IGF MAG Meeting
19 May, 2011
The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of the IGF, 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.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Do we have any volunteers to lead on those two areas. For IG4D, we have -- (inaudible).
>> I would be prepared to coordinate IG for development if Fouad would volunteer for another one. I am afraid it is the only one rather I feel qualified to coordinate.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. He's not here.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. So we don't have volunteers for these two areas. I do know then the whole MAG will have to come back and deal with those two areas, the workshops around those two areas because there's nobody willing to facilitate, which means then that we are going to have to deal with the areas that have (inaudible) and come back in the afternoon and the whole MAG deal with those two areas unfortunately since nobody is willing to offer to volunteer. Is that okay then? Okay. Then I think -- (inaudible).
I will let Chengetai explain what the scenario positions are.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, in the regional and national IGFs, they came up with scenarios and that was proposed for the national -- for the main IGF as well for the Nairobi meeting.
I would call upon a volunteer to explain a bit about scenarios, just a few words. Constance?
>> INTERNET SOCIETY: Sure, thank you very much. I can say a few words about the scenario planning exercise that we've been leading within ISOC and why I think the idea of developing scenarios can be -- can offer a good basis for a session within the IGF.
For the past two years, we engaged in a scenario planning exercise to reveal possible courses of events that could impact the health of the Internet in the future. And the idea was to cover various aspects of possible developments for the future of the Internet, technological developments, commercial evolutions, legal implications and also, and maybe more importantly, the impact for users and citizens of these various evolutions.
So, obviously, the exercise of scenario planning is one that needs to be the result of interactions and discussions among a variety of stakeholders. And it also must be continuously updated, so it is a very lively exercise. And these characteristics lead us to think that it could be -- it could offer a good basis for discussion of a session within the IGF.
And if the idea was -- seemed to be interesting for the group, ISOC, of course, would be happy to participate in the exercise. Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. So adding a scenario session to your theme when you get into groups is something also worth considering.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I think we'll now go to instructions for the different groups. And I think the first thing would be to take into consideration the workshops that you think -- workshops that you think may need to be moved from one thematic area to another so the groups begin to work on workshops that are for that thematic area in particular. And the IGF Secretariat will move from one group to the other to make sure that that's done. But then I'll let the Secretariat present the instructions -- the detailed instructions for each thematic group.
But before that, I see there are hands up. Theresa?
>>THERESA SWINEHART: I just had a clarification. I think the scenario session sounds really fascinating, and I just notice that there was also a workshop proposal for that. And so I wasn't sure if we were talking about the same thing or if we were talking about something different. Just for clarification, so when we are looking at the workshops, we have a sense of whether we are trying to accommodate that workshop or whether that workshop is being proposed in a different context.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think the workshop stands on its own, yeah.
>> Thank you, Alice. Just a question, before the groups start discussing workshops, will we have available to us a list of workshop proposals without -- with those who had not submitted reports on previous workshops eliminated?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: There are very, very few of those. We can tell you. I mean, I can count them on my hand. We can eliminate them for you, yeah.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Chengetai with instructions.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. As Alice says, the purpose of today is to break out into groups. Since we have four volunteers to lead the groups, it will be good to gather around either Fouad, if you are interested in Internet governance for development main theme; Emily for management of critical Internet resources; Katitza for security, openness and privacy, and Tulika for access and diversity.
We have one additional breakout room -- before I get into detailed instructions, we have one additional breakout room, which is Room Number 10, which is down stairs. If you go down stairs and you walk down, you will find the room Number 10. So we can accommodate two groups per room. Or if you feel like it, downstairs as well, there's seating areas where you can sit around and start discussing.
There has been a template that has been distributed. And this is the template that we suggest as a guide for discussions. And what we're going to do is that we're going to get the work from this template and fit it into the program paper.
If you want, you can take the Vilnius program paper as a guide. So, basically, I can just go through them quickly in case there are any questions.
While the theme is self-explanatory, what you're covering, coordinator is the name of the contact person that we will contact; context, it is just to frame the main session or to frame that theme for the particular -- I mean, what aspect of security, openness and privacy, just to give the context to the theme.
Key observation from sessions of previous IGF events, there was a comment yesterday saying that it would be very good to look at previous Chairman summaries so that we don't repeat things and we can improve on it. Please don't spend too much time on this. The Secretariat can do this. But if others in the group have already done it, you can write down your observations. I will be sending out a soft copy of this.
Key questions, yesterday we discussed that some of the main themes, there may be some modifications to the key questions, I mean, not major modifications but just slight. You can just paste it in there and your suggestions.
A selection of the feeder workshops and also comments on the workshops, whether you comment, okay, these two will be good if it would be merged or this is a good one if they had one more person to give a more balanced overview. Or whatever comments you have, you just put it in this box.
Speakers for the main session, a list of speakers for the main session, I think that's self-explanatory.
Contact details, of course, you don't have to have the full contact details. But this always can be added online once we leave today. But as long as we've got a strong framework to work on as we go along and take the most advantage of us being physically here in one room.
Suggestions for the main session, moderators, it can be one moderator, it can be two moderators, just put their names down.
Of course, if they're not here, they have to be confirmed.
Suggestions for a remote moderator, which is very important since we're doing a strong push for remote participation.
Other selected workshops which may not be feeder workshops but still fall underneath that main theme that you think are worth putting into the schedule. Identify potential workshop organizers -- I'm sorry. I can't read it.
Oh, if there is further necessary workshops you think, if something is lacking in that theme but I would ask you to not start adding as we had that discussion yesterday, just if something is really -- and also rejected workshops, if you want to give a reason because somebody will ask and we can -- if you can put that there.
So that is the plan. We break out into these two groups. The Secretariat will be walking around. The first thing we would like is, if you could, identify workshops you would like to move to another theme because people will then start working on these workshops and we don't want duplication of effort. And we'll come around and collect the names. We'll come around periodically just to see how things are going on.
And the plan is to report back here at 3:00. And then we have a full discussion with the full room about each individual coordinator -- group coordinator.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Chengetai. So when we get back at 3:00, we'll discuss, I think, the full and then also have to work on the two areas that don't have coordinators in plenary.
So, yes, time to go. It's now nearly half past 10:00. Yeah, so if there are any questions or comments.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Pardon me. Thank you. Just a suggestion. I'm wondering if it doesn't make sense for us to spend the next two hours doing this, come back here at 12:30 and just have a little debrief for half an hour, especially given that we now have the couple of items that we're going to have to do in plenary? Just a suggestion.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, that's a good suggestion. Yes?
>> COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Thank you. Just because I'm -- I can't be in three places at the same time. Maybe for some people, there are workshops which appear in different groups of people. So I would just like to mention that I will try to go between groups, but it is not always so easy to talk about your workshop or take comments if they are happening in parallel. There are different workshops to discuss in several groups. So I would like the chance later to jump groups or to speak to somebody about workshops. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I would like to encourage people who have different workshop proposals in different areas to declare that up front so we don't spend so much time on that either. Yes, thank you.
Any other questions or comments? Ayesha, thank you.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Sorry. I'm just wondering what will happen now if Fouad -- I can't see everybody, so I don't know if Fouad and Tulika are here.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Anriette has volunteered to take over for Fouad. If he is not here, so she can be deputy coordinator, if she agrees.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. And do we have somebody who would take the place of Tulika until she comes? So it is not a full commitment. It is just leading the group so that the work can go on. Access and diversity?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: You'll do it? Thank you very much.
Any other comments? Or questions? Okay. So the suggestion is to come back at 12:30 for debriefing, and then we break for lunch and come back at 3:00 for full plenary.
Thank you. We can go into groups now.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'm so sorry. We need two volunteers -- two group volunteers who are going to go to Room 10. Okay. Thank you very much. Access and diversity. We need one more. We need a volunteer to -- if you want to stay or you want to go. (Speaker off microphone).
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for coming back. The moderator Alice cannot make it now, but she'll be back in for the afternoon session. So I'll just leave the session with the reporting back from the various groups. Have any of the groups completed the exercise? Yes. Oh, great. Nope. More or less, 80%.
(Speaker off microphone)
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: What I suggest we do is have reporting back from the groups. We'll just take it in the order that they are in the program paper. We'll have Internet governance first; managing critical Internet resources; security, openness, and privacy; access and diversity. This is just a reporting back so that we know where everybody stands. There's going to be a more substantive discussion in the afternoon, also because I was hearing that there are some workshops that may not have been sent to the other groups. But let's just get an overview of where each group stands.
