Emerging Issues

15 November 2007 - A Main Session on Other in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the
 The 2nd Meeting of the IGF.  Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it
 may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription
 errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session,
 but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

 (Gavel.)

 >>AUGUSTO GADELHA VIEIRA:   Yes, please, let's start this session on emerging
 issues.  We'll have the -- to be very strict on the time, and so I will ask for
 people to be very concise and very objective on their talks here. I think we --
 IGF has been very interesting discussions that have come up, and many themes
 which have been defined beforehand. Now, what issues are lacking in these
 discussions?  What new issues are necessary for coming or bringing to the IGF
 forum next in India?  And what the future of the Internet may be, it's expected
 to hold in terms of new issues. So this is, I think, the theme that is bringing
 us together here. And we'll have very distinguished panelists here, people at
 the table, and  Mr. Gowing is going to make the debate be alive and will
 control the flux of information.  Please, let's start the discussions.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Okay.  Thank you. Chair, -- can you hear me now?  Good. Chair,
 thank you very much, indeed.  Said "chair" five times.  So with great respect
 to you. As the chair has just said, we've got to be very strict.  And can I
 quote to you -- I have a microphone here. Can you hear me?

 >> Yes.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Good. As the chair has asked me six times now, as the chair has
 asked me to make sure that people are strict. Let me quote to you Tsukasa
 Makino, from the Japan Business Federation, who wanted to intervene before
 lunch, who said, "I've seen so many speakers talk too long and eat up the
 precious time for other attendees to participate in discussion. The time of
 stakeholders is also critical Internet resource." I have to say, his suggestion
 is that next year, there's an enormous clock up there and we give people no
 more than maybe two minutes, and then the microphone is switched off. [
 Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   I think that's been passed. That should go for the record.  But
 we're not here to talk about process.  But there were a number of promises
 given by Nitin to those of you who did want to speak.  I hope you'll understand
 when I say I'm just going to quote the kind of things you wanted to put on the
 record.  And that's what I'm here to do at the moment. Benoît Müller from the
 Business Software Alliance, talking about workshop summary reports should
 accurately reflect the discussion to include a variety of views, maximize
 workshop value.  Nick Dearden from Amnesty International, in order to hear from
 a wider range of voices, how can we make the IGF more, quote, virtual, holding
 it in only one city makes it exclusive, and after all, we are celebrating the
 Internet. There are two or three others as well. Firstly, Raul Echeberria, who
 talks about the composition of a number of groups, the number of workshops
 particularly, but why it should remain being, as he put it, a "not making
 decision body." A couple of other points, particularly on finance, from Karen
 Banks from the Association for Progressive Communications, "How can the IGF
 secretariat be given the resources it needs to function effectively and how can
 it be given more support and recognition from the U.N?  It's an outcome of a
 U.N. process, after all." And that's reflected from Frédéric Riehl, from OFCOM
 of Switzerland, underlining the issue of financing of the secretariat. That's
 now on the record.  That's about process. We now want to talk about issues. How
 am I going to conduct it for the next hour and three-quarters.  We want to hear
 as many issues as possible.  I want this to be an unbuttoned brainstorming, if
 possible.  And it's my job to make it so. What we have is we have four lead
 contributors who are on the left-hand side of the platform.  They are going to
 make remarks for a maximum of five minutes, and I've told them means three plus
 two.  And what I am proposing to do is channel their discussion immediately
 afterwards, in other words, you and the other discussants and the commentators
 can comment for 15 or 20 minutes on what they say.  Maybe if it's not that
 interesting, it will be ten minutes.  If it's more dynamic, we'll go for a
 little longer.  It's for me to keep the time.  But I really want this to be an
 exchange, and I propose that you pick it up quickly as the commentators do and
 the other panelists immediately after the ideas have come out. We will finish
 the discussion just before 4:00.  We have to end at 4:00, when we will hear
 from the secretary and also from the chair.  That's how I propose, with their
 agreement, to make sure this is an unbuttoned exchange.  And on the matter of
 timing, I will require discipline.  And I will impose discipline, if I have to.
 Right.  This is not about a cooked agenda on emerging issues, but we want to
 stimulate this discussion, and I want to hear more from you if you have other
 issues you want to raise. Remember the system of the papers, which can at least
 give me an idea of the kinds of things you might want to discuss. Let me first
 go to Bob Pepper, senior director for government affairs at Cisco in
 Washington.  Bob, your ideas, please.

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   Thank you.  First I want to thank the IGF organizers.  I
 want to echo -- and our host country, Brazil, for actually very good
 organization.  And I want to echo some of the earlier remarks about the utility
 of a forum that is information-sharing, where we have the opportunity to raise
 issues in a collaborative but frank discussion format, without having to worry
 about negotiations or coming to decisions.  Having this kind of a format has a
 lot of issues bubbling up.  And what we're going to do on this panel is bubble
 up more. What I want to do is now focus on issues on a going-forward basis and
 focus on it really in terms of the goals of WSIS and the goals of IGF, which,
 in my mind, if you go back to first principles, is about, you know, extending
 information society to all, getting the benefits of the information society to
 everybody, it's about development, it's about investment.  And it's not just
 making it available, but also creating the conditions for people to use the
 technologies and benefit from the information society. What I want to do is be
 pragmatic.  And I tend to think of things in a very oversimplified way, supply
 and demand.  And most of what the IGF and most of what the workshops and most
 of what the panels have been and our four themes, have been focusing on the
 supply side, how do we extend ICT, the technology, the Internet for all?  And
 there are still some things that need to be done in some of these emerging
 issues on the supply side in extending access, in particular. I think that
 there's one issue that we need to be focusing on and that next year in India,
 and probably on to Cairo the year after will become increasingly important and
 visible.  And that is the use of radio spectrum to extend infrastructure, to
 extend the access networks to unserved and underserved areas. There's a huge
 opportunity globally, as every country in the world migrates from analog
 television to digital television, to create more opportunities for television
 broadcasting with higher quality and more services, but at the same time, be
 able to take back the unused spectrum because of the advantage of digital
 compression, and use that spectrum at lower frequencies for access networks,
 700 megahertz, 800 megahertz, for those of you who know about this. That is
 very important, especially in emerging countries, where you have to go
 distances and there are tropical forests.  Some of the higher frequencies don't
 work. So I think spectrum for wireless broadband and spectrum for broadband is
 a very important emerging issue going forward. There's another issue for --
 emerging issue that began to come up, which is continuing the trend to lower
 the cost.  And that is being done very successfully by having local and
 regional IXPs.  And I think that we need to have more focus on that on the
 supply side, because that is where the success has been on lowering Internet
 costs globally.  More can be done, but we can follow that trend line down.
 Costs have come down, even since Tunis; right?  We need to continue that trend.
 But I want to focus most on the demand side, because I don't believe that we
 focused enough on the demand side at the IGF.  And I think this is an area
 where we have huge opportunity. First, capacity-building.  And it's not just
 training on how to use the technology, but also it's education of users,
 individuals, parents, teachers, small and medium enterprise, on how to use the
 technology and how to be comfortable with it. One of the things that we began
 to hear and that I've experienced is a distrust of information technology, as
 well as a lack of awareness on the benefits of information society.  This is
 where we began the conversations in some of the workshops on safety on the Net.
  Child protection.  People being able to control the information about
 themselves.  That this is about building trust that will lead as part of
 capacity-building in the access theme, that will build demand.  It's local
 content in local languages.  It's creating local communities.  And we'll hear
 later about identity management, which both enables local community creation,
 but also issues about providing confidence in those local communities. In
 addition, I think that an emerging issue that's very important is to avoid
 counter productive regulation that suppresses demand.  And here, for example,
 I'm thinking specifically of regulation that either prohibits or severely
 limits Voice over IP.  We know from experience that Voice over IP is one of the
 great demand drivers for broadband adoption. Likewise, regulating video over
 the Internet as though it were broadcasting also will reduce the demand and
 reduce new forms of entertainment, information, communications, and
 self-expression. So regulation also can suppress demand.  And it would be
 counter productive. On the demand creation side, I think one additional thing
 that we -- that I think is very important going forward is using ICT, using
 information technologies and the information society to both -- to address the
 issues of energy and the environment.  This is something that over the next
 several years will become increasingly important on a global basis. These
 technologies can not only improve the availability of energy where it's not
 today available -- a lot of discussion in some of the workshops on the need for
 electricity to make any of this work.  How do you do that?  And how do you do
 that and at the same time address climate change?  Networks can help. And I
 think this is something that this group particularly can begin to address as
 part of demand creation. Thank you.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Thank you, Bob. Vittorio Bertola.  Let me come to you.  You
 describe yourself as a hacker, an institutionalized hacker.  You are
 coordinator of civil society, Internet governance caucus.  What's your reaction
 to those kind of ideas?

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:   Well, there was something I heard which is a bit of a
 concern to me.  I mean, you were talking about child protection.  You said,
 quote, "People being able to control the information about themselves." But,
 actually, it's not people.  I think your company's appliance that help
 governments control the information that flows through the network -- not just
 your company, of course. And I do think in some cases there might be good
 reasons for governments to legitimately want to control what flows over the
 network.  But don't you feel a need for globally agreed principles and rights
 that could also help you basically in having a particular environment and
 dealing with this business in a framework of human rights?  Thank you.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Bob, quick response.

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   I think that the point that I'm trying to make is that it's
 individuals who need to control the information about themselves.  Later we're
 going to hear about identity management.  There are technologies that are being
 deployed globally by all of the technology companies that actually make the
 Internet work, that enable all of these connections.  You know, and that -- if
 it wasn't for those technologies, we wouldn't be here.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Fred Baker, also from Cisco.  Can I urge, if you want to enter
 this debate for the next ten or 15 minutes, can you get a microphone to you on
 these particular points, particularly if you represent a broadcaster who
 doesn't want to give up spectrum. [ Laughter ]

 >>FRED BAKER:   I have two comments.  First is to Vittorio. You brought up the
 accusation that Cisco makes products that enable us to control content. As a
 matter of fact, that's not true.  What we do is we enable people to do routing
 and to control applications.  And those things have been used in controlling
 content, such as at the London Internet Exchange.  But that's really something
 different. And now to Bob. What I understood from your remarks was that you're
 interested in enabling local users to use a variety of applications.  You
 mentioned voice and video, peer-to-peer file sharing also falls in that
 category, where you try to get at basically saying, let's make the regulations
 such as it exists enable access, and enable people to use things effectively as
 opposed to looking at the content.  Is that what you were getting at?

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   Among other things, yes. So there are some core principles
 from some of the high-tech companies called the high-tech broadband coalition
 in which, from a consumer bottom-up perspective, the key principles are that
 within whatever your service, you know, is that you've purchased, you should be
 able to use that service to get any legal content, run any legal application,
 attach your own devices, and have sufficient information that you can make, you
 know, intelligent, informed decisions about what you want to do and where you
 want to go.

 >>FRED BAKER:   It seems like part of that in terms of getting into local
 language needs to be some form of translation service to make content that's
 already on the Internet in one language available in the local languages. Is
 that also part of it?

