Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Internet Governance Forum Preparatory Process Meeting.

29 June 2010  Full day transcript

Geneva, Switzerland


Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken

during the June 2010 IGF Planning Meeting in Geneva. Although it is largely

accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid

to understanding the  proceedings at the session, but should not be

treated as an authoritative record.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Good morning, good morning.  Can we get started?  And good morning, also.  Are our scribes on?  Yes, they are.

Good morning to them.

And good morning to all remote participants.

We have had a few questions from them as the spreadsheet we had distributed on the list and shown in the room was not available to the remote participants, but it will be made available, the new version, through the chat link.

But before we get started, I would like to give the floor to our Lithuanian friends to report a little bit on where they are with their planning, and maybe also give you the opportunity to ask concrete questions and give them the opportunity to answer your questions.



>>LITHUANIA:   Thank you, Mr. Markus.

My name is Inge (saying name).  I am from Ministry of Transport and Communications, and I am responsible for international relations as well as partly organizing the Internet Governance Forum 2010.

What I would like to say is that we have a very strong political support in Lithuania from our heads of government, heads of Lithuania.

We have already booked the agenda of our President, as well as Prime Minister, to participate in the IGF 2010 in the opening ceremony and other activities.

Also, we have launched the Web page which is www.igf2010.lt.  It is dedicated to all the organizational issues, so if you need some information, what concerns ‑‑ what concerns the venue, the hotels, the visa issues, you can find this information on this Web page.

Also, there are contacts which you can approach if you have some questions concerning the sessions.

We will have, as a host country, the chairmans.  So at the moment, we already have the list of the candidates of the chairmans which are very high‑level speakers, high‑level persons, and they are experts in the ‑‑ either they are experts in their field or people of honor.

Concerning the workshops, we are aware that some of them are not finalized yet but we are planning to do it in the nearest future.

I think that for the short introduction, that is it what I wanted to say.

If you have some questions, feel free to approach us, and we will be happy to answer them.

Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you very much for this.

Are there any questions on the logistics?

Doesn't seem to be the case.  I can only say that I think we are well on track in terms of planning.

Yes, there is a question.  Marilyn, please.


>>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.  And the question may be more to Chengetai and Markus, but if I might ask it.

In order to effectively plan the workshops that we are doing, and this may be on the Web site and I just didn't have a chance to check, understanding the floor plan of the various meeting rooms, Markus, will we review that later or ‑‑




>>MARILYN CADE:   So my question is technical for the Secretariat.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yes, we will go through that, a bit, the schedule later today.

Just one word on visa.  Maybe as you know, Lithuania is in the Schengen area as is Switzerland which makes it very easy for participants from within the Schengen area, but may be a little more complicated for participants outside the Schengen area.

So my recommendation is do get started early to secure you have the visa.  And you get also the visa information on the host country Web site.

So in that case, I would suggest that we have a third reading, I think, of the workshop list, which will be the last opportunity to a repechage of those we think should be in all the same.

And also a correction may be necessary, we may not have got it all right.  I sent out the revised version of the spreadsheet, and again, I had some questions.

Let me start by explaining again what the various colors mean.

Green basically means the workshops are in.  The green without anything means they are workshops that have been identified as feeder workshops that are directly linked to the main sessions where moderators will draw on the workshops to bring in the discussions that took place in these workshops into the main session.

Now, I do understand there may be some changes, I think especially the security, openness and privacy group may wish to make these changes, and we can do that today.

We may not have captured all the discussions.  I know at least already one workshop which I thought was green and which is not marked here, so we have the opportunity to do it one by one.

Now, for some reason, I think the categories have disappeared in the new spreadsheet.  It makes it a little bit more difficult to go through it, but ‑‑ Yeah.

Okay.  The titles are not in but the categories are on same.  So A&D meaning access and diversity.  May I suggest, then, that we start with the A&D workshops going from number 27 to 197.

First of all, are the feeder workshops marked correctly?

Oh, and in addition, the ‑‑ only one diagonal stroke means these are workshops we discussed yesterday.  Either we agreed that they should be green or we did not reach a conclusion.

In this category, there's only one, that is workshop 118, which we found lacked a bit sufficient geographic diversity.

Are there any comments on this category?  Did we identify, Olga, the feeder workshops correctly?  Does that reflect your ‑‑ what you said yesterday?

Seems to be the case.

Yes, (saying name), please, and congratulations to yesterday's triumph.

[ Laughter ]


>>BRAZIL:   Thank you.  Just a question regarding workshop 126.

There's a note.  It was suggested that its works should be moved to another category, remote participation in the IGF, and regional Internet governance meetings.

There is an idea, to where should it move?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Honestly, I can't recall whether anybody had expressed strong feelings on that one.  I think ‑‑ Yes, Chris, please, help us out.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Actually, no.

[ Laughter ]


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   I had something else I wanted to mention, so I'll back off now and you can finish that point.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, honestly, I think it is happy under "Access and Diversity" as it would be under any other.  I can't see any overriding reason for moving it from that category.  Unless somebody has very good reasons or very strong objections, I suggest leaving it where it is.

Can we agree on that?

I don't see many heads nodding, but I don't see any heads shaking, so I think we can agree on that.

Chris, you had another question.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Sorry, Markus.  Before we get too far into this, it's early in the morning and I'm in my usual state of confusion.

I understand that the plain green ones are going to be feeder workshops, and I am not clear what the crossed green ones are.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Crossed green means these are standalone workshops with no relation to the main session.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   So they are going ahead.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   They are in the go ahead, but they are not linked to the main session.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   And plain white?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Plain white means they are not in.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Not in.  And white with a single line means we're not sure.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   White with a single line, yes, we discussed them yesterday with no conclusion.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   And what about the ones in orange down at the bottom?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   The orange ones, we call it amber, means they are in the process of discussing.

(dropped audio).

Yes, Liesyl, please.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I'm sorry, I am still confused.

[ Laughter ]


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Which ones indicate that they are feeder?  The green or green with a cross?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yes, the green, plain green, are feeder workshops.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   And green with a cross means they are in but not feeder.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   They are in but not standalone workshops.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Sorry for the repetition.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  And the white are basically not in, but the white with a stroke are those we discussed yesterday.

So basically now you have the last opportunity to identify a workshop or to plead for a workshop or to make sure that your favorite workshop is in.  Some of them ‑‑ As I said, we had the 118, which was one which was discussed yesterday, but we felt it was not ‑‑ did not reflect sufficient geographical diversity.

Yes, Wolfgang, please.


>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Workshop number 16, it's still white.  (speaking off mic).

I mentioned it a little bit further down.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   We are not there yet.  We discussed up to 197.


>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Okay.  Then I come ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Access and diversity.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can we leave, then, as it is?  Tell the white ones, "Sorry, you are not in.  Thank you for your interest.  We hope to see you next year again."

Okay.  Then we go to the next capacity, that is capacity.  And there is, indeed, one workshop, that was the ccTLDs, I think.  Hang on.  Just show the capacity building.  Yes, the ccTLD governance in my understanding I think would be green.  That is workshop 50.

And 60, international law and cross‑border Internet, that should have at least one diagonal stroke, but basically we had the assurances from the Council of Europe that they would bring in sufficient regional diversity.  And I suggest that we mark both ‑‑ which one is it?  The ccTLD and the Council of Europe one, that we mark them green.

Would that reflect yesterday's discussion?

I mean, on the understanding that the Council of Europe is found innocent until proven guilty, that you will submit a revised list which reflects sufficient diversity.

And the ccTLD had, yesterday, had already sent ‑‑ it's in the yet reflected on the Web site, but they had sent a list of a vastly improved spread of diversity and agreed also to bring in different viewpoints.  Bill.


>>BILL GRAHAM:   Thank you, Markus, my turn to express confusion.  We passed by capacity now and are into CIR?  Is that correct?  Or is the Council of Europe moving from CIR back up into capacity?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   We are in capacity.

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.

Sorry.  Yes, we moved too far there.

We are basically on the capacity.

Well, this is ‑‑ I made the point yesterday, I do understand why the city TLDs wants to be on the capacity, but, honestly, I don't see it as a capacity‑building workshop.  I think it would find a better home in the CIR group as people who will look ‑‑ are interested in CIR will find the city TLD there, but they would not look for city TLDs on the capacity building.

But I have no particularly strong feelings.  I find it just somewhat awkward.

Yes, please, Patrik.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   I am extremely confused over the term "city TLD."  So I don't really understand what it is about.  It's really, really confusing.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, I thought it was like dot Berlin, dot New York, and so on.  But I think Wolfgang is involved.  Please, Wolfgang.


>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   You know, the language which is used in ICANN is geo TLD.  A geo TLD is a little bit broader than cities because it includes also regions.

And if you go to the GAC communiqués in ICANN, they always refer to geo TLDs, and not directly to city TLDs.

So the question would be whether we proposed to Thomas Lowenhaupt to use this language from ICANN, but my understanding is from the workshop, because he has asked me to be a speaker there, is that he will concentrate on cities only, not to include regions, because we have around 20 projects for regions.  Galicia, Scotland, Wales, even England is asking for a regional TLD.

There's a differentiation between cities and regions under the umbrella of geo TLD.

Thank you.




>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   In that case, it might be the case that it's a moot issue.  How come we are going to have this discussion while the discussion is going on in ICANN?  That makes me a little bit nervous.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I think they have always had policy of no issue as such is included, but I see a draw.  Olga, please.


>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Thank you, Markus.  It's about workshop 114.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I'm sorry, we are still at the city TLD workshop, number 50.  Bertrand, I think you ‑‑


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Let me be clear.  I can be convinced this is a good thing to discuss here.  I just need to understand.

Thank you.


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   This is exactly what I was intending to do, and alleviate some concerns.

I can relate this to an exercise that we had in Brussels for another type of applicants on the TLD space, the ones that are cultural and linguistically related, like dot Basque or dot Galician, on the model of dot cat.

There was a session on the side in the European Parliament that gathered the different candidates and a few other people to think about what they had in common.  And I think that here the purpose is a little bit the same, is to look at what are the specificities that the applications for new TLDs may have either in the process that ICANN is planning at the moment or in their operations afterwards.  How they relate to the local community, what is their connection with the local authorities.

And it's basically an opportunity to bring a certain number of actors, including, as Marilyn said yesterday, some local authorities and actors who may be asking questions about this specific type of application.  But it's basically an exchange of thoughts, practices, and see whether they share enough common traits to help the process later on and to make sure that these new TLDs are working correctly, that they have taken into account all the different elements.

Those who have been engaged in such candidatures for a long time have actually identified a certain number of roadblocks and things that have to be taken into account, and I think one of the purposes is to share this with other potential applicants for the city.

So if that is the underlying question, it is not about opening up the discussion that is taking place in ICANN about the program itself.  It's building on what the current mechanism is and see how the potential applicants or the cities themselves are seeing this program and how it will be implemented in the future.

I hope it answers part of Patrik's concerns.

Does it?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Wolfgang.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   It feels like a couple of people would like to meet and see whether they are synchronized, and they can meet whenever they want and wherever they want.  But of course I can understand there might be some broader interest in hearing that discussion.


>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:   Thank you.  Patrik, very brief comment.  In the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro there was already such a workshop and this was very useful and ICANN was very thankful for the additional input they got from the IGF.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you for that, Wolfgang.

Honestly, I ‑‑ You really made a great effort to bring in the diversity of viewpoints.  Yesterday the point was made that he should also bring in opposing points of view, and he sent in remotely that he agreed to that, and that is basically the workshop criteria we always had.  Make sure you don't have just a capture of one group of people but you really explore an issue from different points of view.

And here I think it's also a question of raising awareness.  I'm sure that many participants from developing countries may not be aware that this discussion is taking place and might also be interested in having their own city TLD for developing countries.

So I think it very much fits into the overall framework and the purpose of a workshop.

Do I take it that we can agree to give him the green light?

Okay.  So my only question would be whether he should fit in on the capacity building or on the critical Internet resources.  I think from a marketing point of view, it would fit in better in critical Internet resources to attract more audience.  But honestly, I think we can leave it up to him to see whether he ‑‑ where he wants to be placed.

Maybe, Wolfgang, you can discuss that with him.  I mean, as I said, no strong feelings, but I think it would attract more audience if he is placed on the critical Internet resources.

Other questions with regard to capacity building, that is workshops one‑ ‑‑ no, 26 to 157.

There was the 72, which I understand there are some efforts on the way to merge it with another workshop.  Is that correct, Marilyn?


