Moderator - Radislav Safin, the editor in chief of the Bishkek Press Club;

Iskhak Masaliev, the leader of the Party of Communists of Kyrgyzstan, deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh;

Shamaral Maychiev, media expert;

Kanat Mukanov, expert of the electronic government introduction sector;

Tattu Mambetalieva, director of the "Civil Initiative of Internet Policy" Public Foundation;

Alia Alisheva, lawyer of the "Civil Initiative of Internet Policy" Public Foundation;

Marat Tokoev, the head of the public association "Journalists";

Bektur Iskender, the editor in chief of Internet portal Kloop.kg;

Marina Sevasheva, "Soros-Kyrgyzstan" Foundation;

Representatives of the media;

Students of Bishkek universities.

Radislav Safin: Good afternoon, dear guests of the Institute for Public Policy. We are pleased to welcome you at today's event. Today's roundtable is titled "Do we need to give online publications the status of the mass media?" I would like to point out that the Institute for Public Policy is discussing the topic together with the leading experts in this field, journalists and civil society representatives. I am pleased to present to you our guests and thank them for finding time to participate in this discussion. I note that during a recent roundtable, the deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh, including Alisher Sabirov, told an interesting thing - no matter how hard the media community and civil society are trying to avoid equating online publications with the media, inevitably, they will be equated. In this regard, there are many opinions about what should be done. The Institute for Public Policy believes that it is necessary to keep on discussing this issue because we must reach a common understanding: if online publications will be regulated, how should we realize it? I would note that this issue is extremely important to us, especially given the fact that Internet journalism plays an important role in the democratization of the society in modern Kyrgyzstan. And today, the people dealing with this issue are divided into two camps. Some actively advocate for giving online publications the status of the mass media, while others support the view that there is no need in doing this. I hope today everyone will have the opportunity to speak.

Concluding my brief statement, I would say that no matter what happens, the Institute for Public Policy hopes that the process of mutual cooperation between all branches of power, media experts, journalists and representatives of civil society will bring us to a common understanding of how the activities of online journalists should be regulated. Now I would like to give the floor to our guest, who represents the legislative branch - Masaliev Iskhak Absamatovich. We would like to hear your view on this issue.

Iskhak Masaliev: Thank you. Good day, dear participants of the Roundtable. I understand that I have to represent our legislative power, which so far, has expressed only an oral desire to equate online publications with the media. I spoke with Alisher Ahmedovich Sabirov today. So far, it is only an intention. It has not been presented in the form of a bill nor has it been brought to the attention by the parliament yet. This concern has appeared because of the fact that recently, Internet editions, taking advantage of the fact that they are anonymous, have published the views that violate the rights of other citizens, threaten the integrity of our State and infringed on the honor and dignity of citizens. I should say one more time that this law does not exist yet. It may be adopted, however. I would say that I agree with the idea to put everything in some order. Preparing for today's meeting, I have made a decision. Internet editions are information centers that allow citizens to openly, without fear, call the President a "fool" and a Parliament deputy an "asshole." They are not afraid to do so because they are not visible. This is a bold and open criticism of the government or opposition. But I do not accept such boldness. This is similar to something done in an underhanded way. As an example, I want to speak about a good site: Gazeta.kg. The owners of this site were forced to sell it. Three years ago, it published an article titled "Kyrgyz Lyudoviksand Hudoyars." It was a dangerous and unpleasant article. It used such offensive language ... I think such publications do not contribute to the unity between our people. They cause regional conflicts. And it is very hard to make the journalist answerable because he had used a pseudonym.

To some extent, I share the concern of Alisher Ahmedovich. Of course, it is hard to fully equate online journalism with the mass media, as it has different properties. Let's start with the registration procedure, which is quite different. This work should be regulated somehow. Apparently, the authors of portals and websites must watch carefully, so that such material is not published. It is a special status of the Internet. Journalists are often outraged when they are made answerable. In fact, a journalist must remember that his careless word could offend or humiliate another person. I remember a curious case. I had worked for seven years as a teacher in one of the Bishkek universities, and I taught famous majors and lieutenant-colonels who studied part-time. Many years had passed, and I said in an interview that I had taught a man who became a very distinguished person and a high official by then. I said that he was not a very good student. A week later he came to me and said: "It's okay with me but my grandchildren read it and said that their grandfather was not a very good student." This, of course, was more like a joke. But, anyway, the time has come for us to think about today's situation. We should increasingly stress the importance of journalistic ethics. This is hard. Or, we should block the Internet, which it is technically possible. This, of course, does not solve the problem; we would simply be running away from it.

Alisher Ahmedovich said that the law does not exist yet. The draft will be discussed many times together with specialists in this field. Many deputies have a rather conservative attitude; it may be different from yours. But it is the deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh, along with the President, who take the final decision, not you. Therefore, we should not deceive ourselves. It is better to discuss this issue and make recommendations. The National Security Service in 2001-2002 has already made a similar proposal. They wanted a return to the Soviet Union times - they wanted every multiplying and copying device to be registered with the special services. But perhaps, it already belongs in the past, and we cannot return to it. However, control is necessary. Perhaps, that's why AKIpress does not permit the publishing of comments on its website. Unfortunately, our politicians and their followers, in most cases, have no political culture. We use bad words when speaking to one another. The young people do the same; they divide into "ours" and "not ours" and use different epithets. Some websites simply do not publish the comments, although, to be honest, sometimes they are very interesting.

The process has just begun. And it is very good that we meet and discuss it before proposing this initiative to the President. If you convince the society that it is completely harmless... For journalists this is advantageous because it is cheap. There is no need to spend money on ink, paper and distribution. The Internet is very convenient. It has many positive sides. Our newspapers take 70 percent of information from there, with reference to online editions or present it as their own editorial work. The most important thing is that this information is very fresh; it circulates quickly. We, in the Jogorku Kenesh, say a couple of words, and 15 minutes later, there is a report on it at some Internet site. In a rush, they sometimes confuse the names. But it is good that readers can see online what the members of the Parliament (MPs) are doing. There is less coverage of the governmental activities, however. But maybe, MPs' activities present more interest. Therefore, my position is that we should discuss this issue and come to some decision. Thank you. If you have questions, I am ready to answer them.

