should be built.
ICANN has been a long time supporter of the IGF.
We supported it birth out of the WSIS process and we
support it by providing to sustain its programme and its
work.
One of the major reasons that we do that is because
it has a much wider mandate than ICANN has or that ICANN
should have.
ICANN has a very narrow technical mandate,
coordinating internet resources, primarily the names and
numbers that appear in our name.
But the enormous power of the internet brings with
it many, many more issues than are included in the ICANN
mandate. The IGF we think is the proper place for those
issues to be discussed, cyber crime, revenue fraud,
protection of children on-line, green issues and there
were some tremendous sessions on that at Sharm El
Sheikh.
All areas where there are major requirements for an
integration, an integrated view, including the views of
governments on these public policy issues.
Other topics from Sharm, just for example, global
state of copyright and access to knowledge, the internet
and citizenship, applying agenda lens. The role of
interchange exchange points in creating internet
capacity on line freedom of privacy and that we have to
look at, but can’t do inside ICANN where its narrow
technical function.
You do not want the techies at ICANN discussing
issues such as the one that is go on in the IGF.
Recall and professor had them up on the screen, the
seven different themes from Sharm, access, critical
internet resources, diversity, openness, security,
capacity-building and development. Not inside the ICANN
mandate.
But we must have a forum where those issues can be
addressed be addressed in them and the IGF is that forum
and those voices must be continue to be heard.
Let’s not forget also the comments made by the
secretary general of the ITU at Sharm El Sheikh. Much
is made about the friction between the ITU and those
supports a multi-stakeholder model supporters of the
governmental model which the ITU represents have on
occasions struggled with the challenges of
a multi-stakeholder model. For many of us, it’s just
those challenges, historic opportunity to develop a new
inclusive governance model that has exceeded us in
building ICANN over 12 years and the IGF over the past
five.
I reached out as chair and visited Dr Tooray after
becoming chair and Hamadoon responded by coming and
speaking at a ICANN meeting by it was the I have GF at
Sharm El Sheikh that he formally acknowledged the ICANN
role, saying ICANN is recognised as the central
authority for internet names and addresses.
I IT. Is the recognised organisation for
communication infrastructure that supports the internet.
We have to look at ways to eliminate frictions between
our different organisations and between all stakeholders
during the IGF process.
To me, that’s a very welcome sign of the kind of
cooperation that we must have and I just note that it
was at an IGF that the environment was right for that
kind of comment to be made.
One of the issues that is alleged to be a bug in the
ICANN model is the role of governments and in
a multi-stakeholder organisation, governments are just
one of the participants.
Discussing on an equal footing with the other
players with civil society, the technical community, the
CCT manager and so on.
ICANN advice from governments is simply that,
advice. It’s not the final word and it’s not the law.
I and many others, we think this is a feature, not
a bug.
Of course we treat the add vines of governments with
enormous respect and there is no occasion when ICANN has
not accepted the advice of the governmental advisory
committee N but governments inside ICANN are also
changing. They are now taking part, much more
aggressively and visibly in the cross community
discussions that go on at ICANN and their own meetings
are now almost entirely in public.
So the system works, together we are much stronger
and we have a much greater chance of doing the right
thing when all are participating in the decision making.
So we remain committed to supporting the IGF, we
welcome the UN report and the prospect of extension. It
is not my place to comment on the details of how things
should move forward. We thinks that for the community
to community and to design and improve and ICANN will
play its part this those community discussions.
I just want to take the opportunity perhaps to tell
you about a couple of develops of ICANN.
Firstly, at the smaller scale, let me tell you about
some of the changes that I have made at the board level.
I have reorganised the board committees to focus on the
crucial areas of ICANN’s mandate. So we have new
committees running on risk, public participation,
structural improvements and IANA. Which means that our
board now has key oversight of the a key elements of the
ICANN mission. We have also instituted board several
review. Review by the board of itself and of its chair
and we have published those results. We have changed
the models of reporting and of course we have changed
our CEO.
At a much more major level, I would like to mention
the historic ending of the joint project agreement which
is a while stone in my time.
It’s freed the way to allow the creation of a new
model of community review of ICANN. Assigning of the
after firmation of the commitments and the work now
being done by the community based accountability and
transparency review team is an enormous shift away from
oversight by the US Government to community oversight.
So I just want to let you know that ICANN is working
hard on its own governmentnance and it’s a journey, it’s
not a destination, we can always improve.
And we are committed to regular reviews to
transparency and to greater accountability.
We look forward to working with Markus Kummer and
his team to grow and develop the IGF model to meet the
challenges of the future.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Moving now to Chris Disspain, Chief
Executive Officer so have.off. Administration, within
ICANN and also member.
>>Chris Disspain: Thank you, Cheryl.
As Markus has said and Peter also reiterated,
governments have the mandate on the continuation of the
IGF and the shape that it will take. If indeed it is
continued, but that doesn’t mean that we should not
attempt to influence the decision they make.
In May, this year, the UN secretary general
published a draft report on the IGF for the UN General
Assembly in December 2010. I have gone through that
report in large amount of detail and I’m going to go
through some issues that I think arise because of it and
hopefully, you will be able to take some of these points
back and make them to your governments, because that is
the way that we influence this process.
