List of participants:

Moderator of the Roundtable - Radislav Safin, Editor in Chief of the Bishkek Press Club,

Nurgul Arystanbaeva, the press service of the Ministry of Health;

Rakhmatillo Akhmedov, deputy head of the press service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs;

Naryn Ayip, director of the "Kabar" news agency;

Elena Ershova, Kabar.kg;

Jyldyzbek Ibraliev, 24.kg.

Shamaral Maichiev, Chairman of the Arbitration Court;

Sergei Masaulov, director of the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Evaluation under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic;

Mariya Rasner, Director of the Internews Network Kyrgyzstan;

Almas Turdumamatov, head of the press service of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic;

Tursunay Usubalieva, Internews Network Kyrgyzstan;

Tatyana Vasilyeva, a leading specialist of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic;

Students of Bishkek universities.

Radislav Safin: Good afternoon, dear participants of the Roundtable. I am happy to welcome you to today's discussion on the development of online journalism in Kyrgyzstan, and the Institute for Public Policy offers a discussion on the development prospects and current problems of governmental portals of the country.

Let me introduce to you our speakers.

Sergei Masaulov, director of the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Evaluation under the President of Kyrgyzstan, who will speak on the topic: "State Policy on the Development of Governmental Internet Portals".

And Almas Turdumamatov - the head of the press service of the President of Kyrgyzstan. He will speak on the principles, guiding the work of the main governmental website of the country.

Before I give the floor to the speakers, I would like to make a comment on some of the merits and disadvantages of governmental Internet portals.

I would like to note that representatives of governmental ministries, departments and employees of press services participate in today's Roundtable. We do not want to just criticize your work. Our task is to identify together with you the existing errors and omissions for their subsequent effective removal.

If we talk about the merits of governmental websites, first of all, we would like to talk about better access to information. It is well known that you have far greater access to official information than non-state private structures. However, along with this, governmental Internet portals are not that good in quick delivery of information. For example, if private organizations are interested in increasing the number of their readers, they increase the speed of information delivery. Governmental Internet portals that do not aim at extracting any profit from their activity are much inferior in this respect.

Another advantage is that you are exposed to less stress. Of course, if it comes to any political unrest, private organizations of opposition or even centrist nature are often exposed to pressure, both in technical terms and psychological pressure.

However, there is a serious negative point - the high turnover of staff. Ideally the same people, who are permanently engaged in public and media relations, should work in governmental bodies, at least, for some certain period of time - perhaps for a year or two. Because we constantly have to meet new people, high turnover makes communication much more difficult; as today we see one specialist but tomorrow we see another specialist.

Another serious drawback in governmental portals is the lack of major editorial policy. The problem is that often, in governmental Internet portals, editorial functions are performed by people who either have no special journalistic education or combine this work with other activities. Ultimately, this leads to poor quality of information.

Continuing to list the negative points, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have heard from heads of the press services of our Ministries and departments that often, their bosses do not give proper importance to the development of their own web portals.

Fortunately, as we have seen, it is not the case of all state structures. For example, if it was a big problem to get information on the energy crisis and, in general, the situation in energy industry up to the mid-2008, today we have seen that journalists almost get their daily information from the Ministry of Energy and the "Electrical stations" company. The press services of the Kyrgyz parliament, government and the President are actively working. The latest positive development is the information that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs opened a community liaison office. For us, it is also very important, because earlier journalists had limited access to information from the main foreign policy body of the country.

We hope that this Roundtable will be the beginning of closer interactions between governmental Internet portals, the media and civil society.

Now I would like to give the floor to Sergei Masaulov who will tell you about the new Kyrgyzstan's policy in the development of governmental Web portals.

Thank you for your attention.

Sergei Masaulov: Good afternoon, colleagues. Because of my work I have to deal with the issues of research and analysis. It is desirable that our state authorities make decisions based on quality analyses. I would like to make some fundamental provisions before I start my report. Before speaking, one should identify the problem. The problem that I have faced is as follows. The so-called analytical work, or everything that deals with analysis of the situation in any sphere, does exist. But governmental decision-making, in many ways, exists in a parallel world. One of the objectives of the Institute of Strategic Analysis is to bring decision-making and analysis together, so that governmental decisions were based on qualitative analytical work. Analysis is not only knowledge, it is information and, at the same time, it is a part of knowledge, which is used for a specific situation. This is the main task of the institute. I will try to speak from this perspective.