>>MARILYN CADE:   I haven't yet reached either set of the parties, meaning the folks who are in 117 ‑‑ sorry, 127.  I have sent a second e‑mail.

I am dealing with a time zone problem.  One group being in New Zealand and the other being in Thailand, and some people being in the United States.

So why don't we see whether I hear anything back in the next couple of hours.

127 I think is fully prepared to go forward and has a very robust agenda.  The only benefit to merging ‑‑ and I'm not clear what ‑‑ who has been in touch with the organizer of the other workshop, if anybody has heard from him on any details on his workshop.

So maybe I could ask that question.

And, Markus, I'm sorry, but I can't print the format in a size large enough for my eyes to read it, so I don't know the status of this workshop, either.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Which one?


>>MARILYN CADE:   The ECPAT workshop, the other one.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Which number?


>>MARILYN CADE:   The one that you referenced that we are thinking about merging.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That is still white which means ‑‑


>>MARILYN CADE:   That's what I thought, yeah.

So I will keep trying to reach them, but if I don't hear back from either side, I can't make a commitment to merge until I talk to them.  But I'm trying to reach them.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  Maybe we should mark it amber, then, in that case, that this is a possible merger candidate.

The ECPAT one.


>>MARILYN CADE:   Markus, I had a comment about the previous topic, if I might.  I appreciate the efforts that the organizers are going to try to meet the criteria, but I guess I'm a bit cautious about the use of the term "marketing" in relation to ‑‑ I think the effort here is awareness and information sharing.

So while it is obviously up to the ‑‑ as you said, it's up to the organizers, it does feel to me more like it is a capacity‑building exchange than CIR.  But that's just a bit of feedback that the organizer might want to take into account.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Fine with me.  We leave it where it is.

Other comments on the capacity building?

Olga, yes, please.


>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Markus, I'm not sure whether 114 fits in this category because I cannot see all the details of the spreadsheet on my machine has no Excel software.  Is it okay if I make a comment about it?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Which one is it?


>>OLGA CAVALLI:   One‑one‑four.  Yes, 114.

It's digital inclusion ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's a different category.


>>OLGA CAVALLI:   It was green yesterday and today it's white.  I don't know why.



If it happened, it was unintentional.  We certainly didn't downgrade any workshop.  We only did upgrade.


>>OLGA CAVALLI:   So it's green?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can anybody check with yesterday?

It was white yesterday, apparently.

Martin is here.


>>OLGA CAVALLI:   Yeah, we checked yesterday.  It was green, if I'm not mistaken.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It is your proposal.


>>MARTIN BOYLE:   Yes, and certainly it was green yesterday, because I did look for it.  Now, whether it was green by accident yesterday, I don't know.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It was green.  Sorry about that.  That's basically why we are doing this exercise.  Those directly ‑‑

(Dropped audio)

Olga.  Sorry about that.

Okay.  Can we go back to capacity.  Are there more comments?

There is this 157, which is about IPv6 I haven't looked at it too much in detail but as it comes from Malaysia, I wonder where we could not sort of maybe integrate it or ask one of the speakers of the workshop 87 by the NRO is on IPv6 deployment.  I wonder whether maybe they could reach out to the organizers of the Malaysian workshop but maybe find a speaker on their panel, just to ensure geographic diversity.  Is Roland in the room somewhere?


>> Yeah, I'm here.  I'm just trying to catch up on ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, you don't have to ‑‑ I put you on the spot.  You don't have to answer right now.  But it's maybe just a suggestion just to ‑‑ you know, we do appreciate if countries which are not maybe not normally that active make a proposal, and it's a shame, in a way, if you don't find the workshop good enough, so it would be nice if you could, in one way or another, bring them in.  Wolfgang, you wanted to say something?


>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  Yeah.  Just I wanted to make a comment.  I would really propose that the two workshops are working hand in hand, because we all know that behind the two organizers, there are two different concepts and it's better to have a dialogue instead of discussing individual ‑‑ concepts in a silo.  So that means the cross‑border discussion is one of the big benefits of the IGF which enables groups which do not communicate together to exchange their views and in this very delicate case of allocation of IP addresses in the future, it would be useful that the different ideas which are circulating around are discussed in one room and not in two rooms.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Kathy?  Or is it Chris?  No, Kathy.


>> Thank you, Markus.  We do talk a lot, so ‑‑ back and forth, Wolfgang, but I'll talk with them and we'll see what we can do to get them together.  I don't know that I'll get them today, but I can give you a shout by the end of the week.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thanks a lot.  Great.  Thank you.

Should we mark 157 then as a possible sort of merger candidate?  Or do we leave it white as it is and just see what comes out of it.

Leave it white as it is.  Okay.  But we know there may be something coming out of it and thank you for that.

Okay.  Can we move to the critical Internet resources?  Alvaro.  Sorry.


>>BRAZIL: No problem.  Thanks.  I'm just ‑‑ regarding the capacity group, I'm realizing there are a few workshops already approved to this group.

I would like to suggest if we could move the workshop 57 to this group.  I'm gathering some piece of information I remember from yesterday.  This workshop is related to the building of an international Internet Bill of Rights for Brazil, and we discussed yesterday in order to place it in that national or regional slot, you know, for the first day.

I'm realizing that if we could emphasize the process through it, the bill ‑‑ the Internet Bill of Rights was made, I think that this is the main point we could emphasize about this process, and in this way, I do think that it's more ‑‑ this debate would be more related to a capacity session instead of a point in the original perspective.

The question is, Marilia is also here.  She can tell us a little bit more, but people use Internet plat ‑‑ electronic platforms, Internet itself, to provide broader consultations about sensitive issues like the bill of rights of Internet.

This is an experience that could be replicated or observed and can be used by also developing countries and also developed countries, and so I believe if we could move this workshop 57 to the group of capacity, we would share a bit more information to this group of workshops.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  You don't need to make the point you made yesterday.  We know you attach great importance to it.  I mean, it's basically here.  Yes, you will have a session.  It's just a question whether it should be under the national initiatives or it should be headed under capacity‑building.  I mean basically when applying all the criteria for workshops, it would not have enough due to its geographic limitation, but if Brazil attaches importance to have it under capacity‑building rather than a national initiative, I have no problem with that.

Does anybody have a problem if we do that?


>>BRAZIL: Sorry, Markus.  Maybe it was my fault.  I was just thinking that as decided yesterday, we would take part in the discussion of the first day of that session about regional and national IGFs.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  No, no.  No, you would have a separate session on that, but we would head it under a different heading.  It would be national initiatives.  You know, it's ‑‑ you can have it here, you can have it there.  After the term marketing I used, I meant marketing session as such, and marketing the session as capacity‑building or a national initiative I don't know honestly which one is better but if you have a preference to have it under capacity‑building, I have no problem with that.  Chris?


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Markus, I think we need to be a little bit careful.  If you ‑‑ if you work ‑‑ especially with the future, if you work on the principle that the main sessions and the workshops are our two key starting points, if you move everything into workshops, then all that's going to do is to create a problem in the future.

If ‑‑ I've not nothing against Brazil's session.  I'm sure it will be very interesting.  But if you call it a workshop, then that creates a precedent, doesn't it, that every country can arrive with its own specific workshop and if we're awash with all of those in the workshop category, it makes it quite hard to manage.  So it strikes me that calling it a national initiative makes perfect sense.  It's going to go into ‑‑ it's going to go on, but it's not going to be called a workshop and that may be better for future planning.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for that.  We ‑‑ let me first start with a Best Practice Forum.  We did encourage those who looked at national policy, and in Rio, we had quite a number of them, but it's true if every country comes with one, then we'll be overwhelmed and we definitely cannot offer a slot.

So ‑‑ well, you heard Chris' argument.  There is merit in what he says, to keep the category separate.

So will Brazil agree, then, to have it under national initiatives?  I mean, the session is on, you know, without any doubt.  You will have a session on this issue, but it will be labeled differently.



>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Well, I can't say for Alvaro, but for me I agree.  I just wanted to make clear that when we proposed under capacity‑building, that was just to reinforce the point that maybe I didn't make myself clear yesterday because of lack of time, that we want to discuss this with other people in order to understand what they are going through in their processes of reforming Internet regulation as well, so we believe we have come up with a good model that has worked for us, but maybe there are other models out there and we wanted to hear the experience of others and exchange experience and improve our own process on the making as well.  That's why we proposed it, but I believe that Chris' point makes sense, if everybody agrees, we would be happy to discuss this in the IGF in this session.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thank you.  Let me keep it as a session under the national initiatives.  And these are precisely the place where you can compare national experiences.  There will be an IGF USA, IGF Russia, a Canadian one which was more of a process which has not ‑‑ the meeting has not taken place.  So there are various similar initiatives and I think you're in a ‑‑ in a good neighborhood there, shall we put it that way, if you're under national/regional initiatives.


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Just one question.  How much time is given to this session?  Just for planning.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, we had said yesterday we give ‑‑ for the regional ones ‑‑ a two‑hour slot, and the national one a one‑hour slot, but we can put two national ones together in an afternoon slot where you have a little bit more time or it doesn't matter too much if you expand to, let's say 90 minutes or something.


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Okay.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Can we move now to critical Internet resources?  Chris, please.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Markus.  Just one issue.  The ‑‑ there is a workshop ‑‑ what number is it?  87, which is IPv6 around the world today and the current and future deployment of IPv6, which has been marked with a cross as a stand‑alone.




>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  I'm not quite sure.  I know we're limited to the number of ones we can have before the actual main session but actually I think there are ‑‑ that one may well be one that we should have, given that we're going to be talking about IPv4/IPv6.




>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  So can I take a little time and just go through the list and come back to you and suggest that that is moved and another one is ‑‑ and one that's already supposed to be a feeder is taken out?




>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  And I'll let you know.




>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay thank you.  Thank you very much.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Certainly.  It would be make sure to have a feeder workshop.  Other comments on critical Internet resources.  Yes, please.


>> Hi, good morning.  We have a remote contribution from Sivasubramanian.  Okay.  A question to Markus Kummer.

I have withdrawn the green‑lighted Workshop Number 83 with the request that Workshop Number 80 be approved in its place.  Please approve this workshop.  We organized that very well.  So...


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Well, that's ‑‑ he's jumping ahead of category.  Siva was ‑‑


>> 80 is here.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, 80 is on development.  Right now we are discussing critical Internet resources.


>> Sorry.  I'm the one who is ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Critical Internet resources.  There is a flag.  Is that Olga up there?


>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Sorry, Markus.  I was not paying attention.  Sorry.  I'm so sorry, no.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Oh, okay.  There was a ‑‑ okay.

Other comments on critical Internet resources?  Bearing in mind that Chris will get back to us.  Whose flag is that up?  Is that Bill?


>> Sorry.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Wolfgang.


>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  I just sent the names for workshop 60 and I hope this will move the workshop 60 into the green basket.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Oh, yeah.  This is basically what we discussed when I jumped categories right at the beginning that Lee had given us assurances that they would increase the geographic spread and that's presumably the e‑mail you just sent with new names.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.  So no, that will go green, now that we have the assurance that...

Okay.  Sorry.  Can we move up again.  That was Siva's comment.  He had an approved workshop he would like to withdraw, which ‑‑ where is 83.  Oh, there.  "Political balance in Internet governance, ISOC, India, Chennai."  That's Siva and he would like to withdraw that, and give 80 instead.  And ‑‑ okay.  "International Trade and Internet Governance."  That was the one Bill Drake was mentioning yesterday.  Bill had been in touch with Siva.

Do we have all the information from Siva?  I'm not sure.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Ask him right now.  While water waiting for an answer, are there other comments on CIR?  Chris, please.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.  Markus, we've marked it out.  We think that the workshop Number 141 "Deploying DNSSEC in a Territory" should become a stand‑alone, so that should have a cross on it, and workshop 87 should be a feeder workshop and that should, therefore, have the cross removed.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Okay.  87, cross is removed and 141 new with a cross is a stand‑alone workshop.


>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you very much.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you very much.  Other comments on CIR?

Doesn't seem to be the case.  Can we then move to the development category?  There is the one international trade in Internet governance by Siva that is ‑‑ basically he proposes to have green instead of the other one.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Microphone.


>> I did get an answer from Bill.  He says he send you some e‑mails about the proposal, so... he said, "Please check your e‑mail."  He's mailing Markus.  There are messages to him about Siva's proposal.




>> Sorry.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, I ‑‑ other comments on development?  Can you mark the 80 with a stroke so we know it's under discussion.  No color.  Yes, like that.