There were a total of 1246 contribute contributions
to the review of the IGF in 2009.
That was then followed, by, as I said, the UNSG
draft report.
That suggests recommendations for substantive
changes to the IGF on the basis of stakeholder feedback.
In fact, the majority, vast majority of stakeholders
either wanted continuation of the IGF as is or with only
incremental improvements, which could be achieved
without any change to the mandate, the structure or
function of the IGF.
There were 74 different suggestions, some made by
more than one person, for possible improvements, ranging
from don’t make it a negotiating forum to not desirable
to continue the IGF. But there was no consensus for
reform, whether minor or radical.
Our analysis is that 87 per cent called for
continuation as is or with minor tweaks, which would
require no outside intervention to achieve.
To quote one stakeholder, the IGF’s framework is
flexible enough to accomodate without the need for
fundamental change to the model.
For example, there are five most popular ideas for
what the IGF could do better.
Improve participation from developing countries.
17 suggestions for that.
Improve remote participation. 14 suggestions.
Support local and regional IGF meetings 126
suggestions.
Increase the price given to development. 11
suggestions.
Finally, the fifth one, look at the Mag membership
role and ways of working. Eight suggestions. None of
these require structural changes or intervention of the
General Assembly.
On critical internet resources, according to the
draft report, the most significant concerns expressed by
stakeholders were the IGF had not devoted sufficient
attention to its development remit or the specific
question of management of critical internet resources.
It’s true that many wanted improvement in developing
country participation and issues, but only three
stakeholders actually mentioned critical internet
resources.
The government of China called for the IGF to solve
the issue of unilateral control of critical internet
resources, provide a space for enhanced cooperation and
the development should be the first priority.
One person suggested that the structure of the
critical resources session of the IGF should be reviewed
to allow for more formal dialogue and the Internet
Society of China called on the IGF to concentrate on
critical internet resources and set a timetable for them
to be urgently reviewed.
Apart from those three mentions of critical internet
resources, there is no basis to highlight management of
critical internet resources failing of the IGF.
I don’t normally speak with notes.
The UNSG draft report states other stakeholders have
proposed regularisation of the budget of the IGF within
the United Nations or even transforming the IGF into
a formal body with inter-government all machinery of the
United Nations.
In fact, a total of six stakeholders proposed the
IGF be funded from the UN regular budget. There was
only one session that the IGF be incorporated into the
UN machinery and that the multilateral agencies within
the UN system.
The draft report does not reference the suggestions
of the current funding arrangements, voluntary
donations, securing an independent secretariat could
continue, which four people suggested, or that mentioned
that six more stakeholders called for better resources
for the secretariat, but did not say how, i, whether the
funding would come from the UN or from other sources.
In summary, the total of eight interventions called
for UN funding or absorption, whereas 10 interventions
called for more funding, including by multi-stakeholders
and stressed the importance of maintaining an
independent secretariat.
On the draft report calls the advisory group a de
facto bureau and that other improvements such as the
membership and rules of procedure may be within the
authority of the secretary general to address.
It also acknowledges that some changes may be within
the power of purview of the secretariat and/or the IGF
participants themselves.
Eight stakeholders commented on Mag in some way.
The suggestions were mild, improve modalities of
working, greater transparency more regular rotation and
annual reporting.
Only three suggested that the IGF needed a bureau.
Attendance by stakeholder group, equitable
participation and representation of stakeholders in the
report, it states that the participation is broad based
but somewhat uneven. In contrast, analysis shows
a fairly widespread of participants.
We have used the stakeholder Tunis agenda to include
the technical and academic communities as separate from
civil society.
The media is also identified as a separate
stakeholder, highlighting its function in informed the
wider public. The UNSG report lumps technical academic
so the report doesn’t vay the rich variety of
stakeholders who participate including technical
organisations who run the internet infrastructure.
It implies that civil society comprises 40 per cent
of attendees rather than the actual number, which is 19
per cent inch I hope that some of you will be able to
take this information and I will be publishing this
report in the next few days, away and talk to your
governments about their views on the continuation of the
IGF, the way that it should be continue and the manner
in which it should be managed.
Thank you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We move now to Wolfgang Kleinwachter,
who is chairman of the ICANN nominating committee and
professor of international communication policy and
regulation at the department for media and information
science.
>>Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much. As Peng-Hwa
has said, I was involved in the very early days, when
the idea of the internote governance forum was born and
by the way, it was an idea which came from the civil
society, as an alternative to establishment of an
inter-governmental organisation and we had two main
conflictss, not main conflicts, main arenas, which was
the forum function and the oversight function. While
they could not agree on the oversight function and
interestingly, then the summit itself took the forum
function, one to one from the which kick report while
they could not find one of the models as agreeable from
the report with regard to the oversight function and the
result of the discussion of the oversight function was
then this undefined process of enhanced cooperation.
It’s interesting to go back to where all this comes
from, so let’s say the most workable outcome from the
world summit was indeed, let’s say, initiated by the
civil society, it is an interesting part of the history.
