On January 27, 2009, the Institute for Public Policy held a Roundtable on "The current and proposed legislation to regulate online journalism activities." Media experts, representatives of the Government, international organizations and online publications of Kyrgyzstan participated in this event.

List of participants:

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

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

Ainura Saliyeva, head of the legal information department of the Ministry of Justice;

Almaz Esengeldiev, Senior Advisor, Freedom House;

Gulnara Derbisheva, a deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic;

Erlan Abdyldaev, director of the IWPR office in Kyrgyzstan;

Maria Rasner, director of the Internews Network in Kyrgyzstan;

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

Alexei Bebinov, IT-specialist of the "Civil Initiative of Internet Policy" Public Foundation;

Igor Shestakov, director of the Central Asian office of "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" in Central Asia;

Elmira Toktogulova, the editor in chief of the Internet edition "Tazar";

Media representatives;

Students of Bishkek universities.

Radislav Safin: Hello. The Institute for Public Policy is glad to welcome you to today's event, dedicated to discussing the issue of the possibility of equating online publications with the media. I would like to announce the topic of this Roundtable: "The current and proposed legislation to regulate online journalism activities." Today, we have invited two speakers, Tattu Mambetalieva, the director of the "Civil Initiative of Internet Policy" Public Foundation, and Almaz Esengeldiev, a Senior Adviser to the Freedom House. You can find the topics of their reports in the program. And, I would like also to say that, in accordance with the procedures, established by the Institute for Public Policy, you may ask all the questions after the speakers finish their speeches.

To set the tone for today's event, I would like to point out that the Internet is a unique tool for information delivery, and this uniqueness cannot be regulated by any legislation. In our view, there are two features of the global network that make any legislative control over the distributed material impossible. First of all, it is the amount of material, which is growing in geometric proportions. There are thousands of portals, where any Internet user has an opportunity to freely register his web resource and get 50 or even more megabytes. For reference, the novel "War and Peace," in its electronic form, takes about two megabytes. So, you can imagine how much resources are required to thoroughly check the materials of at least one Internet edition for their compliance with legislation. In this regard, no special service agency, no law enforcement body in any country is able to verify the data that is available on the Internet. Besides, no technical device can manage it.

In this regard, if the legislative initiative of the Jogorku Kenesh members is successfully adopted, we believe that up to 99 percent of all Internet publications may be equated with the mass media. And the immediate question that arises is: what may be considered the media? We have heard many times that our lawmakers emphasize the socially meaningful information, which is updated quite frequently. We can say daily and hourly. But in this case how can we deal with sites, which post anecdotes that are updated every minute? They also match these parameters. How can one deal with those websites that are created by amateurs, who update them daily, and are very popular? In this case they can be equated with the mass media.

At the end of my speech, I would like to emphasize that it is simply impossible to control the Internet, both in Kyrgyzstan and in the entire world. Nevertheless, the journalists themselves during our roundtables made statements that such regulation of online journalism is necessary. But this must be done in the form of self-regulation. So why not turn today's discussion into this direction? Now I would like to give the floor to Tattu. The topic of her speech is the following: "Is the existing legislation sufficient to regulate online publications?" Please.

Tattu Mambetalieva: Good day, dear participants of the Roundtable. I think that everybody here is very interested in hearing the answers to the questions received by our organization most frequently. For example, can the participants of forums and chat rooms be made responsible for open and impartial comments? We have conducted a special examination and analysis of the existing legislation and found a definite answer: yes. The existing legislation allows it. One of the main reasons behind the initiatives that were put forward both by the Parliament and individual state officials is their irritation with regard to the statements made on online forums and chats. It is no secret. As it is, this irritation is the cause of the legislative initiatives.  However, we believe that there is no need in adopting these regulations, which would give online publications the status of the mass media, because the decision already exists in the current legislation. This is not very good news for those who did not know about it. There is the Civil Code.

