The Success of the UN World Summit on the Information Society and What it Bodes for the Future

2:00 P.M. EST

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. MACHAMER: Good afternoon and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. We're happy to have with us today Ambassador David Gross who is here to brief on the UN World Summit on the Information Society, or at least the first phase of that summit that took place in Geneva from the 10th to the 12th of December.

So with that, Ambassador, welcome.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Thank you very much, and I appreciate you all attending, particularly since I know that there's entertainment across the river with the Secretary of Defense taking my time here. It's really -- we didn't coordinate very well on these things.

I was told it might be useful if I give a few opening remarks about the summit and give you a little bit of an overview, particularly if, I'm not sure how many of you have been following it very closely, but I can give you a little overview and then I think, actually, that the easiest thing is then do questions and answers and anything, in any way you would like to proceed.

The summit, that was the first phase of the summit, which we had last week, the 10th, 11th and 12th of December in Geneva, Switzerland, was a culmination of almost two years of preparatory work in the world community. I was particularly pleased to see that about 176 countries actively participated at the summit itself, an extraordinary number. I'm told that the number of participants, registered participants, at the summit was something in the order of 12,000, which is an extraordinarily large number for a UN heads of state summit.

There were a large number of heads of state there. I don't have an exact number for that, although it's probably now on the WSIS website. And for those of you who don't know how to reach that, there's a lot of good information there. It's at www.wsis.org, so that's an easy way to get some of the background information and documents and things like that. It's all very easy to access as you would hope and expect of something on the information society, that they ought to be technologically, reasonably sophisticated about these things.

As I mentioned, there was about a two-year run-up, 18-month, two-year run-up to the summit, although the actual process began back in 1998, when the idea was first broached. The summit, I think, was extraordinarily successful for a number of reasons. First, it was very, very successful because there was, I think, real enthusiasm for the documents that were produced by the countries.

There were two documents produced: A Declaration of Principles, and a Plan of Action. Both of those documents were the result of a lot of hard work over a substantial period of time. And I was impressed by how many people, how many governments, felt enthusiastic about those documents, regardless of sort of where they began in the process. And of course, we all began in somewhat different places, but we all came together in terms of these documents.

I also was very impressed in a way, frankly, that I hadn't anticipated being impressed. At the summit -- the summit, as it was organized by the Swiss, had the summit -- the formal summit itself, the political part of the summit with the representatives of the 176 countries and many NGOs and civil society and others of the private sector. But then there was this very large area, because it was held in what, in essence, is a large convention center, very large area, where they had invited people from around the world to show what -- how they're using ICT -- Information and Communications Technologies, particularly from the developing world. And it was one of the most exciting things I've ever seen. And I've seen some exciting things in the past.

It was exciting because it's, particularly for those of us who come from the developed world, we come with a certain set of, of ideas and hopes and some expectations. But to see how much work is being done in the developing world itself to deal with the issues in the developing world: the use of technology for educational purposes; the use of technology for health purposes; the use of new technologies to help people socially, economically -- the origins of which is in the developing world itself -- people who are taking the technology, modifying it in ways that meet the needs of the local community, and then in this process, sharing it with others.

The disability community was very active in showing the use of technology and how it helps them. And that was really quite an emotionally satisfying, in fact, thrilling experience -- not just for me, but I had the good pleasure to talk with a lot of colleagues from around the world, and they had the same, same sense. The energy levels were extraordinarily high.

I had never been to a UN heads of state summit before, but I would be surprised if any of those had the same sort of energy, that intensity, that enthusiasm that they had here. It was really quite extraordinary. And as I say, it was actually quite, quite moving to see because you could both see on the one hand, the political aspect -- the ideas of what ought to be, which are expressed in the document. But then at the same time, go to the next room, an enormous set of rooms, really, and actually see what's already going on.

And you marry those two together, that which may come, that what actually is, and it's extraordinarily exciting. And for me, it was particularly satisfying because it really shows what this was all about, which was bettering people and having a better life for our children and our children's children. And that, you know, for many of us that's what it's all about.

Anyhow, that's really sort of an overview. I could talk -- maybe I'll mention just a couple things about the documents. The documents, which, as I mentioned before, I think everyone that I spoke with were very well satisfied with if not excited by. It dealt with a lot of very difficult issues, and I think it dealt with them quite well.

