Tuesday, November 13, 2007

IGF Opening Ceremony 2.2

Next speaker, Mr. Adama Samassékou, executive secretary, African academy of languages.

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 Rio. It is a pleasure also for me to thank the Brazilian government for the welcome they have extended to us and the executive secretary of the forum for the convening of this second session. My dear friends, I am delighted by the passion I have seen at this Internet Governance Forum, and no one can be unaware of the great importance of this forum. That is why I should like to share with you a few thoughts regarding the process we began more than five years ago. First of all, allow me to recall some of the achievements of the World Summit on the Information Society process. First of all, what I recall the spirit of the summit, which is typified by the multistakeholder approach which led to an innovative mechanism with the establishment and institutionalization of the civil society office and the representation of the private sector which has led to the development of a dynamic inclusive partnership bringing together all of the stakeholders, governments, civil society, the private sector, and intergovernmental organizations. Secondly, two major African initiatives, the digital solidarity fund in Geneva and MAAYA, the world network for linguistic diversity in Tunis. Thirdly, the development of a follow-up mechanism for the implementation of the guidelines that emerged from the Geneva phase into the global coordination of the ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP. And also I would hail the initiative of the ITU. Fourth, the creation of the Internet Governance Forum which was made formal in Tunis. But my dear friends, we are today, if I can put it that way, at a crossroads, a crossroads given the challenges facing the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF is the only formal arrangement that emerged from the WSIS, bringing together all of our great international family. Is it not necessary that in order to keep up this beautiful enthusiasm and to promote within the forum a mechanism for making recommendations for specific action addressing all of the issues of the mandate of the IGF? Of the 12 points of the mandate of the IGF, I'd like in particular to highlight the following: Practices, and in this regard, make full use of expertise of academic, scientific, and technical communities. Five, advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of Internet in the developing world. Seven, identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. Eight, point eight, contribute to capacity-building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. Point 11, help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet of particular concern to everyday users. For that point of view, then, the discussion on the democratization of the Internet should also include, first, the need for each citizen of our planet to have access to this tool in their language. And also the urgent need to work together in order to tackle the serious abuses of Internet use. We can do this through a major program of training and awareness promotion, in particular, through libraries and other appropriate common spaces, making them at the core of the new society we are building, and, in particular, for up and coming generations. In this context, then, we must take the fortunate opportunity of next year being the international year for languages, to lay greater stress on the points I have just made at the third session of the IGF in India. As executive secretary of the African academy of languages and as president of the global network for linguistic diversity, I should like to assure you of our willingness to work with the bodies of the forum to that end. It is already a great pleasure for me to invite you to consult the UNESCO Web site, which is the lead organization for next year, the international year of languages, I would like to draw attention to the excellent statement by the director general, Mr. Matsuura, saying, languages are important. Lastly, in conclusion, I should like to make an appeal here to this august body to encourage us all to think -- in the Internet Governance Forum, to think about ways and means of building regional dynamism so that societies can take on board the new ICTs, taking into account the specifics of each region of world to ensure greater participation by all in the benefits of this global common good that is the Internet. May the almighty be with us in carrying out our undertaking to build humanness in the world, a new humanity which is the only way of dehumanizing states between people. Thank you.

GILBERTO GIL: Thank you, Mr. Samassékou. Next speaker, Mr. Luigi Vimercati, Under Secretary of Communication, Italy.