The main objective of our organization is to bring to the attention of all users, all news agencies, and all who provide hosting sites, that information agencies and all who provide the opportunity to participate in forums and chat rooms to speak candidly, etc. are indeed responsible. On the one hand, it is good that there is such a responsibility, but on the other hand, it is very bad, because when the Civil Code was worked out, the specificity of the Internet space and online information technologies had not been taken into account. However, in terms of law, it turns out that these relationships have already been regulated. Generally, when you think you have been insulted, the Civil code offers a variety of ways to protect your rights on the Internet. This is in Article 11 of the Civil Code. You can read it yourself. But the most important thing is that, after reading the Civil Code, we could not identify who were the parties to these legal relationships. The main parties that are responsible and bear some burden of responsibility are Internet providers, telecommunication companies, those who provide fixed and mobile communication and Internet service, as well as owners of websites. They are individuals and legal entities that provide information on their websites or provide the right to use space on their sites for a fee or for free. The third parties of these relationships are users. When we talk about the subjects of these information relationships and validity of our legislation, we must have a clear understanding that we talk about those who are registered in the "kg" zone, and also about those who use other domains but within a hosting, located in the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic. Legal regulation under the existing legislation includes these actors, as well as those organizations that are working in Kyrgyzstan and are hosted outside the country, whose domain is not necessarily "kg", but the owners are citizens and subjects of the Kyrgyz Republic. This is the legal space, where our Kyrgyz Civil Code has force.

The main examples of the use of Internet technologies to disseminate information, discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation, are forums and chat rooms. Generally, websites open them to ensure that each visitor could express his/her opinion and disseminate his/her own information. In doing so, each user may read all that was written by previous visitors and may comment on that. It is very difficult to find the person who posts offensive information. And the only thing an insulted person can do is to appeal to the court that this information is false. He raises the question of stopping the further dissemination of this information. For the offended person, it is enough just to confirm that this information was on a forum or chat. And when the time comes to confirm this, the problem arises. It is very difficult to prove that some information was on the site, because it is very large amount of work to seize the computer and pull all information out of it. And then - when identifying a user, we can violate the rights of other users who are law-abiding. In doing so, we can reveal the personal data of citizens who have not violated the law. There are definitely problems in this. An offended person faces the problem of collecting and providing evidence in court. The complexity is that all the information may have been erased from the servers. The lack of plaintiff's procedural rights to pursue the activities that would help to provide such evidence is the main problem and the second reason behind the initiative to give the Internet the status of the media.

However, other countries have solved this problem by using the technology of log storing by Internet providers or organizations themselves. There is a European convention, which obliges Internet service providers to keep information, the so-called log files, and maintain records during two years, and they do not have the right to erase it. In Kyrgyzstan, there is no such obligation with respect to Internet providers and news agencies. There are requirements to preserve general information during a one-month period, but the parameters for these log files have not been determined. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that a plaintiff, who wants to prove the existence of any information on any site, must know that this information may be deleted, and the user is very difficult to find. In our view, the main burden of responsibility for the content of information circulating in the network must be borne by the owners of websites who post information at their own discretion. The current civil law allows suing owners of websites for the content of their webpages, in accordance with Article 222 of the Civil Code. This article provides that an owner may do any actions, with respect to his property, that do not contravene the law and do not violate the rights of other persons protected by the law. The owner bears the burden of maintaining the property and cannot unilaterally transfer this burden to another person. That is, in accordance with the current law, an offended person can file a suit that a website owner distributed or allowed somebody to distribute information on the website's forum or chat room, and, according to this Code, the owner of the website bears a proportionate responsibility for having allowed the user to disseminate this information. It is not my personal opinion; it is the current legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic. And so far, no one has exercised this right. I would say that the information that I am giving at this moment is dangerous for websites owners, and you must understand it. I want to talk about it openly. It is inappropriate to hide this information, because the Civil Code is open. Had the plaintiffs had good lawyers, they could have brought them to justice long time ago.

There are a lot of questions about blogs. We believe that the owners of websites, forums and blogs, i.e. those who provide hosting for blogs, also bear the responsibility, along with the source of distribution of misleading information. Therefore, websites owners must be cautious to ensure that their property does not become a tool for infringement upon the dignity of citizens. Article 24 of the Civil Code says that a citizen exercises his rights and duties acting under his own name. A person may use a pseudonym in the events and in accordance with the procedure provided by the law. In this regard, website owners should be aware that publication and information, which may damage honor and dignity of a citizen or incite inter-ethnic strife, etc., should be posted only by the participants of the forum chats who passed through the special identification and registration procedure. And also, in our opinion, moderators should not include any material without its author's identification information. If such publication is posted, the owner of this site will be responsible for dissemination of this information and its accuracy.