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   Well, you know, there was an interesting workshop earlier in
 which, I think, the point was made, it's partially translation, but there's
 also local content not just in terms of language, but local culture.  It's
 about social cohesion and inclusion within societies that goes beyond just
 translating from one language to another.  Translation will help.  But it's
 also about local content, not just in local language.  It's more than that.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vittorio, I don't want you to feel you're being squeezed by two
 representatives of Cisco here. Do you want to come back, particularly after
 what we heard Fred say?

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:   Well, no.  I wasn't really making accusations, but, in
 fact, technology can be used to that -- I think we have to find a way to get an
 agreement on what companies could do or could not do.  And this is also
 important for companies themselves. because when you are a company and you get
 squeezed by western countries asking you not to do that and certain other
 countries asking you to do that, your business is at risk because you don't
 know how to behave.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Anyone out there who wants to come in?  I have a representative
 here at the front of traditional broadcasters being squeezed on broadband. 
 David from the EBU.

 >> Thank you. Yes.  David Wood from the EBU, not quite a traditional
 broadcaster or I wouldn't be here.  Representing -- yes.  Bob, I know -- we
 know your view that the right place for this wide band -- for bringing wideband
 broadband to the masses is to use broadcasting frequencies when they're cleared
 away from digital technology.  But I know, Bob, you admit that's not the only
 view in town by a long way. Everybody, everybody is in favor of bringing
 Internet to the people.  But you know there is a strong view that using the
 broadcast bands for wireless broadband won't do it, that this is simply
 short-termism and profitism.  And, actually, we cannot deprive the public of
 their television networks, because a lot of people watch them, a lot more
 people watch them and need them than use Internet, however valuable it is.  And
 also, there are technical arguments.  You know it's subject to congestion. 
 It's not the same model as a mobile telephone. Please, please, let's give
 people a proper service.  Let's give them one that works.  And legalities not
 give them the cheap solution by using the broadcast bands.  I know you'll agree
 that there is that view out there, Bob.

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   There's that view, but, frankly, I don't agree with it
 because it's a false choice. In fact, the broadcasters, with the transition
 from analog to digital, will be able to do not just what they do today, but be
 able to do more than they do today, including HD, including multicast, with
 higher capacity and higher quality, and there will be spectrum left over,
 because of compression. The technologies that I'm talking about, right, are not
 congestion technologies.  They're not Wi-Fi.  We're talking about license
 technologies; we're talking about wireless broadband in frequency bands that
 actually will go through walls, will go through, you know, tropical forests. 
 And I believe it's actually a false choice if you actually understand and look
 at the technology and the propagation characteristics of the spectrum at 700
 and 800 megahertz, that this is spectrum that is ideal for wireless broadband. 
 It's -- there are tradeoffs.  It's not going to be the throughput, it's not
 going to be as great as higher frequencies, but you're going to get reach.  And
 in emerging countries where there's no service, in order to be able to reach
 rural areas, this is terribly important.  And it's not at the expense of
 broadcasters.  Broadcasting is extremely important, I agree.  In fact, I think
 a transition to digital broadcasting is as important for society as what we're
 talking about here.

 >>NIK GOWING:   All right.

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   They're not mutually exclusive.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Let David come back.

 >>DAVID WOOD:   I wanted to say like you, Bob, your assertion is a false choice
 as well. And, in fact, the best that wireless broadband can do will give us
 several years of service.  But you know and I know the capacity the people need
 for Internet is growing and growing and growing.  So at best what we've got
 with the wireless broadband service is something that's going to last about
 five or ten years, and then we'll have to move to things like fiberoptic and
 hybrid coax, but that's a technical discussion perhaps to have at another time.

 >> But it's an important emerging issue.

 >> GADI EVRON:  I'm an Israeli citizen not representing Israel.  On this
 particular subject, moving back about two and a half minutes, you discussed
 Cisco and devices, and you mentioned business. And I would like to mention
 that, yes, I understand and it is understood that business -- doing business
 both in the western world and in other parts of the world means different
 demands and legal demands on companies and that they should carry-forward their
 business. I would like to share what happened in Israel a couple of months ago,
 where Cisco offered the Israeli government -- again, I'm not a member of the
 Israeli government -- a device that would help them, in fact, provide service
 providers, give the service providers the option to unilaterally censor by
 default content. And by use of automatic censors at homes at the ISP level. So
 they basically pushed a business on the government rather than responding to
 business needs, which is censorship in a western country.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right.  We're talking about an emerging issue, putting it on
 the agenda. Let me get a couple more comments on this. Let me go to Demi
 Getschko.

 >>DEMI GETSCHKO:   Just a short comment about the broadcast solution. It is not
 clear for me how we can really use broadcast to include more people in the
 Internet, especially in the far away areas of the world. The back channel, the
 return channel is always a problem. Then the interactivity you get from the
 television, I suppose, is, is very problematic.

 >>NIK GOWING: Vint Cerf, you wanted a word as well.

 >>VINT CERF:   I wanted to mention something about broadcast.  Once we get to
 digital broadcast we have an opportunity to broadcast things other than
 television. And the reason I am excited about digital broadcast is because it
 becomes a new medium for delivering large quantities of digital content,
 regardless of what it is, to a large number of receivers. It is the efficiency
 of broadcast that we are not taking advantage of in the current Internet
 architecture, and here is an opportunity to extend it.

 >>NIK GOWING:  I suppose I should just declare an interest.  I am a main
 presenter for BBC, BBC World.  I'm a traditional broadcaster.  We love
 bandwidth.  I am not here to tell whether we are going to give up any of our
 bandwidth.  So don't press me on that. Please.

 >>KHALED FATTAL:   Thank you, Nik. My name is Khaled Fattal. If I may
 interject, I think one of the discussions earlier on was translation for the
 purpose of enabling communities to be able to at least participate in this
 forum.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Are you picking up on Bob's point?

 >>KHALED FATTAL:   Yes.  And I think he is very right.  But if I may interject
 and add something else. There is the element which is pragmatic, practical of
 what can be delivered, and there's the element of what we can see down the
 line. I mean, yes, we would love to have a streamed media or everything in
 front of us being placed and people can watch it and then listen to it in
 whatever language they want. But in practical terms, that has a lot of
 challenges, because many regions in the world don't have the kind of bandwidth.
 But let me offer something in a practical sense.  For the first time, the
 ability for people to read content of what has been transcribed and deployed on
 the IGF Web sites about the discussions and the issues is, for the first time,
 they are able to do that in Arabic. The link is already on the IGF Web site.
 We're doing it ourselves.  The company is live multilingual translator.  This
 is not a plug-in.  I am not doing this for promotion of the service, but the
 idea here is that if the IGF is going to be able to provide a mechanism that is
 somewhat democratic that allows people to participate and show -- tell you what
 their voices are, we need to create this content, and at least it is a first
 step where people can actually read the content and be able to participate.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Remember what we are trying to do in this final session is
 define the emerging issues, not necessarily have a full debate at the moment.
 Milena Bokova, where are you, please?  Are you here?  I think you would like to
 make a point, too, please.

 >>MILENA BOKOVA:  I would like to raise the issue of connection between
 development of the ICTs and sustainable development.

 >>NIK GOWING:   The reason I asked you is because it is picking up Bob's point
 about environment and sustainability at the end.

 >>MILENA BOKOVA:  I had this impression that when we are talking about the
 access we somehow don't make this connection and don't see that we should
 develop the ICTs in a way not to harm the environment. So for me, this is very
 important to think about the future, especially when we are facing crisis.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Can you make it quick recommend- --

 >>MILENA BOKOVA:   And also for me as a woman, somehow I link this connection
 of limited presentation of women here.  Maybe if there were more women in the
 room, they would be thinking more in our future. So I would like to see more
 women also on the panel.

 >>NIK GOWING:   That point was made very clearly this morning from the
 platform. Wolfgang.

 >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Yeah.  We have here the process of the Internet, we
 have a lot of (inaudible) of the Internet, but we have only a small number of
 constituents of the Internet.  And if we talk about a the next billion Internet
 users, we will talk about teenagers and "twents" mainly, and a lot of these
 teenagers making the next million of dollars out of the Internet.  And I think
 it is really important as an emerging issue to look into the change of behavior
 of consumption of Internet in the future.  And we should invite much more young
 people for the next Internet Governance Forum. It would be -- probably has been
 -- could be a good idea to ask -- to invite Mark Sukerbare (phonetic) for the
 next meeting in New Delhi and ask him to invite him to present a paper in the
 session on privacy because he is arguing that the user behavior is changing. 
 People have a different approach to traditional issues.  And I think this is an
 important point to be very open, you know, with how the next generation is
 using the Internet, and this should be discussed.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Any of the commentators? [ Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Any of you like to pick up on that particular point about how
 far that is going and how fast it is moving?

 >>DEMI GETSCHKO:   I'm not sure it's right at the point but just to make a
 comment in my feeling. How the (inaudible) evolves, it is easier to use it, and
 then the entry barrier is smaller each time.  Then I suppose it is going in the
 right direction to have more participation of people.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Fred.

 >>FRED BAKER:   So since we deployed the Internet, the Internet has
 fundamentally changed in the applications it runs many times.  It probably does
 so every three years. The Web at one time was something that didn't exist, and
 all of a sudden it was about half the traffic out there, maybe three-quarters,
 and then it became peer-to-peer.  And there's video and voice running around. I
 think the important thing is actually not to focus on the particular
 applications that the kids are using next, but to say, okay, how can we ensure
 that we can continue developing new applications and make sure that they are
 excited about using them.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Before I go to Andrew to pick up, yes, one point here. Anyone
 else want to pick up this particular point of change of user behavior?  Just to
 pick up what Wolfgang mentioned. Please, over there and here. The back first.
 And then I'll move on to Andrew. For those of you who weren't here at the
 beginning, I have sliced this up a bit, according to what the different
 presenters, the four of them, want to say. So we're doing about 20 minutes on
 each. We won't have an exhaustive debate but I want to air as much as possible
 and make it as unbuttoned as possible.

 >>WALDA ROSEMAN:  Yes, I am Walda Roseman with Compass Rose International, and
 I work with a lot of young people and I would like to broaden it a little bit. 
 I think the young people don't just need the industry to be coming with up
 interesting applications, but we need to be able to make it more possible for
 the young people to create applications that the industry might want to pick
 up. And on that regard, I would certainly support that we have more young
 people here, but I further support that we look more at how can we facilitate
 the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises that include young people from
 developing countries and elsewhere that include women, that include those in
 rural and developing markets who have something to bring to the industry as
 well as to their local situations.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Okay.  I think that point has been made several times. Thank
 you.

 >> Hello.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Yes, we can hear you.

 >> My name is Marila and I am from the Federal University of Santa Maria and
 also from DiploFoundation.  I wanted to say DiploFoundation has recently held a
 roundtable with participants from developing countries from all over the world,
 and we came up with a document that will be available online on Diplo's page. 
 It's about all the main points that have been discussed here on the give.  And
 there are two important themes that I think should be --

 >>NIK GOWING:   Are you talking about these issues particularly at this moment?

 >> Yeah, I am going to get there.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Good.  Quickly.

 >> Two things that I think should be considered. The first one is that youth
 people will, like, enjoy all the good decisions that are made here and will
 also have to live with the bad decisions made, too, so they should be seen as
 natural stakeholders in the process.  That happened in Athens and I don't feel
 it happened so much here. So I feel everybody is here from the academic side,
 from the business sector, from NGOs.  You should try to bring youth fellows and
 try to foster youth participation.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Can I just say, I am going to be quite brutal, I'm not sure you
 were here at the beginning but I am asking for short remarks on what is being
 proposed from the platform.  So what's your second point, please?