Radislav Safin: I suggest, as we usually do during the roundtables in our institute, to start the question-answer part of the discussion after the last speaker finishes his speech. Now, I would like to invite Shamaral Yusupovich to speak. Please, express your opinion on whether we should equate the Internet publications with the media or not. What risks and threats to online journalism do you see?

Shamaral Maychiev: Dear participants of the Round Table. I would like to congratulate you. Today is International Human Rights Day. And today's roundtable discusses the issue, which is directly related to human rights, and namely human rights, because there are also the citizen rights.  Our Constitution contains two relevant sections. Human rights are the right to freedom of movement, freedom of thought, health, life, i.e. the basic human rights. And one of the most basic ones is the right to information. The life and meaning of life of a human being is in providing and receiving information. Actually, man, according to one of the definitions, is a flow of information. Every minute he transmits and receives information. With the development of mankind, the exchange of information has improved. If earlier, it took years or  months to deliver information, today it takes a second or a part of a second. And people get accustomed to good things. If the electricity is blacked out, people suffer because they cannot have access to information for technical reasons. But while technical reasons may be explained to some extent, in my view, it is unfair when other people begin to restrict access to information. I think it is unacceptable when people, enjoying the power, restrict other people in their right to information.

Naturally, the flow of information should be restricted, because our rights end where the rights of other people begin. Today's legislation makes it clear: which information must not be disseminated. Honor and dignity are protected by our laws. It is primarily in the Criminal Code (articles 127 and 128). Article 18 of the Civil Code speaks about insulting. Any citizen, if he believes that some information about him is false or defamatory, may act in accordance with the law. And people do act like this. Virtually all the legal articles work well. However, the technical side allows the Internet to spread defamatory information. And legally it is very difficult or almost impossible to make somebody answer. Why? The most crucial issue today: whether or not to equate the Internet publications with the mass media. We have been discussing this for more than five years.  These two terms are incompatible but very similar: the Internet and the mass media. The Internet is a "vehicle," through which information is transmitted. It's like electricity. If electricity kills someone, we blame only the owner of this source of increased danger, but not the electric supply network. Similarly, the Internet is a vehicle that delivers information from one point to another. And, at some point, there is a person who harms or slanders. Under the current law, there is always a question of jurisdiction. According to the legislation of which country must this person be sued? If a person resides in America and slanders a Kyrgyz citizen, he must be answerable in accordance with the United States law. One has to sue him there, from his place of residence. It is very difficult and almost impossible. It is necessary to know their law.

And the media - what is it? The law defines it. The mass media are carriers and distributors of information. Let's take newspapers. If a website is created on the Internet, the will of its publisher is required to recognize that it is a mass medium. In fact, if the owner of the Web site writes about his own life and does not slander. But he may also slander in his blog, is it a mass medium then? He just openly and publicly expressed his thoughts. And the most important question: Is it possible to legally define the Kyrgyz segment of the Internet? It is virtually impossible. Why? There is a suggestion: everything that ends with "kg" should be recognized as the Kyrgyz segment. But tomorrow, the same site owners will change "kg" to "com" or "ru", and then the Kyrgyz segment will disappear. Generally, the relevant authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic determine the Kyrgyz border jurisdiction. The domain title "kg" is given by a private organization, which cannot determine the Kyrgyz jurisdiction. But arising issues and problems can be regulated under the legislation that exists today. If it is concerned with the protection of honor and dignity, there is a relevant legislation; we need only technically to bring those involved in these online relationships to court. Spam is the unauthorized intrusion into your mailboxes. It is possible to regulate it legally by defining the phenomenon of spam and banning it. But a separate law on spam is not needed. It should be the Law "On Advertising," because spam may be electronic and ordinary.

In fact, the issue of legislative regulation is very complex. Communication problems are regulated by a series of laws; they are the Law "On Communication," the Law "On Informatization," and the Law "On the Media." Unfortunately, our government has no information policy. This is the key problem, which is worse than spam. Why do we need this policy? Our citizens, society and the state must see in which direction we should progress, and all future laws should agree with the concept of information. To date, we have the laws "On Public Television," "On Radio and Television," but they contradict the Law "On Communication." The lack of information conception is due to the lack of a body responsible for information policy. Today the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Culture, the National Agency for Communications, a governmental department that regulates communications and a number of organizations are responsible for information policy. They cannot find common ground. Accordingly, the legislation is controversial. And it does not work. And this new law that may be adopted will not work either because it would be inconsistent with other legislation. And most importantly, giving online publications the status of the mass media is not realizable, until we determine the legal nature of the Internet. Our legislation has no such term as "Internet" at all. If we don't define these terms, I think, it is useless to adopt any laws. Therefore, there are many problems in this area.

I think today we need to raise the key question: should we regulate the Internet or not? If the society, together with the authorities at such roundtables, decides that it should be regulated, then we need to define the limits of intervention and the terms of regulation. This is the second important issue. And third, we must not confuse the Internet with the media.  The Internet space contains a lot of Web sites, and it is very difficult to distinguish, which site is a medium and which is not. If to judge by the number of visits, it any private website, which has no relationship to politics could be very popular. For example, the site "How to raise rabbits" may be very popular among farmers, and there may be millions of visitors. But it will not be a mass medium, because its purpose is not to disseminate information. In this case, the website will be similar to a library. If we register all websites as the media, then web libraries will also be registered as the media. That's why I think it is not the time yet to regulate the Internet. We need to amend the current Law "On Communication." There is a new bill, where many issues are brought into accordance with international legislation. After that, we should we should amend the law on information, identify our information resources, and only then find approaches to the law on the regulation of the mass media. As for online issues, they may be settled offline. The issues we have today are manageable. In reality there have been situations when online editions distributed some information, and the court decided to prosecute the owners of those websites. Today, we have legal leverage for the website owners, but only for those who are in Kyrgyzstan. Even if we adopt a law about those owners who are outside Kyrgyzstan, it will be very difficult to find them.