Okay.  The feeder workshops are marked correctly for development.  I think they're the ones identified.

Okay.  Shall we move on to emerging issues?


>>BRAZIL: Just ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, please.  Alvaro.


>>BRAZIL: Just another comment.  I'm paying attention to the ‑‑ to some work ‑‑ especially to some workshops that are ‑‑ that were proposed by Brazilians, so I ‑‑




>>BRAZIL:  ‑‑ I please ‑‑ I'd like to make a comment.

Regarding the workshop 156 that is related to SOP, in the SOP section, and we have a ‑‑ it's green ‑‑ it's already green, where we have a double mark on it.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  We're not there yet, are we?


>>BRAZIL:  Yeah.  So we are not ‑‑ we are in the in the development ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.  We are still developing ‑‑


>>BRAZIL:  Yeah.  But I ‑‑ maybe if I would suggest to move it to the development part because it seems to be more strictly related to that main session, I believe, so ‑‑ so I can make this comment when we are there.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  No, we can make it now.  That's fair enough.


>>BRAZIL:  Okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Any reactions to that?  To the SOP people?


>> We have no comment except that you might want to make ‑‑ if you haven't been already, then to be in touch with the organizers.  We haven't discussed it with them directly one way or the other, so... we ‑‑ I think from our perspective as the group looking at the workshops for this purpose, have no issue.


>>BRAZIL:  Okay.  I'll make contact with them and if they're okay, they ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay, okay, okay.  I think it's no big deal, and we do have a lot of ‑‑ it increases balance if we have a little more on the development.  You have so many under security, openness and privacy.

Okay.  Can we go back to development?  I noticed there is a workshop on the development from the Suzanne Mubarak international women's movement and as Egypt was the host country of the last IGF, there doesn't seem to be anybody here, but I would not like to slight Egypt.

I think it was ‑‑ again, it was not in because of lack of diversity, you know, the former criteria, but yes, Marilyn.


>>MARILYN CADE:  I'm sorry, Markus.  That's not one I looked at.  I do have ‑‑ of course Madam Mubarak's initiative has five prongs to it.  It is not limited just to child safety.  I do have Egypt participating in the workshop I'm organizing but I will take a look at this.  I think this might be more about the breadth of the initiatives that are supported, which include capacity‑building and a wide variety of other things, so I don't know that it fits into the workshop that I'm doing, but I will take a look at it online and see if I can ‑‑ it seems to be a country‑specific initiative, but the initiative ask being ‑‑ does involve outreach to other countries, as I understand it.

So a question for you.

Do we not ‑‑ do we have some other ‑‑ you know, like previously we would have had open forums that governments could have organized, right, or ‑‑






>>MARKUS KUMMER:  We basically reserved open forums to organizations.


>>MARILYN CADE:  I see.  Oh, that's right.  We did away with best practice forums, right.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah, yeah.


>>MARILYN CADE:  Okay.  Let me ‑‑ I will take a look at it while we're talking.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I feel a little bit uneasy to say no to this particular workshop, and I think here if in doubt, I would rather give Egypt a slot, and that brings me then also to this year's host country.  There are a few Lithuanian workshops I think also we have to be a little bit more generous with current and past host countries.  After all, I mean, Egypt they made a tremendous investment and we had the presence of the First Lady at the Sharm El Sheikh workshop, so there are also other criteria that come into it and I think it's very much a courtesy to the past host countries.

So unless there is a strong objection to that, I really would suggest maybe color‑coding this one green.  But, yes.  Lucinda.


>>LUCINDA FELL: Sorry.  Is it Number 65 we're talking about?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Talking about 65.


>>LUCINDA FELL: Yeah.  I had an e‑mail from Mohamed ‑‑ and, yes, today he is organizing it ‑‑ to say that he would welcome cooperating with us.  So if it's just the inclusion of other people in it that's a problem, I'm sure we can talk about that with them, if that's helpful.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  So basically, you will look into ‑‑

You worked with him last year, didn't you?


>>LUCINDA FELL:   Yeah, we ran a workshop with him last year so I'm happy to talk to them and see if we can help make it a bit broader that way.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  And I think that year they had a very good echo, and I heard a lot of good about the workshop you organized with them and the involvement of young people and children, so...

Okay.  Let's ‑‑ if there's no objection, let's make this one green.  65.

Okay.  Are we done with development?

Then can we go to emerging issues?  Patrik, the feeder workshops are marked correctly.  Those without any ‑‑ those are that are green pure will feed into the session on cloud computing.

There are a few that are still amber.  Is there ‑‑ yes.


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Thank you, Markus.  This is Dan O'Neill with GIIC.  I just wanted to let you know unlike has completed discussions with Internet Society of China, which is ‑‑ they are workshop 36.  We are 136.  And I've sent a modified proposal in to the Secretariat for review, but we have ‑‑




>>DAN O'NEILL:  ‑‑ included those two together.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Which number will stay?


>>DAN O'NEILL:  136.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  136 will stay?  That will be green then?


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Yes.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And we will say merged ‑‑ will the title stay the same or do you have a new title?


>>DAN O'NEILL:  It's been slightly modified but it's ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  We have the information.


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Yes, you do have the information.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  For the time being, we just mark 136 green.


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Correct.  136 will stay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  It's green and we make a note that it's merged with 36.


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Yes.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  And it will be green with a cross.  That's correct.


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Perfect.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Green with a cross, 136.

Okay.  Now, now, Chris.  Order.





>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you, Dan, for the update on ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Oh, and please.  A reminder.  Don't forget our scribes are not in the room.  They cannot see you.  As Dan did it so nicely, introduce yourself whenever you take the floor.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Ayesha Hassan from ICC.  As Dan has given us an update on their discussions with workshop 36, the Internet Society of China, I wanted to just provide a bit of an update.  I have been working closely with a number of colleagues in the room to identify new faces for our panel on cloud computing, Number 58, and I think I should be able to update the workshop by tomorrow with some confirmed names.

So I'm just wondering what ‑‑ whether it would be appropriate at this time for workshop 58 by the government of Kenya and ICC/BASIS to change colors.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  I think we can do that.  Okay.  Make it green.  Please.


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Just to follow up, Dan O'Neill with GIIC.  To follow on Ayesha's comments, we've also been in discussions with ICC/BASIS, with the understanding that we wanted to have a broader footprint here, so that there was not a duplicate coverage of the cloud computing issue, and there has been a slight change to our focus in our workshop so as to create a greater difference between the two workshops as well, and that was in response to some counsel from the Secretariat.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

58 shall be with a cross.  It's a stand‑alone workshop.  Correct.

Okay.  Thank you.

Patrik, yes.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  I'm a little bit confused because my notes on the various workshops doesn't match your colors, so it's ‑‑




>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM: ‑‑ so it's really hard to fair and also when they are not really adjacent to each other, so I'm trying to catch up here.

So you said once again, to repeat, you said that 36 and 136, or what did you have ‑‑ what was merged?  Can you repeat, please?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Merged was 36 with 136, correct.  That's the workshop proposed by Internet Society of China and GIIC.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Okay.  And then 58 is changing color?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And 58 is approved.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Okay.  76?  Is still white, right?  Correct?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  76 is still white.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Sorry.  76.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  76, yeah.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Still white.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Still white.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Is green.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  You're quick.  How do you find these so fast?





>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Is white.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Okay.  That is ‑‑ because 117 is one of the workshops that we suggested be green already in the first round, or review of the workshops.  Is there a reason it's white?




>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  You must have got feedback to say it should be white.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  No.  I think that may well be a mistake.  Isn't 105 and 117 merging?  The OECD indicate ‑‑ no, 106 and 117.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Correct.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Okay.  So 106 and 117 is merging?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Correct.  And 105 should be green, yeah?


>> (Speaker is off microphone).




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  We discussed that ‑‑


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Okay.  That one.  Okay.  Okay.  I'm with you.  Yeah.  Let's see ‑‑ that was 117.




>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  136?  Oh, that one we already talked about.




>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   That should be green; right?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yes, it's green.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Thank you very much.  Then we are in sync.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  Thank you very much.  Nurami.


>> (Saying name and affiliation).  I would like to suggest that 50A, given the inclusion of the technical community, et cetera, I think that should be marked green without a cross.  I think that would be a good broad workshop to fit into the main session.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  Take away the cross, then.  You're in.

Okay.  So basically we have approved most of them on the emerging issues except 76 and 89.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Yes, but then we also have two mergers.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Correct.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   And just because we will have all the workshops before the main session, I am looking at Katitza here also.  I think for us it doesn't really matter whether they are feeding or not because we hope everything will feed into our session, actually.  The ones that fit into the ‑‑ We will reach out to all of these workshops anyways.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  Then we remove the cross also from 136.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Yes.  For now.  It might be the case that we are adding the cross later on.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   The moderators tend to see to what extent you ‑‑


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Yes, we would ‑‑ as one of the moderators, I would like to reach out to the working groups first before we decide which ones are completely standalone and which ones are feeding into the session.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   And the idea also of having maybe a session of all the workshops prior to the main session, you may well consider.  That could be helpful to draw out from the workshops.  We can provide a room for that.


>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:   Yes.  This is Patrik Fältström again.  My excuses to the scribe that I don't mention my name.  Yes, and that is something that we already plan to do.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you for that.


>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:  We are also going to take into account last year's workshop on cloud computing, because last year we also organize a cloud computing workshop.  Last year it was an emerging topic, so I think the report from last year could feed also this year emerging session.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  And for the scribes, that was Katitza talking.

Katitza Rodriguez.

Can we move on to the subcategory?

Yes, Liesyl.  I think you have quite a lot to say there, yeah.  I'm not sure we have rendered correctly all your input.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Thank you, Markus.  Liesyl Franz with Tech America.

I think for the security, openness and privacy workshops, we have a couple loose ends to tie up over, hopefully, the next couple of days.  Partly because there are five or six still in white that I think we probably need to address, and there are a couple pending suggested mergers as well.

One being we have had quite a bit of conversation about the nature of country or regional focuses, and there's two child online protection workshops focused on different regions, and I wondered if there wasn't some synergy between those, one for Latin America and one for Northern Europe.  So we had suggested they might discuss a merging, and I don't know if anyone was here to discuss that.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   One way of dealing, we have not really discussed that in detail, we could also have sequential merges.  Instead of one workshop, that they have it back to back.  And we could again give them the afternoon slot and maybe have it be a bit longer, maybe being a three hour instead of a two hour.  I think that could be the interest of these organizers.  It could draw people interested in that particular issue.

What I suggest, maybe, can we ‑‑ because there are so many workshops under that category, can we do them one by one to verify and validate what we have here?  Because I'm sure there are some changes.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I already noticed ‑‑ I mean, okay, 154 is green, 17 is green.  Then 18, I thought my reading yesterday was that should be made green by the China Association of Science and Technology.  I think Wolfgang is one of the speakers invited there, and the point was made it's good to have China involvement, and they are serious people.

I think it was my understanding that you would maybe try to bring more diversity into the workshop.

The only reason why it wasn't marked green was because it was mainly Chinese plus two European and U.S. academics.  But if they make an effort to broaden, I think we really should mark that one green.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Yeah, and he is not here, but Bill Drake ‑‑ at the moment, but Bill Drake mentioned to you he would be following up.  Wasn't it Bill?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Bill and Wolfgang.  So let's make that one green, yes.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Then ‑‑ Yes, please.


>> Okay.  Bill said he can tell CAST to add more Chinese.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   So that's basically under control.  We try to make that one more international, but it's very good to have this group in.

Then the "New Breed of Location Services."  It's one of the child protection by John Carr, who is a very serious and committed follower.  And also somehow reluctant to not having include it and to say no to him.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Excuse me, Markus, this is Liesyl Franz again.  For the ones that remain in white, I think the process just hasn't been completed of reaching out to them.  Because I think, as I said, there are five of the workshops that remain in white, for no other reasons than discussions hadn't been completed with them.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, I mean, they are, I would say, workshops of various maturity.  But I mean on the child safety ones, we could do that, try and bring them together in one slot, for instance.  But I have no doubt that the eNASCO will provide a solid workshop.  They are ‑‑ And John Carr is a very solid player, I think.  He is very involved.

I don't know whether ‑‑ well, Lucinda, you engaged with these people as well.  Do you have something to say?


>>LUCINDA:  Sorry, I missed some of the discussion, but it is eNACSO, isn't it.  I think they came out of a dynamic coalition.  It was a dynamic coalition that formed this grouping, and what they have to say is always very good.  And they have been very supportive of our projects as well.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   And I think also Bertrand wanted to say something.