It is possible to describe the state policy in this area in two ways. The first way is to speak about the regulations and laws that were adopted in this field. But everyone knows about it because, in 2002, a concept was written about it. Much work has been made, and if we analyze the regulatory environment, we may say that there are not very big problems. But the second way is different. If the legal infrastructure is fine, why there are major conflicts, dissatisfaction among those who work in this area, and why there are decisions that do not satisfy so many people? This is a fundamentally important point, and I will talk more about it. Because, if we approach this problem analytically, it turns out that there is a legal framework that exists by itself, and the process develops apart from this. If it is so, then all our decisions in this field in the form of the concepts remain on paper.

The central problem in implementation of the state policy is as follows: the policy is set out on paper in the form of text, which is not accepted and not understood by people, this policy remains purely on paper. It is necessary to turn the policy into reflexive action; it should be directly implemented. From this point of view, I would like to draw your attention to the things that are important to me. Policies are needed in the case when other methods fail. If one can solve the problem easily, it is solved. If it is hard to solve, and people are in conflict, it is time for policies to act. That is, people deliberately denote their positions, leave the areas where there is conflict and enter an area where they may find a way for interaction.

I would consider five points, which are important for me from an analytical point of view in this field. I would like to draw your attention to the main provisions, mentioned by different experts that have analyzed the situation. And I want to say that, similarly, this is how representatives of civil society and representatives of the state think as well.. They just have different understanding. Once the bills on Internet publications and their equation with the media had been initiated, many organizations did not like it, and different interpretations took place. The first interpretation is that there will be a great change in the situation with the media in Kyrgyzstan because strict rules are being introduced; strict working conditions, and not less than 60 percent of the broadcast should be given to the programs of domestic production. This means that only two channels will be able to cope with this: Channel 5 and NTRC. The same can be said about web portals. If the same requirements are imposed for the content of web portals, all owners will immediately say. "On what basis is this done? We ourselves built our own policy and shaped the content of our portals." The state, which shapes the policy, sees the problem in almost the same way, and they say that there is no change in the media policies. In fact they state the following: the state speaks only about rules, it is trying to establish some rules and discuss them. These are the rules, which contribute to the formation of statehood. It's well known that after the President's address on January 27 this year, many of the media are discussing this particular aspect. The President actually stated that there should be a sort of frame, statehood frame. Indeed, I would interpret this President's statement as follows: he is concerned about the lack of statehood in many fields, including this field. In this regard, the President said that it was necessary to introduce some rules that would take into account the future development of Kyrgyz statehood. Therefore, some requirements may be viewed from the standpoint that the state has to force the media to shape their content.

I would like to note that governmental policy is to fix some of the rules, shared by all parties. This is the first point. It has also been said that the State attempts to create loyal Internet resources. From this point of view, I would have drawn your attention to the fact that the State always tries to create a situation in the information field, which would satisfy government officials. It would satisfy according to the principle: information that is spread in a public space satisfies us, because, in our opinion, it correctly explains our activities; it is not critical, and most importantly it promotes the realization of necessary programs. The initiative to give blogs and forums the status of the media can be understood from this perspective. Loyal Internet resources are being created, because the others do not survive. But we may look at it from another perspective - state policies may be aimed at creation of quality resources. I will refer to the opinion of one of the most interesting individuals, who sees the situation in all CIS countries and can make comparisons. In his view, only two countries in the CIS have a situation, about which I am going to speak - Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. He said, "What is happening in your media, especially on the Internet, can be described as will's dominance over freedom." Which means that one may write and post anything he/she wants. But it is not freedom, because one may post any information, and he does not care if it is true or not. The main thing is just to post it. He said that it is possible in Ukraine, as well as in Kyrgyzstan. Absolutely uncontrolled delivery of information, which may be of poor quality, instead of explaining the ideas of development of the country or informing what is happening in reality, internet portals discuss interpersonal relationships. In this regard, he emphasized that after the President's address, no Internet edition in the country, nor any newspapers, nor any one could clearly say what was happening in the country. Nobody could analytically assess the situation. At the same time, all gossips and rumors are actively discussed - which politician is going to act against whom... These are the only things we see. In his view, this information is of poor quality. When a political figure makes a statement, the first thing everyone is trying to do is to understand, against whom this statement is made, who will respond to this and who will fight. The State in this regard, may declare a policy, associated with the formation of conditions for high-quality media.