As for the content of Internet publications, the overall low ethical standards of journalists and readers is obvious. Many of them do not distinguish between opinions and facts. Therefore, someone's views are perceived as facts. Even the examples brought by Iskhak Masaliev about the President and deputies are again, somebody's views, not facts. The essence of information culture is that public officials, having administrative resources, must convince the society that certain views are not facts. And even if some facts are not true, they must inform about it. Therefore, there is a Kyrgyz proverb - "You may cut off the head, but never the tongue." If you have questions, I will answer them. Thank you for your attention.

Radislav Safin: Thank you very much, Shamaral Yusupovich. Now I would like to give the floor to Kanat Mukanov, an expert of the electronic government introduction sector. Could you please, focus on the position of your department?

Kanat Mukanov: Dear colleagues and participants of the Roundtable. We are encouraged by the interest shown by the representatives of governmental bodies and public organizations to today's roundtable. The discussed issue has become very topical. We all understand that this issue requires a comprehensive approach involving the media experts, human rights activists, representatives of governmental structures and the experts in information technologies. My speech focuses on technical points. Please, do not accept my statement as an official government's position. The topic of my speech is: "Legislative regulation of the Internet."

With time, the Internet has increasingly become a standard channel of social communication. As a sign of progress, it already makes the life of society more comfortable and interesting - a huge number of trade transactions and money transfers take place via the Internet, and it performs the functions of communication and broadcasts mass media.

Thus, similar to the real world, we need to have rules, regulating the online actions of users, organizations and nations. But there are objective difficulties of adequate reflection of the new information and communication technologies both in international and national legislations, as well as the difficulty of monitoring the cyberspace due to its cross-border and indirect nature of communication.

The problems, arising from legislative regulation of the Internet, could be divided into specific and general theoretical ones.

Among the general theoretical problems are the issues of jurisdiction, the legal status of the persons who present, disseminate and consume the online information, the determination of the time and place of the online actions, morality and censorship.

Among the specific problems are the problems of regulating electronic commerce (contracting via Internet, business taxes), online respect for copyright, use of trademarks and domain names, determining the responsibility of providers and site owners for the information of clients and spam users on their servers, as well as information security (cryptography, data access security, protection of privacy).

Regarding the general theoretical problems. Due to the fact that the Internet has no geographical boundaries, there is a fundamental question: the law of which country will regulate the online actions of people? Indeed, it is very often that an electronic transaction takes place between the people from different countries and the damage resulting from the use of the website happens in the territory of a foreign country - information posted on the website violates the laws on the protection of intellectual property rights of another state, etc.

Historically, a factor of physical presence or physical availability of the defendant to trial, served as the ground for emergence and formation of rules for addressing jurisdictional problems. However, due to the development of the global network, this factor is no longer decisive. It has become increasingly apparent that a person need not physically enter the territory of a State and stay there in order to break its laws. The factor of physical presence or movement is irrelevant in the Internet relationship. Consequently, for proper law enforcement the court needs to expand the jurisdiction beyond the territory of its State and take, as a basis, not the law of the defendant, but the actual connection of the disputed relationship with the State of the court.

There is another view that the decision on the jurisdiction of a State shall be taken in accordance with the location of the server where the information is published.

For example, let's take a much-publicized case in the United States, which is often heard, concerning the Internet. This is the Playmen/Playboy case. The defendant - an Italian company - was forbidden to distribute and sell in the United States, the magazine "Playmen," This magazine is published by the defendant. The court did not accept the defendant's argument that its server, which posted the pictures of the magazine, is located in Italy, because its activities attracted buyers from the U.S., and thus the spread took place in the USA. Thus, the U.S. court refused to follow the logic of the defendant to consider the situation as the distribution of goods in Italy.

Several court decisions in the U.S.A. took a very broad rule, as a basis for justifying the jurisdiction. According to this rule, if a site is reachable inside the territory of the court, the court is competent to hear the dispute.

On specific problems. The Internet, developing very fast, actually allows for the realization of one of the most important constitutional rights - the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information. Naturally, because of the massive use of such technologies, this sphere of information activities could not leave the copyright unaffected.

In general, under the copyright law, if a user intends to use a copyright work for commercial purpose, he is obliged to conclude a copyright agreement in writing with the copyright holder (the author or a third person). Failure to comply with this provision is a direct and substantial violation of copyright.

Regarding the use of copyright works for personal purposes, the law allows their free use within reasonable limits, i.e. for non-profit (scientific, educational and personal) purposes, individuals may reproduce (i.e. copy) and use a published copyright work but they must indicate the name of the author and source of publication.

All the content and use of the Internet for commercial and non-commercial purposes are carried out through providers - organizations that provide access to the Internet, post and transfer information on the Web. Since the providers have institutional and technical capabilities to influence the public information relations of its users at any time, it is necessary to legally define their responsibilities.

Legislation of different countries has three approaches to these issues, namely:

The provider

- is responsible for all the activities of its users, regardless of whether it, as an entity, has knowledge of the acts committed (this approach is adopted in China and some countries in the Middle East);

- is not responsible for users if it fulfills certain conditions, relating to the nature of the provided services and interaction with the subjects of information exchange and those whose rights are violated by the actions of users (this approach exists in Europe);

- is not responsible for the actions of users.

In their turn, providers also try to monitor the compliance with the requirements of the law by concluding contracts with the websites' holder on providing the access to the Internet. These contracts include such points, as the prohibition of commercial distribution of material of any kind without prior consent of its author, prohibition of spam activities or mandatory observance of the generally "rules for use of the network."

