desai: introduction, summary of yesterday

syria:

india: worried by schedule, we want to get the preliminary report with
more advance to prepcom2
too many gov reps, also lack of transparency in the process of
selection of gov reps, excessive secrecy
we are used at wg that are open to interested parties and governments
please consider to stop working in closed meetings and allow
governments and perhaps other stakeholders to assist
desai: schedule given by karklins, composition reflect consultations
karklins: worried about calendar, some delegations might fear there is
not enough time, perhaps you should organize another open consultation
between now and february
feb 21th delivery of preliminary report -> examination by delgns ->
feb 24th whole day discussion on wgig at prepcom2
prepcom3 unclear, could be end august-1st week sep or from sep 20
prepcom3 devoted exclusively to wgig
there should be clear agreement on the subjects of discussion inside
wgig, otherwise wgig could waste time
india: we recognize eminency of wgig members appointed by annan but we
do not understand how annan could know the gov people, so it must have
been the secretariat to collect the names, so there must have been some
consultation to select 16+ gov reps and we were unaware of it
my capital was interested in getting people on the wgig but i told
them that we had no influence over annan, so now we are surprised by this outcome
the process is much more inclusive in geneva, and there is reference to
inclusiveness, so it is not acceptable to be shut out of the doors

china (man beside ms. hu): china believes selection is a privilege of
annan and this should not be challenged
everybody is waiting for the result of the wgig, so we should ensure
that the work is not impeded, leave experts alone and let them work
because there is not much time, and don't disturb them
we are told we live in a free information society and we want openness,
so the work of the wg should be transparent, so having heard india i
support the idea of having other interested parties to follow the
proceedings, as long as they do not disturb, make noise etc
desai: important not to give impression that things will come as a
surprise
what we did yesterday we immediately let you know today and can correct
it tomorrow
anyway wg is not a negotiating group
i am very satisfied with the composition
karklins asked which are the issues, so we might want to discuss that

brasil: i share some of the points made by india
brasil has contributed 2 experts, 1 gov + 1 cs - we already have
partnership on national basis like this, steering committee
let's focus on core issues: interconnection, root servers, icann, spam,
security.
we are failing in passing our message to press and public
eg this week's edition of the economist is portraying wgig as the
successor of unesco's 70s totally failed "new communication order" wg.
a decision taken by the whole un system and member countries is being
denigrated
so we need to speak out, because we cannot accomplish the work without
the support of the public opinion, and we need to explain things to the
international press
this group has legitimacy, the legitimacy that is lacking in other
entities

algeria: we do not challenge members or decisions by annan
but we support the intervention by india
this wg works in benefit to the international community
i do not accept the fact that i was not allowed in the room yesterday,
you could have used this room
i do not pretend the status of observer and i would not perturbate the
serenity of the wg
we work for all components of information society, including those who
do not understand technicalities, so you must have a simple definition
of ig that must keep into account all observation by all concerned
parties
we need an international charter in which all can identify themselves
let's find an inclusive project on which to call the community
desai: could you clarify your idea?
algeria: we need (his cell phone rings...) to invest lots of money
which come from the state, since private sector and civil society do
not have money - there is role for them but we have to recognize it in
the international charter

el salvador: i have high expectations
we hope that the participation of all stakeholders will allow to
produce a document that will really help
we do not have problems in having other governments as observers
we share the image problem told by brazil
the real way to know whether some proposal works or not is to match it
against the principles decided in geneva, transparency, participation,
inclusiveness etc

syria: we support algeria
we appreciate issues such as root servers, dns, spam (after itu meeting
raised from 72% to 80%) but let's wait for prepcom to finalize issues
we are confident in your chairmanship
keep the idea of inventory, then add your proposal
don't like the word "appropriate" in actions, there should be actions
anyway
#5-6 of your content outline are most important
we think that the choice of issues should be made by prepcom not by
wgig

romania:
exploit networks of people / orgs made by private / cs
we have to discuss on governance, not government
do not fix what is not broken
we are pleased to have on the wgig three experts of the 2002
paneuropean conference we held (karen and ayesha)
report outline is linked to mandate
would make #2 a subpoint of #1 
"the longest job start with a long break" - ie think more on substance
and less on procedures

argentina:
we share preoccupations of india, algeria, salvador, syria about lack
of transparency
we agree with china that we should not disturb experts
gov reps should not have obstacles to access quickly to information
conclusions should be anticipated to regional gov groups
or alternately allow to enter and listen
#1 is relevant
#5-6 important because oriented to future and summit objectives
so these points need political theorization
#2-3-4 are not political but didactical