It dealt with the issue, for example, of freedom of expression and endorsed in basically an unqualified fashion the importance of freedom of expression to the information society, which I thought was extraordinarily important.

It dealt with the role of media explicitly. It deals with the role of the media and the importance that the media plays in terms of communicating ideas and information, and the importance that plays in the information society.

It dealt with the issue of intellectual property rights, which, of course, is a very serious and important and contentious issue in many forums. But we came to a consensus on the importance of intellectual property to content creation, and therefore to the information society, as well as the importance of dissemination of information as being an extraordinarily important thing in the information society.

We also dealt with the issue of Internet governance, which I'm sure you know is a very hotly discussed issue. And we dealt with it, I thought, in a very productive fashion. We recognized that there is a real divide amongst peoples as to what that term "Internet governance" means.

So what we have done is we have asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations to create a working group that will be open-ended for which participants from governments, from the private sector, from civil society, from intergovernmental organizations will be able to participate fully in the organization of this group, and that group will then look at the issue of Internet governance, try to define it, will then try to identify the public policy issues associated with Internet governance and prepare a report, no action to be taken, but to prepare a report that will then be available as the world gathers in November of 2005, for the second phases of the summit.

So we think that's a very good and important outcome. Because, clearly, one of the things that's extraordinarily important to all of us is that the issues associated with this important technology and group of technologies be discussed, be analyzed, and that information be communicated back and forth, so that we can better understand what ought to be done, and just as importantly, what ought not to be done.

So those are a number of the things that we dealt with. As I said, it was a very exciting, very productive time, a culmination of about two years of effort, and one that we're very satisfied with.

Why don't I take a few questions, please?

MR. MACHAMER: As -- just as a reminder -- excuse me.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Yeah.

MR. MACHAMER: As a reminder, please wait for the microphone and identify yourself before asking your question.

QUESTION: Yeah. My name is Adu-Asare. I'm a reporter for AfricaNewscast.com. I have listened. I listened to the tail end of your interview this morning -- this afternoon, rather, on WAMU, and I've also been following the proceedings as they happened in the summit, I have seen a number of documents that were presented, as you're saying, especially by the African delegations at the summit. And by looking at what they presented, would you agree with me that the problem we're talking about is not about digital divide, as such, but about economic divide in the final analysis?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: There have, of course, since the beginning of time, been a series of divides in a lot of ways. One of the things that I have learned from my African colleagues, in particular, but from many others as well, is how ICTs, information and communications technology, has the opportunity -- and, in fact, we're seeing now on the ground in Africa and elsewhere, how transforming that is, how that really changes the traditional divides.

The documents themselves actually speak in terms of how it changes the age-old problems associated with distance and time. If you were a child growing up -- and I'm telling you stories that have been told to me, so I apologize; but if you were a child growing up in the bush of South Africa or out on the plains of the Kalahari, you were destined for a certain life because you were born there throughout history, that you had a certain destiny.

Because of technology, because of the Internet and other types of technology, that destiny is now a much -- the opportunities about your potential destiny are much wider in a way that's never been true before in history. And the stories, as I walked around the summit talking to people, seeing what was going on, the ability of a child in many places in Africa -- not everywhere, as yet -- but, hopefully, that will -- that day will come, to be able to access the Library of Congress, to be able to see the paintings of the Louvre, to be able to go and interact with people, go in the sense of being able to have information -- is something we've never seen before in history, and it's that power that we see.

So, yes, to some degree, you know, we've always had divides. There's an economic divide. There are economic divides within the United States, not just between north and south, developed transitional and developed countries, but within each country we have our own set of issues that we all grapple with in our own way trying to make things better.

And we think the reason to have the summit, in order to focus more attention about the transforming possibilities, that, if done correctly, countries can provide to their people by having lower cost access, by having greater dissemination of the information, to not control that information is extraordinarily important.

And we see -- the stories I hear out of Africa are really quite moving and quite impressive. The growth in Africa of Internet access, recognizing it starts at a low base; the percentage increases are, I believe, the fastest in the world. That's not to say there isn't a lot more to be done; we all recognize it ought to be.