 >> This is my point, I would like to propose fellowships for your participation
 to bring youth and maybe establish an online discussion because I think this is
 a good platform, too.  We have stated that and we could make it work online,
 too.

 >>NIK GOWING:   But we're trying to not talk about process but about issues,
 please.

 >>PETER HELLMONDS:   Thank you, Nik.  I am Peter Hellmonds from Nokia Siemens
 Networks and I think I can combine what Wolfgang said and what was just said
 here about youth.  One of the things we noticed is the youth have been
 particularly fast in picking up mobile phones, and I think if we are talking
 about the Internet governance, then mobile Internet is going to be one of the
 big emerging issues.  If you look at an iPhone, for example, it's a mobile
 Internet tablet and other devices are going to come up, pretty sure. The issue
 that comes up, and that's the societal impact of that, is more and more young
 people are using social networking sites like FaceBook and MySpace, and young
 people are sometimes dumb because they do stupid things.  When I was young I
 did dumb and stupid things, and perhaps I still do them, but what is different
 today is what you do today is public.  And what you did ten years ago is going
 to be recorded.

 >>NIK GOWING:   We're going to pick up that point with Andrew in a moment.

 >>PETER HELLMONDS:   Right.

 >>NIK GOWING:   So do you have any other detail to give on that at the moment?

 >>PETER HELLMONDS:   I think it's important to look at that identity management
 issue where you need to be aware of -- be able to pick up and say, well, what I
 did ten years ago should expire.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right. That's an important thing which is related to what
 Andrew is going to talk about. One final thought, Bertrand, on what Bob has
 been talking about.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   The most important change in behavior in one year
 is the incredible growth of social networking sites. It's one of the major
 evolutions.  It always was there before, but it's even growing more and more.
 It is basically bringing a new problem, which is the management not of privacy
 but of what I would call intimacy. It's this zone in between where it's not
 completely public but you are sharing things with friends on those sites. How
 do you manage the zone?  And I would suggest that as those sites now have
 populations of millions of actors, we maybe should be addressing the internal
 governance of those social networking sites.  And I think it's important for
 the industry itself as well.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right.  Andrew, you have heard one or two remarks which begin
 to go across what you want to talk about but give us your broader thoughts on
 emerging issues.

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   I am author of "Cult of the Amateur" which is a polemic
 against much of what is going on.  I will try to be unbuttoned, even if I am
 not wearing a shirt, and I think the problem with the Internet today is it has
 become too unbuttoned.  We need more buttons. So emerging issues.  Another word
 for that is the future. Somebody said, some technophile said the future has
 already arrived.  It's just badly distributed. I think the future has already
 arrived and I am here to tell you about it and warn you about it. The future is
 something in Silicon Valley that we are calling Web 2.0.  Web 2.0 which is
 represented by social networks like FaceBook, user-generated information sites
 like Wikipedia, user-generated information and entertainment sites like
 YouTube, and of course by the blogosphere is the future of media.  This is not
 a technological issue.  This is a socio-cultural issue, a political issue, and
 an economic issue. Now, the future is Web 2.0, and the future, I'm afraid, for
 most of you isn't very good news. This is the first time I have been to an
 event like this, and I get the sense that most of you care about democracy. 
 You want more democracy. You believe that the Internet is a vehicle for
 bringing democracy. Now, in Silicon Valley, there are a lot of people who talk
 about something called democratization.  They claim that this Web 2.0
 revolution of user-generated content, of Google and MySpace and Wikipedia and
 the rest of this profound cultural revolution, in my view, is creating
 cultural, economic, political, and geographic democratization.  Unfortunately,
 and I don't think there is anyone evil at the heart of this thing, there is no
 Mr. Web 2.0 pulling the strings to wreck our civilization, but unfortunately, I
 think there is a law at the heart of this, the law of unintended consequences.
 The consequences of democratization of Web 2.0, aren't more democracy.  The
 consequences of Web 2.0, the future of the Internet, is actually less
 democracy, less equality, less cultural, economic, political, geographical
 egalitarianism. Let me briefly explain what I mean by this.  In the cultural
 sphere you have an explosion of user-generated content, but this as a cultural
 system is not benefiting the talented. This is no new emerging ecosystem which
 rewards a digital cultural class. What Chris Anderson, the editor of "Wired"
 Magazine calls the long tail is not a viable economy. So we are not seeing real
 democratization in the cultural space. In economic terms, it's pretty obvious
 for anyone who looks at the Silicon Valley economy to understand that the real
 profits of Web 2.0 are going to a tiny handful of companies.  The creative
 classes are not being rewarded for this culture revolution. In political terms,
 I don't believe that the democratization of the Internet is creating more
 democracy.  In America in the recent CNN/YouTube debate, you didn't see more
 democracy.  All you saw was the voter becoming the heart of the matter. You saw
 the inanity of politics.  You saw the trivialization of the political process.
 You are not seeing more democracy. The reality of the Web 2.0 economy or the
 Web 2.0 revolution is we are seeing the emergence of a new oligarchy, an
 anonymous oligarchy of online activists, who are really running the show at
 Wikipedia and other so-called democratizing Web sites like Dig.  The reality of
 the Internet, then, is we need to be much more skeptical.  We need to look at
 it much more critically. It's all too easy to be seduced by the prophets, the
 peddlers of the myth of Web 2.0 revolution who promise that the masses will
 finally be empowered by this revolution. The reality is actually the opposite.
 Ultimately, you all want a globalized media, but in my view, the Web 2.0
 revolution is resulting in less globalization, more localism, and more control
 from a small geographic center. So my advice for everyone here is to be a
 little more skeptical of the supposed cultural, economic benefits.  We have
 news that's unreliable.  We have a cacophony of opinion that no one can sort
 out the truth from the nonsense and above all I am calling for two things.  I
 am calling for more media literacy.  We need to teach the YouTube generation
 how to read through media.  We don't need to teach them about the use of
 technology.  They know that intuitively.  But we need to teach a generation
 that there's a profound difference between edited content on the New York Times
 and unedited content on sites like Wikipedia. We need to teach them there's a
 profound difference between the content on YouTube and the content on
 traditional professional networks like the BBC. The other area that I think
 that we need to critically examine -- and I understand that this is a
 controversial area, and particularly applies to the industrial world -- is the
 issue of anonymity.  In my view, it's the anonymity of the Web 2.0 world which
 is corroding real conversation. There isn't conversation.  There isn't
 collaboration.  There isn't community on the Internet. Rather than those "C"
 words, those three "C" words, the really accurate "C" word in the Web 2.0 word
 is corrosiveness.  We can't allow today's Internet users to hide behind
 anonymity.  It has to become a real social contract, and it doesn't just mean
 taking  from it.  We require people to give their identity if we're to build a
 richer, more accurate, and truthful media.  Thank you.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Andrew, thank you. [ Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Let's try and pick up particularly on that last issue of
 anonymity after what Peter and Bertrand said.  Vittorio.

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:   I actually agree with you in a number of these
 conversations.  But I think that not everything is lost. So the problem is that
 now this new environment is completely unregulated, and maybe we need to agree
 on principles that we need to establish to allow democracy in this new
 environment and accountability and transparency. So I -- my experience with
 Wikipedia, for example, is that actually it's very top-down, and the problem is
 that in traditional encyclopedia, maybe you know that somebody is pulling the
 strings and you don't know who. But I think it's a matter of establishing some
 responsibilities of the people who gain responsibility roles in these platforms
 and their relationships to the people who actually provide the content. I have
 another issue.  I think that we should start thinking of the new value chain. 
 Because these new platforms, YouTube and Flickr and whatever, are actually
 making money through advertising, using my holiday clips.  So they're actually
 monetizing my private life and even my spare time.  And while it might be a
 fair exchange that they provide a service and in exchange, they make some money
 on it, there is an interesting economical relationship that needs to be worked
 out.

 >>NIK GOWING:   In your comments, let's try and refine and define the issues as
 they emerge. Vint, you want to talk?  Fred?

 >>FRED BAKER:   So I'd like to pick up on this question of giving your identity
 when you speak. Now, in the west, in the United States and in western Europe,
 and, frankly, I'll include in that Japan and Australia, which are traditionally
 considered somewhere else, but, yeah, I see your point.  But there's a fairly
 large part of the world where folks would like to know the identity of
 speakers, and maybe it's not in those speakers' interest to give it.  They will
 die if they do so. And so the question, is this a blanket statement that we can
 really apply to the whole world?  Is this something that I should enforce in
 the technology?  I'm just very concerned that we need to have the ability to
 have a good identity so that I know that I'm talking with a real person, but
 one that has the quality of anonymity, so that someone who needs to be
 protected can still be protected.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vint.

 >>VINT CERF:   Just a couple of thoughts. I have to say, my first reaction,
 Andrew, as I listened to all that diatribe was, it's crap. [ Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   But, Vint, is it an issue?  Is it an issue to be debated?

 >>VINT CERF:   Okay.  Let's go back to the identity question. By the way,
 Andrew, I really -- just to stimulate debate here. [ Laughter ]

 >>VINT CERF:   The point about anonymity, I think, is critical. The network is
 capable of supporting high-quality authentication.  There's no reason why you
 can't create forums in which you're not permitted to speak without
 authenticating yourself. But I would suggest how that we shouldn't insist that
 all exchanges have that characteristic.  Let's allow both of those to happen. 
 And if you choose to be in a discussion group in which anonymity is supported,
 that's your choice.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Do you want to come back immediately, Andrew, on Vint's first
 words?

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   No.  I appreciate his kind remarks. [ Laughter ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Shall we --

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   So, Vint, are you suggesting, then, that there's nothing to
 discuss about these issues?  Are you suggesting that we can choose to be
 anonymous, we can choose not to be anonymous, and that this is not an issue
 that we should discuss, that the socio cultural ramifications of Web 2.0 really
 aren't relevant, it simply depends on how and how users want to use this
 technology? Because if that's the case, then we can't have a discussion about
 anything outside technology.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vint.

 >>VINT CERF:   No, no.  I don't agree with that. What I am saying is that we
 should not force a particular point of view --

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   Did I say "force."

 >>NIK GOWING:   Did I ever have to say that people have to be forced that they
 go to jail if they don't reveal who they are? All I'm saying that anonymity, in
 my view, is one of the key things that we need to think about creatively,
 technologists and cultural sociologists of the Internet, it's one of the key
 things that we have to think about critically.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Okay, Vint -- Vint --

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   (inaudible).

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vint has accepted that, that it is an issue.

 >>VINT CERF:   I'm only suggesting, Andrew, that we should permit people to be
 anonymous if they wish to be.  But you don't have to participate in the
 conversation with them.  Create environments in which both of those practices
 are permitted.  That's all I'm saying. [ Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   We've shown this is an emerging issue. Demi.

 >>DEMI GETSCHKO:   Just another point about the communities in the Internet. I
 will raise the example of the symbiosis between Internet and free software
 production.  I suppose this is a real community over the Internet.  And I'm not
 really agreed that there are no communities over the Net.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right.  Over there.  The white shirt.  Sorry, I don't know who
 you are.  But microphone is with you.