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Yeah, it's just a general.  I read the description of the workshop.  It's just that in a certain way I regret that the whole topic of location‑based services and the policy issues that are related to location‑based services will be, if I am not mistaken, addressed during the whole IGF exclusively along the lines of child safety.

I may have missed other things, but I didn't see many, many workshops or sessions that are dealing with location‑based services.

And I'm wondering whether it is not a relatively small angle to look at this very interesting topic.  Not to deny that it has some worth, but in a certain way, with all due respect to John Carr, I am a little bit reluctant or sensitive to the notion that there is a sort of cross‑cutting angle that is looking at every single type of issue with the angle of child safety, and, therefore, it becomes an overriding theme that may take too much space.

So in that case, nothing against the workshop in itself.  I just wish that the topic of location‑based services be addressed in its full policy dimension.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yeah.  Well, it's a valid comment but I think it's a bit late for this as we really have to conclude our program.

You have a comment?


>> We have Emily Taylor on the chat, and she says (inaudible) know that many of us are in touch with John Carr so can help with outreach if necessary.  Would agree, too, that he will provide a good workshop.



We take Emily very seriously.



>>LEE HIBBARD:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Just a general comment.  I'm a little bit nervous about those workshops are color coded white, and I understand the process, and it's very important to get to the magic number of 60 or so workshops.  But I wonder if it's not possible to give these people who are not in the room or are not connected, you know, to others who are on the chat, et cetera, the chance to, within a short turnaround, to maybe give them the chance to speak or at least give them the chance to merge with other related workshops in order for them to come into this process, rather than for them to be outright rejected.  I think they made a proposal for a reason.  I think it would be good, even if we have to make a decision today, on a chance for them to be brought in some way into the whole process.

Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, we come that.  As you know, we have always tried very hard to make everybody happy, but the ‑‑ they are conflicting objectives.  I mean, there are the objectives of those who want to hold the workshops, and then there are the many voices who said we should reduce the number of overall slots.  And there is also the question of how many slots can we accommodate.

I mean, it is very much a concern.  And that's why basically we are doing this exercise of making sure that we don't say no lightly to any of the proposals.

But I think if you have the guarantees from the organizer, if you have broad support for the organizer, and the only reason why the workshop was not marked green was it has a lack of diversity, but they are commitment of people we know well and trust to reach out and to make it more diverse, then I think we should go ahead and give him the green light.

But Martin.


>>MARTIN BOYLE:   Thank you, Chair.  Martin Boyle.

I think one of the interesting features about this particular workshop is that it ‑‑ because it comes and looks at the location and sensitivities attached to location.

John has identified quite an interesting new avenue to look at.

I don't think this project, and certainly the last time we had the meeting here in this building, it was very, very clear to me that this particular project was not one that could easily merge with anything else because nothing else was following even a vaguely similar route.  And put that into perspective with the fact that here is the protection of the child.  Quite an important issue for the IGF coming from quite a significant player in the field.

I think that, really, I would strongly support seeing this one being upgraded to a workshop.

And I think it would also be also quite interesting to make sure that some of those ideas were feeding into the plenary discussion.

One of the things that I think we have all felt quite clearly is the lack of discussion on the protection of children getting to center stage.  That last year it happened through the host country special session.

So certainly I would greatly welcome seeing that.

Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you, Martin.

I think then we can go ahead and give him ‑‑ Katitza, please.


>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   I have a very brief comment.  I don't know if we review it.  I may be not quite so concentrated.

In any case, I check that workshop 70, "Policy, Governance and Participation, Harnessing All Aspects of the Net for the Youth Activism" from the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, organized by Jillian York, is a very good workshop, but I wonder what is needed to make them green.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I think the amber indicates they are in a merger discussion.

(Dropped audio).



>> I have Ginger Paque, and she would like to know the problem with workshop 56.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can we discuss 37 first.


>> Oh, sorry.  Okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   There are so many here, so I think we have to go one by one.

37, can we mark it green?  Any objection?  Doesn't seem to be the case.  37 is green.


Now we have two Lithuanian workshops.  Yes, please, Kristina.


>>LITHUANIA:   Kristina (saying name), Lithuania.  Well, we don't have much information about the workshops 40 and 42 at the moment, but as soon as come back to Vilnius, we will make sure just to contact organizers to make sure that everything would be done and finished regarding these workshops.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  Thank you for that.

Then I would suggest for the list we mark it a diagonal stroke so we know it's on the discussion.  And I think it's understood that the host country has a somewhat privileged position.  And if you attach importance to holding that workshop, you will have a slot on that.


>>LITHUANIA:   Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   But we wait for more information.

But there was also Edmon, you asked for the floor.  Please.


>>EDMON CHUNG:   Thank you, Markus.  This is on a separate item, though.  Is that okay?

Just following up from Lee's comment, actually.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  On the more overarching thing.  Okay, please.


>>EDMON CHUNG:   Not quite, but on specific workshop.  Do you want me to talk about it now?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Is it higher up or lower down?  If it's lower down, we get there.


>>EDMON CHUNG:   It's right around that.  It's ‑‑ Well, it's 68 and 94.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can we wait until we're there?


>>EDMON CHUNG:   Sure.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I would like to do them really one by one because otherwise it gets out of hand.


>>EDMON CHUNG:   Sure.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you for your understanding.

Now 47, is a dynamic coalition.  Not clear to me if this is a meeting of a dynamic coalition as such or whether it's a workshop by a dynamic coalition, as there is sometimes some confusion.

Can anybody enlighten me?  Barrack?


>> (Speaking off microphone)


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Have they also asked for a dynamic coalition meeting separately?  That's the question.  And they also are marked amber, so they are in merging discussions.

Yes.  Can you press the microphone, Barrack, please.


>>BARRACK OTIENO:   It's ‑‑ there's a suggestion for it to merge with workshop number 70, 73, 85 and 99.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Liesyl, then.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I just want to clarify my note about that based on the workshop review.  The notion was that there were several workshops that had similar threads of content.  47, 70, 73, 85 and 99.

I was no way suggesting that there should be six that merge with each other, but there may be opportunities for mergers among that group.

We have seen one merger out of that group already.  As I mentioned yesterday, 85 and 99.  But other than that, we have not.

So I just wanted to clarify the request.  The request was for those that were ‑‑ we're looking at those workshops to ‑‑ that we're organizing those workshops to look at opportunities but not suggesting that those six merge.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  But you have not contacted them.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I have not directly, no.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  So I take it, then, that we should contact them and suggest looking at merger opportunities.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Well, to be honest, I thought that was the process, but I understand that I misunderstood.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I think there were crossed wires somewhere.  There was too much information ‑‑


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I honestly felt while the group here in Geneva was making recommendations, it was not our role to contact the workshop organizers regarding their workshop, but ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's fine.  But, I mean ‑‑




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   If you don't get a clear message "please contact these and make the merge," then we don't necessarily do it.  But we will do it now.  We will contact these people and ask them to consider merging.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I think it's to your original question as to whether they want a dynamic coalition session or a workshop session for this particular one, if it's unclear.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's the first question for 47.

And then we can suggest to all of them to consider merging opportunity.

And can you please repeat the numbers again of the ones we should contact?


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Well, they may be clarified now.

Hold on.

The original observation was that 47, 70, 73, 85, and 99 had a similar thread of content, but we have already now noted the merger between 85 and 99.  So that's taken care of.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  So basically talking about 47, 70, and 73.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   I guess those are remaining.  And 70 is amber on your chart, and 73 is green.



So that brings us to 47 as 70 as possible merger candidates, if my mathematics are correct.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:   And I think 70 ‑‑ give me a moment.  I will get back to you on 73.  I think I have a communication on that one.  Give me one second.

Yes, this is Liesyl again.  There was a request to put forward workshop 73 as a feeder workshop.  So that is why it's reflected as green, I believe.




>>LIESYL FRANZ:   Okay.  Then the remaining questions, then, are 47 and perhaps 70.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's correct, yes.  47 and 70.

And 47 we don't know yet whether they want a separate meeting anyway.  Okay.

Then can we go down the list a little bit further.  51 seems to be approved as a feeder ‑‑ Sorry, there was ‑‑ Alvaro asking for the floor?  I thought there was a flag up.  Was it Natasha?


>> (Speaking off microphone)


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Then 56 is white, Internet Governance Caucus.

Yes.  Who first?  Natasha, yes.


>>NATASHA PRIMO:  I wanted to propose that that workshop maybe be moved to either access in diversity or to development.  Because it speaks to ‑‑ it's one of the institutions that ‑‑ whose practices have developed ‑‑ and specifically WIPO, which has a development agenda.

So I think some of the people will be speaking to access to knowledge and the development agenda.  So I think it's better located in the development slot.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   56, that is.


>>NATASHA PRIMO:  Natasha:  56.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   But in the meantime it's white, which means it's not on in the first place. So before shifting it, we should discuss whether it's on.


>>NATASHA PRIMO:  Sorry, yeah.  I would argue for it to be green, and then for it to be moved to a different ‑‑



You have remote participation?


>> Yeah, actually I bring back the question about where is the problem with these workshop proposal?  Diversity speakers or ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I think it was found a bit late ‑‑ a bit light when we looked at it.


>> Say again?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I would have to look at it in more detail.  Basically, it was in the found to be good enough, that's all.


>> Okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   But if other people find it good enough ‑‑


>> Since we don't have Ginger and Jeremy, the co‑coordinators for the caucus, maybe it's better to exchange e‑mails and try to figure out.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I had information that there wasn't much discussion going on on this workshop, even among the Internet Governance Caucus.  So I don't know, can any of the civil society participants enlighten?  Fouad, yes, please.


>>FOUAD BAJWA:   Well, it is temporarily missed our sight; otherwise, he was on the schedule.  Is it possible to move this workshop under development?  Because it's already got very good workshop speaker list.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can we first discuss whether this workshop should be on or not before ‑‑


>>FOUAD BAJWA:   It should be on, definitely on.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can you explain why?


>>FOUAD BAJWA: Because it starts from ‑‑ it looks at the technical aspects of rights and democracy, as well as it's social/cultural aspects, and then it's implementation across other regions.

Let me give you a small example.  If you look at the Facebook blocking issue from Pakistan, the day that Pakistan unblocked the Web site, Bangladesh blocked Facebook again.  So this is something very important, and I think that we should have it under development, because it's going to ‑‑ it's got a wider regional, what you call it, outreach as well.

And I think we have very few workshops which actually focus on the issue of intellectual property rights and their enforcement across borders and whether one side or view should be implemented in all of the developing countries.

So this is an equal‑interest workshop.  We should actually be present.  And first we take it down to development and then we can explore whether we want to merge it with something on similar.

But it's hard to actually ‑‑ I have gone through the list, and it's hard to find any workshop which is close to it, like cross‑border implementation of IP laws within the social/cultural aspects of any region.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  Thank you.

Alvaro, please.


>>ALVARO:  Thank you.  I would also join the others in support of this workshop in order to bring it to green because I'm ‑‑ since I have been participating in other foras related to Internet governance, and the transnational and transborder enforcement is a subject that has been discussed in every ‑‑ in almost all the foras I could participate in the debate.

So I think the timing for this workshop is very appropriate.  And also, its approach.  Dealing with this subject by the way ‑‑ by the approach of (inaudible) right and democracy and not only by the question of enforcement itself.

I think this approach is also very useful.

So I would lake to support to be green, this workshop.

Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  So let's see.  I mean, one of the reasons why we didn't give it top marks was the panelists were not confirmed.  There were lots of names there, but it says TBC.  And we had asked for a confirmation of panelists, given a deadline.  So there's a certain uncertainty whether they would actually be present.

Maria ‑‑ Yes, please, Katitza.


>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   I think we could contact Parminder, because he is one of the persons who lead this workshop, and I think he could fix that very quickly, if it's needed.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  We give him the benefit of the doubt, we will mark them in green and put them on the development.  Is that correct?  Okay.

Can you do that?  56 is green and goes on the development.

I hope we're not too generous in terms of slots.

Otherwise, we have to ask our Lithuanian host to build an annex to the conference center.

[ Laughter ]


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Can you do it, put it on the development?

Okay, sort it out after.  Okay.

Okay, let's do, then ‑‑ And then Edmon wanted to say something about the various.

Workshops from the Asia‑Pacific region.  Edmon, please.