A few words about spam activities. Recently, this activity has been drawing increasing attention from both technical and legal points of view. Spam is mass mailing by the will of a sender of electronic messages, previously not requested by the recipients. Very often, spammers not only have no desire to reduce the discomfort from spam, but also disclaim any responsibility for their actions by falsifying the sender's address, using the address of a third party and falsifying the message subjects. They do it to maximize the difficulty for those preventing and fighting Internet spam, so that they could not establish the identity of the sender and take appropriate measures against him.

Some states have adopted the laws, restricting or prohibiting the unsolicited mass mailings of commercial or noncommercial content. In particular, spam activities in dissemination of advertising are subject to the legislation on advertising.

Let's pay our attention to another important issue - the dilemma of trademark-domain name. Every computer in the Internet has a unique IP address, which is a sequence of 4 digits separated by a dot. For easier remembering and storing of an address, the domain name system (DNS) was created, which allows for the comparing of an abstract symbolic name with a specific IP address on the network. Typically, a brief verbal symbol, which a user identifies with the owner of the domain, serves as a domain name. Usually, it is a fragment of the title or trademark for legal entities, and the name or nickname for individuals.

At first glance, domain and trademark have nothing in common. Domain is e-mail address, while trademark is a symbol that distinguishes goods and services in the civil turnover among similar goods and services. But a more detailed analysis reveals many similar properties between domain and trademark. Domain name in the Internet performs almost the same function of the means of individualization, as a trademark or a title. Thus, a domain name is one of the means of individualization.

The most common type of violation of the rights of the owner of the trademark is the registration for business purposes by an unauthorized person of a domain that includes a verbal part of a trademark. It is clear that this is done to draw attention to the information resource (which is often a kind of virtual store) by using the reputation of the trademark.

Here is an example from the Russian judicial practices, which is related to the transfer of a "captured" domain. This is the "kommersant.com" domain.

The publishing house, "Kommersant," since 1996, has had four offices in the network: kommersant.com, commersant.com, kommersant.ru and commersant.ru. However, the deadline for renewal of registration of the domain kommersant.com was missed, and a U.S. citizen registered the domain to his name, estimating the price of 5000 USD for the domain's return. In this situation the publisher decided to apply to the WIPO Center. As a result, the WIPO Center found that the domain name "kommersant.com" is similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff - "Kommersant." The Center decided that the defendant has no rights to the name and admitted that the defendant registered the domain name in bad faith.

The peculiarity of the case of "Kommersant" is that, first, a positive decision was made on the application of a Russian company against an American citizen; secondly, the decision was made in connection with the trademark, which was registered in the CIS, not in the U.S., where the defendant was from and where the server was actually located; and third, it was a decision concerning a Russian trademark "Kommersant."

Legislation, regulating these relations, must take into account the following points:

- in the process of recognition, priority should be given to trademarks;

- virtually any mention of the trademark or a symbol similar to it - not only in the domain names, but also in the texts of the websites, in the headers of WebPages - can be interpreted as a violation of the exclusive right of a copyright holder;

- the use of a trademark may take place not only in the domain of second, but also third, fourth and other levels. For example, creating on a website subsections on automobile giants, one may call themselves: mercedes.avto.kg, bmv.avto.kg.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the Internet may be used both for developmental benefits and for anti-social actions. Despite the conceptual difficulty of providing evidence in the network, there is an urgent need for legal acts, regulating online relations. However, there is no need to formulate new principles of legal regulation of Internet-relations; they should be "localized" and "introduced" into the current legal system and considered normally through the disclosure of certain concepts in the legislation (use of information and communication technologies both in business and in daily life have already resulted in a number of legal concepts such as e-business, e-commerce, electronic cash, electronic documents, electronic payments and so on), as well as the necessary modification and amendments to the provisions of existing laws. Thus, the problems of electronic transactions should be resolved in accordance with the civil law, of domain names - in accordance with the law on trademarks, of the jurisdiction in Internet disputes - in accordance with procedural law through the appropriate additions or minor amendments in the relevant regulations. At the same time, the law should not contain too many national characteristics, because it must not conflict with the global nature of the Internet. Thank you for your attention.

Radislav Safin: Thank you, Kanat Askerovich, for your informative presentation on the technical part of the issue. And now I would like to invite participants to the Roundtable, if you have any suggestions or questions to our experts, or you would like to speak, please, do so.

Tattu Mambetalieva: "Civil Initiative of Internet Policy" Public Foundation, Tattu Mambetalieva. I would like to say that it is necessary to identify the primary concerns of the various legislative initiatives of the MPs and the concerns of our law enforcement agencies, initiating the Internet regulating acts. I totally agree with Shamaral Maychiev and Kanat Mukanov, they are our partners, with whom our organization has long cooperated, and we understand each other. The original motivation behind the initiative of MPs was that they were concerned about easy access to the comments, raised by various users of Internet forums and chat rooms. So, it is not about the content of Internet publications. The point is that people express their opinions, and these opinions are available. The concern is how to regulate these opinions. If there is an issue of insulting honor and dignity, the existing legislation of Kyrgyzstan regulates it. There is no need for new legislation to regulate these online relations. Everyone understands it. But at the same time, application of the offline law to the online relations does not satisfy the interests of our MPs. Therefore, the community of Internet publications, knowing the concern of our MPs, has decided that it is necessary to adopt the network ethics, which the moderators of forums and chat rooms may follow. At the present moment, a working group has been formed under the auspices of the Jogorku Kenesh and the Ministry of Culture and Information with the participation of non-governmental organizations; it has begun to develop a draft concerning network ethics. We have exhausted all the rules, which can be applied in order to bring order here. Therefore, representatives of news agencies came to the conclusion that a tool of self-regulation is required; it may find its reflection in the adoption of a document entitled, for example, "The Network Ethics in Kyrgyzstan." We must not forget that the Internet is global, and Kyrgyzstan's laws cannot cover all Internet space.