As for the publications in purely electronic journals, news groups, or electronic news of real media, which are registered as the mass media, there is no need to equate them with the media. These websites are not anonymous, and their owners may be prosecuted for the dissemination of information. Thus, the current legislation has well regulated these relations, and its regulation rules are quite applicable. Therefore, the new initiatives proposed by our government officials should be considered through this prism. What else do they want to achieve by adopting these new initiatives? If the main problem is in online forums or chat rooms, the existing legislation is sufficient to solve it. If their goal is to introduce total censorship, it is not a proper tool for solving this issue.

Radislav Safin: Thank you very much. Now I would like to give the floor to Almaz Esengeldiev, Senior Adviser to the Freedom House. He will make a speech on the topic "Is it possible to do without adopting a law on equating Internet publications with the media?"

Almaz Esengeldiev: I will try to answer this question right away: Is it possible to do without adopting a law on equating Internet publications with the media? I would answer by posing another question: Is it possible to do without legislation at all? Will the state authorities refuse to regulate the media? Hardly. That raises another question: who promotes the idea of regulating and equating Internet publications with the media? The people? No. Online community? Again, no. The citizens of this country? Certainly not. Then who is promoting this idea? I think everybody would agree with me that it is the state power that is promoting this idea. The state power is the initiator of this law. Why should Internet publications be equated with the media; what is the purpose of that? If we look at the current Law "On the mass media," we will understand why the power supports this law. First of all, the state authorities want to know, who is the founder of a medium, who is the editor; who is the person providing the information. The state authorities need it to bring them to justice. You know well that if the founder is under pressure, he can be forced to leave his mass medium or simply close it down. In addition, the state authorities want to know the title of the media and its requisites. Another question arises: why? Again, to make it legally responsible. In addition, it can be said about suspension of the medium's activity, banning the spread of this mass medium, compelling a newspaper to publish a refutation - all this is about legal responsibility. If you know the title of the medium, then you may easily do it. If you know that the medium has some property, you may arrest it, again in order to bring it to justice. Foreign media may say that they are in a slightly better situation. The Law "On the mass media" makes foreign journalists obtain accreditation, including the accreditation for not only correspondents, but also the correspondent points.

And the last issue: why does the law exist and why do the state authorities need it? To control any information that is undesirable for the government. Such undesirable information may include revealing secrets, advocacy of violence, insults, etc. If the power controls the media in such a way offline, does it not want to control the media in the same way online? I think you all will answer "yes" to this question because all of the above-mentioned suggests that it is possible to control online publications only through equating them with the mass media. Naturally, the state authorities want to control the sources of unwanted information, i.e. websites, blogs, forums. These are the main sources the unwanted information for the state power. Here is a question: how can the Internet publications be controlled in the virtual space? I think there are two options. The first option: the Parliament members will use their right to adopt laws, and sooner or later the state authorities will enact this law. What, actually, can we expect when the Internet publications are given the status of the media? I think that the greatest thing, which the power will be able to do is to equate news websites with the media, because there are some difficulties with other sources of information. Perhaps, the state will equate all these sources of unwanted information with the media and thus will fully control all the sources. The second option is technical. As the previous speaker pointed out, there are providers in Kyrgyzstan who own the zone "kg." This zone is provided to local media that publish their articles and notes in it. Technically the zone "kg" may be fully controlled, i.e. when one does not have access on the territory of Kyrgyzstan and cannot open a website abroad. If an Internet edition is located outside this zone and is not controlled by local providers, it can be partially controlled. You know that last month Kazakhstan restricted access to the site Livejournal - we can do the same. If we, through providers, block access to certain websites, and they become inaccessible to users of Kyrgyzstan, you will be able to visit these sites in other countries. This is a partial blockage of this type. It turns out that actually, the state is able to control virtual space. Assessing the situation today, I can say that only those information sources which would really be controlled are those which have become most popular and that have large numbers of visitors. Also, control would be implemented over those who have a permanent web address and do not want to change it.

