ADAMA SAMASSEKOU: Excellencies, Mr. Chairperson, ministers, secretary of the ITU, honorable guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Let me first of all to begin by saying to you what a great honor it is for me to address this great family of the Information Society, this family of shared knowledge and know-how that I am pleased to meet once again here in
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Mr. Samassékou. Next speaker, Mr. Luigi Vimercati, Under Secretary of Communication,
LUIGI VIMERCATI: Distinguished representatives of governments, of international organizations, and of the civil society, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my appreciation to the government of
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Mr. Vimercati. Next speaker, I recommend the speakers to obey to the five minutes, six minutes extension. Next speaker, Mr. Kiyoshi Mori, vice minister for policy coordination, minister of communications,
KIYOSHI MORI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Brazilian government. It is my great honor to have this opportunity of making a speech at the opening ceremony which is held here in the beautiful city of
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Mr. Mori. Next speaker, Mr. John Klensin, consultant.
JOHN KLENSIN: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I seem to be the odd person in this session's agenda, since I do not have the privilege of speaking for a government or a large and important organization. I do, however, have some experience with the development of the Internet itself, and I hope I can share some perspective from the standpoint of the technical development of the Internet and how we got to where we are today within with a network which is serving billions of users and looking forward to serving billions more. Contrary to what one might infer from some of the conversations and discussions and publications one has seen in recent years, the Internet was not developed and invented in 1962 -- in 1992. Some of us have been involved in work on what has become the Internet in its concepts since the late '60s, for nearly four decades. And many of us have understood since then that this would ultimately become a global network if it was successful at all. It isn't perfect. In general, we preferred to get something working and implemented and deployed rather than getting it perfect, spending endless years of exploration and discussions about how every possible need could be accommodated. Had we chosen the course of discussion and accommodation of all needs, there probably would not be a working Internet today. The possibility of substituting discussion for deployment and access remains a risk today. One of the things I think we all need to understand and remember as these discussions in IGF and elsewhere go forward is, whatever you like about the present nature of the Internet and its reach, it is important to remember that the design, independent of funding and other initiatives, is not a consequence of any action by governments or intergovernmental associations. Among the many myths about the Internet is one that assumes the technological design and development community, especially the applications-level development community, has historically not cared about the rest of you or the rest of the world's populations. Or has simply been naive about the social and political implications of a network like this. We've been concerned about making the Internet available to more people in more countries for a rather long time. There were serious discussions about multiscript naming and connectivity and content by 1972, including the first of many proposals as to how to do that. The notion that we didn't start thinking about these issues until people started talking about making the Internet multilingual the last few years just has no basis. Our Japanese colleagues had Kanji content on the Internet by 1987 and were actively using it in e-mail. Standards were in place for interoperable multilingual content by 1992, and were deployed rapidly after that, including being carried over into the Web. The original host naming rules that ultimately became the domain name rules were built on a foundation that considered national use characters and national character sets. The decision to exclude those characters wasn't based on an ignorant preference for English or Roman-based characters, but on the fact that the technology at that stage just had not matured enough for more international use and the observation that the use of multiple characters and multiple options has a tendency to make things less interoperable if these become choices. It is programs useful to note that the ITU and ISO made very similar decisions about identifiers for the network protocols associated with X25, and with key ISO identifiers for approximately the same reasons. Especially in less-developed countries, far more of the early connections that were sustainable and that had developed into today's Internet environment were the result of largely private sector, bottom-up efforts rather than major top-down initiatives. Mutual assistance networks for identifying e-mail connectivity paths came into existence in the early 1980s. Private efforts to get developing countries connected at least by e-mail and then with full Internet connections came about five years later, in the mid-1980s. Many of the Internet governance problems which we see today and see discussed are neither new nor Internet-specific, but are generalizations of more traditional problems, sometimes in rather thin disguises. For the subset of those issues that are appearing as generalizations, most of the reasons for casting them as new topics seem to involve more to do with topics and objectives other than getting the Internet spread and deployed and usable. Throughout history, at least modern history, we've noticed that criminals and pornographers have often been more efficient about adopting and adapting to new technologies, especially communications technologies, to their needs than most of us have been capable of adopting those technologies. We need to accept that and move forward with better technology, but, more important, better rules and better social structures and better societal constraints, rather than attacking the technology itself and risking damaging what in many respects a conference like this is here to celebrate. Unacceptable behaviors, including stalking, extortion, fraud, deliberate deception, are not really different, whether done face to face or over an electronic communications technology such as the Internet. The Internet may call for better intergovernmental arrangements and agreements about prosecuting these crimes across borders and better technology for identifying the perpetrators. But we have precedence for those kinds of agreements which do not require new structures. Each proposed action that treats an unacceptable behavior differently depending on whether it's performed over the Internet or in some other context should be examined very carefully, and I believe with some suspicion. Finally, almost every decision which has been made about the Internet, from the beginnings to the recent times, both technological and policy, has had advantages and disadvantages. In the last decade or so, and as a community, I believe we have been very poor at looking at both those advantages and disadvantages and understanding that we're making tradeoffs. At least in retrospect, creation of a market in domain name -- domain names has caused not only cybersquatting, but also phishing. Without the market, those problems would probably not exist in their present form. Creation of an e-mail regime that permits anyone to communicate with anyone else without having to be registered with and going through government-authorized providers, on models similar to the old PTTs, has turned e-mail and now instant messaging into important worldwide communications tools. But it also helps facilitate the work of the spammer and virus-spreaders. Even the decision to build useful and productive meetings like this and hold them involves implicit decisions to not invest the resources in, for example, clean water or alleviating hunger. In each case, I'd like to believe that we, as a community, have made the right decisions. But we need to remember, I believe, that there are alternatives and, conversely, selecting those alternatives would have changed some of the things that we appreciate today. Thank you again, and best wishes for a successful meeting.
