- Subjects for IGF: spam and multiligualism. (Korea);
- Subject for IGF: Issue is more complex than "capacity-building;" the real issue is bridging the digital divide. Said that the term "capacity building" is "reductionist." The issue tabled by the G77 is broader than this. The issue calls for a focus on economic and social development issues, people-centered and inclusive information society. Looking for a development-oriented agenda. Wants to have another consultation on these issues in one month. (G77 and China);
- Noted that we have very few official delegations present from Africa and even fewer NGOs and Civil Society groups from Africa. How can we talk about inclusive processes when such groups are on the sidelines from the beginning? (Senegal);
- Spoke to difficulties in Africa with capacity for dealing with Internet issues. Subjects for IGF: Capacity building, cultural and language diversity, privacy, intellectual property rights, free and open source software, e-Goverment, e-Eductaion. (Economic Commission for Africa);
- Pledges support from a new non-profit, Geneva Net Dialogue, that would support the IGF by providing an online working space and background documents. (Mary Rundle, Geneva Net Dialogue);
- Proposes interative, structured process for agreeing on agenda. Open call for suggestions on subjects for consideration at IGF. (Bertrand de la Chapelle, WSIS Online);
- Subjects for IGF: Spam and multilingualism. For IGF to be a success, the Internet Community itself must be viewed as the primary stakeholder. (Axil Pawlik, RIPE-NCC);
- I didn't understand what he said. (Jeremy Beale, Confederation of British Industry);
- Spoke to the fact that Geneva is difficult to reach from many parts of the world. How do you build a forum on an equal basis when physical access is difficult. Emphasized the importance of having the Internet's technical community involved. Subjects for IGF: Cybercrime, spam, costs of interconnection, privacy, capacty building, multilingualism. (Raul Echeberria, LACNIC);
- Supports G77 proposal for another round of meetings, perhaps following GAC meeting in Wellington. Believes the IGF needs to be longer than three days. Once you complete the open ceremony and the national speeches, no time will be left. (much laughter) (Brazil);
- As far as dates for the IGF, the Secretariat will decide. Greece believes in light structures. As the host country, wants to keep the meeting dynamic and interesting. (Greece);
- Emphasizes multistakeholder nature of IGF. Need slim, multistakeholder programme committee that works in a transparent manner. Limit the number of physical meetings and emphasize remote participation. Physical meetings should focus on limited number of subjects. (European Union);
- First event should use tools such as real time transcription and Internet communications to enable remote participation. (Allen Miller, WITSA);
- At the first IGF in Greece, we should move to substance immediately. Must agree on procedures ahead of time so time in Greece is not wasted. Must have the topics for Greece set in advance. Subjects for IGF: Should focus on a handful of topics: spam, cybercrime, multilingualism. Only three. (Switzerland);
- Should have focused discussions and publish the proceedings of the IGF widely. Planning meetings should be open to all stakeholders and noticed far in advance. (CCBI);
- Marcus Kummer: The timeline on the website is tentative. Worked backwards from proposed meeting dates to prepare a draft timeline. Will be almost impossible to get facilities from the UN for another meeting in Geneva in the Spring. Perhaps have the Programme Committee in place by end of May. Paramount concern is to respond to the deadlines put in place by WSIS;
- Size of Programme Committee or other IGF eadership groups should be sufficiently large to allow developing nations to participate. (Morocco);
- Remind participants of the purpose and originas of WSIS: to respond to the developing world's IT needs. (GIIC);
- Cuba would like to underscore what the G77 said yesterday. Supports the G77's recommendation for a second round of consultations. Underscore the fact that the Forum is a product of WSIS; we're not starting from scratch. Tunis Agenda gives us guidance on what the Forum should look like. (Cuba);
- Respond to comment from Mr. Kummer about a second round of consultation. We have time between now and the third week of March for a second round. No agreement within the G77 on the idea of a "Programme Committee." Needs further discussion within the Group of 77 and China (Pakistan);
- Forum should use webcasting and translations for all languages. Should be able to listen to the proceeds in the six UN languages. (ISOC-France);
- Will the Forum propose a model for the study and management of the Internet Governance process? Are we convinced that the purpose of the IGF is to faciliate access to the Internet and achieve better communication among peoples? Do we agree that the discussions should focus on the needs of the common Internet user in the developing nations? Supports the creation of an online forum to prepare for the meetings. (Holy See);
- All participants should make greater effort to present their materials in multiple languages. We all have an effort to make here: civil society, private sector and governments. Language should not be a factor of exclusion. (Unidentified speaker);
- Need to address the definition of "stakeholder." Need to address global participation. Suggested national IGFs which would allow local participation. The local IGFs would feed into the main IGF. Subjects for IGF: Capacity building, digital inclusion, security and privacy, national content and preserving national identity, IDNs. (Gate Information Technology Society);
- IGF should focus on substance, not ceremony. Technical experts will not site for speeches and ceremony. (Federation for a Free Information Infrastructure);
- Welcomes multistakeholder participation. Rules of participation for UN should not apply. Traditional rules of intergovernmental organizations should not be applicable to the IGF. Important that the IGF succeed; it should look for positive outcomes and not focus on the most divisive issues for its first meeting. (Francis Urbany, Bell South);
- Subject for IGF: Focus on Best Practices. Should have a multistakeholder programme committee with rotating co-chairs. Who are the principle stakeholders? The Internet Community itself should be viewed as a distinct, principal stakeholder. Proposes a collaborative, online forum, but should not require participants to engage in a continuous dialogue. Must be sensitive to time constraints. (ISOC);
- The vast majority of participants live and work outside Geneva. Should use Internet to coordinate planning and participation in advance of in person meetings. (Marilyn Cade;
- Must have serious substantive preparation for the in person meetings. Should use working groups. To succeed in October, need topics selected by May, with working groups selected to prepare the issues for the meeting. (David Allen, Collaboration for Communication Policy Research);
- What does "Multilingualism" mean? Need to define this. In software, we use the term to mean localization: the ability to allow individual customers to customize software to use their own language. On "spam," this is not so much a technical issue as a socio-economic issue. Technical solutions should not compromise interoperability. IGF should establish a set of agreed principles, such as interoperability. (Free Software Foundation Europe);
- Discussed principles set forth at www.tunismonamor.org (Vittorio Bertola).
2. Remaining uncertainty about exact dates forward. Sometime in October or November.
3. General agreement on a multistakeholder management process, which Chair will refer to as the "Programme Committee."
4. One idea is for a single committee with balanced representation, ensuring geographical balance. Another concept is for three bureaus. People have not been entirely explicit about how the committee will be selected.
5. What should the meeting do? Sees three viewpoints. One, vertical issues of spam and crime. Two, horizontal issues of Internet governance. Third, if it is the subject of some other process, it should not be the subject of IGF. (Opposition point is that any process that is not open should be the subject of the IGF open forum.) Disparity of views on whether to address controversial issues. Concerns from the emerging countries on the need to expand the definition of "capacity building." What do we mean by "development"?
6. Organization of the meeting: Plenary at the beginning and the end, with working sessions in between.
7. How do we reflect the multistakeholder management?Would like to focus on the composition of the program committee in the afternoon. It is possible that the second round of consultations be performed by the programme committee.
8. reliant on host countries, since the forum has no independent source of money. May want to use some aspects of UN procedures, like translation and working in six languages.
9. Money is an issue. The UN has no budget for this. What are the forum's costs? How will the costs be borne?
10. The Forum should be a learning experience, not a negotiating exercise.