So everybody's in agreement? Okay. So I would like to call upon Fouad to please give the presentation.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: I was lucky to have a couple deputies. Thank you to Ayesha.
>>I would like to thank the group for working very well and just to also reflect that we had also substantial developing country participation in the group. Ayesha, you can do the report.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: We had two streams of questions about what are the policy challenges from a development perspective and what are the institutional or process challenges around inclusiveness of developing country participants? We then went through each of the topic areas -- emerging issues, security, openness, privacy, et cetera. And we came up with speaker ideas. And we have a good set of speakers.
I think it's important to point out we've tried to go beyond the usual suspects. So we have a very good range, about five or six for each of the main session topic areas. We also have identified a good set of possible moderators. And we thought it would be good to actually have two moderators for this session. So with co-moderators we have some nice options. We've identified and pretty much finalized our two remote moderators. One is from APC, and the other we thought would be Barrack Otieno who used to be with the Secretariat. On the workshops we really started -- we got through about six of them. So we made recommendations about moving a few, about a few that may need to be resubmitted with more information, and one where we have kind of a creative option for them because we didn't feel it was connected with Internet governance, really. We felt they should be provided with a meeting room, a side meeting room, and a booth to be able to express ideas. And that's where we are. Anriette, if you want to add --
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. We'll go on to the next group. Managing critical Internet resources.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: Okay. We approached our task probably in the opposite order to the previous group. So we have focused very much on the workshops. And we've left issues about moderators and so on for another time. Maybe this afternoon.
So the first thing that we did was identify ones that have been listed in our group but didn't fit. And the only one that we thought -- and I think it already has been moved -- is number 10, which should be in taking stock, moving forward, whatever it's called.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: And the other group has accepted it?
>>EMILY TAYLOR: We think it's already moved.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Already moved, okay.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: Once that we've already acquired or propose to acquire is as follows: 181, disaster preparedness; 198, regulatory -- sorry, can't remember the rest of it. Legal policy regulatory issues pertaining to the digital divide. Now, I don't think -- those are IG4D.
>> Not any more.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: Okay. Other ones. 147 about native and Latin languages; 64, interconnecting Africa; 96, economic aspects of local language content and local Internet infrastructure; and 197, legal and policy issues relating to IDNs.
Now those -- 1, 2, 3, 4, those are all in access and diversity. And we've negotiated those. I'm sure I'll be corrected.
Looking at the program paper questions, we've identified the following feeder workshops for the questions.
Question 1, which relates to IPv4 to 6 transition, we proposed 165. We also think 82 is relevant to this. And I'll come back to this, to our ideas about that in a second.
Question 2, which is about accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness in Internet resources, workshop 70 is proposed as the feeder for that.
On question 3, which is role of each stakeholder, we think there are two very strong workshop proposals which could be feeders, 18 or 135. They may merge, but I think we're sort of -- we're not proposing that at the moment. We're just saying that these are in the ring.
Question 4 is in the program paper, the question relates to capacity building. And we propose to reframe that question to be a bit more specific, bearing in mind issues that have emerged from the workshop proposals. And one of the strong issues that we think has come over is the linkages between local Internet infrastructure and critical resources and the sort of -- the interplay between the pipes and wires and the enabling policy environment, which we see in those workshop proposals. And we think that two very strong workshops are 96 and 64, either of which could be feeder workshops.
We've also identified a cluster of workshop proposals relating to IDN deployment. We say that critical Internet resources seems a natural home for those, but we're not grabbing them. We're happy to hear other views. The cluster we think is 25, 69, 147, possibly 262.
We propose to reject the following workshops as not meeting the criteria and having low scores. Those are 198 and 197.
And we would like to keep the following workshops but not have them as feeders. They're 168 and 180, which also relate to the security topic. And 181 which also relates to IG4D. Our proposal -- there are some workshops that sit comfortably, not just in one topic, but in several. And we were wondering whether in the program paper, those could be colored with, you know, two colors. So that people can understand that they're not just in a silo, that they do span across more than one topic. So thank you. That's our input.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Emily. These workshops that you want to be bicolored, they're not feeder workshops. They're just workshops that you propose -- Okay. I think that can happen.
And workshops number 25, 69, 147, and 262, are they in your -- are they in managing critical Internet resources? Or are they in other groups?
>>EMILY TAYLOR: They're actually -- they span across a number. There's a couple that are in critical Internet resources, and there's a couple that we propose to grab. But they're really all looking at the same thing from a different angle IDNs.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Because my next question would be, has the other group -- have you talked to the other group about them?
>>EMILY TAYLOR: We talked to the -- I think we have actually. Help? We talked to the access diversity people.
>> I think that the ones that we talk about in the IDN class, 69 and 147, it's our view that we have finished the negotiation and those workshops are ours. But, of course, the other group might object to that conclusion of ours.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Does anybody object to that? No. Okay. Then that's fine.
>> Just a point of note. I think all the workshops from, like, all the groups that are coming with regards to IG4D, I think are in a better position in the latter half of the afternoon to go through the proposals whether they do IG4D section or not.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Thank you. Should we go on to the next group? Security openness and privacy. Katitza.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, sir. We had a great discussion about issues that might be discussed in the main session. We tried to talk about principles or identified commonalities that we got agreed on Internet security, privacy, and openness. And we reviewed the actual test of the program committee and one-way verification in the last question, especially the program paper said that should we identify policies, choices -- public policies and best practices for players in the Internet that protect openness, privacy, and security for all individuals.
The change is that we have added the word "public policies." We had a broad discussion about the issues we might be able to bring to others in the session.
Some participants expressed their views that there's a need to discuss about a free flow of information or others preferred to use a term persons from -- there's an open discussion in what happened in the adapting from -- the role of social media and also the role of the traditional media, which was already covered in the actual program paper. There was discussion about protection, the need to discuss about cybersecurity, cybercrime issues. For others it's a means of open access or open content. There was discussion about the role of traditional and new media, the reliability of information, and the protection of sources, the role of journalisms and the role of citizen journalisms. Anonymity and IP address, the importance of IP addresses -- anonymity of IP addresses.
There were also discussions about limitations of freedom of expression. Some participants want to discuss about there are too many limitations of free expression in some countries, and they want to discuss those issues.
There were also a proposal to discuss global approaches of regulatory frameworks or public policy frameworks, cloud computing, and to have use participants.
So I think we need to have further discussion on how to narrow the discussions into detail to make interesting sessions. But these are the issues.
And another principle that was discussed and that was important was to take into account what was said in the open consultation. So, especially, in the open consultation, while many participants expressed their view of what they want to see in that session.
We were not able to identify -- and we will leave it for later -- the moderators, speakers. We haven't done that work.
But we went through all the list of all the workshops, and we were able to identify who belongs -- which workshops belongs to this category, which are we suggest to merge with others, and which workshops should go to other category, although we haven't identified exactly which categories as of now.
So I will go through.
Workshop 75, we should keep it.
Workshop 77, we should keep it. No? Oh, 75 is the new one. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. 75 is -- yeah. There were a problem with the workshops 75. I think it's the new one. It's the one that has been added at a later stage. And there were concerns that we haven't had the time to read the workshop proposal. Yes.
>> Thank you. That's a point I want to make for the record. And I think at least some of the participants with the group agreed it was very unfortunate that some of the workshops that we had to go through were not actually in the list that was published in the workshop that were submitted in time for the deadline. Now, we don't understand what is the problem there. But once the workshops arrived after the deadline, we don't want to reject those; because some those are, frankly, very interesting. In view of all the discussion we had yesterday on the rules-based approach, more attention should be paid to this. Also because it really complicated our work in conjunction with the fact we couldn't access the Internet.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Okay. So one of these workshops is number 75. So we've not had the opportunity to read the content of that workshop. But we continue with the other list.
77, we keep it in this category. And we suggest to merge with number 20.
85 we keep it in this category. We suggest for our feeder workshop. It can be a feeder workshop? No? Possible feeder workshop. Yes, exactly. Those are possible. We don't have -- well, it was very important, first, to decide which was the content of the main session. So all of our suggestions for feeder workshops are just a possibility. It's not just final. We haven't taken any final decision of anything. These are the ones that we have identified that are good enough to be a feeder workshop. Am I correct? Yes.
So 105, keep it.
110, keep it.
111, keep it.
115, keep it for a possible merge. We haven't identified which is -- which workshop it could be merged, but we think it could be merged.
116, keep it.
118, keep it. A possible merge, too, there. 123, keep it. But there is a possible merge with the workshop 110 for open data.