The third point being mentioned these days is the strict control of the Internet. Both sides share the view that it is not good. Moreover, I would say that this is impossible, and the state policy does not imply such control. It is physically impossible to control, because any attempt of such control (not only in the network) is accompanied by the establishment of the totalitarian system in the country. If it is possible to detain people for an action that violates the law, then one can create the conditions for total control. This, for example, is done in Vietnam, Afghanistan and some Arab countries, where a total ban exists. This ban is implemented by police actions. Our state policy does not imply that.

Fourth, it is clear that for many reasons neither physically, nor theoretically it is possible to regulate the Internet on legislative level. First, it is a huge area, which has many aspects. If technologies work, if people use them, it is hardly possible to regulate it. Any attempt to regulate the Internet at the legislative level will lead to a suspension of development in this area. This may bring about the situation when one will not be able to act as he wishes, and many will have to withdraw from this sphere. It is not very clear how it will suspend, because, on the contrary, development in these conditions goes on. In fact, the state may declare only one thing - but, the lack of standards and formats is a major obstacle. If there are no standards, we cannot discuss issues as we have different understanding. Introduction of formats and standards is the only thing that we should talk about. Owners of the most visited Internet sites should unite in a sort of association and make some efforts to protect their rights. It also lies within the frames of the state policy, and nothing more is anticipated here. Moreover, when we met with people from this area we have understood that they are not well aware of their rights.

And finally, the fifth point. We have heard that to date we have more than enough normative and legal acts that regulate the Internet realm. We agree that there are many legislative acts. But do they regulate this sphere? There are a lot of laws but they are not implemented. We are just accustomed to the fact that a law comes in the form of text, while in reality everything is regulated by something else. Next. It is clear that it is difficult to find a defendant. One can do a simple thing: to open a blog, register it under someone else's name, and then write whatever he wants about the President. It is extremely difficult to track who really does it. Therefore, the state policy implies that there is no need to track, because the main problem is not there. And finally, it is quite understandable that those who work on the Internet need professional protection. We need an effective mechanism for registration. And this may also fall within the scope of the state policy. I would like to draw your attention that in Kazakhstan, site owners choose themselves whether to join the mass media or not. Why is it possible in Kazakhstan, and why isn't it possible here? The State should not be regarded as a monster or an association of people who seek to spoil the lives of others. Instead it should be treated as one of the mechanisms that work in this area, and it is necessary to enter into communication with it. While we are in conflict with the State, we cannot speak about any good policy. If we enter a field, where these issues can be addressed, it is possible to develop a system of decisions. This is how it works.

Radislav Safin: Thank you, Sergei Ivanovich. Now I would like to give floor to the head of the press service of the President of Kyrgyzstan Turdumamatov Almas Imamidinovich.

Almas Turdumamatov: Thank you. Good day, dear colleagues. I will tell you about the website president.kg.

The President's site was created in early 2000s. Now its fourth version is working. It has been working since 2005. The main purpose of the site is to inform the population, through the media, about the President's activities, about past and upcoming events with the President's participation, about his position on specific issues, and about foreign economic and foreign policy activities.

This site is a source of primary information on the President's activities. The principles of the Presidential site are reliability, accessibility and efficiency. The site operates in three languages: national language, official language and English. The home page is in the national language (Kyrgyz), and the page in the official language fully duplicates the content of the page in the national language. The English version does not contain all information, there is only general information.

The site consists of several sections. The "Constitution" section contains a full text of the Constitution and the stages in the development of the Constitution. Also included on the site are the Constitutions of 1929 and 1937.

The "President" section  contains information about the institute of the Presidency, about the official status of the President, about the President himself, about the symbols of Presidential power and general information about the Republic. This section also contains information about the wife of the Head of State and her public activities.

The "Administration" section contains information on the President's administration, general information about the structural units, and biographies of the heads of these units. Also, there is information about the Administration's activities.