canada: concerned by terms of debate, we respect independence of wg and
summit decisions and decisions of these experts on procedures
mixture of open and closed meetings is used by tffm and gfc, so also
wgig could go for it as it's doing
allowing people to watch can address concerns about publicity and solve
the pr issue

unesco: goal is continued growth and stability of internet
result should allow greater participation
we appreciate open+closed approach
support free flow of ideas and openness
there are many actors in ig as proven by summit
future structures must take account distributed actors
support matrix + mapping
make intricacies of ig transparent
ig falls within unesco mandate for its areas and especially for freedom
of expression and multilingualism, please include this in inventory
unesco must be involved in all mechanisms that will impact these
we want to provide platforms and contribute to implementation of ig
mechanisms

switzerland: support canada
we should not intervene on wgig internal procedures
we are for transparency and openness but let experts work
in the process we also have open meetings like today
let's respect the structure we put together
important issues: dns, root server, spam, internationalization
a bit more renitent to deal with difficult themes not to reopen the
debate we had at the summit: IP - let it to wipo

netherlands (eu): eu position on composition out in september
we should not reopen discussion on procedures, open meetings like this
are enough for transparency

desai: continuous process of engagement etc
respect the character of the group, we have to produce a group report,
not a community report

cuba: it is not a wg that works in isolation
the outline given today collects general ideas
better to focus inventory on the global issues

dominican rep: we have a first contribution to the wgig and ask to be
circulated among the members
2 viewpoints for ig definition: technical + regulatory
technical: keep into account the network architecture, formats and
protocols, technical administration and entities presently
administering. we have to revise their structure to make them more
representatives. also security.
regulatory: dispute resolutions, ip, user rights, spam, virus,
e-commerce, e-government
desai: welcome contributions

me: - share the problem of public relations
    => build interest around our process
    => build consensus around our decisions (maybe here we have seen
       the problem of consensus among governments, but similar problem
       with businesses and users)

- comment on switzerland mentioned spam as one of the important issues
  but being reluctant to open discussion on IP
    - sender-id story
    - this actually show that you have to solve the IP issues posed by
      the internet before you can solve many of the other issues above)

wolfgang: of course we are in favour of openness, encourage govs to
participate in online discussions

olivier: let's be as much transparent as possible and invite all
parties

drake: this is not a negotiation, this is research and writing and
would be impossible in a larger group
we need to move the discussion on priorities, and get guidance from the
governments here
about pr, some of the journalists who write have their own agenda, so
there's not much you can do

cheon: 2-layer approach to consultation

seadat: #4 is two things, inventory + priority

holy see: propose to create a un commission on ethics in ict for
governments only, to examine initiatives and see whether they comply
with MDG and other docs, and also examine icann, wipo etc under this
point of view

el salvador: online consultations are a good way to participate and
have to be inclusive, not just give an impression, there must be some
feedback by the group that say how ideas have been considered
governments expect wgig to produce a document on which they will
negotiate, so even if non negotiating, we hope it is somewhat helpful
to that

linda: discussion about observers is reversed than in prepcom: those
countries who wanted to exclude observers at prepcom now want to be
included as observers, and those who wanted to include them at prepcom
now call for no observers
i am za gov, but i think is important we participate as experts
we think wgig has to address real issues, not just intellectualisms

: the public commercial internet is evolving, but there also is
internet-2 of which i've heard on the internet, and its implications on
internet are not clear
icann strategic plans works to conclusion on 2006; if wgig has to come
with practical proposals it might be too late to have negotiations
closed on dec 2005, it might be useful to have "informed opinions"
before then
find ways to move beyond this settled representativeness of those who
are here; bottom-up, reaching out to wider user community is a real
challenge, didn't hear many proposals on that
icann model is a very valuable one on this, you can follow it in real
time
didn't hear about capacity building
public policy issues are tech + policy, are icann+ - and not everyone
is included in icann yet
aim for working definitions, not scientific ones
some decisions on cctlds will be taken in cape town next week and might
impact on wgig
private sector decisions have public implications, so private sector
should discuss them with other stakeholders

nro (paul wilson): it's not enough to just name problem areas, but
should also identify specific problems / impacts which are of concern
we don't disagree that ip address allocation is inside ig, but we hear
misconceptions
we hear that china has less ips than single us universities but this
isn't true since 2000 and china has been receiving more ips than anyone
else in last years
also ipv6 is not so problematic as depicted
so you need to test and correct misconceptions
some issues exist but show no problems, so they are not being
considered
focus on positive aspects, not negative ones