And 124, keep it; but we need more information from the workshop organizers. They need to provide much more information.
They have 130, keep it. And it's -- we believe that it not belongs to the category, security, openness, and privacy and should be moved to another category.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Sorry. I think, just for time, if you can give us the workshops that you think should move to another category, I think that's the important part, since the other groups are working on that. And then, when we come back in the afternoon, we can go through the list.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Okay. We haven't identified which category. I can say it does not belong to security, privacy, and openness. That's the information we have so far.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I just have one extra request from our scribes. Every time you take the floor, please say your name. That makes easier for them to keep track. Thank you.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: My name is Katitza Rodriguez.
130 is keep it but move it to another category. We don't have the category. There is a workshop 156, 148, 153. All of them is the same workshop by same speakers. And all belongs to the same stakeholder group. And within the stakeholder group, the same organization. So we have suggest to merge. All of them should merge among themselves. And also we think that this work, lack of diversity of stakeholders, and we should -- they should include other views. But topic was pertinent to the main session.
160, keep it. And it will be a feeder -- can be a possible feeder workshop. It might be -- it can be a recommendation, for instance, to merge with the workshop of open data, 110.
Then we have 166. Suggestion to move to taking the stocks and way forward. 166.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Have they agreed? Sorry. There's nobody -- okay. Yes, that's fine. We can discuss that in the afternoon.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Then we have 176. Possible merge with 118.
And then we have 194 and 195. We think that we agree that we should reject that proposal because it doesn't comply with any of the requirements and is -- they have a vague description. We were not able to identify the systems of the discussion. This is a workshop 194, 195, and 196 also from the same organizations or then 202. It's also possible to be merged that workshop. We haven't identified with which workshop, specifically.
205, we think that it should be kept; but we should suggest the organizers could reframe the title because it has the words "architecture" and it misleads many participants that it's related to critical Internet resources when it's not related to that area.
202, keep it.
209, keep it for possible feeder workshop.
231, let's move it to IG4D.
And 438, it's also one of the workshops that have been incorporated in the last moment. It was a very good workshop proposal. It was discussed, but there were concerns that it was incorporated in the list after the deadline. Thank you. That's all we were able to discuss.
>>ANJAN BOSE: One of the other issues that the group also touched on was child protection and youth participation, which was discussed among the group and the workshops related to those.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Excuse me. Can I ask you please to also mention your name before speaking, Thank you.
>>ANJAN BOSE: Anjan Bose from ECPAT International. Thank you.
>>ANDREA GLORIOSO: Sorry. Just a request for clarity on procedure, as Katitza, this was just a first proposal. In terms of possible proposals to shift the workshops to other teams or for other teams to shift the workshops to our team, is this something that needs to be done by today? Or is there going to be the possibility to discuss it further. I find it challenging that we'll be able to discuss all the various shifts of the workshops this afternoon.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: The hope was that it would be possible to talk to the other groups, to the concerned group, to see if they would be shifted over and if the other group wants them. If they don't, then we have to put the workshop in an "other" category. But then the chances of that workshop being accepted would be less.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you for the clarification. By the way, my name is Andrea Glorioso from the European Commission.
>>Thank you, Mr. Secretariat. There's a question from a remote participant, Ms. Nirani, that remote participants will need an agenda because it is very important for them. They need an agenda to be published.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we will. Sorry, We did have a verbal one in the morning, but we can do that.
The next group is access and diversity.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: This is Tulika Pandey. I would like to thank my team for coming out. We're a little late. I would like to thank each one of them again. To make it short, we had 29 proposals. In all but one we had an online dialogue with the CIR group. We were lucky to get them to agree to accept 4 from us. The numbers are 64, 147, a question mark there on 197 whether they have taken it or regret it. You took it. So it goes off ours. And they accepted 96 also. Number 96 goes to CIR. And number 262 we also propose to give to CIR. 262. The proposal is Internet governance across cultures, immigration as a microcosm in the world of diversity, vision, and trust in a global setting.
>>PATRIK FALTSTROM: Patrik Faltstrom here. We're happy to receive that. So done.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: Thank you. We've given five to CIR group. We have received one proposal number, 129, to be moved to emerging issues. We've not yet discussed with the team, but we propose to do so with them. We also have proposed to move another proposal, number 185, to IG4D. Once again, we have not been able to get in touch with them. And we will do that in the afternoon. We have also arrived at conclusion in terms of merging of proposals within access and diversity. So we propose to merge -- we propose to seek a merger between proposals 134 and 203.
This, again, could be a merger. And this would either make the proposal move to IG4D or remain with access and diversity because 203 is under IG4D. Whereas, 144 is with us. So we have to arrive the at the final destination or list where it would come.
We have proposals number 22 and 112. We propose to request them to merge to bring out a single workshop proposal there. This -- these proposals are for ICT and youth. And they both are good proposals. We would like them to be there. Yet they talk about exclusiveness of youth in ICT and their issues. And we would like them to merge together to bring out a little more focus on that issue.
We propose also to request proposals 211 and 73 to merge into a single workshop. The two proposals are an open source. And, therefore, we thought we could, once again, ask them to bring in more focus by bringing them together under one proposal, one workshop.
And we have proposals 136 and 137. We've requested them to again merge together because they are focusing on accessibility issues for the differently-abled, policies as well as social aspects. And we at least have an agreement there from them. We have spoken to the team. This is a proposal from -- I do not know. I remember ITU, but it's --
(Speaker off microphone)
>>TULIKA PANDEY: Yeah. Thank you. We have not yet arrived at the exact proposals which would function as feeder workshops for us. We have identified a few, but I would like to come back later after complete discussion on that. And we have yet to come out with moderators and speakers.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Thank you very much.
>>PATRIK FƒLSTR÷M: Patrik F‰ltstrˆm here. You mentioned you wanted to give Number 5 to CIR. That sounds really interesting, but we don't know what 5 is.
>> (Speaker off microphone.)
>>PATRIK FƒLSTR÷M: Can you use the microphone, please.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: I mentioned five proposals going to CIR.
>>PATRIK FƒLSTR÷M: Ahhh, thank you very much.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: CIR have accepted those five proposals. Okay, good.
So, basically, now since we have an overview of what's happening and there are some outstanding groups that have to talk to each other about moving workshops, if they could please do that during the lunchtime.
There are some groups who have finished. Am I correct, Emily?
>>EMILY TAYLOR: We just need to talk about moderators and maybe panel members, speakers.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: What I would suggest is that as soon as you think you have completed for now the tasks, you can hand it over -- you can hand over your sheets to the Secretariat so we could try and do a compilation, if that's possible. I'm not too sure if we will be able to, given the time and given where each group is. It is rather uneven.
But if we can come back here at 3:00, and then we can start discussing in detail and also discussing the groups for emerging issues and taking stock on the way forward as a group. Is that suitable for everybody? No objection? Okay. Good.
So we'll break for lunch and come back at 3:00.
>> Excuse me. Can we have attention for all the IG4D people. Can we come back after an hour and complete our work? Okay. Shall we meet in the same place, or shall we meet in here, in this room? So the IG4D group in this room at 2:30.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are about to start.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Good afternoon, everybody. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for all the hard work within the groups and a special thank you to the non-MAG members for participating and contributing in the work.
We've still got two themes that have not been dealt with, and I think I need your help in deciding how we are going to deal with it. Either somebody has the enthusiasm to lead because we can give it one hour to just deal with emerging issues and taking stock, so we can get two people to lead or facilitate those sessions so we can finish and then report back all the sessions.
Anybody who has come back with the energy and the enthusiasm to lead on that? Because that's how we would like to go, at least finalize on the other two that have not been dealt with in the working group before we move on to reporting back.
>> ALVARO GALVANI: The IG4D group made a suggestion that this session would pose some questions to be dealt with during the main sessions or the three main sessions on substantive issues. And the same issues could be revisited in the taking stock session in order -- like an opening and ending very linked in the whole IGF. Maybe we could use this proposal to frame the taking stock suggestion.
I would suggest this would be the final format, taking stock session would revisit the questions addressed by the IG4D session.
And regarding the speakers, I don't know, we could use -- maybe could use the same speakers in order to make it easier and choose a different moderator to the plenary. Just a suggestion. Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Any comments on that?
Ayesha, thank you.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Yeah. I think that the linkage between the IG4D and taking stock session is a good one. I think there might be a few other ones that could be -- because the taking stock session is long so we have enough time. It was suggested in the last round of discussions on the taking stock in February, that we might also want to pick up on some of the issues that had been discussed as emerging issues in the past.