Let's take the Kazakh experience. In Kazakhstan, web pages are equated with the media. Now a bill is being initiated in Kazakhstan, according to which web resources with the domain kz cannot be hosted outside Kazakhstan. And what did it result in? Immediately the profitability and rating of the news agencies, supporting free comments, fell. It means that, these online forums and chat rooms are supported by news agencies because of purely commercial interests to raise the demand for these information resources. The new initiative, proposed by the Government, according to which "kz" should not be hosted outside of Kazakhstan, led to the situation when all popular information agencies bought new domain names and continue to disseminate information. Thus, Kazakhstan worsened the Kazakh online content, while popular agencies moved to ru or com domains. The same thing could happen in Kyrgyzstan. If we fight for the country's high rating on the Internet, in our attempts to regulate the online area of Kyrgyzstan, we must take into account such negative effects. The experience of Kazakhstan has not led to real regulation; it has only contributed to the situation when online editions find alternative ways to disseminate information.

Speaking about the problems raised by Kanat ... Yes, information security of citizens is the most crucial because it is impossible to imagine our life without TV, phone, and without the Internet. Today, these are a natural phenomenon that encourages and supports our normal lives. In terms of e-commerce and e-governance, e-education and various other online areas, we need to ensure that our online lives are protected, too. That is why the law enforcement agencies of Kyrgyzstan have initiated various ideas. When we analyze these attempts, it turns out that they are more about imposing some censorship or a structure that may control people's lives. Maybe, the original idea was to ensure the protection of our lives in the online arena, but in reality they have the opposite effect. However, law enforcement agencies are ready to receive expert evaluation because they understand that the international community and civil society can evaluate these mechanisms. And I believe that these round tables, organized by the Bishkek Press Club and other organizations, are just the beginning of the debate because it is too early to speak about finding an answer, which could serve as a right solution. For instance, concerning spam, operators say that it is impossible now to make a decision that could protect us from spam and viruses now. We can pass a law that prohibits spamming by the people of Kyrgyzstan. But we cannot protect ourselves from the spam, coming from outside. So now it is time to start cooperating with other nations to combat terrorism, spam, viruses and other forms of online fraud. It is good that such discussions have begun.

Returning to the main topic, whether it is possible to equate the Internet publications with the media. In the Russian Federation, online journals and news agencies asked themselves: "Please, give us the status of the mass media, because our journalists can not obtain the status of journalists and thus have difficulty with the free access to information, guaranteed by the Russian legislation." And the Ministry of Communication and Press, which existed at that time, replied: "We cannot register you as the media, because you are not eligible. We cannot specify the area of distribution, circulation, etc., which are required during the registration process of the mass media." Accordingly, Russian news agencies that disseminate information only via the Internet, did not receive the status of the media. The question remained open. Internet editions simply began to register their editorial staff as the media, and journalists began to work on behalf of the registered editorial staff, web pages in Russia were recognized as the media. Therefore, this question is also open. I think that this question should be already raised, because web pages come in a variety of categories and types, and it is very difficult to recognize them all as the media. Probably, there should be a voluntary expression of the will by news agencies, if they want to register as the media, they can do it.

Iskhak Masaliev: I would like to make a small remark. I remind that such a law does not exist yet. I remind that I am not an initiator of the bill, and therefore, there no need to look at me as an enemy. I simply expressed my view that there is a problem that needs to be discussed. Therefore, please, treat me adequately.

Radislav Safin: Iskhak Absamatovich, I have a question. Shamaral Yusupovich told an interesting idea. If the law is adopted, as proposed, it will contradict a number of laws. The Parliament today is ready to adopt such legislative measures, but how should we act so that they do not come into conflict with other laws?

Iskhak Masaliev: There have been a number of examples when we accept a law, which contradicts existing legislation and sometimes even the Constitution. These are drawbacks of law making. No one can be perfect, including MPs. We have not yet seen the draft and already anticipate contradictions - it is not correct. If we equate the Internet publications with the media, we still cannot predict the consequences. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss the impact.

Marat Tokoev: I am the head of the public association "Journalists," and it explains my point of view, as I will speak in defense of freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan. Now the Internet space has become the last bastion of freedom of speech in the Republic. We have seen that the number of alternative sources of information is declining. "Alibi" and "De facto" were closed. "Azattyk" and "BBC" stopped broadcasting. Despite the fact that it is well known that many people in Kyrgyzstan received the most complete information from these sources. As for the materials, which hurt the honor and dignity ... Shamaral Yusupovich said that it is a matter of culture, because the culture of consumers is that there is a demand for this information. Proposing a bill that would regulate Internet publications seems dangerous to me. No country has good laws that would regulate this area. It is too wide.

Bektur Iskender: I am the editor in chief of the Internet portal "kloop.kg." Here, we have heard about the examples of China and those countries that already have a law, equating Internet publications with the media. According to my observations, these attempts have not been very successful. I can bring the example of Uzbekistan - in this country the attempt was unsuccessful. Many people began to open websites outside Uzbekistan, outside the domain "uz." So far, the authorities in Uzbekistan can only block these websites.

Our website kloop.kg is exactly a complex case. If any legal problem arises, our site will face a number of problems because any user on our site can open his own site; anyone can open a so-called blog. What should be considered a separate Web site then? This is the first question that needs attention. If an appropriate law is adopted, this question should given special attention because such sites become increasingly popular. The future belongs to such sites. The main question will be what responsibility should the parent website bear? Would it be responsible for the content of the small websites that are opened on it by other users? What must the parent website do and what should it not do? We are also participants to the working group of public organizations, which is working on this issue together with the Parliament. We are basically defending our own position in this regard, so that each website, created by a user, would be considered a separate site, and the parent website would not bear any legal responsibility for these sites.