romania: we do not fear secrecy
take on boards ideas already proposed by experts at past meetings
(quotes wolfgang et al)

india: internet is medium for diverse purposes incl free flow of
information
gov has responsibility to provide enabling environment
we recognize role of other stakeholders to build internet
issues such as  are obvious areas of public
interest, and also other technical aspects
people everywhere have a stake in the internet, so governments
everywhere should have some say
ip has implications on technical issues (quotes me) but also technical
issues have implications on policy
if governments had taken no action when stock market started
emerging... initially markets were self-regulated by users, then
governments stepped in and so they are government regulated now.
we sense technical aspects of the internet are the parts that need the
most attention by govs at this stage because later it could be too
late.
we would not be here if there were no problems or if they were simple,
and would not have a wg "dominated" by experts
this wg was constituted explicitly to address the most problematic
areas and they are not spam or pornography but technical areas which
have broader implications, that is why we have so many technical
experts in the wg
we have been shut out of the process, but the wg should proceed quickly
to #4-5 because time is short
please ensure full and open participation, open up to observers
about za: my delegation has no difficulty about govs being part of the
wg, governments should be at the centre of the process, we are just
concerned about how gov reps were selected

--- lunch
15:15

echeberria: online participation is very important

maclean: support to paul wilson's positive approach, let's focus on the
positive potential, not negative aspects

?: coming from french private sector
i'd suggest some ideas to the group
- to turn the network into an active network self-protecting from
intrusions
- involve representatives from different regions of the world
- digital divide: focus on applications, not process, eg e-government
- education
- free software and non-proprietary services

pisanty: be careful with misconceptions
not using optimally the time of people who bothered to come here if we
don't get statements on important issues

: there is ig before and after convergence, so please add convergence
to your considerations

canada: appreciate enthusiasm of members but be cautious, the
fundamental work outlined in the plan of action is already huge
group should complete the specific task assigned by summit, it would
help launch the bigger discussion on future actions, focus on up to #4,
don't try to solve issues

me: - reply on a misperception i heard late this morning from one 
      intervention by a government
    he said we have "so many technical experts" because issues are
    technical and complex and we need experts to assist governments - 
    this is not true
    it is instead true that we have many representatives of non-
    governmental entities from private sector and civil society because 
    the summit in geneva decided that it was the right of these 
    stakeholders to be equally part of the process and that without 
    their participation there would have been no results

- why it is hard to find agreement on issues?
    there are too many and every stakeholder and person has his own 
    important issue
    the most important result would be creating a mechanism through 
    which those who are interested in an issue can gather and work on a 
    solution without excluding others or doing so in a closed manner or 
    not taking into account the public interest
    allow policy to form from the bottom, cannot impose agendas from 
    the top

    different wgig members might care about different issues, so let's 
    form sub-working groups through which the interested people can 
    discuss the issues they care

nominet (emma?): evaluate what is working and not working
explain how it all works
desai: what is not working for you?
nominet: it's up to you, but the technical part is working very well
concerns on root servers etc are misplaced

ang: help policymakers to understand what can or cannot be done

lynn st.amour: focus on making the internet available to the 90% which
is not connected yet
please tell what representation is missing in the existing forums so
that it can be taken care of

joseph: my take on what i've heard
some governments feel excluded
this meeting here proves that there is no exclusion
i do not represent one party, i will give my advice
to make mayonnaise you need oil, eggs, spices etc... you need all of
them
statistics are dangerous (trilussa's chicken example)
eg problems with ascii characters, we miss accents
digital divide: in action plan on #6 it is important to propose
solutions to the digital divide
we are here to listen and include the informations we receive in our
work
desai: we need to keep ict4d in the focus

bill: reminds me of discussion on horizontal vs vertical issues
i would be interested to get feedback on this by non-wgig members
we may take holistic approach, but if we look at the different
mechanisms and try to understand how well they work and how much
transparent and inclusive they are, we might identify specific points
on which to propose important steps forward and go away from big
vertical issues on which there might not be consensus
so wondering whether we should go for horizontal issues: development,
convergence, institutional frameworks, rather than vertical issues:
domain names, security, intellectual property, because we might not
find consensus not even on the choice of vertical issues

