OPEN DIALOGUE WITH IGF LEADERSHIP PANEL

Maria Fernanda Garza

Maria Fernanda Garza is seeking help in identifying barriers that are hindering the achievement of the vision outlined in the ‘Internet We Want’ paper. This paper was recently worked on and presented, highlighting the importance of the International Governance Forum (IGF) members’ understanding of regional and global obstacles.

The sentiment surrounding this issue is positive, emphasizing the need to address these barriers to successfully realise the vision. One of the supporting facts underscores the significant role played by IGF members’ knowledge of specific regional and global obstacles in overcoming these challenges.

Maria Fernanda Garza believes that to expedite progress towards the desired outcomes, specific goals, appropriate measurement methods, and the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are necessary. These tools can help achieve faster progression towards the vision. This aligns with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, which emphasises the importance of advancing technology and connectivity.

In conclusion, Maria Fernanda Garza is looking to identify the barriers impeding the achievement of the vision presented in the ‘Internet We Want’ paper. By emphasising the significance of IGF members’ awareness of regional and global barriers and advocating for the establishment of specific goals, measurement methods, and KPIs, she aims to expedite progress towards the outlined vision. The discussions surrounding this topic are in line with SDG 9, which focuses on advancing industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

Audience

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) addressed various topics related to internet governance and connectivity. Private investment in rural and underserved communities was highlighted as a key issue for improving connectivity. It was noted that private companies and telecommunications companies often neglect these areas. Concerns were also raised about the monopolization of the internet industry, particularly its impact on media-related businesses and the dynamics of political participation and democracy. The importance of inclusivity and the multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance was emphasized, with the IGF seen as successful in addressing global internet policy development. The need for practical standards to reduce the internet’s environmental footprint and promote digitalization was discussed. Additionally, the role of internet and digital technology in empowering vulnerable groups, such as women, girls, migrants, and refugees, was highlighted. Suggestions for improving the IGF included simplifying the registration process, increasing remote participation, and providing additional resources and accessible tools. The discussions highlighted the importance of private investments in underserved communities, addressing monopolization, promoting inclusivity and multi-stakeholder collaboration, developing practical standards, and empowering vulnerable groups. There were also calls for improvements in the IGF itself to make it more inclusive and effective.

Hatem Dowidar

Universal service funds are being utilized in many countries to encourage telecommunications coverage in rural areas. These funds, which are generated through taxation imposed on telecommunications companies (telcos), are reinvested into initiatives that support the expansion of coverage in rural regions. Notably, the US government has pledged $40 billion to ensure coverage in rural areas.

Promoting sustainable investment in rural areas requires ongoing dialogue between government entities, regulators, and telcos. This collaboration aims to develop policies and strategies that promote the long-term viability and success of telecommunications projects in rural regions. By fostering open communication and cooperation, stakeholders can address challenges, identify opportunities, and establish a framework that encourages investment in infrastructure and services for rural communities. This approach is crucial for achieving SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

However, it is important to acknowledge the financial burdens and considerations telcos face when expanding coverage in rural areas. Some argue that telcos should not be solely responsible for such investments and should receive additional support, such as tax relief, to invest sustainably in rural areas. By providing financial assistance and incentives, telcos can be encouraged to allocate resources towards building and enhancing infrastructure in underserved regions. This perspective highlights the need to view telcos as more than just a source of revenue, but as partners in achieving equitable telecommunications access.

In conclusion, universal service funds play a vital role in encouraging telecommunications coverage in rural areas. The US government’s commitment of $40 billion reflects the importance placed on ensuring connectivity in remote regions. To promote sustainable investment, ongoing dialogue between government bodies, regulators, and telcos is necessary. This collaboration permits the development of policies and strategies that support long-term success. Furthermore, providing telcos with additional support, such as tax relief, can facilitate their investment in rural areas. By working together, stakeholders can strive towards achieving SDG 9 and bridging the digital divide in rural communities.

Hiroshi Yoshida

The analysis highlights several key points regarding the deployment of infrastructure in rural areas. One argument put forward is that the government should play a significant role in this process, as relying solely on private investment may not yield profitable outcomes. This suggests that there is a need for government support and intervention to ensure the development and implementation of infrastructure in rural areas.

Another potential solution is the use of universal service funds or subsidies. These mechanisms can provide financial support to companies or service providers, incentivising them to extend their coverage to rural areas. By offering incentives, it becomes more economically viable for these entities to invest in infrastructure in places where profitability may otherwise be low or uncertain.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the potential of new technologies, particularly non-terrestrial networks, in efficiently covering rural areas. These technologies, such as mobile technology, rail satellite networks, and high-altitude platform systems, have the capability to cover wide areas of 50 to 100 kilometres with just one system. This presents a promising option for overcoming the challenges posed by the vast and remote nature of rural areas.

Overall, the analysis suggests that a multifaceted approach combining government intervention, universal service funds or subsidies, and the adoption of new technologies is necessary to improve infrastructure coverage in rural areas. By recognising the limitations of private investment, exploring alternative financing options, and leveraging innovative technologies, it becomes possible to bridge the infrastructure gap and ensure equitable access to vital services for rural communities.

One noteworthy observation from the analysis is the emphasis on SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. This sustainable development goal highlights the importance of infrastructure development and innovation in achieving sustainable and inclusive growth. By aligning efforts with this goal, governments and stakeholders can work towards creating a more connected and prosperous future for both urban and rural areas.

In conclusion, while private investment alone may not be sufficient, the government’s involvement in deploying infrastructure in rural areas is crucial. The use of universal service funds or subsidies can also help improve coverage, and new technologies like non-terrestrial networks offer promising solutions. By adopting a comprehensive approach and aligning efforts with SDG 9, the goal of ensuring reliable and accessible infrastructure in rural areas can be achieved.

Vint Cerf

During a recent meeting, the importance of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was discussed, with several speakers expressing the need for its continuation. The leadership panel emphasised that the IGF should continue to assess the effectiveness of the Global Digital Compact. They believe that the forum plays a vital role in articulating the values needed for decision-making on the IGF’s future.

One of the main points highlighted was the need for feedback from IGF participants to further improve the forum. Participants were encouraged to share their experiences and suggestions during the meeting. The leadership panel stressed that they are interested in hearing from the participants and want to know what aspects they appreciate and would like to continue.

