The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 06 - 17 June, 2008. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, So far we have not had any volunteers for the main session workshops. It is therefore time to take a more pro-active approach. We have put together a list of potential workshops that relate to the main session workshop themes. We did not apply any quality judgment, but just added the proponents of related workshops. It is our intention to approach these workshop proponents and ask them whether they are interested in pooling resources to organize a main session workshop. I hope you agree with this approach. Please check the list and let us know whether we should add or remove anybody from this list . There is one substantive question Writer A has raised (and I seem to remember that Writer B raised the same point during our MAG meeting), that is the question of accessibility as part of the workshop dealing with multilingualism. Both issues are part of the IGF theme of diversity and the session could be renamed "accessibility and diversity". "Connecting people with disabilities" was the theme of this year's World Telecommunication and Information Society Day. So far it has not been given much visibility in the IGF context. A presentation of what the Internet can do to make life easier for people with disabilities would raise awareness for the need to provide equal access and equal opportunity to all. I remember an excellent presentation by the W3C's foremost expert in this matter and I think this could add value to this session. I look forward to your guidance in this matter. Simultaneously we are also in the process of approaching proponents of related workshops which will not be part of the main sessions in an attempt to merge and thus reduce the number of workshops. We are starting with asking some obvious candidates, but please let us know which workshops you think should merge. We have been approached by several colleagues who wondered how the September meetings should be organized. There seems to be a general feeling that we need a different format from the traditional open consultations, as, essentially, we will be finalizing the programme, in particular the main session workshops. We could start on the first day in a more traditional mode, with comments on the TOR of the external evaluation and general comments on the wording of the programme before splitting up in different working groups to deal with the different main session workshops. We have reserved facilities for a one day open consultation meeting with interpretation and real- time transcription and for a two-day MAG meeting. We can stick to the original scenario: 16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). However, we can also change the scenario. In theory, we have several options: 1. As originally proposed: 16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). 2. All threes days open. 3. First two days open, third day closed 4. We could add a day and make it the first two days open, the third and fourth day closed. Options 3 or 4 would seem best suited for this purpose. The closed MAG meeting would finalize the list of moderators and polish the wording of the programme. Please let us know what your preferences are. Best regards Markus (See attached file: IGF Hyderabad Main Session Workshops.doc) IGF Hyderabad MAIN SESSIONS WORKSHOPS 1. REACHING THE NEXT BILLION (a) Access 1 Digital World Forum on Accessible and Inclusive ICT ENSTA Theme: Low Cost Sustainable access. Discuss the products and possible roadmaps to bridge the digital divide 4 Can the mobile revolution bridge the internet access divide in Africa? Perspectives from Africa and India on 'connecting the next billion'. APC Theme: Not provided: This workshop will explore the potential of mobile telephony in addressing the Internet access gap as well as the limitations. 5 Exploring IXPs: Can they really impact on connectivity and costs of Internet Connectivity? ICT Strategies, mCADE llc Theme: Not provided: The workshop will address the suitability of different models of IXPs to the different environments and challenges faced by countries and regions. 9 Leveraging alternative technology solutions, a possible answer to connecting the next million? CSDMS Theme: Not provided: The workshop will address a few alternative technology solutions already being implemented in various developing and developed nations across the world. 10 Low Cost Sustainability Access Digital Empowerment Foundation Theme: Low Cost Sustainable Access: The workshop will focus on low cost sustainability access 11 Promoting pro-poor access to ICTs APC Theme: Not Supplied: This workshop will provide participants with an opportunity to learn about and discuss some of the emerging and promising options for increasing pro-poor access to ICTs. 12 Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion PICISOC Theme: Not provided: The workshop will investigate examples of successful models and draw conclusions on the reasons for their success and when and where to apply them. (b) Multilingualism 8 Internationalized Domain Names: Myths and Opportunities ICANN Theme: Not provided: This workshop will review IDNs and how they relate to more traditional domain names as well as explore how the relationships and the characteristics of the domain name system itself create new possibilities for broader Internet accessibility. The workshop will further discuss the effect the proposed standard changes have on additional scripts and mnemonics and on applicability of possible existing registrations. 15 An Asian Prospective on Internationalization Chinese Domain Name Users Alliance Theme: Not provided. The workshop will be a forum to discuss the language and culture diversity in Internet governance, particularly on Internet users' multilingual participation in ICANN activities, multilingual DNS (IDNs), multilingual services and multilingual policy-making. 20 Legal Challenges Before Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) CYBERLAWS.NET Theme: Not provided. The proposed workshop aims to bring forward the various legal issues and challenges that are facing the subject of internationalised domain names or IDNs across the world. 21 Multilingualization and Internazionalization of Internet ITU Theme: Not provided. The workshop will aim at fostering the multistakeholder principle of international cooperation in the process towards multilingualization and internazlionalization of Internet. 22 Steps toward an Internet that is multilingual, yet remains global ISOC Theme: Multicultural/multilingual Internet, beyond DNS. The Workshop will discuss the issues involved in the new multicultural reality, the additional work needed, if any, to enable and facilitate the continued spread of the Internet into populations with different languages? 