>>EDMON CHUNG:  Thank you, Markus.  I guess it's really not quite on the Asia‑Pacific, but specifically on Number 68 and Number 94.

So 68 and 94, in an earlier version of the lists, were suggested to be merged, and I guess myself and Lee has connected and in ‑‑ I guess in principle, we've agreed to merge.




>>EDMON CHUNG:  So I just want to bring that up and we're just trying to finalize the updated title and the write‑up.




>>EDMON CHUNG:  So I'm not sure whether Lee wants to add to this, but, you know, if that's the case, I ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Welcome.  Well, right now we keep one of the numbers.  Which one do we keep?  I presume 94 since it's the broader one.  Is that okay?




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  We copy 94.  Make it green.  And mark that it's merged with 68 and we will get the new title from the two organizers.  Great?

Yes, Liesyl, please.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  For those that are in green but do not have a check, are they stand‑alone or are they feeder?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Sorry.  Those in green, as such, would be feeders.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  Fine.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But please tell us which one should be marked as cross which you don't want as a feeder.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  No.  That's fine.  I was just checking to make sure that 60 is going in order, that 66 was a feeder workshop.  And it is.  Correct?  Okay.  That's fine.


>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay.  I mean, keep correcting us on an ongoing basis.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I'm trying.




>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, that's quickly done anyway.

I mean, it is important in terms of scheduling which one we want ahead of the main session but the security openness has been shifted back, so it should be easier to make sure that the workshops that are of relevance are scheduled beforehand.  Okay.  Can we move down the list?

So Internet for youth beyond safety is in.  70 we already discussed and there's a whole series from 73 to 116 which is in.

119, I think that's green.  As far as my understanding.  We discussed that at length.  119.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.  We discussed that at certain length yesterday.  119.  The youth coalition on Internet governance.  Okay.  And 120 is green.  That was discussed also at some strength.

123, the World Bank, is green.

And then we have these two child online protection workshops which have a national approach.  I think we could give them a collated sequential merger.  There's no discussion on merging them fully but give them a slot where they're one after the other.  I think that should work.  Marilyn?


>>MARILYN CADE:  I just have a question, Markus.  Not about this, which sounds like a useful approach, but there are child online safety workshops that are both in capacity‑building and that are in security and privacy.

Should we be trying to get all of them into one category for consistency purposes, so that people when they're looking at the program track, it's easier for them to know what they're following?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.  I tend to agree with that.  That is basically the approach we had followed in the past ‑‑




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  ‑‑ to say, you know ‑‑ and these categories are not scientific hard‑and‑fast categories in the first place, but it's more a question of making it easier for the participants to follow the program I.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  If they're all over the place, related workshops makes it more difficult, so I definitely ‑‑ maybe we need to have a second go‑through on that, but ‑‑


>>MARILYN CADE:  Well, just ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER: ‑‑ I very much plead that we adopt this principle and try to convince people ‑‑


>>MARILYN CADE:  Correct.


>>MARKUS KUMMER: ‑‑ that you may wish your workshop to be there but we think it's better for you to be there.


>>MARILYN CADE:  I'll just say real quickly the workshop I proposed had capacity‑building, slash, security because I thought it could go in both.  I think there are only two child safety, as I look at it, that are in capacity‑building, and if that's the case, it might be easier to move those.

But I think the principle was the point I wanted to make, because the attendees will otherwise be a bit confused.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Exactly, yeah.  What is better?  Capacity‑building?  Security openness?  I mean ‑‑


>>MARILYN CADE:  Well, I think I would have to ask Martin to comment on that, in addition to myself.  You know, I tend to look at that topic as having a capacity‑building aspect to it, with a focus on security, but I think others might think it's security first and then capacity‑building.

Martin might have a comment.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  My take on that would be basically we know what the problem is.  We're just looking at what are the solutions, and there are some solutions that are there, so I think the capacity‑building aspect would fit in well for these workshops.

The one by UNESCO may be a little bit different as it looks at a new aspect, but ‑‑ and for the main session, it doesn't really make a difference as the main sessions can draw also on the workshops grouped under horizontal categories.

So, you know, if the main session organizers on security, openness and privacy draw in a workshop from capacity‑building, they're free to do that.  That's not such a category ‑‑ any comments on that?  That we put all the child safety workshops under capacity‑building?

I think it would ‑‑ in a way, I think it would balance the program a bit more as many are on the security, openness and privacy and we have a little bit more under capacity‑building.  Yes, please.


>>LUCINDA FELL: Lucinda from Childnet.  So apart from youth IGF, as an organization one of our main things is child safety, and I feel that that would set quite well in security, openness and privacy, because there are a lot of the issues that we discuss on a daily basis with young people.  Their safety hinges on the fact that they're not taking their information secure.  They're sharing too much and they don't really often respect their privacy.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So we prefer it under the thematic heading of security, openness and privacy?






>>UNESCO: Thank you.  Actually, UNESCO and the Council of Europe are also collaborating on a workshop on the children media literacy.  Our approach is to empower children with skills, with knowledge, with ethical standard to secure the security online and also without compromising their rights to access information and to express themselves.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  In other words?  You would like to keep it where it is?  Okay.  Well, it seems that we don't have necessarily consensus on this one.  Yes, Alvaro.


>>BRAZIL:  I would say the same thing about the workshop 140, whether it's going to be merged with 134 or not.  I think that it should remain under the SOP category because it's related to building policy, original policy, and it's closely related to issues of security and privacy.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  For sure.  Marilyn?


>>MARILYN CADE:  Markus, I just restate that when I submitted my workshop, I had capacity‑building, slash security.  I think there may be capacity‑building workshops which have a focus on access, some which have a focus on security and privacy.  Maybe we should be thinking about, for those cross‑cutting themes, whether we could have a secondary category to alert ‑‑ because I'm mostly focused on attendees, not ‑‑ and I am flexible going either way, since I chose both categories, but I'm mostly thinking about attendees.

I look at it as an attendee than go, "Okay, I'm following the security track and I missed two of the child safety ones to even consider it," or...


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  No, I totally agree.  My approach is also very pragmatic.  If ‑‑ related workshops would make life easier for participants to find their way around, under which heading they are, and you can argue both.

I mean, you might as well toss up a coin to say whether it should be here or there.

You know, equally, we could move those that are under capacity‑building under security, openness and privacy but I mean we do have already a very large group under security, openness and privacy, which makes it also difficult for participants to find their way around.  Should we have a subcategory on children, whatever?  Children issues on security, openness and privacy?

You were going to take the floor, Liesyl?


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  No.  It's up to the ‑‑ I was only going to make the comment that it may depend on the specific focus of the workshop, whether it's on child safety if the ‑‑ if the main focus is capacity‑building, in that area, or the main focus is security.  That may make a ‑‑ help make a determination about where it should go, but that was prior to your comment about a subcategory, so I'm ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But, you know, it is a very, very insider, intricate categorizing.

For the average participant, he looks anything to do with children, you know, why is it here and why is it there.  You know, that's my basic point.  But there seems to be a strong, I think, feeling that it should be under security, openness and privacy for various reasons, and to understand the arguments, my suggestion then would be to move those under capacity‑building also under security, openness and privacy and ‑‑ well, let's think about the category there.

I mean, I think it should not be protection of children.  I think it should ‑‑ the point ‑‑ you know, empowerment of children.  It's more than just protection.  It's young people, children, and the Internet.  Security is one part of it, but it's also empowerment of children.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Although do keep ‑‑ this is Liesyl Franz again.  Although keep in mind some are focused at least in title in child online protection.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I know that.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But if you have a subcategory, it should be broader than that.  Because the approach is broader.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  Fine.  So it's ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So can we agree that we shift under the children‑related workshops under security, openness and privacy?  That seems to meet the concern of those who are dealing with these issues.  Lee, please.  And say that you're Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.


>>LEE HIBBARD: Yes.  Thank you, Markus.  Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.

Markus, I have to agree with you.  Just from my own experience dealing with these issues with children, it's much related to security, openness and privacy and it should stand in that category.  I don't see the need to separate these things, make them more complicated, so I totally agree.  And let's keep things simple.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thank you.

Have we been through all the lists?  I think so.  Yeah?

What I suggest, then, is to mark those 134 and 140 ‑‑ mark them green, with the notion that they are a sequential merger.  That is, that they will be given one ‑‑ Lucinda, please.


>>LUCINDA FELL:  Lucinda from Childnet.  Sorry.  I wanted to clarify.  I've just heard back from Mohamed at the Cyber Peace Initiative about workshop 65 and they're more than happy to extend the panel so we'd be part of that team now officially.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thank you very much for that.  So there's a lot to be said for remote participation.  Oh, there was one workshop we have to go back to.  That is Number 80.  Have you been given answers from Siva or more explanation or ‑‑


>>RAQUEL: No, not really.  I just got a message, another one, from Emily Taylor I would read.  "I would support keeping the child safety workshops where they are and if the child "‑‑ this is all ‑‑ this is okay.  It's under development, so ‑‑




>>RAQUEL: Okay.  And I agree with Markus' point about how crowded SOP is.  Perhaps separate ‑‑ this is all separate category for children and youth issues, so that we are not just discussing child protection but all aspects of young people's interaction with the Web.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thank you.  International trade and Internet governance.  Basically, Siva asked that one workshop, he had already approved be withdrawn, and this one instead marked green.

80.  Workshop 80, "International Trade and Internet Governance."  I know there has been some backwards and forwards between him and Bill Drake  ...(dropped audio)... the only thing I'm not sure is where we are with his speakers.  I think he was very ambitious.  He always is very ambitious with his speakers.

He had proposed under various headings I think ISOC Chennai and under his personal name a number of workshops, but I made it clear to him it's unlikely that he could have more than one, so I would be inclined to give him the one he asked for, especially as we had already approved another one.

Would there be any major objections to this way of proceeding?  That is, to mark workshop Number 80, international trade and Internet governance, green instead of the earlier one that was marked green?  Sorry?  Was it 83 that was marked green before?

Yes, Ayesha.  Please.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you.  I would ‑‑ Ayesha Hassan, ICC.

I would like to clarify the current draft of the proposal for workshop 80 indicates that myself, as well as ICC/BASIS as chair, would be invited.  Unfortunately, neither of us have been able to confirm that we would be on this panel, so I just want to make sure that you have an update on at least two of the eight invites that he has listed there.  Thanks.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Well, as I said, he's usually very ambitious with his panelists, and last year I didn't believe it that he would get all these people, but in the end he did.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So we are ‑‑ I mean, we ‑‑ we would need an update, so there is a certain question mark, shall we say, on that one.  But then I would suggest leaving it as it is but get back to him and ask for more clarifications and see whether we can do that.

But basically he asked for one instead of the other being confirmed.

You cannot, Raquel, ask him whether he could give explanation.  Is he not online now?


>>RAQUEL: Yeah.  He's not online.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  He's not online.  Okay.  And right at the end there was also a merger indicated that that's been sorted out.  That's the merger with EURid right at the end of the list on ‑‑

142, that is merging with the workshop by Nominet, correct?

Right.  Okay.  Okay.  More comments?  Yes, Alice and ‑‑ sorry.  Liesyl.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Yeah.  Sorry.  It's Liesyl.  We've had ‑‑ there's a possibility that 172 will also merge.  We're in discussions now with 142 and 112.  So you might put a ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Sorry 172 might merge with...


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  142 and 112.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay, okay.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Sorry if you weren't there yet.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  That's basically the Nominet workshop.  Yeah.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  That's to be confirmed, however.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  I mean, the ‑‑ should I put it that way?  To merge ‑‑ to make less is easier than to make more.  So whatever merger comes in after today's discussion is always welcome.  We can always accommodate mergers but we cannot accommodate additional divorces.

Can we conclude, then, the discussion on the workshop list?

We have to count the numbers to see where we are on that one.  And then we can also start a first discussion on the schedule.

And the ‑‑ sorry.  Also, the main sessions, there was an informal discussion yesterday between the MAG chairman and those involved in the Internet governance for development session, and they basically agreed on the format, agreed on the panelists, but unfortunately Bill Drake, the convener, is not here, and I talked to him briefly and he said he was unfortunately not able to come in this morning but he said he would send an e‑mail to the list on the state of that discussion, and I can't see one here but I wonder whether anybody else who is involved in that discussion could give us a briefing on the outcome, names of panelists, and the format.

Internet governance for development?  Ayesha, please.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you very much.  Ayesha Hassan from ICC.

At this time, we have come up with the following list of panelists, after discussion among the group that was working on this.