I was particularly struck in my conversations with President Wade, for example, of Senegal, who has been a leader in this area for Africa through NEPAD, who was a leader in the efforts to -- for a Digital Solidarity Fund, recognizing that, in our case, we were not particularly supportive of the fund as it was being presented, not because we disagree about the goals, quite the opposite, we seek the same goals; but rather, we want to make sure the countries that are doing the right thing for its people get the benefits of assistance because we want that assistance to be sustainable.

So, for example, in the case of Senegal, President Bush announced earlier this year the Digital Freedom Initiative, in which many branches of the U.S. Government -- the Peace Corps, USAID, our Department of Commerce, Department of State -- together with private enterprise are providing direct capacity-building support, technology, legal support, regulatory support, and the like, to help Senegal and the Senegalese Government on this.

And President Wade was extraordinarily appreciative when I saw him about that, saying how important that was to countries. Why Senegal? Because Senegal is, in our view, doing the right things for its people in this area, and that the activities are sustainable as a result. We just announced two new countries. The President when he was in Bangkok for the APEC Leaders Conference announced that two new countries joining the Digital Freedom Initiative, Peru and Indonesia. Same sort of thing.

We see countries doing the right thing, the right way for its people; we want to support that. We just are very cautious in supporting anything for anyone, any way, because we've seen that that, in the past, has not been a recipe for bettering the people and getting the technology to the people it ought to get to and get in the benefits in a sustainable fashion to the people of those countries. So we want to be very careful, very directed, and reward those countries that are, in fact, doing the right thing, the right way for their people.

Does that answer your question? Please.

QUESTION: Sorry. Again --

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Yes.

QUESTION: Would you say -- would you explain further why the U.S. has decided not to actually support the Solidarity Fund? And could you give us an idea of the countries that are on the list to be supported, if you have some time?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: What we -- it was not so much an issue of supporting or not supporting the Digital Solidarity Fund; rather, we thought that these issues, at this time, were premature. We're very comfortable with the way that documents came out which said, in essence, that those countries that would like to go forward and create a Digital Solidarity Fund.

Obviously, countries are sovereign nations, are free to do that which they think are in their best interest, and, of course, we have no interest in interfering with that. The issue was, is there a need for a new multilateral fund to be created, and we thought that the answer to that at this time was premature because, one, we didn't know if existing multilateral funding mechanisms were sufficient or not. There was no evidence, one way or another. We thought that work needed to be done.

Two is, assuming for the moment something we do not yet know, that is, that a new multilat -- that the current funding mechanisms are insufficient, is the better course to tweak the existing funding sources in some way, rather than create a new fund? It's often easier to change existing things, not always, but often it's easier to change than new ones.

Three, why aren't the existing funding mechanisms sufficient, if that's the case? Is it an efficiency problem? Are the wrong people getting the money? Is it just not enough money? What is it? We don't know, and we thought those -- that question ought to be answered before we commit to something.

Similarly, who would gather the money? Who would -- how -- what are the controls about that? Of course, as everyone would agree, when people in the international community gather other people's money, voluntary or not, it's very important that people feel secure about that process. We didn't think we knew the answer to that question at this time.

And then, lastly, we weren't sure how the monies were going to be disbursed because that was a very important question. Are they going to go to people who have already been receiving, but not yet benefiting their people?

That, we thought we'd think, obviously, is a bad idea. I think most people would think that would be a bad idea.

Is it going to be done based on certain criteria to direct it? If so, what are those criteria?

As you can tell, lots of questions, and therefore it was very premature to commit to a new fund. So we are very pleased that the documents say that we all agree that the issue of the need for a fund and the feasibility of a fund ought to be studied, and we'll be very anxious for the result of that study because that will tell us something important, and then it would be ripe to make a decision.

Having said that, I wouldn't want anybody to misperceive our commitment in a multilateral context. The Digital Freedom Initiative is a bilateral one, where the U.S. Government directly deals with sovereign countries and provides these sorts of support.

But we also provide it through a variety of multilateral mechanism. For example, the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva, which is the UN-affiliated organization, does a lot of work in the development area, in the sorts of things that we're talking about. And the United States is one of the largest contributors, voluntary contributors, to the ITU, International Telecommunications Union.

Similarly, things like the World Bank. There are obviously many other funding mechanisms that are very involved.