The issue of internet access, especially in rural areas, was also discussed. It was acknowledged that although internet penetration is generally good in the United States, rural areas still face challenges in terms of access. The leadership panel recognised that significant effort and funding are required to improve internet access in these underserved regions. In the United States, for example, the government is investing $40 billion to address this issue in rural areas.

Recognising the potential of low-Earth-orbiting satellite systems, the meeting highlighted how these systems could provide technical access to the internet anywhere. Starlink, for instance, plans to launch 40,000 satellites, and there are other anticipated LEO satellite systems as well. This development could greatly enhance internet connectivity, particularly in remote locations.

The meeting also touched upon the possibility of government subsidies to make internet service more affordable in rural areas. It was suggested that in the absence of competition, government support could be crucial in bringing internet access to these remote regions.

The issue of internet monopoly and economic concentration was raised, with the meeting acknowledging that it is not the leadership panel’s responsibility to solve the problem of businesses whose models have changed due to new technology. Instead, the leadership panel aims to facilitate discussions and bring together individuals who can consider various solutions to address these challenges.

National and regional internet governance activities were emphasised as being crucial in understanding and addressing local problems. Such activities were considered as important, if not more, than the annual IGF meetings due to their local focus. The meeting highlighted that these activities articulate the unique challenges faced at a local level and can contribute to more effective governance of the internet.

In terms of communication, email was mentioned as one of the available tools for providing input to the leadership panel. It was noted that email allows for direct and reliable communication with the panel, and the secretariat can invite comments and draw attention to important matters through this medium.

The partnership between the leadership panel and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) was recognised as crucial for the IGF’s functioning. It was acknowledged that the structure of the IGF would not exist without this partnership, emphasising the importance of collaboration and partnership in achieving the forum’s goals.

The meeting also discussed the need for more interaction with National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs). It was suggested that there should be personal visits to NRIs or regular correspondence with them to enhance connectivity and strengthen relationships.

A noteworthy idea that emerged during the meeting was the concept of individuals creating their own IP addresses and becoming their own Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This notion, presented by Christopher Tay from Connect Free and Internet 3, was deemed interesting and worth exploring. It was suggested that presenting this idea to the Internet Engineering Task Force could lead to further development and analysis.

The meeting recognized that increasing capacity from overhead satellites and undersea fiber would contribute to better internet access. This development points towards a positive trend in terms of improving internet connectivity worldwide.

Azerbaijan’s contribution to the IGF as the host was appreciated, highlighting the importance of partnerships and collaboration between countries in achieving the forum’s goals.

Lastly, the meeting reiterated and assured continued support for the multistakeholder model. The importance of multiple voices in global digital negotiations was emphasised, and the United Nations’ support towards a multistakeholder approach was appreciated.

Overall, the meeting generated various insights and proposals to improve the IGF. Suggestions included better meeting structure, reducing topic overlaps, and involving smaller states in hosting globally. There was a consensus that reforms are needed to conduct the IGF meetings more effectively, ensuring less chaos and more structure. These recommendations and observations aim to enhance the IGF’s impact and strengthen its role in internet governance.

Lise Fuhr

The analysis explores the importance of collective input and consultation with other communities in relation to the “Internet We Want” paper. Lise Fuhr emphasizes the need for outreach and collaboration not only on the specific topic of the “Internet We Want” but also on other related topics within the leadership panel. Her goal is to achieve the objectives set in the paper through collective input and consultation.

The analysis also highlights the significance of local solutions in addressing global problems in the context of internet governance and local issues. Input is collected in national and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) for analysis, which is then brought back to the IGFs. This ensures a feedback loop that involves communities in shaping solutions to global problems. It is acknowledged that global problems cannot be effectively addressed without considering local contexts and solutions.

The speakers stress the importance of perceiving and analyzing problems in a local context to find effective solutions. They recognize the need to involve and consult with diverse communities and stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes. This collaborative and inclusive approach is essential in creating an internet that caters to the needs and aspirations of various communities, and in addressing global challenges by taking local perspectives into account.

Overall, the analysis underscores the significance of collective input and consultation with other communities in relation to the “Internet We Want” paper. It emphasizes the need for outreach, collaboration, and a feedback loop with local stakeholders in the context of internet governance and local issues. By considering local solutions and involving diverse communities, it becomes possible to effectively address global problems and create an internet that benefits all.

Gbenga Sesan

Gbenga Sesan, a strong advocate for the “Internet We Want” initiative, emphasises the vital role of receiving feedback and contributions from the public. He believes that to shape a comprehensive and inclusive “Internet We Want” paper, it is crucial to involve the public in the process. The secretariat responsible for the initiative will actively welcome and consider public comments and contributions.

By opening the paper to public comments and input, Gbenga Sesan and the secretariat demonstrate their commitment to creating a document that reflects the perspectives and needs of a diverse range of stakeholders. This inclusive approach ensures a more democratic and representative outcome.

Gbenga Sesan’s belief in the significance of public opinion is further highlighted by his appreciation of feedback received, such as that from Peter. He recognizes the value of engaging with the public to reduce any potential bias in the paper. This demonstrates his commitment to producing a document that captures the desires and aspirations of the broader public, rather than being driven solely by specific interests or biases.

These actions align with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. SDG 16 aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. By actively involving the public in shaping the “Internet We Want” paper, Gbenga Sesan and the secretariat contribute to promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions in the digital realm.

Overall, Gbenga Sesan’s advocacy for public input in the “Internet We Want” initiative reflects his commitment to creating an inclusive and well-rounded document that serves the interests and needs of all stakeholders. By actively incorporating public feedback, he seeks to ensure transparency, fairness, and an open dialogue in shaping the future of the internet.

Carol Roach

Carol Roach, a government official from the Bahamas, has recently been appointed as the Chair of the Ministerial Accountability Group (MAG). The MAG is a leadership panel with the objective of promoting accountability and transparency within the government. Roach, under her leadership, has been focusing on strengthening governance and ensuring the responsible use of public funds in the Bahamas.