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 Brazil for hosting this important event and to the IGF secretariat for having made possible this second crucial meeting on Internet governance. The Athens conference last year opened the way for a global and multistakeholder discussion on the development of the most powerful instrument that humanity has ever had, able to generate and circulate knowledge and to shift power. From then on, Italy has clearly expressed the opinion that a set of principles is necessary to allow a democratic and inclusive development of the Internet, agreed and shared on a global scale. In this view, the Italian government, together with the United Nations, has organized last September in Rome a dialogue forum on Internet rights that saw the participation of more than 700 delegates from governments, civil society, the private sector, academia, coming from 70 different countries. The forum confirmed the necessity to define at an international and multistakeholder level common rules for Internet governance, which, in our opinion, should take on the form of an "Internet Bill of Rights." It is quite evident that the Internet is introducing nowadays radical changes in every dimension of human behavior, from economy to communication, to social and political relationships. Its hasty growth affects directly human rights and shows shortcomings of the measures adopted so far to protect them, but at the same time, it reveals an extraordinary potential as a new bottom-up form of expression, able to strengthen democracy in the knowledge-based society. Today we are witnessing the birth of a new generation of rights pertaining to global digital citizenship, which represents an extension, with its specific peculiarities, of fundamental human rights. Consequently, a bill of rights is needed, a jointly agreed definition of these rights, consistent rules to ensure freedom and access to Internet, together with forms of self-regulation, all of these to guarantee the rights of single individuals and social groups, particularly the most vulnerable ones. Absence of rules doesn't necessarily mean a freer Internet. We must not forget that freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas has to go alongside with the safety and the integrity of the Internet to make it achieve its full potential and to avoid the supremacy of the strong over the weak. We must ensure that everyone in the world can benefit from these opportunities offered by the Internet by removing all the barriers that hinder full access to the Net and trying to bridge the digital divide. For all of these reasons, we are particularly pleased to be here today. The Internet Governance Forum is the ideal place to gather shared views on the four areas of discussion -- access, diversity, openness, security -- all of them relating to the Internet Bill of Rights. In fact, we firmly believe that it is our responsibility as policymakers to reaffirm our commitment to make the Internet a means of social cohesion and inclusion and to build a people-centered, knowledge-based, and progress-oriented information society. Nevertheless, defining principles and common rules for the Internet, especially in consideration of its intrinsic characteristics, also entails the definition of a new working method. Internet is, by definition, a place of extended discussion, of initiatives involving a large number of people. Therefore, it becomes evident that an Internet Bill of Rights cannot be achieved through traditional procedures typical of international conventions, that is, through top-down cooperation between governments or through classical forms of multilateral diplomacy. The Internet Bill of Rights can and must be the starting point of a unique process involving a multiplicity of actors at different levels. The dynamic coalitions, set up with the IGF, are the best example of this new approach that we intend to adopt. My country participants at different levels to the Internet Bill of Rights dynamic coalition which tomorrow will convene to share the progress made so far and to jointly identify the most appropriate way to define the bill of rights. We expect through your participation to bring together a number of actors who will concretely lay down, together with us, with our friends of the Brazilian government, and all the others, the basis of an Internet Bill of Rights. We know that it will be a long and difficult process, and it is not only a question of establishing governance principles of the largest existing space in the world, but also to identify the instruments able to guarantee afterwards that they become a reference system for the international community. In this view, we also look with expectation to the possibility of reaching an agreement in order to define a kind of "high commissioner" of Internet rights. In conclusion, I am certain that the well-known competence of Minister Gilberto Gil, of Professor Stefano Rodotà, and of all of the participants, will make tomorrow's workshop a fundamental step forward towards the creation of an Internet Bill of Rights. I am looking forward to meet you all tomorrow. Thank you very much for your attention.

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, Japan.