romania: definition of ig must not be rigid or carved in stone
kahn tells us we have to struggle with the representation of ideas
we have to accelerate definition of ig or others will be reluctant to
get engaged
elected governments are to be responsive to their electors
there are issues: content sanction, data protection / privacy, consumer
rights, e-commerce, security, cost sharing, taxation, spam deterrence,
ipr and fair use - there is no doubt on need to deal with them
ict4d is the main topic of the wsis
some criminals never thought before to have such a powerful instrument
we cannot leave criminals with a level of impunity
(quotes al gore)
consider norms softly and not harm the natural freedom and harmony of
the network but no tolerance for crime
cybercrime has global repercussions
wgig might find that government control is not what we need and
traditional regulation might not work

brasil: interconnection costs do not work fairly, unfair to pay both
sides of the transmission
developing countries are sending money to the north to run the
internet, so wgig should study the matter in depth
desai: is this an issue of internet governance, or is this telecom
governance?
brasil: from our viewpoint, this is a problem of governance, because
other people decided on our behalf the way the system works, and did it
in a non-democratic and non-transparent way
hill (itu): your question is excellent
this is subject of study by a study group of the itu
there is a different system for the internet than it is for the other
telecoms, and there is not a final answer yet to your question

za: we support the group as independent experts group, it is well
balanced
gov reps in this group are part of the group as experts, so we support
china to allow the wgig to work as it does now
we support transparency and inclusiveness as we did in the wsis
process, so we support india to have interest parties as observers or
onlookers
definition of internet should be working and defined by wgig
support brasil, address interconnection costs, dns, ip address
allocation, spam, security, especially network security
primary concern is all bodies that deal with ig should be
representative and legitimate

seadat: §48-50 of wsis declaration are the reference
technology is neutral but when you develop it you are making policy
decisions
self-regulation can be ok but which is the entity that authorizes some
environment to self-regulate?

linda: frustration in developing countries as they do not have a forum
where they have an equal chance to have an impact on the newer
technology, including eg satellite
at itu we have tried to address eg the interconnection costs issue, but
there was no agreement, there was a time where it was almost forbidden
to talk about the internet at the itu
so increasing frustration in developing countries, but it is not a
technology issue: there is not a political will to solve the issue and
there is not a forum that allows us to participate
also in dns we have been having unacceptable problems, eg
southafrica.com, an individual had the right to the name of a country
because he had money and know-how before the true owners of the name of
the country, and tourism is so important for us in africa
security is a problem, we don't have oecd etc
it is a broader issue with a lot of interlinked things

echeberria: i don't think that just the definition of ig would
contribute much to the solution of problems
this process is a good opportunity to change the way many orgs work
(igo and not) and make them more participative
there are themes that we cannot avoid, ie dns root servers spam etc,
because everybody mentioned them
important to talk about interconnection: our country pays a very high
price that is an obstacle to development, much more than any price it
might pay for, say, ip addresses
application of the multistakeholder principle agreed by government is
necessary
internet works very well but this does not mean that we must not change
to deal with future challenges
let's take the best practices and experiences and build the future of
the network

izumi: zhao circulated an interesting paper as a proposal to allocate a
portion of the ipv6 space to itu and then governments, concurrently to
the current nro/rirs system
we analyzed it and found that
- on technical requirements, ip packets have addresses embedded, so to
change the addressing system you have to change the protocol, so you
have to ensure availability of addresses, ipv6 resources are vaste but
not infinite, so you should not waste them either, and preserve an
operational routability system
excessive fragmentation of addressing will cause problems to routing
and raise costs for isps
- on management requirements, it is more important to have fairness
than to have competition, and competition may be negative - also, a
country-based addressing system will make censorship easier

thailand: there should be a link between the regional conferences we
are having and the wgig
issues: network security, fraud, cybersquatting, cybercrime, spam, ipr
protection, consumer rights, privacy

el salvador: discuss the concept of ig and agree on whether definition
is narrow or broad or whether definition is not important if we discuss
the issues that worry the interested parties - i think that narrow or
broad is not important
do not confuse governance and government
there are issues where private interests should not prevail over the
others, so public policy should be made
we have an agreed declaration of principles which should orientate our
work
wgig must consider existing contributions
in the wgig website there should be references to the documents written
by group experts or others that might be important
we support issues stated by thailand, brasil
overcome the digital divide
tld management (gtlds and cctlds): must be assigned through a precise
and transparent process through a lottery or auction, must be managed
through inclusive processes, not just private sector or any single
stakeholder, also internally to the single countries there should be
multistakeholder mechanisms
root servers: currently excellent but there is no juridical legitimacy
and accountability, only deferred to good faith
we do not have enough time to touch all issues so it is interesting to have a map of best practices in each area
support expression by linda and raul about importance of ict4d