I was very pleased on the delegation that I had the honor to lead. We had Peter Watson. Peter Watson is the CEO and President of OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which provides risk insurance, and so forth, and facilitates many types of investments in the developing world, and he was with us on the delegation because he was in the process of announcing a new $400 million fund that they were making available for telecommunications in the developing world.

So there's a lot that's done, both directly, bilaterally, and also through the multilateral process. So our issue was not with the concept. It was really with the homework, I think, at this stage. It was really, we thought, more premature than it was a question of making a decision on the merits.

QUESTION: My name is Alexei Alexis from the Daily Report for Executives, and I had two questions.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Okay.

QUESTION: One, I was just wondering if the summit leaders had laid out any goals ahead of time, in terms of what they wanted to achieve from this, and to what extent those were achieved.

And, two, I had some questions, as far as the Internet governance issue, just looking for some details on that. I know there was a move to have a government body replace ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]. I was wondering, first, where was the push coming from for that, and were there any details about how you all would go about putting that together.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Okay, let's see if I can remember both of those questions. On the first question, the way in which these things are done is that governments of the world, together in this case, civil society, and the private sector, was the first time that a UN summit -- I'm told it's the first time a UN summit has included those other two constituencies, usually they're just governments.

We got together and the first preparatory meeting was about 18 months ago. And we set out for ourselves, governments set out and others set out, things that we wanted to accomplish, which meant that these documents in their initial stages were extraordinarily long. And so much of the process of the negotiating was paring it down to cut to the core of the issues, to the important issues, and to try to find common ground that we thought was important.

The documents were finalized before the leaders that you referred to came to Geneva. They are actually -- we had all hoped that they were going to be done well before the leaders came to Geneva, but, in fact, the leaders started coming to Geneva on Wednesday morning and the documents were done on Tuesday. So, and I think from the leaders that I spoke with, they seemed well pleased by the results of the preparatory process. So I was very pleased about that. And certainly from the statements that they all made, which are also generally available with this website as well, they seemed -- I didn't hear any -- this is a double negative. I will not do a double negative for you. They were all -- the statements that I heard supported the documents that were created. I did not hear anyone say that they had a problem with the documents. And the documents were all agreed to by the summit by acclamation at the end, on Friday afternoon, actually early evening. So that was an exciting moment, I think reflects the enthusiasm at all levels for the documents that came out.

With regard to Internet governance, that was a very hotly discussed set of issues. There were calls by certain countries to reform Internet governance issues, and as I alluded to before, one of the things that became apparent through this discussion is that if you had X number of people discussing Internet governance there was at least X plus 1, if not X plus 2, different views on what Internet governance means. For example, is Internet governance the management, the technical management of the Internet, or is it something broader? Does it have to do with relationships between countries and organizations? Does it have to do with taxation? What are we talking about?

And as people talked and realized that they were talking about using the same terms to discuss very different concepts, it became clear that we needed to do a lot more homework in order to have a more informed discussion.

Having said that, it was clear that there are a lot of people in the world that are concerned about the approach and whether or not -- you know, who is in charge and whether or not there ought to be somebody in charge. You know, there are some who think that the Internet really ought to be viewed as just another more sophisticated form of telecommunications, as if it were just a big telecommunications, telephone system, in some fashion, which I do not subscribe to.

But if you look at it that way, there is no international organization that regulates telephones. There are national organizations that do that sometimes, but there's no international. The ITU doesn't regulate telephony. There is no international organization. So as people think about these things, it often raises more questions than there are immediate answers.

Our view has been that this area needs to have what we call multi-stakeholder involvement. By that we mean that there's a role for governments, there's a role for private industry, there's a role for civil society, but because of the dynamic nature of the Internet and related technologies, that it really needs to be private sector-led, as it has been over the past two years. Because, otherwise, governments and other international organizations are, by their nature, reactive, not proactive. And what you want to do is allow for private enterprise and others to operate as freely as possible in a way that allows for innovation and the dynamism of the Internet to really flourish. And we think that really has been, so far, the recipe for success, and we think that's an important recipe to continue to use.

Does that answer your question?