69 Opening to diversity and competition the DNS system ENSTA Theme: Critical Internet Resources and Multilingualisation. 2. PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND TRUST (a). Are we losing the battle against cybercrime? 38 An Interpol for the Internet? CSDMS Theme: Not Provided. This workshop deals with the issue of Cyber Security with special focus on the emerging policies on cybercrime from various developed and developing nations and the necessity or otherwise of a single instrument and enforcement mechanism for cybercrime. 41 Cyber Security: building a framework for Cyber Security: beyond awareness to practical approaches ICT Strategies, mCADE llc Theme: Not provided. The workshop will focus on current and evolving challenges in cyber security implications of cyber security threats and risks, current research and information documenting the scope of the challenges, initiatives and activities underway to address national, regional, and international level initiatives in cyber security and what is needed to address future challenges and keep cyber space. 45 Cybersecurity: An overview of the issue space and the outlook for remediation Global Internet Policy Initiative Theme: Not provided. This workshop will provide taxonomy of cybersecurity issues, examine the risk profile associated with them, and discuss and evaluate policies for various sectors that will ameliorate threats to the security of the Internet. 47 Dimensions of Internet Security French Ministry of Foreign Affairs IMPORTANT NOTE: This proposal is only a suggestion for a main workshop theme, not a formal proposal for organizing it. It will be submitted to participants at the May IGF consultations to evaluate the level of interest. 48 Global Culture for Cybersecurity China Association for Science and Technology Theme: Global Culture for Cybersecurity. The proposed workshop will focus on how to build and spread trust through the Internet, and how to construct a trust framework on the Internet; how to build ethical principles concerning self-consciously resisting the use of Internet to spread junk mails, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, illegal or harmful information, interfere or attack information systems, steal confidential data and violate privacy. The workshop will also keep close watch on the similar issues such as the Guidance of Internet security suggested by the ITU. (b). Fostering Security Privacy and Openness 17 Four Sisters for Developing Countries- Information Security, Spam, Electronic Governance and Data Protection CYBERLAWS.NET Theme: Not provided. The proposed workshop aims to bring forward the various legal issues and challenges that are facing developing countries in four connected areas, being Information Security, Spam, Electronic Governance and Data Protection. 44 Cybercrime laws and policies - the role of parliaments Council of Europe Theme: Not Provided. The aim of the workshop is to encourage parliaments to take on this responsibility while keeping in mind to balance the rights of users and the role of the private sector on the one hand, and security concerns on the other. 51 Policy Aspects of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) TU Delft Theme: Not provided. The first part of the workshop will provide a conceptual grounding for policymakers deliberating responses to privacy threats and summarise recent advances in PET research. In the second part of the workshop, a diverse panel of stakeholders will discuss policy options for encouraging adoption of PETs, appropriate for various privacy contexts, in an open dialogue with workshop participants. 52 Protection of personal data and cybercrime - ensuring security and privacy on the Internet Council of Europe Theme. Not Provided. The aim of the workshop is, on the one hand, to make stakeholders developing cybercrime legislation familiar with relevant privacy and data protection issues and on the other hand, to highlight how cybercrime legislation can help protect and enforce privacy. 54 Security through obscurity or through openness? ENSTA Theme: Global Cooperation for Internet Security and stability. 58 The protection of personal data and privacy in the information society: towards an international instrument with a global reach? UNESCO Theme: No theme provided. This workshop will consider key personal data protection and privacy issues facing users in the information society, with reference to the strengths and weaknesses of existing legal regulations 50 Online Child Protection, Freedom of Expression and Privacy - companions or competitors? CHIS Theme: Not provided. The workshop will explore how stakeholders view and manage the tensions and potential difficulties around, on the one hand, the need to protect children from undesirable or illegal content and contacts in the online space while maintaining, on the other, ready access to the richness of the internet's panoply of resources and channels of communication 55 Self-regulation - where and how is it working? CHIS Theme: Not Provided. The workshop will explore the concept of Self-regulation which is portrayed optimal method for modern societies to grapple with the many challenges presented by the fast-moving, ever- changing world of the internet and its related digital technologies. 3. MANAGING CRITICAL INTERNET RESOURCES (a). Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 63 From IPv4 to IPv6: Challenges and Opportunities Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University Theme: Not provided. the workshop, would highlight how the concerned parties in charge of the migration from IPv4 to IPv6 are addressing challenges, and what sort of measures have been already taken, or under discussion and going to be implemented, for both IPv4 address exhaustion and preparing for the IPv6 address transition. It will also discuss the role of the various actors. 65 Internet Number Resource Management in the IPv4 to IPv6 transition context. AfriNIC Theme: Not Provided. The workshop will try to address each aspect of the responsibilities of migration from IPv4 to IPv6 and set the path toward a more cooperative and efficient campaign to work through the grey period and raise the awareness of all the stakeholders of the Internet service and application provision chain. 66 IPv6: Towards a Next Generation Internet ITU Theme: Not Provided. The workshop will address technical and standardization issues that will enable the most fruitful usage of IPv6, promotion, capacity building and technical assistance - helping countries in the deployment process and parallel running of IPv4 and IPv6. 