We should admit that some online publications that exist in our country today could register themselves when the Internet publications tions are equated with the media. They are the news sources that have become popular for a large number of visitors and want to keep their name and permanent web address. On the other hand, I suppose that they may be information sources that are commercially oriented. That is, they advertise, and it is important to have a permanent web address. These sources will register themselves, when the law comes into force. The third category of online publications includes governmental or sources loyal to the government. They, of course, will register. As for the rest, what shall we do if the state really implements its goal to fully control the virtual space in Kyrgyzstan? Of course, I am against it. I want Kyrgyzstan to gradually refuse regulation of the media. However, taking into account the real situation, I would like to give recommendations for those who do not want to be equated with the media. The first recommendation is: if the Internet edition places its links and banners on different websites, it is desirable to do so on permanent websites. It is necessary, because one has to constantly change the web address. The state authorities will see your website and close it down. Therefore, there should be a banner and by clicking on it, a visitor may go to your site. Next, you should store your information on foreign servers. The Internet publications, which store it on the local servers, of course is at risk. The authorities have repeatedly attempted to arrest property, together with hard drives, where the media store their information. To avoid losing information and to be able to restore it, you should keep it on foreign servers. By doing so,  it can be easily restored on the Internet.

I think that in order to reverse the efforts of our authorities, we need to register the domain outside the "kg" zone or else, it will be completely controlled by our authorities. Of course, it will be bad for the Internet service providers, which provide hosting for the zone "kg." But the authorities compel us to do so. And if an online edition does not want to be controlled by the authorities, it will be forced to choose another zone. If there is a real threat, and we anticipate the adoption of this law, journalists of such information sources, in my opinion, should use pseudonyms. In the Internet space, if a journalist does not want to be brought to justice, he must use a pseudonym. Naturally, we all would know that journalist, but officially the power would not be able to bring him to justice.

There is also such a thing as newsletters. We must use more newsletters among Internet users, because it is difficult to trace them, they are hard to recognize as media, and there are problems of technical and terminological character. The authorities will have to think hard about how to equate them to the media. I think that in the near future, it will not happen. Therefore, if Internet publications get equated with the media, newsletters should be more widely used instead. And the last point. Of course, many online sources anticipated the current situation, as the bill has been discussed for about four years. As far as I know, there was an initiative of a Parliament deputy Sabirov, which was discussed in the former Parliament. Consequently, many publications have already taken some steps. One of them is the creation of mirror sites. The AKIpress news agency has a site "akipress.kg." But it can open exactly the same site outside of Kyrgyzstan at "akipress.org." This is a mirror site, where it is possible to find the same information as in the zone "kg." This has be set up, in case the kg zone is closed or monitored by providers of Kyrgyzstan.  Then, at least, this information will be available outside Kyrgyzstan.

Returning to the topic of my speech "Is it possible to do without the adoption of the legislation on equating Internet publications with the media?", I think you will agree with me: there is no need to adopt this legislation but the state authorities will not accept this. And if we take steps to neutralize the efforts made by the state power, perhaps, the power will understand that all its efforts are in vain and will refuse it. Thank you for your attention.

Radislav Safin: Thank you, Almaz. I think it that today's guests will be especially thankful for the recommendations you have given. Before we begin the discussion, I would like to note that a representative of the Ministry of Justice Saliyeva Ainura Kadyrovna is attending today's Roundtable. She is the Head of the Legal Information Department of the Ministry of Justice. I know that you would like to comment on the presentations of our speakers.