QUESTION: I recall reading that there was some sort of working group that's supposed to get together and decide whether that -- and to that body should be put together. Were there any other details about how they should go about doing that?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Sure. Yes, the way in which it came out at the end of the day was that the countries of the world who gathered have now formally asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convene a working group. The working group is to focus on very precisely defined issues that are set forth in a document.

Issue one is help us define what the term "Internet governance" means, come to some common understanding of what that term means.

Second is identify the public policy issues associated with Internet governance. What are we talking about here, is basically the question to be answered.

And then to prepare a report associated with that. And that report would then be presented for purposes of the second phase. So time is of the essence.

How the Secretary-General will put this group together is yet to be determined. Our hope is that he will take his time and think carefully about the structure and the organization because it's not intuitively obvious how you do this.

The language of the documents call for the process to be open, to allow for full and active participation not only of governments but also the private sector, of civil society, of other intergovernmental organizations.

So, of course, there is a natural and understandable tension now that's created. On the one hand, you want to be open and inclusive and transparent, which are words often used with regard to the Internet. On the other hand, it's supposed to produce a report, and so there is sort of a natural sense that you need to have some structure. Someone must have the pens, someone must -- how do you make decisions and so forth, which suggests a need for some organization as well.

Those are tricky and difficult issues, and we look forward to working with our colleagues from other countries and with the UN and the Secretary-General and others, trying to work through that to make it both an inclusive and an effective process. That process has only just begun.

Sir.

QUESTION: Are there any other timeframes set up, you know, like when the working group has to be established, or anything like that?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: There's no timeframe for when the working group has to be established. I'm going to look here and see. There are a couple working groups that were called to be established and I know the report has to be made in time for Tunis in '05, but there is no other date that is referred to, I believe. And that looks correct there.

In contrast, going back to the Digital Freedom Initiative, if I can find that, if I remember correctly, there was -- there we're supposed to have the results of that feasibility study accomplished by the end of next year. As I used to say, "Don't quote me on that," because I don't see it right off the top of my head here. But I believe that that was what was finally agreed upon. So that one I should be able to find. It's right -- yes. Boy, I was right. It's supposed to be completed by the end of December 2004.

COLONEL MACHAMER: Let's go to India.

QUESTION: T.V. Parasuram, Press Trust of India. Can you give us some more ideas about the solidarity fund, what it's supposed to do?

Secondly, did the conference discuss new developments like Internet telephony, which will back up most of the telephone companies in the world?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: With regard to the Digital Solidarity Fund, there was a lot of discussion about it but it was really, as I mentioned, without much in the way of details. There was discussion, of course, by many out of the developing world about their perceived need for such a fund, but, of course, as I mentioned before, obviously, those studies haven't been done and there was a general recognition about where it was in terms of the process, that perhaps that, you know, if the studies are supposed to be done next year that we'll be in a better shape at the end of next year to evaluate those funds -- what it would do, how it would do it, and, most importantly, is there any need for it or are there existing mechanisms that can be done to do it in as effectively, if not more effectively, particularly if they're modified.

With regard to voice over the Internet, which, of course, is getting a lot of attention here and elsewhere, there was very little discussion, I would say, about it, and probably for good reason. The summit, by its nature, is a political summit -- heads of state -- and so the focus really was coming up with sort of core principles and concepts, rather than grappling with important regulatory issues such as voice over the Internet pose.

This was not a conference, wasn't designed to be sort of technical in nature. I will say, of course, in the hallway conversations I had with many of my colleagues, of course, I talked about these issues because they are ones that are of great interest to many people. But it really is more of the things like voice over the Internet is really more of a -- perhaps a little more in the weeds, a little more detailed and more specific than what was the focus of the summit itself.

I will say at the same -- just before the summit was held, somewhat by coincidence, the ITU had its annual -- I think it was its fourth annual regulators conference, for which there was something on the order of about a hundred independent regulators came to Geneva, including Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy from the FCC. There was an Indian delegation there as well that was very active in its participation.

And voice over the Internet was one of the issues that were being discussed. The nature of those proceedings are not to come to conclusions, but rather to share what's going on in different countries and what the regulatory issues are. And, of course, voice over the Internet was -- is one of those issues that many are discussing in many places, both the good news and the bad news associated with it.