61 Bottom-Up Policymaking in the Regional Internet Registries to address IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition Packet Clearing House Theme: Not Provided. The workshop will address the two issues of depletion of IPV4 and introduction of IPv6 through an introduction of IGF participants to the bottom-up public policy development process as enacted by the Internet community, and summarize each of the specific policy proposals being debated currently. (b) Arrangement for Internet Governance – Global, National/Regional 64 Internet Governance and ccTLDs GLOCOM Theme(s): Critical Internet Resources; Diversity; Development; Capacity Building. The workshop will provide statistical analysis of web pages residing in each country domain to evaluate the relationship between the occurrence of inappropriate and malicious use and the 'domain of residence'. The workshop will also provide a comparative study of the operation and management of country domains. 67 Legal Aspects of Governance of Critical Internet Resources Functions World Bank Theme: Not provided. The workshop will address the various functional attributes relating to the robustness and security of Critical Internet Resources and will assess how different legal and institutional governance models could be mapped to those CIR functions. 68 Network Management: Examining the Issues Technology Policy Institute Theme: Not Provided. This workshop will evaluate the range of views on network management practices, and will provide a factual presentation of the economic, legal, and engineering aspects of the issue based on evidence from different countries. 71 Regional IP Address Registries: The New Epicenter of Global Internet Governance? Internet Governance Project Theme: Not provided. This workshop will explore issues regarding the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), its governance and policy processes, providing a balanced and diverse array of opinions from technical experts, public interest advocates, industry and governments. The goal of the workshop is to heighten awareness of the changing role of RIRs and to promote better understanding of the challenges they will be facing. 72 The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What? Internet Governance Project Theme: Not provided. This workshop explores future models for governance of critical internet resources. (Writer C) Thanks for this compilation that will hopefully help induce mergers. Just a note to confirm formally what I said in Geneva in May : my Workshop proposal [DETAILS] is to be merged with [DETAILS]. One down :-) (Writer D) Thank you Markus for the compilation of workshops proposals. My comments below. At 11:36 a.m. 10/06/2008, Markus KUMMER wrote: >Dear colleagues, > >So far we have not had any volunteers for the >main session workshops. It is therefore time to >take a more pro-active approach. We have put >together a list of potential workshops that >relate to the main session workshop themes. We >did not apply any quality judgment, but just >added the proponents of related workshops. It is >our intention to approach these workshop >proponents and ask them whether they are >interested in pooling resources to organize a >main session workshop. I hope you agree with this approach. Yes, I agree >Please check the list and let us know whether we >should add or remove anybody from this list . > >There is one substantive question Writer A has >raised (and I seem to remember that Writer B raised >the same point during our MAG meeting), that is >the question of accessibility as part of the >workshop dealing with multilingualism. Both >issues are part of the IGF theme of diversity >and the session could be renamed "accessibility >and diversity". "Connecting people with >disabilities" was the theme of this year's World >Telecommunication and Information Society Day. >So far it has not been given much visibility in >the IGF context. A presentation of what the >Internet can do to make life easier for people >with disabilities would raise awareness for the >need to provide equal access and equal >opportunity to all. I remember an excellent >presentation by the W3C's foremost expert in >this matter and I think this could add value to >this session. I look forward to your guidance in this matter. I think that the issue is very very important, but the IGF is about Internet Governance. While I don't object the emphasis in Accessibility, I would like to better understand the relationship of this point with Internet Governance. >Simultaneously we are also in the process of >approaching proponents of related workshops >which will not be part of the main sessions in >an attempt to merge and thus reduce the number >of workshops. We are starting with asking some >obvious candidates, but please let us know which >workshops you think should merge. > >We have been approached by several colleagues >who wondered how the September meetings should >be organized. There seems to be a general >feeling that we need a different format from the >traditional open consultations, as, essentially, >we will be finalizing the programme, in >particular the main session workshops. We could >start on the first day in a more traditional >mode, with comments on the TOR of the external >evaluation and general comments on the wording >of the programme before splitting up in >different working groups to deal with the different main session workshops. I am not sure if this model will work for everybody. Several organizations that usually participate in the Open Consultation are interested in more than one topic and they are usually represented by just one person. If we split the group for working in parallel they could not participate in all of the discussions. >We have reserved facilities for a one day open >consultation meeting with interpretation and >real-time transcription and for a two-day MAG >meeting. We can stick to the original scenario: >16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG >meeting (without observers). However, we can also change the scenario. >In theory, we have several options: >1. As originally proposed: 16 September open, >17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). >2. All threes days open. >3. First two days open, third day closed 3.a. - One day an a half open and one day an a half closed. >4. We could add a day and make it the first two >days open, the third and fourth day closed. I don't support this option for 2 reasons. 1) I guess that many people (like me) have already arranged their travels and it would not be possible to stay one more day. 2) If we make the meetings longer it will be more and more expensive to participate and so it will be more restrictive. 3 days in Geneva three times a year is already very (VERY) expensive. 