Let me just pull it up.  I'm sorry.

Okay.  Currently, we have Nitin Desai as the moderator.  We are in the process of changing things around a bit, so there would be two floor moderators.  Me from ICC and most likely Kristina Arrieta from Egypt.  We would move Anriette Esterhuysen to the panel from APC, Everton Lucero from the government of Brazil.  Zahid Jamil, Pakistan.  Raúl Echeberria from LACNIC.  William Drake.  And we have a couple of question marks outstanding, with the possibility of having Maimouna on the panel.

And then Nitin has indicated that it would not be preferable to have a formal set of respondents, but given the interest that we have and some of the balancing factors that we'd like to make sure are in this session's discussion, we plan to have an informal list of respondents which could be drawn upon to enrich the discussion and bring in different angles and this would then include Parminder Singh, Jackie Ruff, Ricardo from VeriSign, and a few others, who have been put forward as possible panelists but for whom we don't have any space on the panel.  Perhaps any of my colleagues who were involved in this would like to add, but that's where I see the status of things right now.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I think that was not my understanding.  My understanding was that the panel was fixed, including Maimouna, and there was only one open slot.  That was for a civil society member.  And that the chair would decide on who that would be based on proposals coming to him.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Well, the chair would be in a position to decide, I think.  We would all support having Maimouna on the panel.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I think that is decided.  He said that yesterday.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Okay.  There's been some subsequent discussion which has perhaps confused the issue a little bit but as far as we're concerned, that's fine at this stage.  The group has been discussing Anriette Esterhuysen as a civil society person.  If the chair obviously would like to consider others, that's up to him, as he's made it clear that would be his decision.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So we have ‑‑ as a panel, we have Anriette, Everton, Raúl ‑‑


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Maimouna, Bill ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  ‑‑ Bill and Maimouna.  Correct.






>>AYESHA HASSAN:  And as floor moderators, we would then have me and Kristina with a question mark.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Ayesha Hassan and Kristina Arrieta as floor moderators.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  I'm not sure she knows that yet, so we should ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  We will be very pleased on that, but I'm sure she will.

And it's also my understanding that, yes, the floor moderators may draw on people as resource persons, but they will not appear in the program.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  That's right.  It would be an informal list.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That's correct.  Oh, sorry that ‑‑ the name of panelists again.  Was Zahid part of the panel?


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Yeah, Zahid was part of the panel as well.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  All of a sudden, I seem not to have a business representative, so I wondered about that.

So Anriette Esterhuysen, Everton Lucera, Zahid Jamil, Raúl Echeberria, Bill Drake, and Maimouna Diop would be the panel, and the panel would be chaired by Nitin Desai and we have two floor moderators, Ayesha Hassan and Kristina Arrieta, correct.


>>AYESHA HASSAN: That's correct.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And also in terms of substantive debate, my understanding is the panel could revisit all the previous session and look at what is part of Internet for D, more or less.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  The first part would look at what is Internet governance for development.

The second part would try to identify from the main session topics where there are specific issues that impinge upon development.

And the third part ‑‑ the third part is development ‑‑ is countries, national‑level organization and management of international engagements and links to domestic strategies.

And then the fourth section would be taking IG forward in IGF and other international settings.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Are there any questions related to that or is everybody happy?  Or equally unhappy?



>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I'm very happy as basically now we have all the main sessions together and we have the names, so we don't need to carry on lengthy protracted discussions as we had done in previous years.

Obviously, you can still carry on the discussions on how to frame and so on, but at least we have fixed the names.  That's a very good development.

So we're two ‑‑ more than two months ahead of the meeting.

Again, we will try to get short narrative biographies of all the speakers for the main sessions and for the workshops.

Also, we would need the names for the panelists for the regional ‑‑ various regional initiatives, as we have a main session devoted to that.  EuroDIG, for instance, you would have to give me the name who would represent the European dialogue on Internet governance.  The same for all the other regional initiatives.

We will write to them as well, but I mean, if you can already decide now and give me the names, all the better.  The same obviously goes for the Asia‑Pacific initiative, Africa, and the Latin American.

So the sooner we have these names, the better.

And the short narrative bios also a play to the workshop panels, panelists.

One thing we haven't done particularly well is the remote moderators.  So we may have volunteers from this room.  If anybody would be willing to take on this role for any of the main sessions please come forward.  We had one main session, critical Internet resources, that we have a remote moderator, but not for the other sessions.

I think it would be very helpful if you could move fast on that one, and I think it would be very helpful if the thematic groups could identify a knowledgeable remote moderator they trust, also in terms of substance.  Obviously, the remote moderator needs also to be a good communicator.  But the working group, Marilia and Ginger, they are very keen to get started also with the training.

We have the technology in place, but technology is not, I think, the main thing.  The main thing is the human factor and to know what the roles are.

We have a very short terms of reference for the remote moderators on our Web site, so you have still some time to reflect.  If you can get them out today, would be even better.

The question is how do we organize our day.  Presumably people like to push off early on the second day of a meeting.  Shall we have a short‑ish lunch break and aim to finish by 3:00 or 4:00 or so?

Would that be good?  Maybe give time right now ‑‑ It's quite a natural break, as we have finished the workshop list.  We could look at the schedule, then, in the afternoon, and look at scheduling.

It's good to have you here when we do the scheduling, especially people who are involved in more than one workshop.  They can tell us, please, make sure we are not scheduled in parallel; that we don't duplicate; that there are no conflicts in scheduling, and we can start doing that this afternoon.

How long do we need as a break?  Can we resume in one hour from now?

Would that be okay?

Okay.  Have a short break, and meet again a quarter past 1:00, and with the aim of closing by 4:00 at the latest.

I hope the scribes can bear with us with that schedule, but we have a short break now and resume in an hour's time, but then we would finish earlier, 4:00 at the latest.

Bertrand, please.


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Markus, would that be okay with 1:30?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   1:30, and still maintaining the 4:00 objective.  Okay.

I think that should be possible.


Thank you.  See you all at 1:30.

Thank you very much.

(Lunch break)



Internet Governance Forum

Preparatory Process Meeting

29 June 2010


Geneva, Switzerland


***Live Scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue ‑ www.quicktext.com***




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yes, good afternoon.

We seem to have some technical hitches.  We're not online, and they are resurrecting us.

But just by sheer coincidence, I found out that one of the members of our Webcasting team happens to be a member of ‑‑ please sit down ‑‑ a member of the European Parliament.  Amelia is a representative of the Swedish Pirate Party in the European Parliament.  I don't ask you to share which side you are on, but I will asked her to come up here because she works a lot with young people, and I would like you to ‑‑ We're on now.  Okay.

And I would like maybe Amelia to present herself a bit and say your thoughts what we basically just discussed about young people and kids and the Internet.


>>AMELIA ANDERSTOTTER:  Yeah, so I work with the Swedish Pirate Party in Brussels.  I am a member of the European Parliament sort of now.  We work with information and communications issues, including intellectual property or access to infrastructure and connectivity, privacy issues online with ICT, and also privacy issues with other ICT implementations in other sectors of society, and we have been working quite a bit now also with act and trade agreements because of the present situation around that.

And I have been following some of your workshop discussions here.  Where my discussions with Markus started off now was children in online safety.  So the European Parliament and the European Union have been working intensely with blocking of Internet pages now.  Basically the commission has put forward a proposal to filter Internet content based on reports from hot lines and that do child protection things.

There's quite a lot of opposition against that proposal, both in the parliament and outside the parliament, because blocking has proven to be a relatively inefficient way of coming to terms with child abuse; right?  It's not somebody viewing pictures that abuses the kid.  It's somebody abusing the kid that abuses the kids.

Blocking the pages actually just alerts the offender that somebody is on to them so they take their stuff down immediately, they put them up somewhere else, where they are again available.

If you say took the content down, that's the server down, and did a proper police investigation, you might actually convict somebody who was guilty of child offense.

This has been a big discussion in the EU now.

And I notice in your panels, I thought there is not really a lot of young people there who work with blocking from that perspective.

And I guess the reason I am up here now is I asked if I could put people in touch with those kinds of young people, and I can.  And they are all over the place, and they are very organized now.  Like one thing that I heard just now was that there's not really a lot of organizations for young people striving for Internet rights.  This is not entirely true.  If you look at European digital rights initiatives they have 23 or 28 different members all over Europe.  They mostly consist of relatively young people, at least not older than 40, you know.

If you look at the (saying name) and affiliated youth organizations in particular, (saying name) is one of the largest youth political organizations in Germany, (saying name) is one of the largest organizations in Sweden.  They are also the ones with the most local activities of all of the political youth organizations.  So you definitely have these young groups.

But I don't ‑‑ I'm not really sure what type of introduction you wanted.

Like am I just ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Basically, we had this discussion on how to connect to young people from the beginning.  We always agreed in principle, we attach great importance to young people.  But we always found it rather difficult, as ‑‑ I feel tempted to say for obvious reasons, young people don't necessarily connect with institutional activities under the flag of the United Nations.

Now, we have made some progress and there are people like Lucinda from ChildNet who work very hard.  And I think everybody agreed that in Egypt we had a higher profile.  We did more for young people.  There were good sessions, good workshops.  Also Edmon from dotAsia does with his Net Mission, brought kids from Hong Kong there, and they have also a fairly vibrant discussion.


>>AMELIA ANDERSTOTTER:  Can I make a small intervention with young people?  Getting young people willing to go to international meetings, there are a lot of them who want to make their voices come across.  Even in traditional organizations.  The problem is for young people that they don't have the money to go.  And even if they have the money to go, they don't have the money to stay.  And even if they can afford both traveling and accommodation, they wouldn't be able to eat or dress themselves while they are there, which would severely decrease their influence.

But in most situations, when organizations bring young people to these major events ‑‑ like I was myself once given the opportunity to go to China as a representative of the world urban forum at the U.N.  That was an incredibly rich experience for me, but I can't see how my being there really gave the Swedish youth a lot more influence in the United Nations institutions.  Basically I was there as a young representative for the government of Sweden because it's good if Sweden has a young representative.  But what the purpose of the young representative is or the amount of influence I could exert, this was slightly more vague.

And even like you can take a group of 10 15‑year‑olds and take them to IGF, that's perfectly possible.  You can just give them lots of funding and they will be there, they will work around in short skirts or the little boy uniforms you get in the UK, and you talk to people and they will say how wonderful, 15‑year‑olds, and they go home and that's it.

Versus you need to see more young people, can we create a funding system like this?  Maybe you should have a grant.  Neighbor allow young ambitious people to apply.  They will be swarming all over the place.  There is not a lack of 18, 19‑year‑olds who are planning for an international career who would love to have the reference of having been at IGF on the C.V., for instance, especially now that they could sit on a panel or exert real influence.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   My purpose was precisely to bring you up here to present you to the people and to say maybe we can get funding for the groups of young people you do know.

[ Laughter ]


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   So that is to the attention of those who may have funds to do so.

It is easier for us under U.N. roof to fund people from developing countries, because usually funds are there for people from developing countries.  Kids from Europe might be more difficult.

But maybe business may be willing to sponsor some of them.  I don't know.  But I thought it would be worthwhile introducing you to this group here.  And who knows, maybe some people will come to you and give you their business card.  That would be my hope.


>> I hope so.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Katitza.


>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ:   I would like to suggest that it would be nice to have independent funding in the way that I really would like to have people who are ‑‑ just people who are independent and could bring their own voices.  Even those that are maybe against those positions that are supposed to be for children, but for them it's really not a measure of protection.

So it's very political because if you get funding from certain companies, maybe they are not willing to fund independent voices.  And we need youth independent.

That's my only comment.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you.

Any other comments?  Questions?

If not, do you have any concluding remarks?  Sorry, there is ‑‑ Yes, Lucinda.


>>LUCINDA FELL:  Hello, I am Lucinda from ChildNet here.

I just wanted to offer a clarification on the youth IGF project that we are running.

I had quite a few conversations with people where I have got the sense that they feel perhaps you might be telling the young people what to say.

We are running a youth camp this summer and we want the young people to engage in a meaningful way.  But all we really want for them to do is engage.  We don't have an agenda for how they are going to engage or for what they are going to say.

And I just wanted to make that clear, because I'm not sure it had been before.  But the children and young people will be speaking with their own voice, responding to the issues that they are concerned with, as it relates to the themes of the IGF.





I was just basically going to say, one thing I forgot was to announce the flier Lucinda had put out on youth IGF project.  I think there are still a few copies in the back of the room.

But please, do comment on that.