I also think that giving a set of four or five people two main session speaking slots is probably not the most productive way of distributing the opportunity to participate in the main sessions of the IGF. So I'm in agreement with Alvaro up to the point where he suggests using the same speakers. I think we should give additional people the opportunity to pick up on those themes. Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Tulika?
>>TULIKA PANDEY: I am in agreement with Alvaro and Ayesha. But then taking stock is a session which is going to take stock even for access and diversity and is also going to take stock on security matters. There is also a session where you will take stock on critical Internet resources.
So I wonder if we could take this proposal further to say that it would include speakers from all the other main sessions, some kind of an inclusion of moderators or somebody who would then bring out the standards of today. Because this is the sixth IGF and in a way very important for these very reasons.
>> FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Madam Moderator. Building on the suggestions from Alvaro and concerns from the ICC and what Tulika has said, we observed that in the taking stock session, apart from the speakers, there are a lot of contributors from the floor. So I think that the possible report back or look into how those -- the development aspect was covered throughout the sessions would be reported or analyzed. I think it is a possibility to explore.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Sorry. (inaudible).
>> FOUAD BAJWA: That is, I think, a common aspect we've seen a lot of consensus on.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So is there consensus on that?
>> MARILIA MACIEL: I'd like to agree with what Fouad has proposed, also to say on this taking stock session, maybe it is time for us to revisit what has been discussed on workshops under taking stock. So if we have additional time to bring in other issues. I would like to see these issues covered in the main session because I believe these workshops have a lot to contribute and should be shared with all the IGF community on very specific and important. -- (poor audio).
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I just wanted to check. Do the remote participants know we are now talking about taking stock because they are battling to follow the agenda.
I want to stress this methodology that we are proposing is that the development agenda questions that are asked at the beginning are reflected on in that session. But I agree that there are other issues.
I want to propose that we look at the different format for that session to just panel and plenary and we try to do something a little more innovative such as using open space technology. I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with that, but some format where you actually have a combination of speakers but then also people being able to meet throughout the room, clustering around different issues and much more interactive, much more vibrant.
I don't want to go into too much detail.
But there are facilitation methodologies that are specifically geared towards getting the collective input from a large group of people. So, you know, I would just -- yes, I would suggest that we explore something like that for that session.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay, thank you.
Any other comments? So we are in agreement in how to deal with taking stock.
What about emerging issues? Emerging issues? Ayesha.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Just wanted to point out that most of the workshop proposals that were put in under taking way forward are not really about what the taking-stock-in-way-forward session is supposed to be about but are about IGF improvements. And so we should probably just rename that category because there is no other box to put your proposal in under. That was why that happened. Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Fouad?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you. Amongst our group, when we were in the IG4D working group, we actually sort of just gave a bit of idea -- sorry, some topics affect us which actually don't fit into the existing session-based categories. And there might be a possibility to explore that we have just another category as a basket to hold these workshops.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would suggest that we have an "other" category which we can put in because if we start naming it, we will get the same problem.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Bill.
>>BILL DRAKE: I'm one of the workshops that was submitted under taking stock because because it is taking stock of Internet governance, but it really is not directed to the topic. There was nowhere else to put it. So if we can just have the "other" category.
I think actually think "knowledge sharing" is good. It would solve a lot of problems in terms of people trying to figure out how they are supposed to do this.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So "knowledge sharing"? Okay, thanks.
How do we deal with emerging issues? Shall we deal with it here in plenary? Is there anybody willing to lead a small working group for about 40 minutes to just look at these workshops?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Are there any takers, or should we just deal with it as an entire group? Silence meaning we deal with it as an entire group.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. So I think the idea is to look at the workshops and decide which ones -- I don't know. Just hold on.
So I think the idea is if we are happy with the questions under emerging issues and the subquestions and whether the workshop's proposed respond -- Oh, Patrik.
>>PATRIK FƒLSTR÷M: Sorry for interrupting. But Nurani Nimpuno, MAG member remotely, once again, is asking for what is on the agenda for the afternoon because she asks: Are we talking workshops all afternoon? Will there be any MAG/IGF improvement discussions or any other agenda items?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We're just discussing the program. The agenda is -- you know, we had two thematic areas that didn't have working group facilitators so we've finished and dealt with taking stock way forward.
Now we're working on emerging issues, the questions, and whether the workshops suit the questions in that category.
And then we'll report back on the themes -- the working group reports, and then any other business, and then close the meeting.
We are not going to be discussing IGF improvements at the moment today.
>>PATRIK FƒLSTR÷M: She also thanks you for that message. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thanks.
So I think we will go back to whether we are happy with the questions in emerging issues. And the main question is: Is governance different for mobile Internet from the wired Internet? And the subquestions are: What are the key development issues given strong mobile (poor audio) in developing countries and use of new equipment and applications that did not exist before.
How do Internet policy and regulation choices in mobile Internet (inaudible) impact on the range of human rights, openness and neutrality? What are the policy and governance choices and opportunities in the Internet -- mobile Internet space that foster innovation, skills building, entrepreneurship, and maximizing the Internet for economic development.
So are those questions appropriate? And do we think that the workshops that have been proposed respond to those questions? Are we happy with all the workshops proposed?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: There was (inaudible) workshops that are relevant, and I think there are a few workshops that we saw in the IG4D section which we felt could be moved to the emerging issues because they were pertaining to mobile Internet issues that would be useful to feed in for this set of topics. There are some -- in my review of the workshops in this category, there are some that are not clear or developed, and there are also some that are not directly relating to this set of emerging issues. There are a few of them that are emerging issues but should probably go into the "other" category, or whatever that category will be called.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Would you like to point those out so we can just -- yes -- move it.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Okay. Number 8, protecting professional identity. For me, that was unclear, needs further development and unclear that this relates in any way to mobile Internet. I mean, it doesn't.
(Speaker off microphone.)
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Number 9, same. Number 63 is a strong one, could possibly be a feeder workshop. 79 is on copyright. It's a developed program, but not relevant to mobile Internet.
Digital -- that was 79.
80, again, a developed workshop proposal, but not pertaining to this set of emerging issues.
Same for 82.
98 is on the ccTLD ecosystem. Seems to need further development, but is not pertaining to this -- to mobile.
108. Well, that's unfair because it's the ICC and the government of Kenya. But it is a balanced, well-developed proposal, if I can say so. And it directly relates to this topic area.
122. See, this relates to last year's emerging issue. Cloud computing. I think it's a strong proposal. 122 can probably be put into the "other" category.
132 I didn't think that related to mobile. 139 needs further development, is on ICTs and innovation. So I'm not sure it needs to focus on IG issues and then belong in the "other" category.
175 is not an emerging issue, but it seems to be going in the right direction to be relevant to something in the "other" category.
184 needs further development, not a mobile-related workshop.
201 needs a lot more information, unclear. And that would -- and if it were further developed, it would be in the "other" category.
277 is, again, on cloud computing. Needs more work, but be in the "other" category. 155, human rights, unifying approach, et cetera, this needs further development but not connected to mobile.
214 is about cloud. It's a well-developed proposal but should be in the "other" category. Thanks.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Ayesha. Anriette?
>>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN: Seeing that Ayesha has paved the way for me by talking about ICC's well-developed and balanced proposal, I'm going to take the liberty to defend the APC proposal conflict mineral. How can you say that conflict minerals are not relevant to mobile? It's about the conflict that results from the mining and trade in conflict minerals that are used in mobile handsets. So there might be other reasons it may not be relevant, but we thought it was very relevant to mobile.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: I'm convinced, Anriette. Keep it in this category.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much, Ayesha and Anriette for that.
Okay. So the suggestion is quite a number of them actually belong to the "other" category. I think there's one or two that belong to the development agenda. And then we're left with about how many?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I count --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Maybe 10. About 10 of them under emerging issues or less.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Less than that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So about seven or so under emerging issues. Ayesha?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Plus 2 from the IG4D category, which have mobile in them.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So approximately 10. And all the others, then, move to the "other" category. Okay. That was not too difficult.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: About the main session itself, taking comments, speakers about the main session for emerging issues.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah. The main speakers? So emerging issue main session speakers. Theresa?
>>THERESA SWINEHEART: Well, we have a quite senior person who is likely attending, so we'd be happy to offer up somebody in relation to that and can talk about broadband mobile and things of that sort and experiences. So we're happy to just throw that out there.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: From ICC, right? Yes. Okay. Any other suggestions? That's one, ICC. I can offer the government of Kenya, of course. Yeah.