Ainura Saliyeva: I have a dual attitude. I am a representative of the Ministry ofJustice, the head of the department of legal information. In particular, my department provides legal information through the site. The very creation of the site was not recommended by our leadership. The initiative was proposed by our department because now, information is the key product of consumption by the audience. There has been a Law, developed and adopted, called, "On the Access to Legal Information." In particular, this law is about the access to information held by public bodies and local authorities, and it was developed by non-governmental organizations. This is a good law, and realizing it, our site successfully provides information. The information provided on this site is aimed at the users to submit written and oral inquiries. We publish what our users need. I agree with Tattu and Almaz. This question has long been circulated. When information and communication technologies were successfully introduced, a lot of providers emerged in Kyrgyzstan, and there was a suggestion to oblige the providers to verify information about users, who register on their hostings. Much time has passed, but no such rules have been introduced. According to Article 164 of the Constitution, we have the right to legislative initiative. At this moment I only know that this was a bill, which was initiated by Alisher Sabirov, and, in particular, paragraph one of the first article was amended - "other forms of dissemination of mass information." The Ministry of Justice, in its turn, is a body that coordinates legislative activities of the Government, and we receive a lot of draft laws. The Ministry of Justice supported the Law "On the Access to Information." The Ministry will operate in accordance with the law. At this moment, I am not in the department dealing with such issues, so I cannot tell you if there have been other draft laws regulating the media. But according to my information, there was a project initiated in 2007 by Sabirov. But it is very difficult to regulate the laws. They try to use the definition of the mass media, which includes circulation and area coverage. But, of course, it is hard to do so. This is very difficult. Not being a computer specialist, I have to work in this area, and I am interested in this question. As far as I know, Russian and Kazakh legislation at this moment have no such law. We may not make changes in the current Law "On the Mass Media" and most likely, it will be a separate framework law. But my personal position is that it is very difficult to regulate. Although, in connection with the development of information and communication technology, there is some legislation, like, for instance, there is the Law "On the Electronic Digital Signature." This is a strategy for the development of information and communication technologies, adopted by a Presidential decree. In 2007, the Governmental Decision "On Standard Requirements for the Introduction of Websites of Public Bodies" was adopted. So, there are some regulations in this area.

Radislav Safin: If you have any questions, you may ask.

Tattu Mambetalieva: If the newspaper "Slovo Kyrgyzstana" publishes a law, it enters into force. Why don't the websites of public bodies fall under this category? Why doesn't the Ministry of Justice initiate it? I would like to make a correction: there is no law on the Internet, but in Kazakhstan there is a law, which has recognized websites as the media. On February 9-10 there will be a conference on the Internet and law, which will be attended by the representatives of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Russia. Officials from thеse countries will come as well. We will see how they practically apply the law on equating websites to the media. But I am sure that they will say, as the previous speaker mentioned, that, in fact, they adopted the law but did not get the expected effect from it. I have another question. Why was the Ministry of Justice the only public body to support the proposal of "Kyrgyzpatent" about making "kg" the domain of a public body?

Ainura Saliyeva: Under the legislation, which existed at that time, the Ministry of Justice considered that it must be controlled. I cannot say more specifically. Regarding the first part of your question, according to the law "On the Order of Publication," as far as I know, the official publications are "Erkin-Too", the journal "Normativno-pravovye akty", and, for example, "Vedomosti Jogorku Kenesha". We have raised this question, and most likely it will be decided positively. Now, we publish full information on our site. If anyone - an individual, organization, or agency - is preparing a draft law, there are no any restrictions and the draft law is published for discussion. I am just saying that once we publish the draft law, we must also give the final result as well. But, we provide this information on our own initiative. We have already raised this issue at the level of our administration, and most likely, this suggestion will be approved.

Tattu Mambetalieva: I would like to remind everyone that, besides these legislative initiatives by the Jogorku Kenesh and our officials on equating the Internet with the mass media, there have been other attempts to regulate the Internet. I would not say that they are specifically designed to introduce censorship. Basically, Kyrgyzstan is considered to be a democratic state, and we should first look at the reasons for these initiatives of the Government. I have mentioned that there is a proposal to give the domain "kg" from "AsiaInfo" to public bodies; this is one of the responses. It was a reaction to the hacker publication under the domain prezident.kg. We must remember that the authorities react to Internet pranks. You must understand that there may be consequences. In fact, neither the President, nor the power, nor ordinary citizens were very pleased to see what had been published under this domain. Continuation of this is the government's initiative to coordinate the domain "kg" by a public body. This is a serious question, because it relates to the regulation of the Internet.