Also the President's administration issues a Bulletin of the President's Administration. The site contains its full version, as well as an archive. Here, we have information on the state system in Kyrgyzstan, the Jogorku Kenesh, the Government, the Security Council, the Secretariat of the Security Council and the courts. The "Priorities" section contains information about the priority areas for development. There, one can see the development strategy of the country and all programs, which work in Kyrgyzstan.

The "Press Service" section contains operational information, press releases, decrees, and orders, which are published. One can view all interviews, speeches and congratulations of the President. There are pictures with high resolution, which can be used by the print media.

In the "Letters" section, it is possible to fill out a special form and ask the President a question, to get an answer to it. That is, feedback. Also there is a search engine, which allows on to find the materials needed. The site also has a wap-version, RSS-channels, it is possible to subscribe to the site. To date, we have about 800 subscribers. Statistics of the website visits - on average 1500 unique hosts and about 3 visits a day. Subscription is voluntary and free of charge. To do this, you should fill in a special form of subscription, and your address will be included in the list.

The President reads his site. It was his order to create this website. There are his welcome words addressed to the first visitors of the site. All decisions and orders, which are signed by the President, as well as by the heads of the President's administration, are all published in full. As for the laws, we publish only the annotations and comments to them. So far we do not have technical capacity to publish all laws, signed by the President, in full. In the future we are planning to do it. Now, a new, fifth version of the President's site is being developed. A separate website of the secretariat will also be opened.

The President is personally asked many questions. One may send a written question or appeal to the President by mail, as well as via our website. You can go to the section "Letter Text" and send your letter by filling in special fields. All written applications or questions are received by the President's office, and according to the Law, "On the Procedure for Consideration of Citizens' Letters" they are considered. If the letters have suggestions, to which we may respond by e-mail, we respond. But often people ask to solve some problems. If copies of documents are requested, we send them by regular mail.

Depending on the topic, letters are sent to particular departments. President's Administration or the Government read the letters and prepare responses. Anonymous letters are not considered, according to the law. When we receive a letter, the sender's address is highlighted. It depends on the deadlines. If some conflict issues are involved that require documents, it takes a long time. But we are trying to respond as soon as possible.

A lot of letters request the President to meet people without any good reason. There is a group of citizens who write two to three letters weekly. The content of the letters is almost the same, and we have to answer all of them.

Sergei Masaulov: I would like to add, one of the first letters that I received at the Institute looks like this. A man writes that during 16 years he has been seeking to change the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. No one hears him. Now he wrote to the secretariat with a request to forward his letter to the Institute. There is a postscript: "Please, answer me within three days, whether you will consider this or not." We have to answer such letters within three days. But this is very hard.

Radislav Safin: Thank you. In accordance with the procedures of the Institute for Public policy, after the speakers finish their speeches you have an opportunity to comment or to ask questions.

Shamaral Maichiev: When someone wants to write to the Government, to the President's administration, he should bring the envelope with his letter and put it in a box, which is at the Pass Office. Besides the President's administration, many Ministries also have such a practice. This is a big problem. We have to establish a Reception Office and we must see the date of receipt of a letter. Why? First, it confirms that the letter has actually arrived. Indeed, there are many laws that regulate the access to information. It is written everywhere - "three days." But how does one count these three days? If you simply put a letter in the box, nobody but the guards can see it. What do notes "to consider or resolve the complaint" on the letters mean? I understand that, "to resolve" means to solve the problem described in a letter. In many cases, the problems are not solved, and the letters are forwarded somewhere else. For instance, if it is a pension issue, the letter is forwarded to the Social Protection agency, and the sender gets a reply "we received your letter and sent it further for final settlement." Most often, these problems are not resolved, but simply serve as retransmitters.