(Speaker off microphone)
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So, then, the Secretariat will develop it further and send it to the mailing list for comments. Thank you.
Then we can move -- oh, Anriette.
>>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN: I think it's quite difficult to discuss this in plenary. So maybe those of us that are interested in like business we would also have some speakers to present. You know, we have the OECD. For example, I think someone like Erica Zeitman. So maybe those of us who are interested in identifying people for the session could volunteer. Ayesha, Theresa. So maybe if the chairs can ask for anyone who else are willing to volunteer to have a discussion on this with a set deadline, which we can -- which can be set by you for us now.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So within the next week? Yeah, because we really would want the -- yeah, the program finalized soon. Theresa?
>>THERESA SWINEHEART: Sorry. Not to be -- I think -- ICC had also made the comment yesterday with regards to plenary -- and this also goes to the workshops -- to really -- I think we really need to make sure that we have full diversity from the stakeholder groups and global diversity and participation on these sessions. And so I think it's a good idea if the stakeholder groups could try to come together and identify participants and reflecting the fact that we have that full level of engagement.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Meet the criteria. Thank you. Yes. All right. So we have finished with emerging issues and taking stock. We can move on to reporting back on the themes. And I think we'll start with the IG4D.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Or we can go in reverse order.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Or even in reverse order. We can start with access and diversity. Tulika. Thank you. Microphone, please.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: Yeah. This is Tulika Pandey. Just reiterating what I had already mentioned in the afternoon. And I had brought out a note in consultation with the team. When we talk about speakers, we will just say that we will identify a rep from the government, African government and maybe a few other government reps, people from the civil society, business, as well as academia to be speakers. And we would like to have a week's time to send the names after consulting with those we propose to put in there. We would not be able to do it today. And we will have somebody from the -- either from the international or from the civil society as a moderator. I have two names there. But, again, I would like to sort of finalize before placing on board here. That may take maybe by this evening we would arrive at the final names within the team. And we can give that to you. Sorry?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: One week is fine.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: One week is fine. Thanks. I get more than I demand.
Like I'd mentioned, out of the 29 that we had, we have shifted five to -- five proposals to the critical Internet resources group. And I mentioned details of the proposals here in my note that I will be posting to the GAC IGF Secretariat. We will also propose to send two proposals, 144 and 185 to IG4D. And they have not fought back with us. It seems, therefore -- and I take it as they have accepted these two proposals.
We had proposed one proposal number 129 to be considered under the emerging issues. And the proposal is on media mutation. What is the future of the news and media industry in the world of social networking? We had arrived at this conclusion that this would be better covered under emerging issues. So we have eight proposals that we've moved out of the group to other groups. And we had commented on an agreement that we will request proposal of the following workshops to merge with each other. These are proposals from within the same group.
So -- under the access and diversity group we had proposal number 76 and 112, which talks about youth and ICT. And we would request that number 76 merge with number 112. I'm talking in order of which workshop would be requested to merge with the other one. So the second request is the proposal 211 to merge with proposal 73, which is on free and open source tool. And enterprises. So...
The third request or proposal that we have is proposal 136 to merge with proposal 137, which is from the dynamic coalition and this is focused on accessibility for differently-abled.
To the questions that we needed to respond to, we had six questions under access and diversity. The first question on the technical conversion and policy obstacles, we have a proposal of feeder workshop that we proposed. This is the first draft that we have here. We would like to add some to this, but these are the ones that we have identified as feeder workshops responding to these questions.
So proposal number 113 is the feeder workshop that we propose for the first question.
For the question number 2 on current obstacles to access to knowledge and content online, we propose the proposal number 101 as a feeder workshop. In my note I also mentioned the organization which has proposed this or the organizations which have proposed this workshop.
To question number 3 proposal number 163 is a feeder workshop that we propose. This is on policy options to address those obstacles with access to both structure and knowledge, content, and what are the roles of the broader Internet community in that regard?
The feeder workshop here is number 163. Question number 4 on access infrastructure and knowledge in the context of developing countries. The feeder workshop for part A, which is on transformation of education, innovation, and entrepreneurship, the feeder workshop is number 188, which talks about transforming higher education through broadband, maximizing the opportunities.
To Part B, fight poverty and promote social and human development. The feeder workshop proposed is number 126, which talks about Internet for democratic participation of vulnerable people in public life, best practices exchange.
To question number 5, which talks about regulation of digital content and its impact on diversity, proposed feeder workshop is number 87, which talks about citizen empowerment through the social use of ICTs.
To the question number 6, which talks about participatory and inclusive Internet, taking into consideration the rights of people with disabilities, multilingualism and inclusion of the socially excluded groups, we propose the workshop number 136 as a feeder workshop, which talks about implementing good practices in accessibility for an inclusive society. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Tulika. The first question is whether the critical Internet resources group and the IG4D have accepted the proposal to have the workshops you're proposing.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: I thought I said that.
(Speaker off microphone).
What we had proposed was to transfer five proposals to your group, to the CIR.
Number 64, which is interconnecting Africa, opportunities and obstacles along the way; number 96, economic aspects of local economy creation and local Internet infrastructure; number 147, which is use of Latin and native languages on the Internet; number 197, which talks about legal policy and regulatory issues pertaining to Internationalized Domain Names; and number 262, again, which talks about Internet governance across cultures in the Pacific region as a microcosm of diversity interest in a global society.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Emily.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: I can confirm that we've accepted all of those. A couple of those we've rejected on their scoring. But, yes, we're definitely dealing with those under critical Internet resources.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. What about IG4D?
>>TULIKA PANDEY: The two proposals we propose to transfer to IG4D is number 144, which talks about human rights come first, a constitutional moment for Internet governance. Fouad?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Fouad and Ayesha.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: I'd like to say one thing that we did not consider the proposals coming from the other sessions at the moment. And Ayesha would be able to comment further on this, because she was taking note of the process.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: We noted that 144 were coming to us from access and diversity. We felt they fit in the category, but the next step is qualitative review.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Thank you.
(Speaker off microphone)
>>AYESHA HASSAN: We accept that they belong in our basket. We haven't rejected the proposal or accepted it on quality --
>>TULIKA PANDEY: That's good enough for us. We've got offers. The last one is number 129 on media and mutation, what is the future of the news and media industry in social networking. We have proposed that this be moved to the emerging issues aspect and it's open to --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: For discussion.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: -- for discussion, yeah.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: So any comments to begin with on the moving 129 to emerging issues? Any strong objection? Okay. So we can consider it under emerging issues. And then any comments for access and diversity working group. Or questions?
Okay. All clear. Thank you very much. I want to ask any workshops that you may have at all that you may have dropped.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: Yes, I missed that. We have dropped proposal number 87, which is citizen empowerment to the social adversities. This is because of its incompleteness, we were not able to comprehend exactly what the proposal was as well as it was incomplete. So, on that basis, we have arrived at this conclusion that we may not consider this proposal at all.
And we have another proposal, number 90, which is on eLearning and innovating educational tools for global awareness and citizenship. Same reasons. We are not sure whether it belongs to us. And the proposal is incomplete, and the details given do not allow us to comprehend whether they really are addressing the issue that they have taken on.
These are the only two proposals that we have rejected.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on that?
Then we can move on -- Council of Europe?
>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on workshop 90, I know that that's proposed by the North Center of a branch of the Council of Europe in Lisbon. And I know somewhat of the details. But, I mean, I can pursue contact with them. But, if you're saying it's rejected, I just want to know clearly what you -- is it a proposal to reject it or -- I need to communicate that back to my colleagues, because -- I just want some clarity on the rejection or not of workshop 90.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Does the working group want to respond to that? Microphone, please.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: Marilia, would you like to take this on or I respond.
>>MARILIA MACIEL: No, I think I don't have anything to add to what you have said. The proposal was not clear for the whole group. We could not understand clearly what the focus was. And so I don't have anything to add to what you have said, Tulika.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Okay. Chengetai?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. I think if the working group thinks the workshop should be rejected and they were not able to understand it, then I think that's grounds enough to reject it. I do have a concern that we still -- after this process, we still have too many workshops. And the Secretariat will have to go through a process of rejecting some of them, you know, in order to fit into the program. So I would ask you, please, to be -- to reject more workshops, if you can, for, you know, reasons.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Tulika.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: We stand by the two proposals that we have proposed for rejection. And with this we have exactly 20 proposals under access and diversity. And, therefore, we would like to maintain this, instead of taking on a little more discussion with the proposals. Because we already need to discuss with the proposals on which we have sought merger. So I think the working group has enough on its hands now, and I would not take on any more. But in case you would like to come back to us with the proposers or something, we don't mind looking at what exactly was intended, because it's a good proposal. But it didn't really come out clearly as to what they intended to achieve out of it. So --
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Tulika. Council of Europe.