Being since the beginning of the IGF, special
adviser to the chair unfortunately the chair asks only
so I had enough time to rethink all this and to watch it
from critical point of view from a certain distance,
being in this capacity.
So far, my summary from the five years is if I use
the methodology of SWOT analysis, strength, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. The key four elements here
in my eyes is the strength of the ITG is that it offers
indeed informal multi-stakeholder discussion space and
I think this is really important, which opens minds and
mouths. That means in people are coming together and
feel the pressure that at the end of the meetings, they
have to agree in form of a declaration or even are
punished by a declaration or recommendation, then they
will not express themselves freely.
But exactly this freedom of discussion has enabled
the success of the IGF and has brought the die namickses
in the debate. I think this is really one of the
biggest strengths.
However, the weaknesses and this has said again and
again, by many people, is that there are no measure
rabble outputs. Some people say, OK, you know, because
we have no discussion making capacity, this is not
a weakness, this is a strength. Anyhow, you know,
people want to take something at home. Either directly
or they want to see something indirectly.
By the way, if you give more time for reflection,
then you will discover that you know some indirect
results are meanwhile visible. We heard this morning in
the IDN session, that probably without the IGF, ICANN
would have not made such a decision at this time,
I would not say in early stage, because it needed 10
years, but anyhow, you know, ICANN got the message from
the IGF, we have to do something. So this is the
community wants to have IDNs and so the pressure was on
ICANN to do something otherwise they would have risk to
become criticised again and again and again in the IGF
process. So it was a good example for how the
interaction works at the end, you see certain output,
but it’s not measurable.
The opportunity of the IGF is indeed this IGF has
the I power of inspiration. It inspires people. People
coming to the place, very often do not say any word
during the four days, but go home, full of knowledge,
full of ideas and say, OK, why we do not do this at
home. I think because Markus always argues, internet
governance starts at home and I think this interaction
between local policy and the global platform, this is
a great opportunity which was created and is created by
the IGF process.
We are the risk is that the baby is killed in the
cradle. So fortunate, the secretary report of the
United Nations, is now in favour for continuation. But
there has been weeks before the publication of the
report, where some groups really said, OK, we have to
transform this to another inter-governmental process or
to have to find an alternative thing, so that means the
I go. If. Is not yet stable, so and there is a risk,
because it’s only five years now, the IGF, it is a mall
child.
Five years from now, it starts the teenage period of
its life, so it’s not yet adult and we should give them
some time to experiment.
What are my ideas for the future? In architecture,
you have a slogan, you know, a forms follows functions,
so that means if we think about what could be the new
forms of the IGF, we have to specify what are the
functions of the IGF.
I see for the next five years, in particular, these
four functions which are on the slide, as these four
functions which are on the slides as probability a good
opportunity for ICANN if they can be more specific about
these functions.
The first function is the observatory function. The
IGF is a fantastic place, where all the knowledge of the
internet development comes together and so insofar as
the IGF could become the place where really the latest
information is exchanged and data are collected and are
distributed for the public.
The second function is the clearing house function.
Because the main stakeholder come together or as Paul
Wilson has said in the brochure, when he said the IGF
does not take decisions, but decision takers come to the
IGF and listen, so that means in the IGF itself the
various decision makers can sit together and can clear
who does what, so this is your responsibility if it
comes to multilingualism, it’s the responsibility of
UNESCO. If it comes to infrastructure development, it’s
the responsibility of the ITU. If it comes domain name,
it’s the responsibility of ICANN. If it comes to IP
addresses, these are the five IRIs and the NRO. So it
means this discussion, who does what, you know, could be
a very important part of the IGF functions in the
future, to function as something like a clearing house.
The third thing is the laboratory function. Because
this is new territory. We do not really know how
multi-stakeholderism, woulds in programme its, so we
need time and space for experiment.
The IGF is a space for experiments, so we started
with the experiment of the dynamic coalition after the
first IGF, then we learn something, that just to have
a coalition of people who have a certain interest to
work together, it’s not enough, so the IGF dynamic
coalitions are not as stable as we hope that they could
be.
So it was an experiment, but normally experiments
have a chance, either they succeed or they fail, but you
can learn from your failure and insofar as to create
a space where you can experiment new ways of policy
development, by not avoiding the risk that it files,
I think this could be innovative power to the IGF
process.
The last function I see for the future is the
watchdog function. That means here are critical people
are coming together and can ask nasty questions. They
can ask governments about their national policies, that
I can ask corporations about their business practices.
They can ask the ITU, once they exclude civil society,
they can ask ICANN why they do not speed up processes
with the new. The new gTLD process, so that means this
is a place where you can really raise all these issues,
so that the IGF, as such, plays the role of a watchdog
and I think this is also probably an interesting future
function.
Finally, let me make a number of concrete proposals
for the next coming years.
The question with the output. Theoretically, the
IGF could take recommendations, but we know
recommendations have a legal meaning in the UN context.