Actually, the Ministry of Justice has one of the better governmental sites. We held a competition, and we were members of the commission, together with UNDP.  We made an assessment of all governmental websites. But, besides publication of draft laws, it would be great if you published correspondence between public bodies and conclusions that Ministries and agencies provide on different initiatives. When the conclusions of most Ministries are positive, then an appropriate decision is made. As for this initiative, only the Ministry of Justice gave its consent, while the other Ministries opposed to the idea of re-delegating the domain "kg." It made me calm, but at the same time, a little upset that your Ministry did not take into account the requirements of international standards. However, I would like to see how the other Ministries have reacted, for example, to the initiative by Alisher Sabirov, Adahan Madumarov, and all the Parliament deputies who initiated the proposal to regulate the media. Then it would be clear, which position each ministry took because each ministry has its own profile. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, "You are violating our international treaties." If the Ministry of Justice says that it is consistent with the current legislation, then the legislation should be examined.  This is because, if a bill to regulate the media reaches the Ministry of Justice, it may respond  that it has already been regulated and reject such a bill.

I think we, as users of the Internet, should remember that not all of our pranks remain unpunished, because there is always an immediate reaction from the state authorities. The former ombudsman Tursunbai Bakir uulu proposed an initiative that any site of the "ru" domain would not be available in the "kg" zone. Do you remember this initiative? This was his reaction to the fact that Fergana.ru published some information about him, which he did not like. We need to strictly monitor the information to be true. When hacker attacks happen, we can criticize the government that it does not care about security of its sites, but when our hackers create chaos, it must be stopped.

It would be great if the Ministries' conclusions were published. Probably, many people have heard, for the first time, about re-delegating the Domain "kg," although this question has been circulating for several months. It would be also great if the public participated in these discussions.

Mariya Rasner: I would like to add to what was said by Tattu, and, at the same time, to comment on the words said by Almaz. I was shocked by one of your recommendations: let's leave the zone "kg." I think that you intentionally attempted to organize your presentation in such a way to provoke the reaction of the audience, as we all understand that we have gathered here because we want to work in the "kg" zone. If we wanted to work outside the "kg" zone, perhaps, we would not have come here. We are interested in the question: how can we build our relations with state bodies, so that we do not have to withdraw from the "kg" zone, and how can we co-exist with the power here? You may correct me about the fact that this is a radical assumption. When we raise this question, we should consider how to correct this situation in the "kg" zone, rather than to escape from it.

The second comment is about the responsibility of journalists, publishing their information on the Internet. We may blame the power for all mortal sins: it is bad, it wants to monitor and regulate us. But, actually, we are also to be blamed. And what can we do to protect ourselves? We can recheck our facts and information (i.e., make every effort to publish accurate information, not subjective opinion). Or if it is a subjective opinion, we must present it as a subjective opinion. If these are facts, we must present them as facts and take every action to check them, rather than accuse and defame people without strong evidence.

Almaz Esengeldiev: I will try to answer you concerning the current situation in the media market. What newspapers do we read? Who may say? We buy "Vecherka" because there are ads. We buy "MSN" because this newspaper became popular in 2005 during the revolution. "Beliy Parus." If the owners of these newspapers were here, they probably would say that the popularity of their newspapers has decreased because the state authorities have so strongly restricted registered media (a slight deviation from the allowed direction in their publications is punishable by suspension, termination of activities of the newspaper, lawsuits, etc). Each newspaper has already taken several measures, sold their property and now rents it. That is, there are different ways to evade legal responsibility in the conditions, which the State has created them. The authorities control registered printed media. And now, any registered mass medium will think three times before publishing information undesirable for the authorities. And when a colleague here said why the authorities want to equate the Internet publications with the media, she did not mention all the reasons. If you remember, during the three opposition rallies, which were in 2006 and 2007, the leaflets printed from websites were used as information sources. If you saw on the information stands near the yurts there were 24.kg, AKIpress and information sources that published independent information. Why not "Vechernyi Bishkek", not a revolutionary newspaper "MSN", which was the most important source during the revolution, which openly published correspondence? During the opposition meetings, very few people used printed newspapers. I did not see a copy of "Vechernyi Bishkek" or "MSN"; there were Internet editions. Why? Because Internet publications were not yet regulated by the law, "On the Mass Media". This area is still independent, and the journalists who work in these publications are less controlled by the authorities because they are less susceptible to legal prosecution. Therefore, more popular, more truthful and open information is published there. They are more popular among us. From the real space, we have moved into the virtual one. We do not read newspapers, we open Web sites and do not buy newspapers. Now there is a threat that Internet publications would fall under the same regulation, I would not like that. This is not an escape from the "kg" zone, it is an involuntary reaction to maintain an independent view and to evade state control. And the fact that it will not be in the "kg" zone is not fundamental, because the Internet space is without borders - it has no nationality, and even if we see that it is written "kg," it is not necessarily in Kyrgyzstan. There are thousands of titles but these may be the names of companies, brands, and they have nothing to do with Kyrgyzstan. If it is only the "kg" zone which is the main problem, then, in order to exist free, independent and not controlled by the authorities, the media and journalists should think about choosing other zones.