 >> NICK DEARDEN:  Thank you.  Nick Dearden from Amnesty International. I agree
 with so much of what Andrew said and appreciate very much his passion.  I think
 it's very interesting to look at corporate concentration and how this is
 affecting the Internet, and I really agreed with him until the last line about
 anonymity, simply because coming here and speaking about freedom of expression
 and how the Internet is empowering real journalists in many countries in the
 real, real activists who have no other outlet, and if they didn't remain
 anonymous, they wouldn't be able to do that.  It's the anonymity the Internet
 gives them which enables them to go on reporting the truth, actually, in some
 countries, it's the only way people can get hold of what's really happening in
 the world.  And how they can form social relationships which allow them to
 protest and do other things which otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do.
 So I think that the anonymity question, I don't think that's the right answer
 at this stage in time, anyway, to the problems that you've correctly
 identified.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Andrew.

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   Yeah, I strongly agree with what you're saying.  And I think
 it points to something else that's an idea that's really been occurring to me
 here. You know, we all like the idea of the Internet as a global device that
 applies equally to different societies. But I think the anonymity issue is
 actually one that reveals the fact that the Internet, in reality, isn't very
 much of a global medium.  Because I completely agree with you about societies
 or governments which put people in jail for their views. The problem, though --
 and my book was focused on this, it focuses on the industrial world -- is that
 in the industrial world, it's anonymity that's undermining the Internet. 
 Whereas, in the -- I think in the less-developed world, it's anonymity which
 could -- the existence of anonymity which will actually provoke more political
 reform and be a great tool for changing society.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Going --

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   What that means is, it's very hard to talk broadly about these
 themes in global terms.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Andrew, within the discipline I tried to create at the
 beginning, could I get as many views as possible, please. I can see a lot of
 hands going up on this issue.  One there, one here, and there were several
 others.  Please keep your remarks brief.

 >>SHERAAN AMOD:  My name is Sheraan Amod, from South Africa.  I'm a 21-year-old
 DiploFoundation youth representative and Internet addict. I think that some of
 the comments in this panel and this forum are getting out of touch with
 reality. To the extent that things being said are simply not true, Andrew, you
 mentioned that there is no reward for cultural content production or creative
 content on the Internet.  Have you ever heard of dig.com, which have done just
 that?  You mentioned the CNN YouTube debate not being democratic.  Well, CNN is
 a buzzword there.  I use YouTube, I'm very well-informed of the Ron Paul
 campaign in the United States, which is driven largely by Internet success,
 which has been completely captured by the youth and pushed to the American
 people by the youth.  And I'm a South African, and I'm following that trend.
 You mentioned technologies and that the Internet's goal should be only to
 deliver those technologies and we shouldn't worry about what they are.  People
 are mentioning things like Facebook and MySpace.  Great weeks know about that. 
 That's old news.  What about the new news, like Webkins and club penguin, which
 is popular with 6, 12-year-olds, which logs over a million unique hits every
 single month?  I'm a member of both of them and I've chatted to
 eight-year-olds.  Needless to say, I'm not an eight-year-old. And what, then,
 when spatial technology begins to integrate vertically with social networks
 being used by nine-year-olds.

 >>NIK GOWING:   All right.  You're helping us to define.  And I'm going to be
 brutal, particularly after we heard from the first comment that I heard at the
 beginning.  I haven't forgotten you, please.

 >> Stephen Balkam, with the Family Online Safety Institute.  Fantastic,
 wonderful presentation.  Great.  Here's a problem:  We tell our kids, "Don't
 give out your own personal information.  Don't tell people who you are.  Don't
 tell them where you go to school." In other words, to be anonymous.  So we have
 a whole generation of kids coming up that way. What do you do about that?  Do
 you say that they shouldn't be anonymous?  And also, I'd be curious to hear
 your views on porn on the Internet.  But we may not have time.

 >>NIK GOWING:   There was a workshop earlier.  There are a lot of comments. 
 Keep your comments for the moment, Andrew, please. The microphone is going to
 come back to you here first.

 >> Hi.  I'm (saying name) from cyber law (saying name). While these are two
 distinct schools of thoughts, the reality is that the emerging issue is that of
 legalities concerning user-generated content.  Whether you like it or not,
 nation states are now beginning to take sense of it and are beginning to look
 in the direction of appropriate regulation.  I don't know which direction it's
 going.  You are --  People are talking about self-regulation.  I'm not
 particularly sure how self-regulation will be so enforced in the context of Web
 2.0. Well, let us also talk about regulation from the top.  I'm not even
 particularly sure how nation states would be able to enforce that. More
 importantly, in this entire scenario, the onus is going to come back once again
 to the service providers, who are becoming increasingly gatekeepers of
 information.  And therefore, I believe this is going to be one of the biggest
 emerging issues in terms of legalities, concerning user-generated content,
 concerning Internet 2.0, even if it's just a handful of companies.  But the
 number of people across the world who have got hooked onto this new phenomenon
 are -- sooner or later, law is going to wake up to it and it's quicker, that we
 need to focus on these issue.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Pass the microphone back, three at least there.  At the front. 
 Let me quote two other people.  Izumi Aizu of is speculating about the role of
 governments in promoting discourse.  And Vladimir Cavalcante, what is the
 future of countries.  Let's put that on the record, what is the future of
 countries, please.  A view from ICANN.

 >> JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:  Hello, hello.  Jean-Jacques Subrenat.  I'm a member
 of the board of ICANN, but that's not the point.  Speaking in a private
 capacity. I have a 13-year-old daughter.  I am concerned about privacy.  I
 don't think that, as you expressed it at least, Andrew, the problem of
 identification should be compulsory.  It should be left to the families or the
 individual according to the case.  And it should be in-built into the
 technology to allow for that. First point. The second point is that perhaps one
 of the emerging issues, Nik, is a differentiation, a growing differentiation
 between entertainment and culture.  Because I think the whole thing was driven
 first by entertainment, by companies which had content to sell or to propose. 
 But now I think that there is a necessity for a distinct perhaps possibility
 for culture to emerge as well.  And I think that's one of the upcoming issues.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right.  Thank you.  There are three -- the microphone is going
 to move along systematically here.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:   You called me.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Are you both standing up to use the same microphone? All right.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:   My name is Izumi Aizu.  I have some proposal on identity
 management and also the anonymity debate, to have polarism. In Korea, the
 government mandated the citizens to register their name and national identity
 number if they are to speak up on the online forum. It may sound scary.  But
 the fact is, they have more netizens than most other countries.  And for the
 presidential election, the country president is known as the "first Internet
 president," because the online discourse had a big influence on his election. 
 And for the next coming general election.  So we invited a guy from the
 election management committee and asked why they asked them to register,
 because you need some responsibility discourse online.  If there's a fake
 debate online, on the Internet, cooked up, then your selection of the next
 president or the M.P.s will be vastly affected. But the good news is that they
 won't display the names and numbers online.  It's kept held by the government. 
 So here comes the role of the government and governance.  How do you governor
 that if these things will happen with other countries.

 >>NIK GOWING:   You're confirming this as an important emerging issues.

 >>BILL MANNING:   Bill manning, old guy, I've been doing this for a little
 while. Question, or an analogy here has to do with character assassination. And
 anonymity. The amount of data stored on the Internet or in the content
 providers is enormous and it grows exponentially. The Internet needs to learn
 how to forget.  And that is a large issue that hasn't been talked about.  Being
 able to forget bad data is important for the larger cultural experience.  And
 we don't know how to do that.

 >>NIK GOWING:   That's a great workshop and plenary title.  One more there,
 please. "How to forget."

 >>MALCOLM HARBOUR:   Malcolm Harbour, member of the European Parliament. I
 enjoyed Andrew's polemic, but I want to take him up on two points. He talked
 about less democracy.  All I would say is, democracy, for me, is going to fair
 and free elections and being able to change a government. And there are lots of
 countries where that doesn't happen.  When we have more of that, we'll have
 more democracy. Now, but if we engage people with the issues leading to those
 votes in a better way, I think that's helpful. But if you look across the world
 now, you find in some countries people queuing up all day to vote, but you
 find, particularly in the developed world, that turnouts are going down. And I
 want more people engaged in that process.  And I think that Web 2 is helping
 that. The second point I want to make -- and I agree with him very strongly --
 is that the issue that's facing us in this whole area is about more choice and
 how you make that choice and how you discriminate. It's linked to the
 discussion on digital television.  And people have 200 channels to choose from
 in a way they never had before. And I think -- I agree with him entirely about
 educating young people coming into that world to be discriminating, to be -- to
 not restrict that choice, but to say if you look at a blog, something that's
 gone up there anonymously might have a particular thinking behind it.  But
 anonymity is good in other circumstances. And the concluding point, because
 this is very much in your world, the issue that's now facing us is the immense
 power of film and video available to people.  And, actually, we should be
 getting young people to make a 20-second clip, a video, to show how powerful
 that is in influencing people's opinion.  But they need to be discriminating,
 because if it's that easy for them to make a short video affecting people's
 opinion, then they have to be able to discriminate between the classic
 broadcasters and between people who are amateurs but want to influence your
 opinion.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right.  We're trying to define the issues, not create closure
 here.  Two more interventions, one in the back and one here.  Then I'm going to
 move on to Nii Quaynor from Ghana.

 >> SOUHEIL MARINE:  Thank you.  Souheil Marine, Alcatel-Lucent. I want to make
 a technical point.  We tend to forget that Internet is neutral.  It has been
 built with this paradigm that the network is neutral. And isn't the issue that
 we are talking about is about introducing some level of control within the
 Internet or at whatever appropriate level for service provider or whatever
 content provider?  Because maybe it was not an issue only ten years ago, but
 now that the Internet is used by billions and billions of people to do whatever
 kind of communication, this could become an issue.  Thank you.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Thank you.  One more remark here.

 >>KHALED FATTAL:   Yes.  Thank you. KHALED FATTAL, again.  The earlier debate
 that we heard between Vint and Andrew brought something to mind which I think
 may give us some more food for thought. What I see -- I don't see much of
 disagreement between the two.  But what I see is the Genie is out of the box. 
 And it's going to challenge our conventional thinking forever.  And in the
 sense -- I will explain how. Consider that the last 25 years, where the
 Internet was created, we have had an economic way of thinking that developed
 and delivered the "me" generation, me.  Guess what?  When all these kids go
 online and they create their space or their platform or their blog, what they
 perhaps are hoping for is their bit of fame, fame, money, success. And I don't
 think many of you here would disagree with that. We know this was what happens.
 So the fundamentals that I think the Internet and what we're talking about,
 what I think Andrew is raising, which is not at the bottom line, which is just
 anonymity, I would say the fundamental issue is social responsibility.  Where
 do we stand on social responsibility when it comes to the Internet? The answer
 could be anonymity.  It may not necessarily be anonymity.  Vint also raised
 some issues.  If you don't want to participate, if you don't know who the
 person is and you don't feel that's credible, you don't participate with them. 
 Absolutely valid. But it boils down, we're challenging conventional thinking of
 the last 25 years with where does social responsibility fit into this?

 >>NIK GOWING:   Thank you.  You said the Internet must learn how to forget. 
 Remember, all this is being recorded for -- certainly, in the log, through the
 stenographers, so that it can be built on for future discussions, whether it be
 early next year or this time next year in Delhi. Andrew, one final remark.