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Mr. Klensin. Next speaker, Ms. Maud de Boer-Bucquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe.
MAUD DE BOER-BUCQUICCHIO: Mr. Chairman, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the Council of Europe, which I represent, is an organization which brings together 47 of the 48 European countries on our continent to promote human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Our primary task is to enforce, through the European court of human rights, the European convention on human rights. The bill of rights of the whole European continent, which applies both off and on-line. Our message,
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Ms. Boer-Bucquicchio. Next speaker, Ms. Catherine Trautmann, member of European parliament.
CATHERINE TRAUTMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. As another European voice, I wish to affirm the strong engagement of all the YAWU (phonetic) institutions in the process of the IGF which is, for us, a special and unique space for discussion between all who are involved in Internet governance. This platform gives us a common context of ideas, experiences, and propositions in which we can find inspiration for decision and action. The main topics brings the framework and continuity we need to bring our points of view closer. The adjunction of new items like critical resources, semantic web, protection of children, bill of rights and others shows that the method is open so that the responsibility of the results belongs to the stakeholders. I want to mention now the key points which we hope will be taken in consideration by the participants. Two words express basically the goal of Internet governance: Security and privacy. That means that the respect of fundamental rights and especially of freedom of expression a must be considered as a truly unquestioned principle of information society. There is no free economy, free information if the freedom of individuals, NGOs and journalists has no sufficient guarantee. It's vital to counter attempts of censorship and ensure that Internet's capability to be a means of free expression is maintained. We must also ensure that technological convergence and economical concentration don't constitute impediments to freedom and diversity. That's why the respect of structural qualities on the Internet, openness and interoperability, is needed favoring complimentarity of a superiority of platforms to reinforce its successful ability to boost innovation and creativity in our global knowledge economy as in the resumption of social injustice and the risky consequences of climate change. Security and stability of Internet are amongst our priorities because we think without them the citizens will not enjoy the benefits which the Internet offers and prohibited business will increase as will the violence against people like harassment or threats. Children must be especially secure online. It's very important that this topic can be discussed at the IGF. We know that practical solutions are expected to bridge the digital divide. This is not only about access and connectivity linked to energetic issues as well but also about access to excess which encompasses education and long life learning. It is also important to talk about I.P. address allocation, organizations dealing with this issue are encouraged to continue their work towards shaping allocation policies of I.P. addresses, in a way respecting the justified needs of the developing countries. Internet is in constant evolution in its technical aspects as well as in its services. For example, the Internet of things is the subject of more and more deliberations and sometimes (inaudible). As a concept, Internet of things needs concretization and it would be good to take and discuss this topic which is an emerging issue in public policy perspective in the agenda of the next 2008 IGF meeting. Let me finish in expressing the hope that a successful meeting of the IGF will motivate institutional partners of the enhanced cooperation to join the movement, and with some efforts participate to this mutual benefit. States must elaborate their discussion, strategy, and method as IGF build its own. Transparency, flexibility, and reciprocity. It's not only a hope. I think it's a necessity, because we want a free, safe, and democratic Internet. Thank you
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Ms. Trautmann. Next speaker, Mr. Jainder Singh, permanent secretary, department of information technology,
JAINDER SINGH: Mr. Chairman, participants from across the world, it is indeed a pleasure to speak at this IGF in
GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Mr. Singh. I am the next and the last speaker.
GILBERTO GIL: I am certain that politics are being re-invented here. We all know about the huge challenges our imagination and our intelligence received with the existence of the Internet. All of that means today a new proposal for political spheres in contemporary societies. We are reviewing the ideas that oriented the social spaces and values, spaces that were called cities or republics before. The names that were given to this public, Republic, which would be the space for the co-existence of people no matter how different their cultures and economic conditions. The Internet is the new example of this immaterial society. It is symbolic and creates a space to exist fully for all differences. It is the concrete example of this fabric of cities and spaces in contemporary life. We find in the word "governance" a way to exemplify what political processes require for us to come to minimal agreement and consultations. We are practicing here in this ritual of approximation and mutual knowledge. We are now approaching this novelty in new policies. However, there are conflicts that go beyond lack of knowledge. It's different points of view that need to be taken into account. We have to pay lots of attention to that. Just our active and critical collaboration will be capable of absorbing the different needs that are at stake in the new era of communications and exchange. Our imagination must invent new frameworks allowing us to regulate these conflicts for the benefit of all and for the establishment of a common environment of cooperation. We need to state that our cooperation to create public policies in this world summit which takes place in the City of