4 days is still more. (Writer E) On 10-Jun-08, at 10:36 AM, Markus KUMMER wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > So far we have not had any volunteers for the main session workshops. Just to clarify: what do you mean by not having any volunteers? Do you mean no leads of one of the previously proposed workshops have volunteered to lead the others? Or MAG members not having voluteered to "oversee" the workshops? I wasn't aware of a clear call, which could easily be my misunderstanding. I am stretched rather thin these days getting ready for OECD. > > It is therefore time to take a more pro-active approach. We have put together a list of potential workshops that relate to the main session workshop themes. We did not apply any quality judgment, but just added the proponents of related workshops. It is our intention to approach these workshop proponents and ask them whether they are interested in pooling resources to organize a main session workshop. I hope you agree with this approach. I appreciate the effort you've put into compiling the proposals -- it makes it much easier to think about what sort of workshop might result, both in terms of strengths and gaps to be addressed. I think it's a good idea to go out, but I would phrase the request for expressions of interest in such a way that it is very clear the MAG will be playing an oversight role to guarantee a well-balanced main session workshop on all topics. > > > > Please check the list and let us know whether we should add or remove anybody from this list . One specific point: workshop [NUMBER] would fit with others in the Access bundle (which is not to say how [INSTITUTION] will respond to the request -- I just don't know right now) More generally, I am cautious about what appear to be single parties proposing some workshops. But the request for interest will show whether they are willing/able to engage in a multistakeholder workshop, and help us determine how to react if they don't wish to work on the main session. > > > > There is one substantive question Writer A has raised (and I seem to remember that Writer B raised the same point during our MAG meeting), that is the question of accessibility as part of the workshop dealing with multilingualism. Both issues are part of the IGF theme of diversity and the session could be renamed "accessibility and diversity". "Connecting people with disabilities" was the theme of this year's World Telecommunication and Information Society Day. So far it has not been given much visibility in the IGF context. A presentation of what the Internet can do to make life easier for people with disabilities would raise awareness for the need to provide equal access and equal opportunity to all. I remember an excellent presentation by the W3C's foremost expert in this matter and I think this could add value to this session. I look forward to your guidance in this matter. Responding to Writer D: there are governance questions rather broadly pertaining to access for the disabled, and some of those impact on at very least the Internet technical organizations, as is well recognized (e.g., IETF, I believe W3C, likely others). But it's a big topic and I am not sure it would be well served by combining it with others only vaguely related. > > > > Simultaneously we are also in the process of approaching proponents of related workshops which will not be part of the main sessions in an attempt to merge and thus reduce the number of workshops. We are starting with asking some obvious candidates, but please let us know which workshops you think should merge. > > We have been approached by several colleagues who wondered how the September meetings should be organized. There seems to be a general feeling that we need a different format from the traditional open consultations, as, essentially, we will be finalizing the programme, in particular the main session workshops. We could start on the first day in a more traditional mode, with comments on the TOR of the external evaluation and general comments on the wording of the programme before splitting up in different working groups to deal with the different main session workshops. We have reserved facilities for a one day open consultation meeting with interpretation and real- time transcription and for a two-day MAG meeting. We can stick to the original scenario: 16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). However, we can also change the scenario. > In theory, we have several options: > 1. As originally proposed: 16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). This would be my preference, but with 16 September split. In the morning comments on the TOR and general comments. In the afternoon, an open-plan meeting between those interested in the main session workshops and the subset of MAG members overseeing that specific workshop. I don't think there would be much overlap there. > > (Writer F) So far we have not had any volunteers for the main session workshops. It is therefore time to take a more pro-active approach. We have put together a list of potential workshops that relate to the main session workshop themes. We did not apply any quality judgment, but just added the proponents of related workshops. It is our intention to approach these workshop proponents and ask them whether they are interested in pooling resources to organize a main session workshop. I hope you agree with this approach. [[Writer F] Yes I agree subject to Writer E's comments regarding clarity of MAG role. Please check the list and let us know whether we should add or remove anybody from this list . [Writer F] Looks fine. Like Writer E, I am concerned about workshops proposed by single parties. Whether they end up in the main sessions or as other workshops, we do need to ensure that the multistakeholder principle is adhered to. Proposals need, in my view, to be firmed up as soon as possible so that the MAG can see that the workshop is indeed multistakeholer rather than relying on a promise from the proposer to do their best to make it so. There is one substantive question Writer A has raised (and I seem to remember that Writer B raised the same point during our MAG meeting), that is the question of accessibility as part of the workshop dealing with multilingualism. Both issues are part of the IGF theme of diversity and the session could be renamed "accessibility and diversity". "Connecting people with disabilities" was the theme of this year's World Telecommunication and Information Society Day. So far it has not been given much visibility in the IGF context. A presentation of what the Internet can do to make life easier for people with disabilities would raise awareness for the need to provide equal access and equal opportunity to all. I remember an excellent presentation by the W3C's foremost expert in this matter and I think this