In response to recent developments, the leadership panel has expressed the urgency for an emergency meeting in the Bahamas. This meeting aims to address pressing issues and challenges faced by the government. The panel intends to discuss strategies to mitigate the impact of these issues and find solutions for the benefit of the entire nation.

The significance of this meeting cannot be overstated, as it enables the MAG to actively contribute to the decision-making process by providing valuable insights and recommendations. Attending the meeting in person allows the leadership panel to engage in direct discussions with key stakeholders and government officials, effectively communicating the concerns and perspectives of the MAG.

Furthermore, the emergency meeting serves as an opportunity for the MAG to solidify its presence and importance within the government of the Bahamas. By demonstrating dedication and commitment to promoting accountability and transparency, the leadership panel aims to gain support and recognition for their work.

In conclusion, Carol Roach, as the new Chair of the Ministerial Accountability Group, along with the leadership panel, is eager to attend the emergency meeting in the Bahamas. This meeting provides a crucial platform for the MAG to address urgent issues, actively contribute to decision-making, and establish its role within the government. Through their active participation and engagement, the leadership panel aims to drive positive change and ensure responsible governance in the Bahamas.

Vint Cerf:
I’m from Ethiopia, a state minister for innovation and technology and a member for leadership panel. Thank you. I’m Hiroshi Osida, vice-minister from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan. My name is Lisa Fuhr. And I’m not on the leadership panel, I’m director-general of ETNO. ETNO is the European Telecom Trade Association in Brussels. My name is Maria Fernanda Garza, I am the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce. We are the institutional representatives of over 45 million businesses of all sizes and industries in over 170 countries. My name is Hatem Dwidar. My day job is the CEO of a telecom operator that connects a couple of hundred million people in Middle East, Africa, and Western Asia. Every time I listen to those introductions, my mouth drops at the incredible accomplishments of the people who are sitting on this panel. But all of those accomplishments mean nothing if we don’t manage to make the Internet Governance Forum the forum that we want and need. So many of you are probably well aware that the WSIS Plus 20 comes in 2025, the World Summit on the Information Society will have taken place 20 years before. And in 2025, the question will be raised, should we continue to operate the Internet Governance Forum? And the answer to that question, in many respects, will have to come from you. And the reason for that is that you’re here because you, I assume, find value in this forum. We, as the leadership panel, need to be able to articulate those values so that when the member states of the General Assembly decide whether or not IGF should continue, that their answer will be positive, in part because of the things that you have to say about it. So one thing we will ask from you is, in this session, to tell us the things that you like and think we should continue, to tell us the things that we should do that we are not doing, to tell us the values that you experience from participating in the IGF. We know that there are many constituencies represented here in this meeting. This is, by the way, the largest of the IGF meetings ever. And so you represent a very important milestone in the story of this institution. And because there are that many people here, some 8,000 altogether, including 2,000 who are remote, there must be a reason that you’re willing to spend the time and energy and money to get here and to collaborate with the rest of the multi-stakeholder organizations. So we’re interested in hearing from you. The other thing that I would like for you to be aware of is that we also are expecting the Summit for the Future, or the Summit of the Future, coming up next year in September. And at that event, we will hear what the Global Digital Compact is about, what its substance is. There have been some discussions about the need for a forum to go along with this compact. And I’m here to tell you that the leadership panel believes that it should be the Internet Governance Forum that helps to assess how well the compact is working and whether or not there are changes that are needed. So you have a pretty important role to play in your own future. So I will first ask whether any of us – oh, we have one – would you like to introduce yourself? I didn’t catch you until you got on the stage.

Carol Roach:
Carol Roach. I work for the government of the Bahamas, new MAG Chair. The leadership panel is hoping to be invited to an emergency meeting in the Bahamas. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Definitely. So, actually, if any of the leadership panel would like to augment what I’ve just said, feel free to do so. But I remind you, our purpose is to listen to what our colleagues have to say. But if there’s something you’d like to bring up now, this would be a good time. Please.

Maria Fernanda Garza:
Thank you. Bint. Last Sunday we presented the Internet We Want paper that we worked through all this year. And we need you to help us in this new stage for this important vision that we have accomplished. In order to accomplish it. During this next year, we ask you to please help us identify the barriers that are the main obstacles to help us achieve these visions. So you, as the IGF members, are the most ideal people to understand exactly which are the barriers in your particular region, in your country, and globally. And work with us to set the path to achieve this vision with specific goals, with ways to measure it, establishing the right KPIs. Because we need to move forward faster than we have been moving in achieving this vision. Thank you, Bint.

Lise Fuhr:
Lisa has something to say as well. I just wanted to add very quickly, because Maria is right. We want your input to the Internet We Want. We want your input to our work in general. But we’re also going to consult with other communities. And we will try to do an outreach broadly on both the Internet We Want, but also on topics that we’re trying to solve within the leadership panel. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
So I have to admit, you know, over the 18 years that this event has been held, much of the time we’ve talked a lot about the Internet that we want. What I think we now have to ask ourselves is, what Internet do we have right now? And what do we need to do to make it better? And it’s my guess that the barriers that were mentioned earlier differ from one country and one locale to another. I know in the United States, for example, although penetration of Internet service is pretty good, in our rural parts of the country, it isn’t. And we’re spending $40 billion to try to improve that situation. So I’m going to, unless there are any other comments from the leadership panel, I’m going to ask you to drive this session, tell us what it is that we need to know in order to justify and evolve the IGF to be the entity that we would like it to be. So the floor is open. There are microphones at the front of the two aisles here. If you would come to the microphone, I will recognize you. We’ll try to switch back and forth if the queue builds up on both sides. By the way, the secretariat assures me they are taking notes. And of course, this session is recorded, so we’ll have that to refer to as well. Would you identify yourself before you make your intervention?

Audience:
Good morning, gentlemen and ladies. It’s actually afternoon, if you don’t mind the criticism. I’m James Gregor Asuelo from the Republic of the Philippines and a member of UN SDSN Network and the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands. And I have a few questions to the members of the panel. We all know that every Internet penetration drives impact to GDP in each of the countries, and yet it’s quite challenging that most of the private corporations and telcos will not invest in rural areas. So my question is, how we can drive private investments to bring connectivity to the far-flung communities and underserved communities through the intervention of crafting policies and legislation to attract investments? Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
So if there are people on the panel that want to respond, wave your hand, and I see Hatem and also Yoshida. Please. Hatem.