Sergei Masaulov: Thank you. I would immediately turn to the issue of "consider - resolve." There is such a thing. We are now discussing the President's political course. He gave us a month, and the secretariat is responsible for it. We do this publicly and openly, we publish everything, and we divided all the people involved into six groups. And, accordingly, we now meet with the groups at the Institute and the Secretariat and work on changing the text. From my point of view, this is the only approach to overcoming the issue of "consider and resolve." The procedure should be open. From this perspective, the secretariat is now creating its own site, where these issues will be posted and discussed, and we will also inform whether the decision on a matter is taken or not. Anyone can visit the portal and participate in the discussion of this issue. The Institute of Strategic Analysis will also have a website where the issues related to the development of the country will be discussed. There issues will be publicly discussed, and everyone will be able to see the discussion and solutions to the issues. I will try to respond personally. It seems to me that an answer to this is to have complete transparency and publicity. And, of course, it is time to move away from a paper format; the mailbox should be conditional, a request should be recorded according to the date and time of the receipt. The countdown begins with this date. We must look for a way to do this. I would rely first and foremost on electronic resources. In many countries, everything is solved in an electronic format, so there is no need to see an officer in person.

Almas Turdumamatov: The President's administration has opened a public reception. The President's office deals with the record of letters. Both the office and the public reception keep record of letters, they have all the information on when and which messages have been received. And, consequently, they can say what departments are directly involved. But sometimes people write about their problems with neighbors, about wrong decisions by the court, and people ask us to solve their problems. The Administration forwards such messages to those agencies that are responsible for such matters. There are many letters. There are many problems that local authorities should solve, and there are many problems that the Government should solve.

Radislav Safin: On this occasion, I would like to know if there is any communication by e-mail and through a site between the public and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Rakhmatillo Ahmedov: We communicate widely enough with many of the electronic media. Representatives of the media receive daily reports through the Internet. Due to some objective and subjective reasons, the level of our web site does not meet the realities of today. But every journalist can get information from the site www.mvd.kg.

Now we are working on updating, or I would say, on full reconstruction of the site so that it meets today's requirements. And we believe that in the near future our website will meet the expectations of our readers. We will try to follow the principles that have been mentioned by Almas Imamidinovich - openness, accessibility and reliability of information. We will try our best. Regarding the interaction, I would say that 80 per cent of our correspondence with journalists are made exclusively via e-mail without unnecessary bureaucracy. Some issues require clarification. As a state structure, we cannot answer by some amorphous phrases and inaccurate information, because we bear great responsibility for each punctuation mark. And here, we cannot set deadlines, because the issues require clarification by a number of specialists, but we do our best to promptly provide the information.

Jyldyzbek Ibraliev: I have a question I would like to ask Mr. Masaulov. You mentioned in your speech that we have enough laws that regulate the Internet, but they do not work? In your opinion, why? Is it because of poor executive discipline in governmental structures?

Sergei Masaulov: I would say the main problem is that our administrative system is largely idle. Low effectiveness can be explained by the fact that some special powers are sometimes described too much in detail. And we are working in a pseudo-German system where papers move from one table to another. It is very difficult to put a result in the center of a state machine. The President's course has a task of reforming the state machine.

Shamaral Maichiev: Discussion on the transparency of the Ministries' work is topical because the State is not fully open with its citizens. Otherwise, such issues would not arise.

In this regard, I would say about three key points.

First - we need to promote the idea that information resources are not state property. It is clearly stated in the Constitution and in legislation. It is the property of the people who simply provided the State with an opportunity to collect this information. But in reality, it turns out that the people cannot get this information.

The Constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to information. This is a natural human right. This should be done by the State. Today we do not have any information policy; there is no document on the State's information policy. We have five bodies, which are responsible for the information: The Ministry of Transport and Communications, the State Agency of Communications, Ministry of Culture, etc. But in reality, nobody bears responsibility.

Now the next point. The State should have a clearly stated document on the quality of information services. It will solve many problems. We say that the media has no editorial policy. But the State should have clearly defined quality standards for information services.

Rakhmatillo Ahmedov: Shamaral Maichiev, what you have just stated is right. I just want to remind everyone that our country has the Law "On State Guarantees of Access to Information." All those mechanisms that you have mentioned are all described in that law. We must only implement it. In our work, we follow that law when providing information to the media, without opening an official secret, the secret of the investigation, operational information, etc. Our journalists are often interested in these very facts. But we cannot go against the law.

Radislav Safin: Representatives of private media institutions often feel pressure on them. For example, it is manifested in a variety of forms of external censorship of information displayed on the websites...