could add value to this session. I look forward to your guidance in this matter. [Writer F] I agree that this is important and deserves visibility. If it can be fitted into the session as you envisage then I would support that. Simultaneously we are also in the process of approaching proponents of related workshops which will not be part of the main sessions in an attempt to merge and thus reduce the number of workshops. We are starting with asking some obvious candidates, but please let us know which workshops you think should merge. We have been approached by several colleagues who wondered how the September meetings should be organized. There seems to be a general feeling that we need a different format from the traditional open consultations, as, essentially, we will be finalizing the programme, in particular the main session workshops. We could start on the first day in a more traditional mode, with comments on the TOR of the external evaluation and general comments on the wording of the programme before splitting up in different working groups to deal with the different main session workshops. We have reserved facilities for a one day open consultation meeting with interpretation and real- time transcription and for a two-day MAG meeting. We can stick to the original scenario: 16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). However, we can also change the scenario. In theory, we have several options: 1. As originally proposed: 16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without observers). [Writer F] I, once again, agree with Writer E including the idea of splitting day 1. I do not think options 2, 3 or 4 would be beneficial. 2. All threes days open. 3. First two days open, third day closed 4. We could add a day and make it the first two days open, the third and fourth day closed. Options 3 or 4 would seem best suited for this purpose. The closed MAG meeting would finalize the list of moderators and polish the wording of the programme. Please let us know what your preferences are. (Writer G) I would like to support the comments of Writers E and F. Specifically, I see the issue of access for people with disabilities as not only being important in itself, but also as presenting an interesting parallel to other Internet governance issues – i.e. how a technical standards process can take account of important social and policy issues while retaining maximum scope for innovation – and how to build capacity in using and developing capabilities for the public good. I also prefer option one and could go along with the kind of adjustment that Writer E has suggested. (Writer H) first of all - of the most consequence for others - let me chime in on the subject of organizing the September consultations. I do not think it is useful to extend the open consultation sessions for over a day. The evidence from May suggests to me that we could have been done with even half the day. Therefore I agree with Writer E about how to use the first day - open consultations, split by subject as he suggests. Then have up to two days of tough internal work sorting out proposals for the program. For time-management I would suggest that we spend part of the first day, during the open consultations, individually, and the first session of day 2 in sorting out needs for information. For example, this would point to the need to call or email some people or organizations to see if they would agree to changes, mergers, etc., or just for additional information. We would then delegate someone from the Secretariat (already stretched out, I know) and a few others to do this information collection for day 3, if at all possible. This would reduce some of the Secretariat's load for after the meeting by having more definitive views of the information at hand. (Writer H) I also do support doing work during the IGF to highlight the problems, solutions, and trends related to the governance aspects of accessibility to people with disabilities. We should make sure that the wide spectrum of very productive initiatives and organizations at work can be displayed. The work must be relevant to the Internet particularly. If it is going to refer to other, related fields, like mobile telephony, we must again make sure that a number of relevant players are present. Much is going on, even in that field, outside the traditional intergovernmental organizations dedicated to telecommunications. These, certainly, have made only fractional contributions to the Internet in terms of accessibility and only recently have begun to convene working groups and parties with experience acquired elsewhere. If this display of accessibility initiatives becomes broad enough and speakers from a wide spectrum of organizations and views are available, the forum can retain its non-duplicative agreed mandate. The subject would warrant a session for itself and there are requests and expectations in the community in favor of this. If it does not become a full session on its own, it is probable that attendees to the forum will look for this subject in the access, more than in the multilingualism sessions (even though a few forward-looking countries, like mine, have had the foresight of recognizing sign language as an official language.) (Writer I) thanks for the document. I agree with the idea of approaching workshop proponents and ask them whether they are interested in pooling resources to organize a main session workshop. In relation with accessibility, I think it is relevant for Internet Governance in relation with access, diversity and openess, in this sense I agree with including it in a main session. Your suggestion "accesibility and diversity" is fine with me, perhaps another possibility could be "Diversity and accessibility". In relation with the September meeting, I prefer it as originally proposed, one day open and two day closed. (Writer J) Another option for the timetable in September could be to start on Tuesday morning with a closed session, to have Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning the open sessions and to continue from Wednesday afternoon to Thursday afternoon with the closed sessions. This would give the MAG an opportunity to prepare some presentations for "feeding" the open meeting. If a cheap "get together" could be organized on Tuesday evening this would also promote more communication among the various groups. Anbother five cents (Markus Kummer) Many thanks for your quick reactions. It seems that we have settled the question I raised with regard to the September meetings: we stick with our original plan and hold the open consultations on 16 September and the MAG meeting on 17-18 September. As Writer E and others suggested, we can split the meeting of the first day into two sections, with general comments