Hatem Dowidar:
I think in many countries this dialogue is going. There is universal service funds in many places where part of the taxation that goes to the telcos is put back into encouraging coverage in rural areas. And this is not only happening in emerging markets, but as Vince just said, the government in the U.S. pledged $40 billion to cover rural areas. So this is everywhere. I think this is something that needs to continue as a dialogue between governments, regulators, and telcos to make sure that the telcos are not seen always as a kind of an easy goose that lays a golden egg, but in some cases there needs to be investment or tax relief to help them invest sustainably in rural areas. At the end of the day, these are also customers. These are good for business, good for the economies overall, good for the ecosystem. So I can speak on behalf of many telcos. I sit also on the board of the GSM Association. All of them would love to cover everywhere. But I think it’s not the job of the telcos alone. It needs support from regulators and governments to make sure that they make the right environment for these investments.

Hiroshi Yoshida:
I echo on the point that the government should play some role in deploying infrastructure in rural areas. It is not profitable, so it is not possible to invest only by private activities. And so a kind of universal service fund is one solution, or subsidy can be one solution. But it’s even difficult to cover all the rural areas. And so the new technology can help in some way. For example, maybe you all know that mobile technology allowed a leapfrog for some developing countries where fixed networks are not deployed. But now we have other technology that is a non-terrestrial network. So we have rails, rail satellite networks, and also we have a system of hubs, a high-altitude platform system that can cover 50 to 100 kilometers wide with one system. And such new technologies can efficiently cover – the system allows to cover efficiently in rural areas. So discussing private sectors, government sectors, and including utilizing such new technologies. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
So there is at least one other answer derived from this most recent comment. The low-Earth-orbiting satellite systems bring technical access to the Internet literally anywhere on the globe, at least if they all achieve their objectives. In the case of Starlink, it’s 40,000 satellites, and others are coming along. There is, however – that’s the technical side – there is a business question, how much does it cost, and is it affordable to the people who are in those rural regions? And if it is not affordable, two things can happen. One is competition, and you see that there are multiple LEO satellite systems that are anticipated. In the absence of competition, another possibility is subsidy coming from governments in order to help citizens in those parts of the community that would not otherwise have access. I want to encourage you to keep pushing for making that happen. We have another question at the other microphone, please. Would you introduce yourself before you ask or comment?

Audience:
Sure. Thank you very much, Vint. I’m Peter Brugge. I’m the chairman of the World Summit Awards, and we know each other very well because you have been on the board of directors of the World Summit Awards from 2003 to 2006. And you know my bias is very much a content bias, while your skills and incredibly global competence is being on a technology bias. And I think that this is, when I look at the document, the Internet We Want, there is a technology bias to it. 2023 is the first year when five companies have gained 54% of the advertising revenues on the Internet, global advertising revenues, not just on the Internet but in total. So what we are looking at is the Internet as a historical force in terms of economic concentration. You know the devastation it has wreaked on the media companies, the legacy media companies, the newspaper publishers, especially all around the world. I’m just coming from Canada. There are 564 community papers which were closed in the last six weeks, which is leaving communities up to the size of one million people without a local paper. The impact of this on a number of different kind of local and regional and also national processes of political participation and democracy. We are not even seeing it yet. There are certain kind of aspects which we are looking at in terms of disinformation and others. But I think what I’m asking the leadership panel is to include in its consideration the absolute need that we look at how do we deal with the monopolization in the market through the technology of the Internet and what is it being done and what are the recommendations of the leadership panel that IGF and also the business review in two years or in the next year and a half is actually saying to this. I think we are looking at this as a real shift of power based on the technology. Thank you very much.

Vint Cerf:
So I’m going to respond, but I invite the other panel members to as well. I think your points are well taken with regard to businesses whose business models have changed as a consequence of new technology. I would suggest, however, that it’s not the leadership panel’s responsibility to solve the problem, but it is our responsibility to make sure that the IGF brings to the table people who can consider various solutions to the problem. That might turn out to be legislators. It might be regulators. It might be parliamentarians, and it might be people with new ideas for business models that would make these important services, particularly news, refreshed. The reason I’m reacting is that I want you to, I would like you to understand that the leadership panel isn’t the place that makes those decisions. It’s the place that tries to facilitate those discussions to get at answers to the question that you just raised. Fully understood, yes.

Gbenga Sesan:
Thank you, Peter, for the feedback on the Internet We Want paper, and of course, thanks for your work and content over the years. Two things. One is there is an opportunity for us, which is why we’re here, to get feedback from you on this. Beyond this conversation, there’s also, you know, the secretariat will open the paper for public comments and contributions, and, you know, we’ll love to follow up with you on how to reduce the bias that you’ve mentioned. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Thank you. Okay, next question on the other microphone. Thank you, Peter. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see there was a third microphone. I apologize. I thought there were only two.

Audience:
Okay. I’m shorter than the camera, so it’s hard to see me. Yes, well, there is that problem, too. Hi. My name is Chad Garcia-Ramillo. I’m the executive director of the Association for Progressive Communications. My question is about process and your role as the leadership panel in bringing, in connecting the IGF outcomes to the different processes, as you’ve mentioned, Vint. You said, you know, it’s one of the things that you want to see, is that the IGF being the body that will sort of monitor or bring these discussions. It’s not a—one of the things that have been discussed here that is not easy to engage continuously is all these different processes happening at the same time, as well as now and also in the coming—in the coming, what, year. It’s not easy. It’s going to include resources. And I think one of the questions here is how, as a leadership role, would you be able to really connect those processes in a way that is really practical so that it actually helps inclusion, it helps to ensure that there is enough participation, especially for those of us in civil society and other stakeholders, as well. And in practical terms is what I would really like to hear, because then it will also help us plan ahead and also to be able to see what would be meaningful and how we can react. Because if there’s not enough information, then we’re not able to then give you also practical. When you’re asking us how we want to contribute, we’re not able to do that if we do not know the exact ways and processes and mechanisms of participating meaningfully. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
So, I think there are several ways. This is one of them, of course, but not the only one. There is this thing called email, and we all are willing to receive the email, and we’ll rely on the secretariat to invite comment to draw attention of the leadership panel. And I want to add, by the way, that it’s not just the leadership panel. The MAG is another super important part of the lifeblood of the IGF. Without it, you wouldn’t have the structure that we are experiencing this week. And so, I hope that all of you in the room recognize that there is a partnership between the leadership panel and the MAG and all of the members of the IGF. Second point, I think, which is equally important, is that the national and regional Internet governance activities may be as important. even more important than the annual meetings because they are local and they know what the local problems are. They can articulate those things. If you’re looking for specific advice about how do we get, how do we receive your input, I would suggest, first of all, email to the leadership panel through the secretariat is one path. I don’t know, Changatai, if you want to respond at all with other avenues for getting input. We will be sending out requests for your comments. We could create forms, I suppose, if that makes it more comfortable. But right now, we’re looking for comments on the draft paper that we’ve written, comments on the issues arising in today’s conversation. So I’m going to, that’s as much as I can say right now.