I would like to draw your attention that Naryn Ayiyp, the chief editor of the information agency "Kabar" is here today. You are representing the only governmental news agency in Kyrgyzstan. Do you feel any pressure on you? And what is the editorial policy of the main governmental news agency in the country?

Narin Ayip: We do not feel pressure. The sole purpose of the agency is to be a normal state agency. This means that we serve state interests, or national interests. Any agency, respecting the interests of its founder, will not have problems with the founder. Our founder is the State. Therefore, we must take into account these interests.

I would like to point out that the view that the state media has greater access than commercial structures to official information is erroneous. Now, the press service of the President immediately sends any reports to all agencies: "Kabar," "24.kg," and all the others.

Our problem is that we would like to be the first. In fact, we get the same information as commercial organizations do. Another problem is that we want to be credible. We cannot be allowed to write something and then correct it. Other private agencies can write anything they want. For us, it is simply impossible. Also, it was said that the state media is privileged to hire the best university graduates. This is absolutely wrong. Graduates choose the places where they get higher salaries. For us, it is a big problem, because we pay much lower salaries than in commercial structures. So, the state media has more problems than private ones.

Rakhmatillo Ahmedov: In support of Mr. Ayiyp's words, I would say that now, we do not have any priority in sending the information, as we used to do. Earlier, for example, we sent information first to "Kabar," and then to "24.kg" - half an hour later. We have no extra time to do so. This question is not relevant today. We, as a state structure, do not distinguish between "24.kg" and "Kabar" because we send information to all at the same time.

Mariya Rasner: The view that Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine are the only countries that have such a mess over the Internet seems curious to me. In fact, there are positive and negative aspects. Recently, with the participation of the State (I mean the deputies of the Parliament), we held the conference "Internet and the Law". And, probably, the conference would not have taken place without the participation of the leading party. There were more than a hundred participants at this conference, including our colleagues from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. And an interesting thing was, the Tajiks and Uzbeks were surprised that representatives of the leading party attended such a conference. In both these countries, it would be impossible. But the medal has two sides. On the one hand, our public officials are accessible, and perhaps this is also a unique thing in Kyrgyzstan, we have an opportunity to sit at the same table. Alisher Sabirov and Dinara Moldosheva acted as moderators at the conference. On the other hand, we have our will in the Internet. This is a kind of mirror - as our state also has a will, rather than freedom, the same thing happens in the Internet.

Sergei Masaulov: Thank you. I would like to respond to this. Our drawbacks are a continuation of our advantages. The fact that, in this regard, we have much more freedom is obvious. I can compare with Russia, where I worked recently. Our situation is obviously better. But the quality of the delivery of information is lower; especially when it comes to the fact that it is time to build the State, which works effectively ... I would still support the idea that the information policy should be clearer. On the other hand, journalists must work more accurately in this information space. A lot of rumors are published, and although they are interesting, it is yellow press. There must be also serious publications and analytical programs. Of course, tabloids will also exist. I am more interested to work with journalists, whom I can talk to. Sometimes, people come to interview me, but in fact it is more like an interrogation. For me, it is more interesting to speak; there must be a mutual dialogue. I have always divided journalists, according to this principle: there are professionals, whom it is always interesting to talk with, but there are also the others.... Please, understand me correctly; I'm not against the yellow press, some parts of the population need it. But I say that the "quality press" must also exist. In Kyrgyzstan, there is a disastrous lack of analytical resources on the Internet, except bpc.kg, which has analytical comments.

Radislav Safin: Sergei Ivanovich, when you talked about a new course of the President of Kyrgyzstan, you mentioned the priority in the formation of e-government. Kazakhstan, however, went further. Last year, all heads of Ministries and departments were ordered to open blogs. In fact, the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan was the first to open his own blog. Can we expect the introduction of such a rule in our country?

Sergei Masaulov: When talking with our Ministers that it is necessary to do so in our country, their first reaction is - what is a blog? We still need to explain to our Ministers what it is (i.e., this is elementary work - basic technological courses). There is no strong resistance here. Some of them say that it would be even interesting. But some of them do not know how to do it and prefer to hire a PR man who will do it for them.

Radislav Safin: Since we have representatives today from the Health Ministry, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, maybe, you could tell us what your bosses think about the development of Web portals of their own Ministries?