on the proposed TOR for the external evaluation and other matters in the morning and an open-plan meeting between those interested in the main session workshops and the subset of MAG members overseeing that specific workshop in the afternoon. Writer J's suggestion - to begin with a closed MAG meeting on the morning of the first day and open consultations in the afternoon and morning of the second day - sounds attractive. However, this would not be accepted by the Conference Committee of the UN, as we would have to pay them for two days for what is seen a one day's work (interpreters and scribes are always paid for the day). Writer E is right in so far as we have not issued a call for workshop organizers to come forward with merger plans for the main workshop sessions. However, this was explicitly mentioned in para 8 of the MAG report. As it happened, we have since received one email volunteering to merge into the critical Internet resources workshop. It goes without saying, as several colleagues underlined, that we will mention in our contact with potential main session workshop co-organizers that these sessions will be overseen by the MAG. We have not yet asked MAG members to volunteer to be part of a specific subset of workshop overseers. Consider this done with this email. (Writer K) Thanks for these proposals. Been some good comments, rather than replying to each message I'll try note them inline below. >Dear colleagues, > >So far we have not had any volunteers for the >main session workshops. It is therefore time to >take a more pro-active approach. We have put >together a list of potential workshops that >relate to the main session workshop themes. We >did not apply any quality judgment, but just >added the proponents of related workshops. It is >our intention to approach these workshop >proponents and ask them whether they are >interested in pooling resources to organize a >main session workshop. I hope you agree with >this approach. > >Please check the list and let us know whether we >should add or remove anybody from this list . I've not had chance to look through the list carefully, but a quick glance makes me think we must be careful to include a balance of stakeholders in some of the sections. Even with the MAG's oversight these main session workshops must be organized by multistakeholder groups. And a bit of care needs to be taken with proposals that might be from a single person rather than an organization. See And if a proposal is just a place holder, e.g. ENSTA (there might be others) I'd prefer we didn't write until they had at least sent a paragraph, a title is not enough. The IPv4/v6 session looks very technical community heavy. No surprise, but mention as an example of the need to be wary of balance, even if there might not be a solution in this case. I'll try to look through the list and send specific comments. But I think we must take the approach you've suggested. I've spoken with a couple of workshop proposers interested in getting involved in helping arrange a main session workshop, but I think we're all a bit hesitant as to what to do next. Could you clarify: if an organizer agrees to merge their proposal as part of the main session workshop, they loose the right to hold it as an individual workshop? (I think this is the way to go, but would like to be clear. ) As Writer E mentioned and has been agreed to by a few already, when writing to the organizers we must make it clear they will be required to work with the MAG (oversight) and others. Could you send a draft of your letter to the MAG list. These sessions are essentially our responsibility so would be good to make sure we all start on the same page. Specific point - in the list 41 is wrongly numbered, 43 I think. And, for what it's worth 15 is actually a proposal by ICANN's AP RALO (asia pacific regional at large organization) so we'll be asking different parts of ICANN to help organize this (not a bad thing, but to be clear.) I would include 14 in the multilingualism section. >There is one substantive question Writer A has >raised (and I seem to remember that Writer B raised >the same point during our MAG meeting), that is >the question of accessibility as part of the >workshop dealing with multilingualism. Both >issues are part of the IGF theme of diversity >and the session could be renamed "accessibility >and diversity". "Connecting people with >disabilities" was the theme of this year's World >Telecommunication and Information Society Day. >So far it has not been given much visibility in >the IGF context. A presentation of what the >Internet can do to make life easier for people >with disabilities would raise awareness for the >need to provide equal access and equal >opportunity to all. I remember an excellent >presentation by the W3C's foremost expert in >this matter and I think this could add value to >this session. I look forward to your guidance in >this matter. So long as discussion is relevant to Internet governance and policy. And I think Writer I's suggestion "diversity and accessibility" an improvement. >Simultaneously we are also in the process of >approaching proponents of related workshops >which will not be part of the main sessions in >an attempt to merge and thus reduce the number >of workshops. We are starting with asking some >obvious candidates, but please let us know which >workshops you think should merge. > >We have been approached by several colleagues >who wondered how the September meetings should >be organized. There seems to be a general >feeling that we need a different format from the >traditional open consultations, as, essentially, >we will be finalizing the programme, in >particular the main session workshops. We could >start on the first day in a more traditional >mode, with comments on the TOR of the external >evaluation and general comments on the wording >of the programme before splitting up in >different working groups to deal with the >different main session workshops. We have >reserved facilities for a one day open >consultation meeting with interpretation and >real-time transcription and for a two-day MAG >meeting. We can stick to the original scenario: >16 September open, 17-18 September closed MAG >meeting (without observers). However, we can >also change the scenario. >In theory, we have several options: >1. As originally proposed: 16 September open, >17-18 September closed MAG meeting (without >observers). >2. All threes days open. >3. First two days open, third day closed >4. We could add a day and make it the first two >days open, the third and fourth day closed. > >Options 3 or 4 would seem best suited for this >purpose. The closed MAG meeting would finalize >the list of moderators and polish the wording of >the programme. Please let us know what your >preferences are. Slight amendment to Writer D's "3A" suggestion. We expect to be working with some of the workshop proposers on both the main session workshops and almost by default therefore on the main session debates. I think representatives of those groups working with us on the main sessions should be invited to join the MAG meeting of September 17. Not everyone involved, just enough from each so we can make progress. September 16 open consultation. September 17, MAG plus Main Session Workshop organizers. September 18 MAG, Closed. In a sense Sept 17 would be a semi-open meeting (we could ask them to follow Chatham house, though gets difficult with more people), a slightly larger room would be needed, perhaps an additional 10-20 people. (Writer L) many thanks for the clarifications. Just a few quick comments: a) September Meetings: I agree with keeping the original 3-day schedule, as I am aware of the time and resource constraints of other MAG members, who may, like Writer D suggested, already be doing their travel plans. Taking into consideration Writer J's proposal and your comments on availability of and payment for scribes and interpreters, I still think it might be a useful way to change the order of things around: Day 1: Closed MAG meeting Day 2: open consultations Day 3: Closed Mag meeting That way, we could have the benefit of preparing for open consultations and incorporating some open consultation feedback on our Day 1 MAG work into our Day 3 MAG work, allowing us to better finetune our work. It would also give an opportunity to share in the open consultation the intermediate results of our Day 1 MAG meeting, and thus provide more transparency, even if we do not have official observers in the closed MAG sessions. b) Main Session Workshops: Thank you for the proposed workshops. I'll comment later today or tomorrow on some specifics, but for today, I would like to say that the Main Session Workshops need to be under much closer scrutiny than the other workshops. We should assure that we have a team of about 3-4 MAG members each volunteering to oversee and help organize and structure such workshops so that we can assure maximum benefit. My suggestion would be that to avoid unnecessary overlap between the two workshops leading up to one main session, that all/some of the same volunteers support both such workshops. I'd be volunteering to help doing so for the Access themes (Internet for the next billion) as a first choice. (Writer M) A few points to respond to other colleagues' input: 1. I think that Writer L's approach for the 3 days in September would be productive, if feasible. In addition, it would be helpful if the schedule and topics of the open consultation could be posted as soon as possible, recognizing the constraints of the secretariat and elements beyond your control. 2. I support Writer K's clarifications regarding the workshop proposals which would be asked to merge for the main workshop sessions and agree that care needs to taken to ensure that there is balance . This may mean outreach to additional entities and drawing upon the expertise in the MAG. I also support the clarifications that Writer K has suggested, and the idea of a draft message if having the MAG review it would help the secretariat, and ensure all are on the same page on the merging efforts. 3. I would be pleased to support any of the main session workshop topics. 4. On the current draft programme, the description "Arrangements for Internet governance-global, national/regional, is confusing [as I and others mentioned at the last MAG meetings]. Given that the IGF is about Internet governance, and that this morning workshop and main session 'debate' fall on the critical Internet resources day with IPv4- IPv6 as the other topic of the day, I suggest that this heading be made more precise. It could read "Arrangements for Internet resources-global, national/regional" or something to that effect. If the phrasing remains "Internet governance" there is no reason why any topic covered by the IGF would not fit under that heading. My suggested edit, would hopefully help further elaboration of what should be discussed during this workshop/main session debate. (Writer L) in the sense of planning ahead, it would also be useful for us to get a sense of hotel availability. A few weeks ago I had tried to book a hotel room in the conference venue but I remember it was reserved en bloc. Are you holding the reservation for the time of the IGF in December and are you in a position to "guarantee" existing and future MAG members a hotel room? As none of us knows whether we will be member of the newly reconstituted MAG, it would still be useful to know that any of the existing MAG members, plus the one third to be newly appointed, could find a guaranteed room. Could you please let us know when we can start making bookings? (Markus Kummer) Like last year, we have made a block-booking of 50 rooms reserved for MAG members in the hotel which is part of the conference venue. I hope that this is sufficient for all members past, present and future, as experience shows that for various reasons not all members choose to be in the main conference hotel. We don't yet know the exact rate the hotel is going to charge, but the manager assured us that rooms would be available for less than USD 250. Our Indian hosts are also negotiating preferential rates with other hotels. The booking process should start next month. Of course we will inform you as soon as you can reserve your rooms. (Writer N) > So far we have not had any volunteers for the main session > workshops. It is therefore time to take a more pro-active approach. > We have put together a list of potential workshops that relate to > the main session workshop themes. We did not apply any quality > judgment, but just added the proponents of related workshops. It is > our intention to approach these workshop proponents and ask them > whether they are interested in pooling resources to organize a main > session workshop. I hope you agree with this approach. > During the May MAG meeting, I suggested that the CENTR proposal might be a good informative choice for the CIR main workshop session. This found some support amongst other members of the group. (Writer O) i would like to confirm that Writer C and I are planning to merge our workshops [DETAILS]. Our ideas are remarkably similar and it will be a pleasure to work together. Further, we will approach the organizers of another proposed workshop to merge with us. We believe that the combination will address directly the first cybersecurity theme (Are we losing the war against cybercrime?), as well as provide a tour d'horizon of the landscape of cybersecurity at present an the prospects for improving it and addressing current