Here, is an example from Uzbekistan..I was in Tashkent in April this year. There is a blog called "A view of an Uzbek man" on our website.  Here, a man from Uzbekistan writes about the things, which, perhaps, are not covered by the other media in Uzbekistan. The site is now inaccessible in Uzbekistan. I hope the issues will not be resolved in the same manner in Kyrgyzstan. I think we should not hurry with the adoption of legal decisions now because there are many new things on the Internet every day. Today, we define some terms, but tomorrow we will have to consider an entirely new terminology. And, perhaps, the last thing to do is to block websites. This is the most unfavorable way. Unfortunately, this is done in China. And with regard to the bloggers, this is a very interesting category of Internet users. On the one hand, they often work as journalists. It has also developed in Kyrgyzstan, and on March, 24 2005, a lot of information about what was happening in the country spread through blogs, not through the major media. Major media experienced some problems. In this case what should be done concerning the bloggers? On one hand, it would be great if the authorities facilitated the work of bloggers by granting them accreditation. But then the question arises: who is a blogger and who is not a blogger? I know that many companies in the West, for example, the company "Apple," have such a policy: they give accreditation to anyone, regardless of whether he (or it) is  registered as a mass medium or not. There have been comical moments. When "Apple" presented the I-phone at a press conference for the first time, bloggers having arrived than the journalists, took all the seats, and journalists had to stand in the corridor. I will bring an example from Kyrgyzstan's practices. Our site is not registered as a mass medium; we are primarily engaged in educational activities. But we have a correspondent, who is accredited to the Parliament. This is a good example. He received accreditation, although he is fifteen years old. Nobody in the Parliament asked whether we are registered as the media. He goes to the Parliament and highlights its activities. This is a good example of openness. It is easy to take restraining steps, but it can end badly. If there are stimulating actions, and if the authorities initiate permissive actions, it will be good for all.

Radislav Safin: Thank you. I would like to ask you, Kanat Askerovich. Given your substantial statement on the technical part of the issue, and developing the points, mentioned by Bektur Iskender, about the policies of some States in blocking the sites. How do you feel about this trend? May the same things happen in Kyrgyzstan? Does our State have technical mechanisms to block any sites?

Kanat Mukanov: Blocking is the easiest and most effective method. As for the domain names, Shamaral Yusupovich already said the owner registers and pays for it. This is done by a private organization, which state authorities do not control.

Radislav Safin: Also we would like to focus on copyright. At such roundtables, we raise this problem and, unfortunately, not all persons are involved in this matter. Online editions really need to be protected. At our previous meeting I said that the business of Internet publications has become a business of traditional media. So far, there have been no precedents, when the traditional media or newspaper editors were punished for reprinting or banal use of materials, prepared by online journalists. To date, if we listen to the radio or read newspapers, we see that indeed, 20-30 (if not 50) percent of their content entirely duplicate Internet publications. Unfortunately, there is no specific policy of protecting copyrights of online journalists. Today, a media expert Marat Tokoev is present here. We actively cooperate with Marat in the preparation of our comments on the pages of the Bishkek Press Club. Could you describe in more details how should the copyrights of online publications be protected? And should it be guaranteed in legislation or should it be only a moral responsibility borne by the journalists and publishers?

Marat Tokoev: I think it is a matter of ethics. While using the materials of online publications, one should refer to them. When our newspaper reprints the texts, we ask permission. Another case is the copyright. This is a very important issue in all countries. Our legislation has mechanisms, which provide for punishment for copyright infringement. Frankly speaking, these are very specific points. First of all, there should be a written consent of the authors. Offline publications are largely behind online publications in the speed and access. Not all traditional media have their own correspondents in the regions. I think this question cannot be resolved until our traditional media have their own correspondents in the regions, which is very costly. Recently, even "Vecherniy Bishkek," such an influential newspaper, started closing some correspondent sites, because they cannot maintain them. And, perhaps, the newspaper will then have less of its own material.

Iskhak Masaliev: We came to the question of how to protect what is non-existent? No answer. How do we evaluate this journalist? Online journalists also receive information from somewhere outside. Therefore, protection here seems incorrect. We come to the idea that we need to determine a form of registration. Only then can we raise the issue of copyright protection. At the moment it is difficult to protect something non-existent.

Tattu Mambetalieva: I do not agree with the comment that the legislation of Kyrgyzstan does not regulate copyrights. We recently had a case when AKIpress asked to take measures to protect copyrights. Lawyer Alia Alisheva made the comment.

Alia Alisheva: The point is that we had a question of what is copyright, and what protection a news agency has when reprinting news. The Civil Code and the Law "on Copyright" define the term of informative news, and what was formed by creative work. For example, usual coverage of the events is not protected by copyright. But if the author has made some creative efforts, it is subject to legal protection, regardless of how it was distributed. Let's say it was published in the newspaper or posted on the website. If the information is reprinted without reference, this is a violation of ethical rules. In some countries and in Russia, there is a clear requirement that while reprinting the news, one must refer to the source of information. With regard to copyright, there is a strict protection, it is ensured by the country's legislation.

Also I would like to say that copyright is a matter of private nature. A person, who believes that his copyright has been violated, must independently file a lawsuit on the protection of his rights. Some people do not know how to do this and do not know their rights. Maybe, this is why, we do not have precedents to this. In general, there are no barriers for the protection of one's copyrights.

Tattu Mambetalieva: The essence of what was said by Aliya is that the news is not subject to copyright protection. And if something is reprinted without indication of the source, it is a violation of ethical standards. There have been a few examples. The fact is that the AKIpress is often brought to court when a newspaper reprints its information without indication of the source. Often the AKIpress acts as a co-defendant. When some news is reprinted, journalists of other newspapers often add their comments and in the end, there is completely different information. Therefore, AKIpress raised the issue of protecting themselves by applying copyright law. Again, this is a question of journalistic ethics.

Bektur raised the question of whether the owner of a server or a host may separate responsibilities - again there is no definite answer. If you do not read your blogs - this is one category of responsibility. But, if you give anyone a blog and reserve the right to control everything he posts - responsibility should be shared. The offline law mentions this. That is, each case should be approached individually. We cannot mix them all. There are TV channels that offer their time, and several production studios pay money for placing their information. The TV channel acts as a co-defendant, and the court determines the degree of its responsibility, because it provided the opportunity. In some cases, the TV channel says it had not assumed the responsibility to monitor the content. Therefore, there is no universal answer for all situations. Hosting is provided in accordance with different methodologies. In Kyrgyzstan, all bloggers bear responsibility, while the hosting owners are not responsible. This is wrong. After all, children can be bloggers, too.