Lise Fuhr:
I think it’s a very important point that many of our problems might be global, but they need to be solved local and also to be perceived and analyzed in a local context. We can bring that to the IGF as such once a year, but it’s actually the input that is getting collected in the national and regional IGFs that will analyze and bring that important analysis back to us. And this is what we will try to do, both with the internet we want, but also our broader work.

Vint Cerf:
Okay, let’s keep going. I’m going to take the center microphone now, since we already had these two. Thank you. Please reintroduce yourself, please.

Audience:
Ghusai Alshati, I’m the chairman of Automated Systems Company from Kuwait. Thank you for giving this opportunity. After almost 15 years, or 18 years of IGF, evolution is inevitable, and it is the nature of things. And to improve any venue is to evolve it into a better format. What made the IGF successful is its inclusive nature, where all multi-stakeholders talk, dialogue, speak together in equal footing. While it is meant to be a policy dialogue, it became a capacity-building venue, it became a best-practice venue, and it became the soft power that influenced the internet-governance-related organizations. Because we spoke, we agreed, we disagreed, we came to a conclusion, we had a consensus, we know what to talk about right now and what to leave for later, to be discussed later. So the evolution of the IGF to a better format is expected. This is the nature of things, in order to make it alive. And today, when we talk about digital, for the common, digital is internet and internet is digital. So the common stakeholder, digital or internet, is not that much of a difference for him. So whatever the format that we want to improve the IGF into, in 2017 to 2019, we have the process that’s called IGF Plus, which is meant as an evolution of the IGF. It is stopped, it is transformed into digital compact. That’s possible. Our concern is that whatever the evolution, it should maintain the fact that the inclusiveness of the IGF, the multi-stakeholder participatory nature, where all in equal footing we are talking about any issue presented. And the fact is that it is a non-outcome-oriented event, non-outcome. One of the main factors of the success of the IGF, that we are not under the pressure of an outcome to discuss. So we speak openly without that pressure. And let the decision be in another place. But here, we should maintain the non-outcome nature also of any evolution version of the IGF. The last thing is, we know that we have a summit coming in September. It may decide or it may formulate or initiate the process of how the IGF will evolve, whether it’s in digital compact or digital compact under the IGF. Our concern is that this process so far is giving us a sense of the, let’s say, the indicator that it will be kind of a governmental, intergovernmental process. We wish that it will be also a multi-stakeholder in nature, or either other stakeholders can attend in an observatory role, just to contribute and maintain the multi-stakeholder status of the IGF. And that’s why we are here. We are here for this upward event. And thank you.

Vint Cerf:
So I will guarantee you that no one on this panel would disagree with the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder posture for all of the functions that are associated with the IGF. It’s fundamental and essential. Let me take a question from the microphone over here. Thank you.

Audience:
My name is Rolof Meijer. I’m the CEO of SIDN, the Registry of the Netherlands Country Code Domain. Mr. Serf, if I understood you correctly and without wanting to literally quote you, I think in your introduction I heard you ask the room at least two questions. One, should the IGF continue? Should the mandate be extended? And if the answer is yes, do you have any observations on improvements or other suggestions? Should I interrupt and say that I believe it should continue? Others are going to ask that question in the WSIS plus 20. We want the answer to be yes. So I’ll make sure that the answer would be yes in answering. I cannot speak on behalf of the Netherlands IGF, but I can talk about what we did there. We have a very active NLIGF, and this was exactly the question that we asked, I think, the whole group about a year and a half ago. So our answer was yes, the mandate should be extended, but we also have some recommendations for improvements. There are 16 in total. I won’t read all of them to you, but I think there’s some that might be interesting to read them out now. They’re in three areas. They’re about governance. They’re about the dialogue itself, and they’re about results. And I think the last category is the most interesting one. So about governance, one of the recommendations is that the IGF gets a more transparent decision-making process, but also a firm financial support. On dialogue, we have that the IGF has a more substantive focus. I think we have too many areas, too many themes that we try to address, and that we don’t really get to the bottom of the issues in most cases. A more transparent system for deciding on which workshops will take place and which And also more interactive formats and less formal presentations, so more real discussions. And it’s also important that people who participate make clear who they represent, what their interests are, what organization they work for, come from, and what the interests are that they represent. And on the results, we feel that the IGF should lead to more concrete proposals for national and international Internet policy development, which I think is pretty clear, but I don’t think we’re really very successful there yet. The IGF should inspire substantive dialogues in other UN organizations, and the IGF should deliver standards for practical examples that can be applied locally, so nationally, and regionally. I can send you the whole document.

Vint Cerf:
Yes, please do that, and we would like to share that, of course, with the rest of the IGF. I assume you would be okay with that. Definitely. I do worry about the use of the word standards, though, because I’m not quite sure what kinds of standards you might be thinking of. Standards. Standards. Well, did I mishear you?

Audience:
It delivers practical standards on, well, for instance, we had some discussion in the session before this about standards for improving or reducing the footprint of the Internet and digitalization in general, and of course you need practices and best practices before you can develop standards, but I think there’s still a lot of ways that we can learn from the best practices of some to be implemented by all. We should take this offline, but I want to pursue this a little further because I’m worried that you might be speaking of technical standards, which is not the strength of this organization anyway.

