IGF ja Kiina

Näyttää siltä, että viime keskiviikon blogimerkinnässä annoin hieman liian optimistisen kuvan Kiinan asenteesta IGF:ää ja jatkamista ensi vuoden jälkeen. Kiinankielisen puheenvuoron englanninkielinen transkriptointi takelteli, eikä Kiinan sanoma välittynyt ihan tarkoitetussa muodossa. Alla korjattu transkriptio, josta voi jokainen tehdä omat johtopäätöksensä.

CHEN YIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chinese delegation has noted that as mandated by WSIS, IGF has conducted productive and effective activities in promoting dialogue and exchange among the multi-stakeholders, and will conclude its mandate within its five-year life span. We would like to congratulate and appreciate the excellent work done by IGF Secretariat, MAG, and all the hosting countries including Greece, Brazil, India and Egypt. Meanwhile, we would like to point out some of the IGF shortcomings, as described following.
First of all, the current IGF cannot solve in substance the issue of unilateral control of the critical internet resources. 
Secondly, the developing countries are lack of resources for participating in IGF meetings, and the priority of development agenda has been downplayed, which made IGF lacking of broad representation.
Thirdly, the issues discussed in IGF have duplicated a lot with the work being explored and covered by other UN agencies and international organizations. Therefore, Chinese delegation think, without reform to the IGF as it is, it is not necessary to give the IGF a five-year extension. In the meantime, we noted that relevant parties, developing countries in particular, hope that internet governance issues could be discussed at the U.N. level. We support the views of Saudi Arabia and other developing countries in their proposal to set up the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within the U.N. framework. In our view, if the mechanism of Enhanced Cooperation needs the extension of IGF for the purpose of exchanging views among multi-stakeholders, IGF should carry out reforms in the following ways.
First, the future IGF should, in accordance with the provision of Tunis Agenda, focus on how to solve the issue of unilateral control of the critical Internet resources.
Secondly, the representation and voices of the developing countries should be increased in the IGF, and the development issue should be placed as the first priority.
Thirdly, we should seriously consider the possibility of incorporating IGF financing into the regular U.N. budget, and provide assistance to developing countries for their participation in the IGF meetings.
Fourthly, we should follow rigidly the Tunis Agenda so that the reformed IGF should not duplicate the work and mandate of the other organizations.
Fifthly, a Bureau should be set up with a balanced membership of various parties and geographical regions, and its term of reference and rules of procedures should be formulated by the United Nation.
Sixthly, on tenure of the future IGF, we deem it necessary to review the extension of the IGF every two or three years.
In the view of the Chinese delegation, the setting up of a mechanism for Enhanced Cooperation with a reformed IGF will effectively promote the global Internet governance process and facilitate the achievement of Millennium Development Goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.