>>COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Thank you. I'm not defending this proposal. I mean, what I meant to say is I wasn't involved with the construction of the proposal. That said, I can say it's not a vexatious proposal. It has information in there. Maybe it's not clear. So the question is from this group, is there a last -- is there a chance for me to go back and to make it clear for you or to revise the information in the light of this discussion? Or do you want to outright reject it, and that's -- and let's be done with it on the basis you need to reject more proposals? I just need to know how to proceed. All I say is it's been worked out. And maybe the proposers didn't fully understand the framework in which they were working. So I just want to be clear. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Well, it does sound like we'd like to reject it. But there's a little space for consideration. But anyway, Theresa?
>>THERESA SWINEHEART: I think we're probably in a bit of a quandary. So I just had a proposal to throw out that, because we're moving workshops around into different groupings, perhaps we should allow for the opportunity for the Secretariat to do a recompilation with this new information of where the workshops now are, that we get that sent out. And, in the meantime, participants who have maybe four or five or something proposals take a look at what might be adjusted. We take a relook at the revised sending out, what might still be merged and adjusted, perhaps communicate back to those where it's not clear what the intent is or the objective. And then take a look at trying to consolidate it by e-mail over the course of the next week or something. I don't want to place a burden on the Secretariat. But we have -- we've been talking now about moving a lot of different workshops around. So I don't have it clear in my head where things are either any more. And it might give us a chance to take a relook at things and not outright reject but really give an opportunity to take a relook at things.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: But the Secretariat still has a concern about the number of workshops and the needs to make sure that we reject some of them. I have Anriette and Emily. Anriette?
>>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN: I support Theresa's proposal. But I think that we can also, if there's clear rejections to date, there's no reason not to discuss them. And I just want to flag a proposal that came -- that was made about some workshop proposals in the IG4D discussion. And Ayesha mentioned it. I'm not sure that people completely absorbed this. But we felt there might be some workshops where it might be better for the proponent or proponents to open a booth where they can share information about their innovative ideas. And it's -- IGF exhibition space is free. I think many people might not realize that. And they can then also, if they do want to have discussions, try and book space for discussions. So, if there's something that doesn't quite fit but we still want to encourage particularly new organizations, such as this one, to participate, let's see if there's not another way we can do that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Emily?
>>EMILY TAYLOR: I agree with both Theresa's and Anriette's suggestions. And, actually, within our Internet resources group, we were wondering whether one of the themes might be better dealt with in that way, in a poster type of way.
One suggestion I have to try to help the Secretariat with the task might be to say anything that has scored under 10, there might be a presumption that that is rejected. But, of course, you know, you can be as nice or nasty as you choose to be and give people a chance to improve things. But I think that that ought to -- looking down the scores, actually, that ought to eliminate quite a few of the weaker applications.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes. Thank you. Any other -- oh, yes, Marilia. Tulika and then Marilia.
>>MARILIA MACIEL: This was my first experience in participating in a group to evaluate workshops. So my perspective is that we were really open to accept proposals. Even though the proposal was not clear, we really made an effort to try to extract something and imagine what the person had in mind. But there's a limit that you can do it. And, when it's not clear and when the person just exposed ideas and didn't have a purpose or a question or an issue to debate, it's very hard for you to say okay, yes, come and organize workshop. I don't think I should lower the standard so much. And I really like the proposal that has been put addressed by Ayesha and supported by Anriette that maybe we should encourage them to present their work in some other way.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Tulika.
>>TULIKA PANDEY: Marilia has spoken exactly what I wanted to. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: We can move on to the next security, openness and privacy. Marilyn?
>>MARILYN CADE: My name is Marilyn Cade. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I do think on some of the workshops that are well thought out -- and there's quite a bit of elaboration on some of the workshops. I think I've quite impressed, having read workshop proposals now, not as a MAG member, but as a community member, I've been quite impressed by the level of detail that has gone into a number of the workshops. Not all of them, but some of them. I do think it would be good, to the extent possible, if you could encourage workshops to -- if they're close, to see if they -- what the gap is before they're rejected, but also to consider merging rather than telling them no.
I think all of us know that, even if we give an additional opportunity to have a booth, that is not going to be as highly valued by the people who put their time and attention into developing a workshop proposal. And, for many participants, having a workshop slot as a participant is going to be critical to their getting funding and being able to come.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Marilyn. Noted. We can move on to security, openness and privacy. Katitza?
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: In the security, privacy, and openness, we don't have the case of any workshop that needs a booth. I think we might disagree with some that are not well-organized, but I don't think they fit in the category of a booth.
In any case, we already shared all information we have as of now of all the workshops that are, in our opinion, a possibility for merging. We have shared that with the Secretariat all the list of possible workshops and also those who we think we should reject. There are only three of them. We also identified some workshops that need to be merged by themselves. Because, for instance, one organizer presented three or four times the same workshop. But, besides that, I don't think we have something else to add because we haven't worked on anything else. Am I missing something?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Any questions?
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: We already reported all our work.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Chengetai.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'm sorry. Did you have names of speakers?
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: This is a very difficult question. We don't think we have names as of now. We haven't worked on name of workshop moderators, of speakers. Something we could try to work out, but we haven't worked on that. We focused on which were the main workshops and what were the issues that might be addressed in the main session.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Giving everybody a week, we can come back with speaker names. That applies to the security, openness and privacy working group as well.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: I would be happy to organize a conference call among all of us to try to sort out the name of speakers, the moderators, and try to come up with a consensus position on that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Great. Thank you.
>> INTERNET SOCIETY: Yes, Constance. I'm not sure if it is a good time to raise it. In any case, The Internet Society would be willing to provide a moderator for that session, and it would be Christine Runnegar. We can follow up after the meeting. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. All right. If there are no additional comments for that working group, thank you very much.
We can look at critical Internet resources. Emily.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: Thank you, Alice. We discussed moderators, and the group asked myself and Patrik F‰lstrˆm to co-moderate this session.
We are thinking about a small panel consisting of probably a maximum of four speakers who would act as sort of agitators on the main issues.
We have a couple of names. Would you me to give you those names now or send them?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yeah, you can give them now.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: Okay. We wanted to ask Janis Karklins of UNESCO and also Nii Quaynor as well, who is a MAG member. We are also looking for suggestions either from within the CIR group or from this group, this larger group, for others -- one more from business and civil society. We're looking for agenda balance and geographic balance, of course, but equally somebody who would be quite forceful on the issues.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Emily.
Any comments or any additional comments or questions for that working group? Okay, none.
Thank you very much.
Internet governance for development, Fouad or Anriette?
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Just a comment on CIR. I am speaking not as a MAG member, but I haven't read all the proposals. But just to recall the discussion in the open consultation yesterday, that we want to keep it dynamic and we do want to ensure that if there are controversial issues, that they are aired. So I would just suggest that you consider those principles in the selection of panelists.
>>EMILY TAYLOR: We are very much bearing that in mind, Anriette, and wanting to ensure we have as lively and diverse set of opinions as we can.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Patrik?
>>PATRIK FƒLSTR÷M: Thank you very much.
Anriette, this is exactly the reason why we are looking for really good people that can introduce the topic instead of as we have done all the other years just -- the audience just started the discussion sort of.
So we are really looking for good people that can sort of set the scene, not read any sort of statement or anything or something, that this is what my organization wants or whatever.
We want people that can explain what they want should happen in the world to make it better, not explain what the world looks like. We expect people know that. It should be, This is what is wrong and this is what should be done from various perspectives.
That is the kind of people we are looking for. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
IG4D, Anriette or Fouad? Or Ayesha, okay.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you. So we made it through our list. Number 4, we said it needs to have further development. Number 21 should be moved to the "other" category.
Number 78 could be moved to access and diversity or openness.
95 needs to resubmit with focused information, geographic and gender diversity.
Number 72 needs more information.
Number 74 is our first feeder workshop.
Number 89 is not connected to Internet governance. This is the one where we suggest they have a booth and meeting room access.
We accepted 185, 144. As we said, we need to look at the quality control issues there.
93, moved to the "other" category.
109 is on mobile (poor audio) should merge with 192 and go to the emerging issues section.
125 needs to ensure more gender balance and provide more information but generally it stays in IG4D.