Vint Cerf:
No, I wasn’t necessarily. Yeah. No. Okay. We’ll come back to that, but please do send to… I will. Thank you. …send that document to us. It sounds very substantive. Okay. We’ll take the middle microphone. I think she was… Oh, I’m sorry. There. We’re circling all the way around. It’s your… Yes, you’re up. Please. Yes. Are you standing at the microphone there? You might want to just pull the microphone out of the… There you go.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Honorable Michi Mboka. I’m a member of parliament from Kenya in Africa and also a commissioner under the Parliamentary Service Commission. I’m in charge of information and public communication. This is where we use technology to link the citizen with the two parliament, that is the National Assembly and also the Senate to understand the issue of legislation, oversight, and also representation. So, for me, I find this conversation to be very useful, and I’m just thinking that is it the right time or maybe you have some plans or rather you have already done it that you have universal declaration or rather universal laws in terms of internet and technology whereby the member states can sign and also be compelled to domesticate the same in their country. Because I believe that if we have such laws, this is the only way we can also address the inclusion gaps on the venerable groups such as women, girls, migrants, and also refugees in terms of technology or other internet. I’m also thinking that it is high time that we have to digitalize so many issues or rather some transaction. For instance, in my country, till today, we are still using cash in terms of some transaction. Like we pay land rates using cash, and this is where you find there is a lot of corruption. So, one way of minimizing this corruption or rather fighting corruption, we need to go digital so that at least we do cashless transaction, and that is why we can minimize corruption. So, for me, I think it is high time if we can have universal declaration the way we have done on issues of human rights, the way we have done on the issue of the rights of women, the rights of people with disability, so that at least we can be at par as a globe. I thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Well, two things for me. First of all, I am delighted that you’re here. It tells us something about the utility of being at the IGF, and I hope that the sessions that you’ve been able to participate in have given you an opportunity to repeat what you just said to people who might be able to achieve those objectives. Let’s take, let’s see, we’re going around this way, so we’ll take to your far right, my left.

Audience:
Thank you for the floor. My name is Jacques Beglinger. I am co-secretary of the Swiss National IGF, also involved in the regional European IGF. My question is very brief. What does the leadership have in mind for a future forum of IGF to foster more the role of NRIs?

Vint Cerf:
The first thing that we want to do is visit with them more. We would like to have more interaction with them. We discussed this, in fact, in a recent meeting today, that we would like to have more direct contact with the NRIs and the regional organizations. The mechanisms for doing that may involve personal visits to the NRIs or some regular correspondence. It’s our understanding that there is a regular coordinating call among the NRIs, and if that’s the case, then we would propose that some of the leadership members participate in those calls. Though, to the extent that we can, we’d like to be better connected. Let’s take the center microphone.

Audience:
Okay, great. Thank you. Hello. I’m Christopher Tay from Connect Free and Internet 3. I think that we’re kind of proof that the IGF is working. We’re doing something sort of controversial, and that is, instead of getting an IP address from an ISP, which might be commercially entrenched, or might be bound by governmental problems, we allow individuals to create their own IP address through a public-private key pair. And what this has allowed is people on the ground in all these different places all around the world, and even if you think about it, over the sea or in the air or even in the future in space and maybe on the moon and in Mars, to be able to get their IP address without having a centralized body, so that they can create Internet wherever they need to be. And so I think that, you know, again, to reiterate, we’re proof that this is going to happen. But something magical is also happening here in Japan, and that is, in the 1990s, the telecom known as NTT, they were not broken up, but they were bound by law that they could not become an ISP on their main fiber optic network. And so what this has done is created a lot of different ISPs within Japan and strengthened the Internet diversity here in Japan. And so in their model, they have a nationwide switching network, which allows other ISPs to come on board. And our software allows us to also become an ISP on this network, an ISP of individuals. So I really would like the IGF to kind of look at telecoms in a way that telecoms, it’s not the telecoms are the enemy, they’re our friends and they’re very important to create infrastructure, but to make sure that we have a border between the second layer and the third layer of the Internet, so that there’s innovation that can happen in all layers. We believe we have a certain interesting technology, but I think there’s a lot of people in technologies and we hope that at IGF, that this process of being able to be open and being able to share ideas together continues. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Well, I have to react and say that it’s an interesting idea that you’ve just described. It’s sort of like indirect addressing, I would guess. I would suggest, however, that the right place to take this is not the leadership panel, but rather to the Internet Engineering Task Force. We are looking to do so, thank you. That’s the right place for that particular target. Okay, let’s go over here to my right-hand microphone.

Audience:
Hello, distinguished high-level panel. First of all, my name is Bakhtiyar Mamadov, I’m Deputy Head of Administration of the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport of the Republic of Azerbaijan. We were owners 11 years ago, we were hosts in Azerbaijan of the IGF Forum, which stipulated development of the Internet and all infrastructure of the digital development of Azerbaijan, and it was a great pleasure for all Azerbaijan to host one of the fathers of the Internet, Mr. Vincent Serv. And by the way, I pass Azerbaijani youth, which includes my son, his greetings and all best wishes. They are virtually looking forward to this event. And also what I want to mention is that affordability and accessibility is very important part of the development of the Internet, and different governments put their efforts for development of this accessibility of Internet. And in Azerbaijan, we targeted on 2024, an entire country to have affordable and accessible Internet, minimum 25 megabytes per second for each citizen of Azerbaijan, no matter in which part of the country they are living. And also, we think that this format, IGF, should continue because it’s really great value of the result of the World Summit on Information Society, where Azerbaijan actively participated in both in 2003 in Geneva and in 2005. And also there are different mechanisms of the United Nations. Azerbaijan is a chair of the non-alien movement, and how do you see cooperation of the different United Nations organizations’ direction on development, accessibility, affordability for Internet? And also, different regions initiated different projects, such as, for example, in Azerbaijan, using the fiber-optic infrastructure, satellite, others, and initiated digital Silk Road. And could such a mechanism like IGF or other specialized institutions participate actively on the development of this process? Because it is a regional and global initiative. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Well, first of all, thank you very much for having hosted the IGF. You’ve already made a great contribution there. With regard to the technologies that might improve the situations, access to Internet, my guess is that we will see increasing amounts of capacity coming from the overhead satellites and increasing amounts of capacity with undersea fiber. And those two will contribute to better access over time. So we thank you very much for that intervention. Let’s go over here to the far, my far left.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Auka. Auka Pals from KPMG, the Netherlands, and I work in the responsible AI practice. And for the past years, I’ve had the privilege of being part of this community, being part of this Internet governance forum. And what I’ve learned, I started as a youth fellow, now grown up a bit, working in a consultancy. However, I’ve really valued the multi-stakeholder model that we have on this forum. However, with the coming negotiations regarding the global digital compact, I’m a little bit worried about this model and about the structure of the future of this forum, but also other digital forum. Because coming now from a private sector, I really value to give input on this forum, but also extract information and opinions from others. And I really value that. And I think this model should continue and be in place. And I hope, and I’m really asking the leadership panel as well to fight for this and to keep continuing this model in the future.