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 Rio de Janeiro. As we all know, the Internet has developed rapidly since its commercialization in 1994, and the number of its users is going to exceed one billion worldwide. There are many advantages of using the Internet. The Net can provide access to diversified choices in goods and services, activate communication between people, and improve productivity of various industries. Toward this goal, all stakeholders, including the participants of this IGF meeting, must cooperate with each other in order to deploy the Internet further and share its fruits among all peoples around the world. Achieving such a good goal will not be easy. There are many issues to be tackled. And active challenges are needed to resolve those issues. I strongly believe that one of the important purposes of IGF meetings is to learn and share the experiences of the challenges with each other in order to make it easier to accomplish the ultimate goal of Internet deployment throughout society. According to ITU report in 2006, Japan has achieved the most inexpensive and fastest Internet access in the world. I think there are two main reasons behind this. Firstly, we established a national strategy for the ICT development. In the year 2001, we launched the e-Japan strategy, which promoted nationwide spread of broadband networks. In addition, in 2004, we set a ubiquitous Japan policy, which was aiming at enabling ICT connection to anyone at any time anywhere and with anything. Secondly, we promoted competition policy in the telecommunications market. In particular, the unbundling of the dominant carrier's facilities and the formulation of collocation rules allowed new entrants to the market. Thanks to this, innovations and new services had been developed which allowed charges to be dramatically lowered and increased consumer benefits. Although having achieved a significant development in the ICT field, we still have many things to cope with. As conventional telecommunications network is rapidly replaced by I.P.-based network, we are facing various new issues. I will point out three main issues. First, there is the issue of network neutrality. With more I.P. networks and broadband connections, more variety of services are being provided. As a result, the volume of packet traffic has increased and resulted in network congestion. Fair use and equal cost-bearing of the network infrastructure is becoming serious issues. Second is the competition policy issue that arises from the next-generation network. The next-generation network is expected to improve efficiency of network operation and reliability. Consequently, we have to establish the new competition rule to secure the mutual connection as well as the openness of service platform of the network. Third, it is necessary to promote information security. We have to improve the reliability of the network and applications, in addition to ensuring the essential communications in disasters and other emergency situations. In conclusion, I have shared with you our country's experiences and achievements, as well as our awareness of the issues, considering that our life can be improved through proper use of the Internet as a vital tool and that this IGF meeting is significant as the place for information-sharing towards that purpose. With advanced use of the Internet, new issues that we have not experienced before could emerge in the future. It is important to put our heads together to continue our efforts to tackle the issues and to find the exercise the best way forward. We believe that the IGF meetings can contribute to creating a path from the missing link to the collaboration link through open and free discussions. And Japan is ready to support positively such a movement with all of you. Thank you for your kind attention.

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, Europe's main message, is clear. We want to secure people's enjoyment of a maximum of rights and services, with minimum restrictions, while at the same time seeking to ensure the level of security that users are entitled to expect. This is why our organization adopted, just five days ago, a policy recommendation for our governments on promoting the public service value of the Internet. We in Europe, we want an affordable, unrestricted, safe and diverse access to the Internet. My time is short, so I will limit myself to a few brief points. First, the Internet is our business. It belongs to all of us, and must not become a virtual jungle in which its inherent freedom and anonymity are abused by criminals. These people may be operating in a virtual world, but the harm they cause is very real. Our response has been the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime and its protocol, the only existing international treaty dealing in a comprehensive manner and in full respect of human rights with crimes committed through the use of the Internet. It has been signed so far by 43 countries around the world. I encourage other countries to seek accession to the convention as soon as possible. The broader the membership, the fewer the hiding places. My second point is about children who represent one of the biggest categories of Internet users. The Internet empowers them, but it also creates new threats to their safety. Sexual exploitation of children is of course one of such threats. And this is why the Council of Europe convention for the protection of children against sexual exploitation and abuse outlaws groomers and pedo-pornographers and reinforces considerably international cooperation. This treaty too is open to non-European countries and I encourage all states to sign up to it. Let me also take the occasion to announce the birth this week in Strasbourg of a new city, an e-city, made for and with children. It will be hosted on our Web site, and its aim is very simple: Empower children so that they can contribute to a better world nearer to their hopes and dreams. To conclude, ladies and gentlemen, we in Europe, adults and children alike, we have a dream and an ambition. The dream is to make democratic citizenship a reality for all on the World Wide Web. Our ambition is to show the world the way to achieve this. Thank you for your attention

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, India.