We have to look at to start negotiations about the
language. But we should not be afraid, at the end of
the day, to formulate something and so in some regional
and national IGFs, we have started to send out messages,
short message, so that after a workshop, the always
a lot of members say, OK, what I take away from this
workshop. One or two short sentences. This is what
I call could be one of the outcomes and IGF SMS, we
could number it so that at the end of the ITF, you could
have 100 or 1200 short messages which are generated by
the conveners of the workmanships.
The second proposal is for the composition of the
multi-stakeholder advisory group, why not populate this
by nomination committee, because we have a lot of
mistrust, because the participation in the
multi-stakeholder advisory group is a little bit not so
transparent and I propose to have a non-comm and
finally, because we have not enough knowledge, how
multistakeholderism works, normally if you have no
knowledge, then you create the commission, I think why
not to have a commission to study the role of
multi-stakeholder dialogue policy development, we had
the United Nations commission in the early 2001 or 2002
chaired by the former Brazilian president, where they
studied the role of NGOs in the United Nations, but
I think the time is ripe that we probably have
a high-level commission which looks into the details,
what multi-stakeholderism really means, what it is the
potential and I think such a commission could probably
produce some more ideas, we have still too little
knowledge about multi-stakeholderism.
Sorry for taking two minutes more than expected.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I do appreciate your effort.
We are now going to go to Stephen Lau. Just to let
now what’s going to happen, Stephen is going to talk in
his role as presenter on the panel, we are going to go
to the other end of the table for a couple more moneys
from Markus, then I would like to open the floor for
your interactions. If you can start thinking about your
interventions and interactions and start raising your
hands and gesticulating. It would be a smart time to do
that now.
>>Stephen Lau: I would not repeat nor echo what was said so
far. Those really very good recommendations for further
consideration. I just want to make two technical
observations and one strategic one.
The first technical one is that in the last few
years, the topics like we have in this conversation, is
access and diversity and we have private sir and
openness, emerging issues, but there’s one topic that
has immersed and is now being very seriously taken by
the Mag, in terms of the future, particularly next IGF,
is the topic is sustainable development. Overarching
one, sustainable development.
We are not so sure its scope, is going to be so
huge, but for me, one thing that definitely should be
included is the environmental and climate change issues
and its impact, therefore, on internet or internet on
environments.
The second technical observation I have is that as
was said, so many expert, people, multi-stakeholders
come to IGF. They pack a lot of knowledge, they come
with experiences of what they call best practices, good
case studies, right across the various themes we have.
We do compile, first of all, on the entire script,
like the scribe is actually on the website, and also
being published in a booklet.
But I’m not sure whether in fact we do enough
knowledge management the data mine this stuff.
If we do actually look at this way. If the Mag,
besides just with the main objective of formulating the
theme and programme for forthcoming IGFs, as its primary
function, I have suggested and I hope it will become
some of them, let’s say you have some groups, you know,
categorised by the subjects or the themes that, or the
subthemes in our sessions, then these experts would
actually data mine the entire script of IGF and then
present to the community the best practices and the best
case studies and actual echo and reflect this point
about recommendations for global collaboration.
Maybe there is some brilliant UNs in there we can
recommend to the following IGF for consideration.
My last final point is on the strategic focus.
I need to tell you a very short story about this. Two
or three years ago, when I first was privileged to join
the Mag, and it was halfway through planning the next
IGF, it has a theme, we already by then has just over
a billion users in internet. The theme for that year
was reaching for the next billion, which I thought was
wonderful. Apt, appropriate, whatever. We went to the
IGF forum within the first half hour, I won’t use the
word we were shot down, but there was a really pertinent
and brilliant intervention. He said, you know, the next
billion following the first billion will take care of
themselves, with the increasing influence of the world
on the general basis, business initiatives, new models,
the next billion will come very quickly and it came.
We are now 1.8.
He said what you should be concerned with is the
last billion. Not the first. Not the second. It’s the
last billion.
The underprivileged, the disadvantaged, the poor.
So therefore, my view is that the strategic focus
for the next IGF, giving everything being equal, but
nothing is ever being equal, I would say focus at least
bias, would be how how do we reach the last billion.
Thank you.
>>Markus Kummer: We agree that I would end with a practical
suggestion, but allow me to make three comments,
starting with what Stephen suggested on the best
practices.
We have actually started work on that, but it’s our
ambition to have something publication out for Vilnius
or have it on the website that we have a data bank for
best practices which would be a dynamic database and
then everybody could then input. This is indeed what we
think is in many ways, it was also suggestion in Sharm
El Sheikh, but it had been our ambition to do so, but
lack of funds had not allowed us to get started, so
hopefully it will be out later.
Correction to my friend Peng Wah about the meals at
the IGF. We use standard UN procedure and we do not ask
the host country to provide meals. We were lucky in
India that we had generous host who did so. But I don’t
want to — in case there is a potential host here,
I don’t want to frighten them. This is not an
obligation. In Vilnius, for instance, there will be
food available, food courts, which will be affordable,
but it will be too much of a burden to ask the host
country to do so.
Last comment about the frequency.