>>AMELIA ANDERSTOTTER:  Yeah, I'm sorry if I sounded slightly offensive about that.  I didn't mean to suggest that ChildNet imposes views on 15‑year‑olds.  But I think to a large extent, if any of the organizations here bring young people in large groups to IGF under their roof, or whatever, you are going to have those 15‑year‑olds for show.  It's not like you have all of these organizations built by young people for young people with young people that are ‑‑ that have their own visions of the Internet or what social networking means or what privacy online means or protecting themselves means.

And those people could be there not for show.  You could make them actively strive to be there.  If you just presented the opportunity for them to go, they would go and represent themselves.

15‑year‑olds for show are, by nature, just something that I think a lot of you people do because you want to feel good, you know?  You want to have young people there, so you bring a bunch of young people, and then you hope that you will feel good about it.

But young people can make you feel good on their own, I guess.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Lee is itching to say something, I know the Council of Europe does.  Maybe you have a budget line for that?


>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE:   Thank you, Markus.  Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe.  Let's start with that.  That's a good start.

We always bring youth along with us to IGF.  We have done so in the past.  We've brought at least five to ten youth with us as a default setting for participation, and I hope we can do the same thing this year in Vilnius.  But we normally work through the European Youth Forum.  I take note, and I think it's important that we don't just talk the talk but we walk the walk.  And if we can bring them into the opening ceremony, for example, into sessions which matter, even if there's no coordinated approach, because there are several youth organizations involved in all different ways, I would really like to see in key sessions a youth dynamic, you know, including in the opening session.  And I think that's a mainstreaming approach to youth in general.

Also for the youth IGFs.

So I think the problem is that it's difficult to coordinate everything all the time.  Like in all of our own respective fields, it's difficult.

So if we just create spaces every time we talk about Internet governance all along the way, we can find those youth and bring them in, even if they are not together as a group.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, thank you.

And maybe you can pursue the discussion with the Council of Europe.


>> Yes.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Thank you very much.

Thank you.  Bye‑bye.

I thought that was a worthwhile interruption to our debate.  Thank you for joining us here on the podium.

Can we now put up the schedule for the meeting.

Yes, here it is.

We looked at the slots, and we have been able to accommodate everything we have approved this morning, but we have used every single slot available on this schedule, and that is already more than 90 with having all the dynamic coalitions and whatever.

And we opened the room we basically did not want to open, which is room 9 which we had foreseen as the MAG room.  But I think we will need to spill out into that room with some of the session.

And it looks as we are very close to the number of meetings we had in Sharm El Sheikh, we have already, I think, 96 or ‑‑ 96.  And those marked amber, the future mergers, are not yet included.  So if anything, we will not be that much below the total number we had in Sharm El Sheikh.

Now, I don't think there's much point going to each of these slots in a collective setting.  I would suggest I can send it out to the list and to all of you to look at it, and maybe also to indicate to us where you may have conflicting arrangement ‑‑ conflicting commitment so that we make sure that we don't put these on there.

I would suggest, especially, that the main session conveners look at the flow of the related workshops, point out certain inconsistencies.

I don't think we will be able to finalize the schedule as it is today.  We can still do that in written form.  But it would be useful if you can do as much as possible.

As far as the rooms are concerned, room 1, 2, and 3 are on the first floor of the workshop part of the conference center.  Room 4, 5, 6 ‑‑

(Dropped audio)

‑‑ 9 are set out in a roundtable setting.  That is with a square ‑‑ or two of them have an actual round table.

So also think in those terms.  If you have ‑‑ We have done it maybe a little bit randomly that we have given the rooms away.  I said those who have 12 or more panelists, we give them a round table because otherwise you cannot accommodate the panelists.

Now, I know some clearly prefer classroom settings whereas others quite like the ‑‑ Also, it depends very much on the nature of the workshop.  So think also in those terms.  If you are really unhappy in one or the other, please let us know.

Yes, I think that's about all I have to say at this stage.

Are there any questions, I wonder?



>>MARILYN CADE:   So you are sending this out to us now for us to look at.




>>MARILYN CADE:   You are sending this to us now.




>>MARILYN CADE:   And then we will be here together until 4:00 where we can come and ask questions or raise a particular point about why we fit or don't fit in a section?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That was the idea.  I think it makes more sense ‑‑


>>MARILYN CADE:   Perfect.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   ‑‑ to do it.  You are best place to check whether your workshop is in the appropriate slot.  And the same goes for the main session conveners, that are flow of workshops, I think.


>>MARILYN CADE:   Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Okay.  So we'll send it off.

Is this read ‑‑ I think you have to come to the first rows if you want to read it here.

It will take a few minutes to send it out.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Sorry.  You have a link up on our screen.  You can download the schedule from that link for those who are not on the list.  So for those who have not received the schedule, you can download it from that link.

May I ask you to get on to your seats and engage in a common conversation, and I also address this to the remote participants if there are any left.

We have ‑‑ the URL is up in the chatroom where you can download the schedule as it is.

We had a few requests already for changes, but of course once we start changing one workshop, then you need to change another workshop, and that has a ‑‑ maybe an undesired chain reaction.

So what we suggest doing, if you have already comments, that you signal them and we'll see that ‑‑ so that we know where we have a potential problem.  We may not be able to fix it straight away but we take note of that and we can then maybe fix it either this afternoon go through it again or otherwise we do it in writing.

Yes, Elizabeth.  Please.


>> Thank you very much, Markus.  Do you want me to make a request now or do you want to have it in writing, because as regards workshop 21, "Priorities for the Long‑Term Stability of the Internet," I was wondering whether maybe we could switch it with the next one, the 114 "Resilience and Contingency Planning in DNS."

The reason being that we would like to approach my commissioner, Vice President Cruz, to make some opening remarks and it's more likely that we get her for the 11:30 slot than for the 9:00 slot.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  I will take a note.

This is ‑‑ actually, this is quite helpful, because there are two kinds of maybe need.  There is the thematic need that maybe the flow of the workshop is not the right one, and then there are the eminently pragmatic ones like the one you just mentioned when you have kind of a VIP to a workshop or not.  Obviously that makes a difference and obviously we take that into account.

But Kathy, I think some thematic concerns as regards the flow of the workshops.


>> Thank you, Markus.  Just a real simple switch on day 1, between workshop 87, which is right now at 9:00 a.m. in Room 5 ...(dropped audio)... RIR workshop, so if we could just simply switch those, that would work.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  In other words, switch 87 with 158, correct?


>> Yes, sir.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  That's fairly straightforward.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Others?  Marilyn, please.


>>MARILYN CADE:  Markus, I have a thematic concern, but I also am going to propose something for consideration.

The workshop that I'm doing ‑‑ am organizing on child safety is long, long, long, long after the SOP sessions.  It's on the closing day, and I really need for it to be earlier because one of my co‑chairs is not able to stay for the closing day.

My ‑‑ so I have a thematic question, but ‑‑ problem, but I also have a co‑chair problem.

But I wanted to raise a question.

Earlier in the week ‑‑ we can't get all ‑‑ we don't seem to be able to get all of the workshops that are related to the sessions scheduled earlier in the week, and we are putting some of the sessions related to IGFs and other topics interspersed earlier in the week.  There's a roundtable for regional meetings, things of that nature.

Maybe it would be possible to give priority to workshops that need to be switched.  Because I expect to be involved in one of the national IGF sessions, and I'd be ‑‑ I'd be okay with moving it to later in order to try to have a priority to have as many of the workshops as possible aligned with the sessions that they are feeding into.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Well, the ‑‑ as I said, we gave ‑‑ we will give priority to availability of speakers.  I mean, this is obviously a ‑‑ if you have a key speaker who cannot be there on the second or third day, we have to take that into concern.

The other thing is always a little to the extent possible ‑‑ I mean, one thing I thought the regional meetings should take place ahead of the Internet governance for development session, as well as they feed into that.  Whereas the IGF USA may not necessarily feed into Internet governance for development.  But at least those from developing regions should fit into ‑‑ should be able to feed into that session.


>>MARILYN CADE:  I'm sorry but I think I must have a rebuttal.  If anyone is under the impression that the United States is fully developed, they should come help me with that problem.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Jokes aside, but it's always helpful, then, also to give concrete suggestions to us when you would like to have it done.  Fouad?


>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Thank you, Markus.  Workshop 54 has actually ended up ‑‑ after the IG4D session has taken place.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Sorry.  Which workshop on which day in which room?


>>FOUAD BAJWA:  Day 4, workshop Number 54, Room Number 2.




>>FOUAD BAJWA:  It's actually ended up after the IG4D session.  It should have been before the IG4D session.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  But you don't need to do it all straight away Yurie, but make sure you take down the note.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay?  Yes, (saying name).


>> Looking at ‑‑ it's afternoon on Thursday ‑‑ we already raised a specific issue in terms of the conflict between workshop 58 and 136, but in looking at that whole afternoon session, we do have the four cloud computing workshops running opposite one another.  So if there's any way that we could break those up so that those interested in cloud computing wouldn't have to choose one of the four which to attend.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Right.  No, that's a good point.  That's basically what we are trying to do, but we did not succeed.


>> Okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That is, to avoid scheduling workshops that deal with the same subject.


>> Uh‑huh.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So if somebody wants to ‑‑ it's interesting, cloud computing, they should be able to go to each of the workshops.


>> Okay.  You know, I see that they wanted to get that in before the emerging issues in the main session the next morning, but if there's any way that we can kind of stagger that so that the ‑‑ you know, whether it be that morning or afternoon or...


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  They are conflicting priorities.  You know, you cannot do everything you would like to do.


>> Sure.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But I think, again, not having related workshops in parallel should be a priority.  It's not possible, for instance, with critical Internet resources if they want to feed into the second day, so they're bound to be parallel, but if it can be avoided I think we have to look for different slots for those, to make sure that they're not overlapping.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).




>>AYESHA HASSAN:  Thank you, Markus.  If we've talked to the Secretariat, do we need to say now, again, what we've already said to the Secretariat?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I think it's helpful if you do it so ‑‑


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  So everybody knows.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  ‑‑ people know where you come from.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:  That's fine.  In terms of the ICC/BASIS implications of cloud computing, Number 58, we had pointed out that there would be a conflict with having that workshop take place at the time of the IG4D session, given overlapping people who need to be in both.

I also have a constraint that a few of the people involved in both the workshop that we are proposing with the government of Kenya as well as the ICC/BASIS' open forum on best practice work on data protection and privacy are only present in Vilnius for day 2 and 3.

So I would appreciate having the ‑‑ also ‑‑ sorry to mix this up ‑‑ there's no number on this but the open forum 5, I guess, on day 3 in the morning, having that particular open forum next door to the main session on security, openness and privacy is kind of not very useful because people who would go to the main session would also be the same people who might be interested in this open forum, so I would appreciate having that moved to day 2.

So those are the two points that I've given to the Secretariat in terms of conflicts and would appreciate having another option put forward for each of those sessions.  Thanks.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Marilia?


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  We have some comments from Bill Drake.  He says that there is a big scheduling conflict on day 3, 16 September, 11:30 to 13:30, workshops 165 and 175.  They are listed at the same time and there are two main workshops feeding into the IG4D main session, which draw many of the same audience participants and spread them.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Can you please again?  Which workshops?


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Yeah.  It's 165 and 175.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  They're scheduled on...


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  On day 3, 16 September.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  16 September.  In which room?


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  He didn't say the room here.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  165, yeah.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  Yes.  One is in Room 4 and the other is room 7.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And that's 74?


>> Yeah, 74.


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  It's 165 and 174.  He has two more comments here.  Can I proceed or...

He says that on day 2, 15, you show Siva's workshop 83 on political balance in IG.  He has dropped that one, and Markus has suggested the approval of his alternative on international trade, Number 80, so if you could please just change the workshop number, it would be okay.


>> That was basically a pending issue, so...


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  He says that he has talked to Siva or ‑‑ I believe that is okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And this was ‑‑ (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARILIA MACIEL:  I believe that Bill Drake has spoken to Siva, he's saying here.

And there is one third last concern from him.

On day 1, 14, the main session ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ on setting the scene, 10:00 to 11:30 and workshop 60, "International Law and Cross‑Border Internet," he's supposed to speak in both.  So if the Council of Europe agrees, could the workshop be moved to 11:30 to 13:00 slot?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  (Speaker is off microphone) sorry.  I just made the point that the Council of Europe is also involved in the regional perspectives and you may not wish to have a parallel workshop to that, or are there different people?