Does that answer your question? By the way, I should, while I have you here, we worked very closely with the Indian delegation at preparations for the summit, and I was particularly excited in my discussions with them because I plan to be going to India for the first time in my official capacity -- I've been there a number of times as a tourist but I've never gone there in my capacity at the State Department, but I'm going to be there in early February.

There is a Supercomm that's being held in New Delhi, and I hope and expect to have some meetings with the Indian Government, and the like. I met very briefly with the minister when he was at the summit, and the like. So I look forward to working with the Indian Government going forward on a lot of issues of common interest.

Next.

COLONEL MACHAMER: Any more questions? China.

QUESTION: Okay. I'm Ying He with China's Xinhua News Agency. Actually, I think there are a lot of questions with this Internet issue. I think it's a very interesting issue.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: I agree.

QUESTION: And maybe I'll ask three.

The first is, is that I think poverty is much more related to lack of knowledge. And do you think it could be a more effective way to provide Internet access or computers to the poor area?

Like, I think people have not done enough to do that. I remember I have watched a video program about India in a very poor village and the World Bank sent some computers there. They put the computers into the wall, and it cut hole in the wall, like that, and children can get free access to the computers, and I think it's a very good way. But I don't think I have noticed large-scale efforts in this area, and I would like to address this.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Yeah. I think that obviously we all have a common interest, and it's reflected in the documents that we approved last week. We would like to see everyone connected to the Internet. One of the ways this is being done in India, it's being done throughout Africa and South America in very interesting and innovative fashions, is to try to have telecommunity, having centers that have access using schools, and post offices in Russia, a variety of ways.

There is, for those of us in the United States, I think there is a natural tendency to think that everyone needs their own computer and their own Internet access, that somehow -- in fact, if you look at the statistics, it sort of assumes that same way, where what we're discovering is that what you -- as you, I think, correctly identified, the key is access, not ownership; and, therefore, as long as people have access, particularly through schools for children, it's really quite a -- the opportunities are really quite substantial.

Each country has a responsibility to decide how best to do this for their people. I don't subscribe to the view that one size fits all, that one process automatically works for everyone. There are cultural issues. There are economic issues. There are social issues that are involved in these things.

Having said that, I've been struck that, you know, China has made very substantial strides; for example, it now has, what, 78 million Internet users, I think. I think the minister told me something like that at the summit. They were very proud, and, in fact, talked about the growth of the Internet in China, and, of course, a lot of the challenges in rural China, western China, and so forth.

QUESTION: Just the situation in China, in Internet, because I do believe it's a very important force to enhance the economy, to help eradicate poverty and to promote a lot of good things. So how do you assess the Internet development in China and the issues?

And another question is that I think the Internet safety is very important. If my people -- if people in my country want to shop online, I think they will be concerned about the identity theft, these kinds of things. Could you --

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Actually, I think, from what I can see, China has made remarkable strides, in terms of Internet penetration. Again, I don't think it's appropriate for governments in one country to be telling other countries precisely what they should do or not do. I think it's up to each government to do the best things they can do for their people, and that they all have a responsibility to their people in that.

In our view, that includes making sure that they get the full benefits of Internet access; that is, as the documents talk about, promoting free flow of information is extraordinarily important; the role of the media is extraordinarily important, so that people know what's going on because they then economically and socially and politically benefit from that, which we think is very, very key to getting all of the benefits of the information society.

You're certainly right about the need for network security, and the documents speak to that, and we are very pleased by that; that is, we all believe that it is important that networks be secure. And, in fact, the documents call for all countries to contribute to the, what's called the -- well, there are these guidelines for culture -- for the culture of cybersecurity.

So they should all agree to join the culture of cybersecurity, which talks about governments passing laws that make criminal those things that are bad acts, while, at the same time, recognizing that there is an important role for individuals and for corporations to secure their networks in a way to prevent attack and prevent bad uses from occurring.

There's -- in the documents they talk about privacy and the importance of that. But we recognize, of course, that different countries come at the issue of privacy differently. We have had ongoing discussions, for example, with the European Union about -- they have one approach to privacy, we have a somewhat different approach to privacy -- and to try to make compatible those ideas without necessarily saying that, again, one size has to fit all.