143 should be moved to the other basket.
162 needs more multistakeholder representation in the panel but it stays with us.
181 is already in access.
183 lacks multistakeholder participation in the panel. Particularly, it's missing a business angle on an important issue for business. It's more -- it's advocacy proposal needs to be more balanced. There were several questions about the proposal, but it remains linked to IG4D.
192 is the merger I already mentioned, suggesting 192 merges with 109 on mobile Internet and gets moved to the emerging issues section.
203 is fine.
210, balanced, solid -- fine proposal but we think it belongs in the "other" category. It is not related to IG4D.
231, we accept that one. It needs a quality review.
215, they need to resubmit. There was sort of some people in the group who thought it should be rejected, others who didn't. So we arrived at resubmission. At this stage, the proposal is not very focused. It is quite unclear and has no multistakeholder balance or other diversity requirements.
121 is a fine -- it is a well-developed proposal. It can be moved to access, or we can keep it in IG4D.
417 needs to be updated with more multistakeholder and gender balance, but it's connected to IG4D.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. What about -- is that -- Have you finished? No?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Yes. For the main session?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: Speaker ideas, as I said earlier, what we decided was to have speakers that can address each of the main session topic areas and then we had the concept that they would be addressing two streams. One is the development-oriented policy challenges, and the other is inclusiveness in policy development processes from a development perspective.
And so on emerging issues, the mobile Internet, we came up with Tim Wyma, Muriuki Mureithi -- I don't have titles or names or even pronouncing the names properly for all of them. Hopefully the scribes can get that. Muriuki is M-U-R-I-U-K-I. Mureithi, M-U-R-E-I-T-H-I.
We also noted Nokia Siemens Networks as a possible source of expertise on this section. Possibly an IGO expert. We identified Turbian Fredrickson (phonetic) from UNCTAD and Alison Gillwald as the speaker on security, openness and privacy areas.
We discussed an NGO focused on privacy, possibly Privacy International.
We talked about needing a speaker on openness laws in developing countries and how to balance privacy and access.
Possibly a business speaker on the legal framework and how this impacts growth and industry, someone who can deal with freedom of information, secured transactions, et cetera.
And we also identified Dominic Cull, C-U-L-L, under security, openness and privacy.
Next bucket, we had access and diversity. We identified a Brazilian counselor Kenneth, Alvaro's contact.
We talked about needing someone to address Internet inter-connection agreements and IXPs and the development of relevant content. We identified Rohan -- I don't know his last name -- from Sri Lanka who is head of the Asian body on ICT policymakers, lirne.net. We also put Alison Gillwald here as a possibility as well as Christine Arida from Egypt.
Managing critical Internet resources, we identified Christina Arida, Avri Doria and Mohammed Diop, D-I-O-P.
For moderators or co-moderators we identified Christine Arida; Ben Akoh, A-K-O-H, from IISD in Nigeria; Bill Drake as a possibility; or to take one of the developing country experts that we had listed under each of the buckets of topic areas who doesn't get chosen to be on the panel.
For remote moderators, as I said earlier, we have identified two would work together, Barrack Otieno and APC's Emilar Vushe.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much. Any comments or questions?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Are there comments or questions for the working group?
>> In relation to the speakers for this panel, is there a possibility of suggesting later on on other issues? I mean, belonging to the same theme but maybe speakers who have not been identified yet, is there a possibility of adding later?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, and then the working group would consider, yes. Thank you.
Any other questions?
>>CHINA: Yes, I have comments to make. I agree with what the previous speaker said, emerging the workshop much better than to say no directly.
We think Number 155 in emerging issues should merge with some workshop in the security, openness and privacy because it is much more suited for the category to discuss the workshop much better. Yes. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Any other comments?
All right. I think that's the end. That's the last -- unless I'm missing any other working groups.
Are there any other comments to any of the other working groups that we may have missed?
All right. Yes, I would like to thank you all very much. Great work. And also, again, to thank the non-MAG members for having offered -- having contributed and participated, thank you all very much.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: I'm very sorry. I just wanted to make sure we're clear on the workshops that were identified under IGF improvements for the record here because we discussed it a bit yesterday.
But the proposal from the technical community and the business community which are numbers 134 and -- Which number is the ISOC one? 258. Okay. So 134 and 258 have merged, and they'll be resubmitting a revised proposal.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you for that.
Any other comments? All right. Thank you very much, everybody.
So then we can go to the last agenda items. Any other business?
But the first one, a question from the IGF Secretariat, whether MAG members and all of you feel whether there is a need to have another planning meeting before September. Given the amount of work we have to prepare for the program, do we feel comfortable and confident that the remaining tasks we have, we will be able to work with them online without necessarily having another meeting? Any comments on that?
>>AYESHA HASSAN: I think that we've made really good progress between February and the meetings here this week. My sense is that the groups can continue the work online and support the Secretariat. I know that there are both MAG members and non-MAG members that are happy to help progress this.
My sense is given the schedule in the couple months ahead and the human and financial resources involved in having another meeting, we would be better off focusing on just getting the preparations done and invest our energy in the IGF in September. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Ayesha.
>>MARILIA MACIEL: I totally agree with Ayesha. And last year, we had identified key people that were responsible to gather a group and to work around sessions. We should do the same this time and leave this meeting with these names of people.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. My assumption was the same people that were leading the working groups will continue the work. But then, again, that's an assumption. I don't know. They can let us know.
Can we confirm that they are still willing to continue working to finalize? I see nodding. So that's okay. Thank you.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Madam Moderator. First of all, I thank everyone for the involvement in helping us figure out and reach consensus on the IG4D working group activity.
Secondly, I would also like to acknowledge that we had very, very productive participation from non-MAG members. And this practice has been, in my personal feeling, very productive to have non-members participate with us in such an activity.
Finally, I, again, confirm that we will carry on as IG4D working group further work. And this is further to acknowledge my thankfulness and appreciation to Ayesha Hassan, to Bill Drake, to Anriette, to Alvaro, our government representatives from Finland and from Kenya and all the others who participated with us. Thank you very much for your involvement. And I hope you will continue to work with us remotely while we further drill out any other remaining issues that we may face.
And, at the same time, everyone is very welcome to join into the working group. And we have sort of a permanent existence. If you just type "IG4D" in Google, the very first link is to the mailing list. So you are all free to join in to the mailing list as well. Thank you very much.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you very much.
Anriette? Ayesha first. Sorry.
>>AYESHA HASSAN: No. I just wanted to say that since we didn't have working groups for emerging issues and taking stock in way forward, I'm happy to now help coordinate the emerging issues group. So I guess if the Secretariat can just have a call for those who want to help move that main session forward and vet ideas for speakers, et cetera, I'm happy to coordinate that.
And Theresa Swinehart is willing to do the same for the taking stock and way forward session.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. Andrea Glorioso, European Commission. First of all, I would like to apologize for my absence. There were institutional emergencies I had to take care of.
We would just like to confirm the availability of the European Commission to support any of the working groups that might feel the need or the usefulness of our support of me and my team.
We have a specific interest in security, openness and privacy cluster of workshops, but we will give our availability for other work as well as need be.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
>>MARILIA MACIEL: I would like to come back to two suggestions that were made yesterday during open consultations. One has been proposed by Anriette. It was to develop a questionnaire so participants could evaluate workshops. We have talked about this last year, but no one really took the task to do it. So maybe we could have a group of volunteers to work on that.
And, also, a questionnaire that would help us come back to the questions that have been proposed in the first session of the IG4D. And so we can cover issues on the last sessions.
It is very important that the questionnaire that the workshop organizer are going to use to make their reports really tries to extract its messages.
So maybe each team can work in the proposal of a questionnaire that is tailored to extract the message from the particular questions that have been proposed under each umbrella theme.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Alice. And thank you for reminding us about that, Marilia. We would definitely volunteer to be on that working group for the evaluation. And I think we could also volunteer some technical assistance, but I think we would need more because if we are going to have a server that's capable of hundreds of people evaluating workshops at the same time in realtime, we'll need to make sure that we have the capacity to do that properly.
So I think we should also ask for volunteers from the technical community and business who might be able to help with that part of this workshop evaluation and main session evaluation process.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Fouad?
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Madam.
On a broadly different topic but an acknowledgment that we have, as we always do, even within the MAG meetings, I would like to acknowledge the continued work and support of the remote participation working group, the volunteers that participate in that and help us making remote participation from across the world successful.
We also had a successful remote participation working group hub in Pakistan last year. It was really much appreciated. So I would like to just acknowledge obviously Marilia. Marilia gave me that thought again.