I heard that from others, to have a two year
frequency for the bi-annual meeting, my concern is that
we might lose momentum. I would agree with Wolfgang’s
description of the IGF as still being very fragile and
in its infancy and in order to grow, my feeling is that
we need the annual meeting, at least at this stage,
maybe later on, once it is more matured, grown up, able
to walk on its own a bit better, that this could work
out. Definitely, there is a recognised need for
improved interaction between the global meeting and the
regional and national meetings. We will provide an
opportunity and now I come to my practical suggestions,
we will provide a platform, an introductory session for
the regional meetings and I hope we will have
a representative of the Asian Pacific meeting at the
panel, but we will also provide slots for each regional
meeting, so you will have a room where you can present
in a two hour session, one hour session, whatever you
want, I think more than two hours will be too long, but
it can go more in detail of your findings, of your
priorities, and we would also encourage a round table of
all the regional meetings together where they can
exchange information, can share best practices, can look
at what they have in common, where their differences
are.
I don’t think we want the regional meetings to be
sort of UN type prep comes, just to prepare for the
global meetings.
I think there is value in each of the regional
meetings, looking at their own priorities and priorities
are different from region to region. So that is a valid
feature of each regional meeting.
But it would be good if they exchange notes and
I think we will have to move a little bit towards
a common checklist of what is required to qualify as
a national or regenerally IGF meeting.
For now, all we said was you got to have
a multi-stakeholder approach.
I think all regional meetings adhered to that
approach, as this one did.
My last eminently practical suggestion is to
encourage you to set up a remote hub in Hong Kong, but
also in other cities of the region, we have started that
in Hyderabad and that has proved extremely helpful, to
stimulate remote participation.
The idea is that you would sit together in a room
like this, where you follow remote what’s happening in
the proceedings of the Vilnius meeting and then you have
privileged access for interaction with the meeting in
Vilnius. We have improved software to do this.
We will start training for those who are announce
themselves. The deadline has already elapsed, but
please tell us whoever, whether you want to, and
especially here in Hong Kong, I thought the young people
are very active, that would be very good to have them as
a driving force.
But as I said, also if other cities of the region,
it would be good to have interaction with remote hubs.
It has been proved, it’s like watching football, you
get more excited if you do it in company than if you
just sit behind the computer in your office or in your
home.
Thank you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ladies and gentlemen, we all have
have time after the floor is open to have final words,
providing the floor isn’t open for too extensive
a period.
>>Parminder Jeet Singh: Thank you, Cheryl. Peter said that
ICANN has a narrow technical function and he identified
a set of issues which are larger internet governance
issues which you said are probably the right kind of
things which IGF should discuss and I would agree.
Let’s say that ICANN discusses its own issues quite
effectively and it decides on it and we can put that
issue aside.
But if those are the set of issues to be discussed
at IGF, the issue remains where would the policy
regarding those issues be made, if IGF, as mostly agree
is not a policy making body. It’s not enough to discuss
issues. It’s also necessary to make global policy on
those issues. Is it possible to talk about a policy
dialogue forum without its connections to a policy
making body.
A lot of outputs which are spoken of is about going
home and internet starts at home, but we all know that
internet is essentially global in some very, very strong
ways and they are strong global issues which can only be
sorted globally. We have national governments and local
golfs, but there are issues which are national and
therefore they go to the national government. In that
sense, they are global issues.
Where do those global issues get formed and whether
IGF can be spoken of without the corresponding body
which takes those decisions and Wolfgang said that the
WGIG was able to agree to the forum, but let the other
area about policy making kind of left it awake and has
cooperation kind of a process. So how do you make the
connections.
Another thing about Chris’ analysis of the secretary
general report, which I could partly agree with. But if
we are to say that most participants said that there
should be a renewal without any change in the mandate,
which does include at least three parts of its seven or
eight line mandate, is about recommendations, giving
advice and third connecting to policy making bodies,
which is a job which was not very effectively done in
the first five years, is evolutionary process, but that
isn’t a pat of the mandate, if the mandate is not
changed, that remains in the mandate and that’s
something which also connects to my first question.
Thank you very much.
>>Peter Dengate Thrush: Thank you for that. Let me answer
on two parts. The first is as long as I don’t come to
ICANN to make the policies, one part of my mandate will
be met. One of our jobs is to make sure that there is
a place.
More constructively, where should that go. There is
two solutions to that. One of the them is that most
pronounce amendments around with existing bodies. So
I think the first exercise is to analyse is there an
existing body that can deal with an issue. I mentioned
child protection on-line. There are lots of
organisations that are focusing on dealing with that, so
the exercise or take revenue fraud, there is large
inter-governmental organisations working on revenue
fraud. So the exercise should be to drive that policy
discussion from the IGF to the existing institutions
that are dealing with those things.
What is probably happening is those institutions
aren’t as well coordinated on those issues and so the
IGF could drive for that.
In some very string cases, if there were to be in
fact a totally new issue, with no existing international
body, then conceivably, the IGF should be the seed
ground from which a multi-stakeholder multinational body
came into being just like ICANN came into being to deal
with its narrow technical mandate, I can foresee and
would hope that a new body would be formed to deal with
it. My suspicion is that there will be a body somewhere
that can be used for most of those things.