So it's an interesting balancing issue. But again, the importance of it is not to be understated. We do think, you're right, that the Internet and related technologies really are a key for economic and social benefits to come, particularly to rural and disadvantage parts of all of our countries.

QUESTION: Thank you. Ana Maria Yumiseva from Freqüencia Magazine in São Paulo. Can you comment, going further on my colleague's question, on the level of commitment of Latin American leaders as far as integrating more the rural communities, and also the role of mobile communications in this integration among Latin America?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Well, let me take the second part first, which is, there has been a remarkable, explosive growth in mobile telephony in Latin America. It's really been very, very impressive, as there has been in Africa and in Asia. It's really been one of the most dramatic events in terms of technology during the past 10 or 15 years. Quite extraordinary.

And we think that's driven largely by private enterprise being given the appropriate incentives. And we've seen as countries throughout Latin America, as well as Africa and elsewhere, becoming increasingly committed to private enterprise, providing telephone services, and by there being independent regulators, as there is in Brazil, with Anatel [Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações, National Telecommunications Agency], for example, playing a prominent role in trying to resolve technical and economic disputes among players in the telephone industry there, that that's extraordinarily important.

And so we've been -- you know, we've worked closely with Brazil on these issues. Anatel, for example, works very closely with our Federal Communications Commission. I had the great, good pleasure of going down, I guess it was about a year or so ago, almost two years ago, down to Brazil to talk about these issues with the Brazilian Government. A lot of very impressive, very good things happening down there.

With regard to providing services in rural parts and disadvantaged parts, of course, that's an ongoing issue that we're all grappling with and the Brazilian Government is grappling with it as well. One area that I've spoken with the Brazilian Government is that, you know, we think about the Internet usually in terms of computers and the like, which is quite natural, but Brazil is scheduled to go and create opportunities for digital television and that's been an ongoing issue down there as we have also gone through a transition to digital television here.

And we very much hope that Brazil will choose the ATMSC standard, which is the U.S. standard that is used and that will be used in Mexico and Canada as well and in many other places in Latin America. We hope they'll choose that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you can use it very easily and effectively for the provision of Internet services.

And in countries like Brazil, where television penetration is -- I forget the exact number, but it's very high, it's in the 90s, if I remember correctly -- basically, everybody has a TV in Brazil. But, of course, as in most countries, not everyone has a computer or can be expected to have a computer. And so as you transition and perhaps using digital TV as a way of getting Internet access out there to the people, that is a very exciting and potentially dramatic opportunity.

COLONEL MACHAMER: We have time for one more. Or not.

QUESTION: Yeah, you mentioned privacy issues, and I'm looking at the report. It also mentions spam, which is a big issue.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Yes.

QUESTION: I was wondering if there's --

AMBASSADOR GROSS: You get spam, too, don't you?

QUESTION: Oh, of course I do. I was just wondering if -- were there any specific follow-up plans on that?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Yes and no. What you see there is right, is that spam is identified as being one of those issues that countries ought to work on. That's the -- yes, there's not a lot of specificity there. The reason for that, of course, is we're all in search of what the right answer is. You know, as you may know, President Bush, I believe, is signing today the spam legislation here for the United States, which we think is a very important step forward. But we all recognize, and in my conversations with ministers and others from other countries, spam comes up all the time now as an important issue, and certainly did at the summit in the informal parts of our discussion.

And we're all in search of the same thing: what works. Is it a technical solution? Is it a legal solution? Is it some combination? I think everyone agrees that there is an important international component to that solution, because you can put your finger in the dyke in a variety of places, but presumably bad actors will continue to go to those places where they can operate without these legal restrictions. And because of the international nature and the low cost of providing Internet access for these people, we want to make sure that it's a solution that is effective both nationally and internationally.

So I think we'll see a lot of work being done in the very near future, again, both technically -- it may well be that the answer is a technical answer. It may be a market-based answer. I don't know about you all, but I find I'm now moving my Internet access -- I've got a couple of Internet providers and I'm starting to use -- I just moved my Internet mailbox to one that has a much better spam protection than the old one did. So I'm voting with my, if not my feet, my fingers, perhaps, in terms of how these things work. So I'm cautiously optimistic that there may be technical and marketplace solutions to this as well as the legal solution of trying to outlaw bad practices.

Well, thank you all very, very much. I appreciate it.