Rakhmatillo Ahmedov: As I have said, now we have an old version of the site. But because our head is interested in resource development, very soon our site will look not worse than mvd.kz or mvd.ru. We strive to create a site that would meet not only the expectations of journalists, but also of the population.

One of the requirements of our Minister is that our site must provide an opportunity for interactive communication. That is, anyone should be able to communicate with the Minister, write a complaint or appeal to him. And the answer will be published on our website. If this is private information, the person will receive a response personally. With regard to the problems, they correspond to the realities of our economy. We are a state organization and are largely dependent on the state budget. We are doing what we can do for today. In the near future, our website will work in a completely updated form in the Russian and Kyrgyz languages. There will be a lot of information.

Nurgul Arystanbaeva: Last year, we added a feedback section, search engine, etc. on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We currently do not have money to improve our site so that it could meet new standards. And we are working with the old site. We always try to update its news. The head of the Ministry wants to improve, but there is a lack of funds. This site is only in Russian. To create Kyrgyz and English versions, we need specialists.

Mariya Rasner: I have another question related to the President's speech. It is a question for both Sergei and Almas. There is an opinion that a large layer of our population has lost confidence in the authorities and in the President. In order to realize all the things that the President announced in his speech, it is necessary to raise the level of confidence. What can you propose to solve this problem?

Sergei Masaulov: There are only three formats of interaction between higher officials and the population. There is a western format; it is called relationship based on interests. There is an eastern format. This format of relationships is based on rituals. We belong to an Asian format. It is built on trust. What you have said is basic relationships between people. You are right that trust has been largely destroyed. There is considerable mistrust. In any country in the world, only 7 percent of the population is able to self-promote. 93 percent are not able to self-promote. They are ordinary people who live ordinary lives. Of these seven percent, there is a certain number of people who will participate in this movement. There is only one method - we become open and wait for those who will come to rebuild the country. The President said only what he had said. There is no hidden meaning behind his words. I would say one more very important analytical thing. An important area, which forms the country, is education, not economy. This is because education enables a person to form his own worldview. We have seen what is going on in education, which policies were written there. It will be a disaster, if in 4-5 years, our education system collapses. I do not want to see this collapse. As for confidence, we expect that the course of the President will help us reach real changes in the country, and we need to receive increasing support for this course.

Almas Turdumamatov: The Secretariat was created to develop the mechanisms of coming into the future. The lost confidence may be restored only through real actions.

Asel Aytbaeva: Now there is a trend that journalists begin to work in governmental channels or in press-services. What do you think? Maybe, it is beneficial for the Government that journalists are no longer independent?

Almas Turdumamatov: It is beneficial to have different media, independent and

governmental; we need all forms of journalism. Pluralism is very good. As for the channels, which changed their format and began to cover only social issues, you could ask their heads. NBT, probably, wants to become a channel for the city and highlight the social problems of the city. It is my assumption.

Sergei Masaulov: There is a great need in urban television, ElTR, which would cover the situation in the regions and problems of development. It must show different kinds of films that would educate the people. There is a great need in that. All the rest may remain. Surely, if channels begin to cover some particular issues, it is profitable, or there is some force field.

Radislav Safin: It is natural that at the end of today's roundtable, we touched the issue of freedom of speech. Today in Bishkek, there was a meeting with Oleg Dobrodeev, the head of the Russian State Television and Radio Company. I had a chance to attend this meeting. It was particularly great to hear his assessment of freedom of speech in the former Soviet Union. In particular, he highlighted that representatives of online journalism enjoy more freedom of speech.

Let us hope that online editions will remain independent in Kyrgyzstan. When we started the first roundtable in this series, we did not know what we would come to at the beginning of 2009. However, during international conference "The Internet and Law," which was held in Bishkek, a number of news agencies, citing Alisher Sabirov, stated that a separate law on equating Internet publications to the media would not be initiated. Most likely, amendments will be made in already existing normative acts.

We have also contributed here, because all that time since the issue of equating Internet publications to the media was raised, we have been actively exploring it; involving a wide range of experts. We hope that we will preserve this bastion of freedom of speech and will find common ways of interaction.

We will be happy if today's event helps the governmental portals correct existing mistakes and reach a new level.

Thank you very much.