>> It's different people, but that's ‑‑ the clash is not so important there.  I guess if it can be avoided, all the better, but...


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Let's find for another slot, then.


>> Okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.  Ralph.


>> Ralph (saying name), U.K. IGF.  I just noticed that U.K. IGF wasn't on the national initiative list, even though we discussed it.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Sorry.  I couldn't hear you properly.  I understand why.  I got the wrong earphone up.

Sorry.  Could you repeat it again?


>> Sorry.  I just wondered that the U.K. IGF national initiative wasn't on there, even though that was discussed.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So the U.K. IGF is not listed?


>> No.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Oh, U.K. IGF is not listed.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  It's not a workshop.  It's a... but it all went rather quickly, but thanks for spotting that.

I mean, we have to check to make sure that all the national and regional ones are listed.


>> Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.


>>LIESYL FRANZ: Hi.  Liesyl Franz here.  I just wanted to raise a couple of issues with regard to the sessions under security, openness and privacy.  One is that there are several that aren't listed at all, and I believe they had not been ‑‑ at least as of the last conversation ‑‑ taken away yet finally, so the ones I note are 40, 47, 70, 88, 42, and then 134 and 140, which were the national or regional approaches to child protection online that we were going to do a sequential merger.  Those aren't on here either.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  (Speaker is off microphone) sorry.  These were listed amber and the amber ones are not reflected yet in the schedule, as we don't know yet which one ‑‑ I mean, the sequential one could have been (inaudible).




>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But, I mean, purely mechanically, they're just took on those that were agreed and did not yet list the amber ones.  But I don't know now whether there was any of the green ones missing.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I'll double‑check that, I'll follow up on that, but ‑‑




>>LIESYL FRANZ:  ‑‑ there were several feeder workshops that we had listed that aren't showing as feeder, perhaps, as well, so should I raise those now?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, if you have them, yes, please.  Yeah, yeah.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Just for recording purposes and we can try to ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah, yeah.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  123, 116, 85 which I believe is not listed at all right now, 125, and 172 isn't listed at all but it may merge with 112.  So 112 would need to move.  Okay?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  All these workshops, they should be scheduled ahead of the main session on security, openness and privacy.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Yes.  Well, it's the request that we had made originally.  I just wanted to note that it wasn't reflected yet, so I'll take a look at the green versus amber, but I think the general comment I would make is that perhaps we need to ‑‑ given that this is the space we have, there may need to be more discussion about mergers or drops.  I guess I'll go for mergers amongst the ones that haven't been resolved.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, the ‑‑ I mean, the one we can solve now is the sequential mergers but for the others, I think we have to go back to the workshop organizers.

If you have the opportunity to do that while you're here ‑‑


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Yes, that's what I mean.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Fine.  Yes.


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Okay.  Again, I'm not sure who should do that.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, if you can do it, it would be best ‑‑


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Let the record show that the Secretariat has asked ‑‑



>>LIESYL FRANZ:  ‑‑ Liesyl Franz to contact workshop organizers on their behalf.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  If you have contacts with them.  If you prefer not to, fine, but, I mean ‑‑


>>LIESYL FRANZ:  I just don't want anybody to be mad at me.



>>MARKUS KUMMER:  No.  The more you can do for us, the more it is appreciated.



>>LIESYL FRANZ:  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, Nouri.


>> Nouri (saying name).  It's a side comment, actually, following Liesyl's response.  Just for future planning meetings, I think there might have actually been some miscommunication in the past as to who should communicate with workshop organizers and give them feedback about mergers or improvement in terms of multistakeholderism, dot our city, et cetera.  So just to note that maybe we need to be a little bit clearer about that in the future.

So we make sure that we communicate properly with the organizers and we don't step on anyone's toes.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yeah.  Well, the ‑‑ yeah, I take that comment, take it well.

What we did, we gave generic directions and recalled "Please remember that you are supposed," and so on and so on, but we did not go on to individual workshop organizers to request and to merge.  We will do that now, after this round.  Those who are not green, tell them, "Look, the only way for you now is to consider mergers because there's no room left."

But right now, today, we cannot do everything at the same time.

Edmon asked also for the floor, I think.


>>EDMON CHUNG:  Yeah.  Thank you.  Thank you, Markus.

I'm just curious on the schedule the regional perspectives, is that ‑‑ has that anything to do with the report back from the regional or that's not the ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That is basically a session where you are given a bit of an overview on the regional initiatives with representatives of each of the regional initiatives being on the panel, but not a full report.  More a discussion what were your priorities in Asia, what were the differences.  You had a discussion, for instance, on social inclusion, things like that.  You know, what did you have in common with others, what were the differences, what is your message to the global IGF, what do you think the global one should more in‑depth and so on, and then we give an additional slot where you can actually go more into the detail, more in department of what the regional ‑‑


>>EDMON CHUNG:  Okay.  I see that.  In that case, just want to mention the ‑‑ Number 67 is in the same time as the regional perspectives and, you know, if it could be avoided to be in the same time slot, that would be ‑‑ that would be appreciated.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Note has been taken.  67 should be given a different time slot.  To avoid the clash with the regional.  Which is in Room 4, 11:30, the morning of Tuesday.  That one is 67.  It should be given a different slot.

Thank you.  Yes, (saying name).


>> On day 3, from 9:00 to 11:00 there is a workshop on remote participation in Room 3 and there is another workshop in Room 7 about social networking and e‑participation.  I know that it has a focus on young people, but probably we are talking about the same audience here, so maybe if we could move one or the other because both address remote participation.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Good point.  You got that one?  Can you repeat?  Room ‑‑


>> It's Room 3 and Room 7 on day 3.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Which slot is that?


>> (Speaker is off microphone).




>> Yes.  126 and 165, exactly.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  We take them apart.  Brazil?


>>BRAZIL:  Yes.  I just make a ‑‑ ask for a clarification.

There is a workshop Number 156 that was classified as green, but is not ‑‑ I couldn't find it in the schedule timetable.


>> (Speaker is off microphone).




>> (Speaker is off microphone).


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Sorry.  That ‑‑ 156 was omitted by mistake.  That was already noted and will be put in.

Yes, Martin.


>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you, chair.  Martin Boyle.  I note and recognize the problems, but I note that on day 2 in the 11:30 slot, we have got three workshops, all of which are addressing digital exclusion and ...(dropped audio)... to access to the Internet.  That's 109, 114, and 182, and so I wonder whether there might still be some option for moving ...(dropped audio)... what might well be people with an interest in all three areas of activity.

I have no solutions, just a problem.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Note has been taken and we will find a solution.

Public comments?  Marilyn.


>>MARILYN CADE:   I'm sorry, Markus, can you give us just a little bit more of a description.

(Dropped audio).

People are sitting around a round table.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   It's oval, actually.


>>MARILYN CADE: Oval.  Okay.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Room 6 is an oval table with around 60 people around the table, maximum 60.

Room 7 is actually a round table, round round.  And room 8 is a hollow square.  They are both about 40 people.  They are slightly smaller.

And room 9 was supposed to have been a MAG meeting room, but we have opened that up, and we have to, similarly, we make it into a hollow square.  We have to see how it goes.


>>MARILYN CADE:   And then my other question for you is, how do you want ‑‑ since I had said I didn't have ‑‑ one of my chairs couldn't be there on the closing day, do you want me to just give you preferences for earlier in the week by e‑mail?  What's the best way to do that?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Well, that could be one way that those who have noticed the conflict, that you give preferences of possible slots.

We certainly would be grateful if you leave us a little slip of paper with your request so ‑‑


>>MARILYN CADE:   Okay.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   ‑‑ leave them here with us.

Yes, Dan, you have another ‑‑


>>DAN O'NEILL:  Do you have the setup for room 7?  You had mentioned round table.  What's the capacity?


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Around 40. Bertrand.


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  I don't know if we can make comment about further days.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Which day?


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   The wrap‑up workshop regarding governance of social media, 103 is today on this schedule, on the last day, at the same time as the emerging issues session.  And the idea was to have it before the ‑‑


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Security, openness and privacy session, yes.


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Which actually is becoming harder now because of the ICT ‑‑ of the IG4D slot in the afternoon.




>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   So at the moment it's in, yes, 103.  Right there in room 3, yeah.



You basically ‑‑ This one should be ahead of the main session on security, openness and privacy.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I'll put it tentatively ‑‑


>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   And I do lean in a round table room, if possible.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   40 would be sufficient.  I don't think we have it, but we can give you room 9.  That goes straight away.  Yes.  Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Yes, Peter.


>>PETER MAJOR:  Peter Major from the dynamic coalition.  Edmon mentioned that he wasn't very happy with his session 67, so we made a private deal, a swap.  Our workshop will be number 180 on Thursday afternoon.

So if it's a solution for everyone, I would be just happy.

So once again his workshop is 67.




>> Peter Major:  Ours is 180.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   So what you suggest is moving 180, swap the two.




>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Would that be okay for Edmon?


>>EDMON CHUNG:   Seems fine.  Looks good.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   Let's do that.  Then we have a solution.

I don't see any sort of hands shooting up.  I wonder whether we reached the end of what we can do now.

My feeling is it will take some time to rework the schedule.



>> (Speaking off microphone)


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   In other words, there is not much point in trying to get it out today and then we make mistakes.  I think it's better we do it far away and send out a revised version tomorrow.

May have I suggest also that those who are not on the MAG list that you leave us your e‑mail address.  I mean, we have ‑‑ I'm sure we have them somewhere, but just to be sure that we send it out to all of you.  Send out the revised schedule tomorrow.

And I think we reached the end of our road for these two days.

There are some other questions?  Elizabeth.


>>ELIZABETH:  Thank you very much.  I apologize if this was already raised today at some stage and I missed it, but I was wondering with regard to the booths, can you give us an indication when detailed information about size and more or less layout of the booths will be available, please.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   I haven't had the detailed plans yet.  We will have a planning mission the week after next.  They work it out.  We have now so far 28 requests for booths, and the host country would like to have a nice display of Lithuania as an ITC country and so on.  They work it around that.

But I think it will be fairly standard, you know.  It is ‑‑ LITEXPO is a standard exposition center and they have standard architecture for booths.

Chengetai, would you remember how big they are, the standard booths?

Is it three‑by‑three?

I hate to give you ‑‑ To lie, if you're wrong.  I mean, they are not huge.  I think they might be slightly smaller as they were in Sharm El Sheikh, but it will be sort of a chair, a table, electricity.

(Dropped audio)

Standard architecture.  But we will get the information.  I think, in two weeks or so, we'll get it out.

And as I said, we have 28 requests for booths.  I think it's slightly more than we had in Sharm El Sheikh.

Are there any other very down‑to‑earth important questions?

This does not seem to be the case, so can I take it, then, that ‑‑ What we will do is, as I said, revise the schedule.  We will get in touch with the remaining workshop organizers trying to make sure that we get these mergers clear.

Maybe we can have a bilateral sitting down with Liesyl as the openness ‑‑ I mean, it's no coincidence most workshops were in that category.  That we just go through the list to make sure we take advantage of us being here together.

And we will revise the program paper, which is now basically the final version.

The thematic groups are encouraged to carry on their discussions, but the speakers' list, panelists' lists and moderators' lists and so on, they are closed.

The other thing, and I cannot insist enough, are the remote moderators so we can start the training.

We will also have the remote hubs.  We close the list there in mid‑July, I think we say.  So hopefully we get also a good number of remote hubs.  I think that was fairly successful since Hyderabad worked out fairly well.

And I think Hong Kong will join us on a remote hub if Edmon's young folk.  So there's quite a lot to prepare in practical terms.



>>AYESHA HASSAN:   Just one quick question to make sure we're clear.

Should every workshop have a remote moderator?






>>MARKUS KUMMER:   That's the idea, yes.


>>AYESHA HASSAN:   Thank you.


>>MARKUS KUMMER:   And also don't forget, look at the list of resource persons that we really ‑‑ We made a call for resource persons.  I thought it was a good idea.  It came out of the open consultation process.  But my feeling is we have not made enough use of them.  The moderators of the main sessions are encouraged also to do that, but you may also wish to approach them for moderator roles, remote moderators, and so on.

But, yes, every workshop is supposed to provide their own remote moderator.  I think it has proved useful.  When you have remote moderators, you have substantive knowledge of the subject under discussion.

So if there are no more questions, then I think we can close this session and thank you all for what I think was an excellent meeting.  And we are, I think, in good shape for Vilnius.

So thank you all, and see all in Vilnius in two months, plus.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]