Vint Cerf:
I can assure you that everyone on this panel believes deeply in the multi-stakeholder model. stakeholder model, it is very satisfying to imagine that the United Nations has accepted and is supporting a multi-stakeholder process within what would otherwise be a largely multilateral environment. So we hope to be the grain of sand in the oyster that continues to make sure that the multi-stakeholder voices are heard. So thank you for that support. Let me take the center.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. I am Rodney Taylor, the Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. And I want to congratulate my fellow Caribbean colleague, Carol, on her chairmanship of the MIC. Did you say that you were commiserating with her? Congratulate. And I do agree. I mean, I want to echo the support for that. They offer support for the comments made before with respect to support for the NRIs. We are hosting our 20th IGF next year in the Caribbean, the Caribbean Internet Governance Forum. So it’s one of the oldest, if not the oldest. And I was pleased also to be able to work with our fellow small island developing states to host the first SIDS IGF, which was also recognized by the UN. So I know there are mechanisms for supporting the NRIs, but as you mentioned, perhaps even by way of your involvement, we have had involvement by, say, Chiang Kai-shek and others who have lent their support to our efforts. We have also been making inputs to the Global Digital Comeback through the deep dives. And we are supportive of that process, but we would hate to see another forum globally, say a digital forum, where, you know, there’s just so much bandwidth that you have to cover these meetings. Outside of this process, as you well know, there are other policy development processes taking place, say, for example, in ICANN and within the registries, the regional registries. And therefore, we believe that the IGF remains a very useful mechanism to consolidate the global governance with respect to the Internet. Lastly, I would like to say that perhaps we can look at mechanisms for lowering the barriers to hosting this global IGF. I would love to see one in the Caribbean, perhaps even Bahamas or someplace like that. But we understand that facilities such as provided here by the government of Japan, excellent facilities, by the way, would present a challenge for many of the small states. So perhaps mechanisms for maybe offering hybrid format that would allow for smaller states to host. Thank you very much.

Vint Cerf:
That, you know, this is an interesting concept of smaller states hosting. The hosting that we have done in the past, that has been done in the past, has been sort of on block. And here we are in Japan. Everyone is here. I wonder whether a group of states could host in other than their countries. In other words, it could be hosts, but the actual meeting might be held in a place that has the capacity to deal with this scale. That could be a stupid idea, but it’s just a way of allowing the smaller states to have an opportunity to play the role as hosts, even if they’re not physically in their facilities. Anyway, just a thought. Let’s take the question over here on the right.

Audience:
Yes, thank you very much. Nigel Hickson, UK government. Firstly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and to thank all the other members of the leadership panel for your work and contribution to the IGF. It’s really great to see you sitting here this morning and answering questions from this audience. The second point I’d like to make is that your role will become increasingly important as we come towards the WSIS Plus 20 review process. For many of us, the IGF, and particularly the national and regional initiatives, has become fundamental to the way that policy is developed on a global scale, to the way we interact, to the way we collaborate, to the way we make friends, and to the way we make progress on the information society, the internet, or whatever we might call it. And we want to see this continue. We want to see this develop. We want to see the WSIS Plus 20 process bring forward a new realization of what the internet can do for us, but also the challenges that lie ahead. We want the WSIS Plus 20 process to endorse the value of this incredible collaborative effort, and we want it to endorse the need to go further in terms of the connectivity agenda, the sustainability agenda, and the desire that the internet should be multilingual and diverse in all its aspects. So Mr. Chairman, I think we would ask the leadership panel to do two things. One, to continue your excellent work, and secondly, to invigorate the IGF, to support the brilliant work that the IGF Secretariat does to strengthen their resources where possible, and to also ensure that other stakeholders, because your eminent members of the leadership panel talk to many other high-level stakeholders, to make other stakeholders understand the importance of the continuation of this body. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Thank you very much, Nigel. Much appreciated. Let’s go to the center and then over to the left. Oh, I’m sorry, you’re right. Let’s do the center and then we’ll do the left. Go ahead.

Audience:
Okay. I’m sorry. Thank you very much. I just wanted to make him mad at you. Thank you very much, Vint. I echo Nigel’s words in expressing the appreciation for the work you are doing, the contribution you are doing to strengthen the IGF and the multi-stakeholder model for internal governance. The first answer to your question about if we want to extend the mandate, the answer is absolutely yes, and while there is room for improvements, clearly the world is much better with IGF than without IGF. The IGF allows us to deal with controversial things in a very safe and educated manner, exchanging ideas with other colleagues, other stakeholder groups, before they come up in a form of public policies when it’s too late to try to influence or to have these kind of dialogues we have here. So the hot improvements we can improve in IGF, I think that the resources is clearly a barrier. I agree with Nigel that the Secretariat does an impressive work, but so we want they to do more, but we need also to secure the resources to support them. I think that interacting with IGF should be much easier, and we should create tools for anybody in the world to participate fully in IGF discussions and processes without coming to the meetings. I’m not speaking about streaming or open consultations, I’m saying that we should find easily the resources and people should know how the best practice forum produces and how the policy network produces, and this should be much easier to find and to interact and to provide comments and to participate in the discussions. Just one more point, because I will take your invitation to submit written comments, but I think that also the meetings should be much easier to work through. We are running from one room to another. We have sometimes three workshops about the same topic with the same speakers, repeating the same things, and we should try to organise them. So if this is an important thing, so we should bring them together and have one session. So in total, counting the main sessions and workshops, we should not have more than 20 sessions in total. So instead of having 100 people in the rooms, we could have 400, 500, and we could have the policy makers participate fully engaged in the discussions with all stakeholders about the topics that really matter. But I have more ideas, but I will accept the invitation to submit.