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   I think everyone's points were great.  I love the Internet of
 the Internet learning how to forget.  It sounds like a new book by (saying
 name). The -- I'd just like to bring up -- a young man at the front was very
 passionate in arguing that I was completely wrong.  And he brought up -- first
 he admitted that he was addicted to the Internet, which troubled me.  I don't
 quite know what he means by that and what form of addiction it takes.  He
 brought up the example of club penguin as if it's some sort of public service. 
 It is, of course, a social network for preteens which I think is owned by
 Disney.  And I'm not saying that Disney is bad.  But what I am saying is that
 we have to understand that these social networks, at least the way they're
 evolving in the Web 2.0 world are businesses.  They're not public services. 
 And they're used to promote a profit. Facebook today is supposedly worth $15
 billion and the founder, the young founder of it last week argued that the way
 to monetize it -- he's still trying to figure out a business model by the way,
 which is amazing for a company worth $15 billion -- but his argument of a way
 of monetizing it was to put advertising into the messaging, into the very
 nature of social networking, which is very troubling. My one warning to all of
 you, I heard the people say, let's invite some young people next year.  I am
 all in favor of that.  But don't be seduced by the cult of youth.  Don't be
 seduced that young people have the answers to this medium.  It's no more owned
 by the kids than by the grownups.  And if we allow it to be owned by the kids,
 then I'm afraid it will turn into one vast club penguin. [ Laughter ] [
 Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Remember, Andrew, you are on the record as well. [ Laughter ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Now, Nii Quaynor from Accra, chairman of network computer
 systems.  And afterwards, we'll hear from Bob Kahn, chairman of the corporation
 for national research initiatives. Both, by agreement, have waited to this
 point, because we wanted to stage it in the way that I explained at the
 beginning. Please, Nii.

 >>NII QUAYNOR:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try to deduce
 emerging issues from the direction that Africa is trying to go.  Of course, we
 have the challenge to deliver access to 95% of Africans who have not had any
 Internet experience.  That's really the challenge. The opportunity we see is
 that the networks are generally organic and change all the time.  So you can be
 incremental in some ways.  So in delivering the service. So in this case, time
 to service may be more important than performance, bandwidth, and so on,
 meaning giving something to us now and we'll change it as we go may be a thing
 to look at. Now, Africa will be energized with new lower-cost interfaces,
 including telephones, PDAs, PCs.  And the particular momentum behind the mobile
 telephony is one that we are looking to take advantage of. Now, the new
 networks that we will build will be based on IPv6, on advice of Africa's
 registry, AfriNIC.  And we'd like to rally manufacturers to produce appropriate
 CPs to enable us to do that.  We see a real opportunity here in the sense that
 Africa will realize innovation and expertise, value.  That will come out after
 we have deployed our continental network based on IPv6 as an early bet.  And we
 have to do that because we are just starting. Now, another issue of interest is
 that we are just beginning to build our institutions that support the networks.
  In this case, we have to strengthen them, in particular, AfriNIC needs to be
 well guarded, and the capacity-building institution, AfNOG, also (saying name)
 and most importantly our research education on networks that we started is an
 important one.  And we regard them as really critical Internet resources. We're
 going to have to change our traffic patterns from always going out to staying
 terrestrially on the continent as a way of reducing the ever-increasing demand
 for international connectivity. I am going beyond IXPs.  I am saying that we
 should take a good look at how to place the information we normally request for
 on the continent itself and access it terrestrially. Now, regarding education,
 which we believe that is really a major stumbling block to much of the dreams
 that we've just stated.  And we have to find a way to foot the huge bill of
 increasing the penetration of the number of graduates in Africa if the
 information society is to take hold.  So, for us, we see that as a major
 emerging challenge that we need to address. Of course, we also have admitted
 that the value of the discussions here need to happen at a national level in
 the meantime. Now, we would like the Internet in Africa to develop freely,
 openly, and be integrated with -- you know, to meet our diversity needs
 unimpeded.  While we recognize that there are several important issues beyond
 access, access seems to be the real barrier that we have.  And we need to that
 have to be much more focused on the way to New Delhi. On this point, we note
 that at the time that Africa is starting deployment of its Internet network may
 in fact not be a good time to talk about any form of change in the governance
 or administration of the Internet.  That might be as though pulling the rug
 from under us.  So we would like to be certain that things remain stable
 throughout the process. Africa's priority is to focus on building its networks,
 and anything that is required to do that is what we would like to emphasize. 
 We would also like to ensure that we build communities, real communities,
 around these networks, and strengthen the institutions that support the
 networks, and, of course, our education and research networks, which is not
 Internet, are -- real (inaudible) must emerge. Thank you for your attention.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Just one question which has come in from Zahid Jamil.  What is
 the role of Web 2.0 and YouTube in nondemocratic states?  In other words, the
 role of democratization.  You come from a country where things have changed
 dramatically, the power of radio stations on the Net has been quite
 significant, particularly in the recent election. But when you look around you,
 in Africa particularly, what view are you taking when it comes to emerging
 issues on this?  Picking up, to a certain extent, what Andrew was saying, but I
 suspect he's looking at democratization through one prism; you would look at it
 through a very different prism in west Africa.

 >>NII QUAYNOR:   Actually, I take a totally different view.  I take a business
 view.  My interest is how I build my own YouTube less on democracy.  I'm
 interested in competing.  So we are more interested in how we are going to
 enable our communities to find their equivalent of YouTube that is of interest
 to that community and, to be honest with you, I am really not looking at the
 outside at all.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Okay. [ Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vittorio, Vint -- Vint, do you want to pick up first?

 >>VINT CERF:   I wanted to pick up on the IPv6 point. One of the things that I
 had said in earlier meetings is that IPv6 is absolutely necessary to allow the
 network to expand.  But we need to make sure that when you connect to the Net
 with V6, you are connected to everything on the Net.  So one of the things that
 we need to do in addition to the Internet Exchange Points is to start looking
 at continental, regional networking.  We need to find a way to pay for that in
 order to get full connectivity of IPv6. That's going to be an emerging big
 issue in the year 2008.

 >>FRED BAKER:   Nii, it seems like part of the problem that you deal with in
 Africa has to do with regulation.  And this is really coming back to Bob's
 point earlier. But regulation that has been developed for the telecoms and has
 tied them very close to government and to monetary feeds like that, and which
 are now being translated directly across and used in a protectionist manner.
 Would you like to comment further on that?

 >>NII QUAYNOR:   Yeah.  It's a difficult issue.  But certainly with more
 pressure, the regulatory regimes within our countries themselves are being
 reformed.  On the other hand, I have to agree that the history has gone from a
 telco being separated from post to being privatized.  So you can imagine that
 there are remnants which attempt, you know, to keep the status quo the same. I
 believe that soon you might find a situation where the regulatory regime may
 become under the oversight of operators, because we are beginning to move more
 in that direction that the operators are footing a lot of bills, and over time,
 we expect to see that happen.  But it's not there currently.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Demi Getschko.

 >>DEMI GETSCHKO:   I think that the exhaustion of IPv4 and the beginning of
 IPv6 may be a great opportunity for a continent like Africa to give a leap
 forward, because you can begin stimulating, developing local content in IPv6
 procedures directly to the people.  Then, I suppose one of the barriers is the
 content, you have to have local content to stimulate the people to go to the
 Internet. And the IPv6 must be a motivation to do this.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vittorio, as the institutional hacker, but also representing
 civil society, Internet Governance Caucus.

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:   Actually, it is -- I think that both things are very
 interesting.  Of course, the IPv6 migration is very important.  And I think
 that there's a lot of issues that have not been explored, but, in particular,
 the business case for migrating is weak, because some people have to support
 costs to allow someone else to connect in several cases. So that might be -- 
 Let me get back, for example, to the other example, which was the YouTube from
 Africa that Nii mentioned.  And he said I want to do it in a business
 perspective.  And this is true.  But maybe you discover that in a pure business
 perspective, maybe you want to encode your content and through TRM, trusted
 mechanisms.  And discover you get some control on what content gets published. 
 There's not really a socially neutral decision.  Everything you take has a
 social impact.  And even the technology has.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Nii.

 >>NII QUAYNOR:   I have no problems with social impact if it's constructive.  I
 also don't believe that everything needs to be necessarily done in the private
 sector.  In fact, a lot of the work that I do is not-for-profit, pan-African in
 nature.  So I don't have any difficulties there. I mean, for me, though, the
 real issue is that Africa needs to move, and move quickly. And so any long
 discussions really become not constructive for us. So it's more about, you
 know, what assistance or what directions or what issues if we resolve will
 allow us to accelerate our delivery of the net to the 95% excluded.  That's
 really what the real focus for us is.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Before we go to Bob, anyone want to join in?  This is not just
 about Africa.  It's about emerging issues in the developing world.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:   I'm sorry, I know we moved on a little bit, but to clarify my
 question earlier was, actually, a comment, which was I had sent in, which is
 that in my country in Pakistan, the YouTube was used to put our opinions to say
 what we felt about a draft cybercrime bill that.  Led to enough whipping up of
 support and lobbying in policy that led to the government to actually change,
 make changes and give us a seat at the table, discuss with business and civil
 society and change the legislation.  So democratization, YouTube, Web 2.0 came
 together here. And it can work in nondemocratic as well as democratic
 governments.  Thank you.

 >>NIK GOWING:   What about the hybrid nation, nondemocratic, democratic, those
 in between?

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:   I think -- since I'm from Pakistan, he's trying to refer to
 me.  I still consider ourselves a democratically elected national assembly at
 the moment.  I won't go into that at the moment.  There's a hybrid, because you
 have a declaration of emergency.  It had an impact on my government, the
 government of Pakistan as well.  It was not like Burma, we were allowed to
 basically send out, even in these times right now, to give call-ins to the
 (saying name) society, to the U.S., et cetera, to talk about the situation in
 Pakistan.  I'm a lawyer.  We did that even the last few weeks.  The Internet
 made a very huge impact on democratic values and changes.

 >>NIK GOWING:   The emerging issue is --

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:   The emerging issue would be the maintenance of the
 availability and openness and freedom of expression of the Internet.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Fine.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:   To developing countries.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Anyone else want to join in? My eyes -- forgive me, I didn't
 see you. Microphone there, please.  Anyone else?  Couple more? Please.

 >> I will speak Portuguese. I think this is an emerging question. In the
 developing countries, at least in Latin America, as far as I can tell from the
 workshop in Africa, the need for governments of these two continents, together
 with civil society and the private sector, get organized as a forum, a
 governance forum for local Internet so as to be able to face these problems
 regarding access, problems of inequalities in supply, prices, interconnections,
 et cetera. So the set -- the agenda, the whole agenda we have dealt with is
 proper for the governments of these continents to discuss this globally every
 year, and that, locally, there's no integrated action with a view to face the
 situation and to ensure in Africa that the 95% who have no Internet, they may
 have Internet.  And then Latin America, Brazil, be solidarity to Bolivia and
 Colombia.  Because if we're going to expect an international change, we're
 going to be here our whole lives.  That's what I wanted to say.  Thank you very
 much. [ Applause ]

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:   I wanted to take the issue of freedom of expression. 
 And, really, freedom in general, because the point is that the Internet is free
 in the way it was designed and this brings freedom of expression but also
 freedom of innovation and freedom of enterprise and all the effects we like.
 The problem, especially with freedom of expression, is that it's not a uniform
 concept.  So in certain societies, it's -- I mean, total freedom of expression
 and what you expect.  In other societies, you expect some restraint.  And
 there's all degrees in the middle. So we have to find a way -- and this is a
 difficult challenge, to find a sort of local solution in which any rules and
 principles you develop allow for local variations.  And this is true as well
 for social responsibility, as we were mentioning before, because there is no
 global society.  We're getting there, but we're not there yet.  So since you do
 not have a uniform global society, it's a social responsibility in regards to
 which social system.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Stefano Trumpy, where are you, please?  I'll come now a moment.
  On the Internet Bill of Rights, if you could give us just a brief summary.