I also want to speak on blocking. There is a project, which publishes the extent of blocking and filtering in all countries. There is Kyrgyzstan, too. In Kyrgyzstan, there is blocking and filtering, but it is not our government that filters, because our country is democratic. Actually, we use a filtered Internet. When earlier, we received traffic through China, the Internet was already filtered. We did not have access to the resources, which China had blocked. Unfortunately, historically the infrastructure of Kyrgyzstan made us dependent on the Internet connections with China, Russia and Kazakhstan. We do not have our own satellites, and therefore we are very dependent on the policies of neighboring countries. If we buy Internet traffic from Kazakhstan, we have a blocked traffic (for example, Livejournal). It is good that we raised the question - we need to negotiate with the countries that would sell us unblocked and unfiltered Internet, so that our country could decide for itself what should be accessible. The Constitution says that we must not spread information on inter-ethnic strife. That is enough to regulate the Internet content. We fall into the category of countries where the traffic is blocked due to the fact that we buy it from other countries. For example, Russia has blocked many military websites. We buy the Russian Internet and do not have access to them. That is the situation. In fact, there are many technologies which allow lifting the block. Whatever technical limitations Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan may impose, they can be bypassed through technical solutions. Therefore, if we return to the topic, whether we should give online publications the status of the media, the first question we need to ask is: what are we afraid of? If we are afraid of terrorism or something else, let's see the crux of the matter. We have to understand the reason, because some reasons are really understandable. But if the question is only about censorship, our law has already solved it. It works. Perhaps, the initiators of this issue have other reasons? Alisher Ahmedovich, with whom we are working now, has his reason. He is concerned that the Internet insults honor and dignity, and he could not identify the author. IP-addresses can be found. But he does not want to look for everyone. Instead, Alisher Ahmedovich would like to adopt a rule that would stop endless insults. But this is not a way out. We understand his concern. We are convincing him that the Civil Code may solve this problem. But the method of giving Internet publications the status of the media will not solve the problem. Insults can happen again, if they are intentional. This is not a solution. In fact, it will be the beginning of other problems associated with the Internet. They are freedom of speech, and e-education, etc.

Iskhak Masaliev: If we give Internet publications the status of the media, it would cause material obligations to the State, like taxes. Newspapers and magazines have duties, for example, taxes and others.

Shamaral Maychiev: Today there are around 20-50 thousand websites in Kyrgyzstan. For registration, an applicant is necessary. This may be a 14-year-old child. We need to determine the position of an applicant. For example, it could be the editor. The first problem is registration. The Ministry of Justice will have technical problems, namely, to determine the area of distribution, themes, to make the seals, etc.. Then , the problems concerning taxes will exist. When there is money, there is a problem of payment. Tax agencies would have to inspect everything ... This entails so many problems!

The Internet is a challenge of the new times, and this challenge must be met adequately. Unfortunately, we are trying to achieve many tasks, using the tools of last century. For example, take the legal part. The point is that the law itself must change with the advent of new technologies. Previously, there was classicism - the unity of time, places and events. Now, many of the issues in the law are not accorded. For example, a server can be in one place, while the event happens elsewhere. The issue of copyright will have an entirely different meaning in the modern law. Previously, the author hoped to get payment for something that he had created.  But today, the author should receive payment before creation, because after that, he would no longer be able to receive anything. A conceptual change of the very notion of copyright is required. Now, I want to talk about the issue of responsibility. The current legislation provides for everything, Article 26 of the Law "On the Media," and there is a Law "On the Interpretation of the Terms of Official Documents and Public Statements." It defines what a public statement is. This is a message to the public, which is delivered directly on a square, for example, using some technical means; open for free visits, in the presence of large number of people. In other words, a blogger is in a public place, he understands that a number of visitors can view his site. He is a distributor. And you cannot forbid it. It is physically impossible. Information is functioning in the society. Internet space is the Osh Bazaar. There is no sense in catching a carrier, who repeats some unpleasant message that he has heard somewhere else. No one would argue with that carrier for many reasons, including ethics. Therefore, the new understanding of law is that people, especially public officials, should be armed with different means of information protection. We may say, there should be counter-bloggers.

Every MP and Minister maintains his blog, as in Russia, and answers questions on it. Recently, I had one client, a foreigner. He said that he was in a Caucasian Republic, where some militiamen stopped him and said they would kill him if he did not give 120 dollars. He gave the money, came back to his country and then wrote about it to the President of this country in his blog. The President replied that when this foreigner comes next time to the Republic, the President would personally monitor his security. What is good in new modern technologies? Information spreads rapidly, and journalist offices do not require expenditures.

Yet, there is another concern. Today, we are talking about the Internet, but tomorrow, more advanced technologies may appear. Information is disseminated via telephone, and digital television is being introduced.  Soon it will be impossible to catch anyone. Therefore, the most important issue is to understand it and to try to find new tools for work.

Iskhak Masaliev: Really, there is no need to look for somebody at the Osh Bazaar. We have to talk about ethics from childhood. As children, we are taught not to say bad words, but as we grow up, we begin to say spiteful things, and now, even through the Internet. I am concerned that online, a person may speak whatever he wants. I am angry that one may speak whatever he/she wants. Insult is a terrible weapon. And who is responsible for this? Therefore, I share the concern of Alisher Ahmedovich. That's all.

The Internet is a new phenomenon, and I do not understand much. I do not know how to control it. But when I talk about protecting your rights, I mean, you will not be able to protect yourself until you are registered. There is the copyright.  But copyright is very abstract and a incomprehensible term. It will be difficult to realize it. Therefore, there is a question: Who needs it more? As for the content, there is no need to argue. Today's topic is interesting. I have learned a little more about the Internet. So when the deputies discuss this, I will use some new terms. In fact, there many things for me.