Tattu Mambetalieva: May I disagree with you? First, all news agencies, which work today, are controlled. Not because they are working for the government, but simply because it is possible to pressure them. This is not true that only the printed Media are under the regulation. We all live in Kyrgyzstan, and I would not say that interesting information appears only on websites, just because they are not controlled. I believe that it depends on the quality of journalism. The effective and timely information is a result of using information technology, which allows rapidly delivering information. If you'd like to now close a site, you can do it in five minutes. These technologies are possible. And your recommendation to leave the "kg" zone is also not the best option, because an IT-specialist of our organization will tell you that it is possible to block even outside zones. And do not forget about responsibility. Our legislation applies to those who register in the "kg" zone, those who host, and those owners who do not host here but are citizens of our Republic. These actors fall under our legislation. When recently, many sites were closed, we advised them to open mirror sites, and then I thought: why should we help them to create mirror sites if they are already intimidated? They will hardly provide information, which they would like to distribute, even on a mirror site. I think that is our mentality. But your recommendation about opening mirror sites is a very good recommendation. Because apart from the state censorship, there are too many technical problems associated with DOS-attacks. You remember, during the revolution, all of Kyrgyzstan was isolated from the world; and it lasted very long. It was impossible to read AKIpress. Last week, we experienced DOS-attack. Together with Alexey we helped our providers restore our online resources. And these technical problems suggest that in order to work efficiently and smoothly, indeed, we need mirror sites. Our organization is ready to assist you in creating these mirrors. There was a time when we advised AKIpress to make a mirror, because this was one of the most popular sites. There are other popular sites - 24.kg, Kabar, Parus, etc. We want to provide access permanently. I would also advise you to open mirror sites. That costs money. We can help you create a website, but you have to pay for hosting. It costs about 40 dollars a month. Nevertheless, when you are registered in a foreign domain but distribute the information, which is unpleasant to our Government, it is possible to block you. It is difficult, but possible. I do not think that the exit from the "kg" zone is very good advice.

Radislav Safin: You now have raised the topic of the leading Internet-publications of the country. I would like to point out that today, we have here representatives of AKIpress, 24.kg, Tazar. I would like to ask, perhaps, someone of you would like to express your opinion on the recommendations made by Almaz. What do you think about leaving the "kg" zone, and what are you ready to do in order to defend your rights?

Elmira Toktogulova: the option of establishing a mirror site is preferred in the case of technical problems or state censorship. As for the question of why the power wants to adopt a law that would regulate the Internet, there are personal motivations, but in general, the situation is the following: on the eve of Presidential and parliamentary elections, they want to control all information flows. In this regard, they will surely undertake something, and the control will be implemented. When we come closer to the decision to accept the bill or not, unless there is strong public resistance, as it was with the question of entry into the HIPC, or during the strong wave of resistance on the part of the union of owners of cars with right-side steering, then the bill will be successfully adopted. And they will not care about the decision of the information community on creation of a self-regulation body, etc. They will ignore it because of the natural logic of power to control everything, including the Internet space. Nevertheless, I think we need to continue the work on the establishment of a self-regulating body and the adoption of an ethics code. But at the same time, we should be prepared to reinforce the dynamics of the dialogue with the authorities. Roundtables are good, but they are a very mild form of discussion of this issue, and any action requires a kind of counter-action. We must demonstrate that there is a great community, which does not want and does not see any logic, against it. We are ready to participate very actively.

Igor Shestakov: I had worked in "Interfax" for ten years and, actually, I was engaged in electronic journalism. I do not agree with the view that someone has tried to influence us. We have provided a lot of information, even before the revolution, and wrote about the opposition. I think our conversation here is about something like a witch-hunt. You would agree that in AKIpress, 24.kg and Tazar today, you could find different points of view on political and economic situation. The opposition representatives speak quite openly.