 >>ADAMA SAMASSÉKOU: Yes, I should like to support my colleague from Brazil. 
 The points he made should be included as an emerging issue, as a methodology
 for the IGF. I believe that this morning we had discussions, and in fact the
 discussion which just followed here has also shown that it's important to go
 back to the level of regional preparations for the Internet Governance Forum. 
 It's fundamental. for us from going to Rio to New Delhi, that New Delhi is
 going to be Rio plus, just as Rio was Athens plus, we need to make sure that
 New Delhi is Rio plus, and need to encourage all of the regions of the world to
 better prepare for New Delhi so that those regions will be able to express what
 is for them their specificities, their characteristics.  Otherwise, the
 discussion today has raised a lot of issues, there's a lot of ideology on
 different sides, lots of issues specific to different regions that have been
 raised here. If we're going to build on the World Summit on the Information
 Society, which allowed all the stakeholders to come together and agree on the
 need to ensure that our information society is an inclusive society, if we're
 going to build on that -- just one point.

 >>NIK GOWING:   (No audio)....  This morning.  And I think there's an
 understanding of that principle.

 >>ADAMA SAMASSÉKOU:   I think it is an emerging issue.  Why?  We need to see
 what's merging from the discussions of that session.  It is an emerging issue. 
 I would like to put it as an emerging issue. The fact is, I would like to
 propose to the secretariat to take into account what is going on now and to
 propose from January or February in their meeting to all the economic
 commissions, regional economic commissions of the U.N. to help the regions New
 Delhi in order for us to have all the governments, all the civil society, all
 the private sector needed in order to for them to come to New Delhi with issues
 to boost the process.

 >>NIK GOWING:   All right.

 >>ADAMA SAMASSÉKOU:   It's not a negotiating process, I agree.  But we need to
 come out with some key issues which shows that we are progressing in the
 process of getting Internet, real democratic tool for societies.

 >>NIK GOWING:   I want to add Bob Kahn in a moment, but quickly, Mr. Trumpy. 
 On the Internet Bill of Rights.

 >>STEFANO TRUMPY:   Okay.  Listening to this interesting discussion, I have to
 strengthen even more an emerging issue that is a converging focus on Internet
 rights. And this is very important.  And a number of dynamic coalitions have
 been directing the focus on Internet rights, in particular, the Italian
 government proposed the Internet Bill of Rights. And what is emerging here is
 that there should be perhaps a converge -- a coalition of coalitions on bill of
 rights in order to focus, especially in view of the work in the next forums,
 and, in particular, this coalition of bill of rights was supported by the
 government of Italy and government of Brazil. But I want to insist on the fact
 that it is important to have multistakeholder coalitions, where also NGOs and
 the public sector is engaging in this important study. Thank you.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Thank you very much, indeed, Stefano. Last word and then Bob.

 >>VINT CERF:   It strikes me that what we just uncovered in addition to the
 notion of an Internet Bill of Rights is the notion of Internet responsibility.
 And what I see emerging out of some of this discussion is literally a law of
 the net, which may take a very long time to figure out, but some things are
 going to have to be globally accepted as responsibilities for using this
 technology.  And similarly we have to arrive at agreements about what rights
 people have to use it. And finally, I think we have to split local conditions
 and local practices from the ones that we would like to have globally. One tiny
 example for law enforcement, there may be some things that we really need to
 did on a global basis, we have to agree that people have to be responsible on a
 global scale for certain actions and that we will globally enforce failure to
 observe those responsibilities. That may lead us into a fairly complex
 territory, just like the law of the sea.  But it may be that we need a matrix
 like that in order to work all this out.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vint, thank you. Bob, then Bob.

 >>ROBERT PEPPER:   So very quickly, going back to our friend from Brazil.  All
 right, so maybe an emerging issue is the core beginning issue, so it's back to
 the future, which is about how do you connect the 95% of the people in Africa,
 how do you connect the next 4 billion.  And it is about access. And so going
 back to the supply and demand, it is both supply and demand. The problem is we
 don't yet have sufficient supply in many parts of the world.  And IGF -- a key
 focus going back to IGF and WSIS is about the benefits of Information Society
 to everybody.  And it's a development issue.  It's attracting capital for
 development.  It's public/private partnerships.  It's not just government, it's
 not just the private sector.  It's both. So an emerging issue is how do we
 foster the public/private partnerships for investment to provide service to
 those who are not served and who do not have it available.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Literally ten seconds, Andrew.

 >>ANDREW KEEN:   I love what Vint said about rights and responsibilities.  I
 just hope, though, that they won't be established by an artificial algorithm. 
 That human beings will actually build those rights and responsibilities.

 >>NIK GOWING:   We have a fascinating axis across this table, don't we. Thank
 you for your patience.  Bob, we have 25 minutes to run.  Thank you.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   The last speaker before we head into the end discussion in
 closing session always faces the burden of an absolute limitation burden on
 time and I would like to thank the moderator for allowing us time for this part
 of the discussion. In previous comments that I have made during the course of
 the WSIS process, I have addressed the importance of research and development
 in the evolution of the net as we know it. What I want to do today is to
 reflect on how new technology and advances in R & D can effect change in the
 Internet as we know it, both today and in the future. The Internet embodies the
 basic notion of open architecture with defined interfaces and protocols that
 allow for the interconnection of diverse systems into a functioning whole. And
 this aspect of the Internet really needs to be preserved going forward in the
 future. But other aspects of the Internet system as we know it really need to
 be allowed to evolve. As we originally envisioned the term "open," it reflected
 the capability for this interconnection between different networks and
 computers.  But it has evolved to encompass also the structuring of units of
 information and managing such data structures.  And in this regard the role of
 software companies, authors and information service providers has become much
 more prominent in recent years. We should embrace both developing and
 maintaining open architectures to reinforce the multistakeholder approach
 that's been so successful in the Internet to a date. We should make sure we
 accommodate linguistic and other forms of cultural diversity, and that's a
 technological as well as a social comment. And we should do what we are able to
 do in creating new functionality, perhaps even enabling the introduction of
 radically new capabilities into the Internet, provided they give us worthwhile
 benefits. And this new functionality is most effectively introduced on a
 holistic basis, globally, by making use of existing worldwide infrastructure
 such as the Internet itself. This is a technique that we often call
 bootstrapping.  Governments as well as the private sector organizations and
 individuals have a role to play in enabling such changes. But I want to point
 out that fundamental change is very difficult to accomplish, and at the same
 time, it is both essential and inevitable. There is nothing that stands still
 with the passage of time, and yet there are basic reasons why such change in a
 big infrastructure like this is so difficult. I don't have time to go into all
 the details due to the lack of time here, but let me just say the standards
 process plays an essential role in this whole activity. Today, the
 responsibility for parts of the standards process rests with a number of
 organizations, each of which has managed to carve out its own area of
 responsibility, often by very different means. Sometimes they even overlap.
 There are many such organizations.  They oversee a very large set of
 technologies, including equipment, services, software, and more. Yet such
 bodies in essence form a kind of bureaucracy of their own, married to the very
 technologies for which they are responsible.  And it therefore becomes very
 hard for such bodies to embrace radical change, particularly architecture
 change that threatens the very technology that they have the charge to oversee.
 So how does such change occur in the face of resistance by these highly
 competent bodies? Historically, such change has occurred in very small steps,
 often taken by cooperating parties, at least in part operating outside the
 normal system of standards, and then by leveraging the infrastructure that is
 available to them to bootstrap it. But that by itself doesn't really change
 things because of other problems that can show up down the pike. Governments,
 of course, can effect things in their own countries, but my experience is it's
 only when companies are willing to put significant investment into new and
 demonstrably better technology and approaches and get behind such efforts that
 they generate the necessary momentum. Well, how do such cooperative efforts
 gain critical mass in this world?  Often it's leadership by a single company or
 a single person within that company, or possibly a small set of companies.
 Often it's the combined efforts of the research community including government
 funding agencies to demonstrate the power of a new technology. My preference is
 for the existing standards organizations, including private and governmental
 organizations, to impress the importance of these new possibilities, since they
 are already set up to leverage them both financially and organizationally. But
 the reality is that the opportunities may not seem large or important enough at
 the time, and they may be counterculture to those existing bodies.  Thus it
 will devolve to the entrepreneurly motivated to determine how best to support
 the growth of their new technologies in coordination with the existing
 standards bodies where appropriate. Although major changes have been made to
 many aspects of the Internet, the basic structure remains resistant to major
 change from within. In some ways this is a feature that ensures the ongoing
 stability of the net, but certain changes on the other hand, may be desirable
 in the future that are very difficult to accommodate within those existing
 structures. That being said, it is important that the notion of open
 architecture be maintained and that interoperability of systems be enabled. But
 other aspects of the Internet should be subject to reevaluation over time as
 circumstances require. So one question for this body to consider, going
 forward, is the process by which major structural change can occur going
 forward.  When it's not able to be done through the normal standard processes.
 This will be no doubt driven by ideas, but there is no mechanism by which we
 can predict where the next newly, truly significant idea will come from. I
 personally look forward to the further unleashing of creativity and innovation
 not only in science and technology but in identifying the need for organization
 and social processes that can broaden the capabilities and promise of the
 Internet in the future and I welcome discussion on these and other related
 topics, both here and in other gives that are made possible through the efforts
 of the IGF and its organizers. Thank you very much.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Bob, thank you. That question, then, how to make change work
 within existing processes [ Applause ]

 >>NIK GOWING:   Commentary.  Vint.

 >>VINT CERF:   It's an interesting thing to observe that before the Internet
 existed, there was another very big communication system called the telephone
 system.  And of course it's still with us.  But it's being fairly dramatically
 affected by the presence of Internet and its ability to carry voice. It seems
 to me that the way Bob describes it, you can use the existing Internet as a
 scaffolding to design and build something new. It's been done before, and that
 may be exactly the path that has to be taken for the next kind of network, if
 it isn't going to be exactly the Internet itself. I'm assuming, Bob, that you
 are not arguing that the next generation of communication systems necessarily
 has to follow the existing Internet architecture, or are you?

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   I mean, I had more remarks on detailed structural comments
 here, but let me just say, roughly, that the only thing I am asserting is that
 open architecture really needs to survive.  That interoperability is key to
 what the Internet is, that we need to work through existing standards bodies to
 the extent possible but we need to understand how to make change happen, when
 it can't happen naturally within the purview of those existing bodies. So I am
 in favor of allowing creativity and innovation to flourish.  I have no
 particular commitment to any one structure, technology, or whatever, as long as
 this issue of interoperability and open architecture, the ability of any of the
 citizens of the world to be able to communicate freely and effectively over the
 Internet can be maintained.