Vint Cerf:
First of all, we welcome those ideas. Second, this point about having too many meetings has come up more than once, and the idea of trying to compartmentalise things a little better is a very attractive point. So since the MAG Chair is now here and listening to that, she has the first bug in her ear about that structural change. So these are good points. Let’s take the question over here. Oh yes, please.

Audience:
Mr. Chairperson, can you allow me to switch in French? Is it too complicated for you? No, no, it’s easy. I just need to select. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. I think it’s not just to be entertaining that I’m going to speak in French, but I do want to say that this meeting, with all the UN languages that are available here, I think it’s important to do this. I nonetheless don’t want to repeat what others have said, but I would nonetheless like to say that the IGF continues to have various protagonists here. I’d like to share an experience with you. When there was the first IGF, I was speaking to one of the people from the European Commission. I said, well, it would be interesting to start with things on a national level, regional level, and then maybe move on to a world level. No, no, they said. It would have been far too complicated to do this. There would have been too many meetings, and we wouldn’t be able to keep things going. Now I understand a little bit more what he was saying, because I feel that today the situation we find ourselves in, we have these myriad international organizations that say we’re going to make things complicated for everyone. There are processes right, left, and center. There are various texts, for example, that are written by the Secretary General. Then you have the ITU. Then UNESCO comes up with something. And then what do we as individuals do? We can’t really follow what’s going on. And then I heard someone in the room next door, I think it was someone from the Swiss government saying it’s normal, it’s diversity, is it not? But as we see that the number of meetings continue to rise here, and all the processes that are on course are just going to be unmanageable for all of us, for those of us who are the end users. And these are the people that I’m trying to represent. Thank you very much. We’ve now heard more than once that it would be attractive. I’m Sébastien Bachelet, I forgot to say who I was. I represent DISOC of France, but I’m also the president of the end users of ICANN. Sorry for not having said that earlier. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachelet. So we’ve heard more than once now that people would like less chaos in these meetings. And so we will take that on board as a request for more structure and perhaps less complexity in the scale of the number of meetings. We’ve all experienced this in other venues, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, where 100 meetings happen over the course of a week. Let me take the center microphone.

Audience:
Thank you, Vint. My name is Christina Alida, I represent the Egyptian government, and I would like maybe to start by saying that the establishment of the leadership panel was an important milestone of the Secretary General’s roadmap for digital cooperation, and we really thank you for all the work that you’ve done so far, and we sure can tell an increased interest in the IGF on a global level. But I think one of the most important mandates that are listed in the leadership panel, in terms of reference, is to promote a greater impact of the IGF. And I think that we’ve heard all through those days here at the IGF that the whole community is talking about the importance and the impact that the IGF has so far done, and the importance of having this viewed on a larger scale. So I’m sorry if I’m bringing back again the GDC to the mic, because this has been probably said many times, but if we look at the issues paper that was put forward by the co-facilitators, there is clear message that there is a need not to re-duplicate processes, and we’ve heard that a lot, but also to fill in the gap for global digital cooperation in order to respond to rapid technological changes, and we’ve heard many of that. So I think what I try to say here is that we would like to see the leadership panel continue its effort, but also we would like to see more integration of the leadership panel within the work of the IGF, specifically in collaborating, integrating, and liaisoning with the different components of the building blocks of the IGF, the MAG, happy to see Carol up there, also the NRIs, and I think all the components of the IGF should work on one front towards achieving that greater impact that we’re looking for, and put forward a proposal specifically ahead of the Summit of the Future, a proposal that comes from the IGF community in a way ahead of the Summit of the Future and building towards DOCIS Plus 20. Thank you very much.

Vint Cerf:
Thank you. Your suggestions are very consonant with discussions that we’ve had about more integration and interaction among the leadership panel and the other components of the IGF writ large. We are literally out of time. If you have a short intervention, we could accept that, but we may not be able to respond very much. Please go ahead just briefly.

Audience:
I speak in French, please, in French. I have two comments which I would like to put forward to the leadership in terms of the IGF. What we have heard here from the beginning has been rather interesting. The word that we hear time and time again is the word stakeholder, to be inclusive with the largest number of people. We can maybe have an IGF, an extended IGF that will allow people who cannot be here that they can maybe gather in one specific area and to take part remotely to also be able to follow what is happening and to interact if it is necessary. We have already taken part in various programs like in Google. We have worked on various programs which made it possible for us to disseminate this event to other participants who couldn’t come here on site. They could be we can create an event, and it could revolve around the IGF, and we could explain to them in more of the vernacular, if you will, of what is happening within the IGF. And secondly, for a more inclusive event, I think you could register or you can access only online. We should be able to follow our event more easily remotely with greater accessibility. I feel that this would be feasible. I feel that the current registration process, I do understand that we should have a simple link that you could just click on, and it is laborious, if you will, to be able to even register to be able to attend this specific event. And we have talked about this ad nauseum, about the various capabilities that we could have, and I think that this has to do with training, education, and bringing this more to the people, especially vis-a-vis AI, artificial intelligence. Now, I think that we really need to look at and review what education actually means to provide this information, to foster this specific environment and domain, to bring it down so that it trickles down to the very people for us to undertake all of these additional endeavors. I can even think of different programs to provide support at the local level where there is the most need. We need to have training programs, support programs. We need to have local stakeholders that need to be part and parcel of this endeavor which we are undertaking. In addition, we also need to look at the risks, the various innovation, the various other projects that can contribute. We can also contribute to this new era which we – and these new projects which we all are all committed to and are undertaking. Thank you.

Vint Cerf:
Thank you very much for making your intervention brief and to the point. We do hope that some kind of increased ability to participate in hybrid mode will be made feasible. We need to call an end to this meeting, but thank you all very, very much for your interventions and your advice. We will report back to you as best we can how we have digested what you’ve had to say, and we will apply that as we work our way towards the next year and the summit of the future and finally the WSIS plus 20. Thank you all very much, and good luck with the rest of the meetings. Thank you.