With regard to the State, it is underrepresented today in the web space. The experience of foreign countries has shown that, through the Internet, one may receive public services. Today we have a situation when local administration offices still have old-fashioned typing machines instead of computers. More active use of the Internet space would help reduce corruption, which they have been trying to combat, and so far without great success. One may receive services from district administrations; towns could create their own sites. It will develop tourism. Today, it is missing in Kyrgyzstan. In fact, if the Internet worked in this way, we would be better known in the world, and investors would not have to think about where to get information. They could have visited the sites of our local administrations, beginning with provinces, and received the information. This would really develop our country. Here, the cooperation between the State, non-governmental sector and the media would do only positive work for the economic situation. Almaz said this about the media. In terms of the world crisis, people will have to choose between a loaf of bread and a newspaper. It is cheaper to use the Internet and not to pay for magazines and newspapers. Another point is that Kyrgyzstan is a mountainous country, and not all regions can afford the Internet because of its natural features. This also must be taken into account. Satellite Internet is not so widely available in our country. Also, I do not agree with the view that a site owner should be responsible for objectivity. On blogs, one can write whatever he wants. How does one check a blog? What would a website owner be responsible for if there is a private opinion? Thank you.

Tattu Mambetalieva: We agree with you. The issue of responsibility was raised with the the bloggers of "Media" club. The lawyers responded that the responsibility would be borne by the owner. This is not my point of view, it is written in our legislation. Unfortunately, this is so. Therefore, at the beginning of my speech, I said that the Civil Code was developed without taking into account the capabilities of information technology. I think that now, our organization has a great field of activity, we must introduce this specificity; bloggers must raise this issue seriously. Against the background of these initiatives, it will be difficult to make changes to the Civil Code. When you say that you are not dependent on anyone, I do envy you, but the fact remains the fact. We, as an organization that fights for freedom of expression, see that existing technologies already make it possible to exercise pressure. This is not intimidation. One can simply block a website. This is the pressure. I'm not talking about bribing; I am talking about the pressure technologies that already exist. We all know about it. It is very difficult to prove that your site has been blocked, because technically it is really difficult to do so. The Internet provider may say that it is experiencing a technical problem. And it is very hard to prove anything. It is the pressure.

Now, with respect to Internet users. Preparing for the conference, we decided to conduct research on the number of Internet users. I do not currently have the latest figures, but I can say one thing. In 2005-2006, we ascertained that we had about 700 thousand users, according to Ekspert.kg. To date, the results show that there are much fewer users. This is due to the energy crisis and the world crisis. The villages that used to have the Internet, are now deprived of it. The main contingent of Internet users is in our capital city, while in villages it is a luxury. Therefore, we should focus not on the Internet but on the development of journalism in our regions.

Radislav Safin: Tattu, using your suggestion, I want to ask your specialist some questions and get an answer to the next question. Tattu said that now they are using the pressure technique of blocking. Is it really technically possible to prove that some public body or an individual have blocked a site? How does one do it? And, in general, can an ordinary Internet edition do it?

Alexei Bebinov: First of all, it depends on how a site was blocked; there are some things that are almost impossible to prove. You may ask Internet service providers, but they will tell you that they have technical problems. There are techniques that are immediately noticeable. The example of Livejournal clearly showed that blocking had taken place at the level of "Kazakhtelecom" - one of the technical nodes, which is located between the networks of Kazakhstan and Russia; we checked and saw that at once. On the other hand, when the "Media" club wrote an article about it, they called "KazakhTelecom" and asked for the data, and the PR manager of that organization said that they had blocked nothing. There are methods that are, indeed, very hard to recognize.

Radislav Safin: is it very costly for an Internet edition to maximize its technical safety?

Alexei Bebinov: One method has already been mentioned - mirror websites. On average, the cost of one copy is 20-30 US dollars per month. This is a quite reasonable price.

Tattu Mambetalieva: Creation of a mirror is expensive - about 400-500 dollars. And then you have to pay for hosting.

Radislav Safin: Dear participants of the Roundtable, now I would like to conclude our discussion today. Thank you very much.