>>Izumi Aizu: My question is the need for more outreach and
do you agree or not that in Asian Pacific, we started in
late 1990s when we were at the IFWP process, we tried to
involve the governments. At that time, many of the
technical community, let’s say, are afraid of inviting
the government officials into this internet policy
areas, that there could be ignorant or they may exercise
excessive control.
On the contrary, I think the outcome from ICANN to
IGF is having government people sitting together with us
is much more beneficial than leaving them outside.
But as you see, we don’t seek that many government
people here, yet, from our own region, if on the panel
or elsewhere. I try to bring in my government people
from Tokyo government and they said, well, we don’t see
much need, just send one person locally stationed here.
So I think there is huge need for outreach to
involve more government people, especially any are the.
I’m not sure if you agree or not.
>>Chris Disspain: I’m not sure that I do. I think
certainly from the multi-stakeholder advisory group,
there is significant government involvement in that and
it would be fair to say that a lot of that involvement
is quite enthusiastic, in the sense that they essential
turn up and they certainly speak.
But also, I think in respect to the actual, the
annual IGF, there is significant representation from
governments at that particular, at the yearly event.
It’s harder in the regional ones, because they are
sort of newer and they are just finding their feet. But
I think, I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t outreach more
to governments, of course we should.
But I think there is significant progress has been
made.
>>Dr Chaudhry: Thank you, ma’am. I propose that the IGF
should be more stronger and independent and for that,
you need to involve more Parliamentarians from Asian
Pacific region, so that they can also influence their
own individual government as well as the government can
then influence the event, to go ahead, at least to
another five years need to be IGF to be go on, so that
benefit then can be, we can get the benefit of what we
will expect from.
So more Parliamentarian be invited to involve in the
discourse and dialogue. Thank you.
>>Chris Disspain: Dr Chaudhry are you, thank you. I don’t
know if you’re aware, but there are a number of untries
have sent delegations of parliamenttarians as opposed to
public servants or civil servants.
When which talk about government, what we often find
ourselves dealing with as non government people is the
civil service or the public service rather than the
actual people who are elected into parliament.
One of the great things about the IGF in the past
has been that a number of countries have parliamentary
delegations and certainly it’s been a very interesting
to be able to talk to them in their role as an elected
representative, rather than talking to government
officials who have a slightly different role and
sometimes a slightly different view.
But I think it’s absolutely right that the more
Parliamentarians we can get involved, the better.
>>: I’m Farance from Indonesian ISP Association.
I have been discuss with several friends and several
bodies in Indonesia about the IGF yesterday and I just
want to express our interest to host the next regional
IGF meeting in Indonesia, if it’s possible, and we are
very serious to discuss more further about hosting this
event. Maybe in 2012. Because next year, we will make
our national IGF also.
Thank you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you and I’ll pass that straight
back to Stephen.
>>Stephen Lau: I think this is really a very happy with it,
but this proposal from Indonesia as well as the fact
that as I mentioned right at the beginning, we took up
the challenge because right place at the right time,
a catalyst and really would like to see it, you know, in
other such regional round table is held in different
parts of Asia and Asian Pacific.
First of all, as far as Hong Kong is concerned,
every economy I think should have their local IGF
activity.
How you shape, what shape or form, but as far as
Hong Kong is concerned, we intend to run like tomorrow,
the two day conference as an annual event, educational,
awareness and then moving more into the depth of
subjects and all that.
As far as a regional IGF is concerned, I personally
am very happy, a country economy in this case Indonesia,
say that they would like to do it.
If I go ahead and said go ahead, first of all,
I don’t think I have that mandate to say please go
ahead, because I’m being very frank, because this time
it was kind of experiment and prototype. However, I do
welcome this. But how do we actually follow through
with this this.
Let me make some personal suggestions.
Currently, there is a regional representative
sitting on the OC of this round table.
So that’s a ready reservoir of people who have
expressed and have done a lot of work in making this
happen.
Secondly, in any endeavour, if you put — we are
talking about multi-stakeholders in Asian Pacific.
I think it goes into the thousands, even organisation
wise.
So we have to a certain extent, kept the
organisation small enough to be able to operate. But we
also have a second list of stakeholders who were being
or have been kept informed and to seek their input where
relevant.
So therefore, without saying “yes” or “no”, but let
me give you my two pennies worth of how Indonesia would
proceed.
Firstly, I would say Indonesia, once again, thank
you for the offer. Please include this current OC
members involved, because they have demonstrated that we
have made something work, firstly.
Secondly, please expand and mobilise more
stakeholders, because it’s a large area. I know that
there are other economies, large and small, who would
like to participate. If you wish to participate, please
through the OC or the current OC and your other network,
propagate the message, get the involvement, either on
the OC basis, as well as on the communication list.
There is a certain expectation, as was mentioned
already, to run this sort of thing, it requires costs.
It requires sponsorship.
There is a certain expectation because we are used
to IGF, the global government, 1500, 2,000 people,
everything is complementary, lovely logistics, WiFi
everywhere and function rooms and this is kind of a mini
one, but we try to model and get this kind of expected,
because people come a long way and so therefore, there
are certain expectation of that kind of facilities they
would enjoy.