 >>VINT CERF:   So if I could jump in here, it seems to me that most of the
 interesting changes to the applications in the Internet have not come out of
 standards making activity.  It has come out of people just trying things out,
 and testing them and making them work.  And if they work out well enough, then
 sometimes they get standardized. But it may very well be that a standards
 practice is not the best way to effect change.  It's only the best way to
 document it so that other people can participate.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   Yeah, if I could just say, what I was focusing on was not so
 much how to build applications on the net, how to build businesses on the net. 
 What I was talking about was how we make fundamental change to the underlying
 architecture of the network itself, which can't really be done effectively
 outside the net when it involves the very structure of the net that you are
 using itself. And so that's, I think, an issue that we are going to have to
 deal with going forward.  And I think it is an important issue for us to be
 able to understand as time goes by.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vint, what did you mean by the scaffolding for something new? 
 That's not the new structure, but it's the way you build that new structure. I
 have been standing here for the last two minutes trying to work out what you
 mean by that.

 >>VINT CERF:   Okay.  So let me just take the specific case in point. Before
 the Internet architecture was put together we used something called the NCP
 protocols of the ARPANET.  And we used that to communicate with the pieces of
 the Internet that weren't working yet. So the whole idea was that we used the
 ARPANET as a scaffolding to build the Internet.  And I'm guessing that we could
 use the Internet as a scaffolding to build the next generation of system,
 whatever the heck it looks like, until it gets working.  And then you take the
 scaffolding down. You do this with buildings all the time. And Bob, I wasn't
 specifically trying to limit my comments to applications.  What I was trying to
 get as is that standards-making bodies are not necessarily very creative. 
 That's not where the inventions take place.  The inventions take place
 someplace else, in research institutions and people's garages.  And it's only
 after something works that you worry about making standards for them.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   Surely you know that I know that, Vint, so you must be making
 that point for the audience. The fact of the matter is the issue of scaffolding
 as you described it and as I think the moderator described it is exactly what I
 was thinking about, and that bootstrapping is a very critical technique to use.
 The Internet was created by essentially bootstrapping on the existing
 telecommunications infrastructure.  We saw how various services could be
 brought on top of the Internet by literally bootstrapping on top of that.  We
 saw it in some conferencing services and the like. I certainly would never make
 the argument that the standards bodies are the promoters of all the new change.
  They tend to be a facilitating mechanism for the most part. But there are some
 things that are hard to do within the existing standards process.  And that's
 the challenge that we have to deal with in the future.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Before I go to Fred, is there anyone out there who is burning
 to say something which we haven't yet mentioned?  I'll come back to you in a
 moment. I want to know how many people want to speak. Three, four, five. Fred,
 and Demi.

 >>FRED BAKER:   So you are trying to figure out what this would look like. Two
 examples that are going on right now are planet lab and the European
 Commission's fire program.  Planet lab runs over the existing Internet and it
 allows researchers to play with new ideas and then spin them out into other
 things.  And the fire program sits down and funds the development of new parts
 of the network using technologies that are developed over time. So those are
 examples of the bootstrapping. Now, specific to the infrastructure, Bob, are
 you looking at ways to replace things like I.P. itself or replace things like
 DNS itself?  What are the specific infrastructure elements that you would like
 to change that you are having trouble with in the standards bodies?

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   Certainly it's not to try and change I.P. or DNS or any
 specific thing. I was raising the general question as to how you introduce new
 capabilities. Fred, you probably recall from your days even in the IETF that
 there are some things that the IETF refused to consider just because it wasn't
 within their purview of what was relevant and important at the time. And I'm
 sure that happens in every other standards body. When we first approached the
 folks dealing with international standards about getting involved with TCP/IP,
 Vint and I were both involved in that back in the '80s, there was a total
 commitment to a different set of protocols. TP zero and TP2 and TP4.  And
 essentially we were afforded no room for maneuver within that group, which is
 why the IETF was set up in the first place. So I am just saying that existing
 bodies can, in fact, become captive to the very things that they are overseeing
 and make it impossible for new and interesting ideas to flourish, not in terms
 of replacement but in parallel with what's going on so new ideas can flourish.
 The whole idea of the Internet, when we started it, was to -- in fact, the
 ARPANET before that was to allow grass-roots, bottom-up ideas.  And the
 Internet has gotten so established now that it's very difficult for that to
 happen as it did once in the past.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Vittorio.

 >>VITTORIO BERTOLA:   Thank you. I actually agree with the point Vint and Bob
 was making but we should get to the point where we recognize a sort of right to
 innovation at the edges.  So we say we expect people to continue being able to
 innovate at the edge and put a PC in their garage and try something new. This
 is very important for the Internet we will build. And we should also get to the
 point where we have some clearly formalized principles for the standards making
 processes that ensure that they don't crystallize too much as well, so they are
 able to respond to change, to be inclusive and not become an obstacle in the
 way of changes.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Demi.

 >>DEMI GETSCHKO:   Going back to a more conceptual point, an optimistic
 comment. What we call the spirit of the Internet survived years and years and
 waves and waves of new customers and new applications. So without losing the
 collaborative fashion, the participation and the openness. Then I'm quite
 optimistic that even if we change structures and we change standards, this
 spirit will survive and we could be, in the next years, collaborative, open,
 and participating in the network.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Quick final word, Bob, on this.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   I am also optimistic that most of these issues can be worked
 out.  In fact, I think they have to be worked out before evolution and the
 inevitable is upon us. Change is just par for the course. I did want to just
 comment briefly on this notion of the right to innovate at the edges. I have
 often resisted the notion of defining an edge to the Internet, the flat-earth
 theory of the Internet, because the Internet encompasses the movement of bits,
 it has got computers at the edge and there is no clearly-defined boundary to it
 as I see it. You can define edges.  You can say where I.P. terminates and
 something else takes place, that's an edge but I don't see it that way. My view
 is every party to the Internet ought to be allowed to consider how to innovate
 within their space. So if you have the notion that the innovation takes place
 they edges, that sort of rules out a lot of the telecommunications industry
 from participating at a core level in some of this innovation. I wouldn't rule
 that out.  However, what I would say is to the extent that they participate by
 innovating within their nets, the first company that gets out of the starting
 gate with a real innovation is going to have a capability that nobody else has.
 So if we're not careful, we go down the path of possibly fragmenting the net in
 terms of using those capabilities. So I would consider, as one possibility, to
 require that fundamental changes that are made within a net have defined
 external specifications that other nets can connect.  Maybe with peer-to-peer
 agreements.  This is not an argument in favor of one company investing and then
 everybody else piggybacking off of that investment.  But that if there is a
 fundamental technology, there be way for other networks to become party of that
 at an external interface to their net.  They don't have to implement it within
 their net.  They may do it as an application.  They may leave it up to the
 users.  But today we have no mechanism to ensure that that kind of
 interoperability can happen when changes are made internal to a net that users
 then become dependent upon.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Bob, thank you. Let me just capture two or three more ideas. A
 microphone there.  Who has got a microphone as well?  Please.  Can you be as
 brief as possible?

 >>VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:   Vladimir Cavalcante.  I will make the question in
 Portuguese.

 >>NIK GOWING: (no audio).

 >>VLADIMIR CAVALCANTE:   Historically, the Internet comes into the lives of the
 countries which are here represented by actions, either connected to military
 knowledge or to scientific knowledge. In this sense, I would compare the future
 the future which was debated by the chair, with the future of the past and the
 future of the present., actually, we have to consider that countries which
 exist today in the real world with their laws and their mixes, their hybrids,
 between public and private, even one with their degree of state ownership or
 public services, have the Internet which has been the result of collaboration
 thanks to the scientific environment as a type of scientific cooperation.  That
 is, it has not replaced at no moment the real presence of the real countries
 which are here. The concrete issue is, when is it that the country codes,
 top-level domains, will become constituted in virtual countries, as Rio, for
 the countries who are here?

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   I am Carlos Afonso from RITS Brazil and the Internet
 Steering Committee in Brazil. I would like to ask Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn two
 questions.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Can you keep it very brief?  I want to hear your view on
 emerging issues.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Today we navigate and get information using search engines,
 and we very seldom use URLs, domain names. I wonder if this is the tip of the
 iceberg pointing to a new structure of addressing in which we no longer need
 domain names to find what we need. Is this a new paradigm we are going to?  And
 how this will evolve.  My question is to Vint and to Bob Kahn.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Can you give very quick answers, Vint and Bob.

 >>VINT CERF:   My quick answer is, yes, it's very possible that will happen. 
 And I point out that URLs have the bad characteristic that things disappear off
 of the Net.  They're not permanent references.  What we need are permanent
 references over time. So, in fact, I'm much in favor of reexamining how we
 identify things in the network so that no matter where they are, no matter
 which host they're on, we can find them, even if the domain names have changed.

 >>ROBERT KAHN:   This was a perfect opportunity for Vint to help plug our
 Handle System, but I see he didn't do that. So let me just say that that's
 actually an area that I've been working on for many years.  In fact, Vint and I
 started working on it back in the '80s in terms of mobile programs in the
 Internet.  And part of that, we came up with a digital object architect that I
 think was my attempt at a reconceptualization around managing content.  And it
 involves unique identifiers.  And there is a system on the net called the
 Handle System, it's on the handle.net site, that allows you to do exactly what
 you're talking about.  It's got many potential applications.  I won't try and
 even list a few of them today. But the fact of the matter is that URLs do have
 a very short half-lifetime.  And in five or ten years, most of them won't work
 at all.  The publishers got very interested.  Because in publishing and
 journals, they would like it to have the same effectiveness on an electronic
 bookshelf that a regular library has.  It's a stilted replication, because it's
 replicating the paper world in the electronic world.  But if you pull an
 electronic journal off the world many years from now, I guarantee you that the
 URLs will not work, but the Handle System might.

 >>NIK GOWING:   I'm prepared to take two more points, but no more changes
 because then I have to hand to Markus and the chair.  A quick point.

 >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA:   My name is Naomasa Maruyama.   I'm an advocate of open
 standard.  I think panelists are discussing about these standards and process
 for the open standard.  But I want to give another aspect for this open
 standard. How the people work for the open standards will be awarded.  There is
 intellectual property, so-called intellectual property.  I always feel that is
 some kind of threat to the open standard.  How the people working for the open
 standards will be awarded.  This is my question.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Right.  An emerging issue.  I'm not going to give you a chance
 to answer unless I'm given time, chairman.  But we're approaching 4:00.