malware and malpractices. We therefore propose that it be a main session workshop. If we are successful, Writer C and I volunteer to be responsible for its formation and execution. (We are in fact responding to your call at the end of your message below for volunteers to take responsibility for these workshops. i will send the details to you separately. (Markus Kummer) You raised many relevant points with regard to the main session workshops. My understanding is that we agreed on the broad principles and that we have to work out the details as we go along. These broad principles are outlined in the MAG report and the programme paper. The starting point was that we would take a "carrot and stick approach" to reduce the number of workshops. We ask proponents of similar workshops to pool resources with other workshop proponents and join in the organization of a main session workshop. As an incentive, we offer them higher visibility, as the main session workshops will be held in the main meeting hall and benefit from being Web cast (video and audio) and rendered in real-time transcription and thus be part of the verbatim written records of the meeting. In addition, the main session workshops will have interpretation into all six UN languages. The main session workshops will be co-organized with and overseen by the MAG and supported/facilitated by the IGF Secretariat. There will be sub-goups of MAG volunteers taking charge of each main session workshop. MAG members, their respective institutions and IGOs participating in the MAG are welcome to offer their expertise in the organization of the main session workshops. The originally proposed workshops will not retain their identity, as they will be merged into a main session workshop. Right now we are in the process of identifying the workshop proponents we want to ask to join in the organization of a main session workshop. Some of you added some other workshop proponents we should add to the list we sent out and Writer K made the point that we should leave out those who have not yet elaborated their proposal. When approaching these workshop proponents, we will also make it clear that they are free to refuse and to maintain their original proposals. However, we will also point out that at this stage we cannot confirm whether we will have available slots, as the request for workshops exceeds the time and space available. Therefore we are encouraging mergers of workshops with similar proposals (and this independently from setting up the main session workshops.) I hope this is a fair description of our common understanding of how to approach the organization of the main session workshops. (Writer A) Thanks a lot for the comprehensive sum-up of the discussions. We would like to offer assistance and any necessary support in organizing the main session workshop on Cybersecurity, specifically within the theme Are we losing the battle against cybercrime? Out of the five proposals mentioned in the paper you have sent us few days ago, three are mentioning the participation of [ORGANIZATION], and I think we could contribute with the expertise of some members of the [GROUP]. (By the way, some proponents are currently members of the group). We would be happy to be part of the sub group of MAG, and work with the other MAG colleagues to build up an effective and interesting main session workshop. Changing subjects and FYI, we are already working with some other workshop proponents [NAME] to aggregate, as suggested, similar workshop proposals. (Writer P) I am on vacation with a flimsy dial-up connection where every attachment is a potential killer of connectivity... I cannot contribute much but wanted to let you know that I would be happy to help organizing the main session workshop on transition from IPv4 to IPv6. (Writer E) I am in transit and having trouble keeping up. I think Writer M raises an important point (#4 below), and believe greater precision will save us grief later. Also agree with point #2 (and by inference, Writer K's). I'll definitely be volunteering to support the work on main session topics as well. Just need time to consider where I can best offer assistance. A few points to respond to other colleagues' input: 1. I think that Writer L's approach for the 3 days in September would be productive, if feasible. In addition, it would be helpful if the schedule and topics of the open consultation could be posted as soon as possible, recognizing the constraints of the secretariat and elements beyond your control. 2. I support Writer K's clarifications regarding the workshop proposals which would be asked to merge for the main workshop sessions and agree that care needs to taken to ensure that there is balance . This may mean outreach to additional entities and drawing upon the expertise in the MAG. I also support the clarifications that Writer K has suggested, and the idea of a draft message if having the MAG review it would help the secretariat, and ensure all are on the same page on the merging efforts. 3. I would be pleased to support any of the main session workshop topics. 4. On the current draft programme, the description "Arrangements for Internet governance-global, national/regional, is confusing [as I and others mentioned at the last MAG meetings]. Given that the IGF is about Internet governance, and that this morning workshop and main session 'debate' fall on the critical Internet resources day with IPv4-IPv6 as the other topic of the day, I suggest that this heading be made more precise. It could read "Arrangements for Internet resources-global, national/regional" or something to that effect. If the phrasing remains "Internet governance" there is no reason why any topic covered by the IGF would not fit under that heading. My suggested edit, would hopefully help further elaboration of what should be discussed during this workshop/main session debate. (Markus Kummer) Dear Writer L, Dear colleagues, A quick reply with regard to your proposal to re-schedule the order of the September meeting and to shift the open consultations to day two. While there is much merit in doing it the way you are suggesting, it seems to be too late to change the arrangements for the September meeting. The schedule of meetings in the second half of September is very busy here and the UNOG Conference Services had to hire free-lance interpreters to meet all the needs. As the contracts are already signed, any changes are very complicated. As we are not part of the regular UN programme we have to accept the fact that we come way down in the list of priorities and be grateful for the kind support we are given by UNOG, often free of charge. To cut a long story short: for September it is too late, but we can discuss your proposal in view of the meetings next year.