I would like to acknowledge the work put in by the Secretariat and this volunteer group on remote participation and encourage them to further work with our Kenyan hosts in enabling a very successful IGF in Kenya. Thank you so much.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Fouad.
Any other comments? Constance, sorry.
>>INTERNET SOCIETY: Thank you very much. Would it be possible to circulate the e-mails of those leading different themes so we can find entry points and make sure we can volunteer where we would like to?
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes, that would be possible.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we can. We can make it somehow. We can put it on the Web site, but not -- but in a way that it won't be harvested. But, yes, we can do that.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
Any other comments on the workshops, on the program? No? Yes, Senegal.
>>SENEGAL: Thank you, Alice. Thanks for giving me the floor. I just want to remember that at the beginning of the process, we talk a lot about participation from developing countries. Eight -- five years after the first IGF, I think we face the same problem.
And my question is: Most of the time in the preparatory session we get some countries or people who help people from developing countries to attend. And at this session, I don't have any information about who is proposed to sponsor more participation from developing countries. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Constance?
>>INTERNET SOCIETY: Thank you. It is just an element of response, I realize. But just to inform you that The Internet Society, for instance, is renewing for the fifth year its IGF ambassadors program. If I recall correctly, the applications, the process is still open. And, of course, there is a special focus on participation for development -- from developing countries. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I think tradition the IGF Secretariat has coordinated the funding for developing country participation. So I'll let Chengetai respond to that in terms of what type of funding is available for participation.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. We do consider it a very important issue. There is the IGF funds for funding developing country participation, the Diplo program as well and various other institutions.
I will put on the Web site addresses where people who are interested from developing countries can apply to.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Marilia?
>>MARILIA MACIEL: Just for the record, it was never very clear to me the criteria that is used for the ITU program to finance and sometimes information is delivered too close to the IGF. It is very hard for people to get organized.
So I don't know if it is nothing you can do. But maybe you can get in touch with ITU and transmit this information to make clear the criteria and to give time so people can apply and be informed.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Yes. That should be done.
Any other -- there is China and then George. China, please.
>>CHINA: Thank you, Chair. I would like to come back to the suggestion about notification on the overall theme which I proposed in the open consultation yesterday, to just keep Internet as Catalyst for Change as the overall theme of the Nairobi meeting because the words "access, development, freedoms and innovation" are not extensive enough to cover the catalystic roles of the Internet. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, China.
May I have comments on that, on either support or lack for that suggestion from China?
>>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you. I don't think that there is a European Union representative here. But we had some discussion on that in one of our meetings, and I detected some reluctance because this was to change -- because this was approved by MAG and all that (poor audio) at a rather late stage.
And since I have the floor, I have a little remark to make. If it is possible for the Secretariat to let us know probably on the Web site how many MAG members have participated yesterday and today in those meetings. And, also, I understand some of them have dropped. So if you can have an updated list and who is still on and so forth, thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Mymuna (phonetic).
Okay. Anyone else?
All right. So we'll go to any other business concerning the program and schedule.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm volunteering to actually spend some time talking to the Chinese delegations to tell them the background to the theme. I do think that the current main theme is a bit long, but I also think that we need to keep in it the spirit of what the open consultation in February talked about.
And at that time, people were really talking a lot about the -- what happened to North Africa and the Middle East and the use of the Internet to support democratization. So I'm not proposing to change it, but maybe we can meet afterwards and I can give you a little bit more of the background so that you can understand why the community is feeling quite strongly about not changing it.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Anriette, for that.
So any other business?
If there are no other business from anybody, I'll have the IGF Secretariat closing remarks.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: I would like to thank you all very much. The Secretariat is going to take your input, compile it, update the program paper and also make the changes and provide the information on the Web site as we have discussed.
We've taken note of all your comments and apart from thanking you, I would also like to thank the interns from the Secretariat. They are working very hard for no pay, and I think they need to be applauded.
[ Applause ]
Thank you very much. And, also, I would like to thank the scribes. They've done very good work, and we're grateful for that. Thank you. I will give it back to you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: I think I would also like to say thank you very, very much for the energy and participation and contributions, despite the challenges, the uncertainty yesterday and today the good news through letter from UN-DESA, our challenges of connectivity, you have still all done a great job.
Special thanks again to the interns and to those non-MAG members who've contributed to working on the workshops.
The government of Kenya is looking -- very much looking forward to hosting all of you and to making this a very, very successful IGF. And so, of course, we depend on you to ensure that the program is a good one and reflects on some of the development agenda items that we've talked about and especially the emerging issues and the development implementation.
And on behalf of the Kenyan delegation here, we thank you, too, because we do understand that the work you've been doing here is a contribution towards making the IGF itself a success. And we look forward to hosting you in September and welcome.
I think, George, has one last comment.
>>GEORGE PAPADATOS: Thank you very much.
Once again, as a representative of the European Union, I'd like to, first of all, convey our thanks to you and the Secretariat for a very smooth and productive running of these two days. And we're all looking forward to the Kenyan IGF.
Also, I would like to express my thanks to the rest of the Secretariat who has helped very much.
Let me say that the European Union feels that a strong message should be conveyed to the Secretary General about the urgency of appointing a special representative to replace Mr. Desai and also that the position for Mr. Kummer's -- Mr. Kummer's position should be advertised fairly soon. We feel very strongly about that because we have a feeling that leadership is important for the IGF to continue its work. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: George. Katitza.
>>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. I'd just like to make a final comment following on Andrea's suggestions. I want to thank you for all your excellent work, Madam Chair and Secretariat, in the last two days. I also would like to point the importance for civil society to know who are the current MAG members and especially who are the members from civil society. We feel we are very underrepresented right now and that we don't have enough people to cover for all the main sessions. We are starting with that. So we would like to have that list as soon as possible.
And the second one we want to reinforce to the secretariat, maybe to extend our concerns to the DESA about the lack of funding for developing countries, including civil society participants, for the next Kenyan meeting. And it would be good if we could have some advance on that conversation, on that issue.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you, Katitza. Fouad and then Anriette.
>>FOUAD BAJWA: Thank you, Madam Moderator. Supporting what my previous colleagues, the representative from Greece and what has already been shared, there's a great need to understand the sustainability for the process. And a major factor that remains that the funding for the IGF is a major challenge, as we hear from various corners. And I would also like to encourage the Secretariat to either share with UNDESA or maybe, if the mandate allows them, to actually reach out and -- as an encouragement to various stakeholders who have funded the IGF in the past to continue their support for the next round, which starts from IGF Kenya and this IGF. Thank you so much.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Anriette?
>>ANRIETTE ESTHERHUYSEN: I think just a request. In the light of what was said, but I believe -- I'm not on the MAG, but I believe there are some MAG members that have resigned. I think it would be useful if the Secretariat could note that. And then I think it would also be good if the -- on behalf of the MAG, a letter could be written to them to acknowledge and then to thank them for their contribution.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you. Alvaro.
>>BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Brazil would like to congratulate you and the whole secretariat for their wise and extremely good guidance in this meeting. And also we would like to thank all the people who took part in this meeting.
I was talking to Chengetai during lunch that, comparing to last year's similar meeting when we were discussing about workshops, I think that the process this year, we managed to do it in a more smooth way and quickly and going fast way. This is very important.
I do believe that we are moving towards improving IGF to have more clear rules and identify key tasks that are important for developing countries such as the funding for taking part in these meetings that were mentioned many of us. I think this is important. This is maybe the -- having a clear rules of proceeding about IGF is maybe the most important thing in order to have more developing countries participating in this process.
So congratulations to everyone. Congratulations to you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: Thank you.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: And congratulations to you all. Any other comments? Okay. Mine is to also congratulate you all for a job very well done, to a degree where we really don't need another face-to-face meeting, which is a great thing. I'm pleased.
We forgot to thank all those remote participants that have actually been very active. So thank you as well.
And you know, again, to reemphasize that this -- the IGF forum in Kenya in September is a very important one considering the fact that it's the beginning of the second phase and that's -- it's happening in a developing country, in a subSaharan country, African country for the first time. So we are very excited about it. And my government is very keen to make sure that we can see and create the links between what the IGF discusses and what we are experiencing at the national level not just Kenya, but Kenya, East Africa and the region as a whole. So I thank you all very, very much for having given Kenya that support, again, despite the challenges. And the challenges are quite numerous. I think you all know them. Somebody called them white elephants. So there are quite a number we need to deal with. And so I thank you again. And good evening and safe travel home. Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you.