 >>GADI EVRON:   I would like to key back to specifically what Mr. Kahn said,
 which is critical, returning to infrastructure and standardization. Today on
 the Internet we have issues we are all aware of, such as massive DDOS attacks,
 denial of service attacks, massive fraud with millions of U.S. dollars being
 lost I would say hourly around the world. And what I would like to key back to
 infrastructure is that all these millions of incidents happening moment by
 moment, hour by hour, not year by year, are nothing we can do -- there is
 nothing we can do about those.  Because -- I know, because I actually am one of
 the people who respond to this.  And how I bring this back to (inaudible) and
 infrastructure is by background noise.  This is all background noise.  We don't
 hear how the Internet works.  And that's great.  But this background noise
 increases, well, I can honestly say that on a political level in many cases
 there is no cybercrime problem because we are not aware of it.  Background
 noise increases, awareness decreases, and the people who deal with this daily
 are volunteers.  They should move to standardization with more serious people,
 and I will end by saying that here in the IGF there have been several meetings
 on CIR, critical Internet resources, and that's amazing we're finally aware of
 this, but these are mainly about ICANN and where it should stand.  And I
 believe a key issue should be about what are our infrastructures that we care
 about for the Internet, what are the global infrastructure the Internet brings,
 such as, for example, rewarding research that not just Google or the routing
 system or the root servers, but, rather, if the Internet goes down today, I
 promise you it's not going to die tomorrow, if the Internet dies tomorrow, the
 only medium we have to bring it back up is the Internet itself.  Thank you for
 these points, although I am extrapolating from what you said, Mr. Kahn.

 >>NIK GOWING:   Legal issues concerning Internet 2.0, the legality of
 user-generated content and contentious issues concerning content posted on
 abstract concepts like second life.com giving rise to, quote, real-life legal
 disputes. Chairman, there is the debate.  A lot of emerging issues, probably
 many more. What have you made of it, Markus?

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you, Nik.  My take is that we have enough for many
 years to come.  We have a long list of issues.  And I think they provide for
 interesting discussions and sessions. We were also reminded there are different
 perspectives, depending on where you come from, whether you're from the
 developed world or from developing countries. On one of these issues,
 anonymity, different views are held whether it's good or bad in the developed
 world, whether it helps democracy or undermines democracy.  But, clearly, I
 felt that every speaker underlined how important it can be in developing
 countries, with limits, limitations on the freedom of expression. Also, Nii
 reminded us that the African perspective is somewhat different, and there
 access remained the number-one issue.  Access certainly is not an emerging
 issue, but we have -- must not forget that it is an important issue for many
 countries. One issue that seems to be really an emerging issue in this Rio
 meeting is the interlinkages with sustainable development.  You may recall that
 the chairman of Fujitsu at the opening session referred to the importance of
 taking into consideration the environmental impact of ICTs.  And one panelist
 also point out that ICTs and the Internet can actually help us to reduce
 emissions. I will not go through the long list of issues.  But it seems there
 was a focus, a strong focus, on the responsibilities, on the responsibilities
 of users.  And one of the cross-cutting issues throughout this Rio meeting was
 the borderless nature of the Internet and the fact that we have national
 regulations, national legislations that are different. So how to regulate a
 global medium in a society which is not yet global seems to be an issue that
 will remain with us, I think, for many years to come. There are different ways
 of how to -- different proposals of how to deal with it.  Do we need
 regulations?  Is it enough if you have self-regulations?  Or do we need
 something in between?  What I would call some soft Internet governance, a
 collaborative, multistakeholder effort. The law of the sea was mentioned.  A
 word of caution.  It took about 20 years to negotiate the treaty.  I think we
 don't have the time.  I think we need something more urgent.  Maybe the
 initiative of the Internet Bill of Rights will bring us further in this regard.
 Before I hand back to the chair for his concluding remarks, a word of
 housekeeping.  While the panelists will be leaving the panel, I ask you to
 remain seated.  We will set up the new panel for the closing sessions. But
 there are a few speakers, not only a few, there's a long list of speakers who
 said they wanted to take the floor.  I would appeal on all of them to -- not to
 insist, because we simply don't have the time.  The interpreters work in
 three-hour shifts.  And at 5:00, they will be finished. I would appeal to them
 to make their submissions to us electronically, and we will post them on the
 Web site. However, I was asked to read out a comment from a representative for
 the council of the European Union for the record.  And I'm given to understand
 that there are also representatives of the Russian Federation, Switzerland, and
 Azerbaijan, who would like to make a statement.  And we can give them the
 opportunity to do so while we wait for the panel to be set up. So, please,
 those three representatives, come to the front rows, and we can give you a
 microphone while the panelists leave the panel. With this, Mr. Chairman, I hand
 back to you.

 >>AUGUSTO GADELHA VIEIRA:   Thank you very much. I think this was a very
 exciting session, and I think it crowned very well the whole IGF in Rio. We had
 many topics here which actually points that we're in a part of the evolution of
 the Internet where now we have to worry about the effects that the Internet has
 on mankind and people and how it affects, actually, all the aspects of social
 behavior in the world. So many of the issues that were put here I think had
 that characteristic.  But Bob Kahn actually reminded us that technology also
 plays a big role on this.  And something will change and will have to change if
 you want the new world and new things to happen with a new Internet-type
 environment. And so these are issues which are really issues for the future and
 are issues that we should consider in our later discussions in IGF. So I would
 like to thank Mr. Gowing for the brilliant conduct of the discussions.  I would
 like to thank all the participants of this table.  I would like to thank the
 presence of you, after such long hours, two hours of very nice and very
 interesting discussions on future themes for IGF and the Internet in general.
 Thank you very much for you.  And we will see you in a few minutes.  Thank you.
 [ Applause ]

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   I will start reading.  The panelists may leave the panel. I
 will read out a statement for the record by the representative of the council
 of the European Union. The multistakeholder nature, the role and experience of
 the advisory group has been instrumental in moving the IGF forward.  It is,
 therefore, of crucial importance that the advisory group starts the preparation
 of the next IGF in Delhi as soon as possible, also taking into account the
 tasks of the advisory group as set out in the Secretary-General's decision.
 This ends the comment of the European Union. Can I ask those three speakers who
 asked for the floor to come forward so we can give them a microphone. Please
 take your seats and stay seated while. Please, order, order, order, order. 
 Ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. The meeting is continuing.  It was not
 adjourned.  It was just the panelists leaving the panel. Please, a microphone,
 please, to the gentleman, the representative from Azerbaijan. (Gavel.)

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Please, the delegate from Azerbaijan has the floor.  Two
 minutes, if possible.

 >> FUAD NASIROV:  Thank you very much for giving me the floor. I am a
 representative of Republic of Azerbaijan, of Ministry of Communication and
 Information Technology. Distinguished panel members, dear participants,
 Azerbaijan, with great opportunities for expansion of industry, of information
 technologies, nowadays is the most dynamic developing country of the region.
 Our strategy is to transfer all avenues to non-oil sector of economy as well to
 ICT.  We see ICT tools for democratization of society, and we understand only
 ICT could play a role of granting the new platform of dialogue between
 civilization, nation, and countries, as we see it here in the forum. And, once
 again, as we proposed in Athens, we want to reassure that if Azerbaijan will be
 selected as a host country for the IGF 2010, we'll spare no efforts to organize
 the meeting at the highest international standards. Thank you very much. [
 Applause ]

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  The delegate from the Russian Federation, please, you
 have the floor, sir.

 >> KONSTANTIN NOVODEREJHKIN:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for giving me this
 opportunity to speak.  I'd like to start by saying on behalf of the delegation
 of the Russian Federation words of thanks to the host country, Brazil, thanks
 to the organizational committee, and to the secretariat of the forum, the
 advisory group of the forum, and to all participants for this really exciting
 and -- forum full of results. I think it's been very well organized. However,
 the mandate of the advisory group expires with the end of the forum.  I'd like
 to support my Brazilian colleagues in this connection with a view to making the
 advisory group more transparent and more open.  We have a number of proposals
 on principles for the establishment of the advisory group. There are three
 simple but important principles.  The first principle is clear criteria for the
 membership of the advisory group.  The second principle is to ensure a rotation
 in the membership of the advisory group and to keep the -- to build on
 experience and continue to (inaudible) the members of the group. And the third
 principle is equal participation by governments, business, and civil society on
 the basis of the geographical principle of the geographical distribution. We
 will bring this proposal to the U.N. Secretary-General and will ask it to be
 taken into account in establishing the new advisory group.  I would like to
 express the hope that this proposal and also our proposal supported by a number
 of countries on the advisability of creating a special working group, an ad hoc
 working group to develop practical steps for transition of the Internet
 governance system to bring it under the control of the international community,
 including the administration of critical Internet resources, will also be
 reflected in the final document of this forum. We ask for two proposals to be
 reflected in the final document of the forum.  Thank you.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   (No audio) is adjourned while we're waiting for the
 panelists to come -- I do apologize. The meeting is not adjourned.  There seems
 to be another speaker. Sorry.  There is also the delegate from Switzerland, who
 will give a short statement.

 >> Thank you.  I was supposed to take the floor, actually, this morning.  It
 wasn't possible for me to speak this morning. I should like, perhaps, to raise
 a subject, if I may, which is a bit down to earth, but I think is of interest
 to everyone.  I'm referring to the financing of the secretariat of the IGF.
 Under the auspices of Switzerland, very early this morning, we brought together
 the main donors, and we went around the table of the main donors, and we saw
 that there were good prospects for financing the secretariat of the IGF for the
 coming period.  I'd like to remind you that without the secretariat of the IGF,
 we would not be able to be here.  The work done by Markus Kummer and his team
 really needs to be supported. In accordance with our wish expressed this
 morning, in fact, on the Web site, there will be higher visibility of the, and
 the secretariat will comply with this request for higher visibility for
 financing on the Web site. I'd like to take this opportunity to appeal for new
 donors.  I can tell you already that we will have an opportunity to go round
 the donors once again during the advisory group in February in Geneva.  While I
 have the floor, I would like to make one or two comments from the Swiss
 delegation to say how highly we have appreciated the forum as it is organized
 today, the format of openness and exchange, of dialogue.  And, particularly, we
 appreciate the multistakeholderism of the IGF. We don't want to have any
 binding procedures.  We want to retain the spontaneity of the forum. Ever since
 -- as was said this morning, for New Delhi, we need to pay more attention to
 the dynamic coalitions in order to better prepare the agenda for New Delhi.  I
 think that has good support. We have said a great deal.  We have had a lot of
 discussions here, very good suggestions that have been made here should be
 taken up and used elsewhere.  That is why we believe that we can draw
 inspiration from what we have heard here and use that in other major bodies.
 Let me just say, for example, here that the OECD is convening its conference on
 the future of Internet in Seoul in June next year and can drawn inspiration on
 what's been said on some subjects here for that meeting.  The Council of Europe
 is having a ministerial conference of the ministers of the media in Rejkovic in
 2009.  And I think since the issue of critical to the media is an issue for the
 future, I think that could also be a useful input -- we can have useful input
 from what we heard today for that meeting. Also let me mention, IFAP,
 Information for All, of UNESCO, which I think can also seek great inspiration
 in what we have discussed here, and also the ITU when it deals with security
 issues. In conclusion, then, I would call upon all the thematic and regional
 bodies, as has already been some people here, should take heed of what has been
 said here and use it to the advantage of everyone.  Thank you very much.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:  ....  Those who were not given the opportunity to say what
 they had to say in the taking stock sayings, they will have the ability to give
 input online.  We will start now a consultation on taking stock of Rio on what
 worked well, what worked less well, asking suggestions on how to move forward. 
 So we will all have the opportunity to give an electronic input. And could I
 invite the speakers for the closing ceremony to join us on the podium, and the
 other participants to go back to their seats so that we can start the
 proceedings of the closing ceremony. [ Adjourned ]