Tattu Mambetalieva: I do not agree with your conclusion that it is impossible to determine who committed something online. Kanat is sitting beside you.  He may confirm that it is technically possible to find the author of any comments. When we suffered from dos-attacks, our organization was looking for the hacker who organized them. We found him, but the government of Kyrgyzstan failed to apply any measures against him.

One of the reasons behind the idea of giving Internet publications the status of the media is to gain control leverage. We are now convincing everyone that this will not become a lever of control. It will rather be a lever of pressure on certain subjects. There is no secret about it. So, you need to be cautious in this regard. When we met with MPs, I became troubled by another fact. At the end of our conversation we asked to give us the e-mail addresses of all the participants, and our request confused everybody. I realized that none of them use the Internet. How can we talk to you if you are not an Internet user? I do not mean you, Iskhak Absamatovich. But I understood that another reason behind the initiative is that as the society is developing rapidly and we apply new technologies, the MPs have been slower adopters in this, and therefore they want to adopt the acts that regulate these relations.

There are grounds for discussion and concerns. I would invite you all to discuss it in our forums. Three working groups have been created. One is working precisely on this issue: whether we should equate or not. The second question is information security, where Kanat is involved. These are the questions of filtering spam, viruses, and computer fraud. The third group, which is led by Shamaral, is dealing with legal problems, the application of offline-law to the online. The MPs expressed their desire to be members of the working groups; we have seven active MPs who will participate in these groups. I invite you, too.

Bektur Iskender: I think the proposals of MPs are not very constructive. We may punish those who insult. But it will not reduce the number of those who are offended. I fully support Tattu. Maybe, the MPs themselves should learn more about the Internet. I will cite another example. I talked to Alisher Sabirov about this, and he confessed to me that he had never visited the "Diesel." The "Diesel" is the most popular forum in Kyrgyzstan, where people express their views. I think the MPs should visit the "Diesel" and participate in the discussions there. People may say unpleasant things. But MPs may explain many things and thus become closer to the people. In this regard, there is a good example of the Bishkek mayor's office. They have created an account at the "Diesel" site under the name of the user "mayor," which during a month, was communicating with people in the "Politics and Society" section and listened to all complaints. When people saw an opportunity to directly communicate with this user, they asked many questions. I do not remember what had happened there, but for some reason, the user "mayor" was blocked. Maybe, they could not stand it any longer. Now it is unblocked again. The Mayor's office in this regard is working actively. Recently there has been such a case. The journalists of kloop.kg calculated the number of municipal buses, which pass through one bus stop during the day, and found out that the drivers finish their work much earlier than they should. The Mayor's office contacted us, and our correspondent was riding on a bus during one day. In other words, they showed us how everything looked in reality.

I think our MPs should use the Internet area more actively. Otherwise there will be no dialogue and we will not understand each other. By the way, I would like to make an announcement.  I will turn to you, Iskhak Absamatovich. We have an idea. We have a correspondent in the Parliament, and he talks to the deputies. We want to open a Parliament blog, choose four representatives from each faction so that they would write on this blog. We are ready to teach you how to do it, what language to use. Thus, you could communicate with the Internet audience and talk to them directly.

Iskhak Masaliev: Will you pay?

Bektur Iskender: No. I think that this would be a good first step. By the way, the Social Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan has already responded, they opened their own blog. I think other factions should also think about it.

Roman Platkhiy: My name is Roman, I am a third-year student. Let's assume that the Internet is equated with the media. The main problems, as stated, are insults and incitement of ethnic hatred and, extremism. But how will it be tracked? It is easy to do that not only in our Republic but also abroad and it is very well practiced. It is not always our Kyrgyz users who do such things. The Internet is a global network, and our kg-domains are available in many other countries.

Iskhak Masaliev: I am not a specialist. But I think that in many other countries, one may use the Internet only if there are organizations that provide this service. If the state authorities decide to limit or block them, then we will not be able to read the blocked information, no matter how many times it is sent from the US. It is not only about insults. The ruling party initiates this because it has an intention to limit. Every Government, by its nature, does such things. It wants to control everything. Therefore, it is only the beginning. I do not know how to block. It is another story. I am personally against blocking. But we must think clearly because incorrect information may lead to negative consequences. I opened my blog, uploaded photos there, and after the first day, people added so many things there ... such things must be also regulated.

Roman Platkhiy: I have a question for Kanat Askerovich. Our country does not have a satellite, we purchase the traffic. But it is possible to access the Internet through cellular phones, which cannot be blocked, because they use their own satellite system, which is difficult to block for the State.

Kanat Mukanov: It can be blocked, and there are technical tools. With regard to blocking, of course, we do not have such a brandmauer, as, for example, in Kazakhstan. As for the satellite, we are working to remove our dependency. We have held preliminary talks with Russia and Kazakhstan. As for reprinting and copying, let us not forget that there are problems with authors themselves. As for the websites, there are technologies that prevent copying of the content. There are no problems in this regard. Concerning filtration, the owners of websites may filter. One can create a list, and the filter will not let those comments come to the website. The author of the comment will receive a message, requesting to edit the comment. As for the provision of information, we have adopted all the basic laws, and Shamaral Yusupovich mentioned them. I can only add that in 2006 the Law "On Access to Information Held by Public Authorities and Local Self-Government" was adopted. We all know that governmental authorities are the main suppliers of information. In 2007, the Presidential decree on the implementation of this law was signed. Also this year the Law "On Information of Personal Nature" was adopted. So, we have laws on providing and receiving information. Thank you.

Radislav Safin: Dear participants of the Roundtable and our speakers today, let me conclude. I would like to point out that the Institute for Public Policy intends to continue the discussion of the issues related to online journalism in Kyrgyzstan. I thank everyone for their attention and participation.