Thirdly, is that just like IGF, and similar to here,
is that there are sometimes representatives who require
subsidy in terms of being able to attend such kind of
conferences, they are appropriate and we welcome them to
come, so there must also be some subsidy to allow such
when we talk about multi-stakeholder representation.
So this would be my two pennies worth of providing
based on our experience, to talk about.
I cannot say please go ahead, but I think it’s every
economy’s right or every nation’s right, if they believe
I have the facilities, I have the willpower, I have the
organisational capabilities, I have the logistic, I have
the venues and facility, please, go ahead. We are all
welcome. They are all welcome. We should all welcome
such proposals.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We tasked ourselves with asking two
particularly broad questions, one was what the way
forward was for IGF and also what that was the last
question from the floor and what the way forward might
be for regional cooperation. I think we have had very
positive explorations. That was the last question.
I don’t normally change my mind and it’s not going to
start now.
We do have a way forward on both counts, but I would
like to come back to Peng Wah, because I did promise him
the microphone again and then come back down just for
any closing comments from the rest of our speakers.
Ending with Stephen if you could put on your hat as the
chairman after we go down the table, as the chairman of
the organising committee, to wind us up for the day.
>>Ang Peng-Hwa: At great risk of being associated with food
all the time, I have to confess I have not paid much for
food at IGFs, so maybe it’s just me or something, but
I have been very worried about the cost of food, because
I know it’s quite intimidating, so I am glad as Markus
has said, that it’s not, it’s just that I guess being
Asians, India, I guess Hong Kong and Egypt, you are more
hospitable. Which reinforcing the point that it’s
a cultural difference, even how we run a meeting, and
I have to the effect, not so much about food, but for
example in Asia we are not so used to coming up to the
mic and speaking and I am looking for Edmon who he is
sitting modestly blind the scenes.
I think in Europe and maybe in America, I expect
America more so, guy is upfront, you know, showing he’s
the boss, but it seems that in Asia, we are a little
more mod itself, so there is some cultural differences
and so the question is how do we fit. In I guess the
regional meetings become more important in that light.
I would say that the costs can be kept low, then it
is something to be considered and maybe for our meeting
of this size, I think if I’m not wrong, the one in Egypt
was 3,000 people, 1800 people, so US$50 per day, it’s
a lot.
So if we can keep that down, that will be helpful
for future organisers.
>>Wolfgang Kleinwachter: When the WSIS process started in
the year 2001, the terminology multi-stakeholder was
unknown. I check the report from the United Nations
general secretary now about Internet Governance Forum.
It has 11 pages and the terminology stakeholder or
multi-stakeholder or civil society private sector and
governments appears 57 times.
More or less, the use of the terminology indicates
that something has changed in the last 10 years and this
is a good signal.
I will recount how often the stakeholder technology
is used in the report in 015, but let’s wait and see.
>>Stephen Lau: Before I close this conference, just one
more point to my Indonesian colleague with his kind
offer. We would like to talk to you in the sense of
giving you more background and also maybe some food for
thought in relating to the this particular regional
conference round table, with respect to your desire to
run the next one.
Let’s have a chat afterwards.
With that, first of all, I really like to, this
round table, I think a good really your appreciation
must be extended to Edmon and Prof Ang for coordinating
this particular meeting.
I think they have done a brilliant job, with their
network and obviously, we should reach out for more and
I think Indonesia and other regional forums would
definitely do so as well.
It’s late.
I really the success and respect for the forum that
we have held today is not for me to say. It’s really
respect is bestowed on if you feel that we have done
a good job, then we thank you.
The essence of such a forum actually once again,
reinforces the spirit and the mandate and the essence of
IGF and it was mentioned right throughout in the various
sessions that we have, it’s just three particular one.
It’s first of all, definitely involvement of
multi-stakeholders to advance our mutual interest.
First of all, their participation, it goes beyond
participation, engagement.
Secondly, is that and we should meet and we have met
on the parody on equity basis.
That means that all views are respected, all views
are appreciated and through such exchanges, we
understand more if there are different points of view,
at least we have more understanding and hopefully, that
we can come to some mutual agreement or understanding.
My final, apart from thanking everybody coming, our
volunteers, our logistical support, I think it’s the
first time in Hong Kong we have such a kind of
technology support. I think this is the second time in
Hong Kong we have done scribe and DotAsia.
And I just also want to say that tomorrow is our
local conference in Hong Kong. It is for education and
awareness kind of programme IGF, focusing on two
segments of the society, which are NGOs, as well as our
youth, because I think the business side, the government
side, they do understand the IGF kind of issue.
So if you are still in town, you are welcome to come
and attend and also to contribute and to our comment.
Inch thank you once again.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: While we are thanking people, I think
it’s important that I take this moment as we close off
and wish even safe travels, to thank the panel for this
afternoon’s session, so if you could all join with me in
the normal way, thank you very much. Is it the will of
the meeting that we take an additional question or two
from the floor? I don’t change my mind often in the
session as timing, but I’m happy, if you’re all happy,
have the panel stay if you may that they do that.
Thank you. We need a microphone.
>>: Thank you very much everyone for allowing me to raise
one last question. I’m Miwa from Freedom House. I’m in
charge of Asia programme. I just like to before we
close off just throw some ideas to all here, in the way
for us to be thinking the way forward for IGF.
I think that I have observed that this is,
I understand this is round table discussion, but I’m not
sure if it worked really that way. The round table
discussion, when we have spent quite most amount of time
for the speakers to speak and we have all these folks
who spend their time and money to come here, so I just
want to throw that idea out there.
Also, Asia is the largest region in the world, Asian
Pacific and this is, I think, the first time we are
having this regional IGF. Now, it’s great that we have
some friends from Indonesia calling for the national IGF
and so on.
But when we talk about the civil society
participation, and when we talk about the reflection of
the voices from different parts of the society,
including the poor, when we talk about issue of digital
divide and so on, I would like us to think about the way
this IGF has been reached to Asia, you know, from the
global to other regional meeting and then finally to
Asia and then now we are talking about back to the
national level.
So how is this bottom up process is going to be
considered by the IGF and the mandate that’s given by
the UN secretary general.
I’m also for the participation and the question
raised by Mr Izumi Aizu here, not only we would like to
see more the government representatives, but also we
would like to see more from the society, but not only
just the participation meaning physical existence here,
but also the open dialogue taking place between
different stakeholders.
Not that civil society has to always having to chase
to be in IGF, or chase to be talking to the government
representatives or chase to be talking to the UN
representatives, I hope that then IRGF or IGF for Asian
Pacific people will be more often a place for real
dialogue. Thank you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Earlier on there was another
question. Is that still in the room?
No one else with another question or comment. If
not, very briefly. While the microphone goes over to
the last speaker, I would like to remind each and every
one of you that we all have the opportunity to give our
particular feedback, we like to hear many voices from
whatever sector of the multi-stakeholder model we are
working in please fill out your feedback forms, the
email address is on the web side and you should be able
to contact the organising committee from a regional, an
Asian Pacific regional IGF planning and future planning
point of view and I’m sure the same facilities are open
at normal IGF.
>>Oliver Robillo: I’m Oliver Robillo know again from the
Philippines. We are also planning to hold a national
IGF in the Philippines in 2011, should the mandate of
IGF be continued by the UN for another five years.
We do support our brothers in Indonesia, if you plan
to hold a regional IGF in Indonesia, then we will
support you.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We are starting a bidding war for
assistant from the various national IGFs.
>>: I have one recommendation, basically. Before
organising second RIGF, we need organise two regional
IGF, one is Southeast Asia, another one is for south
Asia. Then we would like to submit two recommendations,
to regional IGF. That would be very nice, we think.
Before that, of course we would like to organise
Bangladesh internet government forum. Thank you.
>>Stephen Lau: Can I just make a comment. First of all,
once again, my personal view, because I cannot speak on
behalf of IGF, UN and all that. First of all, local and
regional conferences on IG itself, internet governance
issue, are definitely most welcome.
There’s nothing to stop Asian Pacific being such
a wide region to have more than one regional event in
the region.
Having said that and also definitely national one.
Having said that, maybe I put you on the spot,
Markus, but maybe you might like to say a few words as
regards mushrooming events, local and regional or
subregional. What would be your views be on? Just say
a few words.
>>Markus Kummer: By all means, yes, I couldn’t agree more
with what you said. We don’t have a copyright on IGF.
Although I had suggested that we get together and
discuss a little bit and maybe find a commonalities,
common procedures, the only conditions so far has been
the main commonality is the multi-stakeholder approach,
as long as that is respected, then I think you’re
entitled to call yourself local, national, regional IGF.
For Asia, certainly it will make sense to have
a subregional IGF, as the region is so huge.
To the question whether or not to hold a national
IGF, to make it dependant on the extension of the
mandate, I would say don’t wait for that. There’s value
in having a meeting irrespective of whether there is
global IGF.
That was my main lesson learned from the East Africa
IGF, the participants said that was a good meeting, we
are going to hold this kind of meeting every year,
irrespective of the global IGF. If the global IGF
continues, then we keep interacting, we keep getting
inspired by having exchanges with others. If not, then
we stick to this region and continue.
That would be my main message also to you. Go
forward this kind of meeting without waiting for any
decision by the General Assembly.
>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Edmon, I think it is absolutely
fitting that you have the final word. It’s all up to
you.
>>Edmon Chung: Thank you. Just very quickly. As
I mentioned in my opening remarks, DotAsia is very happy
to support any regional efforts in internet governance
this between of forum or round table, this kind of
thing. So please get in touch. I’m sure you’ll find me
quite easily on line and I’m really excited that at the
end of this forum, that a few other — I can see a few
other initiatives that will be coming. So I think we
contributed to something and I also want to thank all
the thanks that have been given to me.
Thank you. Language hang thank you. We’ll see you
in a similar situation in the very near future.
>>: By the end of the conference, I would like to thank our
kind sponsor again including our grand sponsor,
Microsoft and APNIC. Venue sponser Cyberport, Hong Kong
Registration Corporation Ltd. Our community sponsor,
APTLD, IMPACT, Japan Registry Services and Singapore
Internet Research Centre.