JAINDER SINGH: Mr. Chairman, participants from across the world, it is indeed a pleasure to speak at this IGF in Rio de Janeiro. ICTs are a fundamental all element of all emerging global knowledge societies. They may lead to greater opportunities for those who can partake of them, but they may also lead to greater exclusion for those who cannot. While India is a leading country in the I.T. sector globally the benefits of the Internet revolution have not fully percolated to the everyday life of the common man. This is particularly true for those in the rural areas. Inclusive development is an imperative. We are of the view that the IGF needs to maintain the overall development orientation across all the themes. There are several challenges that must be addressed in order to make the vision of a truly inclusive knowledge society a reality. Perhaps the first challenge towards enabling a solution on such a large scale is to review the issues relating to access. Broadband access, access to technology, access to content. This is no easy matter, especially in India which is demographically and linguistically so diverse. I propose to give an example from India. The government has launched an ambitious process to establish 100,000 village Internet kiosks a national broadband network is being rolled out to give connectivity to these centers. This would provide access to 600,000 villages. These centers are being established through a public/private partnership model. The centers would provide access to education, telemedicine, public services, remote banking, and entertainment to hitherto unreached sections of society. These 100,000 centers are expected to be operational by December 2008. Capacity building is a private area to enable meaningful participation of a larger number of people in the use of the Internet. This is critical because of the challenges posed not only by illiteracy but also by information illiteracy. Diversity is particularly important. In India, which is a truly multilingual society, only a relatively small percentage of Indians can read and write English. We believe that Indians should be able to use the Internet in they're own languages. We have as many as 22 official languages, and 11 scripts. In this context, Internationalized Domain Names assume importance. We are an open society, and as a democratic nation we support the principles of openness in the Internet domain. We need to focus on security aspects as well. The stakeholders in the Internet need to do more to promote Internet security. There is a greater need to exchange and make available data pertaining to incidents as well as to technological solutions to resolve and prevent such incidents. We already have more than 200 million mobile users. We are now adding 7 million users every month. This makes us the fastest growing mobile market in the world. We hope that India would also be able to achieve similar growth in the Internet arena. The third IGF will be held in New Delhi from December 8th to 11th 2008. The IGF is an evolving process of continuity. We are sure that the fruitful discussion of this second IGF will set the tone for the evolving dialogue in the third IGF. Discussions on the five themes of this IGF would be continued in the New Delhi IGF meeting. This IGF, and in particular the way forward working session, will indicate the issues which are to be considered important. It is in the keeping of the spirit of the IGF philosophy of inclusiveness, the deliberations in New Delhi could perhaps also cover the universalization of the Internet and implications for governance. Development could also be treated alongside the other themes so that attention could be paid to this dimension. We anticipate that the issues such as access challenges in rural areas and capacity building would be discussed in the third IGF. The security of Internet resources and the need for cooperation among stakeholders and nations could be part of this agenda. The broad multistakeholder format would be followed. The discussion in the IGF would no doubt reflect the principles of multilateralism, democracy and transparency of Internet governance. It is an honor and privilege for us to welcome all the delegates and the participants to take part in the IGF 2008 in New Delhi. The weather will be lovely at that time of the year and I hope you will all be able to come to New Delhi in December next year. I take this opportunity to thank Brazil for hosting this meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you

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 Rio de Janeiro has for purpose to invert the picture of asymmetries that we see today. I can see that our discussion will progress during these days, taking yet another step along the past that will lead us to a global public policy. I think, and I am persuaded, that the new technologies are the infinite possibilities that our civilization has built for the exercise of its own freedom, new relationships and freedoms. Now this language that follows standards different from traditional ones must be accessible to all, because until all of us are free, then each one of us is less free than he or she could be. The treaty established by UNESCO is a very important framework showing the path towards a good relationship between states and societies. We are in an era when access for all to the knowledge generated by mankind is the only condition for us to have justice and safety. We are becoming aware of the fact that the intensity of conflicts increases as systems of deprivation increases for populations and territories. The Internet must be a territory for all, an area of public coexistence for the exercise of this new citizenship. There is a promise which needs to be fulfilled and carried forward by each one of us present here today. We have to help prevail the spirit which is behind each word. And we must not allow our speeches to empty or meaning. We need to have a live economy supporting symbolic values and densities. A true economics. We have to be able to navigate on this ocean along its flows in order to weave the networks and links that dynamize our contemporary society. And these words just need to remind us all that our speeches and our languages should be focused on this greater aspiration that brings us all here and which is our reason to be, our possible worlds are built and spread by our voices. The Internet is transnational. It cannot be under the control of a country or even of some country. We need an ecology for the network like we need an ecology for the planet. And to deal with these issues, we need perhaps to think about extending the mandate of the United Nations on the subject. We need to establish a post-multistakeholder system, a new multistakeholderism. Thank you.

No comments: