 We speak about the Internet and we spoke the whole morning about the Internet. The Internet is a public good. The Internet has changed our lives quite substantially over the last 25 years. But I think that's only the beginning. The Internet will have a transformative character on each individual industry and each individual country. It will affect each individual being in the world. And that's the reason why the Forum, as an informal, impartial, not-for-profit platform, has offered the services to bring together all the organizations, all the people in the world, the multistakeholders on a global basis to look how we can preserve and even build the Internet as a tool beneficiary for mankind. We will engage into this process in a very open, very transparent way. Trying to make sure that everything which is discussed can be commented on by everybody in the world and also to make sure that everybody in a positive spirit should contribute to find solutions for the many-fold problems. What is also important in this initiative and which is a second objective is to make sure that not only one-third of the world's population has access, but that we extend the access in a very fast time because the Internet is probably the foremost tool for developing countries and to make them flourishing. So I pass on now the floor to Adrian Monk who will introduce the speakers, but again a very cordial welcome. Thank you and I'm going to start by apologizing for getting this running three minutes late. I'm sorry to everyone. I've broken the first rule of Swiss punctuality, but I promise you I'll keep it going on track and on time. Great pleasure to welcome you to this press briefing on the Net Mundial Initiative and just welcoming our panelists, Fadi Chahadi from ICANN, we have Minister Almeida from the Government of Brazil, President Ilves of Estonia, we have Angelima from the Web Foundation, we have Pierre Nontem from Accenture and Rick Sammons representing the World Economic Forum. I'm going to ask each of them just to explain their view of the proceedings this morning and how the initiatives got underway. Afterwards we'll have time for questions, when it comes to questions if you can just tell me your name and your organization and we can try and squeeze in as many as possible in the time that we have. But first I'm going to ask each of our panelists for a brief overview of proceedings so far this morning. I'm going to start fighting with you. Thank you. Today was the culmination of efforts that have started a year ago. Efforts to show how the multi-stakeholder model can solve internet issues and provide real solutions beyond the technical areas where the multi-stakeholder model is working very well today. So today is the beginning of expanding the multi-stakeholder approach to solve real problems that have not been solved for the internet to grow in a secure, civil and empowering fashion. It's very important today for us to recognize that governments, businesses, civil society, technical organizations, academics have come together from all over the world and thanks to the forum's incredible and very valuable platform and openness we're all here together to figure out the path forward. Now where I hope this will take us is to real solutions. I think we have many places where issues have been identified and new issues continue to be identified. But here in this initiative we will start the actual coalescing to solve problems together. The forum is a great enabler and for this we're very thankful to Professor Klaus Schwab and his great team for making this possible today. The internet owes them thanks, we all owe them thanks and I look forward to a very fruitful afternoon because this afternoon is equally important. We will take the great ideas we shared this morning and we will move into an action mode. Thank you. Minister Almeida. Well, thank you. Well, I'm going to start saying that it's hard to talk about internet governance. Few people know what it means. It's something abstract that people do not recognize the importance of it. And when I talk to friends in the Brazilian government one analogy that they use to represent this climate change. That's an issue that took a lot of time to be understood by the population, by the society and also to get some concrete measurements in place. So I think that we are in the same situation. Internet is becoming a major part of our daily life. And the problems also arise because of this increase of the internet activities that everyone has today. In the past people complained about my email is so slow. Others complained about the video was not being exhibited in the right way. But now we see a different kind of problems. Problems that are related to the social aspects, to the human aspects. Privacy invasion, privacy leakage, cyber crimes, hackers. And these problems create problems for the population. And they don't know why and they don't know what to do. Some countries have infrastructure that can handle this kind of problem. And in the case of Brazil we have an institutional and regulatory framework that is working on these problems. And this regulatory and institutional framework in Brazil has these characteristics of the multi-stakeholder composition. So multi-stakeholder is key for us. Not only multi-stakeholders, openness, transparency, inclusiveness, are all characteristics that Brazil, the Brazilian government, the President Dilma values a lot. So these are values that we work in order to bring these problems to the internet governance mechanism. But as I said, some countries do not have this adequate institutional framework. So after the success of NetMundial and the high-level panel led by President Ilves, there are several suggestions in order to improve the global internet governance system. But who is going to do that? ICANN has a limited activity. IETF has another limitation in terms of its mission. So maybe we need to think of new mechanism, new framework that will help countries to solve these new problems that arise due to the massification of the internet. So that I think that this morning was a first step into that direction. Minister, thank you very much. President Ilves, you moderated this morning's conversation. Can you give us your perspective? Well, thank you. I think it's quite clear to everyone here that the massive exponential, with a very high exponent, growth of the internet, of technology, accompanied by Moore's law where the computing power doubles every 18 months, that everything else is lagged behind. How we administer the internet systems that were adequate in, I mean, we recall, the first web browser was 1993, so 21 years since Andreessen came out with that, and only 25 since Tim Berners-Lee came out with the HCT protocol. So this is all moved at an amazing speed. How we deal with this, it's just that, I mean, we haven't kept up with it. Part of the problem, as I said in the morning, is that it's kind of the, it's the problem described by C.P. Snow 55 years ago in his book, The Two Cultures. I mean, okay, the technology part's moving very rapidly. And sort of the humanistic or the philosophical or the legal side hasn't had a clue about the technology. But in fact, the part of the kind of the democratic world is, I mean, these things have to be in harmony to be sort of mild. And so it's about time. Now, we can thank Mr. Snowden, I guess, to be a catalyst for discussions on this, but that really brought to the fore on the one hand the administering of DNS by ICANN, which has been doing all these years. And it brought to the fore the other dimension, which is, right, I mean, human rights, freedom of expression that were the participation of civil society in more broadly the multi-stakeholder model. That is, I think everyone agrees is a sine qua non for moving on. We have to, this is a catch up exercise. And I'm glad that, genuinely glad that the World Economic Forum has taken upon itself to actually bring together the various organizations, efforts, initiatives to do this. I mean, and just to keep in mind, these are not the sole ones. I mean, there is also, I mean, you have organizations such as the Freedom Online Coalition, which is more governmental, but pushing free expression. You have organizations like EFF, which clearly is, I mean, a grassroots organization concerned about the same issues. I mean, we need a place where we can come together and discuss this. We can actually do need to do the analytic work. What is something that is a matter of national legislation? What is that purely technical issue? What is something that really is up to civil society? So we're at the beginning, but it's also vital importance that we do get somewhere. I mean, from my own experience, I've found that the technology, in many cases, has moved so far beyond the understanding of, for example, legislators and governments that really, I mean, they look at this and they sort of shrug their shoulders. And then when you start talking about the possibilities and the dangers inherent in new technology, they have no clue. I mean, they really don't. And on the other side as well, you see massive paranoia on the part of governments and legislators about things that really do not impinge upon anything and simply represent an improvement in the level of services that can be provided using modern technology. So I see this as a crucial first step. Net Mundial did its part, a very important part. ICANN did its part and some very necessary changes and reforms have been enacted or in the process of being enacted thanks to that because we needed a wake-up call. I mean, there were many wake-up calls and we finally woke up. And so today I see the beginning of what will be inevitably a long process, probably a continuous process, because with Moore's law, I mean, we're going to keep having new and new and different things that we will have to face. It's not static. It's not as if, okay, we've solved the right of free expression forever. It will keep changing. It will solve the problem of privacy forever. Because there will always be some very clever people who will come up with new and new things and, again, precisely because they have not ever really taken a course in John Locke. Do not. I mean, they're just thrilled that they can do something really cool and spy on someone a better way, but not necessarily understand the implications of what they're doing. So I personally would see that this is an absolutely necessary and vital beginning of a process that ultimately, I think, will become a permanent thing. Thank you. Thanks very much. And Angelayma from the World Wide Web Foundation, can I just turn to you to give us a perspective on this morning's proceedings? There are two things that we're really encouraged about from this morning's discussion and one big worry. So to start with the two things that we're really exciting about this morning, I think the first is the focus on action and the evident willingness in the room to roll up our sleeves and get down to it. As the founder of the World Wide Web Foundation, Tim Berners-Lee, said in his remarks this morning, we are in danger of losing the open internet that has powered so much progress and economic growth in the past decades, and there is very little time. The human right to access, as we've heard, is only enjoyed by a minority of the world's population. The rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association online are under daily attack. And less tangibly, the rights to innovation and creativity online, which have been such a transformative force for the global economy, are also threatened by trends in areas like network neutrality and copyright protection. Those are all very worrying things. And I think the Net Mundial Summit earlier this year that I can and the Government of Brazil pulled together was a major breakthrough precisely because it put expanding and protecting human rights online at the very core of the task ahead. So an initiative to take that further is very welcome. The second thing that was very encouraging about this morning is to see the World Economic Forum taking the initiative to get business as a whole more engaged beyond the tech industries. As someone said this morning, all I think it was you, they're all business is digital business now. And business has an enormous role and responsibility in protecting and expanding the open internet. And to be frank, we feel that there are many areas where business can do much better. I want to give just three examples. Privacy obviously comes first to mind. There are many steps that businesses can take quite independently of governments to improve the security of users and their control over their personal data. The second is when it comes to access, finding better solutions in areas such as infrastructure sharing and opening up spectrum to enable wider access. And the third area just to give a third example is in better balancing copyright protection with flexibilities that will allow for continued innovation and public interest. So it's great that WEF has taken this initiative and we hope that it will prompt business to reflect on its own practices and take the lead in finding solutions that business itself can implement to expand human rights. A worry however, action is critical but so is legitimacy, so is coherence and so is clarity about objectives and means. So strengthening existing mechanisms may be preferable for taking forward some actions than setting up a new body. So I think a strong message is let's not rush to set up a new body just because an existing body is not already delivering an action. Let's have a careful look at who is best place to convene and coordinate which types of actions. And let's do that as many speakers have already stressed in as open and inclusive a manner as possible in keeping with the NetMundial outcome document. And I think that means that future discussions have to be more open to particularly developing country participation, obviously to the participation of women and to the participation of people who cannot physically be in this room. So we look forward to an open and transparent discussion about how is the World Economic Forum best place to add value to the existing initiatives and how can WE as business and civil society and governments contribute to strengthening the existing initiatives so that ultimately our goal of realizing human rights online can be achieved. Thank you. And piano tests and questions there from Anne for you sitting there representing business from Accenture. Can you give us your perspective on this morning and perhaps add to those points raised by Anne? Yes, sure. And very briefly, I think this morning we confirmed the unique opportunity offered by the Internet to enable the digital economy. And we confirmed that it's going to be a critical neighbor to drive growth and through growth, prosperity, wealth, jobs and well-being for the planet. We confirmed as well that the digital opportunity enabled by the Internet is pervasive across the board. It's going to impact not only all the industries and we talked a lot about healthcare as an illustration of the benefits that could be brought to the citizen and to the patient, but as well it will enable governments. And as you said, every business is going to be a digital business, but every government is going to be a new government at some point in time. And now, all these benefits provided by the digital economy enabled by the Internet are currently coming based on a very open, global Internet architecture. So what is the risk we frame this morning? In my own words and in the business words I would mention that it's the risk of fragmentation and protectionism. And that could bring, put out in all the benefits offered by the Internet. And I was very pleased this morning to see an amazing consensus between the different stakeholders with their own words, of course, around what it is we need to get right. And I guess there have been a great consensus around that should be quite a bottom-up, open, multi-stakeholder governance architecture. Not easy to execute, but clearly that's what we should aim at creating and probably and certainly an ongoing process. And second, indeed, we need to have the right Internet governance around some specific issues which I call this morning, such as, of course, data privacy and trust. I think the word trust has been used a lot. Cyber security for all the reasons we mentioned. But I was very interested this morning to hear a lot of dialogue around access. And we should be careful that sometime we are taking a westerner point of view or a developed country point of view around protecting what we have developed rightfully, but we need to bear in mind that billions of people they just want to have access. And it's the responsibility of us to provide this access to decision and to maintain the innovation. So we need to find the right governance, to provide the right principles, framework, potentially standards that will keep the openness, globalization nature of the Internet to enable this digital world that can provide so many benefits while providing the right answers to some of the key issues and doing that in a multi-stakeholder standpoint. And I was very encouraged and very grateful to the web for organizing this meeting and amazed again by the level of consensus and seriousness of the discussion this morning, which is a good backbone to get started with. Thank you. Before I turn to my colleague Rick Sammers very briefly, we've got a wealth of knowledge in the room as well as our media colleagues. And I just want to turn to Deputy Commerce Secretary Bruce Andrew from the US government and just ask you, Bruce, for a US take on this morning's proceedings. So in a world where you never want to get ahead of your boss, I would actually encourage you all to read Secretary Pritzker's statement which is being put out this morning. But essentially, in very brief, first she just thanks the web and Professor Schwab for their leadership in helping to bring this group together. And also lays out a couple of issues that we think is the secretary and the US government think are important to consider as we move forward. Bruce, thank you. And sorry for putting you on the spot like that. Rick, can I just say briefly from you about your take on this morning's meetings and the role the forum has played in helping to get people together? Today was a first step or it is still a first step in fact. We will have discussions that will continue beyond the initial scoping conversation we had this morning about what this type of exercise should focus on. The issue posed this morning and by this initiative more generally is in what ways can international cooperation be deepened or widen to enable this movement from identification of problems to some collective solutions on issues. And that may include the role of the forum, but this is a much bigger question than the forum itself. And so this platform that we are collectively part of here is an exploration of that wider question of how can the ecosystem for improved progress be enabled in a few different ways. Let me just briefly point to a couple of the specific notions that came up this morning which I think will inform how we proceed. One is that many of these questions are not solely technical issues. They are really at the intersection of innovation and wider economic, social security or political concerns. And so it is a good time to be able to bridge toward a wider discussion engaging different kinds of ministries from different portfolios, different stakeholders, different academic disciplines into thinking through those wider policy issues. There is already a very well-developed governance ecosystem instead of institutions for the technical aspect of internet governance. And this exercise is explicitly not focused on that. We have a robust set of institutions in that regard. It is really asking the question about how can cooperation, dialogue be better enabled to address these wider issues. Among the particular notions where there are some very good practices out there on different aspects of these social concerns or economic regulatory matters or security considerations and one way a cooperation can improve things and simplify those practices, scale them, make them better known, help to apply them more broadly. Other access came up for developing countries and disadvantaged populations. There was a strong push in the room to think about collective action of willing partners who might be able to make progress on that very important question. Put online the next billion or so citizens around the world through some self-associating cooperation. Furthermore, there are problems that arise where there are not well-established governance mechanisms in a variety of countries at different levels of development because the expertise is very widely distributed. The capabilities out there, the institutions, there's no real clearinghouse for that. There's no way to reduce the transaction costs for a small government or even a robust government that hasn't yet thought through its governance frameworks to be able to access that. That could be another way. Moreover, there are existing institutions for dialogue itself. The forum is a platform for dialogue. It has a specific utility in that it does bring leaders from across global society, different disciplines, different stakeholders at the leader level. But there are grassroots platforms and so one question that was posed is how might international cooperation be better mobilized to support, for example, the Internet Governance Forum? So these are some examples of the way we got some initial guidance for the larger question we're posing here is that how can international cooperation more generally advance the ball? Now, one last point here, and that is about our process. This is a first step. This is not a press conference to announce a set of decisions or outcomes. We are more scoping how we should proceed. And one very, very important aspect of the process going forward for us is consultation. We need to think about more structurally how we have a wider conversation over the next six months consulting various fora and players and experts as to what does the international community need in this regard? What kind of configuration, cooperation structure would be helpful in helping to coalesce expertise around pathways to solutions or some of the collective actions that this morning discussions indicated? So we'll be having a discussion later on that will continue the scoping process, but particularly in how do we make sure this is as transparent as open? The forum is committed to that. And we have webcast all aspects of the proceedings today. But we are really asking a more fundamental question of how do we strike a balance between moving to action on the one hand but having as wide a possible opportunity to get views and comments from the international community? Rick, thanks, Raj. Can I get a sense in the room of who has a question? Just if you've got a question, raise your hands for me. And I can get a sense of how disciplined I'm going to have to be about managing the time available. So I can see the slow movement of people raising hands. So we'll start with a gentleman in the orange. Can you just tell us where you're from and your news organization, your name? Jaamil Charle from St Paulo, Brazilian newspaper. My question is actually to anyone in the panel. I didn't have the chance of watching your webcast this morning, but what was it that you actually decided this morning? What was it that you actually had so much consensus about? For us in the press, we have to bring this information out to the public. It's very hard if we cannot actually know exactly what happened. If you could be so kind to perhaps get two or three points and show us exactly where you had the consensus. And secondly, you said around six months of consultations, but how long would it take for this new organization or new structure or new platform to actually be created? Or are you going to wait for ICANN's reform to be finished so this can be actually implemented? Thank you. I'm going to ask President Ilves to take that one. He's conveniently put his hand up. I'll just say that the issue is not so much decision, but I think what we've done is taken the step from Net Mundial's suggestions to actually having people doing something about it. That is the most important thing. The history of the past 100 years is full of great recommendations that are basically perfect. But even in our own government, we have all kinds of great suggestions, but unless it gets implemented, unless people pick it up and take the ball and start moving with it, they remain nice suggestions. And that was I think one of the concerns we've had is that Net Mundial was fantastic. But who's going to do something about it? And someone's got to do it. So thanks to Mr. Almeda and to Farid Shahad, and especially thanks to the World Economic Forum, something's happening, and that is far more important. You cannot decide, and we don't really have the democratic legitimacy here to decide anything, but what has been decided is to move forward based on what the past year has given us. Anyone on the panel want to help the headline writing prospects for our colleague from the Brazilian media ministry? I have two short comments. The first one, the journalist asked about consensus. And I think that we can say that multi-stakeholder model was a kind of consensus. Everyone talked about the importance of having multi-stakeholder models. And why is that kind of model important? If we think about the internet, it was and it has been a collective construction. People from academia, the technical community, corporations, government, all of them contribute to the construction of the internet. So the multi-stakeholder model that involves all these stakeholders is the most appropriate model to think about the future, because you have all the interests represented there. So this is one. And then finally, what we saw today is the beginning of the construction of a process. We are not going to present anything concrete today, but we have the direction of things that we want to construct in the short term. I think if I can paraphrase Churchill, that's not the beginning of the end, but it's the end of the beginning. So hopefully that's helpful. Lady there. Can I move across, and I'll come back to you if we have a minute. Thank you. My name is Nicola de Jean-Guiard from La Jaffee. The question is, whatever organization is going to eventually put those suggestions into place, what kind of power will it have and how will it resist state powers? We've long recently that that wasn't so easy. Okay, that's an interesting question. I think that presupposes that the end result of this conversation will be an organization. I'll let people come back to that. We'll try and take a couple more questions in as well. It's sort of along the same lines, but Nina Larsen AFP, I was just wondering with this multi-stakeholder approach, you're talking about consultations for six months. Is there set, is it set that the people who have been in the discussions now are going to be continuing these consultations? Is it set up or is it going to be fluid? Can you please explain? Okay. And so I'll just tell you as well. Thank you. Miguel Molina, Mexican independent reporter. You are talking about implementation and I think that's the devil in this conversation because implementing any decision that this forum or any other forum can come about is going to be very difficult via the reluctance of some governments to abide, to legislation, to international agreements and to even ethics in some cases. What are you supposed to do? What are you planning to do to face and solve this problem eventually? So three big points there. Is this conversation going to end in an organization? Firstly, I think secondly, is it a formal or informal process? And lastly, when it does come to something like the end of an end, is there going to be an issue around implementation? All big naughty questions. Who would like to kick off, Rick? Do you want to begin by giving a little bit more background? Sure. I think one of the things we've learned from this debate over the years and certainly from the NetMundial conference and from the high-level panel that President Ilvis chaired is that this governance ecosystem, where everybody exists, is not a monolithic or an apex type of a system where there is an organization. It's a very distributed or decentralized one. So I think most of us, our instinct at this point is not to assume that there can be a central organization that would come out of any process that could span most, if not all, of these kinds of issues. Really what we're talking about here is enabling better performance of a very decentralized set of expertise and resources out there to be applied to individual problems. And on the implementation question, that means that this is, it's important not to think about this as a universal norm setting process. This is a bottom-up world, if you will, in which very often behaviors can be influenced by leading practice that begins to be accepted more widely and that begins to set an informal or soft normal expectation. And that will happen most likely with different kinds of combinations for different issues. And so we approach this with a real sense of humility about the complexity and the enormity of the resources and the different activities that are already going on. Maybe there are solutions that exist, but they're just not very widely understood, let alone widely adopted or practiced. And I think that's the best way to think about this question about will there be an organization created or how will you move to implementation? It'll be a function of self-organizing, comprehensive types of activity on different issues. Last very quick word about the process of discussion. We at the forum are committed to run over the next couple of years a structured set of dialogues about different facets of this issue engaging our particular community. We are not the only such platform, but we are a very special platform in this regard, and it has a utility that complements in our view the very grassroots types of discussions, which will be held next week in Istanbul. But for that, for us, we'll already next in a couple of weeks in our annual meeting of new champions in Tianjin, China, begin to have a few discussions among the various participants there on different facets of this issue. And we're very pleased to be engaging with a variety of actors, but including the minister in China who's responsible for these issues. He'll be participating. And we'll have discussions in India when we are convening our India summit later this year in November. We understand that there'll be some other discussions that'll take place on different fora. In addition to those substantive conversations, we want to have a specific consultation about how should we operate this particular initiative. They're related, but somewhat different questions. And we'll begin that conversation about how to structure those more organizational conversations at the conference here at the forum. Thanks. Would anyone else like to come in on that? Or should we just check for some more questions? President Elvis. Let me just say, I mean, we do not have democratically legitimacy. We are not elected here, but that's the whole point of a multi-stakeholder model, which is that you want civil society involved. And so, I mean, clearly when it comes to implementation, we don't have the right to impose any rules. We can certainly explain what best practices are. I mean, take the example of transparency international. I mean, everyone wants to be in a good place on that. But I mean, when you see your country in a bad place, it not only, I mean, it also causes the people in that country to say, wait a minute, we have a problem here. And let's do something about it. So we look at internet governance and you see countries that are clearly not doing the kind of thing that we think should be done. Well, I mean, then we can say that or we can rank order and we can have criteria. I mean, how open is the country to a multi-stakeholder model? How does it do when it comes to internet freedom? I mean, there are a whole range of possibilities that are short of world government. I mean, shall never happen. But certainly in terms of optimal practices, in terms of better practices, in terms of showing the benefits of highlighting and showcasing the benefits of countries that are more open and great, which as I am convinced of faster and greater development, all of these things are motivators. You know, implementing now we have program five-year plan, we fill. You know, that doesn't really fit into this. Shall we have a quick check on other questions, gentlemen, there? And I know people want to do one-to-one interviews with our panelists. So we'll probably try and take this question as the last one and then give you a little bit of time just to do one-on-ones, gentlemen. Thank you. My question to the panel is what exactly do you expect us to do when we leave this place today? Because I believe there was a particular reason that was taken. There was a particular reason why the group was chosen. Most of them I can see are leaders. So it would be good to come out clearly on what you expect us to do in the next six months so that we can move from the current position to whatever position we deem to be good, because after six months we'll be asked what did we achieve when we came to Geneva. I think that's a very good question. I think Rick was saying you'll be exploring that immediately this press conference ends, but I don't know if anyone else wants to come in on that. Yeah, I could, Barak, thank you for your question. I think immediately after this press conference we're going to ask all of us to come together and to start thinking in practical terms how do we take some of the recommendations and directions that came from the panel that President Ilvis ran as well as from the NetMundial meeting in Sao Paulo and put them into action. So I give you an example. Both the panel's report as well as NetMundial and Sao Paulo made it very clear that we have a gap in internet governance which is to provide a clear link between internet governance issues and available internet governance solutions to these issues. That mapping is missing. Today we do it by going to conferences and talking and hopefully finding people who can help us to find solutions. So one of the things we'd like to move on as an example of a practical thing is how do we together build the knowledge and the know-how tool that would be available to the whole world so that available solutions are immediately mapped to existing issues. That's one example of many things we'd like to do this afternoon together and I just would like to add to the gentleman from Mexico. Let's be clear that there are really three stages to solving this problem which were outlined in the report of President Ilvis's panel. There's issue identification there's solution identification and then there is solution implementation. What we are focusing on now is this middle stage. I think there are many fora that identify issues. I think all of us know that we can easily point to many good places that have identified the issues we're all facing and issues are evolving all the time. What we need now is a machinery and a set of mechanisms that start solving these issues. Once we have solutions those who can implement them either voluntarily or through government rules or regulations can then pick these solutions and implement them. That's a separate stage and a separate step. Here we're focused on this middle ground which is sorely missing and if we don't move into it then those trying to implement do not have real broad solutions that they can pick from. That's what we're hoping for. I wanted to follow up on that. I think if there's one thing that people in this room do when they fly back home it should be to convene a meeting sometime in the next few months with all of the stakeholders including internet users. So let's get the chamber of commerce in the room. Let's get the farmers association in the room. Let's get women's groups in the room. Let's get journalists there and let's get the technical community there. Let's get the domain name authority if there is one. Let's get the ISPs association look at the NetMundial outcome document and start that dialogue of how do we translate this in our own country. Can we have something like a CGI dot BR? Do we need something like a Marcosaville dot internet in our country to establish the rights responsibilities of all stakeholders? How do we get that off the ground? Which actors can help to close the gaps that are there? What role could the business community play? What role could the World Economic Forum play? What is the responsibility of government? What is the responsibility of the UN of the WISIS process of the IGF so that those views can be openly exchanged and discussed at a national level and we're giving real substantive input into how NetMundial outcomes forward that comes from the national level. Minister, well I think that Julina read my mind but I'm just going to compliment a little bit what you can do after you leave this meeting. Once concrete is that you can join your community and come up with suggestions that the way that we did in the NetMundial we had suggestions coming from different parts of the world from where they were channeled by the one net so if you go back and find a community that you think that you are involved so you can start giving suggestions. That's what we expect. Yes and maybe coming back to the question of the journalists around making practical what it is you are doing, what is the outcome how we can take from here for me what we've been doing this morning and if I had to characterize what we are aiming at with the web is to create and it's pretty bold it's pretty unique that's why it's probably not simple to explain like this because what we said is internet is a global thing which is going to require global governance and global set of what principle and standards coming from the NetMundial. It can't be solved by any typical country based and I participated personally too many in Europe where you have a meeting you put in 20 so called experts most of the time local to deal with the data privacy or internet regulation for a typical country. This is not the way it works. The internet is too global, is too complex. You have too many stakeholders around the world that it can't be solved by a small group in one country to deal with these big issues. This is the hypothesis that it should be globally organized, globally managed with big issues. How you do that either you have 150 countries around the world with 150 meetings trying to solve their problem or you doing something which is bold and which is what the web is aiming at enabling you creating a platform technology platform a communication platform, a set of tool techniques, principles where all the stakeholders around the world and many were there this morning in the room will be able to contribute on very specific issues. I mean it's not free lunch, we have the issues we know around user access around data privacy, data prevention, data integrity around human rights, around intellectual property rights so we will have the set of issues and then put in this web you need a communication architecture where the business community representing the ICT which what I'm doing today in my capacity will be able to contribute on specific issues and then with all this set of contribution the web and the members and the participants will be able to step up, speak up take the best initiative around the world and engage with the policy makers, engage the regulators and say on these specific issues, this is we what we found we would use the word crowdsourcing the best expert around the world it's pretty unique because it's not the way you typically do that kind of thing it's managed locally you're putting few people from the local government, few experts you give six months, they provide a report and a recommendation and you write a policy and a regulation which is irrelevant given the nature of the internet we and the web want to do something which probably has never been done at that scale and it has to be done that way because this is the only way to put the right governance for something which is so global that's what I feel after this morning Fadi, let's turn to you for the last word it's very difficult to follow this thank you Pierre, this was very lucidly said and it's true it's the reason we're here at the form I want to address something far less passionate but I heard two questions related to the new organization and one about ICANN so this is technical but I want to set the record straight I don't think there is anyone here that is presupposing that the solution must be done in some new or new structure it's very important that we took a pause after NetMundial and the panel and we're bringing the global community in the most fertile place for us to have a platform the world economic form to debate and discuss what solutions are needed and then and only then can we decide if there are pathways to solve these solutions it could be that we need a solution at the World Wide Web Foundation maybe we find another solution that can be well solved at the Internet Society so before we get to who will solve let's first agree what are the problems how can we get the solutions then we'll find as Rick Simmons said the pathways or the platforms to go make these solutions concrete and to maintain them that's very important and as to your questions I mean about ICANN and whether so let's be clear ICANN has its own process that is happening in order to globalize ICANN reform it and get it ready post the US specific and unique role in ICANN that is happening and that is independent from this initiative and I think the world is working with us to make that transition successful here in this initiative we are not bound by that timeline we are moving we are building pathways to real solutions so we can move forward I hope this is helpful Jimmie thank you very much the forum does have some experience in this space if I can just finally call for one last word on my colleague Rick Simmons and then just ask Professor Schwab just to draw a proceeding still close one final note just we want to indicate that as part of this ongoing policy dialogue our next annual meeting in Davos will have an important focus on the set of issues just wanted to make sure that was aware Professor Schwab thank you for participating it was a great engagement of everybody and I feel if there is just coming back to one question if there is one key message which comes out which is very important for the world it is the willingness of all the countries we were in the room of all the stakeholders which were in the room the internet does not become fragmented because we had a lot of discussions in the media of the possible breakdown of the internet in national units or whatever it was but here I think we had a great commitment and a plea to keep the internet open for everybody and to use it as an instrument to enhance the dignity of any individual person I also want to just come back with my colleague Rick Samensen in terms of pressure on us we know because if the deadline of six months was mentioned I suddenly thought oh my god it's not six months it's only five months because in five months we have the annual meeting of Davos and we are very aware that based on the expectations which we have created here we will be measured in terms of delivery and delivery not of decisions but delivery of A a platform for real interaction and I should remind you we are talking about the internet so a lot of the interaction which we foresee over the next months will be based on the internet which means will enable us to include everybody and to collect as many good practices, examples proposals, criticism so it will be certainly a cooperative process and in Davos we will have the next phase looking at the possible solutions proposed through this process I want to conclude by thanking all the members from so many countries from so many organizations who participated this morning at our dialogue and I want to thank particularly the panel and President Ilves for the chairmanship of those discussions and the excellent cooperation I should mention which we had this was not out of the meeting it was a meeting prepared and I think the best preparation for the meeting actually Minister was your meeting and your initiative and my special thanks also to ICANN with an organization which we have established to complement the more political economic social issues also with the technological issues because it's very important to have both integrated we cannot separate the technical and the more political economic and social issues each form and other and I want to thank the civil society because we work very closely and actually yesterday we had a preparatory meeting in some way of about 60 representatives of civil society UC downstairs the tent we had 4,000 young people in the age of 20 to 30 here assembled over the weekend they came from over 150 countries we want to integrate youth because it can be the main beneficiaries of the internet in the future and finally I want to thank Pierre and our business members because at the end it's also a business enabling business driven action which the internet represents so we have to make sure that business is engaged in a responsible and responsive manner so thank you again, thank you Mr President thanks to the panelists thanks everybody, please give them a chance to take their microphones off before you field them with questions and to all the members and colleagues from the Geneva press corps I very much look forward to seeing you again next week for the launch of the global competitiveness report which will be midweek next week so if I don't have a chance to say hello now please catch up with me then thank you