india: already spoke on issues in the morning but we want to speak
again
there are areas where the group should validly enter to, and others
where it is invalid to do so
spam, security, cybercrime are issues which need to be sorted out and
can be sorted out at international level
some people say that the internet is self-sufficient and we don't need
interference by governments, but when dominant groups, including those
who often champion self-governance by private sector, feel threatened
they do not hesitate to take issues to multilateral bodies, eg ipr, to
get favourable rulings to those dominant groups.
root servers, dns - there is resistance to deal with them. we believe
nothing prevents wgig from dealing with them, and even if there are no
problems now, there might be in the future
we recognize that at a certain level the word must be left to technical
experts, but a certain point even experts don't agree, so there must be
political guidance by intergovernmental entities
so no area should be excluded from the work of wgig on the basis that
it is too technical
support brasil on asking for interconnection, dns, protocols to be
discussed by the group

china: important for wg to identify priorities at the beginning, and it
is not easy
in un, when there is difficulty, we go back to what we agreed
in §48 we agreed very clearly that (reads last sentence), and this
points out: distribution of resources (dns, ip addresses), facilitation
of access (capacity building), stable and secure functioning (root
servers, spam, security), multilingualism.

syria: your outline proposal is a good start
we support algeria, brasil
a delegation [note: was izumi] contested document by zhao, and even if
my government would not agree with that document, i wondered whether
this delegate was telling me that governments should not be allowed to
govern the internet, and then we could disband government, and what is
that, chairman? government is only a bad boy? only willing to listen?
or to control content? we could not argue that. why to have your group,
if anybody has the understanding in the wg that governments should only
be allowed to control content and not infrastructure, that is not
acceptable
in past rich countries paid poor countries, with internet poor
countries are subsidizing rich countries, is that acceptable? we are
being used as spam distributors, my country was cut out of the net
because somebody declared us being spam distributor, while in reality
it was someone in a developed country, so this is unacceptable.
in the past, with telephone, everything was going fine. now we ask ietf
to help us identify and control the originator of a message on the
internet.
i totally agree with india, this is an expert group just to assist us
in taking decisions.

carlos: comment on rep of a registry who was wondering what is not
working in present situation.
read an article by mr. cerf in which he acknowledges the term ig and
the need for some issues to be addressed, also appreciate the 6 topics
wishlist distributed by isoc
however when they list issues some of the important ones are not
mentioned, and one is precisely interconnection, not just pricing but
arbitrarily high prices at the transport layer, where there is a
pyramid in which large corporates in the us keep most of the money
would like cerf and isoc to help us with these issues as well

cheon: worried that object of wg not carried up quite well
this is a wg, not consultation group. consultations should happen at
prepcoms, we need to proceed.
i propose we develop the concept of ig and develop a goal, today there
is too much diversity so we cannot focus and agree

clarke: someone quoted al gore, i have a quote from bill gates:
"internet will change everything"
i believe wsis has opportunity to review what has gone on before and
look forward at what is likely to happen
make decisions that ensure that benefits are retained from the past and
future ones are shared
governance of trade has not destroyed trade, in fact international
trade rules have enhanced trade flows, we might even use those rules as
a model for the internet
i believe some govs are good and some are bad, and same for
corporations
i say civil society is the only good group, and say that until
something will make me think otherwise
we need well informed public opinion and some international oversight
in the wto the decision to negotiate trade facilitation was stubbornly
resisted by developing countries, but now agreed
we need internet facilitation, internet provides competitive advantage
to those who use it
ensure that benefits are shared

nominet: we are a no profit, we serve the community, eg with our award
winning dispute resolution service

itu (hill): we would like to organize a presentation of the work itu is
doing on interconnection

al-darrab: all statements will assist the group in its duty
before delegates leave, i would like to submit some procedural ideas
about report outline, i suggest that partipants send telegrams or
contributions through the internet to assist the wgig members, and we
could then post it to website
for next open consultations, it would be helpful that the wg would make
bigger effort to prepare them, formulating questions that require
answers and posting them in advance on the website. anyway the meeting
today was excellent.

desai: we have the need to produce report by june, and group must
actually work, not just revise secretariat drafts
there must be knowledge about what group is doing, no surprises
civil society might help in analyzing how current mechanisms work and
how to enhance participation
convergence on many issues
there are areas where gov action will be necessary
tomorrow we will discuss 30 mins the issue of onlookers among wgig
members, wait until 10:30 to know whether you can enter later
i would recommend to preserve a balance between openness and need for
drafting mode (anyway drafts should be made available to the outside
before internal approval)
leave floor to swiss delegation

switzerland: we invite you all to a reception at 18 at the delegates
restaurant here